I have a category of things that I never mention about myself on the Internet, not because a company may gather that info into a mindless database so it can send me advertisements (which I block anyway), but because I don't need some people on Facebook and such to know.
I don't see the big problem really. Those things that I do say, on Facebook or live, I don't mind anybody knowing. If someone in the other booth at Burger King is listening, or if some creepy corporation is stacking up data, is not that relevant.
I don't agree that the game lacks replayability. If you really did only use Lightning and Frozen Field unless teh story required you to use Telekinesis or Incinerate, then you struggled too much with many enemies.
Different enemies in Bioshock are vulnerable to different attacks - splicers for example are easily killed by throwing a dead body or other heavy object on them. And one thing I've found when reading walkthroughs on Bioshock is that pretty much everyone seemed to miss that you could clear traps by touching the wire with a dead body or similar, using Telekinesis.
I too was very dissapointed by the ending. If you killed the little sisters, Tenenbaum should have become your enemy. Perhaps someone else should have helped you at the end.
But if I understood Cow Jones' post about random dots correctly, m.y.n.a.m.e@gmail.com delivers to my.name@gmail.com, but not to my.name.is.earl@gmail.com or my.name.ml@gmail.com.
It should also deliver to myname@gmail.com, but I guess that Google has marked that address as taken due to my.name@gmail.com.
Note that I havn't tested this, just guessing based on what the poster said.
No, I don't think you have proven anything with that. All you said was that you doubt your senses. I explained that in my post aswell, but without the mystical conclusions.
Memories become inaccurate because of how memories are recorded. They are *physical* cells strung together. Studies suggest that long term memories are rewritten as we bring them into working memory. Dreams are a special playback of our memories that aids learning. Just because we experience them as reality, doesn't make reality less real.
That is why science is so rigid. We test things in ways as to make sure that we are not fooled by our brains, test them time and time again to make sure the outcome was not circumstansial or the design of the original test flawed. So if you grant 1% of your senses some trust, you should be able to trust science.
I had a similar state of mind to what you're describing. Doubt in my senses became doubt in external reality, and for years I struggled with the feeling that my mind might be alone in the universe, everything else being a delusion. (I was sure that I myself existed, "I think therefore I am." Even then I wouldn't distinguish between 'real' emotions or 'simulated' ones, and I don't see why you do.) I finally let that go simply by deciding it was not plausible that everyone else is a puppet. In the same way that I dismiss Ganesh and Thor, I dismiss the idea of unreality. Sure, those things are *possible*, but only by doing huge philosophical backflips. It's much more plausible that I am just like everyone else.
And that brings us back to who we are. We are organisms that have evolved from smaller things. *Everything* about us, including our minds, have evolved for survival.
You have to consider the opposite. Why would our minds not experience will?
Our minds have evolved for decision-making. A decision consists of what the organism percieves and a response. Imagine the first organism to have a photoelectric cell on its skin and a neuron connected to it. Light on means hide, light off means move.
More complex decisions demands a more complex mind, but in essence it is the same. Will is crucial for decision-making. Of course it is important for the organism to know when to hide from predators, but it's prehaps even more important to know when you're hungry.
The illusion of will is necessary for any sort of inner life to have any meaning. Imagine an organism that percieves everything and can do everything but does not have the will to do anything. Would such a creature survive a day in this world? I believe she would be ant food.
There are many useful illusions. Pour some hot water on your arm and you'll experience pain. Pain exists only as a computer process in your brain. It's an illusion.
Will by itself, combined with a complex mind, leads directly down the path to "free". But it's just a word, just like "hungry", "horny", "hurting" or "skippy-doo". Our minds have evolved to a point were we can appreciate that we have complex choices.
Also, what's with the logic that just because you percieve something, it's real? So feeling god makes god real?
I think a completely dropped script would make for very boring gameplay. That wouldn't be storytelling at all.
Let me try to set up an analogy. I often have lucid dreams, I've had them since I were a little kid. But while there is in some ways a craze about lucid dreaming, with lots of people trying hard to achieve it nowadays, I find them boring.
Because non-lucid dreams tend to have a much richer storytelling, as if someone else dictates what will happen next and therefore I'm always taken by surprise.
The sort of complex free world that you're describing would of course be very interesting and extremely cool, but I doubt it would replace scripts. And as many other posters have pointed out, the technology needed for such a thing stretches far beyond what is available today. It's simply not within reach.
