My business is proving your sorry ass wrong. Please pay up the fee of a self-inflicted smack on your head, else you will be violating the right of my business to be paid. Also, I will not be satisfied or happy until you admit your black-and-white perceptions are foolishness. Thank you for preserving my rights.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but, uhhh, you weirdo, what're you going to think of next?
Thanks. While I wasn't trying to say "Dear slashdot I can't get linux to work help me -snol" it's a comfort that at least some people agree it could be made more intuitive without compromising the mission or something. I also didn't intend to start this damned controversy - really, I like some of the things Windows can do and I wish it did a lot of things more like Linux (i.e. more stable and tweakable and stuff. errr, you get the idea.) And I like the underdog as much as the next guy... Ah well. Just trying to say, no hard feelings between me and Linux; I don't have much of a right to make suggestions to Those Who Contribute but if I did it would be - emphasize the bloody ease of use. My radical ideas about software usability have occurred to others before. and they were right too. Windows is no dream either....ok, i've done enough damage now.
OK - Most everything you've said is fair. True, I can't fault Linux for my lack of patience - but Linux can't fault me either; we'll just mutually not get along until one of us changes. All the stuff about linux not being at fault for specless hardware, true true. But the last paragraph I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with - one of the main reasons I wanted linux instead of Windows was so I could tinker with more of the guts. The whole reason lots of Computer Experts don't like Windows is that it's insulting to the intelligence, right? I absolutely don't believe what you're saying about configs being user-unfriendly on purpose, and were it true Id think it was an awful idea.
Yeah. XF86 4.01 drivers. Which was not included in any of the distros I had access too last time I tried to install. Bad excuse, I know, but the first thing I want to do is NOT try vainly to figure out how to install a gui, without using a gui, right? You can tell I'm a Windows-educated loser.:P to you too. Don't be snide.
May be OT but improving [err... VASTLY improving] X would probably be the best thing to do if one hopes to see linuxes on average people's desktops anytime soon. I'd say dump it too but I don't know of anything to replace it with.
The reasons why this luser lisn't lusing Linux mostly have to do with the fact that I found it so durned hard to get the thing working --
- At any given point my graphics card is unsupported or else requires a more advanced version of XFree86 or else there's something in XF86Config (capitalization? oh well) that I'm missing. In other words, no matter what I do I wind up at 320x200 4-bit, when it doesn't just crash. I know, I know, I oughta have bought a compatible (read: older than my leet Geforce2) graphics card...
- I have no idea where to look for config files. Don't tell me; if I really wanted to know I'd buy a book. Also, it seems to me that Linuxes are typically less willing to try and figure things out their own durn selves than Windowses. In MS desktop OS's once you install your nic driver it goes and FINDS the darn DNS and gateway and all that shit, which yes I should know but why the hell should I have to type it in? If Windows can find all that stuff Linux should be able to.
- I'm afraid of the word "compile". I know, I know, you can't get away from it when you have software that has to be compatible between different distros. Probably it's all very easy; now go and convince your mother of that and I'll eat my words. Seriously, maybe APT is as good as everyone says it is; I'm just talking from the experience of four aborted installs.
- I want things that I need to know about to jump out at me - I don't want to dig through unfamiliar directories via the command prompt. I want a folder called "Control Panels." Maybe I'm just choosing the wrong distros or something.
Maybe I'm offtopic cause none of these are real kernel hardcore shit but leet-haX0r or no, if you want more otherwise-capable computer users to go over to Linux, these are the things that have to be taken care of. I'm not unsympathetic to issues about hardware mfgrs making drivers difficult to write but that doesn't change the fact that if my card don't work, my card don't work.
It ain't flamebait, it's food for thought, and if you MUST mod it down use "offtopic." Thanks.
