Really? Guess that's why I'm posting this one with a +1 bonus. Sure, it'll get (legitimately) moderated down, but Slashdot karma's not as important to me as it apparently is to you.
Hint: More people will be able to see and/or appreciate your flame if you ever grow some balls and decide to not post as an AC with a starting score of 0. HTH, HAND.
Isn't the flexibility that a given OS offers to create new programs, and the rate of change in the number of available programs, more important than the existing number anyhow?
No. That's actually a pretty dumb question. "Flexibility that a given OS offers to create new programs?" Yeah, have fun measuring that. In your mind, you probably think that it would be some kind of point for Linux. Guess again. (Wheeeee, all GCC, all the time!)
As for your other point, rate of change in the number of available programs is pointless, since it's easy to have a high rate when you only have a handful of apps. Hell, if I wrote a couple of OS/2 apps this year, its rate would rocket skyward. Whoop-dee-doo. Nice try at making an insightful point, though, Timmy, we readers really appreciate it.
How is it greed on O'Reilly's part? A lot of people would pay extra money for digital copies of the books, but O'Reilly doesn't offer them. How is O'Reilly cashing in at all? They don't offer the vast majority of their books digitally for download or sale, so they're not making any money from it. Buy hey, if it helps you sleep at night and feel like you actually have an ethical bone in your body, you just keep stealing and keep trying to change the subject to the SPA or BSA which has nothing to do with whether or not O'Reilly offers their books digitally.
What kind of ridiculous day and age are we living in when electronic means are being created in order to prevent sharing and helping one another?
A day and age of piracy. Because some people refuse to pay for anything, companies react to that attitude and it ends up being harder for everyone.
I'd guess that O'Reilly books are pretty popular around here, and that a lot of people would like to have digital copies of them, so you could load 'em on your PDA, web server, or laptop and have access to them when you're mobile. I know it makes things a lot more convenient for me.
Now, just why do you think that O'Reilly offers digital editions of so few of its books? It's so easy to transform their standard documents into HTML, which is why they can post so many sample chapters to their website. I don't know what their publicly-stated reason is, but it's pretty obvious that they don't trust the community to not pass around as many copies of their books without paying for them as they can get their hands on. Shame. Thank the thieves for fucking it up for everyone.
I'm not talking about whether his albums are good or not. I know that as a Slashdotter I'm supposed to disparage the music of whoever disagrees with me on the Napster issue, but I don't hate Prince or Courtney any more than I do Metallica. That fact is that his albums, brilliant or not, aren't making money. And just being out from under their thumb certainly wouldn't cause him to suddenly stop slamming WB. On Courtney, I think we'll just have to stay in disagreement on her. I personally have always found her vapid and think she's currently pulling off an enormous snow-job on the public, presenting herself as a woman of class and depth. Mad props to her handlers, they deserve a raise.
(Full disclosure: Prince: amazing songwriter, but haven't really enjoyed anything he's put out since "Nothing Compares 2 U" (his own performance, not cueball's). Courtney: Wasn't a huge Celebrity Skin fan, but anybody can have an off album, and I hope tha redhead Melissa's hasn't left completely, 'cause she's a stunner. Metallica: haven't bought anything since the black self-titled album, haven't really enjoyed anything since...And Justice for All. Their reaction to grunge and alternative music was disturbing.)
Not really -- a bunch of Slashdot-types hate them, mostly because they hate paying for things (just ask Linux game makers). Most people's lives deal with more substantial things than the price of CDs.
[The artists] hate them (Courtney Love and Prince)
Just stop. Fucking listen to yourself, will you? Courtney Love? Courtney Love?? Who other than the most dope-addled adolescents walking the planet ever says, "What would Courtney think?" I'd be willing to bet money that you don't give a shit what Courtney thinks 99% of the time, you just picked her because she happens to agree with one thing that you believe.
