> One man's propaganda is another man's editorial opinion.
Kinda sad actually. If some frothing deaniac at the NYT or somewhere had written a totally non-political book the editors wouldn't have even found it worth mentioning the 'day' job of the author.
But then what do I know... I read Derbyshire's NRO columns so I'm irredeemably wicked in the eyes of the/. editors.
> Its post after post after post of people slamming it for its UI and > color management.
Yea, and I have never understood it. The color management is a non-starter due to patents. Could be done, but only in a fork that stayed out of the US and most of the rest of the world. (Europe is still safe.... for now.)
But most of the flamage I see in this thread is over the UI. I have been using it since '96 and while I have to study how to do some things with it. once I do figure it out it makes perfect sense. I suspect the developers feel the same way and just ignore the photoshop fanboys who reject anything that doesn't behave exactly like photoshop on windows. Folks, the Windows port is a sideline, the UI is going to feel a little out of place because it is a foreign app there. Over here on Linux/X11 it feels perfectly normal.
But if you are convinced that ONLY photoshop will do, go buy photoshop and STFU! I happen to like GIMP and hope they keep on trucking just like they are.
> GDI+, the graphics subsystem in Windows XP that is also freely > downloadable for previous Windows versions. What is your point, exactly?
And how many non-windows platforms? I didn't know that multi-platform had been redefined to mean 'multiple versions of Windows'. The point being if the first (at least I have heard of) attempt to write a real end user app in.net requires abandoning one of the claimed key benefits, the promise of multiplatform, then it ain't really a benefit.
> When Longhorn is released, there will be an entirely new.NET-based > graphics subsystem that will also be downloadable for previous > versions of Windows.
Whooptee freaking doo. If you can predict which features are going to actually make the cut when that turd finally slides outta Balmer's Butt you are a better pundit than the whores at ZD. Besides which you completely missed the point again; If.Net is to be multi-platform it can't depend on vaporware misfeatures that may or may not actually ship someday in version of Windows. (And yes, writing your graphics subsystem in an interpreted language IS a misfeature.)
> If it bothers you that.NET isn't multiplatform, go sign up with the > Mono project and get cracking.
Why? I never bought into.Net anymore than I did Java. And if this app is an example of the Windows only status of.net apps I really don't see the point behind Mono. At least most Java apps will run on Linux if you piss around with JRE versions and other BS, but GDI isn't an open spec so I really doubt Miguel & Co will have much better luck than the Wine people have chasing Microsoft's taillights.
> Apparently you're not paying attention to the programming job market > right now.
Yea, the naughties version of the VB monkeys of the early '90s or the Java weenies of the later '90s. No thanks. Yes, suits appear to have fallen for it like they do every well marketed bad idea. This is supposed to impress anyone with a functioning brain? Just because corporate America is going to shoot themselves in the foot and tie another generation of their key logic to the Microsoft monopoly machine doesn't make it a good idea for the OS world to commit suicide.
> The next version of Windows will even be entirely.NET based and > replace Win32, so expect the movement to take full effect.
I really hope they do make a mistake that big. But then what choice do they have? In a binary only world they have to have some way to escape the impending death of ia32. We have a better way though. We just Use The Source and rebuild for new platforms.
> I don't get the fear of progress I see so much in the OSS world.
We ARE the progress in the IT world, in case you have been sleeping the last decade. How many new ideas have come from Redmond lately? Or any closed shop?
> What is amazing is that a simple paint program has, in two semesters, > already surpassed the years of work of the Gimp in both interface > and ease of use.
I really doubt that it has managed to do either. So far it has beat MS Paint, not a real difficult achievement. But once the/. effect has died down I might go have a closer look. But beating Gimp's featureset in two semesters? Not bloody likely, they are still crowing about just getting layers! Gimp had those a decade ago.
I see several interesting things here. Note how they had to use a GDI+ 'extension'? And someone is reporting sluggishness anyway, even on hardware that is fairly new. Tells me.net suffers from Java's Disease along with any other emulated environment and that the move to add in native hooks is already well underway. And of course it is in Microsoft's interest to make sure that.NET is 'multiplatform' in the hype but Windows only in practice.
Let this be an object lesson for all you Mono fetishists,.net and all it's works are nothing but a trap for the unwary. And will never live up to the hype anymore than Java did, although there is now hope for Java to become useful by jetisoning the emulation and making it just another object oriented language that GCC will grind down to ELF executables.
> The last time I was in a Wal-Mart I saw a sign by the service desk that > said "Due to copyright
Can't remember what the sign in the local walmart says. But if you are right I'd bet you could sue their ass in small claims court for fraud and get them to throw you some cash in a settlement because that would be a slam dunk. Hell why can't a bunch of people get a scum class action lawyer and really punish them?
I actually don't hate Walmart, but if they are really saying something that false they need some serious punishment.
> Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?
Yes, nothing else makes a legally binding contract. Only then will EULAs have actual legal standing. Everything else has been a scare tactic. Of course when software boxes have the full eula taped to the back and customers are expected to read and sign them they will refuse to sign the current crop because they are so one sided.
> On the flip side, it is painfully honest about the batteries. It takes > 3.5 hours (5 if the laptop is on) to charge for 1.5 hours of use?!?
No, I'd guess it is the fact that most Linux distros suck ass at power management. Not slagging Linux, I do eat my own dogfood on my current Thinkpad but it stays on AC power most of the time. The claimed battery life (under the supplied XP) is about twice what I manage to get under Linux.
On my previous Thinkpad (A 570e with a second battery in the UltraBase) running RH 7.3 I had managed to tweak things to the point where I'd get almost four hours runtime on a system speced to run five under Windows.
