Well again, your problem wasn't a Windows problem it was a Dell / HP / Whoever you bought your computer from didn't do a good job of setting it up before you bought it. Not saying that it wasn't an issue, just that it was the system builder you bought it from that caused the problem, not Windows.
Every time my Windows XP system crashes on me, or my network didn't initiate correctly, that's wasted time, effort, and it means I need to learn a new skill set to correct the problem.
As long as you're not using some cheapo hardware, if you have XP crashing more than once a year, you're obviously doing something you shouldn't. That is not Window's fault that you can't figure out how to properly use a computer. It's like a guy at work the other day trying to blame Outlook / Exchange because he couldn't figure out how to make an archive properly.
The few times my OSX machine crash on me, it self recovers.
Really? When I've had OS X crash on me, it's always been a "the system is so screwed up that you have to hold the power button to turn it off" situation.
OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, where as Windows and Linux KEEP PROMPTING ME WITH USELESS STUFF!
With Windows at least, you can turn that off. You claim to be a neuroscientist but you can't take 5 seconds to find out how to turn off UAC?
The fact that fewer exploits target OSX is also a great benefit, and I don't have a billion choices for which hardware to buy so it's easier for me to choose the "best" one available to me.
So in other words, you walk in and say "I want a computer" and you let the salesman tell you what you should buy, instead of you making an informed decision and actually finding out what would work best for you and at the best price.
I don't want to spend a month figuring out if the Acer, Panasonic, or Dell is going to be the most ergonomic for my uses. With Apple, it's not even a question, because it's irrelevant insofar as I do not have a choice.
If it takes you more than an afternoon to find out what the best system is, you're doing something horribly wrong, and I think you're beyond help if you spend a whole month looking for the best system.
Also, by being an "outsider", there is less push to conformity. I don't know anyone else that uses a Mac, so I'm not being told which software is the "best" or how I should organize my workflow, thus allowing me to make my own decisions about what's important.
First off, every Macolyte I know all uses pretty much the same software - partly because there's not nearly as much available (fact of life). Secondly, why do you consider it a BAD thing that people are making suggestions as to how you can perform task X faster or get the software for free?
Just a note for everyone else, I use all OS's and they all have ups and downs. I have nothing against OS X, but I find this particular persons reasons for using Mac's to be pretty bogus.
Anyone who has observed discussion on slashdot should know that there is little to no tolerance for those too lazy to google
Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
you would already know how much more CO2 humans produced than volcanism.
When the hell did I mention volcanism? Never. I said "natural sources", which covers everything that is not a machine built by man that burns fossil fuels.
I personally believe that you were trying to discredit human influence on climate for your own reasons, whether because you are a shill or because you want to salve your own conscience.
I made a comment discrediting it because there's no truth to it. My best guesses? Either you're obsessed with scientists being infallible, so if one scientist says it's true then it MUST be true, or you have a grudge against modern civilization and want to see the world taxed into the stone age in the name of solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Really? If it's so trivial, why can't you take the millisecond to justfuckinggoogleit and show me? I never said you were lying, I simply asked you for a source because I'd never seen anything supporting your claims.
Your repeated personal attacks instead of backing up your argument definitely lead one to assume that you don't have anything to back up your argument.
Really? My sources were easy to find (shit I just read one yesterday without even LOOKING for it), yet when I politely ask you, not because I don't believe you but because I'm curious, you not only refuse but instead start throwing insults? That really doesn't help your argument at all.
I'm sure people in real life get crap all the time for having an imaginary friend.
And believing in God is more ridiculous than the alternative "religions" (they're not officially religions, hence the quotation marks) that nerds subscribe to such as the idea that everything just magically happened by chance (even though a true nerd would realize that it's statistically impossible) - takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe in that my friend.
All I believe you need to know about manmade CO2, though, is that CO2 from volcanism is considered to change climate, and we put out many times as much CO2 as volcanism.
I'd be curious to see sources for that since every source I've read has said (roughly) 96% of CO2 is from natural sources.
