>What, does it choke them or cut off circulation when it's too tight?
I watched on RealTV while a child nearly had the life sucked out of them as their clothing got further and further embedded into the grating of an escalator that would not turn off. A gruesome sight, but fortunately, someone nearby had a pocket knife. Had they not, the child would most certainly have died.
>I am certainly going to expect that they will not then release all of my work publicly (and I'll write the contract to that effect).
Oh, you certainly could. But that doesn't stop the company from pulling a Compaq on you, and they just might if you get too testy over points like that in a contract since they'll assume you're doing it to wallet-rape them in the future.
(For those who don't get that reference, in the case of support, the solution is far easier than hacking up a clean-room BIOS. One person follows the steps presented, covered by the NDA. Another non-NDA employee who hasn't seen the instructions watches the person following the steps without looking at the instructions, and writes down what was performed. Heck, they may just short-circuit this whole process and send someone with you to "watch").
In the case of most of the "black magic" I myself have performed, and have seen others perform, the majority of the operations could fit on a page, executive sized.
Either way, if you're a nice guy, the company isn't going to do that...;-)
>The Denon will have a lower noise floor at 10 W than the $10 Sony will.
While this is true, to a degree, using a proper power supply would of course decrease noise effects, it's been my expereince that only the world's most pathetic audio equipment (Pyramid, Road Gear, Realistic, etc) suffers from perceptible noise problems at power levels this low. It might be there, but I doubt it's audible in all but the absolute worst equipment. Maybe I need to hook my oscilloscope up to my Kenwood amp and compare it to the (overpriced) H/K amp. I still think I'm going to feel like I've been cheated.
As far as ESD goes, make your guys wear static wrist bands!;-) It's like being on a telephone without actually using one! Besides, why is a home user putten der fingerpoken in the equipment when it's in use?
Stealing cable is stealing because you are using their resources without compensating them. It is no different than tapping the telephone switch.
However, with a purchased satellite receiver I can receive satellite signals that they send to me. These satellite signals are present wether or not I use them, and absolutely no cost is incurred to the satellite company. This practice of satellite piracy was legal for decades in my country, and the value of the signal has been decided to be of absolutely no value by a judge in my country.
Explain how that is theft/stealing, my watching such a signal with a purchased receiver.
You have not yet.
>If you take a $10 bill that a cashier has mistaken for a smaller bill, and you realize it, then you have stolen.
Not in my country. In my country, and most likely yours, it is the onice (sp?) of the cashier to provide you with correct change. Any mistakes done by them, either monetary or in product nature that are a benefit to yourself are their fault. It is up to you to decide if you want to return any extra benefits.
>Technically, you have stolen money if you find it lieing on the street, and claim it as yours, even though you know it not to be. You are required to report it, and wait a certain amount of time for it to be claimed by its rightful owner before claiming possesion.
Again, special "finders keepers" type laws do exist on items that are unclaimable, such as small change found on the streets. I'd look them up but I'm not a lawyer and I'm tired of debating this topic, because I'm right, because there can be no answer to my satellite TV enigma that leads to stealing.
Like I said, go ahead and ask, I have many more unsolvable (up to now by the slashdot crows) piracy isn't stealing enigmas for you. Perhaps you can be the first to explain the loss incurred by the form of satellite piracy I have explained to you.
>but all the pirates think that if they somehow call it something else it isn't as bad.
They simply expect it to be called by what it is: Copyright Violation. They don't call parking in a handicapped zone dismemberment, and people shouldn't call Copyright Violation stealing.
This has been hashed out so much it isn't funny. The difference is clear, even in your definition. Slash-lawyers have even discussed this. They've even, to a certain degree, agreed with me.
Pirates using P2P, etc. never purport to give money to the music companies -- it is clear they are too cheap to buy CDs. They try to keep the original names on all the songs they download. They usually don't claim them as their own.
I see nothing stolen. I see no loss, apart from a ding in the goodwill between music companies, the artists and the consumers.
Show me a loss and I'll call it stealing. But in the case of a home user illicitly downloading an album for the heck of it, up to now I see no loss. No loss of ownership (ie: The music hasn't had the author's name intentionally removed), no loss of funds (prove the person would pay for the music if you feel differently), no loss of music (they still have their copies), and no loss of value (the CD still sells for $20, wether it is pirated once or a million times). I see only a loss of ego, which, my friend, is something that at best comes under libel or slander, and since piracy is neither, the law doesn't define it as stealing, and neither do most people when presented with this argument.
Note I don't cover fraud and misrepresentation, two totally separate things from Johnny pirating a Metallica CD from the 'net.
I'm willing to discuss this, but you're going to have to find a better comparison than manslaughter, because by your terms, manslaughter is the accidental stealing of the life of another. And if stealing is to be so watered down, then perhaps we all steal. Do you pay for the air you breathe? Are you on welfare? Is your home made of wood? Does your car burn gas? It's all stealing when you paint the word with such a broad brush. And when one waters down the language by overdefining a term to the point of it being non-sensical, I put it to you that the word is about as useful and about as important as set; ie: alone it means nothing, and it requires a qualifier to tell people what, exactly, the meaning you are trying to convey is.
Is the meaning of steal one of "he's a horrible person who would take the boots off a dead man", or is the meaning to be "he's less than good because he didn't give back the $10 bill the cashier mistook as a $5 bill". If it is the second, I put it to you that I don't care. Call me a stealing man, then, because, by golly, I "stole" American satellite TV for a long time in Canada (not right now, of course, I quit at the end of spring for good reasons;-).
Of course, your definition of "stealing" doesn't cover that little conundrum, does it? That is, taking that which is allowed to be taken, doesn't deprive anyone, and has a proven value of $0, yet which is still something that the owner doesn't wish for you to take.
[ I have more conundrums that the word stealing can't cover, but piracy does, if you care to enquire. Most fun, trying to redefine the English language... ]
(Don't take it personally, but hey, I do to a certain degree, because your definition covers me, although it isn't correct, IMHO;-)
>you might get a judge who said "This CD plays in 99% of players. You are obviously suing a merchant to make a point for your political agenda. Frivolous lawsuit, case dismissed."
At which point you sue again for the next disc. You might get another judge, but even if you don't, bring your MP3 CD player, your laptop, your home CD transport, and your car stereo into court. This time ask the court how, exactly, you were able to procure so many items which won't play this CD. Demonstrate that they are unable to play the CD. You might want to propose the question "Are all these items fraudulently advertising an ability to play CDs, or is this CD actually not a CD?".
And this time, should you get an unfavourable judgement, you can now sue for your "defective" CD audio devices. Don't forget to summon the judge as a witness to your earlier demonstration for enhanced effect.:-)
[ You might want to careful, I hear that if you piss off a judge too much you might get to spend a night with Bubba for contempt of court. Be careful not to drop the soap. Ask the guy who sued Coke for not coughing up the dough on their advertising campaign for more info on that topic. ]
No, IANAL. But I play one on slashdot.
This legal fiction brought to you by the letters E, S and Q.
>I'm not saying a pure silver $20/foot cable is going to sound better than a silver coated $7/foot cable for line level audio, but it WILL sound better than a 10 ft copper wire about the thickness of mechcanical pencil lead (your average RCA cable).
