That's half right. YOU can't. But you do need to be able to do that.
That is the only way to show that your package management system is handling everything. Every single file on your system should either be identified by the package management system or be known to you as something you created.
But I think you already knew that, and you are purposefully tailoring your questions in a way you know Microsoft will fail.
That's called "knowledge". I know Microsoft products (probably better than you do). I know their functionality, I know their deficiencies.
But I did provide you with the opportunity to show that I was wrong and that you know more than I.
You only believe Microsoft has certain capabilities because you've never used anything else. The reason there are so many 3rd parties tools to facilitate pushing updates to workstations is because Microsoft's core system is fatally flawed.
All those other vendors are selling products that take different approaches to band-aid'ing those flaws. Which is why so many people have so many problems patching Windows systems.
They have the tools that will perform the tasks presented. I posted the names of the tools.
And that is the difference between your ignorance and my knowledge.
apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
I can easily and clearly post the instructions. You cannot. The reason you cannot is because you don't know how to. All you can do is recite the names of tools that you hope will perform the function.:)
You know what they are, you know they exist, and since you have asserted that the person that makes an assertion must back it up, and you've asserted Microsoft's tools are inadequate, they only way to prove your case and remain intellectually honest is to prove the tools I listed as inadequate for the task at hand.
And that is your THIRD failure of basic logic.
There is no way to prove a negative.
I state that Microsoft's tools are insufficient. You say they are sufficient.
My "proof" is that you are unable to provide instructions on how to accomplish that task while I have done so twice now.
Here's a third time: apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
There, I've done it THREE times and you're still complaining.:D
I've identified the tools. Requesting that I describe their use is a new requirement that you've added in this post and this post alone because you know I've adequately answered everything up to this point.
Back to the Bigfoot example?:) Yes, you've identified what YOU claim is "proof". But you still haven't shown that it IS "proof".
To do that, you have to show how to use those tools to accomplish the task.
So far, you've been unable to do so.
apt-get install deborphan orphaner -a
Yet you'll continue to claim that you don't have to show that the tools actually do what you claim they do.:)
Well, there's one reason I can think of that you'd refuse to do so. Particularly when I've shown how easy it is to show exactly how to do it with Debian.
Go ahead. Keep claiming that it is easy to do on Windows. I'm sure that someone will believe that's it's easy and you just don't have to show how to do it.:D
Are you saying that the Microsoft installers do not exist? Or are you saying that you agree that the Microsoft installers exist, but the manner in which I said it is not a rhetorically accepted manner for stating a fact?
Why don't you just read what I posted? Hmmmm?
Now, I say that there is no Bigfoot (Microsoft's tools are not sufficient).
Ah, so you are asserting that all the tools included in a basic Windows server install, like Group Policy Management Console (which lets you control software installs on computers, including non-Microsoft programs) and Microsoft Software Update Services (for updates to Microsoft products) don't exist, and that you bring up 3rd party tools, but are claiming that Systems Management Server or other add-on tools from Microsoft don't exist.
No. I have not claimed that. Nor have I claimed that 5cm open end wrenches do not exist.
What I claimed is that Microsoft does not have the tools sufficent to handle the situation.
It looks like you've failed basic logic a SECOND time.
Well, there are numerous tools included with the cheapest Windows Server and add-ons designed for software and upgrade management.
Yes, yet like my wrench example, NONE of them are sufficient to the job. Again you attempt the strawman.
So, now that I've named the products that are included with Server or available directly from Microsoft, do I need to provide some other "proof" that they exist?
Again, the existance of tools from Microsoft was never in question. That is your strawman.
All you have to do is show that the tools you've mentioned are sufficient to the task described earlier.
Fuck it. I'll make it really easy for you.
Just post a script or whatever tool and flags I'd need to type in to or whatever buttons I'd have to click on to identify all of the.dll's that are not included in any dependencies of any programs installed on the machine.
Under Debian it is "orphaner -a".
Can you do that? Hmmmm?
So, now that I've named the products that are included with Server or available directly from Microsoft, do I need to provide some other "proof" that they exist? Perhaps a blury photo of a box?
One last time. The existance of tools is not in question.
What is in question, and what you are required to provide proof of, is the existance of Microsoft tools that would perform the required task. Identify the tool and identify how it would be used.
The first and FORMOST is users. Most people do more harm to their machines in 1 day than I do in a year.
Strange. I work in a company that has a lot of Windows desktops. I don't see the users causing that many problems. They don't delete system files, they don't format their drives. Yet problems still pop up.
