I was of the same onion as you, and I installed Linux Mint MATE on an old laptop my mother in law had. She wanted to take it with her on a trip overseas. I figured linux would give it some extra kick and be extra stable for her. Initially she was happy and browsing around in it. Soon after she left on her trip, SOMETHING must have changed in the OS because the touchpad stopped responding as soon as she logged in and her desktop came up. Fortunately I had left the old windows partition and showed her how to dual boot, but it was a lesson that Linux is still only for people who know what they are doing.
The solution for the failing mousepad? I had to manually install the gnome settings editor with apt-get, navigate to a setting that caused the desktop to interact with the mouse location and set it off. Then everything worked fine. IMHO, total bullshit issue.
My wife who is about as computer literate as a mouse, maintains her own Linux Mint touch screen computer. This was after she refused to use it any more on Windows 8.
I've probably done 30 laptops and 15 desktops, with Linux distros, including a Chromebook, and it's been at least 5 years since I had any issues with drivers - more the opposite, I've done dual boot systems where teh Windows side didn't support a device, like when I had a USB to serial converter setup on the Linux side, and it worked well, then when I went to set it up on the Windows side, it wouldn't recognize it. Going to the website for the device, I found that the converter was for an old Palm Pilot, and that it wasn't supported at all any more. Planned obsolescence, no doubt, since on Linux the old not supported in Windows adapter worked just as well as the New adapter I had to buy. That's just one example.
What I've found over time is that the biggest reason for Linux not working is when people try to enforce Windows on it. The same thing happens with OS X. And since OSX and Linux are blood brothers, maybe people familiar with Unix OSX can make the transition more easily.
Should I have gone with another distro? Perhaps something else would have been more stable, but a lot of them now are crap without 3d acceleration and I wanted something that was windows-like. MATE is based on gnome 2 so I thought it would be stable and no-nonsense.
Ive found that Linux Mint Cinnamon tends to keep people who have used Windows a lot happier.
Now you bring up the one thing about Linux that is both good and very bad. So many distros! While a geek such as myself can spend hours going through this site, http://distrowatch.com/ It can get confusing to people, It's like going to a grocery store with 273 brands of peanut butter.
For most users, Linux Mint - and I especially like Cinnamon for them. For a slower computer, like a netbook, I like Lubuntu.
Now watch this. I'm going to be descended upon like crocodiles on a wildebeest, but for most people, I discourage FreeBSD. Let the feeding frenzy begin! I hope I don't have to go into the witness protection program. Again.
Just remember that the tradeoff in Linux is constant breakage and the need to fix glitches manually. Think twice if you want to waste your life in that. Is the Windows 10 datamining that bad after all?
The fact is that Linux works nicely on servers and phones, but the PC desktop is a smoking mess with quality assurance outsourced to users.
WAT? Seriously, I have no idea where you got the idea that Windows was somehow stable compared to Linux. I've been dealing with update issues for people ever since about forever, and now that Windows ten does BOHICA updates, its been a nightmare for a lot of people Windows 10 especially sound cards.
I spend more time fixing Windows 10 computer problems for people than I do any other support issues. Linux on the other hand, has been almost painless.
Not supporting new features is fine. Actually refusing to boot is not fine. I have an OS/2 computer here, it'll boot on the newest processors with a bit of work in the BIOS including turning on the BIOS emulation. Some features don't work, need to turn of hyper-threading and it won't throttle down as much as it could but it'll boot and run fast making use of all the real cores, video in VESA mode, HDs are limited to 2TB and need an old fashioned MBR and such but it boots and runs.
Yer makin' all the wimminfolk excited with all that fancy talk, city slicker!
Supporting old versions of Windows cost money and doesn't gather money anymore.
From an accountant's viewpoint. But there is a reason that modern Nikon cameras will accept Nikon lenses from 1959. Because people buy them specifically because they do. Otherwise I might have bought something else.
Because we are not in the age when a computer is obsolete in a year any more. Because it's very counterproductive to have to change for the sake of change. Because we're no longer in a world of Microsoft BOHICA any more. And if I have to buy into a one OS only CPU - Well no thanks.
side note: yes, the old lenses do have a cheap little modification needed. But worth it to use an f3.5 55 mm Micro Nikkor on my DSLR Nikon.
I can understand why your coworker didn't want to report it to HR. But seriously, that guy was in the wrong. Your coworker managed to deal with the situation (by calling in another guy to help), but she shouldn't have had to deal with it at all. Don't you agree?
Of course she didn't deserve any of that treatment. No one should be doing that sort of crap, and I am quite sensitive to men taking liberties in the workplace, I just note that we have to be careful what we do, because we might not like what we get.
There are many voices out there. We can choose who we listen to Seldom are the extreme voices appropriate.
i wasnt talking about witnesses,wasnt talking about proving a case. when a person that you make any kinda advance too no matter where you are tells you no thanks,please stop,stop.no and you continue that,s Harassment plain and simple. I wasn't talking about what it wold take to prove the case in a court of law im talking morals.
Define Morals.
What I'm saying is we are now entering a different age, where the act of asking once is what constitutes harassment. And witnesses aren't necessarily need for a civil court case. They might be handy in responding to HR if someone decides that you asking her out once constitutes harassment. And yes, there are those out there who believe just that.
Which is my point. We are entering an age where your definition is irrelevant.
Which is why, unless cooler heads prevail, third wave sex negative feminists might find themselves an unexpected ally in fundamentalist islam. where women are separated from men, because anything related to sex, or anything determined to be related to sex becomes something so damaging to the offended party that there is no recourse but separation from men.
Have you ever been given unwanted romantic / sexual attention? Or seen it happening? Isn't it uncomfortable? And shouldn't people be able to work without it?
So now it isn't just a matter of sex, its a concept that being made uncomfortable at work consists of harassment? And why would someone asking you out make you uncomfortable anyhow? What is the metric that makes a person uncomfortable when they might otherwise be flattered?
