Almost all the netbook offerings are going the XP/W7 route.
Really? Have you checked the online stores of the manufacturers? Although I've not done any sort of extensive research, both Dell and HP offer Ubuntu as an option for their netbooks.
So pay the tax then file for a refund. There's a bajillion articles on the entartubes that describe the process of getting a refund for the bundled 'doze license. (No, I'm not going to search for you.)
Good thing you're not going to search for them, because if you did you might learn that you almost certainly *won't* get a refund, even after having spent inordinate amount of time and effort trying.
I would imagine lots of folks with jobs do. I get it, Centos is not big with the unemployed living in Mom's basement demographic, but trust me outside that locked door there is a whole world with many people that do care about it.
Still, I'll bet it's *far* fewer than care about a new Ubuntu release, even if you limit Ubuntu to just the "unemployed living in Mom's basement demographic".
Also, I wouldn't be so quick to play the "in the real world, people with jobs..." card, because in the corporate world, IE6 still dominates.
Anything will prove "The tragedy of the commons" as it doesn't really need proof at this point. However, expanding the commons is like that. The alternative is a shrinking commons, or actually having enough accountability and imputability that it's not really "the commons" anymore, but some form of public property under private ownership or management. I for one welcome expanding commons.
Or, the commons can be managed, as commons are all over the world, and all throughout the US, even though it seems it's the Americans who seem all too quick to forget this fact when the topic of the "tragedy of the commons" arises.
They can be managed by the government. It works with parks, and beaches, and waterways, skies, roads...
So, with this spectrum, just have the government provide a set of rules that favors wide adoption of individual citizens, while keeping a few people from ruining it for everyone else. This happens with WiFi by limiting the broadcast strength. With the White-Space spectrum, different rules will make sense, as it naturally affects a wider area.
This seems so fundamental, I can't fathom how people always seem to miss this.
Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.
Christ, man. I don't know if I can explain this to you more clearly. If you've got all day, then I guess you should just read my original post over and over again until you understand the difference between what I said and the strawman you erected in order to try to attack my assertion. It was a single fucking sentence.
The way you worded it, it sounds like an attack on cloud computing.
If all you meant was that using higher processor utilization is *not* an economic benefit in cloud computing, it's sort of an "out of nowhere" statement, whereas bitching about cloud computing in general would have been in context.
That's why I wrote what I did, and why the mod point was spent like it was. Throwing a whiney fit over it isn't a terribly good replacement for providing proper context in the first place.
However, let's ignore all that for the moment and take your statement at face value. Just because google is not using all of their CPU resources at any given time *does not* demonstrate that there is no economic benefit in high CPU utilization in a cloud. Google's cloud is highly dependent on bandwidth, throughput, and power. An entirely different cloud that is, instead, meant to offload CPU usage would have different economic dynamics.
Apparently neither you nor the mods can read. Try again.
And apparently neither can you:
This scheme will likely end up with *lower* processor utilization than they have currently. Processors are cheap. That's the reason Google has hundreds of thousands of them already.
Do quote where I said anything to the contrary. Please, take your time, I've got all day...
If what's best for themselves is quitting a job so that they don't have to take obvious precautions to avoid becoming a vector between the many infected and many susceptible people that they come in contact with, that's fine. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
This isn't a "cake and eat it too" scenario. Cake and eat it too would be if the doctors forced everyone *else* to take the vaccine.
But, tell me how your justification is any different from other non-medical people who might come in contact with dozens or even hundreds of children, sick and the elderly? Should *you* be forcefully vaccinated if you wish to go to a shopping mall this holiday season?
What the fuck is wrong with us when so many of us seem all to eager trade in our personal liberty (or, I suppose, infringe upon the personal liberty of others) over the damned flu.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
We don't require doctors and nurses to get the flu shot for normal flus, why now? The swine flu is more hype than substance. The media loves a good scare story, and the health organizations want to rise the plate, and the pharmaceutical companies don't mind filling an order for hundreds of millions of doses.
But aside from understandable overreactions, I see no reason to fear the swine flu aside from the desire (as with any flu) of not wanting to be put out of commission for a few days.
