Only a moron reinstalls because of the driver, you can disable any of that shit easily and back it out.
One might think so. But it turns out there are some very crappy driver installers out there that make changes you can't easily back out of. XP restore points can sometimes help, but even then you can't get rid of all the vestiges and the some times those vestiges cause problems. Sometimes it is so bad you can't boot the system even in safe mode. Sometimes you just see other problems and no amount of reinstalling can get you back in a state where your hardware works. I've seen this with Intel network drivers and I am not surprised it happens with video drivers, since once your video driver is screwed in windows you are pretty much screwed. Yes, safe mode with standard VGA is the standard answer here, but I have seen video drivers do naughty things that end up breaking or otherwise replacing the standard VGA driver, and since Windows has no real command prompt rescue (the rescue comand prompt is in a WINDOW) you're screwed.
The windows repair install sometimes helps (talking here about the second repair option that replaces the drivers) , but here it will only work if the repair install can replace what was thrown in by the bad driver, and once you've established that the driver is violating good behaviour for a driver installer all bets are off here. If the problem arises from registry changes outside of the scope of what the driver should have used or files laid down all over the hard drive.. well.. you'll have fun fixing that.
Besides the person in question was working as a tester for drivers. Only a moron sets up a test box without making images of the test box and reloading the original in between tests!:D
It's IE-only, and unsupported (for good reason) in Firefox, SeaMonkey, Konqueror, Galeon, Safari, OmniWeb, Opera, Lynx, Links...
That's not necessarily so. ActiveX is supportable in other browsers, they just don't do it by default. Here is one project of several that make it possible.
These aren't customers, they are employees. They do whatever you pay them to do or you get new employees. And customers install plenty of stuff. In fact, they install way too much stuff which is yet another problem. Those comet cursors and waterfall screensavers don't just install themselves.
Actually they do if you surf to the "wrong" sites with the default IE settings for security and the right (wrong) user rights....
It does stand up. Maybe in the UK you have to be knowledgable to drive a car, but in America any idiot can drive a car with the most minimal training.
Not only that, but most people do not properly maintain their cars. Keeping track of updates, scanning for viruses, maintaining security.. all that is maintenance. But the computer is harder to maintain than a car, and the worst part is there are always new things cropping up that need to be countered with computer security, unlike with cars, where you don't necessarily need to be a mechanic to keep up with maintenance (though it helps) with computers you pretty much have to be following this stuff like IT professionals (or better than most IT professionals actually) to really keep your system secure.
The systems that are supposed to be designed for the average person to use, like windows, are not designed for the average person to use securely. The only way to make the right things happen reliably is for the path of least resistance to be the right path in the system you design.
Even now, it's pretty hard for someone who knows what they are doing to make Windows run securely. Many normal programs won't run as a normal user and almost no program installs as a normal user. If you try to use "runas" to install a program, even a microsoft program, it often does not work properly, usually in part due to the way installers deal with profiles and partly with the way they run things on reboot (since practically every installer seems to require a reboot to replace open files even though there are well-documented, safe, and less intrusive methods to do that and needing to replace an open file that is not part of the program you are installing is a sign of bad program design anyway).
Then if you try the method of running as a normal user and installing as an administrator you run into the problem that most installers are not designed for a multiuser environment in terms of where they put things, like shortcuts. So you end up having to clean up the mess afterward. How are we supposed to convince grandma that she needs to login as "grandma" to use the computer and fast-user-switch to "admin" to install programs. Let's not even get into the problem of "but when I switch to admin the program I downloaded to my desktop is not on the desktop anymore." Basically they will go the way most people, even knowlegeable people, end up going with Windows. They log in as an administrator all the time. Because the "right way" is a pain in the butt and doesn't "work." Because they find out that going to a website that uses an activex control or a strange font means they are "installing" and they can't do it. Because all of a sudden MSWord wants to access it's CD and go through an install routine because it found an update on the microsoft site or they wanted a feature that did not get installed for some reason.. so clicking on a menu item in Word means "installing." Or they put in a USB mouse and that is "installing."
If you block yourself from being able to install programs on Windows you quickly find out how often a default installation of windows relies on being able to install software without any intervention and without telling you, when you are doingthings as innocuous as surfing the web.