Here's what's funny about most audiophiles, and why we laugh at them so much:
They don't know jack shit about professional audio.
I won't pretend that I do know it all (I started out at the bottom and got laughed at when I said I needed a 100 ft. RCA cable for a dance party, at the local sound shop), but I can tell you this: Pros don't use RCA cables. Period. Absolutely no exceptions, unless it's going through a transformer (and then it had better damn well be the only way to get the audio).
Come back to me when you use balanced XLR, or at least balanced 1/4". Then we'll talk audio quality. And we'll also talk about how the only reason you want higher gauge cable is so that the sound engineer doesn't destroy your cables when he rolls the chair over them. And, best of all, when you start to use XLR cables, you won't care about shielding, actually, you will care -- you'll be reqesting that there is none.
>There will be a difference between 22 gauge speaker wire (the thin stuff) and 12 gauge speaker wire (reasonably price at home depot).
Sure. If you have a 200 watt RMS per channel stereo, the 22 gauge cable might warm up, thereby wasting some of the power. However, I've yet to come across one of these at a price I can afford. In the sub $10k range 22 gauge cable might provide some micro-ohms of resistance to your signal. I hardly think it's anything to write home about.
Although I do use higher gauge cable, preferrably about 16 gauge. I normally use SPT-2 lamp cord, since it's available in this gauge, is CSA approved, and, most importantly, unlike most "speaker" cable, it's actually very flexible. Again, this is because I don't wan't my cable to split when I screw/clip it into the terminals at the speakers. At the small club I've been elected sound engineer for, though, we don't even do this. 1/4" jacks are just much more reliable for us.
Now, when I get the opportunity to wire some 5000 Watt RMS subs to a 630V amp, then I think I'd be using some super low gauge wire, since I don't want to start a fire. Other than starting fires, durability, and power loss due to heat, there isn't much reason to use a low gauge cable.
>There is a difference between a low end Kenwood receiver (ick) and a high end Denon receiver (or anything priced higher).
I would have agreed 10 years ago. Today, I hardly think so, except in how they compare watts. The Denon doesn't lie, whereas getting a proper set of stats on the Kenwood would be difficult. A lower-power Denon receiver probably uses the same generic amp chips (maybe even the damned hard to find STK chips) as the Kenwood.
Honestly, it isn't rocket science to amplify a sub 20 kHz signal. Get someone an LM12 + a good power supply and I bet someone who can wire their car stereo can build their own amp with BETTER quality, and with more power than the Denon (but cheaper;-).
>And lets not even try to compare low end speakers (Bose, Sony, etc) with high end speakers (B&W, Martin Logan, Paradigm, etc).
Now here is where things have never been perfected. Being a tight-ass myself, I've elected for option 3: Build your own. If you follow the design rules correctly you can build a set of speakers as good as any other top-notch set out there. The only difference is yours come out rectangular, whereas theirs don't. Well, that and when you build it yourself you can control the sound of the speakers to your liking (A friend of mine suggested my speakers sounded a lot like Marshalls. Not owning any speakers of that brand myself, I really can't comment on the truth of this).
>You do get what you pay for...
This I can agree with, however not exactly as you would suggest.
For example, you get what you pay for in a Sony amp with 500 Sony watts because the thing is much more likely to XPlod when you have it that high (the best are the cheap receivers that say 500 Watts, but have a 2A current rating), whereas the expensive receiver sounds good all the way up to its rating, and probably won't explode no matter how poorly you treat it.
That's the difference. The fact is the Sony amp will sound as good as the Denon when 10 Watts are drawn out of each. It's just that when 500 Watts are being drawn from both the Denon will still sound good, whereas the Sony Xplods into a burst of flames and smoke.
In that case you're suggesting he could care less about anything other than his album sales. This suggests he makes his album sales his highest priority.
For example, saying the above would suggest that he could care less about someone painting his drum set pink (in other words it is possible for him to not worry about it), but that he could not care less about someone causing decreased sales of an album. In other words, his album sales are so important it is impossible for him not to care any less than he does about them, or in other words he would be unable to worry any less about them, lest he violate some sort of personal principles he has about worrying.
It is actually a difficult concept, since it depends on wether you assume that he could care less because he has no principles on the matter, or that he could not care less because he would feel poorer should he care less.
It's been my experience that assignments where the answers are clearly visible are harder to cheat on, since you can assume everyone has access to the same code, your answer (as a cheater) will look more and more like theirs. I've seen 85% of my fellow students get a fail on a certain because of this (the teacher screwed up and put the answer to the assignment on his website).
Assignments where the answers aren't provided are easier to cheat on, since perhaps half the students will do the assignment, and the other half will ask a random sample of the non-cheaters for answers (in reality it's much more like 80% do it and 20% don't, which makes checking for cheating that much harder). This leads to a far more varied set of answers, and so it is much more unlikely that a slightly modified assignment will stick out (unless the teacher has a photographic memory).
If I were a teacher, I think I'd have to think long and hard about keeping the answers from the students for assignments. At least if I were to give them the answers, it would be far easier to check for cheating.
[ No, I was one of the lucky 15% who didn't cheat.;-) ]
Our contract clearly states that users sign over all rights to work created on their computers to the institution.
You might want to look for the same wording.
(And, the above is one of the reasons for my using a laptop to do my work. And also the reason why it all gets a Public Domain or GPL bumper-comment, even when it's just a couple of lines).
>NO WAIT! What happens if they pull the hard drive out and connect it to another computer? I know, lets chop up the hard drive into little pieces to make sure that doesn't happen, then we'll be REALLY SECURE!
I remember talking to someone at IBM about this. They told me that at the end of every shift, they were to remove the HDD from their computer (I assume it was on some sort of tray) and place it in a locked storage cabinet.
I'm very sure if IBM did this, then the government would be more than willing to do it...
>(15' taller than the building I live in, and thus something that I would be told to take down or be evicted)
Get your ham radio license today! In Canada, at least, they can't stop you from putting up any tower, as long as it is safe, should you be fully licensed.;-) I'm sure the USA has similar laws (heck, you guys are allowed to put up satellite dishes 1m in diameter anywhere, unlike us!).
I'm going to get mine, someday, but since my 40 ft. TV tower is actually one of the smaller ones in my town, I'd be getting it for the fun of it, not any TV tower benefits.
>And no, I'm not in the boonies - I'm in one of the larger suburbs of Atlanta.
Bummer.
I am in the boonies (no DSL, and cable TV co didn't run any cable to the houses here + 15 km of Telco cable to my phones), and here's my list of channels (some smart slashdotter will be able to guess where I live, oh well). I've forgotten the call signs on some of them, sorry; I do have satellite TV, and since it carries the locals which I have to buy by law (bummer) this is coming from memory:
- Channel 2, 3, 4 -- Snowy, from the US.
- Channel 5 (CBC) normally clear.
- Channel 6 (Global) always clear.
- Channel 7 (ABC?) usually snowy, occasionally clear.
- Channel 9 usually clear, IIRC.
- Channel 11 mostly clear.
