What's next? Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?
Yes. From the article:
In addition, Symantec, Adobe, and Microsoft agreed to provide EULAs for the applicable software products on their web site and notices on their respective software packaging of the web addresses to such EULAs so consumers can review such EULAs prior to purchase of the software.
Relax! We're not running out of oil/Global warming isn't a threat/The National Debt isn't going to weaken the dollar! And besides, I'll probably be dead by the time it happens, so what do I care?
My switch to FireFox was prior to SP2, but it was with a fully patched machine. Somehow IE's Internet Security Zone was set to low, although it's possible that it was set after my visiting a malicious site. Approximately the same number of applications were installed on my machine and it took me 4 hours to root them all out. Eventually it took Ad-Aware, Spy Sweeper, and my own going through the registry and program files and removing anything that looked like it might try to run. Those who are less familiar with Windows than I (ie 95% of Microsoft's users) wouldn't have been able to recover.
OT: Is it just me, or was this guy's computer ungodly slow?
This is why you are on my foes list. This is a Republican talking point, you repeat it without the many caveats that make all the difference in the world. Other than that you are informed and insightful, but you never fail to take for granted (and thereby expect those who read you to do the same) things that need to be explained, and, when explained, do not lead the informed citizen to the conclusion you would like them to jump to.
I agreed with you, but then I remembered that/. editors only post stories that are submitted by the users. So if Cliff (or whoever) got a thousand crappy story submissions and this is the best he could come up with, I guess it's not 100% his fault. It is his fault for putting this up, but we readers like new articles, more more more, so there is a bit of pressure to have x articles per day, and this is a typically slow news weekend.
So really, it's our fault for not submitting a better story, that this was the best that Cliff could come up with.
On the other hand, the story submission basically does boil down to "Hey, does anyone elses FF 1.0 crash?", without even the most cursory look anywhere else. Really inexcuseable.
I guess this article struck the "damn noobs don't know how to RTFM" chord in a lot of us.
I was thinking about whether or not I should update Firefox
And how has this article worked out for you? The first 3 +5, Informative posts don't exactly sum up the answer to the question, so all we're doing here is wasting our time.
Reason and intelligence (ie Democratic voting tendency) isn't relegated to the blue states. The red states are red by 10%, say, and that means that Democrats are alive and kicking. Don't think this is the end. It just means we need to adjust.
Funny thing is, my motorcycle gets half the mileage of this car (although that could have a lot to do with my riding habits). You may be better off with a scooter.
Yeah, I don't think you're explaining it right. The whole mess in 2000 was related to uncounted ballots, and whether we should attempt to count them in the recount. It was determined that we should, and at that point the question was HOW should we count them. Each side (they both had a vested interest) got some lawyers and went to court and it was basically figured out. The thing that happened in the Supreme Court was a bit different, as it related to the certifying of the election results by Catherine Harris over the objections of those who wanted a more thorough recount(and again, they were biased, but that's what elections are about!).
If you saw the movie Fahrenheit 9/11, you'd see that after the court challenges, Gore had more options available to him to protest the Florida results (50% of uncounted ballots were from primarily black districts, and there was... Something, maybe I should watch that part of the movie again). However, he chose not to pursue that, in the interests of unity and of getting on with it, so to speak...
I say this not because any of it really matters, but I feel that your bias is to one side on this issue, and wanted to present the arguments of the other side.
The whole thing basically illuminates the fact that elections are not yet a flawless process. The whole Diebold situation is simply an extension of that. As primarily Linux advocates, this crowd sees imperfections and opportunity for vote falsification, and wants to speak out. A number of people here could manage a project to create a bulletproof system that relied not on people, but on security, encryption, etc...
I thought for a second about how cool it would be to have my car turn wherever I looked, until I realized that the girls who like to jog around where I live would make this a dangerous technology.
XP has some features that make it worthwhile. Not the Security Center or whatever with SP2, I spent the first 20 minutes after installing that update turning everything off. But the error reporting, when you *do* have a BSOD, will generally give you an idea as to what happened, ie driver failure or something.