When you go to the walmart page, loong on the right margin and investigate the -other- lowball machines they sell. For about 70 more you can get one with an AMB Mobile Athlon, 802.11b, a larger hd, a dvd instead of cd and of course XP Home. Buy that, nuke XP and load load the distro of your choice.
> Oh yeah, and takes 9 hours to compile on a dual G5 2GHz.
Eh? I build OOo in just a bit over three hours on a single A64 3200+, If a Dual G5 is taking three times longer, something is horribly wrong. Kinda kills the claim of 'worlds fastest computer' that the Mac faithful whinge on about.
> It will be interesting to see how the market takes this news.
Well both HP and Intel have been telling the analysts for a decade that Itanic was a 'bet the company' move. About now they are both praying to whatever higher powers they worship (probably dark elder powers) that the analysts didn't actually believe them.
> we can not yet be certain of the cause, nor how it will continue.
Well.... since I read TFA and am practiced at dropping the political spin and picking out the facts in a news story, I'd be willing to make a guess that this guy's theory is that it relates to variations in solar output. He sasy that about 5200 years ago the solar output dropped then spiked up. We just had another drop and are on the upswing of a spike.
> however it is quite well proven that human activities at least > contribute to the currently observed warming.
To the contrary, you would be hard pressed to find even ONE actual scientific study making that conclusion. Lots of perhaps, needs more study, hints and other doublespeak but the only ones saying words like 'proven' are green politicians. The reality is that the longterm weather is changing, which is it's natural state. There are long term patterns in the weather we haven't been studying long enough to have nailed down with even a little detail, to say we KNOW anything about the longterm weather patterns on this planet is nothing but hubris and anyone worthy of the title of "Scientist" knows it. Many have a lot of suspicion and some evidence pointing in one direction, but that is a long way from 'proven.'
But if this guy is right, and I'm on record here on/. making similar predictions that Mr. Sun is getting cranky in past global warming threads, then we probably should be planning on intentionally causing global climate change! We need to be researching ways to cause global cooling with Apollo style funding.
> Whatever you call it, Soviet Communism was simply imperial dictatorship > with a rhetorical patina of Marxist platitudes.
Nope. The Soviet Union was Marxism implemented. Marxism the theory is very beautiful.... but with a fatal flaw. It assumes men will produce for the common good without any personal reward. When implemented and this flaw emerges two, and only two, choices are possible. One is to admit this is a fatal flaw and return to some form of Capitalism or bring out the guns. Stalin went for option #2 along with every other 'successful' implementation of Marx's crackpot theories.
> namely, the United States supports oppressive regimes when it suits > their interests.
True enough. But after 9/11 Bush rightly understood that the only way to end the threat from Islamic Fundamentalism was to 'drain the swamp' over there. That means the House of Saud's days are numbered. We won't liberate the world from every tyrant, but we will do it when it is in our self interest to do so, which it now is for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.
As for the constant refrain from the ignorant about us "doing it for the oil" I call BS. If all we cared for was the oil we would have lifted the sanctions on Saddam and let the oil flow at market prices. Yes, oil is going to factor into any decision regarding that area of the world but it isn't the only or in this case major factor. Longterm survival trumps everything else. I know you moveon folks don't see a threat and so look for conspiracy theories to explain why the US is doing what it is doing, but the answer is right in front of you.
> It's one thing to not care about the rest of the world. It's quite > another to stop caring one drop about your own citizens.
By defination a representive government cares about their own citizens, just not ALL of them. You can't make everyone happy and shouldn't try to make the insane ones happy. Moveon.org, the Deaniacs and a good chunk of the "anti-war" (read as anti-american) left are insane with pronounced suicidal tendencies and should be ignored by all right thinking people.
> Besides, isn't one of the things the "terrorists" are good at is > long-term observations of their planned targets, and NOT using things > like GPS, cell phones, etc. to carry out their attacks?
And if they never exploit GPS this was all an exercise in threat assessment, useful if only as practice. On the other hand, if they DO try to use it against us it will be good to have a response at hand, We pay taxes so those people in the spook agencies can sit around and think of potential threats and responses, play wargames, and generally think about the unthinkable. I for one am a lot happier paying them to do things that are actually mandated by the Constituition than, a useless Dept of [Education|HHS|Interior|Agriculture|Energy|etc] that isn't.
> Right, other than making them govern themselves exactly the way we do. > If Iraq comes out of this not being a de facto colony of the US in the > mideast, I'll eat my hat.
Shortterm you might even be right. But history teaches differently. Take a look at the last time we stood up representive governments to replace despots and tyrants. Sure Germany and Japan were essentially client states for a few years but I believe we mean it when we say we are putting in a real "republican form of government" in Iraq as much as we meant it for Japan and Germany. Which means eventually they will gain the confidence to make their own destiny, which will sometimes be opposed to US policy in the same way Germany is now opposed to us while Japan is in the Coalition, each for their own freely decided reasons.
Yes we will probably have long lasting political, economic and military ties to Iraq. Whether you have a problem with that depends on whether you think associating with the US is a wicked and corruping influence. We have such ties with most of the nations on this little planet though, so what is the big fscking deal if we trade with and have a military base or two in Iraq? Most countries we have bases in get pissed when we talk of removing (ok, they mostly want the money) them, not the other way around.
> You wish to topple every state to build it up as an American colony
If empire were an American desire Europe would have went through being territories all the way to US states by now. Remember that after WWII we stood astride the world with a war machine unmatched in history, totally unopposed by the shattered remains of the rest of the civilized world, in sole possession of the Ultimate Weapon. What did we do? Taxed ourselves to rebuild not only our wartorn allies, but also our defeated enemies.