The fact that people feel they have the right to force doctors and nurses to inject foreign biological matter directly into their bloodstreams for such a small risk is appalling.
But let's take it further. Do you think all patients and visitors to a hospital should be forcefully vaccinated (or denied entry)? How about people going to schools, or shopping malls?
Make no mistake here, I'm not against vaccines. But I *am* against exerting force over another person's body, and *am* against what appears to be overblown hysteria.
Rubbish. Society has a significant interest in what you do with your body, because the results of that action may cause harm to others. If, for example, you have extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, you can expect public health authorities to hold you in isolation, and if necessary, force treatment upon you
Only in emergency cases, like with TB.
But the flu is not an emergency case.
An individual's ignorance should not be to society's detriment. If their ignorance or lack of compliance will cause harm to others, they may be forced to comply with procedures, even when those procedures cause them discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm.
People like you disgust me to no end. *IT'S MY BODY, NOT YOURS*. It's *my* choice what *I* do with it. We're talking about THE FLU here.
More particularly, you state: "If their ignorance or lack of compliance will cause harm to others"
Two issues with that. First, "harm" is vague. Some people consider insults harmful.
Second, and more specifically, you state "will cause harm". Not getting vaccinated in *no way* is equivalent to "will cause harm".
Next: "they may be forced to comply with procedures, even when those procedures cause them discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm"
Yes, if someone is going to harm someone else, a little discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm may be justified, but all we're doing here is trading possible harms.
Can you drag up evidence that a severe reaction to a flu vaccine is more likely than an equally severe reaction from not being immunized and contracting the flu?
No, but your request indicates an incomplete assessment of the situation. The *real* question is whether any particular individual would rather take the risks involved with the vaccine, or the risks involved with the flu.
First, the risk of death, I *assume* that the vaccine is safer in that regard than the flu. There's too much fear mongering from *both* sides for me to really know either way, so I'll err on the side of medical science here.
Second, are non-death concerns. I'm sure there are things that can happen with the flu, but it seems to me that you're more likely to have some non-lethal issue from the vaccine than you are with the flu.
For those that are particularly vulnerable to complications that the swine flu would cause, the vaccine may be the rational choice. For myself, however, I'm fine with taking my chances.
But one additional thing to consider. From a fatality standpoint, both the flu and the vaccine pose minimal risk. A risk so small that it's irrational to worry about either too much. It's like trading a 0.0001% risk with a 0.00015% risk. From a risk assessment point of view, you can increase your odds by not driving to the hospital to get the shot in the first place. But more pragmatically, it just doesn't reach the threshold of making a difference to me.
As for flu not being 'severe' enough, there are about 36,000 deaths from the flu yearly in the US alone. Most of these deaths could be prevented by immunization, which is much safer.
36,000 out of 330,000,000. There are more traffic deaths per year, and *significantly* more traffic injuries per year, but you don't hear people saying not to drive. Additionally, those 36k deaths aren't evenly distributed among the population. There are risk factors which elevate one's chances significantly. I'm not in any of those risk categories.
Additionally, there's doubt that *flu* vaccines are all that effective (i.e., when there are shortages of the vaccine, flu fatality rates *do not rise*). My turn to ask you a question: can you prove that every single person who died of the flu did *not* receive the vaccine?
And lastly, total vaccine deaths does not have to equal total flu deaths, even if the vaccine is 100% effective, because more people *don't* get vaccinated than do. What's more useful is deaths *per capita* of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.
the vaccine is still safer than not being vaccinated, and therefor any risk can not be used as an excuse not to get immunized
*Excuse*? Surely you mean *reason*. There's a significant difference here. To imply that I need an *excuse* to not get the flu shot is arrogant at best.
We require doctors to both wash their hands and use sterile gloves when there is a risk of infection. If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing sterile gloves, perhaps they should not enter the primary care field where these gloves are an important (if not vital) safety measure.
This is an absurd comparison. *Gloves* aren't a medical procedure. *Gloves* don't inject foreign organic material *directly into your bloodstream*. *Gloves* aren't particularly dangerous, even in the 1-in-10,000 sense that the flu is. And *gloves* are highly effective at preventing disease transmission, whereas the flu shot *might* prevent transmission of *one* particular disease. The two aren't comparable *at all* except tangentially.
