The KDE type cleanup is what they did for 2.0, which was what made Linus Torvalds say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to KDE" (and, incidentally, what made him say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to Gnome" after trying KDE4). It pissed off a lot of other users as well. Of course, Gnome 2.0 was a bit more stable and less bug-ridden than KDE4, but on the other hand it had almost no features you'd expect from a computer (which was supposedly 'good for you', according to the HIG apologists, pretty much like the absence of multi-tasking on the iPad until yesterday), and took several years before it was as useful as 1.4 (the last version I used).
I forget. Did I have a point with all this? Oh, yes, the cleanup: it sucked the last time, and I hope they manage it better now, or they will probably hear it until the next time some huge project mismanages a major revision. On the other hand, maybe a botched Gnome3 release will help KDE get the recognition it deserves again.
I don't know about your HDTV, HDMI and DVI, but at least a friend's computer needed no configuring at all to get it to work properly in the correct resolution for his HTPC. Same kind of setup. It just worked (tm) with Ubuntu 9.04 IIRC, with no xorg.conf hacking. That's consumer grade, according to you.
Only a few years ago, every screen needed to be set up with correct modelines; it's a fairly recent development that you don't need an xorg.conf. The driver sets the correct resolution automatically in most cases. I'm sure this somehow "confirms" stagnation to you.
Also, Gallium3d and DRI2 are excellent examples of underlying systems that will improve usability and make driver development easier and more unified. Your whole "argument" depends on ignoring that simple fact.
I don't care whether it will improve Linux's market share. I don't work in advertising.
Stagnated? With KDE transitioning to 4.x and developing quickly, and Gnome about to go to 3.0? With DRM2 and Gallium3d somewhere in the not so distant future? It hasn't stagnated at all, the main problem is that it's in a state of flux. It hasn't stagnated at all.
Assassin's Creed 2 still hasn't been cracked successfully, and doesn't seem to sell particularly well. At least not enough to indicate that every pirated game is a lost sale.
"Anyone"? How about "many"? Or "a vocal minority"? You're putting the word "anyone" into the GP's mouth. He was replying to someone who stated that Apple, in contrast with Microsoft, aren't destructive but owe its success entirely to that it "offers something new and competitive". Where's the "anyone"? Strawman much?
As for your stupid ad hominem: it's stupid. Since you can't find a rational counter-argument to everything that's been said about Apple's well-known and destructive policies, you make up for it by inventing an irrational psychology in their critics.
And someone found your comment "insightful", even though you don't have one single argument at all. Come on, do you seriously think there's anything "irrational" and "blinkered" to attacking that kind of fanboy logic?
Sure. Bioshock installed via Steam on Windows 7 64 bit recently. It just didn't work, and gave no proper error message. I believe it needed some vintage or other of Microsoft's C++ libraries.
I believe the package's corresponding.list file in/var/lib/dpkg/info/ is generated at install, so you should be able to get the install date from the date of that file.
(Oh, and I'm sorry if you were talking about the "+5, insightful" XanC, who out of hand dismissed the report sarcastically with the subject "Thorough and unbiased", which really is ironic for someone who didn't read it but made up his mind about it anyway. My point about climate change deniers being morons, with reference to the moderators, still stands, of course.)
He's correct, though, as opposed to you: there's no appeal to emotion in his comment (and no talking point, unless you insist that calling a talking point is a talking point, which is simply wrong), and it's valid as a synthetic logical statement. Self-referential irony? You just found it.
Still, he's "troll", and you're "insightful". Climate change deniers are morons.
It's not as good as the previous incarnations, but those games weren't released on the current generation consoles, so how could GTA4 not score "better" on such a list? The others aren't even there. Factor in game review grade inflation, and your list means nothing.
Not only was the PC version was a bug-ridden piece of shit with the performance of a limp leper stuck in a tar pit, but when you finally get to play it in all its 1080p glory on your new quad core + latest gen GPU, when the most annoying bugs are fixed, you notice that the environment and the characters are shallow (although less cartoonish than in San Andreas and Vice City), the plot has nothing of interest, the missions are (mostly) easy and repetitive, and it lacks all the spectacular LOL moments of San Andreas. Also, all the radio stations suck.