> thats what Europe objects to.
That is called projection. As in projecting your faults on others. Yes, most of the European powers would indeed take possession and try to keep anything they won in War. Therefore they assume we have the same motivations. But we aren't European. Sometimes this is a good thing, not so other times. This time though, it is a good one. We have no longterm designs on the Middle East.
> Yes, you do, because that's way more important to the US than the impact > of a terrorist attack.
They aren't talking about shutting the entire system off. They know they can always do THAT. They are looking at ways to kill it in a selective way, like one city or small region. The impact of a loss of GPS coverage for a few hours vs a getto cruise missle with a WMD is an easy balancing act.
> On 9/11 , about 2800 people (exact number is still unclear) suffered a > terrible death in the terrorist attacks. Yes it was horrible. No, we > don't want it to happen again.
You are being very limited in your thinking. First off, 9/11 could have been a LOT worse, we could have lost 50-100K easy in that attack had things gone slightly differently. We got lucky, don't count on luck. Besides, now that we are at War with the bastards they are going to want to hurt us back really bad. Before they just wanted to terrorize us, now they are likely going to want to cause real military/economic damage. Especially after they saw just how close to an economic collapse we came after 9/11. UBL has to be in his cave thinking "Damn, these guys just ain't going to stop trying to kill my ass and they have pretty much unlimited resources to throw at me. I gotta have some relief! Bet if their economy tanked they wouldn't have the cash to keep throwing at the war effort. Can we get a nuke/dirty bomb to Wall Street? Bet that would slow em down a year or two."
At any rate, Shrubbie & Co. had better be planning with the assumption that UBL is going to fight back. And forget airlines, they can't use that trick again and even if Norm Mineta doesn't, THEY know it so expect something different. So I say kudos to brainiacs in the spook agencies who ARE thinking different and trying to come up with countermeasures for attack modes we haven't seen yet instead of giving UBL one free shot.
> To put things in perspective, last year there were 41,600 traffic > deaths in the U.S. (15,700 alcohol related). It seems clear to me > that unsafe driving and DUI is a MUCH bigger risk to the US people > than a 9/11 style terrorist attack.
And how many would have died had the planes hit a little lower and an hour later? How many will die if UBL manages to poison the water supply of a major city? Get yer head outta yer butt and use it to think with. We can't win this thing strictly on defense but to neglect defense while we are out kicking ass and taking names is crazy.
> The american people should wake up, kick the idiot out of the Big > Chair(tm), and put someone there who has his/her priorities straight.
Nope, we know who has it right and reelected him. The War against Islamic Fundamentalism is the number one priority for our generation and Bush understands that. You and Kerry don't believe that, and were rejected for it. History will prove one our views correct, the question is whether those histories will be written in English or Arabic.
Seeing as how your political philosophy has been on the wrong side of the major conflicts the US has been involved in lately (WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War/WWIII) the safe money would be on you being wrong yet again on WWIV on that basis alone.
Which is why they are pondering ways to disable PARTS of the GPS/Galileo systems. The idea is to have the capability to blank the signal from selected areas should the need arise; without being forced into shutting the entire system down, which everyone agrees would be highly disruptive.
I know it easier to maintain the belief that Shrubbie is the anti-christ and all who work in the government are evil encarnate and dumber than a box of rocks, but reality is more complex than Moveon.org can imagine. Just remember, most of the career government guys are the same ones you folks automatically trusted to be smarter and more caring than us mere civilians when Clinton had the reins of power just a few years ago.
> Its just asking to get more people pissed off with the US..
Which may or may not bother me a bit. When we do something we think is in OUR national interest I couldn't care less what our enemies in Paris think.
And yes, at this point it is safe to say France is a nominal enemy. Not that they would ever have the balls to oppose us openly, but it is openly acknowledged that it is a goal of French policy to reduce the influence of the US in world affairs. This means they, as a matter of offical policy, oppose any US action which would tend to increase US influence/prestige/national security unless the benefit to France is much greater and they lend aid, comfort and political cover to our enemies.
As for certain others getting 'pissed off' at the US I say GREAT! It means we are being effective. Lets face facts, every government in the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait and Israel excepted) is currently pissed at us whether they can admit it in public or not because unless they are totally clueless they understand that it is our goal to topple every one of their perverted police states. So the more pissed they get the more threat they perceive us to be. And since they all vote in the UN and most of Europe prefers their misrule to our meddling over there they also vote with the despots and denounce us. Screw em.
> Are you utterly clueless? Have you seen the Los Angeles skyline, or > worse Mexico City?
Not with my own eyes, but that is just one of the myriad reasons I choose NOT to live in a major urban area. We don't need the almighty hand of the State to make our decisions for us.
> Decreasing emissions is beneficial whether or not they cause global > warming.
Agreed. But make the arguments on those grounds if you want me to agree instead of this chicken little stuff about the world ending unless we ratify Kyoto that passes for rational discourse in the mainstream press. And then be willing to go with the one solution that will work; build modern (as in safe) nuke plants. Yes we should be working on hybrid cars (but admit they ain't ready for prime time yet) wind power, etc. Over the next twenty to thirty years the only tech that can supply the world's energy needs is the power of the atom. We have learned a lot from the earlier designs and can now build plants that are as close to foolproof as anything mortal humans can ever do.
And while we wait on those plants to get built (and the decade of lawsuits and other legal roadblocks from the Greens) drill in the freaking ANWAR for more domestic oil so we don't depend on Middle Eastern despots for our economic wellbeing. It IS a nature area so exact firm promises from the petro industry to leave the land like they found it (and actually enforce it) but drill. Believe me, Caribo won't know the oil isn't under their feet anymore.