System Restore is a good idea, although I've not yet had occasion to use it.
Fast User Switching is very useful for me, although regrettably it doesn't work in a domain situation.
And finally, being able to Remote Desktop into a machine that's properly configured is a must for me. I know I could use DameWare or something else, but on my local network I don't.
Those things are somewhat insignificant however, and Windows 2000 is still a good choice. That said, I don't know why you'd install 2000 over an already-working XP build (maybe it was XP home and you couldn't turn off simple file sharing?), XP professional has everything I could want from Windows 2000 professional and more.
I don't know what you're talking about with the "backward compatibility"... XP is basically 2000 with a cherry on top. It's related to NT 4.0 more closely than 98... Yeah, it does have a mode that will try and emulate older operating systems, but that's optional and I don't know that any of that code will do anything unless you specifically ask it to.
Personally, I've had about as many BSODs with XP as 2000 -- maybe more but not definately so. But I also do five times as many things with XP. I've got my webcam pointing outside, my proxy software, two e-mail clients (Outlook and Thunderbird), Remote desktop connections to two more computers here, Messenger, Task Manager, ~3 notepad windows, half a dozen tabs open in FireFox, and I'm running NMAP against an IP that showed up in my logs. 12 open windows across 2 monitors. And I'm not even *doing* anything -- just reading/. No wonder the computer gets fussy sometimes (3 times since I bought it over a year ago, all "driver issues" according to the Error Reporting Tool).
We wouldn't be in war if say someone like John Kerry had won the 2000 election?
You mean Gore?
If you haven't, I'd suggest watching the speech he gave in May (the one Republicans harped on as crazy ranting) titled Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore Speech on Iraq Policy linked from here on C-SPAN. I watched the speech and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be in Iraq if he had won the 2000 elect... if Gore was president.;)
My biggest complaint with liberals is that they are emotional and reactionary. The liberal philosophy appeals to the heart not the sense. I feel the same way about conservatives (substitute emotional for manipulative), so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Where has Kerry stated how he would handle this war he would inherit?
That's one of the biggest problems I see that Kerry has: a weak, all-talk-no-action Iraq policy. Iraq is the biggest election issue today, and to take a cursory look at his website, you wouldn't know that we're at war there. His "plan".
But what about Bush? Where has he laid out his plan? It's his war, shouldn't he lay out his plans? Maybe here? Nope, no plan. Nobody knows what they're going to do with Iraq, but Bush should actually be doing something right now. Right now, Bush is the President of the United States. He stirred up a hornets nest in Iraq. What is he doing about it right now? He's not telling you.
...how else can you explain thousands of liberals being explicitly anti-Bush while supporting Kerry, a candidate that supported the same policy they cite as grounds to get rid of Bush for?
Liberals, I guess including me, rally around Kerry because he's the only hope we have of getting rid of Bush. We're pragmatists that way. That's why we're against Nader running. To be honest, I didn't vote last election. I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican. I wasn't even registered to vote. But you can bet I'll vote in this election. I'll vote to change the course, because I see us headed over Niagara Falls, and I want to try and turn the boat around.
Come to think of it, I dont' remember the liberals denouncing the fall of communism as a result of Reagans coldwar hedge bet. Amazing though, they sure as hell knew that spending was wrong at the time.
Do you still beat your wife?
Personally, I believe that deficit spending is almost always wrong, and deficit spending on defense when there is not a clear need for it is even more so. Having been very young at the time when this all happened, I can't give you more than that.
The US economy faltered right after Bush won the primary. I'm not going to try to convince you that it was related...
Which Bush policy is driving the country into the ground? The Iraq policy. We wouldn't be in a war (that we may not even win) if it weren't for Bush and the neo-conservatives. It's that simple. Whether you like the war or not, it's Bush's war, he owns it, and even though we are the mightiest nation in the world, it seems that he's losing it for us, with the gravest consequences. What? No WMD? Well... Well... Democracy! We're bringing them Democracy! That's a great excuse to invade a sovereign nation (that just happens to have oil).