What if just being around men made you uncomfortable? I suppose the best option would be to take up a career in Veternary medicine or as a schoolteacher, where the workplace is pretty much manless now - which would indicate no sexual harassment or any other sex based problems, eh? We have to at some point, stop being at fault for everything. We have to at some level, stop catering to the lowest level. I keep having little fantasies about a nation trying to eradicate peanuts from the face of the earth because a few people are allergic.
I'm a heterosexual man, and I've got a male coworker who is bisexual, who once when (in a group of coworkers) discussing a particularly smart outfit I was wearing, said "You're making me hot just looking at you." He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but given that we had never had more than a professional relationship, it was inappropriate.
Have you joined a support group yet? That had to be completely devastating. Sorry for the sarcam, but sheesh.
Now he hasn't really made any further comments, so it hasn't been much of an issue (although I am much more circumspect about how I interact with him now).
First thing they do is compliment you, then they rape you, then you're found in a dumpster the next morning. More sarcasm. You ever consider that the guy might be mortified that he made you uncomfortable with his remark? I'd suggest talking with him about it, because your reactio was a little over the top.
But suppose he said something like that once a month. Or that he kept asking me over to his place or to go see movies 1-1. That would make me pretty uncomfortable -- and I shouldn't have to put up with that at work.
And that isn't even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that a fair number of women think that asking them out exactly 1 time is harassment, with a caveat of whether they liked the guy or not.
This ain't rocket surgery. That gay guy figured out you were uncomfortable with his compliment, so he stopped. It still appears that you are sensitive enough that you haven't recovered from it yet.
You might want to look into why you are overly sensitive to what was supposed to be a compliment. (my opinion) Perhaps you're just not used to openly gay people?
You should always be reasonably sure that the question itself will not be unwelcome, even in a merely social situation;
Here's the problem. Define "reasonably" for me. Let's take an example. A female coworker of mine, and a friend by the way, when I asked her what she thought sexual harassment was, replied, "It really depends on the mood I'm in."
When I asked how the hell a person would know, she said "Don't worry, you're safe."
This from a person who found it cute to goose me when I was working with my hands stuck in a glove box. Whatever, we were friends, and I didn't find it as hilarious as she did, but still funny.
Was being goosed - her sexually harassing me?
Another example, same person, was there was a fellow who brought work in some times, and managed to "accidentally" touch her butt a number of times. and it was definitely unwanted attention. He always said "Ohh, I'm sorry". So she said something to me, and asked me to check in discretely when he came in next. Sure enough, there was the unwanted attention. When I asked her if she wanted to complain to HR, she said if I could just show up when he came in. So I did, and planted myself between the two whenever he was there. He
You are way off base,and didn't answer my question. Again You were told no,stop. You continue, you are harassing the person. Period end of story. If you don't like that truth too bad really, tell it to the judge and jury. or maybe you need to read just what i was replying to in the manner i did to a statement someone else made..either way, your wrong.
That's why you always have a witness in the room with you. A work or school based one on one meeting with a person of the opposite gender always needs a witness. Then it isn't one on one any more of course.
Perhaps you are not clear about what harassment is?
If you take a little bit of Google for a moment, you learn that harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation".
Your definition is too broad.
In a world where many young women believe if a man asks you out and you don't like him, it is sexual harassment, it gets a little hazy as to what sexual harassment is. Sometimes trying to pick up a simple friendship might be harassment. http://www.avvo.com/legal-answ...
My favorite answer to the question is the attorney who answered the question starting with "There should not normally be a problem" Oy. Certainly John Edwards' former blogmaster Amanda Marcotte believes that it is http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...
As she wrote on Gawker after the High School boy asked out "Miss America", which was just a silly trend for a few years of your people asking celebrities to proms: "I really wish people would stop acting like it’s cute when teenage boys sexually harass older women. "http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...
And here is the problem. As most of us know - once accused, always guilty in many people's minds. So we can have all of the googling of law we can handle, yet there will always be people with an axe to grind, so why get caught up in that.
Any male that is remotely prudent and is career minded would be insane to get within ten feet of a woman he did not know well. He's playing roulette with his life and career. I wouldn't be too surprised if there were some women who simply don't want to be talked to by a man at all. So a prudent guy simply leaves well alone.
We were advanced enough to be island hopping 200k years ago? That fact was not mentioned in school ever.
It's hard enough to get some states to accept anything other than a 6000 year old universe. Why would you be expected to be taught about something that existed before the universe was created? That's just crazy talk!
Like this urge I have to sometime shout "Theater" in a crowded fire? I'm not likely to get the opportunity, and really don't want it, but if I'm ever in one....
Like I was at a big fight, and a Hockey game broke out.
You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians
You might try getting your science information from Science, not "consensus". Science doesn't require consensus. Yet that is the ONLY argument AGW people can actually use.
Bullshit. If you actually believe in science you are lying on purpose.
Here we go you are challenged - Let's work through this.
TEll me do you deny the accepted fact (confidence to the exclusion of any other explanation) that the constituent gases of an atmosphere have an effect upon the energy retention of that atmosphere?
If yes continue No? Explain the easily reprovable experiments that indicate that this is the case, and why those experiments show incorrect results.
If yes, continue - if No explain the consistent repeatability of experiments that show this to be the case, and why everyone apparently gets the exact incorrect results. You can even do these experiments yourself.
Okay, here we have a very reproducible, no consensus needed very basic physics result, proven by science, and thousands of elementary school science fairs over and over again. This is the bedrock of the Greenhouse effect, without which there would be either no life on earth, or certainly not us, because the greenhouse effect allows our world ot have much more consistent weather.
So now we move on to matters that aren't grade school level matters.
There are, in addition to the earthly examples, Venus and Mars, both in the so called Cinderella zone for life, yet one exceptionally hot, the much colder than expected, and largely based on greenhouse warming.