> You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if > you believe otherwise.
Ignore the political biases of the Global Warming crowd, ignore everything but blatent self interest, and unless you want to be laughed at you must admit that scientists are human and subject to act in their self interest. At this point in the game, if someone DID debunk Global Warming and managed to get published, how many climatologists would still have careers since every last one of them has staked their professional reputations on this theory being fact? No, at this point is is illogical to expect reason from the scientists on this issue. Religion clouded their judgement and now they are in too deep to even consider whether they were wrong.
> Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on > evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand.
Ok, then consider these items:
1. Sunspot activity has been increasing over most of the 20th century. If Mr. Sun is responsible it is natural climate change.
2. To the best of my knowledge, No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century without a lot of unexplained fudge factors to make it come out right. No model exists which has been allowed to run into the future and then checked with what actually happened a decade later has produced a match.
3. Very few records of long term tempratures exist where the measuring station is not now inside a urban heat dome.
Taken together, just those three items means we can't say with confidence the temp is actually currently rising globally, and even if it is we can't say whether our actions are responsible. And we can't make any sort of meaningful predictions as to how much it might go up, whether other forces will act to accelerate or moderate any rise, etc. Basically all we CAN say is global and regional tempratures change over time and they may or may not be changing now.
Yes there is also a lot of very compelling evidence on the other side, but not enough to call the matter settled, and in my opinion not enough to justify preemtive war against ourselves that will certainly cause massive social and economic harm.
> I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a > dismantling of Western Civilization.
Why not call for Fusion power while you are at it. Too many (so called) Scientists are just as religiously opposed to anything related to the N word to seriously consider it as an option. To get a paniced retreat from fossil fuels would require the Global Warming zealots to be in political ascendence and that means they would say no to more reactors.
I'd say build reactors to get us away from depending on Middle Eastern Oil, and that argument is equally valid whether Global Warming is real, natural, wrong or an outright hoax. And if the Earth does start warming we can always just orbit some mylar sheets and block a fraction of a percent of the Sun until we rebalance, problems we create by being overly clever primates we can probably fix the same way, especially ones that operate over such a long time horizon.
No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse. And it isn't ALL scientists, just the ones who spout this stuff like it was settled fact. Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press. Or the scientific papers, because disenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
> If scientists cannot agree whether mean temperatures will rise by 3 > degrees or 5 degrees, it is not particularly fair to dismiss their > theories outright.
Yes it is. Because unless their predictions can follow reality fairly close one can't believe their CONCLUSIONS as to cause. If the earth is warming because it is SUPPOSED to be warming, say due to the documented increase in sunspot activity being related to increased solar output, then Kyoto means destroying our economy just to boost the self esteem of a few hippy freaks.
> Sound policy in my opinion would be to immediatly consider at least > the easier reductions in our emissions.
Why? Under what authority do you lay claim to dictate how me and others live our lives? If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defense as provided for in the Constituition. But until the threat is at LEAST as proven as Saddam's threat was; please piss off and stop trying to run everyone else's life.
> It certainly won't harm anything.
Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.
> In the decades when some were in denial of the harmful effects of > smoking would it have been unhealthy to quit?
The data on smoking was pretty damned clear. The Tobacco industry was forced to keep up a front on the issue because they realized what the trial lawyers were trying to do... what they DID do eventually. There ain't too many people alive today who didn't (or shouldn't have) know that smoking was bad for you when they lit their first one. Bad example.
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any > 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
> The question here is not a political one.
I'll give you that one. Politics gets into it, but at core, Global Warming is religion. If the weather warms somewhere, it is Global Warming at work. If it cools off, well that is Global Warming also. (Yes, they have theology already in the can for that one, I have seen it in action.)
> What's controversial about this issue?
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Are they right? Not really sure myself, but they do make some good points, enough that calls to close discussion and move on to dismantling Western Civilivation in response to a -potential threat- is somewhat rash in my humble opinion.
Then if one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation for any of a dozen other totally unrelated reasons, a little more suspicion is justified.
Then add in the Russians just ratified Kyoto so of course the drums are beating like mad for us to be 'reasonable' and sign on and the timing is just SO convienient. Politics and Religion aligned is almost never a good thing, and that is exactly what we have here.
> Shooting them is ok but DDoS attacks worry you? Man your values are > fucked up!
There are only a few dozen asshats that account for most of the UCE/Spam on the network. They are all evil/amoral people, and need to be shot after a fair trial. Shooting them would work. DDoSing them only makes more bogus traffic clogging the network.
Considering the backbone operators are going to keep turning a blind eye to spammers as long as it is profitable, making the penalty extreme is one of the few solutions that would actually work. Imprisoning/caning/really big fines the responsible people at the backbones would also work.
> I wish that spamassassin would parse the mails it identifies as spams > (10+) for urls and then try to send several modified GET requests to > them every few minutes, for a day.
[ mode=flame ]
Fortunately the authors of SA aren't mental midgets. Use your brain before you actually start coding something that lame. The spammers are wicked and smart, which is why they are dangerous. They adapt. How long would it take them to start adding in a few links to legit sites? They would start of course with their enemies like cauce.org and spamcop.com and eventually add in major sites just to sow confusion.
Slashdot Mirror
> One man's propaganda is another man's editorial opinion.
/. editors.
Kinda sad actually. If some frothing deaniac at the NYT or somewhere had written a totally non-political book the editors wouldn't have even found it worth mentioning the 'day' job of the author.
But then what do I know... I read Derbyshire's NRO columns so I'm irredeemably wicked in the eyes of the
> Its post after post after post of people slamming it for its UI and
> color management.