Windows and windows software was not designed to do things the right way. Linux is closer to the mark and even has projects that make it easier to use in some ways than Windows. But it also has its problems, so it's not ready for the masses either.
Basically no OS right now is designed from a standpoint of truly providing a secure environment for users to work in easily and intuitively. It's just not something anyone's really shooting for. All of them seem to have some special method of showing hatred ad disdain for the user, if it is not the ridiculous lack of uniform interface standards for Linux (from the gui right down through the filesystem, command line tools, and kernel) to the Windows
what's the relationship btw phishing scam (no software involved) and IE?
IE has a bug that makes it possible to give people links that go to places other than what the IE address bar says they are. This was exploited quite a bit by phishing emails, but Microsoft claimed it was not a serious bug and said they would not fix it. They might have fixed it by now, under pressure, like many other bugs they said they did not care to fix, but that remains to be seen. The fact it was possible to be at one site when the address bar shows something else means there are some serious architectural problems in the interface.
This is seperate from the fact you can embed a link in html email and name the link differently from the place where it goes, like:
There's not much one an do about that beyond implementing something similar to slashdot's code that shows the domain in a box in the email client. BUt what I am talking about is the bug where you click on the link above and IE *still* says you are at citibank.com (actually to be fair IIRC the link has to do some nasty trick with the @.. I think it was something like http://www.citibank.com/ ).
"Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?"
They are living cells. More importantly, bacteria is what makes you really sick, and it's alive. Radiation kills it dead.
Viruses are not complete cells (they don't have DNA). And they're not really living, either, at least not in the sense that bacteria are living. They cannot reproduce or grow and they don't consume food for energy. That's why they are called Viruses. They have to invade other cells and inject genetic code using the RNA they do possess which causes the cell to produce more viruses (among other things).
easier and quicker to deploy? Compared to what? Any shop using, say, redhat enterprise, can deploy a box in a few minutes, including a full lockdown, using kickstart. What similar technology even exists in windowsland?
It's called an unattended installation in windowsland. And they had it before redhat had kickstart. And yes you can apply a full set of patches and if you're wily enough you can get in lockdowns and such. The other people are touting Ghost because that is much more often the method used to deploy servers. This is because most of the things that make a windows machine useful are not and cannot be distributed with the operating system, even when they are free-as-in-beer things like acrobat or compression programs.
Ghost essentially does what dd does, with a few extra things thrown in that make it worth buying, like allowing you to change sids, compressing the images, etc, etc.. and it's an off the shelf product that works whereas to come up with an equivalent solution with free tools there would definitely be some cobbling to do..
But essentially kickstart == unattend.txt done the right way.
I don't know German either. But based on your Google translations, they probably mean: Sticking these into Google:
Und was haben deine Grosseltern im Krieg gemacht? Isn't it good that our countries are now friends? And which your grandparents in the war have made?
And what did your Grandparents do in the War?
Hor auf, so laut in dieser nervigen Sprache zu reden. I'm sorry, could you repeat that in English. Hor up to talk so loud in this nervigen language.
Hor auf must be an idiomatic expression. As for nervigen, it seems to eitehr mean "stupid" or be a mild curse. Searching for it shows usage to describe spammers, popups, and Windows XP, so it can't be a good thing. Clearly it means something like "you have to speak so loud in this crazy language!" (referring to German).
Willst du Arger, Grossmaul? Can you give me directions? Do you want bad one, large muzzle?
large muzzle should be "Big mouth".. the rest is pretty obvious.
Dein Schwanz ist so klein, dass es 'ne Maus nicht merkt, wenn du sie fickst Pleased to meet you Your tail is so small that it does not notice 'ne mouse, if you it fickst
"Your dick is so small the mouse doesn't notice when you fuck it." pretty obvious really.
I'm going to ask my penfriend Hans to make me a copy of his multimedia CD titled 'learning German for English speakers' now he can do it legitimately since he's going to pay the tax!
Maybe you should ask Hans to look at this. He might be amused. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that our troll was an english speaker who knows some German and wanted to make a joke. That makes it funny, though, not a troll. If you really said these things to a German it would probably result in a good pranging. If you were lucky you'd get a lesson in language.