- Channel 13 (CKCO) so crystal clear it hurts (sometimes there's ghosting, since the broadcast tower is nearby)
- Channel 17 (PBS Buffalo) very snowy.
- Channel 19 (TVOntario) clear.
- Channel 25 (SRC or CBC french) clear.
- Channel 28 (TVOntario 2) clear.
- Channel 29 (WKBW or Fox or whatever they are now) very snowy, US
- Channel 31 (CityTV) a little snowy.
- Channel 35 a little snowy.
- Channel 41 (Ethnic channel, CFMT, IIRC) very clear.
- Channel 45 (religous network) snowy.
- Channel 47 (CityTV 2, I think...) clear.
- Channel 49 (can't remember).
- Channel 56 (SRC / CBC french 2) clear.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I certainly don't live in a big city. Radio reception on a TV antenna is pretty sweet still, though.
>Please, tell me an apartment building in NYC that allows tenants to mount directional antennas. (Where? Out the window? On the roof, and run it down the outside of the building 20 stories?)
Like I said, when you live in an apartment, you give up some things...
Well, maybe I wasn't that clear, I actually said:
Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!
Some apartment buildings already have antennas on top. Talk with your landlord -- they're probably still there in a city as old as NY.
>Cable in NYC offers crystal-clear copies of CHannel 25, 31, 40-something (spanish), etc. All these are very snowy at best with an antennas.
Then these aren't locals, are they? In a city as big as NY, NY I can see the Cable Co getting a "locals" deal together A decent antenna will pull in stations crystal clear that are 50 or more miles away, assuming no major obstacles. I can see that in a city like NY you'd have buildings in the way. Again, that's what happens in a big city. You have to give up some things in exchange for certain conveneinces. Sorry. Some of us chose to live with the inconveniences of a small city to be able to do certain things.
>Because many (most?) of us regard the process as broken/corrupt and the compensation hopelessly inadequate ($5-$20 US a day plus milage? Hello? Anyone home?).
While this is true, there are many in my country (Canada) who serve in a military so hopelessly outdated, that pays them barely a pittance, and forces them to live in substandard housing, simply because they feel that they are serving their country.
Seems to me the least anyone can do is jury duty. Even pacifists (such as myself) should feel just fine about it.
No it isn't. Analog cable (which is what most basic channels are on) is, in fact, much poorer quality than a good OTA broadcast.
The Cable Co. takes the same signal you would receive, then shifts it to another channel, puts it through an ungodly amount of amplification, and runs it 30 miles to your house through all sorts of crapped out cable (it was good cable until a dozen of your neighbours built pools without calling the before-you-dig number).
When you put up a decent, highly directional, antenna (heck, even Radio Shack has ones good enough) you can rotate it to perfection, and end up with a near perfect signal. Of course, for far away signals, reception sucks. Interestingly enough, though, I've found all those far away signals that are snowy aren't available as part of the basics. With my TV tower I get signals from almost 100 miles away (although they are not clear) which my local Cable Co doesn't even offer. Everything on their basics I get as clear, if not more, on my TV antenna. Of course, that was on Cable a decade and a half ago, since I haven't subscribed to it since then (they didn't bother running it to the "new" house).
>Over the air sucks ass for apartment dwellers.
Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!
>Is it actually true that you can't order a single PPV event?
No, it's this problem:
You have to buy this before you can buy this. In Canada, you're forced by the CRTC gestapo to buy the basics before you can get anything else (well, that is AFAIK -- they're usually the fault for anything that makes TV suck that little bit more in Canada), and you can't buy the basics without channels that only 0.00001% of Canadians watch, such as the Inuit Channel (I hear it's the Aboriginal Channel now). In the US there's no laws like this (that I know of) but the Cable Co does it anyways (although there they aren't forced to carry stuff that is of NO interest to anyone in that town).
All those "technical" reasons are BS, excepting analog cable, _especially_ when it comes to the satellite receivers. There was once a time when they could only authorize things by the channel...
There's that and the fact that they make you buy packages instead of single channels. (In Canada individual channels are usually possible but at a premium that makes it totally not worth it if you want more than 2 or 3 stations).
Then again, Canadians are used to being screwed over. How many times did they play "Call for Help" on TechTV for you today? They didn't on American TechTV. In Canada we basically get 1/4 the TV for 2/3 the price. And WTF is ShiftTV, Americans would ask -- ShitTV if you ask me... [Thank God for C-Band]
>The only tier everybody has to buy is the "basic" tier, and the local regulators get to set the price of that tier. By law, that tier must contain the local broadcasters and local access stations, and usually that's all it contains.
No thanks! Why should I buy something I can get for free? Seems silly to me...
>Any alternative operating system has to expect to be run on the hand-me-down boat anchor before being promoted to the user's main workstation.
Why? This isn't going to get Linux anywhere that it isn't already. Nobody will run an OS on their trash computer and expect it to be perfect. Infact, the users that are stuck with windows already have one hell of a machine if they're running XP, so we should expect their machine to be one hell of a machine. Either that, or there's slackware, just like there's windows 3.0 for CGA video users.
>In Red Hat 7.1 - not that old - there's no support for my mouse's scroll wheel by default. I don't care the reason, scroll wheel mice have been popular since 1998. Four years is a lifetime in Internet time, even with a recession.
Reasonable. However, in windows XP the second button (on a real mouse) does nothing. These mice have been popular since, oh, 1986. In internet time, this is about 4 lifetimes. I can't believe that OS still can't support it.
>Xine is arguably the best multimedia player for *nix, but it doesn't have something as simple as a repeat button, from what I can tell.
Agreed, however, mplayer is still better. But the UI sucks. And trying to get it to run on a machine that doesn't have it already can be a bear (especially with xine).
Yet you go on to say:
>Microsoft and Apple have millions of dollars being invested in sitting people around in focus groups to see what end users want.
Suggesting that windows media player is the hottest thing on earth. I have news for you, from a usability standpoint, end users who I know that can barely turn the machine on go insane when windows XP constantly hides the title bar in the media player, hate it when it dials out to get "media info", hate it when it locks up because they tell it to quit downloading the titles of their albums, and Microsoft STILL doesn't know how to handle VBR media. Users can't figure out why it is that skipping to the end of their media brings them to the middle of it instead.
WiMP is a usability NIGHTMARE. WiMP is to even the CLI mplayer as ed is to vi or emacs.
>Speaking of mere credibility... The (apparently but who knows anymore) predominant mail client, KMail, for the (apparently but who knows anymore) predominant GUI, KDE, doesn't include a spell checker which underlines mistyped/misspelled words.
Okay... So you want the underlined words, and you insult KMail as such for not supporting the feature you so desparately need:
>I have to manually invoke it like I did with DaVinci's spell checker back on a corporate LAN in 1996
Then you go on to say:
>UPDATE 20021123!! Apparently, this afterthought will be added across all of KDE 3.2's text editors. Wow, only 5 years behind Microsoft, and we wonder why the public hasn't embraced Linux faster.
To which I respond:
UPDATE TODAY!! Apparently, windows didn't originally have a spell checker, yet in Unix the spell command has been about since, oh, I guess about 1970 (I don't know exactly since I wasn't born at that point). Wow, only a few decades behind Unix! And we wonder why the general public thinks MS sucks so hard.