Let's face it: health care providers neglecting to protect themselves with a safe vaccine for a preventable disease are being reckless with their patient's health. Others who go unvaccinated also put others at risk, but in a much more limited sense.
At risk of *THE FLU*. We're not talking AIDs or polio or even the chicken pox, but *THE FLU*.
There's nothing to fix here, it simply doesn't work the way you think it should.
Alt-F4 is Close Window/Program, *not* Shutdown Computer. If the desktop has the focus, then it should do nothing, as there is no window or program to close.
I realize that, in a sense, the "program" is "Windows" (not really, but metaphorically, it works somewhat), so closing Windows is, essentially, shutdown. The problem here is that an overly literal interpretation of the command is counter-intuitive and inconsistent. This is further compounded by the occurrence of hitting Alt-F4 numerous times to close out a bunch of windows, and part way through, Windows 7 asks if you want to shut down, even when there are other open windows, or you've hit it one too many times.
And to answer the question that started this all, yes, Windows 7 still behaves this way.
Europe always gets hit first in disaster movies. Case in point - Scotland was first to freeze in The Day After Tomorrow. Though I bet a new ice age would be much less destructive that this...
Whereas in actuality, the day after tomorrow is when rest of the planet gets hit with Windows 7...
Given that we're talking about the UK getting it early, I don't think "bugger" is the best term to use for a Windows launch... Actually, come to think of it, I take that back.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some of us use Windows because we like it
I know a *lot* of people who prefer to run Windows over Linux or a Mac, but only a very small percentage do so because they actually *like* Windows itself.
The preference is usually more about hardware, price, games, software, familiarity, than it is about actually liking the Windows OS.
A nurse (or anyone else working in a health care institution) needs to be immunized, because they have constant contact with the segment of the population who is most at risk from the flu.
No, they *don't*. They "need" to do what they think is best for themselves, and if that's *not* getting vaccinated (which is *not* a harmless procedure), then that's up to *them*.
The risks of complications from a vaccine are generally small, but non-zero.
If a nurse gives your newborn the flu because she didn't get the vaccine and your child dies, there would be hell to pay.
Scare mongering nonsense. Life's full of risks. That doesn't give you the right to demand others undertake a medical procedure.
Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
This I agree with. It *is* a legitimate issue. But your right to make demands ends absolutely when it comes to what another person does within their own body.
Sure, the flu isn't highly fatal, but it's not something to ignore. People do die, sometimes unexpectedly, even though it is uncommon. If she doesn't want to take steps to protect other people's health, why the fuck is she a nurse?
The flu shot (any vaccine, really) isn't exactly safe either. I'm not talking about the mercury, or Jenny McCarthy autism nonsense, I'm talking about people reacting badly and severely to a vaccine.
For something like polio, this makes sense, where a large percentage of the population would die or be crippled by it. But for the flu? I don't begrudge anyone getting the shot, but I also don't begrudge them *not* getting the shot. It's *their* life and *their* body. Becoming a nurse or a doctor doesn't alter that fact.
Let's not go throwing a strawman situation around. We're talking about a strain of influenza.
No, I was talking about an ill-thought-out blanket statement.
No, you were *making* an ill-thought-out blanket statement.
The context is the flu. No one said they'd avoid all vaccines (at least, not in this particular thread, I'm sure there are some people for whom your response would make sense, just not here).
The problem with mexican flu (that's the name btw.)
Um, no.
H1N1 are the proteins found on the mantle of the virus. The problem is that no human can develop an immune response to either H1 or N1 (as that would be deadly).
Two questions:
1. How can you fight off an infection if you can't develop an immune response? 2. How can a vaccine work against an infection for which you cannot develop an immunity?
Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.
Interesting... Google is setting up a cloud to dynamically address resource utilization in order to (presumably) save money, which naturally demonstrates that the notion that cloud computing offers economic benefit is delusional?
