It goes down past skin deep, my friend. You can't shower off your patchouli-stink.
Ah, so in fact it doesn't have anything to do with how these "hippies" actual are in reality, but everything to do with how you project your own self-hatred onto them. Fact is that most of these people you are judging are really good and kind.
I find tremendously stupid to "enhance" reality by consistently trying to evade it.
What are you talking about? Have you ever used LSD? I live a "normal" life with a wife and a job. If my wife and I take LSD every once in a while, we are hardly evading reality.. certainly not "consistently." It is a very spriritual thing and I am somewhat insulted by your uneducated judgement.
eople that regularly take drugs just do not realize the damage and grief they cause around them and the danger on which they put themseves
Please make a distinction between those who actually abuse drugs and those who use them. Not everyone who uses drugs is causing damage and grief.
Having said this, I defend the right of any person to stone himself to death if that is his wish and if that does not put third parties at danger.
While I appreciate your respect for my rights, I don't respect your uneducated judgement about drugs and people who use them from time to time.
War on drugs is the dumbest idea ever invented, and the sooner their implementors and promoters are unmasked and made jobeless, the better for all.
Unfortunately, the war on drugs is not going end until people like you realize that not everyone who uses drugs recreationally and/or spiritually is "stoning themselves to death."
On the other hand, LSD, Cocaine, X and that family are a different story. They seem a lot more proactive and useful if they're not abused.
Cocaine? Are you joking? Coke has to be one of the biggest waste of time drugs ever "invented." It doesn't last long enough to be "useful." And it is very difficult not to abuse.
Amphetamines, maybe... but not coke.
Of course, you seem to have a much different idea of what is useful. I can "get stuff done" without drugs. I'm much more interested in the spritual and creative aspects of drugs. Pot, LSD, and X can be very good in that regard. The thing with pot is that you can't get in the habit of sitting around watching TV stoned. Get out and do something when stoned and it becomes a much more productive and interesting.
On the other hand, LSD, Cocaine, X and that family are a different story.... It's no surprise that many of today's anti-ADD/depression drugs are opiate-based and basically do the same thing in slightly different, less-intense doses.
Huh? Name one ADD medication that is opiate based. Most of them are amphetamine (speed) based. Perhaps you are confused as to what an opiate is. Herion is an opiate, for example. Coke is not even close. Somehow I doubt you had opiate sessions of productivity.:-P
They seem a lot more proactive and useful if they're not abused.
You have a pretty odd definition of "useful." You're not very spiritual, are you?
Well, rest assured that I don't have dreads. What I meant by culture was simply internet forums. I really don't engage in much psychedelic "culture" in real life beyond doing the drugs from time to time... mostly at home with my wife.;-)
But, those understandings are the most logical thing ever when on said psychotropic
I have to disagree. I wouldn't call my understandings while under the influence of LSD logical. Yeah, illogical things can make "sense" while under the influence, but they never seem particularly logical. The LSD understanding is much more akin to intuition. Just as valid, IMO.
I find it interesting that a drug related article made it to slashdot. I spend a lot of time in psychedelic news forums. I've consumed my fair share of LSD as well. Sometimes I just assume that slashdot readers have similar interests, but then I think that is a silly assumption. Was my original assumption correct? Are most slashdot readers (geeks?) at least sympathetic to psychedelic/cannabis culture? If so, why do you think this is?
Since I did a lot of work for financial industry (three major Canadian banks, two mutual fund companies, and a check/statement printer) I saw demand for quality software and real demand for people who know how to build quality software. In many cases managers find themselves with this problem: a project needs to be done in a way that will not jeopardize the company's image, so the software must be near perfect on the other hand the managers have no idea who to trust with their project.
Your solution doesn't solve this problem. It merely defines a scapegoat for when the software turns out to be less than perfect.
Umm, the engineers don't own the code. The corporation does. You need to hold the company responsible. They can reprimand their engineers as they see fit. But yeah, I'm all for corporate responsibility.
Readers should also consider what the Bush administration has done to protect the USA from further attack from terrorists and what Mike Moore has done.