It's a decent game, just not nearly as fun as the GTA3 series. That's when playing it on a PC that actually can run it at full resolution with better framerates than the PS3 can manage.
Wow, how "insightful"! Did you learn about that on Slashdot?
Did it occur to you that maybe the patients diagnosed with syphilis were questioned about their sex life? Why the fuck is this idiocy always modded up on this site?
No, that doesn't debunk my "thesis" at all. Let me emphasize the word OFTEN in your quotation of me. I didn't say always (because I know it's untrue), nor even usually (I believe it's likely, but I'm not certain). You can't debunk that kind of statement by triangle testing two wines cherry-picked for being similar, no matter who the subjects are; you need a large (and random) sample of wines, triangle testing them against each others in pairs, and show that a difference is rarely perceived.
But within the context of the discussion with the AC above, I'd be willing to say my "thesis" were -- not debunked, but certainly proven irrelevant as a counter-point to his statement, if you (or anyone) could find a selection of sub $70 bottles of wine indiscernible from a random selection of $300 bottles.
The WSJ story is interesting and revealing, but neither surprises me nor concerns what I was getting at, which was only that wines taste different more often than not. I already agreed that humans are easily duped by price -- and other expectations as well, I might add -- and I won't change my opinion for the sake of discussion, but I don't agree that experts necessarily have better or more consistent palates (your "debunking" rests on both faulty logic and a specious assumption). Wider vocabularies for describing taste, certainly, but you don't need to know what tannin is to feel its effect on your tongue.
No, the context wasn't the article, and the article isn't about "the ability of a wine drinker to reliably detect a "vintage" bottle of wine as compared to a regular bottle of wine" -- it's about C-14 dating of wine to expose vintage fraud.
How can something the AC does not say be "clearly" meant? You're just guessing.
The AC's comment is just a regurgitation of what engineering types usually say when confronted with lunatic audiophiles who believe it's worth paying $10,000 for a pair of silver speaker cables that have been digested by the most discerning Asian palm civets. Since he's simply repeating things everyone already has read on Slashdot, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of doubt: there's no chance that he has any clue that he knows what he's talking about, and a good chance that he actually meant what he said.
Hogwash. Tasting the difference between two wines is often very easy. A preference for the more expensive wine might well be induced by knowledge of which wine is supposedly the finer.
Wrong. You don't hate to say it; as you posting history shows, you're an Apple fanboy. In actual fact, you posted that comment just to advertise how much better Mac OS X is than Windows was in 2001. I know this because that's all your comment does.
The iPhone is a pretty good smartphone and mp3 player, with the one added feature that other smartphones, but not mobile phones in general, lacked: it's a fashion accessory. Nokia understood the need for fashionable phones back in the late 1990s, but their smartphones weren't targeted at the Twitter generation, they were for business. Who would want to be seen with a business phone? No, kids want to be seen with an iPhone. They want to be seen casually updating their Flickr account with a smooth drag & drop gesture. It makes them look good, never mind that the pictures from the gadget don't.
They don't "disagree" with me, they make up vaguely believable but untrue assertions like the one above, not to counter my argument, but to distract from it. Like the guy above who said the walled garden removes bullshit from life. Fact 1: there are tons of bullshit iPhone apps, readily available in the app store. Fact 2: restricting you from installing third party apps isn't necessary to remove bullshit. The fact that his "arguments" are meant to white-wash Apple while having no merit at all makes him an apologist.
Your arguments for your usage of the iPhone are perfectly fine with me, on the other hand. There are plenty of good things to be said for the iPhone and other Apple products. It's when people trump up blatant lies like the guy above I call them apologists and liars.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, that's what TFS says defines a good game: it can't be solved by logic (i.e. a computer, or an autist) alone. There's an element of chance in it.
Looks like it over-stupidified your comment as well. Tough luck!
Qt has been LGPL for a few years now, and KDE has always been part LGPL (like WebKit, a derivative of the old khtml).