Care to show your work? I don't suppose it's just, "I hate buzzwords like 'cloud computing', therefore I hate the idea of cloud computing, therefore cloud computing doesn't work, Q.E.D.", is it?
I've noticed almost all of your posts in defense of the Amiga end up slamming Macs. This signifies a lack of confidence in your position. If you want to promote the Amiga, try promoting the Amiga.
The problem, of course, is that that's a fundamentally difficult proposition these days. The Amiga was an *amazing* system back in the day. But today? Not so much.
But hey, bash the Mac, and Mac users, and *somehow* that will make the Amiga a modern system. Or, at the very least, it will give you a target for your impotent anger over the current irrelevancy of such a once great platform.
If you want some sort of similarity to Apple, Newton users are your best bet.
Oh, I can't explain it - you just have to use it, then you'll see.
It's not about "feature lists" or what it can do "on paper" - it's about the whole experience, man. It's not that it does anything new, it's about how it does it. It integrates it better.
Or that's how an Apple fan would argue it, anyway...
Except none of those things are applicable to the Amiga *today*. They're actually fairly useful to comparing the Amiga to the PCs and Macs of the era when Amigas were knew.
However, both modern Mac users and olden days Amiga users can be much more eloquent than your affected mischaracterization.
"I know I'll be flamed, but in all honesty, is the Mac platform even relevant any more? The hardware and OS were revolutionary in 1989, but 20 years later, is it really something all that different?"
See, if I posted that to every Mac story, I'd get modded down in an instant.
Rightfully so, because it's an extremely idiotic thing to say.
Why must every Amiga story (it's not like we get them often, unlike the three Apple stories a day) be bogged down with these flames?
Because Amiga *isn't* relevant today. Since you have such a hard on for Apple, you probably know of at least 10 people who currently own and use a Mac, at least 50 who currently own and use an iPod or iPhone. How many people do you know that currently use an Amiga?
Media interest, market share, available hardware, available software, retail space (even *outside* of Apple's own stores), their own stores... In which of these categories is Amiga even *remotely* similar to Apple?
Hell, how many people do you think would even recognize the word Amiga as applies to computers? How many do you think don't know about Apple as applies to computers?
go to an Apple versus Windows debate, note that every pro-Mac argument is simply an argument against Windows
I use Macs because of their usability, the quality of the hardware, the overall feel and polish of the apps (both from Apple and third party software), and things tend to "just work". Any "Apple versus Windows debate" will have pro-Mac arguments just like mine. You clearly haven't thought this through.
[pro-Mac arguments are just anti-Windows] and therefore note they can be applied here in favour of the Amiga too
Not really, *because the Amiga isn't a modern platform*. An argument against GM in defense of Toyota is not also an argument in favor of a Model T or a Gremlin.
See? I used to have trouble arguing for the Amiga in the late 90s, but now supporting a non-Windows platform here on Slashdot is easy:) A shame the anti-Amiga trolls are still around though - why not moan about the platforms we hear more often about?
If you think simply being "not Windows" is sufficient to garner support on Slashdot, you are woefully clueless. There will always be supporters of pretty much *any* platform here, but the hive-mind here doesn't just go, "not Windows, then it's good!". In fact, there are a *lot* of Windows supporters here.
Doesn't having your "this is a bad experience" receptors activated count as a bad experience?
Possibly, but this sounds more like the following:
You pet a kitten, then the mother cat runs out and attacks you. Your petting of the kitten wasn't traumatic. In fact, you rather enjoyed it. But the mother cat attack added the "this is dangerous" flag to your memory of petting the kitten. Later, when you see another kitten, you will be cautious about petting it, even if you think you'd enjoy it.
With the flies, they did not experience the event as having disliked the smell at the time, but when they recall the smell later, their brain says, "I have a bad feeling about this," even though there was no actual experience that should make them feel that way.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't HAVE a girlfriend...
Yes I do, and she runs Linux as well!
Surely you mean she uses Linux, right?
Almost all the netbook offerings are going the XP/W7 route.
Really? Have you checked the online stores of the manufacturers? Although I've not done any sort of extensive research, both Dell and HP offer Ubuntu as an option for their netbooks.