What exactly DID Bush do to protect us? Did he stop 9/11? No. It isn't like terrorism is anything new. It didn't start with 9/11. Did you ever stop to think that maybe there hasn't been a 9/11 since 2001 simply because those types of things take a long time to plan? Sorry, but I'm just not impressed when Bush says "See? They haven't attacked since, uh, the last time they attacked!"
Don't you feel just a *little* manipulated by the Bush administration?
Apparently we hold ourselves to completely different standards. IMO, you can't tell half of a story and expect anyone to give a rat's ass. Its perfectly possible for someone to examine all sides of a situation, and include all the facts in an honest way.
Really? can you give an example of this? Sorry, but it is impossible to include ALL the facts... certainly not in the content of a 2 hour film. Someone has to decide which "facts" to include and which to leave out. And right there you have an inherent bias. What makes Moore different than most people with an agenda is that he openly admits that there is a bias and he tells you exactly what it is so you can take the film with a huge grain of salt if you want and decide for youself.
I mean come on, what does Moore have to worry about, if bush is as bad as he wants everyone to believe, he could have been fair and balanced and everyone would have reacted the same way? Right? Right?
Unfortunately, no. Some people are so enamored by authority, fear, and blind patriotism that no amount of unbiased truth would open their eyes. This isn't to say that biased truth will open their eyes, but that is ok, because Moore didn't make the film for those infatuated with Bush's cowboy prowess. He made the movie for the swing voters who might actually swing. And he is honest about it.
However, without doing so, I'll never know if I missed that one message in (about) a thousand that's from a vendor that's not in my whitelist.
I've accidentally deleted more legitmate mail while weeding through the spam in my inbox than DSPAM has caught false positives. See, filters don't get frustrated. I do. I trust DSPAM more than I trust myself. Scary, huh?
1: Disable visual styles.
2: Disable system restore.
3: Run "msconfig". Disable all startup apps (not services, but the apps that run when you log in and usually appear in the system tray).
4: Run a virus and spyware scan to ensure that your system is clean.
5: Remove all but 128M of memory in your system.
This is serious tweaking for most people. Most people let all kinds of startup apps collect on their taskbar.
Making Linux run well on 128MB is actually a lot easier. Simply don't run KDE or GNOME.:-P
I don't know how things stand on the server side, but in my experience on the desktop, XP wins in both stability and speed. I could comfortably run it on a 400 MHz AMD k6-2 with 128 Mb of RAM. Try doing that with Fedora core 2 or Mandrake 10.
You "could" run XP comfortably on a 400MHz K6-2 w/ 128MB RAM or you DO run it comfortably? If you are running XP comfortately on that hardware, you simply aren't running XP. It just isn't possible without serious tweaking. XP alone needs about 128MB of RAM BEFORE you run any apps.
The point isn't that Linux does necessarily use less resources... it is that it can use less resources... out of the box. Just because some people choose a distribution that is bloated by default doesn't mean Linux is bloated or getting bloated. The Linux kernel is still relatively small. Whatever you decide to use beyond the kernel is up to you.
Who the hell cares if someone watches a film before it comes out in their country?
Perhaps the movie industry is afraid that people will see just how bad most of the movies are and they won't go see them in the theaters? Just look at the piece of shit film the people got caugh recording.... Day After Tomorrow. Who in their right mind would go see that movie in the theater after seeing what a piece of shit it is? I think the movie industry relies on people not really knowing how good a movie is before they see it. Sure, there are reviews by critics, but most people don't trust movie critics.
I doubt the movie industry is all that worried about people previewing good movies. Seeing a low bitrate, camcorder 'net download of a good movie will only make people want to see it in the theater.
I'm with you. Those ads are a downright insult. I may stop going to the theater just because of that. It is ridiculous. Of course, DVDs will probably go the same route. Many already have ads that you can't fastforward through (not being able to fastforward your OWN DVD in itself an abomination).
Office (specifically Word) is a complex tool. It can do a lot, but with that level of flexibility comes a certain level of complexity and obfuscation.