The UN would be accusing us of war crimes today if they weren't so pussified (like we designed them to be) and we weren't America. If France went into Haiti like we went into Iraq, we would be accusing them of war crimes. If the French tortured innocent Haitians, killing some in the process, and didn't even bother to interrogate some of them, we would have something to say about that, wouldn't we?
Remember when those planes hit the WTC? What did we do about that? Osama who? "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." That's because he put those resources in Iraq.
Clinton increased our taxes, giving "us" less to spend, but in so doing he funded social programs that gave us benefits. The average wage-earner today keeps more of the money he makes, but he spends more of it too, on things like health care. He isn't necessarily coming out ahead.
Also, Clinton balanced the budget.
Meanwhile, we're running huge deficits. Neo-conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. To quote Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut."
Almost 4 years and 10 trillion dollars later*, what do we have to show for it? No child left behind? An increasing gap between rich and poor? Record corporate profits?
* At the beginning of Bush's term, Greenspan's first testimony before congress was that we needed the tax cut to "avoid paying off the national debt too quickly". We were projecting $5t surplus over 10 years. Now we're projecting $5t deficit. Your share is almost $34,000.
Not to mention that history has shown that the only effective way to reduce poverty and bad situations is to increase freedoms - especially economic freedoms, a progreesive tax does just the opposite. It's like that saying - if you can shit on one wealthy man - then you can shit on 10000 poor men.
This is pretty heady stuff that would take years of study (ie a degree in economics) to be able to make an informed opinion about and not be just making stuff up. Can you back up these claims with historical, scientific proof? That would be really great.
Slashdot Mirror
At a certain point, we have to stop calling them script kiddies. I'm sure most of them have been on IRC for ~10 years by now.
Perhaps we can infer things about slashdotters based upon the thresholds they use by default...
at +3 and Nested, I don't know what it says about me, but I'm a busy guy.
Yes. From the article:
Relax! We're not running out of oil/Global warming isn't a threat/The National Debt isn't going to weaken the dollar! And besides, I'll probably be dead by the time it happens, so what do I care?
Jackass.
Me too:
Arnold fixed my inductive charge wireless mousepad charger
I had the exact same thing happen to me.
My switch to FireFox was prior to SP2, but it was with a fully patched machine. Somehow IE's Internet Security Zone was set to low, although it's possible that it was set after my visiting a malicious site. Approximately the same number of applications were installed on my machine and it took me 4 hours to root them all out. Eventually it took Ad-Aware, Spy Sweeper, and my own going through the registry and program files and removing anything that looked like it might try to run. Those who are less familiar with Windows than I (ie 95% of Microsoft's users) wouldn't have been able to recover.
OT: Is it just me, or was this guy's computer ungodly slow?
This is why you are on my foes list. This is a Republican talking point, you repeat it without the many caveats that make all the difference in the world. Other than that you are informed and insightful, but you never fail to take for granted (and thereby expect those who read you to do the same) things that need to be explained, and, when explained, do not lead the informed citizen to the conclusion you would like them to jump to.
I agreed with you, but then I remembered that /. editors only post stories that are submitted by the users. So if Cliff (or whoever) got a thousand crappy story submissions and this is the best he could come up with, I guess it's not 100% his fault. It is his fault for putting this up, but we readers like new articles, more more more, so there is a bit of pressure to have x articles per day, and this is a typically slow news weekend.
So really, it's our fault for not submitting a better story, that this was the best that Cliff could come up with.
On the other hand, the story submission basically does boil down to "Hey, does anyone elses FF 1.0 crash?", without even the most cursory look anywhere else. Really inexcuseable.
I guess this article struck the "damn noobs don't know how to RTFM" chord in a lot of us.
I was thinking about whether or not I should update Firefox
And how has this article worked out for you? The first 3 +5, Informative posts don't exactly sum up the answer to the question, so all we're doing here is wasting our time.
Moving on.
Without federal taxes, who will pay for random wars against soverign nations, eh?
Our children.
Trickle down economics NEVER WORKED
Of course not. The idea that giving rich people more money would help our economy is ludicrous and always has been.