>KDE or Gnome? Fine, they're really only libraries and can coexist, but the division is counterintuitive, confusing, not relevant and off-putting to new users.
Uhuh. How about Fisher-Price XP mode to "classic" mode? I upgraded a client's win98 machine to XP yesterday and forgot to set the theme to classic mode. They couldn't even figure out how to turn the machine off!
The only difference is that when MS changes something, they make sure all their employees pretend it's the best thing that ever happened to anybody. Too bad that in chaging the XP interface they got rid of Favourites shortcuts and Recent Documents shortcuts by default, two of the most used features I've seen in older windows versions.
>Konqueror as a file browser: This is poorly thought out. Want to combine web browser and file browsing functionality, like Windows 98 and up? No. There's a Windows way of doing things, and a Unix way of doing things. The Windows way doesn't involve the user's life being based around/home/$USER. Therefore, the "Home" button on your web/file browser can take you to www.yahoo.com or whatever. If I configure Konqueror to do that, I have to manually type/home/myname or browse to it. That's stupid.
This argument seriously doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clarify it? Seems to me the home button does exactly as it is expected to, take you to your home directory. You would rather the browser take you to a webpage, though. Seems confusing to me. If you want a hotbutton for your homepage website, I'm sure that isn't rocket science to get the KDE team to add it. Why don't you ask them?
>Konqueror's other great flaw is the single click to open a file. It's as stupid as Windows 98 with Active Desktop turned on.
Millions of Mac users disagree. And so does my mom, and everyone else's who can't figure out when to double or single click.
> I navigated to Mozilla's cache directory, chose "Select All", then right-clicked in the file browser window to choose the Delete option. Whoops. Even though I didn't release the key, it acted like I did, and it managed to open over 5,000 image files before the machine exhausted its RAM, then swap space, then my patience. Ctrl-Alt-Backspace.
You should know windows reacts EXACTLY the same. Try it some time with 5,000 programs. It's great fun to push CTRL-A on the desktop of a co-worker and press enter. They'll be swearing at you for hours.
>XMMS: KMail gives me the "You've Got New Mail" beep, and XMMS crashes. "Audio device is in use."
Ok. You win on this one. Send a bug report, whydon'tcha?
>Mind-numbing slowness.... like, oh my God, how long will it take for KDE's file browser to show me the list of the 2,765 MP3s in my directory?
Mind-numbing unresponsiveness. Ever seen how long it takes for a windows machine without what was (a couple of years ago) ungodly amounts of RAM to go from logging in to opening the start menu?
>As allegedly fat and slow as Windows 2000 is, it installs off only *one* pirated CD (not *three*, like most distros),
So how is that Win2k preloaded typesetting, word-processing, emulation and source-code suite going for you, anyways?
Just wondering, since obviously that Win2K CD had everything those Linux CDs had on them.
Not to mention you could always run slackware if you just wanted one CD.
>Why, despite KDE's advantage of optimization, is Windows Exploiter still faster?
Because you didn't run as root? Because in Linux the web-browser isn't embedded into the kernel?
Sorry. Again, why don't you ask Linus to embed Mozilla into Linux? If he doesn't, I guess that sorta sucks. You could either do it yourself, or you could pay someone who is willing.
I do understand the pain, though. Perhaps a note to the nice folks at Mozilla 'bout implementing quick-start for Linux would be in order.
>An application crashes. Nothing responds to mouseclicks. I've waited a few seconds and need to get back to work.
I was wrong. Seems you are running as root... That was a bad idea.
You do realize that until 2k and XP windows basically reacted identically to Linux in this regard, no matter who was logged in, right? And that "nasty" applications can still do this if they want to, even if you are a user in XP or 2K (try SiSoft Sandra at 100% utilization burn-in if you don't believe me).
>As a minimalist alternative, how about a key combination which, when pressed, renices the application using the most resources?
Would be nice, but then it wouldn't be the same as your beloved windows, no? Because I don't see anything like this in windows. Infact, what I see is that you have to manually adjust each task's priority in the task manager, which, itself, when windows software screws up (like it often does -- I've had permanent 100% utilization with ping when pinging a non-existant domain, for example), tends to take about 2 or 3 minutes to open, never mind respond.
>should, in any way, offer better management of crashed processes than a first-order derivative of a mature mainframe operating system.
Now that's a thinly veiled FUD attempt.
>Some *nix users. Most will give you the shirt off your back to help you out and I appreciate those, but there's a distressing and non-trivial number who will mock nonconformity within an Anime/Star Trek environment.
Yeah, I know, it does suck. But this is a geek thing, nothing more. One could say the same thing about Sports Jocks and windows, but it's all silly. Most people on both sides of the fence are pretty reasonable.
>Speaking of Mom and Dad's computer, we need advocacy and an installed user base of kids who can't necessarily afford their own machines.
Now this I can agree to totally.
Sorry if you feel I've punched some holes in your arguments, but honestly, I think this is what Linux needs to get windows users to use it:
It needs people to port the best of the linux apps over to windows. When windows people get hooked on them, they'll feel right at home when they switch to Linux. This is going on right now with projects like cygwin, but there could be more.
And the same thing for open-source windows apps. These need to be ported to Linux. DVD2SVCD, VCDEasy, and VirtualDub are strong examples that come to mind right now. There's many more, though.
Once the free software on both environments converges to the point that it's reasonably hard to tell which you are running (apart from proprietary software, and the overall UI experience) users won't care which OS they are running. And at that point, they'll choose Linux because it has something Windows never will: Total freedom (price and libre).
Holy hell, that was long...
Well, they might have worse game of the year...
on
Games of the Year
·
· Score: 1
But the worst games of all time are all listed here.
But I see all these people in this forum with ways they get out of jury duty. Being on a jury is one of the most important duties in your life. IMHO, doing jury duty is as much a service to your country as joining the army. Why is it that people treat the job with such chagrin? You are deciding the fate of someone; you have the most direct role in the legal system possible (assuming a criminal court).
Really, if I were called for jury duty, I'd be chuffed to have the opportunity to involve myself with the legal system in this way. As long as I don't stand to lose millions of dollars or my life, I'd certainly not make any excuses.
Bring it on. I'm just waiting for the opportunity...
Well, I'd answer, but you see, I don't have any money, and since Jack Valenti wouldn't let me pirate movies about the Nazis, I have no idea how to respond. I'd go to the library, but he told me that's just plain wrong, to let others read books and deprive publishers of their just dues.
Sorry. Maybe someone will drop a couple of dollars into my penny jar and I'll have enough to rent the movie, that is, while renting is still legal. But I'd still be morally conflicted.
But then again, there's this shop down the street sporting a swastika that keeps telling me they'll let me read all about the truth for free. I don't go there because the people scare me, though. I guess some truth is better than none, however.
Slashdot Mirror
>What, does it choke them or cut off circulation when it's too tight?
I watched on RealTV while a child nearly had the life sucked out of them as their clothing got further and further embedded into the grating of an escalator that would not turn off. A gruesome sight, but fortunately, someone nearby had a pocket knife. Had they not, the child would most certainly have died.
>I am certainly going to expect that they will not then release all of my work publicly (and I'll write the contract to that effect).