There is also many issues related to weather, such as volcanic activity. El Niño and La Niña which have effects upon the weather. And of course the longer term effects which are long enough to have effects of long enough scale to actually be called climate changes.
So here we are at the next stage.
What happens to the greenhouse effct that makes it disappear at global scales?
Give a good explanation of why the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars is not real (hint - on Venus it isn't all CO2)
Show why, if you claim that the greenhouse effect fails on global scales, how Earth is warm enough to sustain life.
Either the effect exists, or it does not. Give the proof. Proof, BTW, does not consist of cherry picked anomalies. For just like in the creationists denying evolution, all that does is sic the scientists on finding the answer to that question. It's not an either or issue.
"We believe global warming, because 85% of scientists believe it"
Please remember, Piltdown Man was consensus "science";)
Ah yes, Piltdown Man. From the outset, the reconstruction was challenged as unrealistic. Sir Arthur Keith noted that the molars on the reconstruction would not be useable because the canine teeth made side to side chewing impossible. Th/at's pretty damning evidence against it.
G.S. Miller, had also touched upon the reconstructed skull being a hoax in 1915. Even before it was exposed, scientists considered it at best as a complete aberration, as it did not fit any of the other evidence for early humans as found in every orher site.
In 1953, using antropologial and zoological evidence, K. P. Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proved by comparative anatomy that Piltdown man was a combination of a Medieval human cranium, a lower jaw of an orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee. A deliberate hoax, very purposely fabricated by one Charles Dawson.
So The hoax was suspected by many from the beginning, and anthropologists had long ignored the Piltdown reconstruction because it made no sense.
Science had found and exposed the fraud. Just like science doing what science does.
But here's the kicker. I believe that your accepta
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
They already eat food fertilized with animal waste and keep carnivores as pets. Don't necessarily look for consistency.
Exactly. Consistency is always teh problem of philosophical Vegetarianism, and especially veganism.
The furter one goes into teh world of "If you eat this, you are not a good person, the whackier it gets.
I've said it before, in my estimation, all life is precious, from bacteria to yeast to plants and animals. Not a one of us has managed to survive without killing something. Plants are living organisms, and vegetarians and vegans kill them without a second thought.
Even the ne plus ultra of the "I am better than you because I don't eat ( fill in the blank)" the breatharians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , in addition to soon dying after truly engaging in their superiority over others and not party tricks, their immune systems have merrily been killing other life forms until they shift this mortal coil
Perhaps some day we will become chemoautotrophs, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've given thought to this, and since it is a fact of life that none of us live, I sort of follow the American Indian example of mentally thanking the being or thing that gave it's life so that I could continue mine.
So you will see a lot of backlash in their comments, NOT just to be contrary though, but to show just how out of touch the SJW/Regressive faction of the left is to the mainstream, its pretty fascinating from a cultural point of view.
You are proving my point. You are seeing and replying to stuff that pisses you off, and using that as a universal attribute.
People who might have a liberal bent will probably go to conservative looking articles to troll, and those with a conservative or Neocon bent will probably go likewise to any story that sounds liberal and troll there.
I mostly go to the sports section, particularly NHL Ice Hockey. As A Pittsburgh Penguins fan, the comments after every story are largely fans of other teams whining about Sid Crosby, the team Captain, or as they call him, "Cindi Crysby". If you take the comments at face value, the most popular players are the least popular.
Even with a pop culture perspective, Lets take for example, Kim Kardashian. If you read the comments on every story, they are almost all people begging for less stories about her. I even added a few of those until I figured out that Yahoo was trolling everyone.
Until at this time, I find Yahoo comments are almost a 180 out of reality.
You know why we have E-coli outbreaks? Because animal waste and other garbage contaminates food.
No shit? That's a joke son. One thing is pretty simple. Clean the food. Cook the food.
Here's a story that will make you cringe. My Grandmother raised 8 healthy strapping children during the great depression. Shae was an incredible gardener. Her secret? manure tea.
She kept chickens as well. Scooped up the manure and put it in a barrel that colleccted rainwater off one of the sheds. Every so often, she'd dip an old saucepan in the water and give the plants a little drink of chickenshit tea. Not a lot you see, chicken manure is a very powerful fertilizer and too much can kill the plant. The tea helped dilute it, but you still had to be careful.
I ate a lot of her veggies when I was little. They were completely clean, well washed, and nicely cooked. 100 percent organic.
That's another weird thing. My family was organic foodies long before it was popular.
You know why we have things like "mad cow disease"? Because some idiot decided grinding up sheep to feed to cows made sense -- despite that cows are herbivores and not evolved to ingest sheep.
On that, I agree. Corporate husbandry has done even worse stuff than that. Newspapers and shit as a food source with massive doese of antibiotics. Fucking sickening.
My father made his own garden compost for a lot of years, and quite frankly meat caused more problems than it contributed... because the meat rotted and got nasty and didn't break down into nice clean compost.
It pretty much needs a different process. I compost mostly with old leaves - mulch 'em up and let them sit for a few years or so. If there is a heaven, it smells like my leaf compost.
Look around at your average person you see in Wal Mart. Overweight, loaded up with sodium and other nasty chemicals, fat, grease, oil, medicines -- prepared food and other garbage.
Geeze man, take a deep breath or two.
If our waterways are full of hormones and antibiotics because we put it into our bodies and excrete it out, you can't claim that a human is fit for eating.
But we have used what we used, and our bodies have excreted the rest. Most of what you cite is a problem and one I agree with. I just want to fix the problem, and excreted meds are a problem as more and more people go on maintenance drugs. Its not an intractable problem.
You can go ahead and eat whatever you want. I don't give a shit.
Thank you!
But you'll notice nobody is looking to use dog crap as manure, or eating wolves
Side note: apparently while edible, never eat the liver of a frank or almost exclusively carnivore. Their livers have an intense concentration of vitamin A, which can lead to problems.
