Well, your arguments are pretty stupid. (Oracle is not a "server company," dude.) I do agree that being an idiot doesn't make you a troll, so your downmods are unfair. But the stupidity == trolling meme is widespread on Slashdot, so you shouldn't take it personally.
People who have XP usually stick with XP. They might replace it with Linux because they think Linux is better, or they might upgrade to 7 or 8 because they have to run software that's not supported on XP or because there's some new feature they want. Either way, the fact that Linux is free is irrelevant.
You're not supposed to "figure them out". You're supposed to look at them. If you stop worrying about how strange Picasso's work is (why should a computer geek, of all people, be put off by "strange"?) and just try to enjoy the dude's sense of color, form, and play, you might get somewhere.
Please note: I'm not an artistic type. (Though some people like my casual phone pictures, for reasons that are a mystery to me.) I'm just an aging computer geek who enjoys looking at stuff,
You're assuming that I share your view of Obama as evil and a betrayer of his principles. I disagree with many of his policies, but I don't believe that any leader of a major power can act as pure-mindedly as you want them to. Indeed, some of the worst evils in history are committed by people who insist on moral purity.
The difference between Obama and the fool you choose to paraphrase is not between lesser and greater evils. It's a difference between an intelligent, well-educated person who's doing the best he can despite his moral errors and a person of limited intelligence and education who can't sustain a train of thought that doesn't end with a cute punchline.
Really, there were three choices: I could vote for some third party zealot whose motives are pure but whose ability to influence events are nonexistent (that's true even if, by some miracle, we actually elected the zealot); an idiot whose rise to power would have represented my worst nightmares; and a guy who went on to do things I have moral qualms about but who has managed to accomplish stuff I consider important, Easy choice.
You obviously disagree, judging from your big list on nothingchanged.org. I could try to explain to you why I think your list is BS, but I doubt that it would be a productive.
You spoiled your routine by ending it with a Sarah Palin imitation, reminding us that the alternative to Obama was to put Mrs. Moose Hunter one aged heartbeat away from the Presidency. Whatever Obama's sins, I'm sure she could top them without even trying.
Everybody sees it as a war, the decisions are made in secret, and the strikes are carried out by robot airplanes. What's loony about an accurate description?
Your rant doesn't go far enough. Browsers, especially mobile browsers, have gone way beyond just displaying information. I think that maybe 90% of all the apps I've seen could be implemented on the web. There are security and privacy issues of course, but that's true for apps as well.
I think people write apps because that's what they know how to do. Writing an application that exists mainly in the cloud is a new paradigm, and it's going to be a while before developers adapt to it.
Whatever their official reasons, I doubt that this is about security or good taste or anything like that. Apple simply doesn't like controversy. That's why they wouldn't allow a Bush Leaves count down clock.
Jeez, dude, if you can't learn to speak Newspeak properly, I'm going to report you to the Thought Police. You need to get rid of grammatical ornamentation and expressive subtlety. Try
Why oldthink? Apple give doubleplusfreedom. Be goodthinkful.
I suppose I have a good eye. Never really had a chance to train it.
I don't think there's anything magic about the Linux kernel. Yes, it's popular for embedded applications, but it's got lots of competition. If you use Android on a device, it's because you see that "nice environment" as essential to your product. I don't see manufacturers crippling the Android environment just to make it more camera-centric. If you advertise a device as Android-based, consumers will expect the full Android environment.
Another responder pointed out that proprietary camera OSs often have really clumsy implementations of WiFi, because they weren't designed with WiFi in mind. So if somebody really wants easy-to-use WiFi, Android might make sense, even if WiFi is the only Android feature you ever use.
I'm forced to back away from my assertion of "overkill". It occurs to me that most systems and devices have more computing power and functionality than they need, because throwing a standard platform at a problem is often the cheapest solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, your arguments are pretty stupid. (Oracle is not a "server company," dude.) I do agree that being an idiot doesn't make you a troll, so your downmods are unfair. But the stupidity == trolling meme is widespread on Slashdot, so you shouldn't take it personally.
Hey! It's only fair!
Why should an insurance company have to make you rich?
Uh, what exactly did TPP say that implied that they do?
Believe it or not, you *don't* have a right to free money in this world.
Unless, of course, you work for Bain Capital.
So you claim you're just contradicting me without evidence?
I'm tempted to quote the dictionary definition of "argument", but you'd probably come back with some weird shtick about diction.
People who have XP usually stick with XP. They might replace it with Linux because they think Linux is better, or they might upgrade to 7 or 8 because they have to run software that's not supported on XP or because there's some new feature they want. Either way, the fact that Linux is free is irrelevant.