;-)
Oh, you certainly could. But that doesn't stop the company from pulling a Compaq on you, and they just might if you get too testy over points like that in a contract since they'll assume you're doing it to wallet-rape them in the future.
(For those who don't get that reference, in the case of support, the solution is far easier than hacking up a clean-room BIOS. One person follows the steps presented, covered by the NDA. Another non-NDA employee who hasn't seen the instructions watches the person following the steps without looking at the instructions, and writes down what was performed. Heck, they may just short-circuit this whole process and send someone with you to "watch").
In the case of most of the "black magic" I myself have performed, and have seen others perform, the majority of the operations could fit on a page, executive sized.
Either way, if you're a nice guy, the company isn't going to do that...
>The Denon will have a lower noise floor at 10 W than the $10 Sony will.
;-) It's like being on a telephone without actually using one! Besides, why is a home user putten der fingerpoken in the equipment when it's in use?
While this is true, to a degree, using a proper power supply would of course decrease noise effects, it's been my expereince that only the world's most pathetic audio equipment (Pyramid, Road Gear, Realistic, etc) suffers from perceptible noise problems at power levels this low. It might be there, but I doubt it's audible in all but the absolute worst equipment. Maybe I need to hook my oscilloscope up to my Kenwood amp and compare it to the (overpriced) H/K amp. I still think I'm going to feel like I've been cheated.
As far as ESD goes, make your guys wear static wrist bands!
>Stealing Cable is also stealing.
You didn't answer my question.
Stealing cable is stealing because you are using their resources without compensating them. It is no different than tapping the telephone switch.
However, with a purchased satellite receiver I can receive satellite signals that they send to me. These satellite signals are present wether or not I use them, and absolutely no cost is incurred to the satellite company. This practice of satellite piracy was legal for decades in my country, and the value of the signal has been decided to be of absolutely no value by a judge in my country.
Explain how that is theft/stealing, my watching such a signal with a purchased receiver.
You have not yet.
>If you take a $10 bill that a cashier has mistaken for a smaller bill, and you realize it, then you have stolen.
Not in my country. In my country, and most likely yours, it is the onice (sp?) of the cashier to provide you with correct change. Any mistakes done by them, either monetary or in product nature that are a benefit to yourself are their fault. It is up to you to decide if you want to return any extra benefits.
>Technically, you have stolen money if you find it lieing on the street, and claim it as yours, even though you know it not to be. You are required to report it, and wait a certain amount of time for it to be claimed by its rightful owner before claiming possesion.
Again, special "finders keepers" type laws do exist on items that are unclaimable, such as small change found on the streets. I'd look them up but I'm not a lawyer and I'm tired of debating this topic, because I'm right, because there can be no answer to my satellite TV enigma that leads to stealing.
Like I said, go ahead and ask, I have many more unsolvable (up to now by the slashdot crows) piracy isn't stealing enigmas for you. Perhaps you can be the first to explain the loss incurred by the form of satellite piracy I have explained to you.
3
>but all the pirates think that if they somehow call it something else it isn't as bad.
;-).
;-)
They simply expect it to be called by what it is: Copyright Violation. They don't call parking in a handicapped zone dismemberment, and people shouldn't call Copyright Violation stealing.
This has been hashed out so much it isn't funny. The difference is clear, even in your definition. Slash-lawyers have even discussed this. They've even, to a certain degree, agreed with me.
Pirates using P2P, etc. never purport to give money to the music companies -- it is clear they are too cheap to buy CDs. They try to keep the original names on all the songs they download. They usually don't claim them as their own.
I see nothing stolen. I see no loss, apart from a ding in the goodwill between music companies, the artists and the consumers.
Show me a loss and I'll call it stealing. But in the case of a home user illicitly downloading an album for the heck of it, up to now I see no loss. No loss of ownership (ie: The music hasn't had the author's name intentionally removed), no loss of funds (prove the person would pay for the music if you feel differently), no loss of music (they still have their copies), and no loss of value (the CD still sells for $20, wether it is pirated once or a million times). I see only a loss of ego, which, my friend, is something that at best comes under libel or slander, and since piracy is neither, the law doesn't define it as stealing, and neither do most people when presented with this argument.
Note I don't cover fraud and misrepresentation, two totally separate things from Johnny pirating a Metallica CD from the 'net.
I'm willing to discuss this, but you're going to have to find a better comparison than manslaughter, because by your terms, manslaughter is the accidental stealing of the life of another. And if stealing is to be so watered down, then perhaps we all steal. Do you pay for the air you breathe? Are you on welfare? Is your home made of wood? Does your car burn gas? It's all stealing when you paint the word with such a broad brush. And when one waters down the language by overdefining a term to the point of it being non-sensical, I put it to you that the word is about as useful and about as important as set; ie: alone it means nothing, and it requires a qualifier to tell people what, exactly, the meaning you are trying to convey is.
Is the meaning of steal one of "he's a horrible person who would take the boots off a dead man", or is the meaning to be "he's less than good because he didn't give back the $10 bill the cashier mistook as a $5 bill". If it is the second, I put it to you that I don't care. Call me a stealing man, then, because, by golly, I "stole" American satellite TV for a long time in Canada (not right now, of course, I quit at the end of spring for good reasons
Of course, your definition of "stealing" doesn't cover that little conundrum, does it? That is, taking that which is allowed to be taken, doesn't deprive anyone, and has a proven value of $0, yet which is still something that the owner doesn't wish for you to take.
[ I have more conundrums that the word stealing can't cover, but piracy does, if you care to enquire. Most fun, trying to redefine the English language... ]
(Don't take it personally, but hey, I do to a certain degree, because your definition covers me, although it isn't correct, IMHO
>you might get a judge who said "This CD plays in 99% of players. You are obviously suing a merchant to make a point for your political agenda. Frivolous lawsuit, case dismissed."
:-)
At which point you sue again for the next disc. You might get another judge, but even if you don't, bring your MP3 CD player, your laptop, your home CD transport, and your car stereo into court. This time ask the court how, exactly, you were able to procure so many items which won't play this CD. Demonstrate that they are unable to play the CD. You might want to propose the question "Are all these items fraudulently advertising an ability to play CDs, or is this CD actually not a CD?".
And this time, should you get an unfavourable judgement, you can now sue for your "defective" CD audio devices. Don't forget to summon the judge as a witness to your earlier demonstration for enhanced effect.
[ You might want to careful, I hear that if you piss off a judge too much you might get to spend a night with Bubba for contempt of court. Be careful not to drop the soap. Ask the guy who sued Coke for not coughing up the dough on their advertising campaign for more info on that topic. ]
No, IANAL. But I play one on slashdot.
This legal fiction brought to you by the letters E, S and Q.
>I'm not saying a pure silver $20/foot cable is going to sound better than a silver coated $7/foot cable for line level audio, but it WILL sound better than a 10 ft copper wire about the thickness of mechcanical pencil lead (your average RCA cable).
;-).
Here's what's funny about most audiophiles, and why we laugh at them so much:
They don't know jack shit about professional audio.