Any Deutchlanders want to correct our ignorance on these fine phrases?
Listen buddy, just because you had a bad experience with advertising in school when you were little does NOT mean all advertisers/marketers are evil.
As someone in the industry, I can tell you that we have our share of good people and bad people as does ANY industry.
I'm sorry you've had experiences with the bad ones, as they certainly outnumber the good ones, but there are some of us who are intelligent, ethical, and respectful of our CUSTOMERS (not consumers).
I'm sorry, but since you are in marketing everything you say is by definition a lie. We don't believe you because we're too savvy!:)
Now, if you'll excuse me I have some high-tech gadgets to buy I read about on slashdot..
"> 3. That cell phones cannot cause explosions at gas stations. They did this by"
And everyone in "science" knows that by trying something a half dozen times yourself proves that something that didn't happen can't in fact happen.
I mean, the idea of cell phones causing gas station fires is as stupid as the idea of cell phones exploding or deadly fires caused by simply touching the nozzle as it fills your car.
[end pseudo-sarcasm;) ]
Heh - sounds like an entertaining show, but I strongly object to portraying it as "good science" or something that joe blow should rely on for advice.
You are right about the static, but as your own links show there has never been a single case of a cell phone causing an explosion or fire at a gas station. So it looks like you are wrong and the "Myth Busters" are right.
Worse, what if someone designed a worm and embedded it in their death email somehow. Then after they die a new worm is unleashed on the net. It brings whole new meaning to being "food for worms":)
Yeah and you haven't tried to actually do this. As the previous poster noted, windows puts these back automatically. Even if it did not, deleting the root drive admin share and some others breaks Windows in various and sundry ways because even some local services rely on these admin shares.
well since your parody wasn't actually using any original copywrited material, it's not a problem.
The whole script is copyrighted, so reproduction of the scenes and dialogue does use copyrighted materials. However parody is generally allowed under fair use and 1st amendment rights. It is only recently that companies have started asserting otherwise, though not so successfully unless those threatened simply cave on their own rather than asserting their rights.
"Fact is that M$ still gets money from me and if I don't use their software I can at least call them with the name I'm most familiar with."
OK, fair enough, but understand that it also means that virtually all of the non-Linux fanboy demographic immediately writes you off as being one of "those people". Don't care? Great! Enjoy your dollar signs, for it means naught to me.
And we should care, why? I mean, fuck, it's a slashdot post, and you are but another slashdot poster. As such, we are all equally unimportant. Or should our reaction be mroe like "OMFG!!!!1!11 Oliver Defacszio (who actually thinks windoze is useful) doesn't like my $ signs! Horrors!"
And this is a Linux Fanboy site, essentially. So you should expect such things. And know that all posts are ephemeral; watch this one get modded to oblivion!:)
Chewbacca didn't live on Endor. When did they say that?
Endor was supposed to have been the planet of the Wookies. But good ol' master of great ideas, George Lucas, changed it to the Planet of the Care Bears.
In the movies as ultimately rendered, Chewbacca did not come from Endor but the planet Kashyyyk (also named in South Park as the original planet of the Wookies, presumably gleaned from supplementary material such as the Star Wars Holiday Special). But at the end of Return of the Jedi Chewbacca DOES live on Endor with the Ewoks, and that is the premise of the Chewbacca Defense, or at least the part to which you raise an objection.
Perhaps then, its time to reduce the weight of all vehicles, not just the effecient ones and the fast ones, and the motorcycles...
And how do you intend to do that? With a shrink ray?
The problem with any vehicular standard is that there is no easy way to make it apply to existing cars. Therefore it is always still legal to drive the old cars that do not meet the current standard. If we tried to make only lighter cars legal we would have to do something about all the people who are already driving heavy cars...
If you don't appreciate the types of internal application that a company like IBM will have then you don't appreciate the type of organisation that IBM is.
Although one who does might also interpret the comment you replied to as a joke. Especially since Microsoft patches have historically broken Lotus Notes...