The second is bad hardware.
Bad hardware is easy to diagnose. We get a couple machines with bad parts, but those are identified within the first week and replaced under warranty. The user never sees the problems.
The third is bad drivers.
Primarily bad video drivers. But that's only been a problem since Microsoft moved the video drivers to ring 0 to improve video performance with NT 4.0. There's nothing you can do about that except shop around for a card that works on your system that has decent drivers.
The fourth is crap software. That sweet looking screen saver was actually a trojan horse? Well thats nice lets see if we can fix it.
Hmmmm, but, by default, IE is set to allow all kinds of spyware/adware/whatever to be AUTOMATICALLY installed (without the user even being aware of it).
Now to you, this sounds like a user problem.
To me, it is a problem with Microsoft's security model (allow everything that the user doesn't specifically deny).
Firefox has the opposite model (deny everything that the user doesn't specifically allow).
Not only that, but look up info on "cool web search" and you'll find that this crap exploits a "function" in Windows that hides the.dll from almost every method of finding it. What bullshit is that?
These problems are IDENTICAL in the linux world and in the windows world. The reason most of the spyware targets people who do not know better is because they usually buy what they find at best buy.
No. This isn't about "targetting". This is about "infection rates".
My Linux boxes are frequently "targetted" by worms and such, but they aren't infected because the worms are Windows specific. The Linux worms just do not infect that many machines because Linux has a better security model than Windows.
As for my current uptime? It is nearly 5 months at work with my win2k box... The dude next to me was nearly a year and only then because the power went out.
I always find these claims fascinating. I can easily post my uptime stats for my home machines:
Fully patched. That was the last, extended power outage.
I've seen the Microsoft fans post all kinds of claims about uptime. It usually comes down to their definition of "uptime". Remember Win95 with the 49.7 day reboot bug? Yet I remember people making claims about never rebooting Win95 for "months".:)
Microsoft often releases fixes for memory leaks in their software.
A long uptime means you aren't applying those patches.
Therefore, the memory leaks are still leaking on your machine.
Therefore, it is not because of your skill that your machine stays up (if it does stay up) but because you are not running anything that would trigger those memory leaks.
Finally, why would anyone at work be allowed to skip the patches on their system FOR A WHOLE YEAR?
As for my current uptime? It is nearly 5 months at work with my win2k box... The dude next to me was nearly a year and only then because the power went out.
Even skipping them for 5 months sounds unreasonable to me. My machine is fully patched. It has to be. I'm the network administrator. I cannot have a known vulnerability on my machine.
Maybe you'd like to try again? This time, leave out the logical fallacies, okay?
I'm asking you to back up your assertion, without a comparison ("adequate" is not a comparison, "better" and "best" are). You can not. That is an answer all of its own.
No. I said that they do NOT exist. If they do, identify them. If you cannot (and your refusal to do so shows very clearly that you cannot), then you have failed to counter my claim that they do not exist.
Smackdown XIV counting down at 3
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm, you seem to have trouble understanding html tags, too.
Basic flawed logic. If you withdraw from the argument, you lose...that's basic debate criteria.
Incorrect on two points:
#1. I have not withdrawn
#2. Withdrawing does not mean you lose as long as my opponent refuses to provide support for his statements or counter my statements. It is possible to withdraw and win.
I think yur hilarious. I'm proud to have this thread in my history, showing how you are subject to self ridicule by engaging in topics just to amuse yourself. I don't need to post anything other than "I won", as it's self evident. You presented 0 facts, 0 logical arguments. Done and done. Owned is the appropriate term.
Once again, you refuse to provide support for your statements and are unable to counter mine. I can still link to mine. Where are your's?
Most people will just hang up, but as with email spam, it only takes a few suckers to make the whole system profitable for the scum.
The scum would really love to get a hold of phone listing so they could send out their "you have won a prize in our free give away" calls.
Smackdown XIII "New and Improved SMACKDOWN"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Still trying to play? How sad. You got in a couple clever quips and had some fun with your post titles, but you never really had anything to begin with. Fun fun.
Right now I'm just racking up supporting matterial that may be of use in the future.
You don't seem to understand what "debate" is about. You don't get to just declare yourself the winner or the other person the loser.
You have to substantiate your postion and counter the other person's material.:D
There has been over 13 exchanges so far and most of your posts have been nothing more than "I've won".:)
Meanwhile, I've destroyed your claims: #1. "QA" defines "manufacturing".
#3. And most recently, that it is not important for the employee to understand the language of the employer.