Why so damned partisan? Everywhere I go it's "Democrats are stupid and corrupt and machines can count better than people and if people voted wrong they deserve to get their votes counted wrong and Bush should win because he won and because he's better" or else "Republicans are stupid and corrupt and a hand recount is the only way to be sure the count is right and the election should be based on what people actually think and not how their ballot turned out and Gore should win because he won the popular vote and becuase he's better."
Tell me I'm wrong. Seen many Democrats complaining about the process taking too long? Seen many Republicans saying we need to take our time and make sure we're right? It's all BS and you're not contributing by adding your sweeping generalizations and your personal attacks based on politicians' lineages. I don't mean to make this a personal attack but your post was by far the most blatantly partisan I've seen in this discussion so far (I've been reading Highest First, Nested. Maybe that helps explain it.) Can you honestly say that if the positions of the candidates were reversed you'd be yelling for Bush to step down?
Currently Dead is leading by a probability factor of about 1 in 40,000 and Alive is struggling to prevent the waveform from collapsing to a delta-function. Or vice-versa.
By the way, the gedanken experiment was designed specifically to show that the extreme-orthodox view of quantum (the cat's neither alive nor dead until the box is opened) is wrong. The whole point is that you can't imagine a cat being indeterminately living or dead.
It's a great faq; I agree with most everything on it; I just wish it was a bit more subtle in its partisanship. While it's good that its answers are mostly in the form of factual statements with references etc, it'd be even better if it left out the BS about Bush having supported hand recounts in the past implying that hand recounts are a good idea, and maybe stick in a few more token statements that agree with the Republican viewpoint.
On that note, I think it's awful that everyone's opinion on this issue is dictated by their political party. I wish people could do the trick of inverting the situation in their minds and imagining that the controversy was whether or not Bush got cheated out of a win. Of course, I can't quite do it myself so all I can do is try and appear as impartial as possible while arguing that there's no need to rush and the most important thing is to find out what the will of the people really was even if it does take a while. From that, unfortunately, you can probably guess my partisan standing.
As the numbers stand now, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" cost Gore Florida just as much as Nader did. You think there weren't at least 2000 people in that state who didn't vote for Gore specifically because of the way that statement played in the media??
Sorry. Rationalization is exactly what it was - I don't understand how you'd not see it as a strange response otherwise.
Other posters have argued this point better than I, but there's a specific point you're missing. The question was specifically about belief systems that actually have reasonable fear of being oppressed politically, and as such it alarmed me that his response mentioned only religions that have enough following, visibility, and status that they don't have any such fear.
Besides which, other posts have proved such fears are warranted, quoting Bush as saying he doesn't regard "witchcraft" meaning wicca as a religion. As such I think it's very reasonable to think that Bush purposely left at least that particular religion out of his statement because he does not think it deserves equal contstitutional protection. Does this convince you that the fears are justified?
ay ay ay. What it sounds like to me is this - you disapprove of drugs and so you think everyone else should be forced to comply. Your prescription of whipping people into shape is downright foolish. A 300-pound attitude adjuster will certainly discourage them from smoking weed, and probably also make them hate their lives even more. Going to jail and becoming some ex-marine's bitch, as you put it, is in the vast majority of cases going to ruin someone's life to a much greater extent than being a casual pot smoker, or even, say, casually smoking pot as well as taking LSD and mushrooms every so often.
By the way, being stoned does not make normal people violent. I'd advise your friend who sees dragons while stoned to seek psychological help. And no, not someone to beat him into submission - that does not produce upstanding citizens, it produces resentful violent jerks.
Don't be so certain your views are balanced. Read up online from nonbiased sources (I recommend www.alice.columbia.edu ) and don't go solely by what they told you in DARE. There are problems caused by drugs and there are problems caused by indiscriminately criminalizing so-called vices. I think you have moral convictions that are based on things having been pounded into your head and which you think should be put into law (many of them already are, of course) despite the fact that their practice harms no one who did not make their own decision. Putting people in jail for things that hurt no one but themselves is stupid because being sent to jail is one of the most hurtful things that can be done to a person. If you're concerned that drugs and prostitution hurt others besides their practitioners, you have to weigh the opposing freedoms. Suffice it for me to say that marijuana was not originally banned because pot smokers hurt other people, but because of abstract ideas like your own about what people should be allowed to do to their own bodies and minds. This type of law makes about as much sense as those which ban consensual sodomy, which are still on the books in many states. Reactionary, dogmatic, nonsensical.