And Prince, his beefs have nothing to do with real support for Napster, they have to do with the fact that he's been bickering with his record label for about a decade now, and always picks his views based on
trying to needle them. Why? Because his label isn't happy with him because he continues to make music that nobody wants to buy anymore. It's pretty easy for the likes of Chuck D and Prince to be gung-ho about Napster because they have nothing to lose -- nobody's buying their albums anyway.
Both groups (artists and consumers) will benefit from this.
Spare me. You're just looking for what you can get for free. The songs could cost a fraction of a penny each, and the freeloaders would find some new excuse for stealing them. If you really gave a shit about the artists, then you would respect the wishes of those particular ones who don't want their music passed around for free.
A lot of you (the general you, not you personally, CodeRx) get this big swagger going, thinking you're pulling one over on the big bad record labels. Everything being relative, it's not at all impressive -- it's the same swagger of the shoplifter, the pickpocket, or the office drone who lifts a box of pens to take home with him. Just like people stealing music, none of those things will ever completely go away, but just like inconvenient precautions are taken to prevent those other things, the same thing will happen to music. It'll make it more difficult for the freeloaders, and their numbers will go down as most people will decide that it's not worth it, ethically or practically. And just as legit customers are subjected to more hassles (monetary and time-wasting) as stores protect themselves from shoplifters, legit music lovers will be inconvenienced by whatever new steps are enacted to cut down on the number of music thieves. But hey, keep telling yourself that you're doing it for the artists and the customers if it makes you feel better.
There's a big difference between going after generic names like "tv" or "news" and what MP3.com's CEO, Michael Robertson, has a history of doing. His domain squatting involved buying the domains of already-known entities -- if you think he was doing it for their benefit, I got a bridge to sell ya. Some of the domain names he owned: talk-city.com, win-zip.com, meta-crawler.com, meta-crawler.net, and four-11.com. He's even admitted that he bought MP3.com when he realized that it was showing up at the top of the search engines' "most searched terms" lists.
You're kidding, right? If the guy's looking for evidence that most Slashdotters are morons, all he has to do is read this story and the responses to it. Out of all the articles you could have posted to to complain about people calling Slashdot an idiot culture, why oh why would you choose this one? Yet again, Slashdot embarrasses itself bigtime.
What is innovative about adding a missing feature? And I'm sorry, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you, but the Open Source community is probably the single least innovative entity in the entire software sector. Chasing tail-lights and trying to clone what's popular don't make for much innovation.
I agree completely with your other points, though -- people who whine "But there's already too many X already!" are seriously annoying. Nobody's making you use it, so just shut up let those of us who like many choices have our fun.
Someone told me recently that MacOS X Server wasn't going to support multiple processors after all. (He couldn't remember where he had read it, although it was probably one of the Apple rumor sites.) Can this possibly be true? Anyone out there who can tell us how likely it is that this is true? And if so, what is Apple thinking? Could they just not make it work, or did they decide that their customers don't want it?
If you were really interested in saving bandwidth, you could have just written a single line admitting that you know nothing about embedded OSes. Okay, maybe a little more bandwidth admitting that you don't know anything about the marketplace, either, seeing as you must be unaware that PocketPC makers like Compaq have been unable to keep up with the demand for their devices. Put hey, you be a good sheep and just keep repeating the anti-MS mantra to yourself and hope that it comes true.
Well, after your original misinformed post about the Platform Builder when software development was being discussed, I should've known that you had trouble sticking to relevant facts -- either that or you just don't know what they are. Now, people like you can say that CE 3.0 isn't a good embedded OS until your face turns blue, but that won't make it come true. How about presenting some evidence? Oh, and please do tell us all what your experience in the embedded space is -- after that original post snafu of yours, I can't say that I have very high hopes of getting good information from you.
Darn, I can only express my deepest sympathies for all the people here who have created their own handheld devices but are stymied by the price. How can they go on? Oh, and just how many handheld devices have you developed, tealover? Lemme know when I can buy the Linux version, mmmkay?
Heh, no problem, just had to needle you a bit. The Platform Builder is for creating specialized versions of CE, like if you were coming out with your own hardware and wanted to put CE on it. The eMbedded Tools are for making the apps that run on CE devices (and for making your hair fall out trying to get that last error out of your latest build of MAMEce:).