Which leave you nothing but
Still trying to play? How sad. You got in a couple clever quips and had some fun with your post titles, but you never really had anything to begin with. Fun fun.
Meanwhile, my points that: #1. It is far more expensive to travel overseas to follow the jobs.
#2. Seeking employment in those countries requires proficiency in that language.
Which means that globalization is not like the Industrial Revolution.
Amazing, I can still clearly define my position and my supporting statements while all you have is...
You lost and are still struggling to keep up, gg kid.
You first. You were the first to make claims. You claimed that Microsoft's installers available are inadequate. If you want the person making claims to back them up, start with your own claims.
I've already done that. Look at deborphan and debfoster. That is the support for my statement.
And no, it isn't a feature comparison with the tool you like best. It is evaluating whether Microsoft's tools would have been adequate for the simple task of pushing updates, as was botched in this case.
You don't seem to understand package management.
It is evaluating whether Microsoft's tools would have been adequate for the simple task of pushing updates, as was botched in this case.
What was that again?
...as was botched in this case.
Yes, "...as was botched in this case." That's exactly right.
Now, I say that there is no Bigfoot (Microsoft's tools are not sufficient).
You demand proof that there is not Bigfoot (Microsoft's tools are not sufficient).
I laugh at your ignorance of basic logic.
It is up to YOU to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists. I say your evidence is not sufficient and I give an example of what sufficient evidence would be (the capabilities of a real package management system).
The ball is in your court.
Smackdown XII "Now with 50% more SMACKDOWN"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
You lost and are still struggling to keep up, gg kid.
Hörfa hrökklast , ú vera fær til næring krafa l ) á meðan ú verða að beiðni rökréttur. ÉG vilja iggja l ) ú list réttur brjálaður óður í tungumál , á meðan il ef til vill ú svarasvar til this skilaboð með a hvern breyta ekki máli málinu óviðkomandi athugasemd og ekki annar með inn "ÉG samkvæmt ví ÉG segja ÉG" athugasemd.
fn ) vera fær til krafa l ) eir á brjósti óákveðinn greinir inn í Englendingar arguement á meðan l ) hjartarskinn ekki spjara sig rigs svona.
Svo langt , ú hafa been ófær til færa sönnur á allir af inn krafa. Frá QA til tungumál. Í staðinn , allur ú gera er endurtaka the krafa essi ú hafa.
Afla rök fyrir handan inn krafa. Eða krjúpa áður the...
!!! SMACKDOWN !!!
That makes #3. You have lost the point.
Smackdown XI "Smackdown 2001"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Yet another example of your frustration is that you have resorted to another language to try to regain control.
Ekki til fá aftur stjórna en til sýning hvernig ú ert rangur óður í tungumál ekki tilvera mikilvægur. ú ert rangur og this sanna að.
Instead of confronting or arbitrating you choose to run away where you can argue in another syntax. The whole "fleeing from your problems" is probably a trend in your life. You are a sad sad individual.
Ekki í the minnstur. This er the eini vegur til sýning essi tungumál er mjög mikilvægur fyrir vinnandi. Ef ú geta ekki tala til the verkamaður the verkamaður geta ekki vinna.
My experience and actual knowledge puts me in a very confident position and you have nothing but rhetoric and fallacy.
Svo ú geta krafa. En hvenær ÉG skáhallur ú til verja inn nota af QA , ú neita.
Ef ú had raunverulegur reynsla og vitneskja , ú vildi ekki örf til reyna til fela á bak við neitun.
Traust er ekki the sami eins og nákvæmni.
ú mega vera öruggur , en essi hjartarskinn ekki meðalvegur ú ert réttur. Aftur , tungumál , gegn inn krafa , er gagnrýninn mikilvægur.
Perhaps he read it and recognized it to be wrong? Microsoft does have a decent package management system.
Go ahead, prove it. Show me how I can get the same functionality out of Windows Installer that I have with deborphan and debfoster.
You can make all the claims you want, but now it is time for you to substantiate them.
Smackdown X "Smackdown 2000"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
This is another tangent that is irrelevant. You were owned, get over it.
essi er mjög hlægilegur. ú hugsa essi ví ú segja eitthvað ÉG er ímyndaður til réttlátur trúa essi að er sannur? ÉG gera ekki hugsa svo. ú vilja verða að færa sönnur á inn krafa. ÉG geta auðveldlega færa sönnur á minn réttlátur við staða.
