Re:This man didn't invent Bigfoot!
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 1
i do not beleive it's roman or greek or near eastern, but rather things like native americans, and small tribal groups such as in nepal and tibet. it's folklore, stuff that gets passed on by word of mouth, not much written about it, therefore you won't see any citations... see also the chupacabra of the southwest and mexico (as heard of on the X files). it's another one of those sasquatch/yeti type beings. it's folklore passed down for thousands of years...
Re:This man didn't invent Bigfoot!
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 1
like the other reply says... pranksters are global... also, if you really believe something, you'll see resemblences of what it is. like when listening to some music, if you want to hear something in the background (like subliminal messages), you'll hear it. if someone says "they say "die die die" all garbled up, you're going to be listening for those words and they coudl be saying nothing at all, it could just be sounds that are similar to the words "die die die". same thing goes for seeing things. the imagination is a wonderful thing...
Re:This man didn't invent Bigfoot!
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 1
yes, the mythology has been around for a long long time, but this guy decided to play pranks on scientists and others to get them to believe it really existed... and his pranks worked!!! that's the best part of the whole thing.
i was goign to say apache... my former university is switching to either exchange or domino for mail now. i think they used cms or vms or something for mail before. apache was the first thing that came to mind as a very mainstream open source application. according to netcraft, apache has the highest marketshare for webservers (see http://www.netcraft.com/survey for more details). other than apache, i can't think of much, except for maybe linux as a somewhat mainstream operating system for college cs students, and small office or home servers.
if you mean desktop applications, well, there's not much out there that's open source and pretty common. mozilla is probably the only one. i'm also guessing you're talking open source software for windows, which is somewhat harder to come by. the only open source software i use on my windows machine are furthurnet (used to download digital copies of concerts by bands that allow taping) and the gimp. i also have a ftp client called filezilla which is decent. i think that's gpl'd too.
finally a post that isn't anti-windows. i happen to like it. i also like linux, but for 2 entirely different purposes. linux sucks as a general, all-purpose desktop machine. i can do everything i want on the desktop in windows, it doesn't really crash that much (win2k), and it's nice and easy to use and setup. i have a linux box as a server. it's great for that. it's an old p100, x is not installed for good reasons. when i can use all my software (the exact software, not some open source equivalent that's really not equivalent) taht i use in windows on a linux box and be able to easily and quickly setup a linux box without having to go through a million and a half configurations (using stupid text files), then i'll use linux as my desktop machine. i like windows, i'm an above average computer user, and know more than most people. i guess you can kind of call me a power user. i won't switch to linux on my desktop anytime soon (if ever).
they might collect data and keep statistics, but it's general data. what verizon wants to do is take statistics on individual users so that they can sell that data and direct advertisements specific to their needs to those individual people. i have no problem with taking general statistics on my cell phone usage, but when it involves my personal data and selling it so people can direct ads towards me, i have a problem with that. it will probably open up telemarketing to cell phone customers, and since every minute matters, no matter if you made the call or someone called you, i have a major problem with that.
you can't replace photoshop with gimp. so there's one app that is out when you choose linux (keep in mind, i'm not pro-ms or anti-linux at all, i just like playing devil's advocate).
if you were to put someone completely new to computers in front of 3 machines (linux, windows, mac) and they were to use them, they would probably find them equally easy to use. now say something goes wrong. something breaks. they would probably find the windows machine easiest to fix, linux would be second, and if it's not a simple fix problem on the mac, that would definitely be last. the difference between windows and linux for people new to computers is that you can install windows and have everything working with maybe a few driver installs. you install linux and not everything works right away, installing stuff isn't as easy as double clicking a setup file or inserting a cd and clicking next through a series of little instruction screens. that's my main problem with using linux as my desktop machine. i can't install and uninstall programs with the simple click of the mouse. my other main problem is that i can't play all my games under linux without having to use wine (which i will say makes it totally not worth playing them if they don't play right off the bat).
does quicktime work in mozilla on a *nix system (other than osx obviously)? i don't think so.
do webpages look prettier in mozilla (on any system)? nope.
is there a better spreadsheet program than excel? no way.
in general, is windows easier to use for a huge gigantic percentage of the population? yes.
do companies want to pay someone to fix problems that might arise in a *nix system (again other than osx)? never.