Get yourself a PocketPC -- Python, PocketC, Visual C++, VB, Scheme, REBOL, etc. Okay, so Perl is still being worked on. And FYI, if you're not quite ready to ditch your current handheld yet, someone's also working on a Perl port for the Palm, too.:)
Speaking of Python, why no Slashdot article about the new Python 1.6 beta 1 just released? Some of us have been waiting forever for an update, and it's just as newsworthy as the "New Kernel 2.3.32983-pre5-ac out!" stories.:P
there's a fairly high bar to getting into developing for [Windows CE]
I know I've kidded some people around here for being cheap, but you take the cake. The eMbedded Visual Tools (read: Visual C++ and Visual Basic) for CE 2.x and 3.0 cost a grand total of $0.00. Worried that the $7.50 for shipping and handling might set you back? (Surely you weren't talking about the learning curve for developing for it, since it's the same environment that scads of people already use for developing Win32 apps.)
But why would Microsoft care? I'm sure Microsoft would be thrilled if other people made C# compilers, to help popularize the language -- and anyway, the language will be an open ECMA standard. Sun won't do it, but you know Microsoft would be licking their chops if they did. After all, even though Sun created Java, Microsoft's VMs blew Sun's out of the water on a regular basis.
Really funny, actually -- I was laughing pretty hard, mainly at the subject line. Funny in a very black way, like ^moa said, and just like any black humor (or any humor), I wouldn't expect everyone to agree. Just because people find it funny doesn't mean we don't have sympathy for the situation -- my condolences to his friends and family, and I hope he's spiritually gone to a better place where he no longer has to suffer his disease.
About your semi-rant, I agree that nothing's sacred anymore, but I don't think the original poster was seriously advertising anything. My own pet peeves on the matter: (1) People who love to yuk it up over a comical death like you find in "News of the Weird," but then get bent out of shape at "the insensitivity!" of things like JFK Jr. or Princess Di jokes. Just because someone died in a weird way doesn't mean that their own family is grieving any less. (2) The whole modern notion that anything that is "shocking-for-the-sake-of-being-shocking" is automatically supposed to be funny. Sam Kinison said shocking things, but they had a very strong comedic backing -- nowadays, people think they're being funny by saying things that would fit better on a 4th-grade playground and throwing in plenty of obscenities (See: Def Comedy Jam or a lot of the posts at this web site, or the trolls who enter a fan-oriented newsgroup right after the subject of the fandom has died).
Yeah, just like it's the very army of music and software pirates that force companies to come up with things like hardware dongles and lawsuits against Napster. Where can I sign up to thank them? And hey, I wanna give a shout out to all the inner city drug dealers who have made the schools in their areas extra secure -- you tell me, who wouldn't want barbed wire, armed guards, and metal detectors around their school -- yeah! Script kiddies and hackers suck, and that is just about the only thing they have in common with Nader. At least even Ralph didn't sink to their level, though -- your analogy would fit only if Nader's books were about quick steps to destroy other people's cars.
After all the hub-bub over Netscape's weak version jump to 6 (bypassing 5.x versions altogether in a grand marketing move), how humiliating would it be if this thing took so long to finally be released that it still ends up having a smaller version number anyway?:)
A majority of the population is against the death penalty
Which population are you referring to? Certainly not the entire world, so my next guess would be the U.S., since that's where your sig says you are. If that's the case, you're very incorrect, because a strong majority of Americans favor the death penalty. I think it's a great thing, myself.
As for Corel, it's just about time to stick a fork in 'em. Stock in the crapper right around 4 (although this move might raise the stock), big ol' money problems (seems doubtful that this sale could help here all that much), and unstable leadership.
Seeing all the stories about dying friend-of-Linux/OSS companies, it kinda made me wonder what companies are actually succeeding by embracing it. It's gotta be hard for ESR to sell his little Cathedral/Bazaar pipedream to companies when the wreckage is strewn all over the highways for the decision-makers to see.
What's the new release date target for Mozilla, anyway?