Maybe you could clarify some of your points for me.
- I agree, people shouldn't have to die just becaue they fell off a cliff - but we can't really do anything about that. We can, however, make it so kids don't have to be fucked over by laws against consensual crimes. Shouldn't we do so since we can?
- Which of carcinogenic, mildly hallucinogenic, and inhibiton-lowering is grounds for making something illegal?
- You've established that when most kids smoke weed it's an informed decision. Should we then decriminalize the sale of drugs since one of the main premises was that pushers sell to kids who don't know better?
- What kinds of punishment will better the situations of kids who choose to smoke weed?
- Is "new-aged non-violent let's-talk" supposed to be bad? New-aged is a derogatory term that doesn't mean much of anything as far as I know; non-violent is a good thing, again as far as I know; and talking about our feelings may or may not be the most productive things to do but isn't really bad... Would you like to elaborate?
Can I assume either that you are a member of a religion that is mainstream enough to have no fear of oppression, or that you like Bush enough for other reasons that you're willing to deny that it was a pretty ignorant thing for him to say? I'm pretty certain that alarm bells were ringing in the heads of most atheists, wiccans et al. I am surprised that he mentioned Mormonism and not, for instance, Catholicism, but in any case it did nothing to address the fears of people whose religions really are weak enough so that few would dispute their persecution. In my opinion the fact that he listed a few religions rather than making a blanket statement about all belief systems signals that something is wrong about his beliefs on this subject.
Just wanted to point something out --
If you support Browne (which you haven't SAID you do, but you did take some time to counter some exaggerated statements about him...) you should be aware that he wants exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting in terms of campaign finance reform. From a libertarian viewpoint it's ludicrous that one should be forbidden to give money to whatever political candidate they want. To me they seem to be inviting corruption - full disclosure simply won't be enough to keep bribery in check.
Re:Hmm, perhaps there is an upper end to reflex sp
on
Quickie Twister
·
· Score: 1
You've got it backwards - at least in my browser, the larger the screen the slower it fills up and the more time you have to press. At 1280x1024 with the browser maximized it's fairly easy to get 0 if you pre-press the stop button. In other words, the game means nothing.
Oh, there's no conspiracy - it's just that corporations are able to do things that normal people would find unconscionable, cause no person has to take full responsiblilty. Of course they don't want you to vote for Nader; Nader's got it in for them.
This system is designed to be used on propriatory hardware just like DVDs, with region encoding and other bells and whistles. The public accepted DVD players, why would they not accept similar restrictions in a music player if it does not hurt them too much?
Cause there are already plenty of non-crippled audio players out there, in whatever format you like. The whole point of watermarking is that they expect it to be ripped to mp3, yes? And without lots of further legislation, there will still be new mp3 (or maybe ogg?) players coming out for the forseeable future.
Point being, that "yes" that you seem to think is there won't stop much of any (illicit or other) copying since that copying is likely to take it out of the protected format.
As someone who did an internship in a small branch of a small branch of Ligo, I feel pretty safe in saying that the problem with this project won't be an abundance of false results, but more likely a lack of results altogether. Firstly, the mindset in the project is not one of weeding out noise to get clean results, but more of searching the noise for possible results. The project is actually looking for a very specific signal, namely the gravitational wave signature given off by a pair of neutron stars falling into each other. This event isn't something that is expected to happen within our signal range very often: estimates range from once a month to never. Given that it will be a surprise to everyone when and if there is a signal that appears to be what they're looking for, I don't think you should be worried about overzealous scientists being duped into thinking an insect is actually a pair of neutron stars.