So pay the tax then file for a refund. There's a bajillion articles on the entartubes that describe the process of getting a refund for the bundled 'doze license. (No, I'm not going to search for you.)
Good thing you're not going to search for them, because if you did you might learn that you almost certainly *won't* get a refund, even after having spent inordinate amount of time and effort trying.
I would imagine lots of folks with jobs do. I get it, Centos is not big with the unemployed living in Mom's basement demographic, but trust me outside that locked door there is a whole world with many people that do care about it.
Still, I'll bet it's *far* fewer than care about a new Ubuntu release, even if you limit Ubuntu to just the "unemployed living in Mom's basement demographic".
Also, I wouldn't be so quick to play the "in the real world, people with jobs..." card, because in the corporate world, IE6 still dominates.
Anything will prove "The tragedy of the commons" as it doesn't really need proof at this point. However, expanding the commons is like that. The alternative is a shrinking commons, or actually having enough accountability and imputability that it's not really "the commons" anymore, but some form of public property under private ownership or management. I for one welcome expanding commons.
Or, the commons can be managed, as commons are all over the world, and all throughout the US, even though it seems it's the Americans who seem all too quick to forget this fact when the topic of the "tragedy of the commons" arises.
They can be managed by the government. It works with parks, and beaches, and waterways, skies, roads...
So, with this spectrum, just have the government provide a set of rules that favors wide adoption of individual citizens, while keeping a few people from ruining it for everyone else. This happens with WiFi by limiting the broadcast strength. With the White-Space spectrum, different rules will make sense, as it naturally affects a wider area.
This seems so fundamental, I can't fathom how people always seem to miss this.
Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.
Christ, man. I don't know if I can explain this to you more clearly. If you've got all day, then I guess you should just read my original post over and over again until you understand the difference between what I said and the strawman you erected in order to try to attack my assertion. It was a single fucking sentence.
The way you worded it, it sounds like an attack on cloud computing.
If all you meant was that using higher processor utilization is *not* an economic benefit in cloud computing, it's sort of an "out of nowhere" statement, whereas bitching about cloud computing in general would have been in context.
That's why I wrote what I did, and why the mod point was spent like it was. Throwing a whiney fit over it isn't a terribly good replacement for providing proper context in the first place.
However, let's ignore all that for the moment and take your statement at face value. Just because google is not using all of their CPU resources at any given time *does not* demonstrate that there is no economic benefit in high CPU utilization in a cloud. Google's cloud is highly dependent on bandwidth, throughput, and power. An entirely different cloud that is, instead, meant to offload CPU usage would have different economic dynamics.
Apparently neither you nor the mods can read. Try again.
And apparently neither can you:
This scheme will likely end up with *lower* processor utilization than they have currently. Processors are cheap. That's the reason Google has hundreds of thousands of them already.
Do quote where I said anything to the contrary. Please, take your time, I've got all day...
If what's best for themselves is quitting a job so that they don't have to take obvious precautions to avoid becoming a vector between the many infected and many susceptible people that they come in contact with, that's fine. But you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
This isn't a "cake and eat it too" scenario. Cake and eat it too would be if the doctors forced everyone *else* to take the vaccine.
But, tell me how your justification is any different from other non-medical people who might come in contact with dozens or even hundreds of children, sick and the elderly? Should *you* be forcefully vaccinated if you wish to go to a shopping mall this holiday season?
What the fuck is wrong with us when so many of us seem all to eager trade in our personal liberty (or, I suppose, infringe upon the personal liberty of others) over the damned flu.
I can't force you to get the shot, correct. When your choices are a danger to the public (or, in this specific case, hospital patients), then your rights end once again. You don't have to get immunized, but you also don't have to work in the health care field.
We don't require doctors and nurses to get the flu shot for normal flus, why now? The swine flu is more hype than substance. The media loves a good scare story, and the health organizations want to rise the plate, and the pharmaceutical companies don't mind filling an order for hundreds of millions of doses.
But aside from understandable overreactions, I see no reason to fear the swine flu aside from the desire (as with any flu) of not wanting to be put out of commission for a few days.