Rich people are rich because they make more money than they spend. That's it. Poor people spend all their money. That's why they are poor.
Giving rich people more money is just going to make them richer.
Reason and intelligence (ie Democratic voting tendency) isn't relegated to the blue states. The red states are red by 10%, say, and that means that Democrats are alive and kicking. Don't think this is the end. It just means we need to adjust.
I hope you've got the bawls.
That's 88 years' worth of music. Finally, something that can store enough music so that I don't have to change disks every 50 years!
Funny thing is, my motorcycle gets half the mileage of this car (although that could have a lot to do with my riding habits). You may be better off with a scooter.
How about a VOIP application for the DS.
And in terms of low-cost, you can't beat Afrotech.
Yeah, I don't think you're explaining it right. The whole mess in 2000 was related to uncounted ballots, and whether we should attempt to count them in the recount. It was determined that we should, and at that point the question was HOW should we count them. Each side (they both had a vested interest) got some lawyers and went to court and it was basically figured out. The thing that happened in the Supreme Court was a bit different, as it related to the certifying of the election results by Catherine Harris over the objections of those who wanted a more thorough recount(and again, they were biased, but that's what elections are about!).
If you saw the movie Fahrenheit 9/11, you'd see that after the court challenges, Gore had more options available to him to protest the Florida results (50% of uncounted ballots were from primarily black districts, and there was... Something, maybe I should watch that part of the movie again). However, he chose not to pursue that, in the interests of unity and of getting on with it, so to speak...
I say this not because any of it really matters, but I feel that your bias is to one side on this issue, and wanted to present the arguments of the other side.
The whole thing basically illuminates the fact that elections are not yet a flawless process. The whole Diebold situation is simply an extension of that. As primarily Linux advocates, this crowd sees imperfections and opportunity for vote falsification, and wants to speak out. A number of people here could manage a project to create a bulletproof system that relied not on people, but on security, encryption, etc...
I thought for a second about how cool it would be to have my car turn wherever I looked, until I realized that the girls who like to jog around where I live would make this a dangerous technology.
XP has some features that make it worthwhile. Not the Security Center or whatever with SP2, I spent the first 20 minutes after installing that update turning everything off. But the error reporting, when you *do* have a BSOD, will generally give you an idea as to what happened, ie driver failure or something.
/. No wonder the computer gets fussy sometimes (3 times since I bought it over a year ago, all "driver issues" according to the Error Reporting Tool).
System Restore is a good idea, although I've not yet had occasion to use it.
Fast User Switching is very useful for me, although regrettably it doesn't work in a domain situation.
And finally, being able to Remote Desktop into a machine that's properly configured is a must for me. I know I could use DameWare or something else, but on my local network I don't.
Those things are somewhat insignificant however, and Windows 2000 is still a good choice. That said, I don't know why you'd install 2000 over an already-working XP build (maybe it was XP home and you couldn't turn off simple file sharing?), XP professional has everything I could want from Windows 2000 professional and more.
I don't know what you're talking about with the "backward compatibility"... XP is basically 2000 with a cherry on top. It's related to NT 4.0 more closely than 98... Yeah, it does have a mode that will try and emulate older operating systems, but that's optional and I don't know that any of that code will do anything unless you specifically ask it to.
Personally, I've had about as many BSODs with XP as 2000 -- maybe more but not definately so. But I also do five times as many things with XP. I've got my webcam pointing outside, my proxy software, two e-mail clients (Outlook and Thunderbird), Remote desktop connections to two more computers here, Messenger, Task Manager, ~3 notepad windows, half a dozen tabs open in FireFox, and I'm running NMAP against an IP that showed up in my logs. 12 open windows across 2 monitors. And I'm not even *doing* anything -- just reading
We wouldn't be in war if say someone like John Kerry had won the 2000 election?
;)
...how else can you explain thousands of liberals being explicitly anti-Bush while supporting Kerry, a candidate that supported the same policy they cite as grounds to get rid of Bush for?
You mean Gore?