LOL. A very good point. I've learned how to fire guns in a safe environemnt...and I'm still not convinced that they're not meant to kill. Although there are sporting uses for guns, they're still lethal -- and are historically designed to be. Sure, in a biathlon (or insert your favorite sporting event), you're shooting paper targets -- but why not use rubber/nonlethal bullets? (which goes back to my tongue-in-cheek point before...but a little more seriously) -- if guns are such great sporting tools, why not regulate the bullets? Why not make sporting bullets nonlethal? Will it decrease their sporting effectiveness?
Yes, making the bullets nonlethal would decrease their sporting effectiveness. None of the nonlethal forms of shotgun ammunition would be appropriate for skeet shooting (watching someone try to skeet shoot with those bean bags might be funny though). Also rubber bullets are by design less able to penetrate targets, so this makes them ineffective for target shooting.
"Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'"
It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.
Well in answer to my own question, to disable the autorun in Win2k ya gotta edit the registry, which is pretty much what I thought you'd have to do. So Joe Sixpack probably won't be doing it so easily. I would say that yes, it is hard. It woudl especially be hard if you did not know how to look for information on disabling the feature, which would require that you knew it was called "autorun," know to search the microsoft knowlege base, and know how to use the registry editor without killing your machine.
Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'
It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.
actually customers == people who want you to worry about the codebase while they get on with their business.
Even if the source is 'out there', customers don't have the time, skills or interest in modifying it for their stock tables, inventory tracking systems or CRM modules. Meanwhile your open source codebase is losing bugs and growing ever larger (and harder for your competitors to assimilate:-)
Which is why the original poster said you customize the code for them. In other words people who want/need features pay you for the service of adding them for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Only a moron reinstalls because of the driver, you can disable any of that shit easily and back it out.
One might think so. But it turns out there are some very crappy driver installers out there that make changes you can't easily back out of. XP restore points can sometimes help, but even then you can't get rid of all the vestiges and the some times those vestiges cause problems. Sometimes it is so bad you can't boot the system even in safe mode. Sometimes you just see other problems and no amount of reinstalling can get you back in a state where your hardware works. I've seen this with Intel network drivers and I am not surprised it happens with video drivers, since once your video driver is screwed in windows you are pretty much screwed. Yes, safe mode with standard VGA is the standard answer here, but I have seen video drivers do naughty things that end up breaking or otherwise replacing the standard VGA driver, and since Windows has no real command prompt rescue (the rescue comand prompt is in a WINDOW) you're screwed.
The windows repair install sometimes helps (talking here about the second repair option that replaces the drivers) , but here it will only work if the repair install can replace what was thrown in by the bad driver, and once you've established that the driver is violating good behaviour for a driver installer all bets are off here. If the problem arises from registry changes outside of the scope of what the driver should have used or files laid down all over the hard drive.. well.. you'll have fun fixing that.
Besides the person in question was working as a tester for drivers. Only a moron sets up a test box without making images of the test box and reloading the original in between tests! :D
It's IE-only, and unsupported (for good reason) in Firefox, SeaMonkey, Konqueror, Galeon, Safari, OmniWeb, Opera, Lynx, Links...
That's not necessarily so. ActiveX is supportable in other browsers, they just don't do it by default. Here is one project of several that make it possible.
These aren't customers, they are employees. They do whatever you pay them to do or you get new employees. And customers install plenty of stuff. In fact, they install way too much stuff which is yet another problem. Those comet cursors and waterfall screensavers don't just install themselves.
Actually they do if you surf to the "wrong" sites with the default IE settings for security and the right (wrong) user rights....
It does stand up. Maybe in the UK you have to be knowledgable to drive a car, but in America any idiot can drive a car with the most minimal training.
Not only that, but most people do not properly maintain their cars. Keeping track of updates, scanning for viruses, maintaining security.. all that is maintenance. But the computer is harder to maintain than a car, and the worst part is there are always new things cropping up that need to be countered with computer security, unlike with cars, where you don't necessarily need to be a mechanic to keep up with maintenance (though it helps) with computers you pretty much have to be following this stuff like IT professionals (or better than most IT professionals actually) to really keep your system secure.
The systems that are supposed to be designed for the average person to use, like windows, are not designed for the average person to use securely. The only way to make the right things happen reliably is for the path of least resistance to be the right path in the system you design.