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Re:Yup, doesn't seem like Katz will ever "get it"
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
I'd rather wear clothes that appeal to me and my tastes, not be forced to fit into the cookie-cutter mold society has decided is "normal."
That's fine and all, but why is it that so many people who say things like that seem to end up looking like they came straight from a cookie-cutter mold themselves? You're not going to tell me with a straight face that it's pure random chance that they fit the stereotype so well, are you?
Now, just to clear things up, I'm sure that there are people out there who genuinely do like the look, so I'm not trying to knock on everyone here. To be honest, though, you sound like the kind of person that I was originally talking about (let's forget I used the word "loser" — my language was meant more as a slam on Jon's piece than to disparage anyone else). Some of those phrases you use make it sound like society's tastes weigh on you every bit as much as someone who won't shop anywhere but The Gap. Anyway, that's just how I see it...
Cheers, ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Yup, doesn't seem like Katz will ever "get it"
on
Slashdot Meets X-Men
·
· Score: 1
I don't think he'll ever recognize the silliness (and to some, the insult) of comparing the discrimination against people for how they were born with the discrimination that people bring upon themselves by purposely acting antagonistically toward the rest of society. He actually had the stones to say that it's "the very same thing, of course, [that] is happening to 'geeks, Goths and freaks' all over the United States today, post-Columbine.'" (Emphasis mine.)
Sorry Jon, but racial/ethnic discrimination (or the movie's allegory, against mutants) is not at all similar to people looking down on some loser who dresses in all black, puts a ton of piercings in their face, or carves up their arms for the main purpose of sneering at society. Not even effing close.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad your karma notices that too, Zico...
Really? Guess that's why I'm posting this one with a +1 bonus. Sure, it'll get (legitimately) moderated down, but Slashdot karma's not as important to me as it apparently is to you.
Hint: More people will be able to see and/or appreciate your flame if you ever grow some balls and decide to not post as an AC with a starting score of 0. HTH, HAND.
Cheers,
Isn't the flexibility that a given OS offers to create new programs, and the rate of change in the number of available programs, more important than the existing number anyhow?
No. That's actually a pretty dumb question. "Flexibility that a given OS offers to create new programs?" Yeah, have fun measuring that. In your mind, you probably think that it would be some kind of point for Linux. Guess again. (Wheeeee, all GCC, all the time!)
As for your other point, rate of change in the number of available programs is pointless, since it's easy to have a high rate when you only have a handful of apps. Hell, if I wrote a couple of OS/2 apps this year, its rate would rocket skyward. Whoop-dee-doo. Nice try at making an insightful point, though, Timmy, we readers really appreciate it.
Cheers,
How is it greed on O'Reilly's part? A lot of people would pay extra money for digital copies of the books, but O'Reilly doesn't offer them. How is O'Reilly cashing in at all? They don't offer the vast majority of their books digitally for download or sale, so they're not making any money from it. Buy hey, if it helps you sleep at night and feel like you actually have an ethical bone in your body, you just keep stealing and keep trying to change the subject to the SPA or BSA which has nothing to do with whether or not O'Reilly offers their books digitally.
Cheers,
What kind of ridiculous day and age are we living in when electronic means are being created in order to prevent sharing and helping one another?
A day and age of piracy. Because some people refuse to pay for anything, companies react to that attitude and it ends up being harder for everyone.
I'd guess that O'Reilly books are pretty popular around here, and that a lot of people would like to have digital copies of them, so you could load 'em on your PDA, web server, or laptop and have access to them when you're mobile. I know it makes things a lot more convenient for me.
Now, just why do you think that O'Reilly offers digital editions of so few of its books? It's so easy to transform their standard documents into HTML, which is why they can post so many sample chapters to their website. I don't know what their publicly-stated reason is, but it's pretty obvious that they don't trust the community to not pass around as many copies of their books without paying for them as they can get their hands on. Shame. Thank the thieves for fucking it up for everyone.