I won't pretend that I do know it all (I started out at the bottom and got laughed at when I said I needed a 100 ft. RCA cable for a dance party, at the local sound shop), but I can tell you this: Pros don't use RCA cables. Period. Absolutely no exceptions, unless it's going through a transformer (and then it had better damn well be the only way to get the audio).
Come back to me when you use balanced XLR, or at least balanced 1/4". Then we'll talk audio quality. And we'll also talk about how the only reason you want higher gauge cable is so that the sound engineer doesn't destroy your cables when he rolls the chair over them. And, best of all, when you start to use XLR cables, you won't care about shielding, actually, you will care -- you'll be reqesting that there is none.
>There will be a difference between 22 gauge speaker wire (the thin stuff) and 12 gauge speaker wire (reasonably price at home depot).
Sure. If you have a 200 watt RMS per channel stereo, the 22 gauge cable might warm up, thereby wasting some of the power. However, I've yet to come across one of these at a price I can afford. In the sub $10k range 22 gauge cable might provide some micro-ohms of resistance to your signal. I hardly think it's anything to write home about.
Although I do use higher gauge cable, preferrably about 16 gauge. I normally use SPT-2 lamp cord, since it's available in this gauge, is CSA approved, and, most importantly, unlike most "speaker" cable, it's actually very flexible. Again, this is because I don't wan't my cable to split when I screw/clip it into the terminals at the speakers. At the small club I've been elected sound engineer for, though, we don't even do this. 1/4" jacks are just much more reliable for us.
Now, when I get the opportunity to wire some 5000 Watt RMS subs to a 630V amp, then I think I'd be using some super low gauge wire, since I don't want to start a fire. Other than starting fires, durability, and power loss due to heat, there isn't much reason to use a low gauge cable.
>There is a difference between a low end Kenwood receiver (ick) and a high end Denon receiver (or anything priced higher).
I would have agreed 10 years ago. Today, I hardly think so, except in how they compare watts. The Denon doesn't lie, whereas getting a proper set of stats on the Kenwood would be difficult. A lower-power Denon receiver probably uses the same generic amp chips (maybe even the damned hard to find STK chips) as the Kenwood.
Honestly, it isn't rocket science to amplify a sub 20 kHz signal. Get someone an LM12 + a good power supply and I bet someone who can wire their car stereo can build their own amp with BETTER quality, and with more power than the Denon (but cheaper
>And lets not even try to compare low end speakers (Bose, Sony, etc) with high end speakers (B&W, Martin Logan, Paradigm, etc).
Now here is where things have never been perfected. Being a tight-ass myself, I've elected for option 3: Build your own. If you follow the design rules correctly you can build a set of speakers as good as any other top-notch set out there. The only difference is yours come out rectangular, whereas theirs don't. Well, that and when you build it yourself you can control the sound of the speakers to your liking (A friend of mine suggested my speakers sounded a lot like Marshalls. Not owning any speakers of that brand myself, I really can't comment on the truth of this).
>You do get what you pay for...
This I can agree with, however not exactly as you would suggest.
For example, you get what you pay for in a Sony amp with 500 Sony watts because the thing is much more likely to XPlod when you have it that high (the best are the cheap receivers that say 500 Watts, but have a 2A current rating), whereas the expensive receiver sounds good all the way up to its rating, and probably won't explode no matter how poorly you treat it.
That's the difference. The fact is the Sony amp will sound as good as the Denon when 10 Watts are drawn out of each. It's just that when 500 Watts are being drawn from both the Denon will still sound good, whereas the Sony Xplods into a burst of flames and smoke.
In that case you're suggesting he could care less about anything other than his album sales. This suggests he makes his album sales his highest priority.
For example, saying the above would suggest that he could care less about someone painting his drum set pink (in other words it is possible for him to not worry about it), but that he could not care less about someone causing decreased sales of an album. In other words, his album sales are so important it is impossible for him not to care any less than he does about them, or in other words he would be unable to worry any less about them, lest he violate some sort of personal principles he has about worrying.
It is actually a difficult concept, since it depends on wether you assume that he could care less because he has no principles on the matter, or that he could not care less because he would feel poorer should he care less.
It's been my experience that assignments where the answers are clearly visible are harder to cheat on, since you can assume everyone has access to the same code, your answer (as a cheater) will look more and more like theirs. I've seen 85% of my fellow students get a fail on a certain because of this (the teacher screwed up and put the answer to the assignment on his website).
;-) ]
Assignments where the answers aren't provided are easier to cheat on, since perhaps half the students will do the assignment, and the other half will ask a random sample of the non-cheaters for answers (in reality it's much more like 80% do it and 20% don't, which makes checking for cheating that much harder). This leads to a far more varied set of answers, and so it is much more unlikely that a slightly modified assignment will stick out (unless the teacher has a photographic memory).
If I were a teacher, I think I'd have to think long and hard about keeping the answers from the students for assignments. At least if I were to give them the answers, it would be far easier to check for cheating.
[ No, I was one of the lucky 15% who didn't cheat.
Our contract clearly states that users sign over all rights to work created on their computers to the institution.
You might want to look for the same wording.
(And, the above is one of the reasons for my using a laptop to do my work. And also the reason why it all gets a Public Domain or GPL bumper-comment, even when it's just a couple of lines).
>NO WAIT! What happens if they pull the hard drive out and connect it to another computer? I know, lets chop up the hard drive into little pieces to make sure that doesn't happen, then we'll be REALLY SECURE!
I remember talking to someone at IBM about this. They told me that at the end of every shift, they were to remove the HDD from their computer (I assume it was on some sort of tray) and place it in a locked storage cabinet.
I'm very sure if IBM did this, then the government would be more than willing to do it...
And people without arms are going to reach for their wallet with what, exactly?
Or do they expect the cashier to grope about their erogenous zone to find it...
>(15' taller than the building I live in, and thus something that I would be told to take down or be evicted)
;-) I'm sure the USA has similar laws (heck, you guys are allowed to put up satellite dishes 1m in diameter anywhere, unlike us!).
Get your ham radio license today! In Canada, at least, they can't stop you from putting up any tower, as long as it is safe, should you be fully licensed.
I'm going to get mine, someday, but since my 40 ft. TV tower is actually one of the smaller ones in my town, I'd be getting it for the fun of it, not any TV tower benefits.
>And no, I'm not in the boonies - I'm in one of the larger suburbs of Atlanta.
Bummer.
I am in the boonies (no DSL, and cable TV co didn't run any cable to the houses here + 15 km of Telco cable to my phones), and here's my list of channels (some smart slashdotter will be able to guess where I live, oh well). I've forgotten the call signs on some of them, sorry; I do have satellite TV, and since it carries the locals which I have to buy by law (bummer) this is coming from memory:
- Channel 2, 3, 4 -- Snowy, from the US.
- Channel 5 (CBC) normally clear.
- Channel 6 (Global) always clear.
- Channel 7 (ABC?) usually snowy, occasionally clear.
- Channel 9 usually clear, IIRC.
- Channel 11 mostly clear.
- Channel 13 (CKCO) so crystal clear it hurts (sometimes there's ghosting, since the broadcast tower is nearby)
- Channel 17 (PBS Buffalo) very snowy.
- Channel 19 (TVOntario) clear.