If you haven't, I'd suggest watching the speech he gave in May (the one Republicans harped on as crazy ranting) titled Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore Speech on Iraq Policy linked from here on C-SPAN. I watched the speech and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be in Iraq if he had won the 2000 elect... if Gore was president.
My biggest complaint with liberals is that they are emotional and reactionary. The liberal philosophy appeals to the heart not the sense.
I feel the same way about conservatives (substitute emotional for manipulative), so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Where has Kerry stated how he would handle this war he would inherit?
That's one of the biggest problems I see that Kerry has: a weak, all-talk-no-action Iraq policy. Iraq is the biggest election issue today, and to take a cursory look at his website, you wouldn't know that we're at war there. His "plan".
But what about Bush? Where has he laid out his plan? It's his war, shouldn't he lay out his plans? Maybe here? Nope, no plan. Nobody knows what they're going to do with Iraq, but Bush should actually be doing something right now. Right now, Bush is the President of the United States. He stirred up a hornets nest in Iraq. What is he doing about it right now? He's not telling you.
Liberals, I guess including me, rally around Kerry because he's the only hope we have of getting rid of Bush. We're pragmatists that way. That's why we're against Nader running. To be honest, I didn't vote last election. I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican. I wasn't even registered to vote. But you can bet I'll vote in this election. I'll vote to change the course, because I see us headed over Niagara Falls, and I want to try and turn the boat around.
Come to think of it, I dont' remember the liberals denouncing the fall of communism as a result of Reagans coldwar hedge bet. Amazing though, they sure as hell knew that spending was wrong at the time.
Do you still beat your wife?
Personally, I believe that deficit spending is almost always wrong, and deficit spending on defense when there is not a clear need for it is even more so. Having been very young at the time when this all happened, I can't give you more than that.
He's not trolling, he's responding to your .sig.
The US economy faltered right after Bush won the primary. I'm not going to try to convince you that it was related...
Which Bush policy is driving the country into the ground? The Iraq policy. We wouldn't be in a war (that we may not even win) if it weren't for Bush and the neo-conservatives. It's that simple. Whether you like the war or not, it's Bush's war, he owns it, and even though we are the mightiest nation in the world, it seems that he's losing it for us, with the gravest consequences. What? No WMD? Well... Well... Democracy! We're bringing them Democracy! That's a great excuse to invade a sovereign nation (that just happens to have oil).
The UN would be accusing us of war crimes today if they weren't so pussified (like we designed them to be) and we weren't America. If France went into Haiti like we went into Iraq, we would be accusing them of war crimes. If the French tortured innocent Haitians, killing some in the process, and didn't even bother to interrogate some of them, we would have something to say about that, wouldn't we?
Remember when those planes hit the WTC? What did we do about that? Osama who? "I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him." That's because he put those resources in Iraq.
Clinton increased our taxes, giving "us" less to spend, but in so doing he funded social programs that gave us benefits. The average wage-earner today keeps more of the money he makes, but he spends more of it too, on things like health care. He isn't necessarily coming out ahead.
Also, Clinton balanced the budget.
Meanwhile, we're running huge deficits. Neo-conservatives are not fiscal conservatives. To quote Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the midterm elections. Our due is another big tax cut."
Almost 4 years and 10 trillion dollars later*, what do we have to show for it? No child left behind? An increasing gap between rich and poor? Record corporate profits?
* At the beginning of Bush's term, Greenspan's first testimony before congress was that we needed the tax cut to "avoid paying off the national debt too quickly". We were projecting $5t surplus over 10 years. Now we're projecting $5t deficit. Your share is almost $34,000.
Or one of these used vests.
Not to mention that history has shown that the only effective way to reduce poverty and bad situations is to increase freedoms - especially economic freedoms, a progreesive tax does just the opposite. It's like that saying - if you can shit on one wealthy man - then you can shit on 10000 poor men.
This is pretty heady stuff that would take years of study (ie a degree in economics) to be able to make an informed opinion about and not be just making stuff up. Can you back up these claims with historical, scientific proof? That would be really great.