The tradition was, in order to prevent the divine name being pronounced by accident, that the vowels for "adonai" were placed in the letters of the tetragrammaton. If you read that as written it sounds like "yehovah". As I understand it, a dumb Middle-Ages Christian scribe transcribed this as-is without knowing the background, with a "J" which sounds like "Y" in German. In English that got pronounced as "Jehovah."
So the JWs got it completely wrong. Their religion is named after a nonsense word due to a scribal error. But none of them seem to know it. A couple of times when they've come calling, I've asked them if they know the origin of the word "Jehovah" and I get blank stares.
I think you need to have confidence in yourself and believe that you can do something. But then you need to do the actual work, solve the problems, work for success. To me, there is a difference between fantasizing about success and believing in your ability to achieve it.
In other words, I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV. That's positive thinking combined with realism and the willingness to do what you have to do.
I question whether most employers really want critical thinkers. What they really want are sheep. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, what's really wanted in Corporate America?
And are employers willing to pay for critical thinkers? I don't think so.
The suggestion that "being big enough to cause a measurable shift in earth's gravity" is something worthy of note is the anti science idiocy. This is not something that matters.
You don't understand. It is politically correct to tie this to global warming.
I've at times put forward this very simple argument.
Take someone who is, for whatever reason, fully grown but only four feet tall. This person can practice and practice at basketball, and maybe become very good at it, but is not going to be the center on an NBA team. 10,000 hours of practice won't make him tall enough to be competitive.
I think it's politically correct to say that "anyone can be anything they want if they work hard enough" but it simply isn't true, and TFA says as much.
People are different as one look at a crowd will instantly show you. And that's just fine as long as you don't start saying that these differences justify limiting or increasing basic human rights because of those differences.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people are taller than others. Some people are better at music than others. What else is new?
Why do people say/write "environmental" variable? I've never seen the that word used in shell documentation or any literature on *nix written by competent authorities. It's "environment variable."
I almost thought I would be disappointed and not see a "this proves Linux is bad and Windows is good post." Thank you for making my day, in a certain way.
Or, if you don't want to spend anything except for some books, and you're really serious, go for MIT's open courseware. You'll get a lot for free and if you really want to make progress, you can.
Believe it or not, I did have Firefox autolaunch on startup and she didn't like it, she wants to feel like she's actually using the computer by clicking the icon herself!
I think this is as much about training as it is about a technical solution, but here goes.
My wife clicks on anything, so I set her up a Linux Mint machine. I removed everything from the Desktop, and I took the "menu" button off the bottom bar. She could restore it but she doesn't know how and doesn't care about it.
Then I put one, and only one, icon on the Desktop --- for Firefox. I made sure everything was set up, installed AdBlock and Ghostery, and that's it. Done. She can do one thing, which is launch the browser.
In the Poster's case, I would have three icons: Google Chrome (fixed up with AdBlock and Ghostery), Thunderbird (so mail can be read offline), and one icon tied to a script to launch the dialup. (Or even better, use that old dialup-on-demand software; I don't remember the name but back in the day it worked perfectly.) I wouldn't necessarily put a file manager on the Desktop. Too much chance of messing something up.
Set up Thunderbird to automatically fetch mail when started. Definitely switch to a gmail account to get around all the size issues.
I think this would give what was requested, except for remote troubleshooting. Someone suggested dynamic DNS and ssh, and that might work well enough.
For the most part I would also want the machine locked down enough so that an incompetent but well-meaning do-gooder can't make a hash of things.
I would have started dumping on Apple but when Google put the "feature" in Kitkat to disallow general write permission to the SD card, effectively making an SD card almost worthless unless you root your Android phone, I had to admit that there is enough guilt to go around.
Oh, wait, what's that you say? Apple phones don't have a provision for an SD card?
"In the end, yeah, Windows, yuck, but deal-able, and it's really disingenuous to pretend that because they have dumb downed the initial install package to Windows levels, that the actual ongoing user experience of Linux is nearly that plug and play for most folks, so to speak."
I don't disagree, and the average Jane won't be able to maintain Linux (although I wonder if the average Jane can maintain Windows, either, if something goes wrong).
But consider this situation: I set up a Linux machine for my wife to use (she likes to click on, well, everything, and I figured it would be safer). I do updates every so often. I support it for her. But it's not like it needs much support.