Between the 1990's and 2010, the Western parts of Europe have had mild winters. All this changed in the last couple of months, when we had the coldest winter for over 40 years
And you point is......? CO2 emissions are higher now than they were in 1990 (more people, more cars, more factories). So are you saying that CO2 caused the mild winters? Or are you saying that it magically caused a cold winter all of the sudden?
That's because the US hasn't had an abnormal amount of freak weather, like hurricanes or floods. Oh wait..
It hasn't. Maybe the media publicizes it more to get more ratings, but hurricanes have always been around (especially in the southern US) and floods have always happened every few years. Nothing about that has changed.
Not that it's worth listening to anybody that says "only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices". That is a massive amount!
Really? 4% is a massive amount? Sorry, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who claims that 4% of anything is a massive amount.
Defy the hive-mind that the majority of slashdotters are part of at your own peril my friend! Other ways to get to -2 are to suggest that you believe in God or voted for a Republican at any point in time -- and God help you if they find out that you don't know how to program, don't like Linux, and don't like Firefly....those crimes are punishable by death around here!
It's too bad that there can't be a quiet, sensible discussion on the subject thanks to all the political baggage
And that's the problem. No one (or at least, no one in the general population) had heard of global warming / climate change until we had politicians saying "If you don't elect me so that I can pass X laws to stop GW / climate change, we will all die!" - and right from the beginning it was all a matter of politicians using it to get elected so that they can pass other laws that suit their personal views. The fact that as it gets more an more political we have more "evidence" is easily explained by 1) politicians paying people to find "proof" so that they can get elected and 2) people realizing that there's easy money in "proving" global warming.
Yes, I know many will mod me a troll for being skeptical - I don't care one way or another if the temperature is changing or not. However, since only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices and we have plenty of proof of temperatures changing long before the industrial revolution, the claims of man-made global warming are a bunch of bullshit being used by people who want to pass laws to change society to how they feel it should be. The issue is not "are temperatures changing", the issue is "is this caused by human behavior" and there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
No one that I've seen has mentioned "time to complete" they said "time spent playing". It doesn't matter if the game takes a long time to beat as long as it's a good game and you decide to play it multiple times (such as games like Deus Ex with multiple endings). So even if "the best game ever" only takes 29 hours to complete, you'll play it multiple times as opposed to "the generally amusing game" which you'll probably only play once or twice.
Most of my games are so good that I've played them multiple times, meaning that the bang for my buck is WAY off the charts. I can only think of one game I own that I've only played once, and that's Dungeon Siege, though I may reinstall it because I found an Ultima V mod for Dungeon Siege.
Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.
Sorry, I have to disagree there. I think the reason they have 90% of the market is because Windows is what most companies develop software for.....as a result, if you want to run most software, you MUST run Windows. Hopefully this changes in the future, but I doubt it.
While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.
How does it entrench their position? First off, I use Windows, OS X, and Linux and find each one to have strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, I actually do find Windows 7 (which I've been using since the beta) to be worth paying for - I just find the price tag to be way too steep (especially given that they block features unless you pay more money). However, I don't understand how you can say pirating their software is good for them since I'm aware of the alternatives - if I get a free copy of Office, why not use it? If the day came where I couldn't get a free copy, I'd go back to using Open Office (like I did for a couple of years). It's the same with any other MS product - while some of their products actually are good (Win 7 and MSE are the only two I can actually think of, hah), my main reason for using MS products is that I can get them for free. When I can no longer get them for free, I'll just use open source equivalents for free instead - so it's not like I'm going to pay them money once I can no longer get it for free.
Wow, that was a bunch of bullshit. However, I can sum up your philosophical views "If we just give one person / government infinite power, everything will be perfect because they'll force everyone to be nice and force everyone to "share" everything - it will be wonderful!".
from what I've seen, all Objectivists are sad, lonely, miserable bastards.