The fact that people feel they have the right to force doctors and nurses to inject foreign biological matter directly into their bloodstreams for such a small risk is appalling.
But let's take it further. Do you think all patients and visitors to a hospital should be forcefully vaccinated (or denied entry)? How about people going to schools, or shopping malls?
Make no mistake here, I'm not against vaccines. But I *am* against exerting force over another person's body, and *am* against what appears to be overblown hysteria.
Rubbish. Society has a significant interest in what you do with your body, because the results of that action may cause harm to others. If, for example, you have extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis, you can expect public health authorities to hold you in isolation, and if necessary, force treatment upon you
Only in emergency cases, like with TB.
But the flu is not an emergency case.
An individual's ignorance should not be to society's detriment. If their ignorance or lack of compliance will cause harm to others, they may be forced to comply with procedures, even when those procedures cause them discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm.
People like you disgust me to no end. *IT'S MY BODY, NOT YOURS*. It's *my* choice what *I* do with it. We're talking about THE FLU here.
More particularly, you state: "If their ignorance or lack of compliance will cause harm to others"
Two issues with that. First, "harm" is vague. Some people consider insults harmful.
Second, and more specifically, you state "will cause harm". Not getting vaccinated in *no way* is equivalent to "will cause harm".
Next: "they may be forced to comply with procedures, even when those procedures cause them discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm"
Yes, if someone is going to harm someone else, a little discomfort, inconvenience, or possible harm may be justified, but all we're doing here is trading possible harms.
Can you drag up evidence that a severe reaction to a flu vaccine is more likely than an equally severe reaction from not being immunized and contracting the flu?
No, but your request indicates an incomplete assessment of the situation. The *real* question is whether any particular individual would rather take the risks involved with the vaccine, or the risks involved with the flu.
First, the risk of death, I *assume* that the vaccine is safer in that regard than the flu. There's too much fear mongering from *both* sides for me to really know either way, so I'll err on the side of medical science here.
Second, are non-death concerns. I'm sure there are things that can happen with the flu, but it seems to me that you're more likely to have some non-lethal issue from the vaccine than you are with the flu.
For those that are particularly vulnerable to complications that the swine flu would cause, the vaccine may be the rational choice. For myself, however, I'm fine with taking my chances.
But one additional thing to consider. From a fatality standpoint, both the flu and the vaccine pose minimal risk. A risk so small that it's irrational to worry about either too much. It's like trading a 0.0001% risk with a 0.00015% risk. From a risk assessment point of view, you can increase your odds by not driving to the hospital to get the shot in the first place. But more pragmatically, it just doesn't reach the threshold of making a difference to me.
As for flu not being 'severe' enough, there are about 36,000 deaths from the flu yearly in the US alone. Most of these deaths could be prevented by immunization, which is much safer.
36,000 out of 330,000,000. There are more traffic deaths per year, and *significantly* more traffic injuries per year, but you don't hear people saying not to drive. Additionally, those 36k deaths aren't evenly distributed among the population. There are risk factors which elevate one's chances significantly. I'm not in any of those risk categories.
Additionally, there's doubt that *flu* vaccines are all that effective (i.e., when there are shortages of the vaccine, flu fatality rates *do not rise*). My turn to ask you a question: can you prove that every single person who died of the flu did *not* receive the vaccine?
And lastly, total vaccine deaths does not have to equal total flu deaths, even if the vaccine is 100% effective, because more people *don't* get vaccinated than do. What's more useful is deaths *per capita* of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated.
the vaccine is still safer than not being vaccinated, and therefor any risk can not be used as an excuse not to get immunized
*Excuse*? Surely you mean *reason*. There's a significant difference here. To imply that I need an *excuse* to not get the flu shot is arrogant at best.
We require doctors to both wash their hands and use sterile gloves when there is a risk of infection. If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing sterile gloves, perhaps they should not enter the primary care field where these gloves are an important (if not vital) safety measure.
This is an absurd comparison. *Gloves* aren't a medical procedure. *Gloves* don't inject foreign organic material *directly into your bloodstream*. *Gloves* aren't particularly dangerous, even in the 1-in-10,000 sense that the flu is. And *gloves* are highly effective at preventing disease transmission, whereas the flu shot *might* prevent transmission of *one* particular disease. The two aren't comparable *at all* except tangentially.