Even now, it's pretty hard for someone who knows what they are doing to make Windows run securely. Many normal programs won't run as a normal user and almost no program installs as a normal user. If you try to use "runas" to install a program, even a microsoft program, it often does not work properly, usually in part due to the way installers deal with profiles and partly with the way they run things on reboot (since practically every installer seems to require a reboot to replace open files even though there are well-documented, safe, and less intrusive methods to do that and needing to replace an open file that is not part of the program you are installing is a sign of bad program design anyway).
Then if you try the method of running as a normal user and installing as an administrator you run into the problem that most installers are not designed for a multiuser environment in terms of where they put things, like shortcuts. So you end up having to clean up the mess afterward. How are we supposed to convince grandma that she needs to login as "grandma" to use the computer and fast-user-switch to "admin" to install programs. Let's not even get into the problem of "but when I switch to admin the program I downloaded to my desktop is not on the desktop anymore." Basically they will go the way most people, even knowlegeable people, end up going with Windows. They log in as an administrator all the time. Because the "right way" is a pain in the butt and doesn't "work." Because they find out that going to a website that uses an activex control or a strange font means they are "installing" and they can't do it. Because all of a sudden MSWord wants to access it's CD and go through an install routine because it found an update on the microsoft site or they wanted a feature that did not get installed for some reason .. so clicking on a menu item in Word means "installing." Or they put in a USB mouse and that is "installing."
If you block yourself from being able to install programs on Windows you quickly find out how often a default installation of windows relies on being able to install software without any intervention and without telling you, when you are doingthings as innocuous as surfing the web.
Windows and windows software was not designed to do things the right way. Linux is closer to the mark and even has projects that make it easier to use in some ways than Windows. But it also has its problems, so it's not ready for the masses either.
Basically no OS right now is designed from a standpoint of truly providing a secure environment for users to work in easily and intuitively. It's just not something anyone's really shooting for. All of them seem to have some special method of showing hatred ad disdain for the user, if it is not the ridiculous lack of uniform interface standards for Linux (from the gui right down through the filesystem, command line tools, and kernel) to the Windows
what's the relationship btw phishing scam (no software involved) and IE?
IE has a bug that makes it possible to give people links that go to places other than what the IE address bar says they are. This was exploited quite a bit by phishing emails, but Microsoft claimed it was not a serious bug and said they would not fix it. They might have fixed it by now, under pressure, like many other bugs they said they did not care to fix, but that remains to be seen. The fact it was possible to be at one site when the address bar shows something else means there are some serious architectural problems in the interface.
This is seperate from the fact you can embed a link in html email and name the link differently from the place where it goes, like:
http://www.citibank.com
There's not much one an do about that beyond implementing something similar to slashdot's code that shows the domain in a box in the email client. BUt what I am talking about is the bug where you click on the link above and IE *still* says you are at citibank.com (actually to be fair IIRC the link has to do some nasty trick with the @ .. I think it was something like http://www.citibank.com/ ).
"Gee, I guess I should inform the medical community that viruses are now "living cells"? What kind of dreck is this?"
They are living cells. More importantly, bacteria is what makes you really sick, and it's alive. Radiation kills it dead.
Viruses are not complete cells (they don't have DNA). And they're not really living, either, at least not in the sense that bacteria are living. They cannot reproduce or grow and they don't consume food for energy. That's why they are called Viruses. They have to invade other cells and inject genetic code using the RNA they do possess which causes the cell to produce more viruses (among other things).
easier and quicker to deploy? Compared to what? Any shop using, say, redhat enterprise, can deploy a box in a few minutes, including a full lockdown, using kickstart. What similar technology even exists in windowsland?
It's called an unattended installation in windowsland. And they had it before redhat had kickstart. And yes you can apply a full set of patches and if you're wily enough you can get in lockdowns and such. The other people are touting Ghost because that is much more often the method used to deploy servers. This is because most of the things that make a windows machine useful are not and cannot be distributed with the operating system, even when they are free-as-in-beer things like acrobat or compression programs.
Ghost essentially does what dd does, with a few extra things thrown in that make it worth buying, like allowing you to change sids, compressing the images, etc, etc.. and it's an off the shelf product that works whereas to come up with an equivalent solution with free tools there would definitely be some cobbling to do..