so in conclusion, i'd say that windows will always be the top desktop operating system. unless linux or other *nices happen to come out with easier configuration that the average joe can point and click and completely configure his computer, and all the top applications that separate the microsoft world from the unix world happen to work in both windows and unix (and i'm talking photoshop and other adobe products, macromedia products, etc, etc, etc. not just ms office here), i don't think you'll see too many companies switch to linux or another unix platform for their desktop machines. servers is one thing, desktops is another.
good information. going along with your diuretic comment, it makes you pee a lot too. caffeine really has no effect on me to give me engery and stay awake, rather if i have enough of it, i get shaky (hence you comment), my heartrate increased dramatically (scary), and i pee a lot. it's the constant need to urinate that keeps me awake. i drink coke or pepsi on late night car trips because if i hold the sensation to pee, i'll stay awake. of course i make a lot of pit stops on the way, but it works well. i can sleep fine after drinking a lot of coke as long as i don't haev to pee.
have you thought of one of the new transition type distros like lindows or lycoris or whatever the other ones are now? i've been wanting to try lycoris for a while now.
the reason you are wrong here is that hermione's parents are muggles and she loves them very much. therefore, there's no problems with all muggles, in fact, ron's own father has a fascination with them. he doesn't consider them to be lesser, just different. i think the differences between the "muggle" world and the "wizard" world are similar to what would be differences between martians and earthlings. the wizards hide themselves from the muggles because they are so extraordinarily different that the muggles would either have major problems with them and shun them or they would meddle too much in the wizard world and find themselves in big trouble. if you notice, both harry and ron stick up for hermione being a "mudblood". and at the beginning of the movie, ron's family sticks up for her when lucius malfoy sees her in the bookstore. the movie does a great job at keeping the "good" guys and the "bad" guys distinctively separate and shows how the good guys represent all that is good in teh world (shunning prejudice and such). the only muggles that harry finds lesser are the dursley's, but wouldn't you if you were in his position? they're bad people. i also found it great that they showed harry with parsel-tongue because it was generally a "bad" trait to have. it shows that sometimes having "bad" traits can be for the better, and that just because someone has that trait, it does't mean they are a bad person.
i found the second movie to be much better than the first (as i did with teh books as well). there was a lot more suspense than the first one. it kept you on your toes more. having read the book a long time ago, i didn't remember what had happened, so i thought it did a great job at reintroducing everything again and explaining the story, even though it left out a lot of what was in the book. i don't remember if the book had the awarding of the house cup at the end, but i thought it did. i was surprised to see that not in the movie, although the movie ended quite nicely.
now i saw in another post that after the credits there are more laughs. what happened? can someone tell me here? i don't think it should come with a "spoilage warning" since everyone knows that if you read a movie review on slashdot, it'll spoil the plot at least through the comments.
i have to agree with you on this one. i have a linux server which is my web and ftp server. i use windows for games and everything else. i've got a friend who uses linux as his desktop and he wanted to know who ellen feiss was and see what she looked like, but he couldn't watch her ad because it was quicktime. there's no free quicktime for linux. people say you can get everything for free for linux that you need. that's great, but i can get everything for free for windows. sure the difference is i'm stealing, but whatever. who's goign to say anything to me? oh wait, i'm sure billy's reading this right now and might come after me. oh well. so yeah, windows can view all webpages just as good, if not better, than any browser in linux. there's nothing that won't work with a simple plug-in download. in linux, that problem occurs lots and lots. not to mention all the webpaegs that are designed for IE, which does not run in linux. and you can say "use wine" but that takes too much time. windows is a much simpler "use right out of the box" desktop operating system. linux will continue to be my server, but for the desktop, windows is far far far superior. oh, and my machine stays up for weeks, sometimes months, at a time with no problems (win2k).
that doesn't quite work. who cares about science and medicine. they don't matter in the natural world anyways. humans don't live in the natural world. evolution works on humans, but in different ways. because humans fall in love, the whole survival of the fittest doesn't work to the fullest extent like it does in the natural world where females choose their mates based on how "fit" they are. the only reason "fit" is in quotation marks is because fitness is determined by displays and coloration and size of certain features. a good example is the antlers on a buck. the larger they are, the more "fit" the buck is. this is because the antlers cause a major hinderance while running through the woods away from predators. so obviously the ones with the larger antlers that are alive have managed to either outwit or escape predators. same thing goes for the coloration of some birds. brighter colors are easier to see by some predators. bigger displays mean the bird is better able to escape predation. the whole female being more important to humans thing is kind of not so true anymore since there are more females in the world than males. the roles aren't 50/50 in the natural world which is what this whole discussion is about.