The KDE type cleanup is what they did for 2.0, which was what made Linus Torvalds say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to KDE" (and, incidentally, what made him say "fuck this shit, I'm switching to Gnome" after trying KDE4). It pissed off a lot of other users as well. Of course, Gnome 2.0 was a bit more stable and less bug-ridden than KDE4, but on the other hand it had almost no features you'd expect from a computer (which was supposedly 'good for you', according to the HIG apologists, pretty much like the absence of multi-tasking on the iPad until yesterday), and took several years before it was as useful as 1.4 (the last version I used).
I forget. Did I have a point with all this? Oh, yes, the cleanup: it sucked the last time, and I hope they manage it better now, or they will probably hear it until the next time some huge project mismanages a major revision. On the other hand, maybe a botched Gnome3 release will help KDE get the recognition it deserves again.
I don't know about your HDTV, HDMI and DVI, but at least a friend's computer needed no configuring at all to get it to work properly in the correct resolution for his HTPC. Same kind of setup. It just worked (tm) with Ubuntu 9.04 IIRC, with no xorg.conf hacking. That's consumer grade, according to you.
Only a few years ago, every screen needed to be set up with correct modelines; it's a fairly recent development that you don't need an xorg.conf. The driver sets the correct resolution automatically in most cases. I'm sure this somehow "confirms" stagnation to you.
Also, Gallium3d and DRI2 are excellent examples of underlying systems that will improve usability and make driver development easier and more unified. Your whole "argument" depends on ignoring that simple fact.
I don't care whether it will improve Linux's market share. I don't work in advertising.
Stagnated? With KDE transitioning to 4.x and developing quickly, and Gnome about to go to 3.0? With DRM2 and Gallium3d somewhere in the not so distant future? It hasn't stagnated at all, the main problem is that it's in a state of flux. It hasn't stagnated at all.
Oh, so AC2 has somehow been kept away from torrent trackers even though it's been cracked. You're full of shit.
Assassin's Creed 2 still hasn't been cracked successfully, and doesn't seem to sell particularly well. At least not enough to indicate that every pirated game is a lost sale.
"Anyone"? How about "many"? Or "a vocal minority"? You're putting the word "anyone" into the GP's mouth. He was replying to someone who stated that Apple, in contrast with Microsoft, aren't destructive but owe its success entirely to that it "offers something new and competitive". Where's the "anyone"? Strawman much?
As for your stupid ad hominem: it's stupid. Since you can't find a rational counter-argument to everything that's been said about Apple's well-known and destructive policies, you make up for it by inventing an irrational psychology in their critics.
And someone found your comment "insightful", even though you don't have one single argument at all. Come on, do you seriously think there's anything "irrational" and "blinkered" to attacking that kind of fanboy logic?
Sure. Bioshock installed via Steam on Windows 7 64 bit recently. It just didn't work, and gave no proper error message. I believe it needed some vintage or other of Microsoft's C++ libraries.
I believe the package's corresponding .list file in /var/lib/dpkg/info/ is generated at install, so you should be able to get the install date from the date of that file.
(Oh, and I'm sorry if you were talking about the "+5, insightful" XanC, who out of hand dismissed the report sarcastically with the subject "Thorough and unbiased", which really is ironic for someone who didn't read it but made up his mind about it anyway. My point about climate change deniers being morons, with reference to the moderators, still stands, of course.)
He's correct, though, as opposed to you: there's no appeal to emotion in his comment (and no talking point, unless you insist that calling a talking point is a talking point, which is simply wrong), and it's valid as a synthetic logical statement. Self-referential irony? You just found it.
Still, he's "troll", and you're "insightful". Climate change deniers are morons.
Like your comment, and the two guys who found it "insightful" and "interesting"?
Why don't you just check before whining? This is the internet: type in "eyefinity linux" into Bing or Google or whatever and shut the fuck up.
If democracy has become an end in itself, then it's not worth saving.
It's not as good as the previous incarnations, but those games weren't released on the current generation consoles, so how could GTA4 not score "better" on such a list? The others aren't even there. Factor in game review grade inflation, and your list means nothing.