Really? I know you haven't read any of her stuff (as shown from your comments and lack of knowledge of what Ayn Rand believed), but I also don't think you've ever met someone who followed her philosophy. Every objectivist I've met is a very happy person and most of them are married with lots of friends. If you bothered to realize that objectivism never says not to do good, you might realize that. What objectivism argues against is egotistical jackasses like you who want to FORCE everyone to do what you think is "good". I know, you hate that people have free will - too bad, because they do, and you can't do shit about it. Go back to sucking Marx's cock, because even though it's been proven time and again that his theories don't work in the real world, you still cling to them because you have a pathetic need to feel powerful, so you want to dominate others.
MS has actually made their search engine better than Google
........really? You're the first person I've seen who likes Bing. Anytime I've used it, instead of actual useful links that I get with Google, I mainly get stupid ads for MS products instead.
No one advocated solitude, or even hinted at it. All that was said was "take an actual vacation" as opposed to volunteering.
As for your comments about "charity is useless" again, actually READ Ayn Rands stuff - not her fiction, her letters. She does not condemn charity in the slightest.
Sorry, but I have to call you "wisdom" in to question when your argument relies on 1) making up things that the poster didn't say and 2) making false claims about a philosopher whose works you obviously haven't read much of. Regardless, no one (not me, not Ayn Rand, and not the poster you're calling a sociopath) said that charity is a waste.
You're the one calling someone a sociopath for daring to disagree with you and suggest that someone take an actual vacation with their vacation time. You're the one who's blindly being ideological and trying to force your views on people - and if you'd even bothered to read a damn thing Ayn Rand wrote, you'd realize that your quips about her being anti-family, friends, and community are completely false.
Annnnnnd to prove my point about the collectivism, I get modded down for daring to think people should be able to make their own choices. Fucking. Priceless.
Slashdot Mirror
Well again, your problem wasn't a Windows problem it was a Dell / HP / Whoever you bought your computer from didn't do a good job of setting it up before you bought it. Not saying that it wasn't an issue, just that it was the system builder you bought it from that caused the problem, not Windows.
Every time my Windows XP system crashes on me, or my network didn't initiate correctly, that's wasted time, effort, and it means I need to learn a new skill set to correct the problem.
As long as you're not using some cheapo hardware, if you have XP crashing more than once a year, you're obviously doing something you shouldn't. That is not Window's fault that you can't figure out how to properly use a computer. It's like a guy at work the other day trying to blame Outlook / Exchange because he couldn't figure out how to make an archive properly.
The few times my OSX machine crash on me, it self recovers.
Really? When I've had OS X crash on me, it's always been a "the system is so screwed up that you have to hold the power button to turn it off" situation.
OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, where as Windows and Linux KEEP PROMPTING ME WITH USELESS STUFF!
With Windows at least, you can turn that off. You claim to be a neuroscientist but you can't take 5 seconds to find out how to turn off UAC?
The fact that fewer exploits target OSX is also a great benefit, and I don't have a billion choices for which hardware to buy so it's easier for me to choose the "best" one available to me.
So in other words, you walk in and say "I want a computer" and you let the salesman tell you what you should buy, instead of you making an informed decision and actually finding out what would work best for you and at the best price.
I don't want to spend a month figuring out if the Acer, Panasonic, or Dell is going to be the most ergonomic for my uses. With Apple, it's not even a question, because it's irrelevant insofar as I do not have a choice.
If it takes you more than an afternoon to find out what the best system is, you're doing something horribly wrong, and I think you're beyond help if you spend a whole month looking for the best system.
Also, by being an "outsider", there is less push to conformity. I don't know anyone else that uses a Mac, so I'm not being told which software is the "best" or how I should organize my workflow, thus allowing me to make my own decisions about what's important.
First off, every Macolyte I know all uses pretty much the same software - partly because there's not nearly as much available (fact of life). Secondly, why do you consider it a BAD thing that people are making suggestions as to how you can perform task X faster or get the software for free?
Just a note for everyone else, I use all OS's and they all have ups and downs. I have nothing against OS X, but I find this particular persons reasons for using Mac's to be pretty bogus.