Cheers,
I'm not talking about whether his albums are good or not. I know that as a Slashdotter I'm supposed to disparage the music of whoever disagrees with me on the Napster issue, but I don't hate Prince or Courtney any more than I do Metallica. That fact is that his albums, brilliant or not, aren't making money. And just being out from under their thumb certainly wouldn't cause him to suddenly stop slamming WB. On Courtney, I think we'll just have to stay in disagreement on her. I personally have always found her vapid and think she's currently pulling off an enormous snow-job on the public, presenting herself as a woman of class and depth. Mad props to her handlers, they deserve a raise.
(Full disclosure: Prince: amazing songwriter, but haven't really enjoyed anything he's put out since "Nothing Compares 2 U" (his own performance, not cueball's). Courtney: Wasn't a huge Celebrity Skin fan, but anybody can have an off album, and I hope tha redhead Melissa's hasn't left completely, 'cause she's a stunner. Metallica: haven't bought anything since the black self-titled album, haven't really enjoyed anything since ...And Justice for All. Their reaction to grunge and alternative music was disturbing.)
Cheers,
Their customers hate them
Not really -- a bunch of Slashdot-types hate them, mostly because they hate paying for things (just ask Linux game makers). Most people's lives deal with more substantial things than the price of CDs.
[The artists] hate them (Courtney Love and Prince)
Just stop. Fucking listen to yourself, will you? Courtney Love? Courtney Love?? Who other than the most dope-addled adolescents walking the planet ever says, "What would Courtney think?" I'd be willing to bet money that you don't give a shit what Courtney thinks 99% of the time, you just picked her because she happens to agree with one thing that you believe.
And Prince, his beefs have nothing to do with real support for Napster, they have to do with the fact that he's been bickering with his record label for about a decade now, and always picks his views based on trying to needle them. Why? Because his label isn't happy with him because he continues to make music that nobody wants to buy anymore. It's pretty easy for the likes of Chuck D and Prince to be gung-ho about Napster because they have nothing to lose -- nobody's buying their albums anyway.
Both groups (artists and consumers) will benefit from this.
Spare me. You're just looking for what you can get for free. The songs could cost a fraction of a penny each, and the freeloaders would find some new excuse for stealing them. If you really gave a shit about the artists, then you would respect the wishes of those particular ones who don't want their music passed around for free.
A lot of you (the general you, not you personally, CodeRx) get this big swagger going, thinking you're pulling one over on the big bad record labels. Everything being relative, it's not at all impressive -- it's the same swagger of the shoplifter, the pickpocket, or the office drone who lifts a box of pens to take home with him. Just like people stealing music, none of those things will ever completely go away, but just like inconvenient precautions are taken to prevent those other things, the same thing will happen to music. It'll make it more difficult for the freeloaders, and their numbers will go down as most people will decide that it's not worth it, ethically or practically. And just as legit customers are subjected to more hassles (monetary and time-wasting) as stores protect themselves from shoplifters, legit music lovers will be inconvenienced by whatever new steps are enacted to cut down on the number of music thieves. But hey, keep telling yourself that you're doing it for the artists and the customers if it makes you feel better.
Cheers,
Ahhh, grasshoppah, you're dealing with two decidely geek characteristics here, and you must know that bad spelling trumps idol worship...
Cheers,
There's a big difference between going after generic names like "tv" or "news" and what MP3.com's CEO, Michael Robertson, has a history of doing. His domain squatting involved buying the domains of already-known entities -- if you think he was doing it for their benefit, I got a bridge to sell ya. Some of the domain names he owned: talk-city.com, win-zip.com, meta-crawler.com, meta-crawler.net, and four-11.com. He's even admitted that he bought MP3.com when he realized that it was showing up at the top of the search engines' "most searched terms" lists.
(For more info, check out the results from when the real Talk City defeated Mr. Robertson in WIPO arbitration: The Panel finds that Mr. Robertson owns a domain name (talk-city.com) identical or confusingly similar to Talk City's trademark (TALK CITY), has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and registered and used the domain name in bad faith. These three factors entitle Talk City to an order transferring the domain name from Mr. Robertson to Talk City. Policy 4(a). [bold mine])
Cheers,
You're kidding, right? If the guy's looking for evidence that most Slashdotters are morons, all he has to do is read this story and the responses to it. Out of all the articles you could have posted to to complain about people calling Slashdot an idiot culture, why oh why would you choose this one? Yet again, Slashdot embarrasses itself bigtime.