You appear to be making some assumptions here. First, you assume there isn't a package management system in Windows. There is, and it's quite extensive. It's called the Windows Installer, and there are a ton of tools out there to utilize it correctly.
Hmmm, maybe you missed the part in my post where I specifically stated "With Windows, since Microsoft doesn't have a decent package managment system, lots of companies sell products that attempt to fill that gap."
EDS choose the easy route, which is simply copying files, rather than implementing a full package deployment, something they would have had to do under Linux as well, and likewise would have probably failed to do so.
Possibly. But if Windows Installer is so great and "there are a ton of tools out there to utilize it correctly", then why did EDS do what they did?
Windows Installer is NOT as developed or as robust as the package management systems on Linux. That is why so many programs leave so much crap behind them when you un-install them on Windows.
They did precisely what you are saying they would have had to have done on Linux. There was no reason for them to do what they did, but they did it nyways.
Fascinating. They're being paid a lot of money, yet they do really stupid things even when there are lots of tools out there to help them do it right.
You need to look into deborphaner and debfoster to see what functionality a REAL package management system provides.
Custom clients, new security techniques, whatever. The current system is shitty, and it's being exploited like gangbusters. The blame for this does not exactly rest squarely on the consumer.
Exactly. In any system that is this obviously open to abuse (and being actively abused), a large part of the blame lies with the financial institutions.
They are the ones with the inside information on how much is lost and how many accounts are compromised. It's up to THEM to provide a better security model or to cancel Internet bank access until they come up with something better.
But it's not just that complexity. In our billing system, a customer's account was important because we needed to know who to charge for each transaction. In a CSR application, they care about who to contact. In a provisioning app, they care about where the account is physically. This leads to a different approach to designing something as simple as the account structure in the database. It's not something that could be standardized because each application needs to look at the data differently.
And each programmer will look at the "problem" differently and "solve" it differently.
Your billing, CSR and provisioning apps are each different because they serve different functions.
But you can have two billing apps that serve the same function, yet have completely different interfaces and data structures. That's because the programmers had different approaches and priorities when writting them.
It's the vi vs emacs debate all over again. We can't even settle on one "standard" for an editor.
From "The Zen of Programming":
Hearing a disturbance, The master programmer went into the novices cubicle.
"Curse these personal computers!" cried the novice in anger, "To make them do anything I must use three or even four editing programs. Sometimes I get so confused that I erase entire files. This is truly intolerable!"
The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.
The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others."
Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head. It was not a heavy blow, but the novice was nonetheless surprised.
"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the novice.
"I have no wish to learn another editing program," said the master.
The simple way to solve this is to detail the steps that would have to be taken under both systems to achieve these same results.
Under Windows, that's already been done. That's in the article.
Under Linux, they'd have to knowingly break the package management system and overwrite the files manually. Why would they knowingly break the package management system? Hmmmm?
It isn't that you cannot do the same thing under Linux, it's that you have to take more steps and each step is stupid.
With Windows, since Microsoft doesn't have a decent package managment system, lots of companies sell products that attempt to fill that gap. EDS was using one.
With Linux, there is no need to bypass the package management system. Which is one of the reason you don't see very many 3rd party apps for that.
Smackdown IX "The Return of Smackdown"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Globalization is the same as the Industrial Revolution because the biggest employers dont care where you are or what you speak, only if you can be exploited. Your definition is rather limited and your position, haphazardly chosen.
Really? So you think that employers hire workers who cannot understand what their supervisors tell them?
These employers pay these employees to keep trying different tasks until the employee happens upon the task that the employer hired the employee to perform.
Now THAT is hilarious.
No wonder you have such a messed up view of globalization. Maybe you should wait until you get out of high school and start applying for real jobs before you post things like "the biggest employers dont care... what you speak".
ahhahahahahahhahahahhhahhahaha!
Your perception of what role QA has efficiently describes your perception of what manufacturing is. You're fine with your own views, so am I.
So you're saying, again, that manufacturing didn't happen 100 years ago because you say they didn't have QA 100 years ago.
This is just too funny.:D
I fear the repeated !!! SMACKDOWN !!! may have affected your mental process.
ÉG vildi eins og minn launaávísun fyrir aðgerð neitun vinna nú.
Sure, I can script an update for a Linux box, but the version checking will mean that the update doesn't get applied if it doesn't have ALL of the available components.
So I'd have to break some of the packages BEFORE scripting the update.
Then, once the broken packages create the problems, it is a simple task to write another script to fix the broken packages.
So depending upon which packages your broke, the repair process could be accomplished in less than 5 minutes.
