I'm not even a Mac proselytizer. Or if I am, I am a huge hypocrite. I've used PCs nearly exclusively since 1985. I do case mods and tinker with the hardware. What I don't do is pretend to feel the same way about my platform of choice as I think most Mac users do. What kind of "proof" do you want? Perhaps it is patronizing to say someone "wouldn't" understand. How about "most PC user don't understand."
I think people tend to feel like their choice in computers is mostly made for them. Want all the apps and games? Windows. Want to be compatable with your coworkers? Windows. Windows is the default. Buying Apple is a choice. Deciding to give Linux a try is a choice. This is why you get so much fanaticism either of these alternatives... because it is a choice rather than just something you get because you want a computer.
Please explain. That doesn't make much sense. People don't want a highly integrated product because they fear having it taken away from them? The whole point is that Apple has a long history of delivering a complete, highly integrated product. And people trust it... those that are willing to pay for it, anyway.
That isn't the same thing. Also, those links are exceptions to the rule. Mac users, as a rule, really appreciate their machines in a way that most PC users just wouldn't understand. Macs are hightly integrated and are presented to the user as a whole package rather than having, for example, a Dell computer running Microsoft Windows XP.
FWIW, I'm a PC (but not Windows) user, but my wife is a long time Mac user.
What doesn't make sense about this is that a "router" does more than just pass packets from one interface to another. It needs to read the contents of the packets (or the headers at least), reference a routing table, decide where to send the packet, and possibly modify it.
Unless there is some way to make an entire router out of optronics, RAM and all, there is really no way to avoid a conversion.
-matthew
Could this be a new area of tech jobs, setting up
on
Changing Use of Internet?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Could this be a new area of tech jobs, setting up and maintaining ecommerce sites, creating search assisting applications?
WTF??!?!?! how can infinity be lower than anything? Seriously though, lower vulnerabilities? Where the hell did that come from. From what I understand, linux is more secure, unless you purposely open it up or ignore the installs which tell you not to run as/root
Perhaps that figure is derived from the fact that a typical Linux distribution comes with a LOT of software packages... even if you don't install most of them. For instance, I am on the Debian security mailing list and I get alerts every other day about some fixed potential vulnerability in a package. 80% of the time it is a package I have never even heard of, much less have installed. If you take this into consideration, it may be technically true that "Linux" has more security vulnerabilities when compared to Windows with no applications or extra services installed.
There is nothing to "refute." I was merely suggesting that the propulsion system is a rather small piece of the puzzle. The information you referred me to is only proof of that. Only a small part of the information you linked to was about the propulsion system needed to GET to mars. The rest is a complex *theory* about how it would all work out. And I stress the word "theory." So much of it hasn't been done before. We can barely send a nonrecoverable robotic probe to Mars successfully and you want to gloss over the process of getting HUMANS there and back? Give me a break. I'm not saying it isn't possible, nor am I saying we shouldn't try, but it doesn't help matters to gloss over the complex details of actually doing it... and that is exactly what we get whenever some Mars related story gets posted to Slashdot.
Consider the kind of resources (people) and infrastructure we currently require to launch an ship into orbit. That is what I am talking about... not the fuel. Are we going to send a huge team of engineers to mars with the astronauts? Can you expect to safely land a shuttle (or spaceplane) on an unevent, rocky Martian surface without prior experience? This nuclear engine is a rather small piece of the puzzle. Getting there isn't issue.
You are wrong. "Political Correctness" is a superficial rewording of things to appease a minority or to make those referring to a minority feel better. Saying "African American" vs. "Black" is politically correct. Debian is a project that stands for certain values. There is really no comparison to being "PC." Just because Debian and what it stands for isn't important to you, doesn't mean it is "politically correct."
It depends on what kind of server you are talking about. Sarge comes with some significantly newer packages with many new features such as postfix 2.1 and apache2. I'd say stay with Woody for a while if you already have it installed, but it makes sense to install Sarge on new servers.
Judging by all the pro-Debian posts on this topic, Debian isn't "looking bad." Believe it or not, but some people depend on slow release cycle. Not everyone needs to be bleeding edge to get stuff done. You can install sarge right now if you want to. What are you complaining about?
I've had the same install of Debian on my desktop at work for 7 years. I use it exclusively. No Windows on this machine at all. It has been copied onto a larger harddrive, the motherboard/CPU has been upgraded twice, and I've 'apt-get dist-upgrade'd to new stable releases over the years, but it is the same installation." I don't know if this is a "selling point" but it is a sign that Debian is a solid, consistent, and upgradable base. The "purity" of the licensing is just a bonus for GNU geeks.
The real problem is getting BACK. I mean, once you land, how do you cobble together the resources and facilities to launch a return shuttle? Mars isn't like the Moon, ya know.
I thought water treatment was standard practice in many places. It is in the US. Even where water isn't necessarily scarce. Really, I thought all "city water" came from a treatment facilities. That is where they add the chlorine and flouride and stuff.
Perhaps this new treatment method makes better water than most facilities, but is it really that unusual to be drinking water that was once flushed down the toilet?
At a basic level, marketing is about conveying information to the consumer, and consumers make decisions in their self-interest. The economic history of the world pretty much confirms the truth of this.
No, that is advertising, not marketing. Marketing doesn't really convey anything to the consumer. Marketing is a long(ish) term strategy for advertising.
