Yeah I just design FPGAs and CPLDs for a living. I couldn't possibly know anything about computers. ---or--- It could just be possible that, dare I say it, there's a flaw in the Ubuntu code. It ain't user-friendly.
Well, you don't necessarily know much about software, OSs, user interface design, etc. Does my knowledge of software design qualify me to design hardware?
Yes--there is a bug in some versions of Ubuntu's display configuration tool. It is not in any way shape or form a general Linux problem. Duh! If you don't like the way the version of Ubuntu you paid nothing for is working, then by all means do not use it. Generalizing from a particular Ubuntu experience to all of Linux, though, is just plain dumb, and you apparently should have the technical background to understand that. Furthermore, if you have never run into issues comparable to this in Windows, then you cannot be trying to get Windows to do much. Are you really going to try to claim that Windows is flawless? I too have encountered the Ubuntu bug, and while annoying, it would hardly cause me to claim an entire OS was not user friendly from just that. I have encountered what I consider to be much more critical flaws in various versions of Windows.
That's because it's written for programming geeks, not your average idiot. Heck even an engineer, like me, has a difficult time using Linux. (Change an Ubuntu screen to 640x480, and then try to change it back, without using secret hidden commands. Can't be done.)
Windows and MacOS are idiot-friendly.
Apparently you are one of those that believe that Linux == Ubuntu, as the issue you blame on "Linux" is solely a Ubuntu problem.
I always laugh when I hear people say how easy Windows is for everyday people to use, but Linux is hard even for computer experts...and yet we have so many thousands and thousands of people employed at "help desks" for that easy to use Windows. Hmm.
You talk about "secret hidden commands" for Linux, but nothing is secret or hidden in Linux. You never had to track down a magic hex code and then edit your Windows registry?? Apparently you haven't done much with Windows then. Never had things not work as expected in Windows? Again, apparently you haven't done much in Windows. I can list lots of issues I have had with Windows--such as spending a couple of hours getting shares working properly between two Vista machines--even though I am a computer pro and was following MS's documentation (which is both wrong and incomplete, BTW). Furthermore, I know lots of people that could never get file sharing working as desired with Vista. Gosh, doesn't sound too different from the type of thing you are complaining about with "Linux," does it?
You obviously don't know the US government.
While I agree that what you have posted of the bill looks pretty harmless this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope. This could lead to additions to ISP that would allow the government to lock all private user accounts, throttle bandwidth and/or throw domestic web servers off the grid.
I love how to the right wing, the US Government is both all powerful (e.g., can disconnect the entire Internet, silence blogger critics, etc.), and yet totally incapable of doing anything well (e.g., heathcare, pollution control, etc.). Sad that seemingly intelligence people can be so duped by their right wing media masters.
Whoa--interjecting facts into a Slashdot anti-government tirade? What were you thinking??
The OP sounds like a right-wingnut, as do many of the posters, frankly.
The same people who said nothing while W illegally wiretapped and ignored other laws in the name of protecting us from terrorists, are now outraged that the US Gov wants legal authority to protect "critical infrastructure" from cyber attacks? That makes no sense whatsoever.
This bill in no way allows any of the rubbish that obviously very poorly informed people are posting. Too many living in a Faux News, faux world.
...since Gore has become a prominent Bush-bashing propagandist, people like yourself jump at the chance to defend him...
You don't know anything about the people you are responding to, so it is rather presumptuous--inaccurate/wrong in fact in my case--to say that stating the truth about what Gore said has some connection to Bush. Gore did not get up in front of a crowd and say something like, "aren't you glad that *I* invented the Internet." Instead, he was talking about his qualifications to be President and the fact that he had been a major Senate proponent of research that led to the development of the Internet (e.g., see a key bill he sponsored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Bill). It is not in any sense "splitting hairs" to draw a distinction between these two situations--particularly since the media and Republicans continue to promote the "I intevented the Internet" misrepresentation.
...your contention that all scientists are automatically unbiased and non-partisan is pretty weak...
Whoever said that?? I don't see any posting here claiming that! However, if what you are saying is that you aren't willing to trust the consensus of the majority of scientists in a field to decide what the current best theories in the field are, then I don't see how you believe that science should work. Every person's opinion is equivalent, no matter how ill informed about a subject they are? If 5% of scientists in a field disagree with 95% then *nothing* is known? Honestly, if you believe that scientists are just as biased and dishonest about their own research field as politicians are about most things, I don't see how you could support any scientific endeavours at all.
Of course Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet--that was wording that the RNC (Republican National Committee) came up with specifically to discredit Gore--and which has been repeated by the media and people like you either purposefully to smear Gore or because of ignorance/incompetence. As for there being "plenty" of evidence against human effects on global temperature, your belief is contradicted by statements signed by hundreds of scientists that study the issue--who believe that the preponderence of evidence is now that humans are almost certainly having an effect. Your hypothesis that Dems are just as bad as Bush at misusing science also fails to note several unprecedented actions that scientists have taken to protest Bush's misuse of science (e.g., http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/10600-sci entists-condemn.html).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah I just design FPGAs and CPLDs for a living. I couldn't possibly know anything about computers. ---or--- It could just be possible that, dare I say it, there's a flaw in the Ubuntu code. It ain't user-friendly.
