If so you could go for FreeBSD or Solaris. Or get really crazy and try to find a copy of BeOS or OS/2.
After all, the summary just said "an OS other than what you usually use", it didn't say it had to be Linux. And most of the people there will likely go with Linux anyways, so why not be different?
Yes, the primary reason is they have to communicate with people other than OO.org zealots and actually want it to all work.
Sure OO can open a word doc... sorta, and it can output a word doc... sorta...
I love how people who haven't used recent versions of the software they are complaining about are clearly infinitely qualified to assess the quality of the current version.
One of the problems I had with the movie The Fifth Element was that they actually had human drivers of the vehicles. Why? Clearly unnecessary and dangerous.
For Hollywood, it isn't as interesting to feature computer drivers in a movie.
However for reality, there is another problem with computer drivers, in that they are not inherently all created equal. You might have some drivers that are simply handling more calculations per unit time, and they will be able to better handle heavy traffic (for example). Yet others might not have been programmed to properly watch for moving objects coming up from behind, or maybe some have better algorithms for dealing with aberrant weather.
And of course that is to say nothing of the problem of a computer malfunction or crash. How do you handle a flying car with a computer problem if the driver isn't the least bit capable of driving the vehicle themselves - especially if the problem comes up in-flight?
Based on the article summary, if Apple is fronting the cash to BUILD factories in exchange for exclusive rights on the items the factory produces, I think it's fair to say that a lot of groundbreaking is going on.
I guess an Apple-branded jackhammer or steamshovel would be pretty groundbreaking then, woudln't it?
We won't see this product get to market. Or at the very least, 99.999% of all Americans will never experience this product in person in the extremely unlikely event that it does somehow make it to market.
It's nice to see someone working on the old flying car problem again, but we're just not going to see it happen.
There are countries other than US. Most of them have examples of what is useful for teaching at school.
Certainly. However most public schools are tethered to their school boards, who can be voted out (or strangled by lack of revenue) by the taxpayers in their districts. Hence if you cannot get the voters to agree on what is correct to teach, you won't get the district to move forward on it.
In other words, you can propose all the great changes you want, but if the parents and voters don't agree, it won't go anywhere and we'll have the same crappy standards that parents have - actively or not - supported for generations now.
And besides, the standards only set the minimum for graduation. They don't say that you cannot take calculus, just that you must take basic geometry. They don't say you cannot take advanced physics, just that you must take introductory biology, etc... The parents could push their children to go for higher goals in school if they want, but they opt not to.
Solution: raise minimum to something that is actually useful.
Good luck getting an agreement on what "useful" means in the context of a high school education. For some people useful means able to operate a cash register and maybe read a bus schedule.
I'd advise starting with someone else's appendix first; if you have a few hundred facebook friends you're bound to know someone with appendicitis; and in this country there is a good chance they don't have insurance. Then if you get it wrong, you can learn from that before you remove your own.
Yeah, clearly it's entirely the fault of the education system, and not at all that of the parents who do nothing to encourage their children to go beyond the bare minimum for a high school diploma. Yep, it's all the fault of the education system.
... but I was in a meeting. With a powerpoint presentation, of course. Really.
That said, I'm still not sure what the party wants to do. It seems silly to ban powerpoint; are they out to change corporate culture somehow? Of course, I'm not sure how they would legislate that, either...
Yes, they are. Ever heard about server-side filtering?
First of all, minus one point to you for bad grammar.
Second, I didn't say most users, I said many users. There are still users who have the ability to check their email without it being filtered for them beforehand.
With this, entire your argument falls apart.
You're simply wrong on that matter. The number of people who have their email filtered - regardless of whether or not they are aware of it - has nothing to do with the fact that filtering will never actually stop spam.
Radioactivity is energy. You cannot measure it in volume. You could say something like a liter of radioactive waste, but of course that doesn't tell you how much radioactivity is involved, as you could have a very small amount of radioactive material in a liter of otherwise uninteresting water.
You didn't actually study physics in college, did you?
it is a major headline and an opportunity for the childlike masses to stroke themselves into a frenzy of Fox bashing and demonizing
Those of us who actually read the headline for this slashdot article noticed it started with "hijacked fox news twitter account". If slashdot was actually looking to make fox news look bad, they would have chosen a less-friendly headline. Both news outlets are on the payroll of newsmax.com/townhall.com.