it's commonly known in most of the natural world (natural world being that world not including human beings), that the female is usually the primary individual in most animal relationships. the males always have to compete for the female, but ultimately she decides which one to mate with based on which one "seems" to be the most "fit". that's usually determined by mating rituals and displays. most of these rituals actually prove to the female that they are very fit. so this isn't some completely new discovery, although it seems that this lizard takes it to a new extreme.
that's funny... my brother just got cable service from comcast in RI. there was a self-install option and they even gave him a free cable modem just for signing up. i don't even think they had any software to install on his computer. the cd they gave him didn't even work, it had no information on it. i found that pretty funny, but it was just a guide to setting things up i think.
this is not always possible... if you live in the backwoods of maine or even massachusetts and connecticut, you don't get reception. it just matters where you are in comparison to a tower. if you don't live close enough to a tower, you won't get a signal no matter what provider you use.
i find this funny. i'm not primarily a computer geek or linux geek. i come from a strong windows background. a good friend of mine uses linux a lot and i wanted to try something different. so one day he came over and helped me install linux. his first question was "what distribution do you want?" and i was like "uhhhh... what do you use?" and he said "debian, but this other guy thinks you might be better off with red hat because it's easier" and i said "i want debian". he helped a lot with the first install, but didn't completely do it on his own, he taught me. i had it dual-booting win98 and debian for a while, but things got a little crazy and i wanted a larger partition for debian, so i decided to reformat and repartition everything. i installed win98 no problem (i've done that many times before), but i wanted to install debian. i did it on my own this time. ran into a couple problems, but in the end i got the system up and running no problem. i use the network install from teh floppies, i find that to work the best. it's quick and easy. the article says that the installation system and the configuration are difficult. i had no problems whatsoever. i have compiled kernels and stuff no problem. i don't see why people shy away from debian because of the installation system. i think it's great. very simplistic. not every distro has to be for converted windows users. i didn't know linux well, i still don't know all that much, but this is now 3 years later. i guess i have had as much linux experience as the guy that wrote the debian planet review. i learned first on debian. that might be the problem some people have, they don't just throw themselves into it. i think if they were to, they'd find that they could learn more quickly.
a friend of mine once got an error that said "Not Enough"... it was on win98 i think. i don't remember what he was doing, but a dialogue box popped up with that message and the only button was "OK"
i'd be willing to bet that redwolves2 is italian. my grandparents said the same thing... but of course i would be hairy anyways... gotta love the mediterranean blood...
i shouldn't even be replying to this, but i have to... first of all i do not own an SUV, nor would i ever consider owning an SUV. i prefer cars that are fuel-efficient, and clean. i drive a toyota camry if you were wondering... an 89 at that. i get about 22 miles to the gallon, but it's a wagon and has a V6.
yes, i realize my statement about people being cleaner contradicting itself, but people can go about their lives in pretty much the same way they do now, but in a cleaner fashion. for instance, recycling doesn't take much time or effort. they can do both without much trouble.
and yes, it is how you look at things. there are people who make a ton of money and aren't happy, there are people who make almost no money and are perfectly content and couldn't be happier. things can change, it will just take time and effort on the entire human race. i truly believe that it will happen. maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but isn't the point of change to make things better for future generations?
it's more than possible to change anything. it just takes time and effort on the part of a lot of people. for instance... look at slashdot. started out as a stupid little project while rob was in college. it turned into one of the web's biggest and most successful sites. not to mention all the other sites that have taken on a similar format because of slashdot's success. if there was a slashdot for every problem out there, the world would undergo an enormous change.
it can happen. all domestic dogs are Canis domesticus. same species. different looks, different breeds. at one time there were fewer breeds, only geographical differences, but they were able to interbreed. humans bred them for specific tasks. poodles were originally hunting dogs in france.
this is exactly what i was getting at with my comment. i failed to use the word "naturally" or "in natural conditions." it might be possible to breed horses and donkeys and produce offspring, but they won't do it on their own. there are also a number of different definitions on what determines a species. i don't remember them all offhand, but i believe one of the strongest, most widely used one is the definition that if they can reproduce naturally and produce viable offspring, they are the same species. now it is also known that there are some species that would be the same thing except you have 2 different groups living on opposite sides of the world. because of that geographical limitation, they are different species because they won't interbreed naturally if brought together.