Well, you don't necessarily know much about software, OSs, user interface design, etc. Does my knowledge of software design qualify me to design hardware?
Yes--there is a bug in some versions of Ubuntu's display configuration tool. It is not in any way shape or form a general Linux problem. Duh! If you don't like the way the version of Ubuntu you paid nothing for is working, then by all means do not use it. Generalizing from a particular Ubuntu experience to all of Linux, though, is just plain dumb, and you apparently should have the technical background to understand that. Furthermore, if you have never run into issues comparable to this in Windows, then you cannot be trying to get Windows to do much. Are you really going to try to claim that Windows is flawless? I too have encountered the Ubuntu bug, and while annoying, it would hardly cause me to claim an entire OS was not user friendly from just that. I have encountered what I consider to be much more critical flaws in various versions of Windows.
That's because it's written for programming geeks, not your average idiot. Heck even an engineer, like me, has a difficult time using Linux. (Change an Ubuntu screen to 640x480, and then try to change it back, without using secret hidden commands. Can't be done.)
Windows and MacOS are idiot-friendly.
Apparently you are one of those that believe that Linux == Ubuntu, as the issue you blame on "Linux" is solely a Ubuntu problem.
I always laugh when I hear people say how easy Windows is for everyday people to use, but Linux is hard even for computer experts...and yet we have so many thousands and thousands of people employed at "help desks" for that easy to use Windows. Hmm.
You talk about "secret hidden commands" for Linux, but nothing is secret or hidden in Linux. You never had to track down a magic hex code and then edit your Windows registry?? Apparently you haven't done much with Windows then. Never had things not work as expected in Windows? Again, apparently you haven't done much in Windows. I can list lots of issues I have had with Windows--such as spending a couple of hours getting shares working properly between two Vista machines--even though I am a computer pro and was following MS's documentation (which is both wrong and incomplete, BTW). Furthermore, I know lots of people that could never get file sharing working as desired with Vista. Gosh, doesn't sound too different from the type of thing you are complaining about with "Linux," does it?
You obviously don't know the US government. While I agree that what you have posted of the bill looks pretty harmless this could be the beginning of a new slippery slope. This could lead to additions to ISP that would allow the government to lock all private user accounts, throttle bandwidth and/or throw domestic web servers off the grid.
I love how to the right wing, the US Government is both all powerful (e.g., can disconnect the entire Internet, silence blogger critics, etc.), and yet totally incapable of doing anything well (e.g., heathcare, pollution control, etc.). Sad that seemingly intelligence people can be so duped by their right wing media masters.
Whoa--interjecting facts into a Slashdot anti-government tirade? What were you thinking?? The OP sounds like a right-wingnut, as do many of the posters, frankly. The same people who said nothing while W illegally wiretapped and ignored other laws in the name of protecting us from terrorists, are now outraged that the US Gov wants legal authority to protect "critical infrastructure" from cyber attacks? That makes no sense whatsoever. This bill in no way allows any of the rubbish that obviously very poorly informed people are posting. Too many living in a Faux News, faux world.
You don't know anything about the people you are responding to, so it is rather presumptuous--inaccurate/wrong in fact in my case--to say that stating the truth about what Gore said has some connection to Bush. Gore did not get up in front of a crowd and say something like, "aren't you glad that *I* invented the Internet." Instead, he was talking about his qualifications to be President and the fact that he had been a major Senate proponent of research that led to the development of the Internet (e.g., see a key bill he sponsored: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Bill). It is not in any sense "splitting hairs" to draw a distinction between these two situations--particularly since the media and Republicans continue to promote the "I intevented the Internet" misrepresentation.
Whoever said that?? I don't see any posting here claiming that! However, if what you are saying is that you aren't willing to trust the consensus of the majority of scientists in a field to decide what the current best theories in the field are, then I don't see how you believe that science should work. Every person's opinion is equivalent, no matter how ill informed about a subject they are? If 5% of scientists in a field disagree with 95% then *nothing* is known? Honestly, if you believe that scientists are just as biased and dishonest about their own research field as politicians are about most things, I don't see how you could support any scientific endeavours at all.
Of course Al Gore never said that he "invented" the Internet--that was wording that the RNC (Republican National Committee) came up with specifically to discredit Gore--and which has been repeated by the media and people like you either purposefully to smear Gore or because of ignorance/incompetence. As for there being "plenty" of evidence against human effects on global temperature, your belief is contradicted by statements signed by hundreds of scientists that study the issue--who believe that the preponderence of evidence is now that humans are almost certainly having an effect. Your hypothesis that Dems are just as bad as Bush at misusing science also fails to note several unprecedented actions that scientists have taken to protest Bush's misuse of science (e.g., http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/10600-sci entists-condemn.html).