And this will be Microsoft's downfall. The more they shove overly complex (for 90% of users) tools down people's throats in the name of "innovation," the more people will look for alternatives. In this case, Apple is an EXCELLENT alternative. Their OS and applications remain simple and effective for 90% of its users.
It's not like it's terribly hard to keep Windows stable.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever. Seems pretty childish to make fun of a group's prefered fragrance. Apparently your criticism of hippies is skin deep.
-matthew
It goes down past skin deep, my friend. You can't shower off your patchouli-stink.
Ah, so in fact it doesn't have anything to do with how these "hippies" actual are in reality, but everything to do with how you project your own self-hatred onto them. Fact is that most of these people you are judging are really good and kind.
-matthew
What are you talking about? Have you ever used LSD? I live a "normal" life with a wife and a job. If my wife and I take LSD every once in a while, we are hardly evading reality.. certainly not "consistently." It is a very spriritual thing and I am somewhat insulted by your uneducated judgement.
eople that regularly take drugs just do not realize the damage and grief they cause around them and the danger on which they put themseves
Please make a distinction between those who actually abuse drugs and those who use them. Not everyone who uses drugs is causing damage and grief.
Having said this, I defend the right of any person to stone himself to death if that is his wish and if that does not put third parties at danger.
While I appreciate your respect for my rights, I don't respect your uneducated judgement about drugs and people who use them from time to time.
War on drugs is the dumbest idea ever invented, and the sooner their implementors and promoters are unmasked and made jobeless, the better for all.
Unfortunately, the war on drugs is not going end until people like you realize that not everyone who uses drugs recreationally and/or spiritually is "stoning themselves to death."
-matthew
Cocaine? Are you joking? Coke has to be one of the biggest waste of time drugs ever "invented." It doesn't last long enough to be "useful." And it is very difficult not to abuse.
Amphetamines, maybe... but not coke.
Of course, you seem to have a much different idea of what is useful. I can "get stuff done" without drugs. I'm much more interested in the spritual and creative aspects of drugs. Pot, LSD, and X can be very good in that regard. The thing with pot is that you can't get in the habit of sitting around watching TV stoned. Get out and do something when stoned and it becomes a much more productive and interesting.
On the other hand, LSD, Cocaine, X and that family are a different story.... It's no surprise that many of today's anti-ADD/depression drugs are opiate-based and basically do the same thing in slightly different, less-intense doses.
Huh? Name one ADD medication that is opiate based. Most of them are amphetamine (speed) based. Perhaps you are confused as to what an opiate is. Herion is an opiate, for example. Coke is not even close. Somehow I doubt you had opiate sessions of productivity. :-P
They seem a lot more proactive and useful if they're not abused.
You have a pretty odd definition of "useful." You're not very spiritual, are you?
-matthew
You're clear in that you have a huge chip on your shoulder. Were you severely beaten by hippies when yoiu were younger or something? ;-)
-matthew
Well, rest assured that I don't have dreads. What I meant by culture was simply internet forums. I really don't engage in much psychedelic "culture" in real life beyond doing the drugs from time to time... mostly at home with my wife. ;-)
-matthew
What is that supposed to mean? Are you expressing some kind of prejudice against psychedelic drug users?
I have to disagree. I wouldn't call my understandings while under the influence of LSD logical. Yeah, illogical things can make "sense" while under the influence, but they never seem particularly logical. The LSD understanding is much more akin to intuition. Just as valid, IMO.
-matthew
What do you mean? I take it you've never use the stuff. Some of my most vivid and amazing memories have come via LSD.
-matthew
I find it interesting that a drug related article made it to slashdot. I spend a lot of time in psychedelic news forums. I've consumed my fair share of LSD as well. Sometimes I just assume that slashdot readers have similar interests, but then I think that is a silly assumption. Was my original assumption correct? Are most slashdot readers (geeks?) at least sympathetic to psychedelic/cannabis culture? If so, why do you think this is?
-matthew
Your solution doesn't solve this problem. It merely defines a scapegoat for when the software turns out to be less than perfect.