But essentially kickstart == unattend.txt done the right way.
I don't know German either. But based on your Google translations, they probably mean:
.. the rest is pretty obvious.
Sticking these into Google:
Und was haben deine Grosseltern im Krieg gemacht?
Isn't it good that our countries are now friends?
And which your grandparents in the war have made?
And what did your Grandparents do in the War?
Hor auf, so laut in dieser nervigen Sprache zu reden.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that in English.
Hor up to talk so loud in this nervigen language.
Hor auf must be an idiomatic expression. As for nervigen, it seems to eitehr mean "stupid" or be a mild curse. Searching for it shows usage to describe spammers, popups, and Windows XP, so it can't be a good thing. Clearly it means something like "you have to speak so loud in this crazy language!" (referring to German).
Willst du Arger, Grossmaul?
Can you give me directions?
Do you want bad one, large muzzle?
large muzzle should be "Big mouth"
Dein Schwanz ist so klein, dass es 'ne Maus nicht merkt, wenn du sie fickst
Pleased to meet you
Your tail is so small that it does not notice 'ne mouse, if you it fickst
"Your dick is so small the mouse doesn't notice when you fuck it." pretty obvious really.
I'm going to ask my penfriend Hans to make me a copy of his multimedia CD titled 'learning German for English speakers' now he can do it legitimately since he's going to pay the tax!
Maybe you should ask Hans to look at this. He might be amused. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that our troll was an english speaker who knows some German and wanted to make a joke. That makes it funny, though, not a troll. If you really said these things to a German it would probably result in a good pranging. If you were lucky you'd get a lesson in language.
Any Deutchlanders want to correct our ignorance on these fine phrases?
Please, stop making words up, it's worse than boswollox
Of course burglarize is a word. Before you criticize someone's grammar maybe you should read a dictionary.
Listen buddy, just because you had a bad experience with advertising in school when you were little does NOT mean all advertisers/marketers are evil.
As someone in the industry, I can tell you that we have our share of good people and bad people as does ANY industry.
I'm sorry you've had experiences with the bad ones, as they certainly outnumber the good ones, but there are some of us who are intelligent, ethical, and respectful of our CUSTOMERS (not consumers).
I'm sorry, but since you are in marketing everything you say is by definition a lie. We don't believe you because we're too savvy! :)
Now, if you'll excuse me I have some high-tech gadgets to buy I read about on slashdot..
"> 3. That cell phones cannot cause explosions at gas stations. They did this by"
;) ]
And everyone in "science" knows that by trying something a half dozen times yourself proves that something that didn't happen can't in fact happen.
I mean, the idea of cell phones causing gas station fires is as stupid as the idea of cell phones exploding or deadly fires caused by simply touching the nozzle as it fills your car.
[end pseudo-sarcasm
Heh - sounds like an entertaining show, but I strongly object to portraying it as "good science" or something that joe blow should rely on for advice.
You are right about the static, but as your own links show there has never been a single case of a cell phone causing an explosion or fire at a gas station. So it looks like you are wrong and the "Myth Busters" are right.
What's an "ass numbnut", and would you speak from one?
I was wondering where one gets these "Law Suites" and if they come with InContenental AssForBreakfast? :D
"other use : porn?"
Nope. Can't be done. You have to hold the book with one hand while holding the viewer with the other. Trust me, I already RTFA.
You could do it with a strap-on viewer...
So how do we prosecute these dead guys?
Worse, what if someone designed a worm and embedded it in their death email somehow. Then after they die a new worm is unleashed on the net. It brings whole new meaning to being "food for worms" :)
A) Google is your friend
B) RTFM
C) Q314984
Yeah and you haven't tried to actually do this. As the previous poster noted, windows puts these back automatically. Even if it did not, deleting the root drive admin share and some others breaks Windows in various and sundry ways because even some local services rely on these admin shares.
well since your parody wasn't actually using any original copywrited material, it's not a problem.
The whole script is copyrighted, so reproduction of the scenes and dialogue does use copyrighted materials. However parody is generally allowed under fair use and 1st amendment rights. It is only recently that companies have started asserting otherwise, though not so successfully unless those threatened simply cave on their own rather than asserting their rights.