I sure as fuck wouldn't eat something which I knew had humans as compost, and if I had my option, I wouldn't want something which had ground up cows or cats or monkeys as compost either. Precisely because I know damned well there are diseases which can spread from this.
At what level of separation do you hold previously deteriorated meat acceptable? After a turkey vulture eats an animal and shits it out? There is a cycle of composition/decomposition going on, and it has been for a long time. There might be some molecules of Alexander the Great's piss, or even Jeffrey Dahmer's for that matter, in the Evian you drank this morning.
It isn't something we can get away from.
Because the idea of someone tending and revering the rotting meat sack like it's a sacred artifact is kinds of creepy.
Hard to imagine that you'd intentionally rot something is treating it as a sacred artifact. The crap in that article about teh loving family wrapping the sorpse in linen is just some goofy crap about people that might find it off-putting.
There isn't anything at all unnatural about the decomposition process.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
I sure would (OK, I'm a vegetarian), for the same reason
So how do you keep animal corpse byproducts out of the food you eat? Or do you just eat hydroponically grown veggies?
I don't agree with using human waste as compost...
That's good, because it isn't compost. You might use it as a fertilizer for it. But compost is broken down organic products, not manure. Manure might be added to compost.
humans are dirty, carry plenty of disease, and a modern human is mostly processed crap.
No more so than any other flesh based component of compost. By the time it has been broken down it isn't a human, or any other animal.
Which means I assume there's a lot of pathogens and other things which would come into play which we haven't yet established as safe... Hep C and decades of pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, McDonald's, KFC, Viagra, and whatever other crap we dump into our bodies come to mind.
Have you ever tried Breatharianism? Migh tjust be about pure enough.
I seriously doubt humans are fit for consumption by anything, let alone humans.
Hell, the animals we grow for the purpose of eating aren't fit to eat in my opinion; the nasty disgusting carcass of a modern human? The mind reels at just how nasty that must be.
Really, would you eat medical waste? Because that's what you're talking about.
Okay, I thought I had a rather cynical view of humanity, but your hatred of the species is nothing I could ever aspire to. Gopod luck with that.
From the article - “The impact wounds on the bones with embedded stone fragments is conclusive evidence that people slayed this mammoth.”
They can often determine cause of death from skeletons long after any flesh has rotted or been removed. Impact strikes or piercing weapons leave imprints on the skeleton that are different to those of removing meat from a carcass. They can even tell which side a woman tended to carry her handbag from the dints left in her skeleton.
Note - the following is not a diss against n0creativity - he asked an intelligent question and was wishing to learn - so good on you n0creativity.
This is one of those things that some folks will never get. Because they cannot comprehend that some folks can know more than they do. It's why we have TV shows like "Ancient Aliens" where anything that humans have accoomplished is credited to aliens. Nikola Tesla? He got his ideas from Aliens, So did Einstein, Space flight, Pyramids, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power generation. None of it by us stoopid hoomins. I listened to a guy this past week who denied the existence of dinosaurs. His proof? "That's just crazy", interspersed with "how did they know how old thes things were", "How did they know how to put the bones back together?" "That's just crazy!"
Is it any wonder that many of these same people cannot comprehend basic science? How could scientists know things like this stuff,? Must be fake. Arguments from personal incredulity. Which guarantees that the dumbest person in the room wins.
Yes, and AGW people say today is hotter than it was back then, when clearly this indicates otherwise!
Citations? Everyone I know seems to think that there were times when the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, an interesting tidbit since the sun was dimmer. Like the Paleozoic period, when there were no continual glaciers at all.
You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians.
And mix the ashes with a tad of soil and use that to plant a tree in a vase, when the tree grows a little, transplant it to ground.
But DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES compost me!
PS: In reality, my ashes will be thrown at sea. BUT DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES compost me!
Cannot imagine whay that would bother you. Composting will certainly give back to the earth and to future generations.
I have to note that I wanted cremated and flushed down the toilet at either a stripper bar or McDonald's.
But this could be interesting. I'm envisioning my corpse being fed to one of those instant grinders like they use for rooster chicks (since only the hens lay eggs, and it's about a 50:50 mix at birth, so you do the math - then turning me into a nice compost for flowers or veggies.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
because, you know, typical humans are intellectual powerhouses.
Yup - which is why I often suggest to some of our dumber users to go to Yahoo and comment there.
The whole issue with website commentary is that most postings are based on disagreeing with whatever was being commented on. In Yahoo's case, someone gets shot and killed, probably 90 percent of the comments are about anti-Gun control. A very small number is about any sympathy for the dead person's family.
A negative story about Donald Trump is immediately responded to by supporters who believe that our constitutional rights can be preserved by suspending our constitutionalrights.
You would get the impression that loud wins. That stupid is tne new smart.
We even have a bit of that in here, although the level of smarts is a lot higher.
but you know what? The vast majority of Norwegians pay by card anyhow
You know what? The vast majority of Norwegians can be tracked in real time by their card purchases.
What an efficient cage.
Ermagherd! Or if you use a cell phone, or a regular phone, or go onto the suface of the planet. for that matter.
Ohhhh, them guvmints a gonna getchya, better hide, they're reading your thoughts with a satellite owned by Major league baseball, and the've planted radio transmitters in your bellybutton that recharge every time you take a bath or shower.
Some people yearn for the dark ages for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
I was of the same onion as you, and I installed Linux Mint MATE on an old laptop my mother in law had. She wanted to take it with her on a trip overseas. I figured linux would give it some extra kick and be extra stable for her. Initially she was happy and browsing around in it. Soon after she left on her trip, SOMETHING must have changed in the OS because the touchpad stopped responding as soon as she logged in and her desktop came up. Fortunately I had left the old windows partition and showed her how to dual boot, but it was a lesson that Linux is still only for people who know what they are doing. The solution for the failing mousepad? I had to manually install the gnome settings editor with apt-get, navigate to a setting that caused the desktop to interact with the mouse location and set it off. Then everything worked fine. IMHO, total bullshit issue.