touring brings about bootlegging. illegally recording concerts. not to mention, the bands you mentioned are bands that are worth seeing more than once or twice in a tour because they play a different show everytime (although sci kind of sucks live, since the whole show sounded the same, except for the bluegrass). britney, puff daddy (or whatever his name is now), and all those other pop stars play the same concert everytime. after a while, parents aren't going to want to send their kids to go see them after the first or second time. phish and the dead made their money touring, they also donate a lot of their money to charity. last time i was in NYC, i was outside FAO Schwartz and watched a brand new ferrari blasting some kind of crap music pull up in front of bergdorf goodman. out walks puff daddy and his big black friend (probably bodyguard). and they continue to walk into bergdorf's. what a shock. bands that make their money off of tours may not have as much or make as much as those that make tons of money off of albums (touring you can only attract so many people, but albums can attract everyone all over the world). those touring bands don't go around wearing the best of clothes, driving the best of cars, flaunting all their riches. no, they use it for the good of society. phish with mockingbird and waterwheel. neil young with surfrider. they don't care. it's all about the person. britney and puffy are selfish. they want their money, so they believe that when the RIAA says that file sharing takes money from them, that it is totally true. if music is truly an art, and if musicians valued the art, they wouldn't care. they would want people to get what they have to say in whatever way possible. i plan on going out and buying tom petty's new album. sure it might give money to the RIAA, but the message on the album is totally anti-RIAA. that's important.
but touring is definitely not the answer for some of these bands because they can't make enough money off of the tours unless they charge $50 a ticket because they don't know how to make concerts interesting. it sounds almost the same as listening to the album. and even with touring people can steal by bootlegging their shows and scalping tickets, etc, etc, etc. no matter what, there will always be people stealing. the only answer is to become less selfish and realize that music is an art and should be available for free. why do radio stations that do not make profit have to pay royalties for playing music? i don't get that one bit. they aren't stealing from teh artists, they aren't making any money off of them.
Slashdot Mirror
i do not beleive it's roman or greek or near eastern, but rather things like native americans, and small tribal groups such as in nepal and tibet. it's folklore, stuff that gets passed on by word of mouth, not much written about it, therefore you won't see any citations... see also the chupacabra of the southwest and mexico (as heard of on the X files). it's another one of those sasquatch/yeti type beings. it's folklore passed down for thousands of years...
like the other reply says... pranksters are global... also, if you really believe something, you'll see resemblences of what it is. like when listening to some music, if you want to hear something in the background (like subliminal messages), you'll hear it. if someone says "they say "die die die" all garbled up, you're going to be listening for those words and they coudl be saying nothing at all, it could just be sounds that are similar to the words "die die die". same thing goes for seeing things. the imagination is a wonderful thing...
yes, the mythology has been around for a long long time, but this guy decided to play pranks on scientists and others to get them to believe it really existed... and his pranks worked!!! that's the best part of the whole thing.
i was goign to say apache... my former university is switching to either exchange or domino for mail now. i think they used cms or vms or something for mail before. apache was the first thing that came to mind as a very mainstream open source application. according to netcraft, apache has the highest marketshare for webservers (see http://www.netcraft.com/survey for more details). other than apache, i can't think of much, except for maybe linux as a somewhat mainstream operating system for college cs students, and small office or home servers.
if you mean desktop applications, well, there's not much out there that's open source and pretty common. mozilla is probably the only one. i'm also guessing you're talking open source software for windows, which is somewhat harder to come by. the only open source software i use on my windows machine are furthurnet (used to download digital copies of concerts by bands that allow taping) and the gimp. i also have a ftp client called filezilla which is decent. i think that's gpl'd too.
finally a post that isn't anti-windows. i happen to like it. i also like linux, but for 2 entirely different purposes. linux sucks as a general, all-purpose desktop machine. i can do everything i want on the desktop in windows, it doesn't really crash that much (win2k), and it's nice and easy to use and setup. i have a linux box as a server. it's great for that. it's an old p100, x is not installed for good reasons. when i can use all my software (the exact software, not some open source equivalent that's really not equivalent) taht i use in windows on a linux box and be able to easily and quickly setup a linux box without having to go through a million and a half configurations (using stupid text files), then i'll use linux as my desktop machine. i like windows, i'm an above average computer user, and know more than most people. i guess you can kind of call me a power user. i won't switch to linux on my desktop anytime soon (if ever).