Slashdot Mirror
if the 30-year-old doesn't feel competent to install the censorware himself,
good lord
nevermind
it's too depressing to think about
My business is proving your sorry ass wrong. Please pay up the fee of a self-inflicted smack on your head, else you will be violating the right of my business to be paid. Also, I will not be satisfied or happy until you admit your black-and-white perceptions are foolishness. Thank you for preserving my rights.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but, uhhh, you weirdo, what're you going to think of next?
I'd kinda like to have it on my average desktop, if I may be allowed. Does this upset you?
Thanks. While I wasn't trying to say "Dear slashdot I can't get linux to work help me -snol" it's a comfort that at least some people agree it could be made more intuitive without compromising the mission or something. I also didn't intend to start this damned controversy - really, I like some of the things Windows can do and I wish it did a lot of things more like Linux (i.e. more stable and tweakable and stuff. errr, you get the idea.) And I like the underdog as much as the next guy... Ah well. Just trying to say, no hard feelings between me and Linux; I don't have much of a right to make suggestions to Those Who Contribute but if I did it would be - emphasize the bloody ease of use. My radical ideas about software usability have occurred to others before. and they were right too. Windows is no dream either. ...ok, i've done enough damage now.
OK - Most everything you've said is fair. True, I can't fault Linux for my lack of patience - but Linux can't fault me either; we'll just mutually not get along until one of us changes. All the stuff about linux not being at fault for specless hardware, true true. But the last paragraph I've got to wholeheartedly disagree with - one of the main reasons I wanted linux instead of Windows was so I could tinker with more of the guts. The whole reason lots of Computer Experts don't like Windows is that it's insulting to the intelligence, right? I absolutely don't believe what you're saying about configs being user-unfriendly on purpose, and were it true Id think it was an awful idea.
Yeah. XF86 4.01 drivers. Which was not included in any of the distros I had access too last time I tried to install. Bad excuse, I know, but the first thing I want to do is NOT try vainly to figure out how to install a gui, without using a gui, right? You can tell I'm a Windows-educated loser. :P to you too. Don't be snide.
May be OT but improving [err... VASTLY improving] X would probably be the best thing to do if one hopes to see linuxes on average people's desktops anytime soon. I'd say dump it too but I don't know of anything to replace it with.
The reasons why this luser lisn't lusing Linux mostly have to do with the fact that I found it so durned hard to get the thing working --
- At any given point my graphics card is unsupported or else requires a more advanced version of XFree86 or else there's something in XF86Config (capitalization? oh well) that I'm missing. In other words, no matter what I do I wind up at 320x200 4-bit, when it doesn't just crash. I know, I know, I oughta have bought a compatible (read: older than my leet Geforce2) graphics card...
- I have no idea where to look for config files. Don't tell me; if I really wanted to know I'd buy a book. Also, it seems to me that Linuxes are typically less willing to try and figure things out their own durn selves than Windowses. In MS desktop OS's once you install your nic driver it goes and FINDS the darn DNS and gateway and all that shit, which yes I should know but why the hell should I have to type it in? If Windows can find all that stuff Linux should be able to.
- I'm afraid of the word "compile". I know, I know, you can't get away from it when you have software that has to be compatible between different distros. Probably it's all very easy; now go and convince your mother of that and I'll eat my words. Seriously, maybe APT is as good as everyone says it is; I'm just talking from the experience of four aborted installs.
- I want things that I need to know about to jump out at me - I don't want to dig through unfamiliar directories via the command prompt. I want a folder called "Control Panels." Maybe I'm just choosing the wrong distros or something.
Maybe I'm offtopic cause none of these are real kernel hardcore shit but leet-haX0r or no, if you want more otherwise-capable computer users to go over to Linux, these are the things that have to be taken care of. I'm not unsympathetic to issues about hardware mfgrs making drivers difficult to write but that doesn't change the fact that if my card don't work, my card don't work.