Palin
Is not officially running for anything right now. We just know she loves being in front of a camera.
Bachmann
Is running, but writes her own jokes.
Trump
Has already dropped out of the running.
unclever anti-fox KOS memes.
Do you honestly believe that the daily Kos is the only website ever to make a joke at fox news's expense?
You may be able to create immunity against most nucleic acid-based viruses this way. However, if you consider prions to be viruses, you won't be able to genetic engineer past them. Some prions take advantage of the protein misfolding response, which is not something you would want to engineer away.
We've known this for some time, but it is nice to see it confirmed mathematically. Pop "music" is indeed getting louder over time. I suspect based on the loudness graph that the song they used for 2010 was that "you're beautiful" song that is practically whispered in comparison to other recent pieces.
Yes it is agreed that you won't read what I write, so there is no purpose in continuing this conversation. I will instead support people who work on actual solutions to the spam problem while you run around with your fingers in your ears.
Highly emotional? I would love to know how you feel that allegation is justified. Especially in light of the fact that you are the one trying to sell what can never be a real solution as a permanent fix.
I went back and skimmed your comments
That is the single most honest and factual comment you've posted in this entire thread. Thank you for admitting that indeed you do not make a habit of reading my comments in their entirety, it confirms what was already suggested by you fact-deprived posts.
Now why don't you go adjust your spam filter so it prevents you from seeing the rest of my comments. It seems that your blind allegiance to filtering methodologies may well have prevented you from seeing a not-insignificant portion of them already, so you missing the rest would not be a big change.
I'm not familiar with this new meaning of troll. I actually stated what needs to be done to stop spam, and you insist on sticking to what will never be a permanent solution. You then cherry pick whatever lines of my comments you like, and outright ignore other parts if they don't fit your beliefs. If anyone has earned the label of troll, it is you.
You dont' have a specific solution and you know it.
You wouldn't read it if I shared it. Isn't it time you go adjust your spam filter settings again?
No, you don't get it. You cling to your filters as a solution, when at best they kick the can down the road for someone else to solve the real problem. You could be honest and realize that filtering will not solve the real problem, but instead you keep lying to yourself - and everyone else - that somehow filters will magically make spam go away.
For many people the problem is solved
The people who believe the problem to be solved either don't recognize the full problem, or they are compulsive liars such as yourself.
I have answered that question multiple times now. There is no point in repeating what you deliberately decide not to read.
You gave a very general answer. I want a very specific solution from you.
You didn't read the answer well enough to know if it was general or specific. And your filters are sure as hell not a general solution to spam.
If you are willing to accept those costs, then say so. But don't keep running around pretending that filtering is somehow without cost.
You lie. I never once said it was without cost.
Except you did. You specifically mentioned free email services, and ISPs who don't give opt-in. You stated that did not cost the user anything.
You really should stop lying about what you say, because your lies are too transparent. If you would have just stopped at admitting to be a filtering ideologue that would have been OK. Instead you are trying to paint filtering as a solution that it is never capable of being.
We're one step ahead of the average spammer.
That is simply a lie. You are exactly one step behind the average spammer. If you were one step ahead, you would never need to adjust filtering rules, ever, because you would already know ahead of time what they will do to get around your filtering rules. Instead you are always adjusting your filtering rules to adapt for their latest obfuscation.
In other words, you are one step behind the spammers. Stop lying to yourself - and everyone else - about that. If you're content with being one step behind, then great for you. But you are being utterly dishonest (at best) when you claim to be "one step ahead".
You have some general proposal that we need to make spamming more expensive but you have no idea how to do that, do you?
If you weren't an illiterate liar you would know the answer to that. There is no point in answering your question since you won't read the answer to it anyways, since it doesn't agree with your view of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
If so you could go for FreeBSD or Solaris. Or get really crazy and try to find a copy of BeOS or OS/2.
After all, the summary just said "an OS other than what you usually use", it didn't say it had to be Linux. And most of the people there will likely go with Linux anyways, so why not be different?
Yes, the primary reason is they have to communicate with people other than OO.org zealots and actually want it to all work.
Sure OO can open a word doc ... sorta, and it can output a word doc ... sorta ...
I love how people who haven't used recent versions of the software they are complaining about are clearly infinitely qualified to assess the quality of the current version.