At the very, Very, VERY WORST, you'd have to distribute a bootable CD that would chroot the system and apply the correct patches.
Not really surprising if you overwrite parts of an OS with files from a different OS that there is a mass crash, but folks, this is an EDS fuckup not really a problem with Windows.
No. This is an example of a weakness with Windows. This specific problem may have been brought about by EDS, but it only happened because Microsoft chose a flawed security model for their systems.
Smackdown VIII "Son of Smackdown"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
Ah, nothing quite brightens up the day as watching you continue to squirm on your own lies.
I've countered each of the initial points. All this nonsense you've added is irrelevant. Take this nice thread to a philosphy instructor so he can let you know I won.
Keep claiming that, without any substantiation.
Meanwhile, I can easily substantiate my position, as I have many times before. Globalization is not the same as the Industrial Revolution because the workers cannot hitchhike to the jobs anymore and they would have to learn a new language.
Also, QA has nothing to do with the topic, unless you're claiming that manufacturing did not happen 100 years ago because, as you claim, they did not have QA 100 years ago.
So now those poor people in foreign countries can actually have some qualified jobs in manufacturing, rather than just mining and farming like they were previously forced to? And why is that a bad thing?
Because they don't have the worker and environmental protections that we in the 1st world have.
Do I have to remind you of Kathy Lee Gifford's little episode with child labour?
Smackdown VII "Smackdown Reloaded"
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
An inability to tell opinion from fact is a continuing trend. I won, get over it.
Wow, a whole single line post from you claiming victory.
You didn't explain why QA was relevant to the discussion.
You didn't explain why "modern manufacturing theory" was relevant to the discussion.
You didn't counter any of my points.
You just claim that you're right without supporting your position or countering mine.
Yep, that's your style. I recognize it from your previous posts which, likewise, lacked any intelligent content.
I've destroyed your QA claims and in doing so I've destroyed your position. What's that called again? Why yes, that would be the...
Fatalism? Democracy? Aren't they one and the same?
Hardly. Fatalism is a philosophical school. Democracy is a political system.
Nationalist pride in 'systems' are irrelevant when multi-national corps can demolish an entire economic system in a moments bank-wire..
The corps only have as much influence as the local governments allow them. In the past, many governments have "nationalized" industries to deal with that and other problems.
The New World Order is upon us. The only thing we can do about it is construct another one, right on top of it.
Whatever. There has always been a "World Order". The only things that have changed have been who's on top and how fast and easily we can move money and material.
Cash now flows faster and easier than workers do. Before, it took the same effort for a person to go from London to New York as it did to send cash from London to New York.
In order to equalize it, you can remove restrictions on people moving and living where they want to or slow down the transfer of cash.
You get sick, you visit a doctor or hospital in your price range immediately and they treat you! I believe this approach is called free market or something like that.
It is called the Kwik-E-Doc. Hello. I am Apu and I will be your doctor today. We are having a sale on pig heart-bypass valves. Only 1 week past their expiration date. They come with a coupon for 10% off of a Squishy drink.
There's something I don't quite like about the "in your price range". Is there a difference in the medical treatment between the price categories?
Religious freedom is guaranteed in India. It has been that way for millenia. India has the second highest Muslim population in the world and the highest Christian population in Asia! It is officially a "secular" country with no state religion.
Yet the movies still have a problem showing a man even kissing a woman (to say nothing of a bare female breast).
And I've -travelled-, not lived, in far more places than just the 4 I've mentioned... I know parts of the world most couldn't find on a map.. so I resent your assumption that my 'attitude needs changing'... its the root-seeders that need an attitude change, especially them white-picket-fence ones!!
Great. That's some achievement. Particularly given that most US citizens cannot correctly fill in the states of their own country nor the nations in Europe. I'm sure Europeans would do better, but still, it's not that difficult.
So, I've also been to places that "most couldn't find on a map". I don't think that says much about me or my viewpoint. Just my travel history.
As for 'exploiting 3rd world countries', as soon as I'm done exploiting the so-called '1st World' ones, you can bet your ass I'll be off to Timbuktu to help them put new tech to use.
Cute. Except you don't understand the word "exploit".:) Maybe you can find a dictionary in one of those places "most" cannot find on a map?
What I'm talking about is the globalist point of view, not your knee-jerk reactionary tinfoil version.
Well that's quite an achievement for you, I guess. Maybe you should bring that up to someone who has the "tinfoil" version sometime? I'm not interested in it.
Thinking globally; changing from an introverted to extroverted view, is globalization.