-matthew
Umm, the engineers don't own the code. The corporation does. You need to hold the company responsible. They can reprimand their engineers as they see fit. But yeah, I'm all for corporate responsibility.
-matthew
What exactly DID Bush do to protect us? Did he stop 9/11? No. It isn't like terrorism is anything new. It didn't start with 9/11. Did you ever stop to think that maybe there hasn't been a 9/11 since 2001 simply because those types of things take a long time to plan? Sorry, but I'm just not impressed when Bush says "See? They haven't attacked since, uh, the last time they attacked!"
Don't you feel just a *little* manipulated by the Bush administration?
-matthew
Really? can you give an example of this? Sorry, but it is impossible to include ALL the facts... certainly not in the content of a 2 hour film. Someone has to decide which "facts" to include and which to leave out. And right there you have an inherent bias. What makes Moore different than most people with an agenda is that he openly admits that there is a bias and he tells you exactly what it is so you can take the film with a huge grain of salt if you want and decide for youself.
I mean come on, what does Moore have to worry about, if bush is as bad as he wants everyone to believe, he could have been fair and balanced and everyone would have reacted the same way? Right? Right?
Unfortunately, no. Some people are so enamored by authority, fear, and blind patriotism that no amount of unbiased truth would open their eyes. This isn't to say that biased truth will open their eyes, but that is ok, because Moore didn't make the film for those infatuated with Bush's cowboy prowess. He made the movie for the swing voters who might actually swing. And he is honest about it.
-matthew -matthew
I've accidentally deleted more legitmate mail while weeding through the spam in my inbox than DSPAM has caught false positives. See, filters don't get frustrated. I do. I trust DSPAM more than I trust myself. Scary, huh?
-matthew
I had problems with the NVIDIA driver and kernel 2.6.6.
-matthew
2: Disable system restore.
3: Run "msconfig". Disable all startup apps (not services, but the apps that run when you log in and usually appear in the system tray).
4: Run a virus and spyware scan to ensure that your system is clean.
5: Remove all but 128M of memory in your system.
This is serious tweaking for most people. Most people let all kinds of startup apps collect on their taskbar.
Making Linux run well on 128MB is actually a lot easier. Simply don't run KDE or GNOME. :-P
-matthew
You "could" run XP comfortably on a 400MHz K6-2 w/ 128MB RAM or you DO run it comfortably? If you are running XP comfortately on that hardware, you simply aren't running XP. It just isn't possible without serious tweaking. XP alone needs about 128MB of RAM BEFORE you run any apps.
-matthew
The point isn't that Linux does necessarily use less resources... it is that it can use less resources... out of the box. Just because some people choose a distribution that is bloated by default doesn't mean Linux is bloated or getting bloated. The Linux kernel is still relatively small. Whatever you decide to use beyond the kernel is up to you.
That is just not true. 128MB is barely enough to keep XP in memory much less run any applications.
Try XFCE4... http://www.xfce.org/
Hell, you're probably the only one here even capable of feeling "moist."
Perhaps the movie industry is afraid that people will see just how bad most of the movies are and they won't go see them in the theaters? Just look at the piece of shit film the people got caugh recording.... Day After Tomorrow. Who in their right mind would go see that movie in the theater after seeing what a piece of shit it is? I think the movie industry relies on people not really knowing how good a movie is before they see it. Sure, there are reviews by critics, but most people don't trust movie critics.
I doubt the movie industry is all that worried about people previewing good movies. Seeing a low bitrate, camcorder 'net download of a good movie will only make people want to see it in the theater.
-matthew
I'm with you. Those ads are a downright insult. I may stop going to the theater just because of that. It is ridiculous. Of course, DVDs will probably go the same route. Many already have ads that you can't fastforward through (not being able to fastforward your OWN DVD in itself an abomination).
And this will be Microsoft's downfall. The more they shove overly complex (for 90% of users) tools down people's throats in the name of "innovation," the more people will look for alternatives. In this case, Apple is an EXCELLENT alternative. Their OS and applications remain simple and effective for 90% of its users.
It's not like it's terribly hard to keep Windows stable.
It is hard enough. Give OS X a spin sometime.
-matthew