Is there a reason they couldn't transition to openoffice instead?
Other than the fact they are in Nebraska, where the term "open" is probably immediately associated with homosexuality, of course?
One of the problems I had with the movie The Fifth Element was that they actually had human drivers of the vehicles. Why? Clearly unnecessary and dangerous.
For Hollywood, it isn't as interesting to feature computer drivers in a movie.
However for reality, there is another problem with computer drivers, in that they are not inherently all created equal. You might have some drivers that are simply handling more calculations per unit time, and they will be able to better handle heavy traffic (for example). Yet others might not have been programmed to properly watch for moving objects coming up from behind, or maybe some have better algorithms for dealing with aberrant weather.
And of course that is to say nothing of the problem of a computer malfunction or crash. How do you handle a flying car with a computer problem if the driver isn't the least bit capable of driving the vehicle themselves - especially if the problem comes up in-flight?
Based on the article summary, if Apple is fronting the cash to BUILD factories in exchange for exclusive rights on the items the factory produces, I think it's fair to say that a lot of groundbreaking is going on.
I guess an Apple-branded jackhammer or steamshovel would be pretty groundbreaking then, woudln't it?
allows it to release groundbreaking products that are actually impossible to duplicate
Just because the design of an Apple product is distinctive doesn't mean that the product is automatically groundbreaking.
We won't see this product get to market. Or at the very least, 99.999% of all Americans will never experience this product in person in the extremely unlikely event that it does somehow make it to market.
It's nice to see someone working on the old flying car problem again, but we're just not going to see it happen.
There are countries other than US. Most of them have examples of what is useful for teaching at school.
Certainly. However most public schools are tethered to their school boards, who can be voted out (or strangled by lack of revenue) by the taxpayers in their districts. Hence if you cannot get the voters to agree on what is correct to teach, you won't get the district to move forward on it.
In other words, you can propose all the great changes you want, but if the parents and voters don't agree, it won't go anywhere and we'll have the same crappy standards that parents have - actively or not - supported for generations now.
And besides, the standards only set the minimum for graduation. They don't say that you cannot take calculus, just that you must take basic geometry. They don't say you cannot take advanced physics, just that you must take introductory biology, etc... The parents could push their children to go for higher goals in school if they want, but they opt not to.
Solution: raise minimum to something that is actually useful.
Good luck getting an agreement on what "useful" means in the context of a high school education. For some people useful means able to operate a cash register and maybe read a bus schedule.
I'd advise starting with someone else's appendix first; if you have a few hundred facebook friends you're bound to know someone with appendicitis; and in this country there is a good chance they don't have insurance. Then if you get it wrong, you can learn from that before you remove your own.
Yeah, clearly it's entirely the fault of the education system, and not at all that of the parents who do nothing to encourage their children to go beyond the bare minimum for a high school diploma. Yep, it's all the fault of the education system.
... but I was in a meeting. With a powerpoint presentation, of course. Really.
That said, I'm still not sure what the party wants to do. It seems silly to ban powerpoint; are they out to change corporate culture somehow? Of course, I'm not sure how they would legislate that, either...
Many users don't use filters anyways
Yes, they are. Ever heard about server-side filtering?
First of all, minus one point to you for bad grammar.
Second, I didn't say most users, I said many users. There are still users who have the ability to check their email without it being filtered for them beforehand.
With this, entire your argument falls apart.
You're simply wrong on that matter. The number of people who have their email filtered - regardless of whether or not they are aware of it - has nothing to do with the fact that filtering will never actually stop spam.
Don't you usually blog at Democraticunderground.com?
No. Or is this some sort of joke that just isn't funny?
R
Did someone log your browser onto another site while you were off getting a diet coke?
I don't drink diet coke.
Would you drink a litre of radioactivity?
Radioactivity is energy. You cannot measure it in volume. You could say something like a liter of radioactive waste, but of course that doesn't tell you how much radioactivity is involved, as you could have a very small amount of radioactive material in a liter of otherwise uninteresting water.
You didn't actually study physics in college, did you?
it is a major headline and an opportunity for the childlike masses to stroke themselves into a frenzy of Fox bashing and demonizing
Those of us who actually read the headline for this slashdot article noticed it started with "hijacked fox news twitter account". If slashdot was actually looking to make fox news look bad, they would have chosen a less-friendly headline. Both news outlets are on the payroll of newsmax.com/townhall.com.