Anyone who has observed discussion on slashdot should know that there is little to no tolerance for those too lazy to google
Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle.
you would already know how much more CO2 humans produced than volcanism.
When the hell did I mention volcanism? Never. I said "natural sources", which covers everything that is not a machine built by man that burns fossil fuels.
I personally believe that you were trying to discredit human influence on climate for your own reasons, whether because you are a shill or because you want to salve your own conscience.
I made a comment discrediting it because there's no truth to it. My best guesses? Either you're obsessed with scientists being infallible, so if one scientist says it's true then it MUST be true, or you have a grudge against modern civilization and want to see the world taxed into the stone age in the name of solving a problem that doesn't exist.
Really? If it's so trivial, why can't you take the millisecond to justfuckinggoogleit and show me? I never said you were lying, I simply asked you for a source because I'd never seen anything supporting your claims.
Your repeated personal attacks instead of backing up your argument definitely lead one to assume that you don't have anything to back up your argument.
Oh, I know, I was just using the common terminology / view for the sake of the discussion.
Really? My sources were easy to find (shit I just read one yesterday without even LOOKING for it), yet when I politely ask you, not because I don't believe you but because I'm curious, you not only refuse but instead start throwing insults? That really doesn't help your argument at all.
I'm sure people in real life get crap all the time for having an imaginary friend.
And believing in God is more ridiculous than the alternative "religions" (they're not officially religions, hence the quotation marks) that nerds subscribe to such as the idea that everything just magically happened by chance (even though a true nerd would realize that it's statistically impossible) - takes a hell of a lot more faith to believe in that my friend.
All I believe you need to know about manmade CO2, though, is that CO2 from volcanism is considered to change climate, and we put out many times as much CO2 as volcanism.
I'd be curious to see sources for that since every source I've read has said (roughly) 96% of CO2 is from natural sources.
Between the 1990's and 2010, the Western parts of Europe have had mild winters. All this changed in the last couple of months, when we had the coldest winter for over 40 years
And you point is......? CO2 emissions are higher now than they were in 1990 (more people, more cars, more factories). So are you saying that CO2 caused the mild winters? Or are you saying that it magically caused a cold winter all of the sudden?
There are many nerds who believe in God. However, only on slashdot does admitting to that get you modded a troll.
That's because the US hasn't had an abnormal amount of freak weather, like hurricanes or floods. Oh wait..
It hasn't. Maybe the media publicizes it more to get more ratings, but hurricanes have always been around (especially in the southern US) and floods have always happened every few years. Nothing about that has changed.
Not that it's worth listening to anybody that says "only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices". That is a massive amount!
Really? 4% is a massive amount? Sorry, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who claims that 4% of anything is a massive amount.
I would be shocked if this doesn't reach -2.
Defy the hive-mind that the majority of slashdotters are part of at your own peril my friend! Other ways to get to -2 are to suggest that you believe in God or voted for a Republican at any point in time -- and God help you if they find out that you don't know how to program, don't like Linux, and don't like Firefly....those crimes are punishable by death around here!
It's too bad that there can't be a quiet, sensible discussion on the subject thanks to all the political baggage
And that's the problem. No one (or at least, no one in the general population) had heard of global warming / climate change until we had politicians saying "If you don't elect me so that I can pass X laws to stop GW / climate change, we will all die!" - and right from the beginning it was all a matter of politicians using it to get elected so that they can pass other laws that suit their personal views. The fact that as it gets more an more political we have more "evidence" is easily explained by 1) politicians paying people to find "proof" so that they can get elected and 2) people realizing that there's easy money in "proving" global warming.
Yes, I know many will mod me a troll for being skeptical - I don't care one way or another if the temperature is changing or not. However, since only about 4% of daily CO2 output is from man-made devices and we have plenty of proof of temperatures changing long before the industrial revolution, the claims of man-made global warming are a bunch of bullshit being used by people who want to pass laws to change society to how they feel it should be. The issue is not "are temperatures changing", the issue is "is this caused by human behavior" and there is absolutely no evidence that it is.