I have to disagree. Even small towns in Sweden offer fiber. Towns on the North end of nowhere. And truly rural areas have access to 24Mbit ADSL.
Of course some people still use dial up, but anyone that uses an internet connection more than once every few days will realise that a low speed broadband deal will be cheaper with less hassle and worries. Or perhaps I'm just a little too optimistic about certain groups of Americans?:)
You are absolutely right about the article not being real in any way. They wrote it to make a point. But it's a point that need to be made.
OK, so what about Sweden? With a population density of 19/km^2, you'd think we'd be communicating with smoke signals, no? Of course, the government did make it their business to provide some optical fiber cables, but once the snowball started rolling... well, let's just say the telecom companies are investing in even heavier stuff right now.
Adam Smith was a hack. An invisible hand will never jerk you off. And whatever good the analogy has done, it is important to realise that there is no law of economics as there is a law of thermodynamics. You can't expect the market to do anything.
Not a translation error per se, but something akin. Appartently someone at the Swedish property management company Locum came up with the idea to turn the 'o' in to a heart, to make the logo look trendy. The 'L' in the logo being lowercase, the logo read
I don't agree with the summary description of KDE developers promising this and that. In fact I'm quite tired of people making claims that KDE developers said 4.1 would be usable for others than testers.
Maybe I missed something on the Dot, but I saw may articles that explicitly told people what to expect of KDE 4 (long before it was released). So I don't see any reason to be disappointed.
KDE 3.5.8 is perfectly usable, stable and in my opinion the sharpest desktop out there. So the KDE devs don't owe it to anyone to come up with a second stable desktop in one years time. (In fact anybody that expected that they would is a freakin moron. It's impossible, see.)
Instead I'm very excited about the innovation that is taking form. You have to give the development time, and the developers a lot of credit, because the work that they've done so far is very impressive. I'm sure that as the technology matures, the configuration options will increase dramatically, and it will be stable. Until then, use KDE 3.5.8.
And a quick note about giving an unstable version a new number - it's because af the massive rewrite of the tehcnology. It would be much more confusing to call the new software KDE 3.6, because many of the libraries and apps would be incompatible.
(I'm sorry for the post above, it was supposed to be divided into paragraphs. I'm posting it again since it's pretty much impossible to read my last post.)
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.)
I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it.
And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is.
I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen.
The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have.
It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME.
Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.)
I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it.
And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is.
I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen.
The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have.
It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME.
Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.
Don't you feel dirty for comparing Newtonian physics with Astrology? Go take a shower scary dude.
Scientists aim to understand the world through different scientific methods while many psychotic (mostly female) people try to understand it through trivial things like cards and made-up lines in the sky. I know it is perfectly possible to date and fall in love with people with weird beliefs, and it is probably much better to date a fun and metaphysics chick than a boring (or perhaps suicidal) science girl. But you will have to live with the fact that she has a very flawed view on her entire reality. Please don't deal with it by denial, of the kind that many commenters here are demonstrating. A crazy lady is a crazy lady is a crazy lady.
And those of you who compare this with dating religious people are dead on. Religious people also have a very flawed view of their entire reality. I know because I have dated many.
I thought evolution were actually linked to the idea that some physical and chemical forms are more stable than others; and in the case of biology, able to replicate and therefore become andvanced and more complex over an extended period of time.
In that case evolution and the origin of life are closely related.
I just read about that video on Wikipedia and decided I would never want to watch it. Which is why I never will. There's the problem with people on internet communities that get a kick out of luring people to sites like that, but that's what moderators are for.
The internet is of course full of awful pictures; for example you can find pictures of people that have died in accidents (now that's sick). Personally I find that much more disturbing than people that eat vomit and feces, but I'm not the one to draw the line. I wouldn't want my kids watching that sort of thing either, on the other hand there are many things that I wouldn't want my kids to do.
I don't see why children should be saved from sex pictures. First of all, they are free to leave the site whenever they want. Nothiing they see on a porn site will be so bad that it will have a serious negative effect on them.
It's weird. Many parents refuse that their children have vaccine shots, other introduce their kids to weapons, and many parents want their kids schools to serve unhealthy food. Don't tell me you're trying to protect the children, you old moralist hags. I'm sure a bit wanking would do everybody good.