Let's face it: health care providers neglecting to protect themselves with a safe vaccine for a preventable disease are being reckless with their patient's health. Others who go unvaccinated also put others at risk, but in a much more limited sense.
At risk of *THE FLU*. We're not talking AIDs or polio or even the chicken pox, but *THE FLU*.
There's nothing to fix here, it simply doesn't work the way you think it should.
Alt-F4 is Close Window/Program, *not* Shutdown Computer. If the desktop has the focus, then it should do nothing, as there is no window or program to close.
I realize that, in a sense, the "program" is "Windows" (not really, but metaphorically, it works somewhat), so closing Windows is, essentially, shutdown. The problem here is that an overly literal interpretation of the command is counter-intuitive and inconsistent. This is further compounded by the occurrence of hitting Alt-F4 numerous times to close out a bunch of windows, and part way through, Windows 7 asks if you want to shut down, even when there are other open windows, or you've hit it one too many times.
And to answer the question that started this all, yes, Windows 7 still behaves this way.
Europe always gets hit first in disaster movies. Case in point - Scotland was first to freeze in The Day After Tomorrow. Though I bet a new ice age would be much less destructive that this...
Whereas in actuality, the day after tomorrow is when rest of the planet gets hit with Windows 7...
Given that we're talking about the UK getting it early, I don't think "bugger" is the best term to use for a Windows launch... Actually, come to think of it, I take that back.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but some of us use Windows because we like it
I know a *lot* of people who prefer to run Windows over Linux or a Mac, but only a very small percentage do so because they actually *like* Windows itself.
The preference is usually more about hardware, price, games, software, familiarity, than it is about actually liking the Windows OS.
A nurse (or anyone else working in a health care institution) needs to be immunized, because they have constant contact with the segment of the population who is most at risk from the flu.
No, they *don't*. They "need" to do what they think is best for themselves, and if that's *not* getting vaccinated (which is *not* a harmless procedure), then that's up to *them*.
The risks of complications from a vaccine are generally small, but non-zero.
If a nurse gives your newborn the flu because she didn't get the vaccine and your child dies, there would be hell to pay.
Scare mongering nonsense. Life's full of risks. That doesn't give you the right to demand others undertake a medical procedure.
Seems like a legitimate issue to me, if not for the nurse/doctor's health but for the health of those they care for.
This I agree with. It *is* a legitimate issue. But your right to make demands ends absolutely when it comes to what another person does within their own body.
Sure, the flu isn't highly fatal, but it's not something to ignore. People do die, sometimes unexpectedly, even though it is uncommon. If she doesn't want to take steps to protect other people's health, why the fuck is she a nurse?
The flu shot (any vaccine, really) isn't exactly safe either. I'm not talking about the mercury, or Jenny McCarthy autism nonsense, I'm talking about people reacting badly and severely to a vaccine.
For something like polio, this makes sense, where a large percentage of the population would die or be crippled by it. But for the flu? I don't begrudge anyone getting the shot, but I also don't begrudge them *not* getting the shot. It's *their* life and *their* body. Becoming a nurse or a doctor doesn't alter that fact.
H1N1 never really "went away" over the summer
Well, it migrated south, waaaay south, for the summer...
Let's not go throwing a strawman situation around.
We're talking about a strain of influenza.
No, I was talking about an ill-thought-out blanket statement.
No, you were *making* an ill-thought-out blanket statement.
The context is the flu. No one said they'd avoid all vaccines (at least, not in this particular thread, I'm sure there are some people for whom your response would make sense, just not here).
The problem with mexican flu (that's the name btw.)
Um, no.
H1N1 are the proteins found on the mantle of the virus. The problem is that no human can develop an immune response to either H1 or N1 (as that would be deadly).
Two questions:
1. How can you fight off an infection if you can't develop an immune response?
2. How can a vaccine work against an infection for which you cannot develop an immunity?
Hopefully this puts to rest the delusion that there is some economic benefit of higher processor utilization in cloud computing schemes.