Nooooooo..... "globalization" is about the exploitation of off-shore workers. Otherwise we had "globalization" back when a British company had an office in New York, London and Hong Kong. Let's see, that would be about, oh 150 years ago.
Congratulations, you're cutting edge 150 years too late.
Even the Peace Corps have been doing what you're claiming since the 60's.
The difference is that we used to IMPORT the raw materials from other countries and MANUFACTURE the finished goods here.
Now, we setup factories in 3rd world countries and have them import the raw materials and then we import the finished goods.
That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the only way to show that your package management system is handling everything. Every single file on your system should either be identified by the package management system or be known to you as something you created.That's called "knowledge". I know Microsoft products (probably better than you do). I know their functionality, I know their deficiencies.
But I did provide you with the opportunity to show that I was wrong and that you know more than I.
You only believe Microsoft has certain capabilities because you've never used anything else. The reason there are so many 3rd parties tools to facilitate pushing updates to workstations is because Microsoft's core system is fatally flawed.
All those other vendors are selling products that take different approaches to band-aid'ing those flaws. Which is why so many people have so many problems patching Windows systems.And that is the difference between your ignorance and my knowledge.
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
I can easily and clearly post the instructions. You cannot. The reason you cannot is because you don't know how to. All you can do is recite the names of tools that you hope will perform the function.
There is no way to prove a negative.
I state that Microsoft's tools are insufficient. You say they are sufficient.
My "proof" is that you are unable to provide instructions on how to accomplish that task while I have done so twice now.
Here's a third time:
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
There, I've done it THREE times and you're still complaining.
To do that, you have to show how to use those tools to accomplish the task.
So far, you've been unable to do so.
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
Yet you'll continue to claim that you don't have to show that the tools actually do what you claim they do.
Well, there's one reason I can think of that you'd refuse to do so. Particularly when I've shown how easy it is to show exactly how to do it with Debian.
Go ahead. Keep claiming that it is easy to do on Windows. I'm sure that someone will believe that's it's easy and you just don't have to show how to do it.
apt-get install deborphan
orphaner -a
Do you have a problem with reading?No. I have not claimed that. Nor have I claimed that 5cm open end wrenches do not exist.
What I claimed is that Microsoft does not have the tools sufficent to handle the situation.
Not that Microsoft does not have tools available.
What you are doing is called a "strawman" http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#s
It looks like you've failed basic logic a SECOND time.Yes, yet like my wrench example, NONE of them are sufficient to the job. Again you attempt the strawman.Again, the existance of tools from Microsoft was never in question. That is your strawman.
All you have to do is show that the tools you've mentioned are sufficient to the task described earlier.
Fuck it. I'll make it really easy for you.
Just post a script or whatever tool and flags I'd need to type in to or whatever buttons I'd have to click on to identify all of the
Under Debian it is "orphaner -a".
Can you do that? Hmmmm?Again with the strawman. http://shop.store.yahoo.com/tmt/crsowrandwr.html Look! Tools! Yet not one of those tools will correctly apply an update.
One last time. The existance of tools is not in question.
What is in question, and what you are required to provide proof of, is the existance of Microsoft tools that would perform the required task. Identify the tool and identify how it would be used.
Smoke me a kipper, can you do that?
The government should standardize on an Open format for all of the documents.
Then, any company can build a word processor that handles that format.
Only then can the best "tool" be chosen for the job.
Otherwise, if MS Word doesn't have the capabilities you need, you don't have any options because you've locked yourself into a proprietary format.
Now to you, this sounds like a user problem.
To me, it is a problem with Microsoft's security model (allow everything that the user doesn't specifically deny).
Firefox has the opposite model (deny everything that the user doesn't specifically allow).
Not only that, but look up info on "cool web search" and you'll find that this crap exploits a "function" in Windows that hides the
Look up "BHO" for mor information on that subject.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bho+internet
My Linux boxes are frequently "targetted" by worms and such, but they aren't infected because the worms are Windows specific. The Linux worms just do not infect that many machines because Linux has a better security model than Windows.I always find these claims fascinating. I can easily post my uptime stats for my home machines:
08:40:13 up 65 days, 14:29, 1 user, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
-and-
08:40:26 up 65 days, 14:10, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Fully patched. That was the last, extended power outage.
I've seen the Microsoft fans post all kinds of claims about uptime. It usually comes down to their definition of "uptime". Remember Win95 with the 49.7 day reboot bug? Yet I remember people making claims about never rebooting Win95 for "months".