I mean, there are some things Microsoft have done right. You can't say anything about their gaming tools, for one thing. So this Jim Zemlin guy must be some kind of very sarcastic hatemonger:)
Whoa, looks like./ doesn't understand a simple micro sign? "uTorrent" just looks so stupid.
Just for that, this post contains 1 MB of invisible micro signs. mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
"There are two issues people need to come to grips with. Developers who produce open source products will often have their product repackaged and redistributed by businesses with malicious intent. They repackage the software with spyware or charge for the product. We often receive phone calls from people who complain they have paid for the BitTorrent client."
People pay for repackaged malicious open source softare because they're used to proprietary software. They're used to a. pay (MS Office) b. see ads (Windows Live) and c. the closed nature of what runs on their hardware (IE, Ipods etc).
Open source does matter, even for people who are much too ignorant to actually realize it themselves; because it is part of the software culture and it directly and inevitably affects the user's approach to software in general. I can't believe a statement like the one above can pass as OK. And people just shrug and say "well Torrent was always closed anyway". Shame on you!
This problem pops up regularly on the web. I feel sorry for you people that actually encounter it IRL, because in Sweden, and I'm sure in many other countries aswell, this is not an issue.
24/1 or 21/3 Mbps DSL lines in Sweden go off for ~25/mo. If fiber is available 100/10 Mbps go for the same price. It's been this way for the last five years, and people have been playing online games, sharing files et.c. like crazy. I've never heard of anybody that had problems with their ISPs for too heavy traffic, not even with the cheaper plans.
And right now, the good old bastards at ComHem is digging to provide 4 Gbps bandwidth for every household in my neighborhood. Granted, the plan is supposed to include TV, internet and phone lines in it, but still.
What kind of crappy ISPs do you have that limit your internet access in this way? And why the hell do you accept it? Start rioting!
Every time the subject of Firefox's sluggishness and memory slaughtering habits come up, someone tries to excuse it the fact that a few MINOR features has been added over the years. Which were the last big news for Firefox? Phising filter, better search management, incorporated RSS.
The truth is that Firefox has had memory and speed problems since 1.x versions. At the very least, nobody can deny it for 1.5.+ versions.
At the same time, other projects seem to be able to add features without their browsers eating such inexcusable amounts of RAM and virtual memory.
Konqueror and Opera both do LOADS better, and both have all the functionality that you should expect from a browser (that is to say, much more than Firefox has out of the box).
Actually it's hard for me to believe that Firefox is so popular among tech people. Whenever I'm at a Windows computer, I naturally use IE7 since it beats Firefox with it's little piggy eye closed.
Well, yea. A large chunk of the men go bald in mid-life, but some go bald MUCH earlier. My cousin is 20 and he has lost all the hair on the top on his head, all in about two years time. It's fine if you're brave enough to face something like that, but don't tell me it's not a pretty hard blow.
Human beings are naturally concerned about how they look. That's all.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a category of things that I never mention about myself on the Internet, not because a company may gather that info into a mindless database so it can send me advertisements (which I block anyway), but because I don't need some people on Facebook and such to know.
I don't see the big problem really. Those things that I do say, on Facebook or live, I don't mind anybody knowing. If someone in the other booth at Burger King is listening, or if some creepy corporation is stacking up data, is not that relevant.
I don't agree that the game lacks replayability. If you really did only use Lightning and Frozen Field unless teh story required you to use Telekinesis or Incinerate, then you struggled too much with many enemies.
Different enemies in Bioshock are vulnerable to different attacks - splicers for example are easily killed by throwing a dead body or other heavy object on them. And one thing I've found when reading walkthroughs on Bioshock is that pretty much everyone seemed to miss that you could clear traps by touching the wire with a dead body or similar, using Telekinesis.
I too was very dissapointed by the ending. If you killed the little sisters, Tenenbaum should have become your enemy. Perhaps someone else should have helped you at the end.
But if I understood Cow Jones' post about random dots correctly, m.y.n.a.m.e@gmail.com delivers to my.name@gmail.com, but not to my.name.is.earl@gmail.com or my.name.ml@gmail.com.
It should also deliver to myname@gmail.com, but I guess that Google has marked that address as taken due to my.name@gmail.com.
Note that I havn't tested this, just guessing based on what the poster said.