they might collect data and keep statistics, but it's general data. what verizon wants to do is take statistics on individual users so that they can sell that data and direct advertisements specific to their needs to those individual people. i have no problem with taking general statistics on my cell phone usage, but when it involves my personal data and selling it so people can direct ads towards me, i have a problem with that. it will probably open up telemarketing to cell phone customers, and since every minute matters, no matter if you made the call or someone called you, i have a major problem with that.
you can't replace photoshop with gimp. so there's one app that is out when you choose linux (keep in mind, i'm not pro-ms or anti-linux at all, i just like playing devil's advocate).
if you were to put someone completely new to computers in front of 3 machines (linux, windows, mac) and they were to use them, they would probably find them equally easy to use. now say something goes wrong. something breaks. they would probably find the windows machine easiest to fix, linux would be second, and if it's not a simple fix problem on the mac, that would definitely be last. the difference between windows and linux for people new to computers is that you can install windows and have everything working with maybe a few driver installs. you install linux and not everything works right away, installing stuff isn't as easy as double clicking a setup file or inserting a cd and clicking next through a series of little instruction screens. that's my main problem with using linux as my desktop machine. i can't install and uninstall programs with the simple click of the mouse. my other main problem is that i can't play all my games under linux without having to use wine (which i will say makes it totally not worth playing them if they don't play right off the bat).
does quicktime work in mozilla on a *nix system (other than osx obviously)? i don't think so.
do webpages look prettier in mozilla (on any system)? nope.
is there a better spreadsheet program than excel? no way.
in general, is windows easier to use for a huge gigantic percentage of the population? yes.
do companies want to pay someone to fix problems that might arise in a *nix system (again other than osx)? never.
so in conclusion, i'd say that windows will always be the top desktop operating system. unless linux or other *nices happen to come out with easier configuration that the average joe can point and click and completely configure his computer, and all the top applications that separate the microsoft world from the unix world happen to work in both windows and unix (and i'm talking photoshop and other adobe products, macromedia products, etc, etc, etc. not just ms office here), i don't think you'll see too many companies switch to linux or another unix platform for their desktop machines. servers is one thing, desktops is another.
good information. going along with your diuretic comment, it makes you pee a lot too. caffeine really has no effect on me to give me engery and stay awake, rather if i have enough of it, i get shaky (hence you comment), my heartrate increased dramatically (scary), and i pee a lot. it's the constant need to urinate that keeps me awake. i drink coke or pepsi on late night car trips because if i hold the sensation to pee, i'll stay awake. of course i make a lot of pit stops on the way, but it works well. i can sleep fine after drinking a lot of coke as long as i don't haev to pee.
have you thought of one of the new transition type distros like lindows or lycoris or whatever the other ones are now? i've been wanting to try lycoris for a while now.
the reason you are wrong here is that hermione's parents are muggles and she loves them very much. therefore, there's no problems with all muggles, in fact, ron's own father has a fascination with them. he doesn't consider them to be lesser, just different. i think the differences between the "muggle" world and the "wizard" world are similar to what would be differences between martians and earthlings. the wizards hide themselves from the muggles because they are so extraordinarily different that the muggles would either have major problems with them and shun them or they would meddle too much in the wizard world and find themselves in big trouble. if you notice, both harry and ron stick up for hermione being a "mudblood". and at the beginning of the movie, ron's family sticks up for her when lucius malfoy sees her in the bookstore. the movie does a great job at keeping the "good" guys and the "bad" guys distinctively separate and shows how the good guys represent all that is good in teh world (shunning prejudice and such). the only muggles that harry finds lesser are the dursley's, but wouldn't you if you were in his position? they're bad people. i also found it great that they showed harry with parsel-tongue because it was generally a "bad" trait to have. it shows that sometimes having "bad" traits can be for the better, and that just because someone has that trait, it does't mean they are a bad person.
i found the second movie to be much better than the first (as i did with teh books as well). there was a lot more suspense than the first one. it kept you on your toes more. having read the book a long time ago, i didn't remember what had happened, so i thought it did a great job at reintroducing everything again and explaining the story, even though it left out a lot of what was in the book. i don't remember if the book had the awarding of the house cup at the end, but i thought it did. i was surprised to see that not in the movie, although the movie ended quite nicely.