Cheers,
What is innovative about adding a missing feature? And I'm sorry, I'm not looking to pick a fight with you, but the Open Source community is probably the single least innovative entity in the entire software sector. Chasing tail-lights and trying to clone what's popular don't make for much innovation.
I agree completely with your other points, though -- people who whine "But there's already too many X already!" are seriously annoying. Nobody's making you use it, so just shut up let those of us who like many choices have our fun.
Cheers,
Someone told me recently that MacOS X Server wasn't going to support multiple processors after all. (He couldn't remember where he had read it, although it was probably one of the Apple rumor sites.) Can this possibly be true? Anyone out there who can tell us how likely it is that this is true? And if so, what is Apple thinking? Could they just not make it work, or did they decide that their customers don't want it?
Cheers,
If you were really interested in saving bandwidth, you could have just written a single line admitting that you know nothing about embedded OSes. Okay, maybe a little more bandwidth admitting that you don't know anything about the marketplace, either, seeing as you must be unaware that PocketPC makers like Compaq have been unable to keep up with the demand for their devices. Put hey, you be a good sheep and just keep repeating the anti-MS mantra to yourself and hope that it comes true.
Cheers,
Well, after your original misinformed post about the Platform Builder when software development was being discussed, I should've known that you had trouble sticking to relevant facts -- either that or you just don't know what they are. Now, people like you can say that CE 3.0 isn't a good embedded OS until your face turns blue, but that won't make it come true. How about presenting some evidence? Oh, and please do tell us all what your experience in the embedded space is -- after that original post snafu of yours, I can't say that I have very high hopes of getting good information from you.
Cheers,
Darn, I can only express my deepest sympathies for all the people here who have created their own handheld devices but are stymied by the price. How can they go on? Oh, and just how many handheld devices have you developed, tealover? Lemme know when I can buy the Linux version, mmmkay?
Cheers,
Heh, no problem, just had to needle you a bit. The Platform Builder is for creating specialized versions of CE, like if you were coming out with your own hardware and wanted to put CE on it. The eMbedded Tools are for making the apps that run on CE devices (and for making your hair fall out trying to get that last error out of your latest build of MAMEce :).
Cheers,
I'd love to have Python or Perl.
Get yourself a PocketPC -- Python, PocketC, Visual C++, VB, Scheme, REBOL, etc. Okay, so Perl is still being worked on. And FYI, if you're not quite ready to ditch your current handheld yet, someone's also working on a Perl port for the Palm, too. :)
Speaking of Python, why no Slashdot article about the new Python 1.6 beta 1 just released? Some of us have been waiting forever for an update, and it's just as newsworthy as the "New Kernel 2.3.32983-pre5-ac out!" stories. :P
Cheers,
there's a fairly high bar to getting into developing for [Windows CE]
I know I've kidded some people around here for being cheap, but you take the cake. The eMbedded Visual Tools (read: Visual C++ and Visual Basic) for CE 2.x and 3.0 cost a grand total of $0.00. Worried that the $7.50 for shipping and handling might set you back? (Surely you weren't talking about the learning curve for developing for it, since it's the same environment that scads of people already use for developing Win32 apps.)
Cheers,
Hmm? As a basis for what?
Cheers,
But why would Microsoft care? I'm sure Microsoft would be thrilled if other people made C# compilers, to help popularize the language -- and anyway, the language will be an open ECMA standard. Sun won't do it, but you know Microsoft would be licking their chops if they did. After all, even though Sun created Java, Microsoft's VMs blew Sun's out of the water on a regular basis.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Cheers,
Really funny, actually -- I was laughing pretty hard, mainly at the subject line. Funny in a very black way, like ^moa said, and just like any black humor (or any humor), I wouldn't expect everyone to agree. Just because people find it funny doesn't mean we don't have sympathy for the situation -- my condolences to his friends and family, and I hope he's spiritually gone to a better place where he no longer has to suffer his disease.