No, I don't think you have proven anything with that. All you said was that you doubt your senses. I explained that in my post aswell, but without the mystical conclusions.
Memories become inaccurate because of how memories are recorded. They are *physical* cells strung together. Studies suggest that long term memories are rewritten as we bring them into working memory. Dreams are a special playback of our memories that aids learning. Just because we experience them as reality, doesn't make reality less real.
That is why science is so rigid. We test things in ways as to make sure that we are not fooled by our brains, test them time and time again to make sure the outcome was not circumstansial or the design of the original test flawed. So if you grant 1% of your senses some trust, you should be able to trust science.
I had a similar state of mind to what you're describing. Doubt in my senses became doubt in external reality, and for years I struggled with the feeling that my mind might be alone in the universe, everything else being a delusion. (I was sure that I myself existed, "I think therefore I am." Even then I wouldn't distinguish between 'real' emotions or 'simulated' ones, and I don't see why you do.) I finally let that go simply by deciding it was not plausible that everyone else is a puppet. In the same way that I dismiss Ganesh and Thor, I dismiss the idea of unreality. Sure, those things are *possible*, but only by doing huge philosophical backflips. It's much more plausible that I am just like everyone else.
And that brings us back to who we are. We are organisms that have evolved from smaller things. *Everything* about us, including our minds, have evolved for survival.
You have to consider the opposite. Why would our minds not experience will?
Our minds have evolved for decision-making. A decision consists of what the organism percieves and a response. Imagine the first organism to have a photoelectric cell on its skin and a neuron connected to it. Light on means hide, light off means move.
More complex decisions demands a more complex mind, but in essence it is the same. Will is crucial for decision-making. Of course it is important for the organism to know when to hide from predators, but it's prehaps even more important to know when you're hungry.
The illusion of will is necessary for any sort of inner life to have any meaning. Imagine an organism that percieves everything and can do everything but does not have the will to do anything. Would such a creature survive a day in this world? I believe she would be ant food.
There are many useful illusions. Pour some hot water on your arm and you'll experience pain. Pain exists only as a computer process in your brain. It's an illusion.
Will by itself, combined with a complex mind, leads directly down the path to "free". But it's just a word, just like "hungry", "horny", "hurting" or "skippy-doo". Our minds have evolved to a point were we can appreciate that we have complex choices.
Also, what's with the logic that just because you percieve something, it's real? So feeling god makes god real?
I think a completely dropped script would make for very boring gameplay. That wouldn't be storytelling at all.
Let me try to set up an analogy. I often have lucid dreams, I've had them since I were a little kid. But while there is in some ways a craze about lucid dreaming, with lots of people trying hard to achieve it nowadays, I find them boring.
Because non-lucid dreams tend to have a much richer storytelling, as if someone else dictates what will happen next and therefore I'm always taken by surprise.
The sort of complex free world that you're describing would of course be very interesting and extremely cool, but I doubt it would replace scripts. And as many other posters have pointed out, the technology needed for such a thing stretches far beyond what is available today. It's simply not within reach.
I have to disagree. Even small towns in Sweden offer fiber. Towns on the North end of nowhere. And truly rural areas have access to 24Mbit ADSL.
Of course some people still use dial up, but anyone that uses an internet connection more than once every few days will realise that a low speed broadband deal will be cheaper with less hassle and worries. Or perhaps I'm just a little too optimistic about certain groups of Americans? :)
You are absolutely right about the article not being real in any way. They wrote it to make a point. But it's a point that need to be made.
By the way, talking of backwards people. Thank your various gods that you do not live in Iran. Here, the government have decided no private person has the right to a 128+ Mbit connection. Just decided people shouln't have it. If you want a faster connection you need to prove that you're a manager of a university computer lab or a badass internet café.
I guess they hate to see their faces on YouTube as their internal mafia wars are exposed. *shrug*
OK, so what about Sweden? With a population density of 19/km^2, you'd think we'd be communicating with smoke signals, no? Of course, the government did make it their business to provide some optical fiber cables, but once the snowball started rolling... well, let's just say the telecom companies are investing in even heavier stuff right now.
Adam Smith was a hack. An invisible hand will never jerk you off. And whatever good the analogy has done, it is important to realise that there is no law of economics as there is a law of thermodynamics. You can't expect the market to do anything.