- Channel 25 (SRC or CBC french) clear.
- Channel 28 (TVOntario 2) clear.
- Channel 29 (WKBW or Fox or whatever they are now) very snowy, US
- Channel 31 (CityTV) a little snowy.
- Channel 35 a little snowy.
- Channel 41 (Ethnic channel, CFMT, IIRC) very clear.
- Channel 45 (religous network) snowy.
- Channel 47 (CityTV 2, I think...) clear.
- Channel 49 (can't remember).
- Channel 56 (SRC / CBC french 2) clear.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I certainly don't live in a big city. Radio reception on a TV antenna is pretty sweet still, though.
>Please, tell me an apartment building in NYC that allows tenants to mount directional antennas. (Where? Out the window? On the roof, and run it down the outside of the building 20 stories?)
Like I said, when you live in an apartment, you give up some things...
Well, maybe I wasn't that clear, I actually said:
Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!
Some apartment buildings already have antennas on top. Talk with your landlord -- they're probably still there in a city as old as NY.
>Cable in NYC offers crystal-clear copies of CHannel 25, 31, 40-something (spanish), etc. All these are very snowy at best with an antennas.
Then these aren't locals, are they? In a city as big as NY, NY I can see the Cable Co getting a "locals" deal together A decent antenna will pull in stations crystal clear that are 50 or more miles away, assuming no major obstacles. I can see that in a city like NY you'd have buildings in the way. Again, that's what happens in a big city. You have to give up some things in exchange for certain conveneinces. Sorry. Some of us chose to live with the inconveniences of a small city to be able to do certain things.
>Because many (most?) of us regard the process as broken/corrupt and the compensation hopelessly inadequate ($5-$20 US a day plus milage? Hello? Anyone home?).
While this is true, there are many in my country (Canada) who serve in a military so hopelessly outdated, that pays them barely a pittance, and forces them to live in substandard housing, simply because they feel that they are serving their country.
Seems to me the least anyone can do is jury duty. Even pacifists (such as myself) should feel just fine about it.
But hey, each to their own, I suppose.
What did you feed him?
Hot Dogs.
What an old idea.
>Because it is better quality?
No it isn't. Analog cable (which is what most basic channels are on) is, in fact, much poorer quality than a good OTA broadcast.
The Cable Co. takes the same signal you would receive, then shifts it to another channel, puts it through an ungodly amount of amplification, and runs it 30 miles to your house through all sorts of crapped out cable (it was good cable until a dozen of your neighbours built pools without calling the before-you-dig number).
When you put up a decent, highly directional, antenna (heck, even Radio Shack has ones good enough) you can rotate it to perfection, and end up with a near perfect signal. Of course, for far away signals, reception sucks. Interestingly enough, though, I've found all those far away signals that are snowy aren't available as part of the basics. With my TV tower I get signals from almost 100 miles away (although they are not clear) which my local Cable Co doesn't even offer. Everything on their basics I get as clear, if not more, on my TV antenna. Of course, that was on Cable a decade and a half ago, since I haven't subscribed to it since then (they didn't bother running it to the "new" house).
>Over the air sucks ass for apartment dwellers.
Cable TV is just one of the many extra costs incurred for living in a restricted area. C'est la vie!
>I think ive been in college too long.....I say we all just get analog cable and steal it......no way they can really catch you anywayz
My $5 Multimeter says that you're very wrong. And so does that $1500 Fluke super-duper measures everything meter I lust after...
>Is it actually true that you can't order a single PPV event?
No, it's this problem:
You have to buy this before you can buy this. In Canada, you're forced by the CRTC gestapo to buy the basics before you can get anything else (well, that is AFAIK -- they're usually the fault for anything that makes TV suck that little bit more in Canada), and you can't buy the basics without channels that only 0.00001% of Canadians watch, such as the Inuit Channel (I hear it's the Aboriginal Channel now). In the US there's no laws like this (that I know of) but the Cable Co does it anyways (although there they aren't forced to carry stuff that is of NO interest to anyone in that town).
All those "technical" reasons are BS, excepting analog cable, _especially_ when it comes to the satellite receivers. There was once a time when they could only authorize things by the channel...
There's that and the fact that they make you buy packages instead of single channels. (In Canada individual channels are usually possible but at a premium that makes it totally not worth it if you want more than 2 or 3 stations).
Then again, Canadians are used to being screwed over. How many times did they play "Call for Help" on TechTV for you today? They didn't on American TechTV. In Canada we basically get 1/4 the TV for 2/3 the price. And WTF is ShiftTV, Americans would ask -- ShitTV if you ask me... [Thank God for C-Band]
>The only tier everybody has to buy is the "basic" tier, and the local regulators get to set the price of that tier. By law, that tier must contain the local broadcasters and local access stations, and usually that's all it contains.
No thanks! Why should I buy something I can get for free? Seems silly to me...
I'll take on the challenge.
/home/$USER. Therefore, the "Home" button on your web/file browser can take you to www.yahoo.com or whatever. If I configure Konqueror to do that, I have to manually type /home/myname or browse to it. That's stupid.
>Any alternative operating system has to expect to be run on the hand-me-down boat anchor before being promoted to the user's main workstation.
Why? This isn't going to get Linux anywhere that it isn't already. Nobody will run an OS on their trash computer and expect it to be perfect. Infact, the users that are stuck with windows already have one hell of a machine if they're running XP, so we should expect their machine to be one hell of a machine. Either that, or there's slackware, just like there's windows 3.0 for CGA video users.
>In Red Hat 7.1 - not that old - there's no support for my mouse's scroll wheel by default. I don't care the reason, scroll wheel mice have been popular since 1998. Four years is a lifetime in Internet time, even with a recession.
Reasonable. However, in windows XP the second button (on a real mouse) does nothing. These mice have been popular since, oh, 1986. In internet time, this is about 4 lifetimes. I can't believe that OS still can't support it.
>Xine is arguably the best multimedia player for *nix, but it doesn't have something as simple as a repeat button, from what I can tell.
Agreed, however, mplayer is still better. But the UI sucks. And trying to get it to run on a machine that doesn't have it already can be a bear (especially with xine).
Yet you go on to say:
>Microsoft and Apple have millions of dollars being invested in sitting people around in focus groups to see what end users want.
Suggesting that windows media player is the hottest thing on earth. I have news for you, from a usability standpoint, end users who I know that can barely turn the machine on go insane when windows XP constantly hides the title bar in the media player, hate it when it dials out to get "media info", hate it when it locks up because they tell it to quit downloading the titles of their albums, and Microsoft STILL doesn't know how to handle VBR media. Users can't figure out why it is that skipping to the end of their media brings them to the middle of it instead.
WiMP is a usability NIGHTMARE. WiMP is to even the CLI mplayer as ed is to vi or emacs.
>Speaking of mere credibility... The (apparently but who knows anymore) predominant mail client, KMail, for the (apparently but who knows anymore) predominant GUI, KDE, doesn't include a spell checker which underlines mistyped/misspelled words.