She doesn't even know it's not Windows. She has no idea what she's running and doesn't care, as long as she can browse, do email and Facebook, etc.
There is no problem. I could care less if other people run Windows as long as I don't have to. If somebody buys a computer with Windows pre-installed and then decides to run Windows because it's an appliance mentality, no skin off my nose. If they're happy, great.
The primary problem for me, though, is in being forced to pay for Windows. I build my desktop machines from components so it's not an issue there. Laptops... it's an issue.)
The secondary problem is friends and relatives asking me for help with their Windows computers, but I can happily tell them I don't run Windows and sorry, can't help; however I'd be happy to install Linux for them.
"It's news because it illustrates that, as much as Linux users like to throw stones at Windows, they too are vulnerable. Anyone can pick through the source and find security holes what can be exploited - perhaps even much more subtle ones than anyone would ever find on Windows."
I find this fascinating. Some Windows fans will grab onto something like this, an exploitable bug in Linux, and use that to "prove" that Windows is better. "Look here, Linux has an exploitable bug, obviously it's no good. I told you how much better Windows is, now it's proven science!" And the additional comment about finding bugs more subtle than those on Windows? Where's the evidence for that statement, other than perhaps in the fact that Linux source is readily available while Windows source is not?
Any OS has exploitable bugs. Failure to patch is, as noted by many other posters, the real issue. Don't necessarily condemn one system or the other because there are bugs. Instead, maybe we might look at the track record, in which case some conclusions should emerge.
Slashdot Mirror
The tradition was, in order to prevent the divine name being pronounced by accident, that the vowels for "adonai" were placed in the letters of the tetragrammaton. If you read that as written it sounds like "yehovah". As I understand it, a dumb Middle-Ages Christian scribe transcribed this as-is without knowing the background, with a "J" which sounds like "Y" in German. In English that got pronounced as "Jehovah."
So the JWs got it completely wrong. Their religion is named after a nonsense word due to a scribal error. But none of them seem to know it. A couple of times when they've come calling, I've asked them if they know the origin of the word "Jehovah" and I get blank stares.
Here we go again, more "proof" for the "see I told you Windows is better" crowd.
I think you need to have confidence in yourself and believe that you can do something. But then you need to do the actual work, solve the problems, work for success. To me, there is a difference between fantasizing about success and believing in your ability to achieve it.
In other words, I know I can do X. But to do it, I must do A, B, C, D, and overcome obstacles I, II, III, and IV. That's positive thinking combined with realism and the willingness to do what you have to do.
I guess this article is here because I'm supposed to care what Ballmer thinks, or that his ravings are somehow important or influential.
Sorry, but I don't, and they're not.
I question whether most employers really want critical thinkers. What they really want are sheep. Yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, what's really wanted in Corporate America?
And are employers willing to pay for critical thinkers? I don't think so.
The suggestion that "being big enough to cause a measurable shift in earth's gravity" is something worthy of note is the anti science idiocy. This is not something that matters.
You don't understand. It is politically correct to tie this to global warming.
I've at times put forward this very simple argument.
Take someone who is, for whatever reason, fully grown but only four feet tall. This person can practice and practice at basketball, and maybe become very good at it, but is not going to be the center on an NBA team. 10,000 hours of practice won't make him tall enough to be competitive.
I think it's politically correct to say that "anyone can be anything they want if they work hard enough" but it simply isn't true, and TFA says as much.
People are different as one look at a crowd will instantly show you. And that's just fine as long as you don't start saying that these differences justify limiting or increasing basic human rights because of those differences.
Some people are smarter than others. Some people are taller than others. Some people are better at music than others. What else is new?
These days, Windows is the faster, more stable, and more secure choice.
Yes, Windows 8 has definitely demonstrated awesome superiority and everyone loves it.
Yes, and of course this proves once again that "open source/Linux is bad" and "Windows is good."
Bugs are everywhere. How many bugs have been in Windows since the beginning? We generally don't get to know that about closed systems.
I'm more impressed with how fast a fix was rolled out.
Why do people say/write "environmental" variable? I've never seen the that word used in shell documentation or any literature on *nix written by competent authorities. It's "environment variable."
It's due to global warming.
Seems like a fix got pushed out pretty fast ....
