Oh nice, suddenly this is all about you getting clean? We are talking about Vista here...and only doing a half-assed job anyway. You HAVE to have a missing step.
Yeah I can blame him. This is a ludicrous argument.
Is it the fault of Linux that they have to click through a simple warning written in plain English to take care of their legally mandated duty because of the way that certain laws are written, particularly in America?
Have you seen a EULA? Most people don't read it but scroll to the bottom, click accept and then they're done, but they're signing away much more than what you agree to when you click on that codec acceptance. We don't notice a EULA because it's so filled with legalese, no one takes the time to read what you, as a consumer, are giving up.
But this guy is complaining that he has to make an agreement about not using the codec illegally? THAT scares him off from making the switch?
I am simply amazed that a EULA gets a free pass because no one bothers to read it but in Linux, choosing accept on the codecs because you actually can read the damn thing freaks out someone. All that proves to me is that he's an idiot that doesn't read what he's agreeing to unless it's under ten sentences.
Nah. I remember this film with the fondness of childhood. A remake would try to "update" the story, make it contemporary and lessen its impact. Who do you get to replace Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner...Johnny Knoxville and Heath Ledger? pfffffffffffft!
You're assuming Bush fires anyone. If it's good for us, just wait for the eventual announcement saying he's retiring to spend more time with his family.
This is the direct result of too many people thinking they can "zerg" their way out of a situation. I can see it now, throngs of drug-sniffing dogs rushing over and clawing a drug den down until it explodes.
"Blog postings will always be commodity content: there's a limit to the value you can provide with a short comment on somebody else's comments.
Obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Sounds like a troll.
Such postings are good for generating controversy and short-term traffic, and they're definitely easy to write. But they don't build sustainable value. Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant."
Obviously this SUCKS! Writing this took me two whole minutes.
But they don't build sustainable value. Think of how disappointing it feels when you're searching for something and get directed to short postings in the middle of a debate that occurred years before, and is thus irrelevant."
I'd like to direct you to bloviating I did years ago about Compuserve...but I forgot the link.
George Ou has long been an Intel/Windows whipping boy. He's not far off of writing the article that says that AMD has "Seal clubbing days" and internal seminars on "Making your grandmother cry".
Way to miss the forest for the trees. The substance of this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not Vista is more secure than past versions or not, nor really is it a straight comparison of actual security concerns but rather with their methodology in presenting their vulnerability information. Vista IS more secure than previous versions MS has put out because they actually focused on it this time.
Methinks you saw an opportunity to drone on a mindless rant about the Linux community and what you perceive as MS bashing. Could it be that there might be some skewed PR numbers when a MS employee (later disclosed) does a comparison between OS's, finds that commonly accepted security benchmarks don't seem to be good enough, uses his own questionable methodology with disclosed vulnerabilities, includes application vulnerabilities not on a base Linux install, and doesn't count the stealth patches included with recent Vista patches?
Grow up? As if.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot BOB. Where's BOB? What's that? Trying to forget...huh?
Oh I see. Carry on. Nothing to see here.
Oh nice, suddenly this is all about you getting clean? We are talking about Vista here...and only doing a half-assed job anyway. You HAVE to have a missing step.
Nice. One of my favorite episodes.
THERE...ARE...FOUR...LIGHTS!
Classic.
Remember folks, this is a feature, not a bug.
Two plus two is five. War is peace. Rinse, repeat.
The first one. Wait! No, that second guy. I don't know! Third base!
That whooshing sound you just heard go by your ears was another chunk of personal rights flying out the window.
Yeah I can blame him. This is a ludicrous argument.
Is it the fault of Linux that they have to click through a simple warning written in plain English to take care of their legally mandated duty because of the way that certain laws are written, particularly in America?
Have you seen a EULA? Most people don't read it but scroll to the bottom, click accept and then they're done, but they're signing away much more than what you agree to when you click on that codec acceptance. We don't notice a EULA because it's so filled with legalese, no one takes the time to read what you, as a consumer, are giving up.
But this guy is complaining that he has to make an agreement about not using the codec illegally? THAT scares him off from making the switch?
I am simply amazed that a EULA gets a free pass because no one bothers to read it but in Linux, choosing accept on the codecs because you actually can read the damn thing freaks out someone. All that proves to me is that he's an idiot that doesn't read what he's agreeing to unless it's under ten sentences.
how would I see the screen? Chameleon...camouflage...can't see.
My posting sarcasm isn't coming through. Should've followed it with a /joke tag.
Look to DeBeers to rush in and kill this technology. God forbid we have a car that has a CZ solution when only a real diamond can cool forever.
To steal from John Hodgeman... Anyone who uses the GPLv3 are lepers with tuberculosis.
Nah. I remember this film with the fondness of childhood. A remake would try to "update" the story, make it contemporary and lessen its impact. Who do you get to replace Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner...Johnny Knoxville and Heath Ledger? pfffffffffffft!
You're assuming Bush fires anyone. If it's good for us, just wait for the eventual announcement saying he's retiring to spend more time with his family.
This is the direct result of too many people thinking they can "zerg" their way out of a situation. I can see it now, throngs of drug-sniffing dogs rushing over and clawing a drug den down until it explodes.
George Ou has long been an Intel/Windows whipping boy. He's not far off of writing the article that says that AMD has "Seal clubbing days" and internal seminars on "Making your grandmother cry".
A game that should've been on the list should be No One Lives Forever. Clever, fun game and extremely funny.
Why do I feel like there's something funny to be said by linking "liquid filled bags" and soilent green in some way.
Does this surprise anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
You could say the same for the AMD 3600+.
Way to miss the forest for the trees. The substance of this discussion has nothing to do with whether or not Vista is more secure than past versions or not, nor really is it a straight comparison of actual security concerns but rather with their methodology in presenting their vulnerability information. Vista IS more secure than previous versions MS has put out because they actually focused on it this time. Methinks you saw an opportunity to drone on a mindless rant about the Linux community and what you perceive as MS bashing. Could it be that there might be some skewed PR numbers when a MS employee (later disclosed) does a comparison between OS's, finds that commonly accepted security benchmarks don't seem to be good enough, uses his own questionable methodology with disclosed vulnerabilities, includes application vulnerabilities not on a base Linux install, and doesn't count the stealth patches included with recent Vista patches? Grow up? As if.