now i saw in another post that after the credits there are more laughs. what happened? can someone tell me here? i don't think it should come with a "spoilage warning" since everyone knows that if you read a movie review on slashdot, it'll spoil the plot at least through the comments.
i have to agree with you on this one. i have a linux server which is my web and ftp server. i use windows for games and everything else. i've got a friend who uses linux as his desktop and he wanted to know who ellen feiss was and see what she looked like, but he couldn't watch her ad because it was quicktime. there's no free quicktime for linux. people say you can get everything for free for linux that you need. that's great, but i can get everything for free for windows. sure the difference is i'm stealing, but whatever. who's goign to say anything to me? oh wait, i'm sure billy's reading this right now and might come after me. oh well. so yeah, windows can view all webpages just as good, if not better, than any browser in linux. there's nothing that won't work with a simple plug-in download. in linux, that problem occurs lots and lots. not to mention all the webpaegs that are designed for IE, which does not run in linux. and you can say "use wine" but that takes too much time. windows is a much simpler "use right out of the box" desktop operating system. linux will continue to be my server, but for the desktop, windows is far far far superior. oh, and my machine stays up for weeks, sometimes months, at a time with no problems (win2k).
that doesn't quite work. who cares about science and medicine. they don't matter in the natural world anyways. humans don't live in the natural world. evolution works on humans, but in different ways. because humans fall in love, the whole survival of the fittest doesn't work to the fullest extent like it does in the natural world where females choose their mates based on how "fit" they are. the only reason "fit" is in quotation marks is because fitness is determined by displays and coloration and size of certain features. a good example is the antlers on a buck. the larger they are, the more "fit" the buck is. this is because the antlers cause a major hinderance while running through the woods away from predators. so obviously the ones with the larger antlers that are alive have managed to either outwit or escape predators. same thing goes for the coloration of some birds. brighter colors are easier to see by some predators. bigger displays mean the bird is better able to escape predation. the whole female being more important to humans thing is kind of not so true anymore since there are more females in the world than males. the roles aren't 50/50 in the natural world which is what this whole discussion is about.
it's commonly known in most of the natural world (natural world being that world not including human beings), that the female is usually the primary individual in most animal relationships. the males always have to compete for the female, but ultimately she decides which one to mate with based on which one "seems" to be the most "fit". that's usually determined by mating rituals and displays. most of these rituals actually prove to the female that they are very fit. so this isn't some completely new discovery, although it seems that this lizard takes it to a new extreme.
that's funny... my brother just got cable service from comcast in RI. there was a self-install option and they even gave him a free cable modem just for signing up. i don't even think they had any software to install on his computer. the cd they gave him didn't even work, it had no information on it. i found that pretty funny, but it was just a guide to setting things up i think.
this is not always possible... if you live in the backwoods of maine or even massachusetts and connecticut, you don't get reception. it just matters where you are in comparison to a tower. if you don't live close enough to a tower, you won't get a signal no matter what provider you use.
i find this funny. i'm not primarily a computer geek or linux geek. i come from a strong windows background. a good friend of mine uses linux a lot and i wanted to try something different. so one day he came over and helped me install linux. his first question was "what distribution do you want?" and i was like "uhhhh... what do you use?" and he said "debian, but this other guy thinks you might be better off with red hat because it's easier" and i said "i want debian". he helped a lot with the first install, but didn't completely do it on his own, he taught me. i had it dual-booting win98 and debian for a while, but things got a little crazy and i wanted a larger partition for debian, so i decided to reformat and repartition everything. i installed win98 no problem (i've done that many times before), but i wanted to install debian. i did it on my own this time. ran into a couple problems, but in the end i got the system up and running no problem. i use the network install from teh floppies, i find that to work the best. it's quick and easy. the article says that the installation system and the configuration are difficult. i had no problems whatsoever. i have compiled kernels and stuff no problem. i don't see why people shy away from debian because of the installation system. i think it's great. very simplistic. not every distro has to be for converted windows users. i didn't know linux well, i still don't know all that much, but this is now 3 years later. i guess i have had as much linux experience as the guy that wrote the debian planet review. i learned first on debian. that might be the problem some people have, they don't just throw themselves into it. i think if they were to, they'd find that they could learn more quickly.