I almost thought I would be disappointed and not see a "this proves Linux is bad and Windows is good post." Thank you for making my day, in a certain way.
Remember the one that ran off a single 3.25" floppy? A firewall/router, I ran it for some little while to manage my home network. Years and years ago.
Neil Armstrong was a 100% class act.
Must be Obama's fault.
No. Definitely due to global warming.
Or, if you don't want to spend anything except for some books, and you're really serious, go for MIT's open courseware. You'll get a lot for free and if you really want to make progress, you can.
Believe it or not, I did have Firefox autolaunch on startup and she didn't like it, she wants to feel like she's actually using the computer by clicking the icon herself!
I think this is as much about training as it is about a technical solution, but here goes.
My wife clicks on anything, so I set her up a Linux Mint machine. I removed everything from the Desktop, and I took the "menu" button off the bottom bar. She could restore it but she doesn't know how and doesn't care about it.
Then I put one, and only one, icon on the Desktop --- for Firefox. I made sure everything was set up, installed AdBlock and Ghostery, and that's it. Done. She can do one thing, which is launch the browser.
In the Poster's case, I would have three icons: Google Chrome (fixed up with AdBlock and Ghostery), Thunderbird (so mail can be read offline), and one icon tied to a script to launch the dialup. (Or even better, use that old dialup-on-demand software; I don't remember the name but back in the day it worked perfectly.) I wouldn't necessarily put a file manager on the Desktop. Too much chance of messing something up.
Set up Thunderbird to automatically fetch mail when started. Definitely switch to a gmail account to get around all the size issues.
I think this would give what was requested, except for remote troubleshooting. Someone suggested dynamic DNS and ssh, and that might work well enough.
For the most part I would also want the machine locked down enough so that an incompetent but well-meaning do-gooder can't make a hash of things.
I would have started dumping on Apple but when Google put the "feature" in Kitkat to disallow general write permission to the SD card, effectively making an SD card almost worthless unless you root your Android phone, I had to admit that there is enough guilt to go around.
Oh, wait, what's that you say? Apple phones don't have a provision for an SD card?
"In the end, yeah, Windows, yuck, but deal-able, and it's really disingenuous to pretend that because they have dumb downed the initial install package to Windows levels, that the actual ongoing user experience of Linux is nearly that plug and play for most folks, so to speak."
I don't disagree, and the average Jane won't be able to maintain Linux (although I wonder if the average Jane can maintain Windows, either, if something goes wrong).
But consider this situation: I set up a Linux machine for my wife to use (she likes to click on, well, everything, and I figured it would be safer). I do updates every so often. I support it for her. But it's not like it needs much support.
She doesn't even know it's not Windows. She has no idea what she's running and doesn't care, as long as she can browse, do email and Facebook, etc.
There is no problem. I could care less if other people run Windows as long as I don't have to. If somebody buys a computer with Windows pre-installed and then decides to run Windows because it's an appliance mentality, no skin off my nose. If they're happy, great.
The primary problem for me, though, is in being forced to pay for Windows. I build my desktop machines from components so it's not an issue there. Laptops ... it's an issue.)
The secondary problem is friends and relatives asking me for help with their Windows computers, but I can happily tell them I don't run Windows and sorry, can't help; however I'd be happy to install Linux for them.
Nothing is ALLOWED to contradict global warming.
You have to get the language correct. It's "global climate change" when something doesn't fit the "global warming" meme.
Interesting how incivility rules at slashdot. Can't we have discussions without resorting to this sort of language?
"It's news because it illustrates that, as much as Linux users like to throw stones at Windows, they too are vulnerable. Anyone can pick through the source and find security holes what can be exploited - perhaps even much more subtle ones than anyone would ever find on Windows."
I find this fascinating. Some Windows fans will grab onto something like this, an exploitable bug in Linux, and use that to "prove" that Windows is better. "Look here, Linux has an exploitable bug, obviously it's no good. I told you how much better Windows is, now it's proven science!" And the additional comment about finding bugs more subtle than those on Windows? Where's the evidence for that statement, other than perhaps in the fact that Linux source is readily available while Windows source is not?
Any OS has exploitable bugs. Failure to patch is, as noted by many other posters, the real issue. Don't necessarily condemn one system or the other because there are bugs. Instead, maybe we might look at the track record, in which case some conclusions should emerge.