My wife who is about as computer literate as a mouse, maintains her own Linux Mint touch screen computer. This was after she refused to use it any more on Windows 8.
I've probably done 30 laptops and 15 desktops, with Linux distros, including a Chromebook, and it's been at least 5 years since I had any issues with drivers - more the opposite, I've done dual boot systems where teh Windows side didn't support a device, like when I had a USB to serial converter setup on the Linux side, and it worked well, then when I went to set it up on the Windows side, it wouldn't recognize it. Going to the website for the device, I found that the converter was for an old Palm Pilot, and that it wasn't supported at all any more. Planned obsolescence, no doubt, since on Linux the old not supported in Windows adapter worked just as well as the New adapter I had to buy. That's just one example.
What I've found over time is that the biggest reason for Linux not working is when people try to enforce Windows on it. The same thing happens with OS X. And since OSX and Linux are blood brothers, maybe people familiar with Unix OSX can make the transition more easily.
Should I have gone with another distro? Perhaps something else would have been more stable, but a lot of them now are crap without 3d acceleration and I wanted something that was windows-like. MATE is based on gnome 2 so I thought it would be stable and no-nonsense.
Ive found that Linux Mint Cinnamon tends to keep people who have used Windows a lot happier.
Now you bring up the one thing about Linux that is both good and very bad. So many distros! While a geek such as myself can spend hours going through this site, http://distrowatch.com/ It can get confusing to people, It's like going to a grocery store with 273 brands of peanut butter.
But I see they now have a page with the major distros on it. http://distrowatch.com/dwres.p... That's a big help.
For most users, Linux Mint - and I especially like Cinnamon for them. For a slower computer, like a netbook, I like Lubuntu.
Now watch this. I'm going to be descended upon like crocodiles on a wildebeest, but for most people, I discourage FreeBSD. Let the feeding frenzy begin! I hope I don't have to go into the witness protection program. Again.
Just remember that the tradeoff in Linux is constant breakage and the need to fix glitches manually. Think twice if you want to waste your life in that. Is the Windows 10 datamining that bad after all?
The fact is that Linux works nicely on servers and phones, but the PC desktop is a smoking mess with quality assurance outsourced to users.
WAT? Seriously, I have no idea where you got the idea that Windows was somehow stable compared to Linux. I've been dealing with update issues for people ever since about forever, and now that Windows ten does BOHICA updates, its been a nightmare for a lot of people Windows 10 especially sound cards.
I spend more time fixing Windows 10 computer problems for people than I do any other support issues. Linux on the other hand, has been almost painless.
Not supporting new features is fine. Actually refusing to boot is not fine. I have an OS/2 computer here, it'll boot on the newest processors with a bit of work in the BIOS including turning on the BIOS emulation. Some features don't work, need to turn of hyper-threading and it won't throttle down as much as it could but it'll boot and run fast making use of all the real cores, video in VESA mode, HDs are limited to 2TB and need an old fashioned MBR and such but it boots and runs.
Yer makin' all the wimminfolk excited with all that fancy talk, city slicker!
Dude, I appreciate that you have an opinion. Perhaps you should post about it... where it is relevant.
This thread is about Windows no longer supporting old[er] CPUs after a certain point.
Windows is not Linux.
But the anti-systemd trolls will insert their argument into any thread - and you just encouraged them some more.
Supporting old versions of Windows cost money and doesn't gather money anymore.
From an accountant's viewpoint. But there is a reason that modern Nikon cameras will accept Nikon lenses from 1959. Because people buy them specifically because they do. Otherwise I might have bought something else.
Because we are not in the age when a computer is obsolete in a year any more. Because it's very counterproductive to have to change for the sake of change. Because we're no longer in a world of Microsoft BOHICA any more. And if I have to buy into a one OS only CPU - Well no thanks. side note: yes, the old lenses do have a cheap little modification needed. But worth it to use an f3.5 55 mm Micro Nikkor on my DSLR Nikon.
I can understand why your coworker didn't want to report it to HR. But seriously, that guy was in the wrong. Your coworker managed to deal with the situation (by calling in another guy to help), but she shouldn't have had to deal with it at all. Don't you agree?
Of course she didn't deserve any of that treatment. No one should be doing that sort of crap, and I am quite sensitive to men taking liberties in the workplace, I just note that we have to be careful what we do, because we might not like what we get.
There are many voices out there. We can choose who we listen to Seldom are the extreme voices appropriate.
i wasnt talking about witnesses,wasnt talking about proving a case. when a person that you make any kinda advance too no matter where you are tells you no thanks ,please stop,stop.no and you continue that,s Harassment plain and simple. I wasn't talking about what it wold take to prove the case in a court of law im talking morals.
Define Morals.
What I'm saying is we are now entering a different age, where the act of asking once is what constitutes harassment. And witnesses aren't necessarily need for a civil court case. They might be handy in responding to HR if someone decides that you asking her out once constitutes harassment. And yes, there are those out there who believe just that.
Which is my point. We are entering an age where your definition is irrelevant.
Which is why, unless cooler heads prevail, third wave sex negative feminists might find themselves an unexpected ally in fundamentalist islam. where women are separated from men, because anything related to sex, or anything determined to be related to sex becomes something so damaging to the offended party that there is no recourse but separation from men.
Have you ever been given unwanted romantic / sexual attention? Or seen it happening? Isn't it uncomfortable? And shouldn't people be able to work without it?
So now it isn't just a matter of sex, its a concept that being made uncomfortable at work consists of harassment? And why would someone asking you out make you uncomfortable anyhow? What is the metric that makes a person uncomfortable when they might otherwise be flattered?