Palin
Is not officially running for anything right now. We just know she loves being in front of a camera.
Bachmann
Is running, but writes her own jokes.
Trump
Has already dropped out of the running.
unclever anti-fox KOS memes.
Do you honestly believe that the daily Kos is the only website ever to make a joke at fox news's expense?
Here's who it hurts â" companies that want to pay people a decent wage for work they do
How does free labor hurt the companies? Isn't that what capitalism is all about - paying people as little as you can get away with?
You may be able to create immunity against most nucleic acid-based viruses this way. However, if you consider prions to be viruses, you won't be able to genetic engineer past them. Some prions take advantage of the protein misfolding response, which is not something you would want to engineer away.
it's-probably-fine,-we'll-test-it-live
Could describe every "upgrade" to slashdot that has happened since ... well probably ever.
We've known this for some time, but it is nice to see it confirmed mathematically. Pop "music" is indeed getting louder over time. I suspect based on the loudness graph that the song they used for 2010 was that "you're beautiful" song that is practically whispered in comparison to other recent pieces.
Now get off my lawn.
Yes it is agreed that you won't read what I write, so there is no purpose in continuing this conversation. I will instead support people who work on actual solutions to the spam problem while you run around with your fingers in your ears.
from your highly emotional reaction here
Highly emotional? I would love to know how you feel that allegation is justified. Especially in light of the fact that you are the one trying to sell what can never be a real solution as a permanent fix.
I went back and skimmed your comments
That is the single most honest and factual comment you've posted in this entire thread. Thank you for admitting that indeed you do not make a habit of reading my comments in their entirety, it confirms what was already suggested by you fact-deprived posts.
Now why don't you go adjust your spam filter so it prevents you from seeing the rest of my comments. It seems that your blind allegiance to filtering methodologies may well have prevented you from seeing a not-insignificant portion of them already, so you missing the rest would not be a big change.
A "filtering idealogue." Nice.
You earned that label. Wear it with pride.
Oh shut up, troll.
I'm not familiar with this new meaning of troll. I actually stated what needs to be done to stop spam, and you insist on sticking to what will never be a permanent solution. You then cherry pick whatever lines of my comments you like, and outright ignore other parts if they don't fit your beliefs. If anyone has earned the label of troll, it is you.
You dont' have a specific solution and you know it.
You wouldn't read it if I shared it. Isn't it time you go adjust your spam filter settings again?
I think there is some coming from the server that hosts that website.
You don't get it.
No, you don't get it. You cling to your filters as a solution, when at best they kick the can down the road for someone else to solve the real problem. You could be honest and realize that filtering will not solve the real problem, but instead you keep lying to yourself - and everyone else - that somehow filters will magically make spam go away.
For many people the problem is solved
The people who believe the problem to be solved either don't recognize the full problem, or they are compulsive liars such as yourself.
I have answered that question multiple times now. There is no point in repeating what you deliberately decide not to read.
You gave a very general answer. I want a very specific solution from you.
You didn't read the answer well enough to know if it was general or specific. And your filters are sure as hell not a general solution to spam.
If you are willing to accept those costs, then say so. But don't keep running around pretending that filtering is somehow without cost.
You lie. I never once said it was without cost.
Except you did. You specifically mentioned free email services, and ISPs who don't give opt-in. You stated that did not cost the user anything.
You really should stop lying about what you say, because your lies are too transparent. If you would have just stopped at admitting to be a filtering ideologue that would have been OK. Instead you are trying to paint filtering as a solution that it is never capable of being.
We're one step ahead of the average spammer.
That is simply a lie. You are exactly one step behind the average spammer. If you were one step ahead, you would never need to adjust filtering rules, ever, because you would already know ahead of time what they will do to get around your filtering rules. Instead you are always adjusting your filtering rules to adapt for their latest obfuscation.
In other words, you are one step behind the spammers. Stop lying to yourself - and everyone else - about that. If you're content with being one step behind, then great for you. But you are being utterly dishonest (at best) when you claim to be "one step ahead".
You have some general proposal that we need to make spamming more expensive but you have no idea how to do that, do you?
If you weren't an illiterate liar you would know the answer to that. There is no point in answering your question since you won't read the answer to it anyways, since it doesn't agree with your view of the world.