It ain't flamebait, it's food for thought, and if you MUST mod it down use "offtopic." Thanks.
Why so damned partisan? Everywhere I go it's "Democrats are stupid and corrupt and machines can count better than people and if people voted wrong they deserve to get their votes counted wrong and Bush should win because he won and because he's better" or else "Republicans are stupid and corrupt and a hand recount is the only way to be sure the count is right and the election should be based on what people actually think and not how their ballot turned out and Gore should win because he won the popular vote and becuase he's better." Tell me I'm wrong. Seen many Democrats complaining about the process taking too long? Seen many Republicans saying we need to take our time and make sure we're right? It's all BS and you're not contributing by adding your sweeping generalizations and your personal attacks based on politicians' lineages. I don't mean to make this a personal attack but your post was by far the most blatantly partisan I've seen in this discussion so far (I've been reading Highest First, Nested. Maybe that helps explain it.) Can you honestly say that if the positions of the candidates were reversed you'd be yelling for Bush to step down?
By the way, the gedanken experiment was designed specifically to show that the extreme-orthodox view of quantum (the cat's neither alive nor dead until the box is opened) is wrong. The whole point is that you can't imagine a cat being indeterminately living or dead.
On that note, I think it's awful that everyone's opinion on this issue is dictated by their political party. I wish people could do the trick of inverting the situation in their minds and imagining that the controversy was whether or not Bush got cheated out of a win. Of course, I can't quite do it myself so all I can do is try and appear as impartial as possible while arguing that there's no need to rush and the most important thing is to find out what the will of the people really was even if it does take a while. From that, unfortunately, you can probably guess my partisan standing.
Interesting that Gore and Lieberman are listed as defendants in the lawsuit alongside Bush, Cheney, and the Palm Beach County election bureaucracy.
As the numbers stand now, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" cost Gore Florida just as much as Nader did. You think there weren't at least 2000 people in that state who didn't vote for Gore specifically because of the way that statement played in the media??
Sorry. Rationalization is exactly what it was - I don't understand how you'd not see it as a strange response otherwise. Other posters have argued this point better than I, but there's a specific point you're missing. The question was specifically about belief systems that actually have reasonable fear of being oppressed politically, and as such it alarmed me that his response mentioned only religions that have enough following, visibility, and status that they don't have any such fear. Besides which, other posts have proved such fears are warranted, quoting Bush as saying he doesn't regard "witchcraft" meaning wicca as a religion. As such I think it's very reasonable to think that Bush purposely left at least that particular religion out of his statement because he does not think it deserves equal contstitutional protection. Does this convince you that the fears are justified?
ay ay ay. What it sounds like to me is this - you disapprove of drugs and so you think everyone else should be forced to comply. Your prescription of whipping people into shape is downright foolish. A 300-pound attitude adjuster will certainly discourage them from smoking weed, and probably also make them hate their lives even more. Going to jail and becoming some ex-marine's bitch, as you put it, is in the vast majority of cases going to ruin someone's life to a much greater extent than being a casual pot smoker, or even, say, casually smoking pot as well as taking LSD and mushrooms every so often.
By the way, being stoned does not make normal people violent. I'd advise your friend who sees dragons while stoned to seek psychological help. And no, not someone to beat him into submission - that does not produce upstanding citizens, it produces resentful violent jerks.
Don't be so certain your views are balanced. Read up online from nonbiased sources (I recommend www.alice.columbia.edu ) and don't go solely by what they told you in DARE. There are problems caused by drugs and there are problems caused by indiscriminately criminalizing so-called vices. I think you have moral convictions that are based on things having been pounded into your head and which you think should be put into law (many of them already are, of course) despite the fact that their practice harms no one who did not make their own decision. Putting people in jail for things that hurt no one but themselves is stupid because being sent to jail is one of the most hurtful things that can be done to a person. If you're concerned that drugs and prostitution hurt others besides their practitioners, you have to weigh the opposing freedoms. Suffice it for me to say that marijuana was not originally banned because pot smokers hurt other people, but because of abstract ideas like your own about what people should be allowed to do to their own bodies and minds. This type of law makes about as much sense as those which ban consensual sodomy, which are still on the books in many states. Reactionary, dogmatic, nonsensical.