"Fact is that M$ still gets money from me and if I don't use their software I can at least call them with the name I'm most familiar with."
OK, fair enough, but understand that it also means that virtually all of the non-Linux fanboy demographic immediately writes you off as being one of "those people". Don't care? Great! Enjoy your dollar signs, for it means naught to me.
And we should care, why? I mean, fuck, it's a slashdot post, and you are but another slashdot poster. As such, we are all equally unimportant. Or should our reaction be mroe like "OMFG!!!!1!11 Oliver Defacszio (who actually thinks windoze is useful) doesn't like my $ signs! Horrors!"
And this is a Linux Fanboy site, essentially. So you should expect such things. And know that all posts are ephemeral; watch this one get modded to oblivion! :)
Chewbacca didn't live on Endor. When did they say that?
Endor was supposed to have been the planet of the Wookies. But good ol' master of great ideas, George Lucas, changed it to the Planet of the Care Bears.
In the movies as ultimately rendered, Chewbacca did not come from Endor but the planet Kashyyyk (also named in South Park as the original planet of the Wookies, presumably gleaned from supplementary material such as the Star Wars Holiday Special). But at the end of Return of the Jedi Chewbacca DOES live on Endor with the Ewoks, and that is the premise of the Chewbacca Defense, or at least the part to which you raise an objection.
Fair enough. Dunno where that space came from.
And, thank you.
-S
It's from the lameness filter. Slashdot deliberately screws up any url you don't encode as a link. It is a feature. :P
Perhaps then, its time to reduce the weight of all vehicles, not just the effecient ones and the fast ones, and the motorcycles...
And how do you intend to do that? With a shrink ray?
The problem with any vehicular standard is that there is no easy way to make it apply to existing cars. Therefore it is always still legal to drive the old cars that do not meet the current standard. If we tried to make only lighter cars legal we would have to do something about all the people who are already driving heavy cars...
If you don't appreciate the types of internal application that a company like IBM will have then you don't appreciate the type of organisation that IBM is.
Although one who does might also interpret the comment you replied to as a joke. Especially since Microsoft patches have historically broken Lotus Notes...
LOL. A very good point. I've learned how to fire guns in a safe environemnt...and I'm still not convinced that they're not meant to kill. Although there are sporting uses for guns, they're still lethal -- and are historically designed to be. Sure, in a biathlon (or insert your favorite sporting event), you're shooting paper targets -- but why not use rubber/nonlethal bullets? (which goes back to my tongue-in-cheek point before...but a little more seriously) -- if guns are such great sporting tools, why not regulate the bullets? Why not make sporting bullets nonlethal? Will it decrease their sporting effectiveness?
Yes, making the bullets nonlethal would decrease their sporting effectiveness. None of the nonlethal forms of shotgun ammunition would be appropriate for skeet shooting (watching someone try to skeet shoot with those bean bags might be funny though). Also rubber bullets are by design less able to penetrate targets, so this makes them ineffective for target shooting.
"Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'"
It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.
Well in answer to my own question, to disable the autorun in Win2k ya gotta edit the registry, which is pretty much what I thought you'd have to do. So Joe Sixpack probably won't be doing it so easily. I would say that yes, it is hard. It woudl especially be hard if you did not know how to look for information on disabling the feature, which would require that you knew it was called "autorun," know to search the microsoft knowlege base, and know how to use the registry editor without killing your machine.
Not that its exactly hard to disable the 'autorun annoyance'
It used to be easy to do this in Windows, but the control to do this seems to be missing. It is true you can hold the shift key down, but if there is a way to disable autorun altogether anymore it is pretty well hidden. Fuck Windows, anyhow.
actually customers == people who want you to worry about the codebase while they get on with their business.
:-)
Even if the source is 'out there', customers don't have the time, skills or interest in modifying it for their stock tables, inventory tracking systems or CRM modules. Meanwhile your open source codebase is losing bugs and growing ever larger (and harder for your competitors to assimilate
Which is why the original poster said you customize the code for them. In other words people who want/need features pay you for the service of adding them for them.