Microsoft often releases fixes for memory leaks in their software.
A long uptime means you aren't applying those patches.
Therefore, the memory leaks are still leaking on your machine.
Therefore, it is not because of your skill that your machine stays up (if it does stay up) but because you are not running anything that would trigger those memory leaks.
Finally, why would anyone at work be allowed to skip the patches on their system FOR A WHOLE YEAR? Even skipping them for 5 months sounds unreasonable to me. My machine is fully patched. It has to be. I'm the network administrator. I cannot have a known vulnerability on my machine.
Defense in depth, baby. It's the only way to go.
Maybe you'd like to try again? This time, leave out the logical fallacies, okay?No. I said that they do NOT exist. If they do, identify them. If you cannot (and your refusal to do so shows very clearly that you cannot), then you have failed to counter my claim that they do not exist.
#1. I have not withdrawn
#2. Withdrawing does not mean you lose as long as my opponent refuses to provide support for his statements or counter my statements. It is possible to withdraw and win.Once again, you refuse to provide support for your statements and are unable to counter mine. I can still link to mine. Where are your's?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=130425&cid=10
You have two chances left.
!!! SMACKDOWN !!!
These tactics seem to work very well on the elderly.
l _apact1.htm m
Here are a few examples:
http://seniorhealth.about.com/library/eldercare/b
and another http://aging.state.ny.us/news/letter/0109scam2.ht
Most people will just hang up, but as with email spam, it only takes a few suckers to make the whole system profitable for the scum.
The scum would really love to get a hold of phone listing so they could send out their "you have won a prize in our free give away" calls.
You don't seem to understand what "debate" is about. You don't get to just declare yourself the winner or the other person the loser.
You have to substantiate your postion and counter the other person's material.
There has been over 13 exchanges so far and most of your posts have been nothing more than "I've won".
Meanwhile, I've destroyed your claims:
#1. "QA" defines "manufacturing".
#2. "Modern manufacturing theory" defines "manufacturing".
#3. And most recently, that it is not important for the employee to understand the language of the employer.
Which leave you nothing but Meanwhile, my points that:
#1. It is far more expensive to travel overseas to follow the jobs.
#2. Seeking employment in those countries requires proficiency in that language.
Which means that globalization is not like the Industrial Revolution.
Amazing, I can still clearly define my position and my supporting statements while all you have is
You have been defeated by the !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
It's all about substantiation. You'll learn that when you get out of high school.
Now, I say that there is no Bigfoot (Microsoft's tools are not sufficient).
You demand proof that there is not Bigfoot (Microsoft's tools are not sufficient).
I laugh at your ignorance of basic logic.
It is up to YOU to provide evidence that Bigfoot exists. I say your evidence is not sufficient and I give an example of what sufficient evidence would be (the capabilities of a real package management system).
The ball is in your court.
fn ) vera fær til krafa l ) eir á brjósti óákveðinn greinir inn í Englendingar arguement á meðan l ) hjartarskinn ekki spjara sig rigs svona.
Svo langt , ú hafa been ófær til færa sönnur á allir af inn krafa. Frá QA til tungumál. Í staðinn , allur ú gera er endurtaka the krafa essi ú hafa.
Afla rök fyrir handan inn krafa. Eða krjúpa áður the
!!! SMACKDOWN !!!
That makes #3. You have lost the point.
Ef ú had raunverulegur reynsla og vitneskja , ú vildi ekki örf til reyna til fela á bak við neitun.
Traust er ekki the sami eins og nákvæmni.
ú mega vera öruggur , en essi hjartarskinn ekki meðalvegur ú ert réttur. Aftur , tungumál , gegn inn krafa , er gagnrýninn mikilvægur.
You can make all the claims you want, but now it is time for you to substantiate them.
Windows Installer is NOT as developed or as robust as the package management systems on Linux. That is why so many programs leave so much crap behind them when you un-install them on Windows.Fascinating. They're being paid a lot of money, yet they do really stupid things even when there are lots of tools out there to help them do it right.
You need to look into deborphaner and debfoster to see what functionality a REAL package management system provides.
They are the ones with the inside information on how much is lost and how many accounts are compromised. It's up to THEM to provide a better security model or to cancel Internet bank access until they come up with something better.
Your billing, CSR and provisioning apps are each different because they serve different functions.
But you can have two billing apps that serve the same function, yet have completely different interfaces and data structures. That's because the programmers had different approaches and priorities when writting them.
It's the vi vs emacs debate all over again. We can't even settle on one "standard" for an editor.