Interesting... Google is setting up a cloud to dynamically address resource utilization in order to (presumably) save money, which naturally demonstrates that the notion that cloud computing offers economic benefit is delusional?
Care to show your work? I don't suppose it's just, "I hate buzzwords like 'cloud computing', therefore I hate the idea of cloud computing, therefore cloud computing doesn't work, Q.E.D.", is it?
I've noticed almost all of your posts in defense of the Amiga end up slamming Macs. This signifies a lack of confidence in your position. If you want to promote the Amiga, try promoting the Amiga.
The problem, of course, is that that's a fundamentally difficult proposition these days. The Amiga was an *amazing* system back in the day. But today? Not so much.
But hey, bash the Mac, and Mac users, and *somehow* that will make the Amiga a modern system. Or, at the very least, it will give you a target for your impotent anger over the current irrelevancy of such a once great platform.
If you want some sort of similarity to Apple, Newton users are your best bet.
Oh, I can't explain it - you just have to use it, then you'll see.
It's not about "feature lists" or what it can do "on paper" - it's about the whole experience, man. It's not that it does anything new, it's about how it does it. It integrates it better.
Or that's how an Apple fan would argue it, anyway...
Except none of those things are applicable to the Amiga *today*. They're actually fairly useful to comparing the Amiga to the PCs and Macs of the era when Amigas were knew.
However, both modern Mac users and olden days Amiga users can be much more eloquent than your affected mischaracterization.
"I know I'll be flamed, but in all honesty, is the Mac platform even relevant any more? The hardware and OS were revolutionary in 1989, but 20 years later, is it really something all that different?"
See, if I posted that to every Mac story, I'd get modded down in an instant.
Rightfully so, because it's an extremely idiotic thing to say.
Why must every Amiga story (it's not like we get them often, unlike the three Apple stories a day) be bogged down with these flames?
Because Amiga *isn't* relevant today. Since you have such a hard on for Apple, you probably know of at least 10 people who currently own and use a Mac, at least 50 who currently own and use an iPod or iPhone. How many people do you know that currently use an Amiga?
Media interest, market share, available hardware, available software, retail space (even *outside* of Apple's own stores), their own stores... In which of these categories is Amiga even *remotely* similar to Apple?
Hell, how many people do you think would even recognize the word Amiga as applies to computers? How many do you think don't know about Apple as applies to computers?
go to an Apple versus Windows debate, note that every pro-Mac argument is simply an argument against Windows
I use Macs because of their usability, the quality of the hardware, the overall feel and polish of the apps (both from Apple and third party software), and things tend to "just work". Any "Apple versus Windows debate" will have pro-Mac arguments just like mine. You clearly haven't thought this through.
[pro-Mac arguments are just anti-Windows] and therefore note they can be applied here in favour of the Amiga too
Not really, *because the Amiga isn't a modern platform*. An argument against GM in defense of Toyota is not also an argument in favor of a Model T or a Gremlin.
See? I used to have trouble arguing for the Amiga in the late 90s, but now supporting a non-Windows platform here on Slashdot is easy :) A shame the anti-Amiga trolls are still around though - why not moan about the platforms we hear more often about?
If you think simply being "not Windows" is sufficient to garner support on Slashdot, you are woefully clueless. There will always be supporters of pretty much *any* platform here, but the hive-mind here doesn't just go, "not Windows, then it's good!". In fact, there are a *lot* of Windows supporters here.
Your powers of observation are severely lacking.
Doesn't having your "this is a bad experience" receptors activated count as a bad experience?
Possibly, but this sounds more like the following:
You pet a kitten, then the mother cat runs out and attacks you. Your petting of the kitten wasn't traumatic. In fact, you rather enjoyed it. But the mother cat attack added the "this is dangerous" flag to your memory of petting the kitten. Later, when you see another kitten, you will be cautious about petting it, even if you think you'd enjoy it.
With the flies, they did not experience the event as having disliked the smell at the time, but when they recall the smell later, their brain says, "I have a bad feeling about this," even though there was no actual experience that should make them feel that way.