Not a translation error per se, but something akin. Appartently someone at the Swedish property management company Locum came up with the idea to turn the 'o' in to a heart, to make the logo look trendy. The 'L' in the logo being lowercase, the logo read
I [heart] cum
I don't agree with the summary description of KDE developers promising this and that. In fact I'm quite tired of people making claims that KDE developers said 4.1 would be usable for others than testers.
Maybe I missed something on the Dot, but I saw may articles that explicitly told people what to expect of KDE 4 (long before it was released). So I don't see any reason to be disappointed.
KDE 3.5.8 is perfectly usable, stable and in my opinion the sharpest desktop out there. So the KDE devs don't owe it to anyone to come up with a second stable desktop in one years time. (In fact anybody that expected that they would is a freakin moron. It's impossible, see.)
Instead I'm very excited about the innovation that is taking form. You have to give the development time, and the developers a lot of credit, because the work that they've done so far is very impressive. I'm sure that as the technology matures, the configuration options will increase dramatically, and it will be stable. Until then, use KDE 3.5.8.
And a quick note about giving an unstable version a new number - it's because af the massive rewrite of the tehcnology. It would be much more confusing to call the new software KDE 3.6, because many of the libraries and apps would be incompatible.
You produce words with a 50% success rate.
GTA: Persia would of course feature freakishly busy cities and hookers in every direction. If it were historically accurate.
(I'm sorry for the post above, it was supposed to be divided into paragraphs. I'm posting it again since it's pretty much impossible to read my last post.)
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.)
I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it.
And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is.
I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen.
The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have.
It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME.
Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.
All this article really manages to do is to explain that different applications are different. Linux users should already know that, but strangely many of them seem not to, so I guess there's a place for an article like this. (For example, the thing about Blowfish, gedit and Kate being different text editors that suit different people.) I'm a KDE user now. It took me a long time to get accustomed to KDE. I tried many different desktops at a quite regular basis but ended up going back to GNOME. The reason then was because it is so plain and un-cluttered. This was important because I had primarily used Windows before and everything from the architecture of the OS to the applications were unfamiliar to me. The problem is that as I became more and more accustomed to Linux I also wanted more from it. And KDE simply has much more to offer. Take for example the menu you get when you right click on the title bar of a window. Most desktops/WMs give you some very basic options. KDE alone gives you advanced options and the possibility to always apply certain rules for a window. Of course this might scare you off if all you wanted to do was to Close or Minimize the window, but still there can be no argument about how powerful KDE is. I don't think KDE is nonsensical in any way (above post). All the KDE applications have a similar structure in the File menu; something I hope other desktops will copy. Everything is well structured, take for example the Configure Shortcuts option that almost every KDE application has. It is the most neatly integrated desktop that I've seen. The argument about default looks in distros and desktops is valid, but scary. I don't like KDE's default look or behaviour, but the point is that I can easily change it. This is true for GNOME and other Linux WMs aswell. If people do not want to use this power, then maybe the problem lies with them and not the desktop. You can't expect anybody to give you a perfect default look since we all like different things. The best you can ask for is tolerable defaults and easy configuration, which KDE does have. It is true as the article claims that we dislike change (because it means we have to learn new ways to do things that we need to do). I think this will be less of a problem for KDE in the future, since many KDE 4 applications are being ported to other Windows. Perhaps in the future people that are already accustomed to using Konqueror or Amarok under Windows will find the transition to the powerful but cluttered KDE much easier than a transition to GNOME. Finally further down in the thread some people express that there is no point in discussing what we like/dislike about this kind of software. Which is weird because computer interfaces will play an increasingly important role in the lives of millions of people for the next few decades. Of course we need to have this discussion.
Now that I better understand your model, I am not so much disgusted as I am intrigued. In this form the model can probably be tested, too.
Awesome.
Don't you feel dirty for comparing Newtonian physics with Astrology? Go take a shower scary dude.
Scientists aim to understand the world through different scientific methods while many psychotic (mostly female) people try to understand it through trivial things like cards and made-up lines in the sky. I know it is perfectly possible to date and fall in love with people with weird beliefs, and it is probably much better to date a fun and metaphysics chick than a boring (or perhaps suicidal) science girl. But you will have to live with the fact that she has a very flawed view on her entire reality. Please don't deal with it by denial, of the kind that many commenters here are demonstrating. A crazy lady is a crazy lady is a crazy lady.