What if just being around men made you uncomfortable? I suppose the best option would be to take up a career in Veternary medicine or as a schoolteacher, where the workplace is pretty much manless now - which would indicate no sexual harassment or any other sex based problems, eh? We have to at some point, stop being at fault for everything. We have to at some level, stop catering to the lowest level. I keep having little fantasies about a nation trying to eradicate peanuts from the face of the earth because a few people are allergic.
I'm a heterosexual man, and I've got a male coworker who is bisexual, who once when (in a group of coworkers) discussing a particularly smart outfit I was wearing, said "You're making me hot just looking at you." He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but given that we had never had more than a professional relationship, it was inappropriate.
Have you joined a support group yet? That had to be completely devastating. Sorry for the sarcam, but sheesh.
Now he hasn't really made any further comments, so it hasn't been much of an issue (although I am much more circumspect about how I interact with him now).
First thing they do is compliment you, then they rape you, then you're found in a dumpster the next morning. More sarcasm. You ever consider that the guy might be mortified that he made you uncomfortable with his remark? I'd suggest talking with him about it, because your reactio was a little over the top.
But suppose he said something like that once a month. Or that he kept asking me over to his place or to go see movies 1-1. That would make me pretty uncomfortable -- and I shouldn't have to put up with that at work.
And that isn't even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that a fair number of women think that asking them out exactly 1 time is harassment, with a caveat of whether they liked the guy or not.
This ain't rocket surgery. That gay guy figured out you were uncomfortable with his compliment, so he stopped. It still appears that you are sensitive enough that you haven't recovered from it yet.
You might want to look into why you are overly sensitive to what was supposed to be a compliment. (my opinion) Perhaps you're just not used to openly gay people?
You should always be reasonably sure that the question itself will not be unwelcome, even in a merely social situation;
Here's the problem. Define "reasonably" for me. Let's take an example. A female coworker of mine, and a friend by the way, when I asked her what she thought sexual harassment was, replied, "It really depends on the mood I'm in."
When I asked how the hell a person would know, she said "Don't worry, you're safe."
This from a person who found it cute to goose me when I was working with my hands stuck in a glove box. Whatever, we were friends, and I didn't find it as hilarious as she did, but still funny.
Was being goosed - her sexually harassing me?
Another example, same person, was there was a fellow who brought work in some times, and managed to "accidentally" touch her butt a number of times. and it was definitely unwanted attention. He always said "Ohh, I'm sorry". So she said something to me, and asked me to check in discretely when he came in next. Sure enough, there was the unwanted attention. When I asked her if she wanted to complain to HR, she said if I could just show up when he came in. So I did, and planted myself between the two whenever he was there. He
You are way off base,and didn't answer my question. Again You were told no,stop. You continue, you are harassing the person. Period end of story. If you don't like that truth too bad really, tell it to the judge and jury. or maybe you need to read just what i was replying to in the manner i did to a statement someone else made..either way, your wrong.
That's why you always have a witness in the room with you. A work or school based one on one meeting with a person of the opposite gender always needs a witness. Then it isn't one on one any more of course.
Perhaps you are not clear about what harassment is?
If you take a little bit of Google for a moment, you learn that harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation".
Your definition is too broad.
In a world where many young women believe if a man asks you out and you don't like him, it is sexual harassment, it gets a little hazy as to what sexual harassment is. Sometimes trying to pick up a simple friendship might be harassment. http://www.avvo.com/legal-answ...
My favorite answer to the question is the attorney who answered the question starting with "There should not normally be a problem" Oy. Certainly John Edwards' former blogmaster Amanda Marcotte believes that it is http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...
As she wrote on Gawker after the High School boy asked out "Miss America", which was just a silly trend for a few years of your people asking celebrities to proms: "I really wish people would stop acting like it’s cute when teenage boys sexually harass older women. " http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...
And here is the problem. As most of us know - once accused, always guilty in many people's minds. So we can have all of the googling of law we can handle, yet there will always be people with an axe to grind, so why get caught up in that.
Any male that is remotely prudent and is career minded would be insane to get within ten feet of a woman he did not know well. He's playing roulette with his life and career. I wouldn't be too surprised if there were some women who simply don't want to be talked to by a man at all. So a prudent guy simply leaves well alone.
We were advanced enough to be island hopping 200k years ago? That fact was not mentioned in school ever.
It's hard enough to get some states to accept anything other than a 6000 year old universe. Why would you be expected to be taught about something that existed before the universe was created? That's just crazy talk!
Like this urge I have to sometime shout "Theater" in a crowded fire? I'm not likely to get the opportunity, and really don't want it, but if I'm ever in one....
Like I was at a big fight, and a Hockey game broke out.
You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians
You might try getting your science information from Science, not "consensus". Science doesn't require consensus. Yet that is the ONLY argument AGW people can actually use.
Bullshit. If you actually believe in science you are lying on purpose.
Here we go you are challenged - Let's work through this.
TEll me do you deny the accepted fact (confidence to the exclusion of any other explanation) that the constituent gases of an atmosphere have an effect upon the energy retention of that atmosphere? If yes continue No? Explain the easily reprovable experiments that indicate that this is the case, and why those experiments show incorrect results.
If yes, continue - if No explain the consistent repeatability of experiments that show this to be the case, and why everyone apparently gets the exact incorrect results. You can even do these experiments yourself.
Okay, here we have a very reproducible, no consensus needed very basic physics result, proven by science, and thousands of elementary school science fairs over and over again. This is the bedrock of the Greenhouse effect, without which there would be either no life on earth, or certainly not us, because the greenhouse effect allows our world ot have much more consistent weather.
So now we move on to matters that aren't grade school level matters.
There are, in addition to the earthly examples, Venus and Mars, both in the so called Cinderella zone for life, yet one exceptionally hot, the much colder than expected, and largely based on greenhouse warming.