Okay... So you want the underlined words, and you insult KMail as such for not supporting the feature you so desparately need:
>I have to manually invoke it like I did with DaVinci's spell checker back on a corporate LAN in 1996
Then you go on to say:
>UPDATE 20021123!! Apparently, this afterthought will be added across all of KDE 3.2's text editors. Wow, only 5 years behind Microsoft, and we wonder why the public hasn't embraced Linux faster.
To which I respond:
UPDATE TODAY!! Apparently, windows didn't originally have a spell checker, yet in Unix the spell command has been about since, oh, I guess about 1970 (I don't know exactly since I wasn't born at that point). Wow, only a few decades behind Unix! And we wonder why the general public thinks MS sucks so hard.
>KDE or Gnome? Fine, they're really only libraries and can coexist, but the division is counterintuitive, confusing, not relevant and off-putting to new users.
Uhuh. How about Fisher-Price XP mode to "classic" mode? I upgraded a client's win98 machine to XP yesterday and forgot to set the theme to classic mode. They couldn't even figure out how to turn the machine off!
The only difference is that when MS changes something, they make sure all their employees pretend it's the best thing that ever happened to anybody. Too bad that in chaging the XP interface they got rid of Favourites shortcuts and Recent Documents shortcuts by default, two of the most used features I've seen in older windows versions.
>Konqueror as a file browser: This is poorly thought out. Want to combine web browser and file browsing functionality, like Windows 98 and up? No. There's a Windows way of doing things, and a Unix way of doing things. The Windows way doesn't involve the user's life being based around
This argument seriously doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clarify it? Seems to me the home button does exactly as it is expected to, take you to your home directory. You would rather the browser take you to a webpage, though. Seems confusing to me. If you want a hotbutton for your homepage website, I'm sure that isn't rocket science to get the KDE team to add it. Why don't you ask them?
>Konqueror's other great flaw is the single click to open a file. It's as stupid as Windows 98 with Active Desktop turned on.
Millions of Mac users disagree. And so does my mom, and everyone else's who can't figure out when to double or single click.
> I navigated to Mozilla's cache directory, chose "Select All", then right-clicked in the file browser window to choose the Delete option. Whoops. Even though I didn't release the key, it acted like I did, and it managed to open over 5,000 image files before the machine exhausted its RAM, then swap space, then my patience. Ctrl-Alt-Backspace.
You should know windows reacts EXACTLY the same. Try it some time with 5,000 programs. It's great fun to push CTRL-A on the desktop of a co-worker and press enter. They'll be swearing at you for hours.
>XMMS: KMail gives me the "You've Got New Mail" beep, and XMMS crashes. "Audio device is in use."
Ok. You win on this one. Send a bug report, whydon'tcha?
>Buggy boxed distros.
Virus infected boxed software.
This is like shooting fish in a barrel...
>Mind-numbing slowness.... like, oh my God, how long will it take for KDE's file browser to show me the list of the 2,765 MP3s in my directory?
Mind-numbing unresponsiveness. Ever seen how long it takes for a windows machine without what was (a couple of years ago) ungodly amounts of RAM to go from logging in to opening the start menu?
>As allegedly fat and slow as Windows 2000 is, it installs off only *one* pirated CD (not *three*, like most distros),
So how is that Win2k preloaded typesetting, word-processing, emulation and source-code suite going for you, anyways?
Just wondering, since obviously that Win2K CD had everything those Linux CDs had on them.
Not to mention you could always run slackware if you just wanted one CD.
>Why, despite KDE's advantage of optimization, is Windows Exploiter still faster?
Because you didn't run as root? Because in Linux the web-browser isn't embedded into the kernel?
Sorry. Again, why don't you ask Linus to embed Mozilla into Linux? If he doesn't, I guess that sorta sucks. You could either do it yourself, or you could pay someone who is willing.
I do understand the pain, though. Perhaps a note to the nice folks at Mozilla 'bout implementing quick-start for Linux would be in order.
>An application crashes. Nothing responds to mouseclicks. I've waited a few seconds and need to get back to work.
I was wrong. Seems you are running as root... That was a bad idea.
You do realize that until 2k and XP windows basically reacted identically to Linux in this regard, no matter who was logged in, right? And that "nasty" applications can still do this if they want to, even if you are a user in XP or 2K (try SiSoft Sandra at 100% utilization burn-in if you don't believe me).
>As a minimalist alternative, how about a key combination which, when pressed, renices the application using the most resources?
Would be nice, but then it wouldn't be the same as your beloved windows, no? Because I don't see anything like this in windows. Infact, what I see is that you have to manually adjust each task's priority in the task manager, which, itself, when windows software screws up (like it often does -- I've had permanent 100% utilization with ping when pinging a non-existant domain, for example), tends to take about 2 or 3 minutes to open, never mind respond.
>should, in any way, offer better management of crashed processes than a first-order derivative of a mature mainframe operating system.
Now that's a thinly veiled FUD attempt.
>Some *nix users. Most will give you the shirt off your back to help you out and I appreciate those, but there's a distressing and non-trivial number who will mock nonconformity within an Anime/Star Trek environment.
Yeah, I know, it does suck. But this is a geek thing, nothing more. One could say the same thing about Sports Jocks and windows, but it's all silly. Most people on both sides of the fence are pretty reasonable.
>Speaking of Mom and Dad's computer, we need advocacy and an installed user base of kids who can't necessarily afford their own machines.
Now this I can agree to totally.
Sorry if you feel I've punched some holes in your arguments, but honestly, I think this is what Linux needs to get windows users to use it:
It needs people to port the best of the linux apps over to windows. When windows people get hooked on them, they'll feel right at home when they switch to Linux. This is going on right now with projects like cygwin, but there could be more.
And the same thing for open-source windows apps. These need to be ported to Linux. DVD2SVCD, VCDEasy, and VirtualDub are strong examples that come to mind right now. There's many more, though.
Once the free software on both environments converges to the point that it's reasonably hard to tell which you are running (apart from proprietary software, and the overall UI experience) users won't care which OS they are running. And at that point, they'll choose Linux because it has something Windows never will: Total freedom (price and libre).
Holy hell, that was long...
But the worst games of all time are all listed here.
But I see all these people in this forum with ways they get out of jury duty. Being on a jury is one of the most important duties in your life. IMHO, doing jury duty is as much a service to your country as joining the army. Why is it that people treat the job with such chagrin? You are deciding the fate of someone; you have the most direct role in the legal system possible (assuming a criminal court).
Really, if I were called for jury duty, I'd be chuffed to have the opportunity to involve myself with the legal system in this way. As long as I don't stand to lose millions of dollars or my life, I'd certainly not make any excuses.
Bring it on. I'm just waiting for the opportunity...
Well, I'd answer, but you see, I don't have any money, and since Jack Valenti wouldn't let me pirate movies about the Nazis, I have no idea how to respond. I'd go to the library, but he told me that's just plain wrong, to let others read books and deprive publishers of their just dues.
Sorry. Maybe someone will drop a couple of dollars into my penny jar and I'll have enough to rent the movie, that is, while renting is still legal. But I'd still be morally conflicted.
But then again, there's this shop down the street sporting a swastika that keeps telling me they'll let me read all about the truth for free. I don't go there because the people scare me, though. I guess some truth is better than none, however.
I'll check it out next week and get back to you.