I think you got the TTL wrong.
Since you can't buy a new PC without paying for Windows (even if it's not installed) price is pretty much beside the point.
You're not supposed to "figure them out". You're supposed to look at them. If you stop worrying about how strange Picasso's work is (why should a computer geek, of all people, be put off by "strange"?) and just try to enjoy the dude's sense of color, form, and play, you might get somewhere.
Please note: I'm not an artistic type. (Though some people like my casual phone pictures, for reasons that are a mystery to me.) I'm just an aging computer geek who enjoys looking at stuff,
And yet all news sites have them. Strange.
You're assuming that I share your view of Obama as evil and a betrayer of his principles. I disagree with many of his policies, but I don't believe that any leader of a major power can act as pure-mindedly as you want them to. Indeed, some of the worst evils in history are committed by people who insist on moral purity.
The difference between Obama and the fool you choose to paraphrase is not between lesser and greater evils. It's a difference between an intelligent, well-educated person who's doing the best he can despite his moral errors and a person of limited intelligence and education who can't sustain a train of thought that doesn't end with a cute punchline.
Really, there were three choices: I could vote for some third party zealot whose motives are pure but whose ability to influence events are nonexistent (that's true even if, by some miracle, we actually elected the zealot); an idiot whose rise to power would have represented my worst nightmares; and a guy who went on to do things I have moral qualms about but who has managed to accomplish stuff I consider important, Easy choice.
You obviously disagree, judging from your big list on nothingchanged.org. I could try to explain to you why I think your list is BS, but I doubt that it would be a productive.
You spoiled your routine by ending it with a Sarah Palin imitation, reminding us that the alternative to Obama was to put Mrs. Moose Hunter one aged heartbeat away from the Presidency. Whatever Obama's sins, I'm sure she could top them without even trying.
Everybody sees it as a war, the decisions are made in secret, and the strikes are carried out by robot airplanes. What's loony about an accurate description?
Actually, Orthodox Muslim women do buy and use makeup. They just don't show their made up faces in public.
You're not wrong, though. A sufficiently conservative Muslim is offended by a anything resembling a "graven image", even a drawing of an animal.
Your rant doesn't go far enough. Browsers, especially mobile browsers, have gone way beyond just displaying information. I think that maybe 90% of all the apps I've seen could be implemented on the web. There are security and privacy issues of course, but that's true for apps as well.
I think people write apps because that's what they know how to do. Writing an application that exists mainly in the cloud is a new paradigm, and it's going to be a while before developers adapt to it.
Hey, Obama has launched twice as many drone strikes in 3 years as Bush launched in 8! That means he's killed twice as many terrorists.
On the downside, he's killed twice as many innocent bystanders.
Whatever their official reasons, I doubt that this is about security or good taste or anything like that. Apple simply doesn't like controversy. That's why they wouldn't allow a Bush Leaves count down clock.
Jeez, dude, if you can't learn to speak Newspeak properly, I'm going to report you to the Thought Police. You need to get rid of grammatical ornamentation and expressive subtlety. Try
Why oldthink? Apple give doubleplusfreedom. Be goodthinkful.
Actually, most bureaucrats I've known share your weird approach to logic. It helps them dream up rules for frustrating people.
Maybe you're not a right wing wacko, but the way you angrily and obsessively motives into a simple spelling error is pretty wacky.
Of course, I don't really know what's going on in other people's brains. And neither do you.
Right, because everybody in the U.S. is so good at spelling.
We you one of those people who claimed that Obama was an elitist because he was heard asking for Poupon mustard for his burger?
Your ability to mash together unrelated ideas into one big pseudoargument is really quite impressive.
I suppose I have a good eye. Never really had a chance to train it.
I don't think there's anything magic about the Linux kernel. Yes, it's popular for embedded applications, but it's got lots of competition. If you use Android on a device, it's because you see that "nice environment" as essential to your product. I don't see manufacturers crippling the Android environment just to make it more camera-centric. If you advertise a device as Android-based, consumers will expect the full Android environment.
Another responder pointed out that proprietary camera OSs often have really clumsy implementations of WiFi, because they weren't designed with WiFi in mind. So if somebody really wants easy-to-use WiFi, Android might make sense, even if WiFi is the only Android feature you ever use.
I'm forced to back away from my assertion of "overkill". It occurs to me that most systems and devices have more computing power and functionality than they need, because throwing a standard platform at a problem is often the cheapest solution.
So what? Something can be worthy of contempt without being illegal.
Whatever happened to all that 'redundancy' and 'routing around damage' thing?
It was never there. The idea that IP networks were invented to survive a nuclear attack is pretty much a myth.