There is also many issues related to weather, such as volcanic activity. El Niño and La Niña which have effects upon the weather. And of course the longer term effects which are long enough to have effects of long enough scale to actually be called climate changes.
So here we are at the next stage.
What happens to the greenhouse effct that makes it disappear at global scales? Give a good explanation of why the greenhouse effect on Venus and Mars is not real (hint - on Venus it isn't all CO2)
Show why, if you claim that the greenhouse effect fails on global scales, how Earth is warm enough to sustain life.
Either the effect exists, or it does not. Give the proof. Proof, BTW, does not consist of cherry picked anomalies. For just like in the creationists denying evolution, all that does is sic the scientists on finding the answer to that question. It's not an either or issue.
"We believe global warming, because 85% of scientists believe it"
Please remember, Piltdown Man was consensus "science" ;)
Ah yes, Piltdown Man. From the outset, the reconstruction was challenged as unrealistic. Sir Arthur Keith noted that the molars on the reconstruction would not be useable because the canine teeth made side to side chewing impossible. Th/at's pretty damning evidence against it.
G.S. Miller, had also touched upon the reconstructed skull being a hoax in 1915. Even before it was exposed, scientists considered it at best as a complete aberration, as it did not fit any of the other evidence for early humans as found in every orher site.
In 1953, using antropologial and zoological evidence, K. P. Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proved by comparative anatomy that Piltdown man was a combination of a Medieval human cranium, a lower jaw of an orangutan, and the teeth of a chimpanzee. A deliberate hoax, very purposely fabricated by one Charles Dawson.
So The hoax was suspected by many from the beginning, and anthropologists had long ignored the Piltdown reconstruction because it made no sense.
Science had found and exposed the fraud. Just like science doing what science does.
But here's the kicker. I believe that your accepta
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
They already eat food fertilized with animal waste and keep carnivores as pets. Don't necessarily look for consistency.
Exactly. Consistency is always teh problem of philosophical Vegetarianism, and especially veganism.
The furter one goes into teh world of "If you eat this, you are not a good person, the whackier it gets.
I've said it before, in my estimation, all life is precious, from bacteria to yeast to plants and animals. Not a one of us has managed to survive without killing something. Plants are living organisms, and vegetarians and vegans kill them without a second thought.
Even the ne plus ultra of the "I am better than you because I don't eat ( fill in the blank)" the breatharians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , in addition to soon dying after truly engaging in their superiority over others and not party tricks, their immune systems have merrily been killing other life forms until they shift this mortal coil
Perhaps some day we will become chemoautotrophs, but I'm not holding my breath.
I've given thought to this, and since it is a fact of life that none of us live, I sort of follow the American Indian example of mentally thanking the being or thing that gave it's life so that I could continue mine.
>
So you will see a lot of backlash in their comments, NOT just to be contrary though, but to show just how out of touch the SJW/Regressive faction of the left is to the mainstream, its pretty fascinating from a cultural point of view.
You are proving my point. You are seeing and replying to stuff that pisses you off, and using that as a universal attribute.
People who might have a liberal bent will probably go to conservative looking articles to troll, and those with a conservative or Neocon bent will probably go likewise to any story that sounds liberal and troll there.
I mostly go to the sports section, particularly NHL Ice Hockey. As A Pittsburgh Penguins fan, the comments after every story are largely fans of other teams whining about Sid Crosby, the team Captain, or as they call him, "Cindi Crysby". If you take the comments at face value, the most popular players are the least popular.
Even with a pop culture perspective, Lets take for example, Kim Kardashian. If you read the comments on every story, they are almost all people begging for less stories about her. I even added a few of those until I figured out that Yahoo was trolling everyone.
Until at this time, I find Yahoo comments are almost a 180 out of reality.
You know why we have E-coli outbreaks? Because animal waste and other garbage contaminates food.
No shit? That's a joke son. One thing is pretty simple. Clean the food. Cook the food.
Here's a story that will make you cringe. My Grandmother raised 8 healthy strapping children during the great depression. Shae was an incredible gardener. Her secret? manure tea.
She kept chickens as well. Scooped up the manure and put it in a barrel that colleccted rainwater off one of the sheds. Every so often, she'd dip an old saucepan in the water and give the plants a little drink of chickenshit tea. Not a lot you see, chicken manure is a very powerful fertilizer and too much can kill the plant. The tea helped dilute it, but you still had to be careful.
I ate a lot of her veggies when I was little. They were completely clean, well washed, and nicely cooked. 100 percent organic.
That's another weird thing. My family was organic foodies long before it was popular.
You know why we have things like "mad cow disease"? Because some idiot decided grinding up sheep to feed to cows made sense -- despite that cows are herbivores and not evolved to ingest sheep.
On that, I agree. Corporate husbandry has done even worse stuff than that. Newspapers and shit as a food source with massive doese of antibiotics. Fucking sickening.
My father made his own garden compost for a lot of years, and quite frankly meat caused more problems than it contributed ... because the meat rotted and got nasty and didn't break down into nice clean compost.
It pretty much needs a different process. I compost mostly with old leaves - mulch 'em up and let them sit for a few years or so. If there is a heaven, it smells like my leaf compost.
Look around at your average person you see in Wal Mart. Overweight, loaded up with sodium and other nasty chemicals, fat, grease, oil, medicines -- prepared food and other garbage.
Geeze man, take a deep breath or two.
If our waterways are full of hormones and antibiotics because we put it into our bodies and excrete it out, you can't claim that a human is fit for eating.
But we have used what we used, and our bodies have excreted the rest. Most of what you cite is a problem and one I agree with. I just want to fix the problem, and excreted meds are a problem as more and more people go on maintenance drugs. Its not an intractable problem.
You can go ahead and eat whatever you want. I don't give a shit.
Thank you!