Speaking as a consumer, I resent the implication that I'm some sort of automaton influenced by "neuro-advertising",
Resent it all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue. The fact is that, to some degree, your choices, desires, and interests can be manipulated by third parties. If this weren't the case, advertising would be nothing more than a list of bullet points describing the benefits of a given product.
I need government protection from the big, bad, marketers.
They may or may not be bad, but they are definitly big. It is a huge industry and you should never underestimate its influence on your life. They certainly don't.
I can handle my own consumption decisions, thankyouverymuch.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't mention much of anything.
I'm not even a Mac proselytizer. Or if I am, I am a huge hypocrite. I've used PCs nearly exclusively since 1985. I do case mods and tinker with the hardware. What I don't do is pretend to feel the same way about my platform of choice as I think most Mac users do. What kind of "proof" do you want? Perhaps it is patronizing to say someone "wouldn't" understand. How about "most PC user don't understand."
-matthew
I think people tend to feel like their choice in computers is mostly made for them. Want all the apps and games? Windows. Want to be compatable with your coworkers? Windows. Windows is the default. Buying Apple is a choice. Deciding to give Linux a try is a choice. This is why you get so much fanaticism either of these alternatives... because it is a choice rather than just something you get because you want a computer.
-matthew
Please explain. That doesn't make much sense. People don't want a highly integrated product because they fear having it taken away from them? The whole point is that Apple has a long history of delivering a complete, highly integrated product. And people trust it... those that are willing to pay for it, anyway.
-matthew
Both to work with me and to have an Apple tattoo.
-matthew
Why would someone not want a highly integrated computing experience?
-matthew
That isn't the same thing. Also, those links are exceptions to the rule. Mac users, as a rule, really appreciate their machines in a way that most PC users just wouldn't understand. Macs are hightly integrated and are presented to the user as a whole package rather than having, for example, a Dell computer running Microsoft Windows XP.
FWIW, I'm a PC (but not Windows) user, but my wife is a long time Mac user.
-matthew
Yeah, I worked with a guy who had a Mac tattoo. He was a really strange person. But I guess you'd have to be.
-matthew
Talk about exportable jobs...
Perhaps that figure is derived from the fact that a typical Linux distribution comes with a LOT of software packages... even if you don't install most of them. For instance, I am on the Debian security mailing list and I get alerts every other day about some fixed potential vulnerability in a package. 80% of the time it is a package I have never even heard of, much less have installed. If you take this into consideration, it may be technically true that "Linux" has more security vulnerabilities when compared to Windows with no applications or extra services installed.
-matthew
-matthew
Oh, I don't use the Debian kernel. I almost always build and maintain my own with only the modules I'll need.
-matthew
How long ago did this happen?
Consider the kind of resources (people) and infrastructure we currently require to launch an ship into orbit. That is what I am talking about... not the fuel. Are we going to send a huge team of engineers to mars with the astronauts? Can you expect to safely land a shuttle (or spaceplane) on an unevent, rocky Martian surface without prior experience? This nuclear engine is a rather small piece of the puzzle. Getting there isn't issue.
You are wrong. "Political Correctness" is a superficial rewording of things to appease a minority or to make those referring to a minority feel better. Saying "African American" vs. "Black" is politically correct. Debian is a project that stands for certain values. There is really no comparison to being "PC." Just because Debian and what it stands for isn't important to you, doesn't mean it is "politically correct."
-matthew
It depends on what kind of server you are talking about. Sarge comes with some significantly newer packages with many new features such as postfix 2.1 and apache2. I'd say stay with Woody for a while if you already have it installed, but it makes sense to install Sarge on new servers.
-matthew
Judging by all the pro-Debian posts on this topic, Debian isn't "looking bad." Believe it or not, but some people depend on slow release cycle. Not everyone needs to be bleeding edge to get stuff done. You can install sarge right now if you want to. What are you complaining about?
-matthew
That isn't fair. Debian isn't "politically correct." It is socially responsible.
You should have tried testing/sarge. Not Woody. The sarge installer is actually very good.
-matthew
The new Debian Sarge installer is really pretty slick. It allows you to configure software RAID and everything. It also autodetects hardware.
-matthew
-matthew
The real problem is getting BACK. I mean, once you land, how do you cobble together the resources and facilities to launch a return shuttle? Mars isn't like the Moon, ya know.
-matthew
I thought water treatment was standard practice in many places. It is in the US. Even where water isn't necessarily scarce. Really, I thought all "city water" came from a treatment facilities. That is where they add the chlorine and flouride and stuff.
Perhaps this new treatment method makes better water than most facilities, but is it really that unusual to be drinking water that was once flushed down the toilet?
-matthew
No, that is advertising, not marketing. Marketing doesn't really convey anything to the consumer. Marketing is a long(ish) term strategy for advertising.
Speaking as a consumer, I resent the implication that I'm some sort of automaton influenced by "neuro-advertising",
Resent it all you want, but that doesn't make it untrue. The fact is that, to some degree, your choices, desires, and interests can be manipulated by third parties. If this weren't the case, advertising would be nothing more than a list of bullet points describing the benefits of a given product.
I need government protection from the big, bad, marketers.
They may or may not be bad, but they are definitly big. It is a huge industry and you should never underestimate its influence on your life. They certainly don't.
I can handle my own consumption decisions, thankyouverymuch.
Indeed. Marketers are counting on it.
-mattnew