Yea, and I have never understood it. The color management is a non-starter due to patents. Could be done, but only in a fork that stayed out of the US and most of the rest of the world. (Europe is still safe.... for now.)
But most of the flamage I see in this thread is over the UI. I have been using it since '96 and while I have to study how to do some things with it. once I do figure it out it makes perfect sense. I suspect the developers feel the same way and just ignore the photoshop fanboys who reject anything that doesn't behave exactly like photoshop on windows. Folks, the Windows port is a sideline, the UI is going to feel a little out of place because it is a foreign app there. Over here on Linux/X11 it feels perfectly normal.
But if you are convinced that ONLY photoshop will do, go buy photoshop and STFU! I happen to like GIMP and hope they keep on trucking just like they are.
> GDI+, the graphics subsystem in Windows XP that is also freely
.net requires abandoning one of the claimed key benefits, the promise of multiplatform, then it ain't really a benefit.
.NET-based
.Net is to be multi-platform it can't depend on vaporware misfeatures that may or may not actually ship someday in version of Windows. (And yes, writing your graphics subsystem in an interpreted language IS a misfeature.)
.NET isn't multiplatform, go sign up with the
.Net anymore than I did Java. And if this app is an example of the Windows only status of .net apps I really don't see the point behind Mono. At least most Java apps will run on Linux if you piss around with JRE versions and other BS, but GDI isn't an open spec so I really doubt Miguel & Co will have much better luck than the Wine people have chasing Microsoft's taillights.
.NET based and
/. effect has died down I might go have a closer look. But beating Gimp's featureset in two semesters? Not bloody likely, they are still crowing about just getting layers! Gimp had those a decade ago.
> downloadable for previous Windows versions. What is your point, exactly?
And how many non-windows platforms? I didn't know that multi-platform had been redefined to mean 'multiple versions of Windows'. The point being if the first (at least I have heard of) attempt to write a real end user app in
> When Longhorn is released, there will be an entirely new
> graphics subsystem that will also be downloadable for previous
> versions of Windows.
Whooptee freaking doo. If you can predict which features are going to actually make the cut when that turd finally slides outta Balmer's Butt you are a better pundit than the whores at ZD. Besides which you completely missed the point again; If
> If it bothers you that
> Mono project and get cracking.
Why? I never bought into
> Apparently you're not paying attention to the programming job market
> right now.
Yea, the naughties version of the VB monkeys of the early '90s or the Java weenies of the later '90s. No thanks. Yes, suits appear to have fallen for it like they do every well marketed bad idea. This is supposed to impress anyone with a functioning brain? Just because corporate America is going to shoot themselves in the foot and tie another generation of their key logic to the Microsoft monopoly machine doesn't make it a good idea for the OS world to commit suicide.
> The next version of Windows will even be entirely
> replace Win32, so expect the movement to take full effect.
I really hope they do make a mistake that big. But then what choice do they have? In a binary only world they have to have some way to escape the impending death of ia32. We have a better way though. We just Use The Source and rebuild for new platforms.
> I don't get the fear of progress I see so much in the OSS world.
We ARE the progress in the IT world, in case you have been sleeping the last decade. How many new ideas have come from Redmond lately? Or any closed shop?
> What is amazing is that a simple paint program has, in two semesters,
> already surpassed the years of work of the Gimp in both interface
> and ease of use.
I really doubt that it has managed to do either. So far it has beat MS Paint, not a real difficult achievement. But once the
I see several interesting things here. Note how they had to use a GDI+ 'extension'? And someone is reporting sluggishness anyway, even on hardware that is fairly new. Tells me .net suffers from Java's Disease along with any other emulated environment and that the move to add in native hooks is already well underway. And of course it is in Microsoft's interest to make sure that .NET is 'multiplatform' in the hype but Windows only in practice.
.net and all it's works are nothing but a trap for the unwary. And will never live up to the hype anymore than Java did, although there is now hope for Java to become useful by jetisoning the emulation and making it just another object oriented language that GCC will grind down to ELF executables.
Let this be an object lesson for all you Mono fetishists,
> The last time I was in a Wal-Mart I saw a sign by the service desk that
> said "Due to copyright
Can't remember what the sign in the local walmart says. But if you are right I'd bet you could sue their ass in small claims court for fraud and get them to throw you some cash in a settlement because that would be a slam dunk. Hell why can't a bunch of people get a scum class action lawyer and really punish them?
I actually don't hate Walmart, but if they are really saying something that false they need some serious punishment.
> Will we have to read and agree to the EULA before we can buy?
Yes, nothing else makes a legally binding contract. Only then will EULAs have actual legal standing. Everything else has been a scare tactic. Of course when software boxes have the full eula taped to the back and customers are expected to read and sign them they will refuse to sign the current crop because they are so one sided.
> On the flip side, it is painfully honest about the batteries. It takes
> 3.5 hours (5 if the laptop is on) to charge for 1.5 hours of use?!?
No, I'd guess it is the fact that most Linux distros suck ass at power management. Not slagging Linux, I do eat my own dogfood on my current Thinkpad but it stays on AC power most of the time. The claimed battery life (under the supplied XP) is about twice what I manage to get under Linux.
On my previous Thinkpad (A 570e with a second battery in the UltraBase) running RH 7.3 I had managed to tweak things to the point where I'd get almost four hours runtime on a system speced to run five under Windows.
When you go to the walmart page, loong on the right margin and investigate the -other- lowball machines they sell. For about 70 more you can get one with an AMB Mobile Athlon, 802.11b, a larger hd, a dvd instead of cd and of course XP Home. Buy that, nuke XP and load load the distro of your choice.