From "The Zen of Programming":
Hearing a disturbance, The master programmer went into the novices cubicle.
"Curse these personal computers!" cried the novice in anger, "To make them do anything I must use three or even four editing programs. Sometimes I get so confused that I erase entire files. This is truly intolerable!"
The master programmer stared at the novice. "And what would you do to remedy this state of affairs?" he asked.
The novice thought for a moment. "I will design a new editing program," he said, "a program that will replace all these others."
Suddenly the master struck the novice on the side of his head. It was not a heavy blow, but the novice was nonetheless surprised.
"What did you do that for?" exclaimed the novice.
"I have no wish to learn another editing program," said the master.
And suddenly the novice was enlightened.
The simple way to solve this is to detail the steps that would have to be taken under both systems to achieve these same results.
Under Windows, that's already been done. That's in the article.
Under Linux, they'd have to knowingly break the package management system and overwrite the files manually. Why would they knowingly break the package management system? Hmmmm?
It isn't that you cannot do the same thing under Linux, it's that you have to take more steps and each step is stupid.
With Windows, since Microsoft doesn't have a decent package managment system, lots of companies sell products that attempt to fill that gap. EDS was using one.
With Linux, there is no need to bypass the package management system. Which is one of the reason you don't see very many 3rd party apps for that.
These employers pay these employees to keep trying different tasks until the employee happens upon the task that the employer hired the employee to perform.
Now THAT is hilarious.
No wonder you have such a messed up view of globalization. Maybe you should wait until you get out of high school and start applying for real jobs before you post things like "the biggest employers dont care
ahhahahahahahhahahahhhahhahaha!
So you're saying, again, that manufacturing didn't happen 100 years ago because you say they didn't have QA 100 years ago.
This is just too funny.
I fear the repeated !!! SMACKDOWN !!! may have affected your mental process.
ÉG vildi eins og minn launaávísun fyrir aðgerð neitun vinna nú.
Hahahahahahahahahhahahaa
Sure, I can script an update for a Linux box, but the version checking will mean that the update doesn't get applied if it doesn't have ALL of the available components.
So I'd have to break some of the packages BEFORE scripting the update.
Then, once the broken packages create the problems, it is a simple task to write another script to fix the broken packages.
So depending upon which packages your broke, the repair process could be accomplished in less than 5 minutes.
At the very, Very, VERY WORST, you'd have to distribute a bootable CD that would chroot the system and apply the correct patches.No. This is an example of a weakness with Windows. This specific problem may have been brought about by EDS, but it only happened because Microsoft chose a flawed security model for their systems.
Meanwhile, I can easily substantiate my position, as I have many times before. Globalization is not the same as the Industrial Revolution because the workers cannot hitchhike to the jobs anymore and they would have to learn a new language.
Also, QA has nothing to do with the topic, unless you're claiming that manufacturing did not happen 100 years ago because, as you claim, they did not have QA 100 years ago.
There, nicely wrapped up and substantiated.
Meanwhile, you have nothing except your lies.
And the pain of !!! SMACKDOWN !!!
Do I have to remind you of Kathy Lee Gifford's little episode with child labour?
You didn't explain why QA was relevant to the discussion.
You didn't explain why "modern manufacturing theory" was relevant to the discussion.
You didn't counter any of my points.
You just claim that you're right without supporting your position or countering mine.
Yep, that's your style. I recognize it from your previous posts which, likewise, lacked any intelligent content.
I've destroyed your QA claims and in doing so I've destroyed your position. What's that called again? Why yes, that would be the
!!! SMACKDOWN !!!
Cash now flows faster and easier than workers do. Before, it took the same effort for a person to go from London to New York as it did to send cash from London to New York.
In order to equalize it, you can remove restrictions on people moving and living where they want to or slow down the transfer of cash.
There's something I don't quite like about the "in your price range". Is there a difference in the medical treatment between the price categories?Yet the movies still have a problem showing a man even kissing a woman (to say nothing of a bare female breast).
So, I've also been to places that "most couldn't find on a map". I don't think that says much about me or my viewpoint. Just my travel history.Cute. Except you don't understand the word "exploit".
Congratulations, you're cutting edge 150 years too late.
Even the Peace Corps have been doing what you're claiming since the 60's.
The difference is that we used to IMPORT the raw materials from other countries and MANUFACTURE the finished goods here.
Now, we setup factories in 3rd world countries and have them import the raw materials and then we import the finished goods.
That's not a good idea if you want to maintain the standard of living of your population.