About your semi-rant, I agree that nothing's sacred anymore, but I don't think the original poster was seriously advertising anything. My own pet peeves on the matter: (1) People who love to yuk it up over a comical death like you find in "News of the Weird," but then get bent out of shape at "the insensitivity!" of things like JFK Jr. or Princess Di jokes. Just because someone died in a weird way doesn't mean that their own family is grieving any less. (2) The whole modern notion that anything that is "shocking-for-the-sake-of-being-shocking" is automatically supposed to be funny. Sam Kinison said shocking things, but they had a very strong comedic backing -- nowadays, people think they're being funny by saying things that would fit better on a 4th-grade playground and throwing in plenty of obscenities (See: Def Comedy Jam or a lot of the posts at this web site, or the trolls who enter a fan-oriented newsgroup right after the subject of the fandom has died).
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Cheers,
Yeah, just like it's the very army of music and software pirates that force companies to come up with things like hardware dongles and lawsuits against Napster. Where can I sign up to thank them? And hey, I wanna give a shout out to all the inner city drug dealers who have made the schools in their areas extra secure -- you tell me, who wouldn't want barbed wire, armed guards, and metal detectors around their school -- yeah! Script kiddies and hackers suck, and that is just about the only thing they have in common with Nader. At least even Ralph didn't sink to their level, though -- your analogy would fit only if Nader's books were about quick steps to destroy other people's cars.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Cheers,
After all the hub-bub over Netscape's weak version jump to 6 (bypassing 5.x versions altogether in a grand marketing move), how humiliating would it be if this thing took so long to finally be released that it still ends up having a smaller version number anyway? :)
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
A majority of the population is against the death penalty
Which population are you referring to? Certainly not the entire world, so my next guess would be the U.S., since that's where your sig says you are. If that's the case, you're very incorrect, because a strong majority of Americans favor the death penalty. I think it's a great thing, myself.
As for Corel, it's just about time to stick a fork in 'em. Stock in the crapper right around 4 (although this move might raise the stock), big ol' money problems (seems doubtful that this sale could help here all that much), and unstable leadership.
Seeing all the stories about dying friend-of-Linux/OSS companies, it kinda made me wonder what companies are actually succeeding by embracing it. It's gotta be hard for ESR to sell his little Cathedral/Bazaar pipedream to companies when the wreckage is strewn all over the highways for the decision-makers to see.
What's the new release date target for Mozilla, anyway?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I'd rather wear clothes that appeal to me and my tastes, not be forced to fit into the cookie-cutter mold society has decided is "normal."
That's fine and all, but why is it that so many people who say things like that seem to end up looking like they came straight from a cookie-cutter mold themselves? You're not going to tell me with a straight face that it's pure random chance that they fit the stereotype so well, are you?
Now, just to clear things up, I'm sure that there are people out there who genuinely do like the look, so I'm not trying to knock on everyone here. To be honest, though, you sound like the kind of person that I was originally talking about (let's forget I used the word "loser" — my language was meant more as a slam on Jon's piece than to disparage anyone else). Some of those phrases you use make it sound like society's tastes weigh on you every bit as much as someone who won't shop anywhere but The Gap. Anyway, that's just how I see it...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I don't think he'll ever recognize the silliness (and to some, the insult) of comparing the discrimination against people for how they were born with the discrimination that people bring upon themselves by purposely acting antagonistically toward the rest of society. He actually had the stones to say that it's "the very same thing, of course, [that] is happening to 'geeks, Goths and freaks' all over the United States today, post-Columbine.'" (Emphasis mine.)
Sorry Jon, but racial/ethnic discrimination (or the movie's allegory, against mutants) is not at all similar to people looking down on some loser who dresses in all black, puts a ton of piercings in their face, or carves up their arms for the main purpose of sneering at society. Not even effing close.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com