> Oh yeah, and takes 9 hours to compile on a dual G5 2GHz.
Eh? I build OOo in just a bit over three hours on a single A64 3200+, If a Dual G5 is taking three times longer, something is horribly wrong. Kinda kills the claim of 'worlds fastest computer' that the Mac faithful whinge on about.
> It will be interesting to see how the market takes this news.
Well both HP and Intel have been telling the analysts for a decade that Itanic was a 'bet the company' move. About now they are both praying to whatever higher powers they worship (probably dark elder powers) that the analysts didn't actually believe them.
> Who's running HP these days, Willy Wonka?
Close. The same idiot who killed Lucent when they had everything going for them.
> Where is HP headed?
The hall of fame at www.fuckedcompany.com.
> we can not yet be certain of the cause, nor how it will continue.
/. making similar predictions that Mr. Sun is getting cranky in past global warming threads, then we probably should be planning on intentionally causing global climate change! We need to be researching ways to cause global cooling with Apollo style funding.
Well.... since I read TFA and am practiced at dropping the political spin and picking out the facts in a news story, I'd be willing to make a guess that this guy's theory is that it relates to variations in solar output. He sasy that about 5200 years ago the solar output dropped then spiked up. We just had another drop and are on the upswing of a spike.
> however it is quite well proven that human activities at least
> contribute to the currently observed warming.
To the contrary, you would be hard pressed to find even ONE actual scientific study making that conclusion. Lots of perhaps, needs more study, hints and other doublespeak but the only ones saying words like 'proven' are green politicians. The reality is that the longterm weather is changing, which is it's natural state. There are long term patterns in the weather we haven't been studying long enough to have nailed down with even a little detail, to say we KNOW anything about the longterm weather patterns on this planet is nothing but hubris and anyone worthy of the title of "Scientist" knows it. Many have a lot of suspicion and some evidence pointing in one direction, but that is a long way from 'proven.'
But if this guy is right, and I'm on record here on
> Whatever you call it, Soviet Communism was simply imperial dictatorship
> with a rhetorical patina of Marxist platitudes.
Nope. The Soviet Union was Marxism implemented. Marxism the theory is very beautiful.... but with a fatal flaw. It assumes men will produce for the common good without any personal reward. When implemented and this flaw emerges two, and only two, choices are possible. One is to admit this is a fatal flaw and return to some form of Capitalism or bring out the guns. Stalin went for option #2 along with every other 'successful' implementation of Marx's crackpot theories.
> namely, the United States supports oppressive regimes when it suits
> their interests.
True enough. But after 9/11 Bush rightly understood that the only way to end the threat from Islamic Fundamentalism was to 'drain the swamp' over there. That means the House of Saud's days are numbered. We won't liberate the world from every tyrant, but we will do it when it is in our self interest to do so, which it now is for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East.
As for the constant refrain from the ignorant about us "doing it for the oil" I call BS. If all we cared for was the oil we would have lifted the sanctions on Saddam and let the oil flow at market prices. Yes, oil is going to factor into any decision regarding that area of the world but it isn't the only or in this case major factor. Longterm survival trumps everything else. I know you moveon folks don't see a threat and so look for conspiracy theories to explain why the US is doing what it is doing, but the answer is right in front of you.
> It's one thing to not care about the rest of the world. It's quite
> another to stop caring one drop about your own citizens.
By defination a representive government cares about their own citizens, just not ALL of them. You can't make everyone happy and shouldn't try to make the insane ones happy. Moveon.org, the Deaniacs and a good chunk of the "anti-war" (read as anti-american) left are insane with pronounced suicidal tendencies and should be ignored by all right thinking people.
> Besides, isn't one of the things the "terrorists" are good at is
> long-term observations of their planned targets, and NOT using things
> like GPS, cell phones, etc. to carry out their attacks?
And if they never exploit GPS this was all an exercise in threat assessment, useful if only as practice. On the other hand, if they DO try to use it against us it will be good to have a response at hand, We pay taxes so those people in the spook agencies can sit around and think of potential threats and responses, play wargames, and generally think about the unthinkable. I for one am a lot happier paying them to do things that are actually mandated by the Constituition than, a useless Dept of [Education|HHS|Interior|Agriculture|Energy|etc] that isn't.
> Right, other than making them govern themselves exactly the way we do.
> If Iraq comes out of this not being a de facto colony of the US in the
> mideast, I'll eat my hat.
Shortterm you might even be right. But history teaches differently. Take a look at the last time we stood up representive governments to replace despots and tyrants. Sure Germany and Japan were essentially client states for a few years but I believe we mean it when we say we are putting in a real "republican form of government" in Iraq as much as we meant it for Japan and Germany. Which means eventually they will gain the confidence to make their own destiny, which will sometimes be opposed to US policy in the same way Germany is now opposed to us while Japan is in the Coalition, each for their own freely decided reasons.
Yes we will probably have long lasting political, economic and military ties to Iraq. Whether you have a problem with that depends on whether you think associating with the US is a wicked and corruping influence. We have such ties with most of the nations on this little planet though, so what is the big fscking deal if we trade with and have a military base or two in Iraq? Most countries we have bases in get pissed when we talk of removing (ok, they mostly want the money) them, not the other way around.
> You wish to topple every state to build it up as an American colony
If empire were an American desire Europe would have went through being territories all the way to US states by now. Remember that after WWII we stood astride the world with a war machine unmatched in history, totally unopposed by the shattered remains of the rest of the civilized world, in sole possession of the Ultimate Weapon. What did we do? Taxed ourselves to rebuild not only our wartorn allies, but also our defeated enemies.