Maybe you could clarify some of your points for me.
- I agree, people shouldn't have to die just becaue they fell off a cliff - but we can't really do anything about that. We can, however, make it so kids don't have to be fucked over by laws against consensual crimes. Shouldn't we do so since we can?
- Which of carcinogenic, mildly hallucinogenic, and inhibiton-lowering is grounds for making something illegal?
- You've established that when most kids smoke weed it's an informed decision. Should we then decriminalize the sale of drugs since one of the main premises was that pushers sell to kids who don't know better?
- What kinds of punishment will better the situations of kids who choose to smoke weed?
- Is "new-aged non-violent let's-talk" supposed to be bad? New-aged is a derogatory term that doesn't mean much of anything as far as I know; non-violent is a good thing, again as far as I know; and talking about our feelings may or may not be the most productive things to do but isn't really bad... Would you like to elaborate?
Thanks in advance.
Can I assume either that you are a member of a religion that is mainstream enough to have no fear of oppression, or that you like Bush enough for other reasons that you're willing to deny that it was a pretty ignorant thing for him to say? I'm pretty certain that alarm bells were ringing in the heads of most atheists, wiccans et al. I am surprised that he mentioned Mormonism and not, for instance, Catholicism, but in any case it did nothing to address the fears of people whose religions really are weak enough so that few would dispute their persecution. In my opinion the fact that he listed a few religions rather than making a blanket statement about all belief systems signals that something is wrong about his beliefs on this subject.
Just wanted to point something out --
If you support Browne (which you haven't SAID you do, but you did take some time to counter some exaggerated statements about him...) you should be aware that he wants exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting in terms of campaign finance reform. From a libertarian viewpoint it's ludicrous that one should be forbidden to give money to whatever political candidate they want. To me they seem to be inviting corruption - full disclosure simply won't be enough to keep bribery in check.
You've got it backwards - at least in my browser, the larger the screen the slower it fills up and the more time you have to press. At 1280x1024 with the browser maximized it's fairly easy to get 0 if you pre-press the stop button. In other words, the game means nothing.
Hah! I got 0 seconds. No decimal point, no nothing. Beat that...
(ummm, don't ask me how...)
Oh, there's no conspiracy - it's just that corporations are able to do things that normal people would find unconscionable, cause no person has to take full responsiblilty. Of course they don't want you to vote for Nader; Nader's got it in for them.
True. What, do you think your average third-world peasant is in much of a position to corrupt the government?
The gall of this person posting several good points as an AC! I nearly missed it.
Cause there are already plenty of non-crippled audio players out there, in whatever format you like. The whole point of watermarking is that they expect it to be ripped to mp3, yes? And without lots of further legislation, there will still be new mp3 (or maybe ogg?) players coming out for the forseeable future.
Point being, that "yes" that you seem to think is there won't stop much of any (illicit or other) copying since that copying is likely to take it out of the protected format.
As someone who did an internship in a small branch of a small branch of Ligo, I feel pretty safe in saying that the problem with this project won't be an abundance of false results, but more likely a lack of results altogether. Firstly, the mindset in the project is not one of weeding out noise to get clean results, but more of searching the noise for possible results. The project is actually looking for a very specific signal, namely the gravitational wave signature given off by a pair of neutron stars falling into each other. This event isn't something that is expected to happen within our signal range very often: estimates range from once a month to never. Given that it will be a surprise to everyone when and if there is a signal that appears to be what they're looking for, I don't think you should be worried about overzealous scientists being duped into thinking an insect is actually a pair of neutron stars.