MiniLaz, my linux box...
yeah... basically any mediterranean or eastern european nationality comes with lots of hair...
here's a link to a pic of the error...
a friend of mine once got an error that said "Not Enough"... it was on win98 i think. i don't remember what he was doing, but a dialogue box popped up with that message and the only button was "OK"
i'd be willing to bet that redwolves2 is italian. my grandparents said the same thing... but of course i would be hairy anyways... gotta love the mediterranean blood...
i shouldn't even be replying to this, but i have to... first of all i do not own an SUV, nor would i ever consider owning an SUV. i prefer cars that are fuel-efficient, and clean. i drive a toyota camry if you were wondering... an 89 at that. i get about 22 miles to the gallon, but it's a wagon and has a V6.
yes, i realize my statement about people being cleaner contradicting itself, but people can go about their lives in pretty much the same way they do now, but in a cleaner fashion. for instance, recycling doesn't take much time or effort. they can do both without much trouble.
and yes, it is how you look at things. there are people who make a ton of money and aren't happy, there are people who make almost no money and are perfectly content and couldn't be happier. things can change, it will just take time and effort on the entire human race. i truly believe that it will happen. maybe not in any of our lifetimes, but isn't the point of change to make things better for future generations?
it's more than possible to change anything. it just takes time and effort on the part of a lot of people. for instance... look at slashdot. started out as a stupid little project while rob was in college. it turned into one of the web's biggest and most successful sites. not to mention all the other sites that have taken on a similar format because of slashdot's success. if there was a slashdot for every problem out there, the world would undergo an enormous change.
it can happen. all domestic dogs are Canis domesticus. same species. different looks, different breeds. at one time there were fewer breeds, only geographical differences, but they were able to interbreed. humans bred them for specific tasks. poodles were originally hunting dogs in france.
this is exactly what i was getting at with my comment. i failed to use the word "naturally" or "in natural conditions." it might be possible to breed horses and donkeys and produce offspring, but they won't do it on their own. there are also a number of different definitions on what determines a species. i don't remember them all offhand, but i believe one of the strongest, most widely used one is the definition that if they can reproduce naturally and produce viable offspring, they are the same species. now it is also known that there are some species that would be the same thing except you have 2 different groups living on opposite sides of the world. because of that geographical limitation, they are different species because they won't interbreed naturally if brought together.
touring brings about bootlegging. illegally recording concerts. not to mention, the bands you mentioned are bands that are worth seeing more than once or twice in a tour because they play a different show everytime (although sci kind of sucks live, since the whole show sounded the same, except for the bluegrass). britney, puff daddy (or whatever his name is now), and all those other pop stars play the same concert everytime. after a while, parents aren't going to want to send their kids to go see them after the first or second time. phish and the dead made their money touring, they also donate a lot of their money to charity. last time i was in NYC, i was outside FAO Schwartz and watched a brand new ferrari blasting some kind of crap music pull up in front of bergdorf goodman. out walks puff daddy and his big black friend (probably bodyguard). and they continue to walk into bergdorf's. what a shock. bands that make their money off of tours may not have as much or make as much as those that make tons of money off of albums (touring you can only attract so many people, but albums can attract everyone all over the world). those touring bands don't go around wearing the best of clothes, driving the best of cars, flaunting all their riches. no, they use it for the good of society. phish with mockingbird and waterwheel. neil young with surfrider. they don't care. it's all about the person. britney and puffy are selfish. they want their money, so they believe that when the RIAA says that file sharing takes money from them, that it is totally true. if music is truly an art, and if musicians valued the art, they wouldn't care. they would want people to get what they have to say in whatever way possible. i plan on going out and buying tom petty's new album. sure it might give money to the RIAA, but the message on the album is totally anti-RIAA. that's important.
but touring is definitely not the answer for some of these bands because they can't make enough money off of the tours unless they charge $50 a ticket because they don't know how to make concerts interesting. it sounds almost the same as listening to the album. and even with touring people can steal by bootlegging their shows and scalping tickets, etc, etc, etc. no matter what, there will always be people stealing. the only answer is to become less selfish and realize that music is an art and should be available for free. why do radio stations that do not make profit have to pay royalties for playing music? i don't get that one bit. they aren't stealing from teh artists, they aren't making any money off of them.