> thats what Europe objects to.
That is called projection. As in projecting your faults on others. Yes, most of the European powers would indeed take possession and try to keep anything they won in War. Therefore they assume we have the same motivations. But we aren't European. Sometimes this is a good thing, not so other times. This time though, it is a good one. We have no longterm designs on the Middle East.
> Yes, you do, because that's way more important to the US than the impact
> of a terrorist attack.
They aren't talking about shutting the entire system off. They know they can always do THAT. They are looking at ways to kill it in a selective way, like one city or small region. The impact of a loss of GPS coverage for a few hours vs a getto cruise missle with a WMD is an easy balancing act.
> On 9/11 , about 2800 people (exact number is still unclear) suffered a
> terrible death in the terrorist attacks. Yes it was horrible. No, we
> don't want it to happen again.
You are being very limited in your thinking. First off, 9/11 could have been a LOT worse, we could have lost 50-100K easy in that attack had things gone slightly differently. We got lucky, don't count on luck. Besides, now that we are at War with the bastards they are going to want to hurt us back really bad. Before they just wanted to terrorize us, now they are likely going to want to cause real military/economic damage. Especially after they saw just how close to an economic collapse we came after 9/11. UBL has to be in his cave thinking "Damn, these guys just ain't going to stop trying to kill my ass and they have pretty much unlimited resources to throw at me. I gotta have some relief! Bet if their economy tanked they wouldn't have the cash to keep throwing at the war effort. Can we get a nuke/dirty bomb to Wall Street? Bet that would slow em down a year or two."
At any rate, Shrubbie & Co. had better be planning with the assumption that UBL is going to fight back. And forget airlines, they can't use that trick again and even if Norm Mineta doesn't, THEY know it so expect something different. So I say kudos to brainiacs in the spook agencies who ARE thinking different and trying to come up with countermeasures for attack modes we haven't seen yet instead of giving UBL one free shot.
> To put things in perspective, last year there were 41,600 traffic
> deaths in the U.S. (15,700 alcohol related). It seems clear to me
> that unsafe driving and DUI is a MUCH bigger risk to the US people
> than a 9/11 style terrorist attack.
And how many would have died had the planes hit a little lower and an hour later? How many will die if UBL manages to poison the water supply of a major city? Get yer head outta yer butt and use it to think with. We can't win this thing strictly on defense but to neglect defense while we are out kicking ass and taking names is crazy.
> The american people should wake up, kick the idiot out of the Big
> Chair(tm), and put someone there who has his/her priorities straight.
Nope, we know who has it right and reelected him. The War against Islamic Fundamentalism is the number one priority for our generation and Bush understands that. You and Kerry don't believe that, and were rejected for it. History will prove one our views correct, the question is whether those histories will be written in English or Arabic.
Seeing as how your political philosophy has been on the wrong side of the major conflicts the US has been involved in lately (WWII, Vietnam, the Cold War/WWIII) the safe money would be on you being wrong yet again on WWIV on that basis alone.
> What about all the other users?
Which is why they are pondering ways to disable PARTS of the GPS/Galileo systems. The idea is to have the capability to blank the signal from selected areas should the need arise; without being forced into shutting the entire system down, which everyone agrees would be highly disruptive.
I know it easier to maintain the belief that Shrubbie is the anti-christ and all who work in the government are evil encarnate and dumber than a box of rocks, but reality is more complex than Moveon.org can imagine. Just remember, most of the career government guys are the same ones you folks automatically trusted to be smarter and more caring than us mere civilians when Clinton had the reins of power just a few years ago.
> Its just asking to get more people pissed off with the US..
Which may or may not bother me a bit. When we do something we think is in OUR national interest I couldn't care less what our enemies in Paris think.
And yes, at this point it is safe to say France is a nominal enemy. Not that they would ever have the balls to oppose us openly, but it is openly acknowledged that it is a goal of French policy to reduce the influence of the US in world affairs. This means they, as a matter of offical policy, oppose any US action which would tend to increase US influence/prestige/national security unless the benefit to France is much greater and they lend aid, comfort and political cover to our enemies.
As for certain others getting 'pissed off' at the US I say GREAT! It means we are being effective. Lets face facts, every government in the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait and Israel excepted) is currently pissed at us whether they can admit it in public or not because unless they are totally clueless they understand that it is our goal to topple every one of their perverted police states. So the more pissed they get the more threat they perceive us to be. And since they all vote in the UN and most of Europe prefers their misrule to our meddling over there they also vote with the despots and denounce us. Screw em.
> Are you utterly clueless? Have you seen the Los Angeles skyline, or
> worse Mexico City?
Not with my own eyes, but that is just one of the myriad reasons I choose NOT to live in a major urban area. We don't need the almighty hand of the State to make our decisions for us.
> Decreasing emissions is beneficial whether or not they cause global
> warming.
Agreed. But make the arguments on those grounds if you want me to agree instead of this chicken little stuff about the world ending unless we ratify Kyoto that passes for rational discourse in the mainstream press. And then be willing to go with the one solution that will work; build modern (as in safe) nuke plants. Yes we should be working on hybrid cars (but admit they ain't ready for prime time yet) wind power, etc. Over the next twenty to thirty years the only tech that can supply the world's energy needs is the power of the atom. We have learned a lot from the earlier designs and can now build plants that are as close to foolproof as anything mortal humans can ever do.
And while we wait on those plants to get built (and the decade of lawsuits and other legal roadblocks from the Greens) drill in the freaking ANWAR for more domestic oil so we don't depend on Middle Eastern despots for our economic wellbeing. It IS a nature area so exact firm promises from the petro industry to leave the land like they found it (and actually enforce it) but drill. Believe me, Caribo won't know the oil isn't under their feet anymore.