No one that I've seen has mentioned "time to complete" they said "time spent playing". It doesn't matter if the game takes a long time to beat as long as it's a good game and you decide to play it multiple times (such as games like Deus Ex with multiple endings). So even if "the best game ever" only takes 29 hours to complete, you'll play it multiple times as opposed to "the generally amusing game" which you'll probably only play once or twice.
Most of my games are so good that I've played them multiple times, meaning that the bang for my buck is WAY off the charts. I can only think of one game I own that I've only played once, and that's Dungeon Siege, though I may reinstall it because I found an Ultima V mod for Dungeon Siege.
Apparently they have some major lag - you'll see their response in a day or two! ;)
Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.
Sorry, I have to disagree there. I think the reason they have 90% of the market is because Windows is what most companies develop software for.....as a result, if you want to run most software, you MUST run Windows. Hopefully this changes in the future, but I doubt it.
While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.
How does it entrench their position? First off, I use Windows, OS X, and Linux and find each one to have strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, I actually do find Windows 7 (which I've been using since the beta) to be worth paying for - I just find the price tag to be way too steep (especially given that they block features unless you pay more money). However, I don't understand how you can say pirating their software is good for them since I'm aware of the alternatives - if I get a free copy of Office, why not use it? If the day came where I couldn't get a free copy, I'd go back to using Open Office (like I did for a couple of years). It's the same with any other MS product - while some of their products actually are good (Win 7 and MSE are the only two I can actually think of, hah), my main reason for using MS products is that I can get them for free. When I can no longer get them for free, I'll just use open source equivalents for free instead - so it's not like I'm going to pay them money once I can no longer get it for free.
Swoops, yea. I was making fun of the website where they got people to say we need to ban water because they called it dihydrogen monoxide.
Oh yeah? Well you know what nuclear power plants emit? Water vapor. The silent killer.
I think you mean that evil substance known as hydrogen-dioxide!
Wow, that was a bunch of bullshit. However, I can sum up your philosophical views "If we just give one person / government infinite power, everything will be perfect because they'll force everyone to be nice and force everyone to "share" everything - it will be wonderful!".
from what I've seen, all Objectivists are sad, lonely, miserable bastards.
Really? I know you haven't read any of her stuff (as shown from your comments and lack of knowledge of what Ayn Rand believed), but I also don't think you've ever met someone who followed her philosophy. Every objectivist I've met is a very happy person and most of them are married with lots of friends. If you bothered to realize that objectivism never says not to do good, you might realize that. What objectivism argues against is egotistical jackasses like you who want to FORCE everyone to do what you think is "good". I know, you hate that people have free will - too bad, because they do, and you can't do shit about it. Go back to sucking Marx's cock, because even though it's been proven time and again that his theories don't work in the real world, you still cling to them because you have a pathetic need to feel powerful, so you want to dominate others.
MS has actually made their search engine better than Google
........really? You're the first person I've seen who likes Bing. Anytime I've used it, instead of actual useful links that I get with Google, I mainly get stupid ads for MS products instead.
Nope, it was volunteer work - I actually had to pay to fly down and for room and board.
No one advocated solitude, or even hinted at it. All that was said was "take an actual vacation" as opposed to volunteering.
As for your comments about "charity is useless" again, actually READ Ayn Rands stuff - not her fiction, her letters. She does not condemn charity in the slightest.
Sorry, but I have to call you "wisdom" in to question when your argument relies on 1) making up things that the poster didn't say and 2) making false claims about a philosopher whose works you obviously haven't read much of. Regardless, no one (not me, not Ayn Rand, and not the poster you're calling a sociopath) said that charity is a waste.
You're the one calling someone a sociopath for daring to disagree with you and suggest that someone take an actual vacation with their vacation time. You're the one who's blindly being ideological and trying to force your views on people - and if you'd even bothered to read a damn thing Ayn Rand wrote, you'd realize that your quips about her being anti-family, friends, and community are completely false.
Annnnnnd to prove my point about the collectivism, I get modded down for daring to think people should be able to make their own choices. Fucking. Priceless.