Not only was the PC version was a bug-ridden piece of shit with the performance of a limp leper stuck in a tar pit, but when you finally get to play it in all its 1080p glory on your new quad core + latest gen GPU, when the most annoying bugs are fixed, you notice that the environment and the characters are shallow (although less cartoonish than in San Andreas and Vice City), the plot has nothing of interest, the missions are (mostly) easy and repetitive, and it lacks all the spectacular LOL moments of San Andreas. Also, all the radio stations suck.
It's a decent game, just not nearly as fun as the GTA3 series. That's when playing it on a PC that actually can run it at full resolution with better framerates than the PS3 can manage.
Wow, how "insightful"! Did you learn about that on Slashdot?
Did it occur to you that maybe the patients diagnosed with syphilis were questioned about their sex life? Why the fuck is this idiocy always modded up on this site?
No, that doesn't debunk my "thesis" at all. Let me emphasize the word OFTEN in your quotation of me. I didn't say always (because I know it's untrue), nor even usually (I believe it's likely, but I'm not certain). You can't debunk that kind of statement by triangle testing two wines cherry-picked for being similar, no matter who the subjects are; you need a large (and random) sample of wines, triangle testing them against each others in pairs, and show that a difference is rarely perceived.
But within the context of the discussion with the AC above, I'd be willing to say my "thesis" were -- not debunked, but certainly proven irrelevant as a counter-point to his statement, if you (or anyone) could find a selection of sub $70 bottles of wine indiscernible from a random selection of $300 bottles.
The WSJ story is interesting and revealing, but neither surprises me nor concerns what I was getting at, which was only that wines taste different more often than not. I already agreed that humans are easily duped by price -- and other expectations as well, I might add -- and I won't change my opinion for the sake of discussion, but I don't agree that experts necessarily have better or more consistent palates (your "debunking" rests on both faulty logic and a specious assumption). Wider vocabularies for describing taste, certainly, but you don't need to know what tannin is to feel its effect on your tongue.
No, the context wasn't the article, and the article isn't about "the ability of a wine drinker to reliably detect a "vintage" bottle of wine as compared to a regular bottle of wine" -- it's about C-14 dating of wine to expose vintage fraud.
Wow, that was easy to debunk.
Sorry, but you're just stupid.
How can something the AC does not say be "clearly" meant? You're just guessing.
The AC's comment is just a regurgitation of what engineering types usually say when confronted with lunatic audiophiles who believe it's worth paying $10,000 for a pair of silver speaker cables that have been digested by the most discerning Asian palm civets. Since he's simply repeating things everyone already has read on Slashdot, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of doubt: there's no chance that he has any clue that he knows what he's talking about, and a good chance that he actually meant what he said.
Hogwash. Tasting the difference between two wines is often very easy. A preference for the more expensive wine might well be induced by knowledge of which wine is supposedly the finer.
Wrong. You don't hate to say it; as you posting history shows, you're an Apple fanboy. In actual fact, you posted that comment just to advertise how much better Mac OS X is than Windows was in 2001. I know this because that's all your comment does.
It's a fucking ad.
The iPhone is a pretty good smartphone and mp3 player, with the one added feature that other smartphones, but not mobile phones in general, lacked: it's a fashion accessory. Nokia understood the need for fashionable phones back in the late 1990s, but their smartphones weren't targeted at the Twitter generation, they were for business. Who would want to be seen with a business phone? No, kids want to be seen with an iPhone. They want to be seen casually updating their Flickr account with a smooth drag & drop gesture. It makes them look good, never mind that the pictures from the gadget don't.
They don't "disagree" with me, they make up vaguely believable but untrue assertions like the one above, not to counter my argument, but to distract from it. Like the guy above who said the walled garden removes bullshit from life. Fact 1: there are tons of bullshit iPhone apps, readily available in the app store. Fact 2: restricting you from installing third party apps isn't necessary to remove bullshit. The fact that his "arguments" are meant to white-wash Apple while having no merit at all makes him an apologist.
Your arguments for your usage of the iPhone are perfectly fine with me, on the other hand. There are plenty of good things to be said for the iPhone and other Apple products. It's when people trump up blatant lies like the guy above I call them apologists and liars.