> You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if
> you believe otherwise.
Ignore the political biases of the Global Warming crowd, ignore everything but blatent self interest, and unless you want to be laughed at you must admit that scientists are human and subject to act in their self interest. At this point in the game, if someone DID debunk Global Warming and managed to get published, how many climatologists would still have careers since every last one of them has staked their professional reputations on this theory being fact? No, at this point is is illogical to expect reason from the scientists on this issue. Religion clouded their judgement and now they are in too deep to even consider whether they were wrong.
> Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on
> evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand.
Ok, then consider these items:
1. Sunspot activity has been increasing over most of the 20th century. If Mr. Sun is responsible it is natural climate change.
2. To the best of my knowledge, No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century without a lot of unexplained fudge factors to make it come out right. No model exists which has been allowed to run into the future and then checked with what actually happened a decade later has produced a match.
3. Very few records of long term tempratures exist where the measuring station is not now inside a urban heat dome.
Taken together, just those three items means we can't say with confidence the temp is actually currently rising globally, and even if it is we can't say whether our actions are responsible. And we can't make any sort of meaningful predictions as to how much it might go up, whether other forces will act to accelerate or moderate any rise, etc. Basically all we CAN say is global and regional tempratures change over time and they may or may not be changing now.
Yes there is also a lot of very compelling evidence on the other side, but not enough to call the matter settled, and in my opinion not enough to justify preemtive war against ourselves that will certainly cause massive social and economic harm.
> I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a
> dismantling of Western Civilization.
Why not call for Fusion power while you are at it. Too many (so called) Scientists are just as religiously opposed to anything related to the N word to seriously consider it as an option. To get a paniced retreat from fossil fuels would require the Global Warming zealots to be in political ascendence and that means they would say no to more reactors.
I'd say build reactors to get us away from depending on Middle Eastern Oil, and that argument is equally valid whether Global Warming is real, natural, wrong or an outright hoax. And if the Earth does start warming we can always just orbit some mylar sheets and block a fraction of a percent of the Sun until we rebalance, problems we create by being overly clever primates we can probably fix the same way, especially ones that operate over such a long time horizon.
> Unlike Christianity, science is not a religion.
No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse. And it isn't ALL scientists, just the ones who spout this stuff like it was settled fact. Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press. Or the scientific papers, because disenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
> If scientists cannot agree whether mean temperatures will rise by 3
> degrees or 5 degrees, it is not particularly fair to dismiss their
> theories outright.
Yes it is. Because unless their predictions can follow reality fairly close one can't believe their CONCLUSIONS as to cause. If the earth is warming because it is SUPPOSED to be warming, say due to the documented increase in sunspot activity being related to increased solar output, then Kyoto means destroying our economy just to boost the self esteem of a few hippy freaks.
> Sound policy in my opinion would be to immediatly consider at least
> the easier reductions in our emissions.
Why? Under what authority do you lay claim to dictate how me and others live our lives? If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defense as provided for in the Constituition. But until the threat is at LEAST as proven as Saddam's threat was; please piss off and stop trying to run everyone else's life.
> It certainly won't harm anything.
Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.
> In the decades when some were in denial of the harmful effects of
> smoking would it have been unhealthy to quit?
The data on smoking was pretty damned clear. The Tobacco industry was forced to keep up a front on the issue because they realized what the trial lawyers were trying to do... what they DID do eventually. There ain't too many people alive today who didn't (or shouldn't have) know that smoking was bad for you when they lit their first one. Bad example.
> Au contraire, there is a hell of a lot of money up for grabs for any
> 'scientist' who wants to 'disprove' global warming.
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
> The question here is not a political one.
I'll give you that one. Politics gets into it, but at core, Global Warming is religion. If the weather warms somewhere, it is Global Warming at work. If it cools off, well that is Global Warming also. (Yes, they have theology already in the can for that one, I have seen it in action.)
> What's controversial about this issue?
By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot. Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue. I'll not reguritate the other side here, that is what Google is for. Suffice to say that despite twenty years of vigorous politically correct intellectual supression there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that you guys are full of it.
Are they right? Not really sure myself, but they do make some good points, enough that calls to close discussion and move on to dismantling Western Civilivation in response to a -potential threat- is somewhat rash in my humble opinion.
Then if one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation for any of a dozen other totally unrelated reasons, a little more suspicion is justified.
Then add in the Russians just ratified Kyoto so of course the drums are beating like mad for us to be 'reasonable' and sign on and the timing is just SO convienient. Politics and Religion aligned is almost never a good thing, and that is exactly what we have here.
> Shooting them is ok but DDoS attacks worry you? Man your values are
> fucked up!
There are only a few dozen asshats that account for most of the UCE/Spam on the network. They are all evil/amoral people, and need to be shot after a fair trial. Shooting them would work. DDoSing them only makes more bogus traffic clogging the network.
Considering the backbone operators are going to keep turning a blind eye to spammers as long as it is profitable, making the penalty extreme is one of the few solutions that would actually work. Imprisoning/caning/really big fines the responsible people at the backbones would also work.
> I wish that spamassassin would parse the mails it identifies as spams
> (10+) for urls and then try to send several modified GET requests to
> them every few minutes, for a day.
[ mode=flame ]
Fortunately the authors of SA aren't mental midgets. Use your brain before you actually start coding something that lame. The spammers are wicked and smart, which is why they are dangerous. They adapt. How long would it take them to start adding in a few links to legit sites? They would start of course with their enemies like cauce.org and spamcop.com and eventually add in major sites just to sow confusion.