And those of you who compare this with dating religious people are dead on. Religious people also have a very flawed view of their entire reality. I know because I have dated many.
I thought evolution were actually linked to the idea that some physical and chemical forms are more stable than others; and in the case of biology, able to replicate and therefore become andvanced and more complex over an extended period of time.
In that case evolution and the origin of life are closely related.
(But I didn't rtfm. It's really late.)
I just read about that video on Wikipedia and decided I would never want to watch it. Which is why I never will. There's the problem with people on internet communities that get a kick out of luring people to sites like that, but that's what moderators are for. The internet is of course full of awful pictures; for example you can find pictures of people that have died in accidents (now that's sick). Personally I find that much more disturbing than people that eat vomit and feces, but I'm not the one to draw the line. I wouldn't want my kids watching that sort of thing either, on the other hand there are many things that I wouldn't want my kids to do.
I don't see why children should be saved from sex pictures. First of all, they are free to leave the site whenever they want. Nothiing they see on a porn site will be so bad that it will have a serious negative effect on them. It's weird. Many parents refuse that their children have vaccine shots, other introduce their kids to weapons, and many parents want their kids schools to serve unhealthy food. Don't tell me you're trying to protect the children, you old moralist hags. I'm sure a bit wanking would do everybody good.
How about getting a clean debian install and start from there? Or do you really need graphical tools to install binaries? :)
It's surely a joke, right?
I mean, there are some things Microsoft have done right. You can't say anything about their gaming tools, for one thing. So this Jim Zemlin guy must be some kind of very sarcastic hatemonger :)
Whoa, looks like ./ doesn't understand a simple micro sign? "uTorrent" just looks so stupid.
Just for that, this post contains 1 MB of invisible micro signs. mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
mmmm
"There are two issues people need to come to grips with. Developers who produce open source products will often have their product repackaged and redistributed by businesses with malicious intent. They repackage the software with spyware or charge for the product. We often receive phone calls from people who complain they have paid for the BitTorrent client."
People pay for repackaged malicious open source softare because they're used to proprietary software. They're used to a. pay (MS Office) b. see ads (Windows Live) and c. the closed nature of what runs on their hardware (IE, Ipods etc).
Open source does matter, even for people who are much too ignorant to actually realize it themselves; because it is part of the software culture and it directly and inevitably affects the user's approach to software in general. I can't believe a statement like the one above can pass as OK. And people just shrug and say "well Torrent was always closed anyway". Shame on you!
In related news, KTorrent just got even better.
This problem pops up regularly on the web. I feel sorry for you people that actually encounter it IRL, because in Sweden, and I'm sure in many other countries aswell, this is not an issue.
24/1 or 21/3 Mbps DSL lines in Sweden go off for ~25/mo. If fiber is available 100/10 Mbps go for the same price. It's been this way for the last five years, and people have been playing online games, sharing files et.c. like crazy. I've never heard of anybody that had problems with their ISPs for too heavy traffic, not even with the cheaper plans.
And right now, the good old bastards at ComHem is digging to provide 4 Gbps bandwidth for every household in my neighborhood. Granted, the plan is supposed to include TV, internet and phone lines in it, but still.
What kind of crappy ISPs do you have that limit your internet access in this way? And why the hell do you accept it? Start rioting!
Every time the subject of Firefox's sluggishness and memory slaughtering habits come up, someone tries to excuse it the fact that a few MINOR features has been added over the years. Which were the last big news for Firefox? Phising filter, better search management, incorporated RSS. The truth is that Firefox has had memory and speed problems since 1.x versions. At the very least, nobody can deny it for 1.5.+ versions. At the same time, other projects seem to be able to add features without their browsers eating such inexcusable amounts of RAM and virtual memory. Konqueror and Opera both do LOADS better, and both have all the functionality that you should expect from a browser (that is to say, much more than Firefox has out of the box). Actually it's hard for me to believe that Firefox is so popular among tech people. Whenever I'm at a Windows computer, I naturally use IE7 since it beats Firefox with it's little piggy eye closed.
Well, yea. A large chunk of the men go bald in mid-life, but some go bald MUCH earlier. My cousin is 20 and he has lost all the hair on the top on his head, all in about two years time. It's fine if you're brave enough to face something like that, but don't tell me it's not a pretty hard blow. Human beings are naturally concerned about how they look. That's all.