But you'll notice nobody is looking to use dog crap as manure, or eating wolves
Side note: apparently while edible, never eat the liver of a frank or almost exclusively carnivore. Their livers have an intense concentration of vitamin A, which can lead to problems.
I sure as fuck wouldn't eat something which I knew had humans as compost, and if I had my option, I wouldn't want something which had ground up cows or cats or monkeys as compost either. Precisely because I know damned well there are diseases which can spread from this.
At what level of separation do you hold previously deteriorated meat acceptable? After a turkey vulture eats an animal and shits it out? There is a cycle of composition/decomposition going on, and it has been for a long time. There might be some molecules of Alexander the Great's piss, or even Jeffrey Dahmer's for that matter, in the Evian you drank this morning. It isn't something we can get away from.
Because the idea of someone tending and revering the rotting meat sack like it's a sacred artifact is kinds of creepy.
Hard to imagine that you'd intentionally rot something is treating it as a sacred artifact. The crap in that article about teh loving family wrapping the sorpse in linen is just some goofy crap about people that might find it off-putting.
There isn't anything at all unnatural about the decomposition process.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
I sure would (OK, I'm a vegetarian), for the same reason
So how do you keep animal corpse byproducts out of the food you eat? Or do you just eat hydroponically grown veggies?
I don't agree with using human waste as compost ...
That's good, because it isn't compost. You might use it as a fertilizer for it. But compost is broken down organic products, not manure. Manure might be added to compost.
humans are dirty, carry plenty of disease, and a modern human is mostly processed crap.
No more so than any other flesh based component of compost. By the time it has been broken down it isn't a human, or any other animal.
Which means I assume there's a lot of pathogens and other things which would come into play which we haven't yet established as safe ... Hep C and decades of pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, McDonald's, KFC, Viagra, and whatever other crap we dump into our bodies come to mind.
Have you ever tried Breatharianism? Migh tjust be about pure enough.
I seriously doubt humans are fit for consumption by anything, let alone humans.
Hell, the animals we grow for the purpose of eating aren't fit to eat in my opinion; the nasty disgusting carcass of a modern human? The mind reels at just how nasty that must be.
Really, would you eat medical waste? Because that's what you're talking about.
Okay, I thought I had a rather cynical view of humanity, but your hatred of the species is nothing I could ever aspire to. Gopod luck with that.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
Just tell them it's soylent green.
But I gave up soy for Lent.
Ugh..I apologize, I've wanted to uses that combination of words forever.
From the article - “The impact wounds on the bones with embedded stone fragments is conclusive evidence that people slayed this mammoth.”
They can often determine cause of death from skeletons long after any flesh has rotted or been removed. Impact strikes or piercing weapons leave imprints on the skeleton that are different to those of removing meat from a carcass. They can even tell which side a woman tended to carry her handbag from the dints left in her skeleton.
Note - the following is not a diss against n0creativity - he asked an intelligent question and was wishing to learn - so good on you n0creativity.
This is one of those things that some folks will never get. Because they cannot comprehend that some folks can know more than they do. It's why we have TV shows like "Ancient Aliens" where anything that humans have accoomplished is credited to aliens. Nikola Tesla? He got his ideas from Aliens, So did Einstein, Space flight, Pyramids, Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power generation. None of it by us stoopid hoomins. I listened to a guy this past week who denied the existence of dinosaurs. His proof? "That's just crazy", interspersed with "how did they know how old thes things were", "How did they know how to put the bones back together?" "That's just crazy!"
Is it any wonder that many of these same people cannot comprehend basic science? How could scientists know things like this stuff,? Must be fake. Arguments from personal incredulity. Which guarantees that the dumbest person in the room wins.
Yes, and AGW people say today is hotter than it was back then, when clearly this indicates otherwise!
Citations? Everyone I know seems to think that there were times when the earth was a lot warmer than it is now, an interesting tidbit since the sun was dimmer. Like the Paleozoic period, when there were no continual glaciers at all.
You might try not getting your science information off of conservative politicians.
And mix the ashes with a tad of soil and use that to plant a tree in a vase, when the tree grows a little, transplant it to ground.
But DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES compost me!
PS: In reality, my ashes will be thrown at sea. BUT DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES compost me!
Cannot imagine whay that would bother you. Composting will certainly give back to the earth and to future generations.
I have to note that I wanted cremated and flushed down the toilet at either a stripper bar or McDonald's. But this could be interesting. I'm envisioning my corpse being fed to one of those instant grinders like they use for rooster chicks (since only the hens lay eggs, and it's about a 50:50 mix at birth, so you do the math - then turning me into a nice compost for flowers or veggies.
Would vegans refuse to eat veggies grown from human content compost?
Soylent Brown
because, you know, typical humans are intellectual powerhouses.
Yup - which is why I often suggest to some of our dumber users to go to Yahoo and comment there.
The whole issue with website commentary is that most postings are based on disagreeing with whatever was being commented on. In Yahoo's case, someone gets shot and killed, probably 90 percent of the comments are about anti-Gun control. A very small number is about any sympathy for the dead person's family.
A negative story about Donald Trump is immediately responded to by supporters who believe that our constitutional rights can be preserved by suspending our constitutionalrights.
You would get the impression that loud wins. That stupid is tne new smart. We even have a bit of that in here, although the level of smarts is a lot higher.
You know what? The vast majority of Norwegians can be tracked in real time by their card purchases. What an efficient cage.
Ermagherd! Or if you use a cell phone, or a regular phone, or go onto the suface of the planet. for that matter.
Ohhhh, them guvmints a gonna getchya, better hide, they're reading your thoughts with a satellite owned by Major league baseball, and the've planted radio transmitters in your bellybutton that recharge every time you take a bath or shower.
Some people yearn for the dark ages for some reason.
Didn't have a lot of effect, other than making the minimum bag of lollies 5c instead of 2c (Hey, I was a kid at the time!).
What? You buy underaged girls in Australia?