Re:This is turning into a VI or Emacs topic
on
KDE 3.0 Screenshots
·
· Score: 1
Actually...I just got RH 7.2, and although I placed Gnome as the default desktop, I also slapped KDE 2.2 on there, since I haven't tried KDE since 1.2 or there abouts. I did not like KDE back then...
...but since my first time trying the new KDE, I have yet to go back to Gnome. I still use my fave gnome apps, but Konqueror and the rest just blew me away and I found myself wanting to use them so much, I installed KDE 2.2 on my work machine as well.
BOTH Gnome and KDE have their merits and flaws, but I think I have been converted to KDE for now. I am one who actually likes Nautilus, but even on my 900mhz, it kinda drags upon start up or loading a new window... Konqueror jumps up and says, "Ready to serve! Which website would you like me to anti-alias today?" before I can set down my glass of cola.
Oh, and the fading menus are nice too, but I eventually turned those off since I like my menus to just show up...not animate, not fade, just be there to click on.
Ya know, I do agree with you to a point: MS did push/prode some for of standards on personal computers back in the day. The merits of their system (I hated DOS then too) can be debated elsewhere.
Now, that said...
What if there had never been Microsoft? What if Bill Gates had decided to sell insurance and then get into designing role-playing games instead?
Would we not have PC's today? Would we still be in the 70's era of computers?
I highly doubt it. Somehow, we would have stilled ended up with PCs today, probably just with another OS and such. (Like OS Warp or even a true desktop *nix, who knows?)
So, arguing that MS is responsible for where we are today is kinda pointless and giving them lots of credit for it is just as so. They were in the right place, pushed the right buttons, and did so at the right time. Nothing more.
For Win32, I use an alternative desktop shell called Geoshell. (Or ge0Shell, whatever.) It's really nice...cuts down on resource load, etc... And it's opened source. Basically, it puts "geobars" on your desktop that you add plug-ins too that can do nifty things.
With it, I have little to no desire to see Gnome on a Win32 desktop (other than for the geekiness of it;) and I now have a nice, quick, personalized Win32 desktop.
This might have already been mentioned, but The Sims would work great. Mostly icon based, teaches problem solving, basic budget management, and maybe an added benefit considering your situation, but also basic human interaction. (Being nice is better, etc...;)
1.) If, lets say MS (or any other company) planted users to promote their product on Slashdot, it would just be very sad and kinda funny.
2.) If both of those posters, just by coincidence, happen to write the exact same phrases in almost the exact same way, then I would think they share something beyond our material realm of understanding. They should meet face to face and get together. They could have beautiful children.
I never really thought the rumors of MS lackeys were on slashdot posting pro-MS stuff was true, really...just geek paranoia, but after reading through the messages for this story, I came upon these two...and the almost exact phrases makes me wonder...
>Re:windows xp is the shit. (Score:1)
>by stevenbee on Thursday August 30, @08:12AM (#2234385)
>(User #227371 Info)
>I've been running Windows XP for the last couple
>of weeks. It's amazingly fast and stable.
>The interface is clean and intuitive. Can't wait
>to see what developers do with it. The
>drivers and gaming support are awesome. Truly an
>amazing OS, maybe the best yet.
...and...
>Re:On Oct. 25th (Score:1)
>by Waldo_Jeffers on Thursday August 30, @08:19AM (#2234408)
>(User #518590 Info)
>I've been running Windows XP for the last couple
>of weeks. It's amazingly fast and stable.
>The interface is clean and intuitive. Truly an
>amazing Desktop OS, maybe the best yet.
I think it's easy for us geeks to forget why such things as Red Carpet are needed.
I will always argue that apt-get has to be one of the best linux app installers, but a huge part of apt-get is command-line oriented. Red Carpet, although using rpm's, is graphical and is much easier for a gui-oriented linux user to handle. I've used Red Carpet and I like what I see so far, it goes a long way of making linux newbie-friendly. (...and all you CLI die-hards, please just hush.;)
As long as they price it right, I think a service like Red Carpet would be worth the money, just for ease of use, point-n-click, user-friendliness of installing new software and updates -- something that will bring *nix further along, because right now, I see two things holding us back: a really kick-ass office suite (coming along nicely, really) and ease-of-use software installation.
I, for one, am willing to pay money for *good* software and services...
The article seems to make it sound as if l0phtcrack made it possible for him to do what he did...when, in reality, it was the operating system on the server that l0phtcrack uses.
Does that mean we (they) should ban the OS instead?
Holland may have the voter sway locally, but with such strong groups as the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, it's not just a local thing.
I'm from Grand Haven and can attest to what you mention about this area's highly religious community. Yet, it's not even that that pertains to the problem here.
The problem lies in the fact that people just don't want to be responsible -- it is easier to say, "Sure, let's filter!" than it is to say, "Hmm, maybe I should be looking over Robbie's shoulder and keep an eye on him."
I've worked at a local ISP here in Grand Haven for the last several years and have talked to a wide group of our users about a great many things dealing with the 'Net. A lot of newbie parents *do* ask about pornagraphy and other related "indecent" material that is freely available on the Internet. When they ask [me] what they can do about it, I answer, "Well, you can get some filtering software to block some things, but nothing is going to help as well as just keeping an eye on what they are doing online."
I tend to get one of two replies...
They either understand or I'll get something along this line, "Well, they are online when I'm at work..." or "I don't have time to watch them surf about looking for Pokemon..." Those are the more gentle; I once had a customer more forcibly tell me that they were his children and he trusted them and did not need to watch them. (I refrained from asking the obvious...)
The fact is, though, we as Americans don't let our children smoke because it's bad for them. We don't let them have guns because firearms are dangerous. We don't let them drive because they might hurt themselves.
Why then, if the 'Net is such a dangerous place for our children, are we willing to let them go without supervision in the first place, and let some piece of flimsy software do the parental guidance instead?
The answer lies in the fact that your average online parent does not know how the 'Net works beyond clicking a link or e-mail. They don't understand it and are unsure how to guide their children online. We can recommend that our children don't smoke because we know why it's bad for them. We teach them how to handle firearms as they grow older because we know the consequences of accidental shootings. And we school our children how to drive a vehicle because we have all rubbernecked and saw our share of totaled cars and broken lives. Parents can understand those things, they are familiar with the how's and why's, but not so with the web. It's too new and unknown.
There is no easy answer, really, because there is no one single person, no one single parent, and no one single child. I know that filtering is surely not the way, until such time that computers can use real intelligence instead of regular expression matches, which obviously can be fooled.
Yeah, well...Bezerkeley is a helluva lot better and fun to be around than some boring places. Like, let's say, the West Michigan area around Holland and Grand Haven. I recommend a visit, for FreeBSD or not, just to experience the place.
Okay, so if you saw the movie, you know how it ends. But, *what* happened? I thought about it long afterwards, was it the ghost, or something less paranormal, but equally deadly.
I saw the movie with my sister, her daughters, and my friend. My friend didn't like it, my nieces didn't sleep that night, my sister was spooked and thoughtful, and I was just thoughtful and spooked. However, she had better thoughtfulness than I did. Go figure.
Anyways, here is a small recap of what happened:
Heather, Josh, and Mike go hiking to look for "the old cemetary" which they never really found, unless you count the clearing with the piles of rocks as it. Slowly the realize they are lost, because of Heather's assurance she knows the way, when she doesn't. Eventually, they stumble upon another clearing with human effigies made out of bound sticks hanging from the trees. Heather cuts one down to take with her. At night, for sure lost now, they hear things at night when they camp, seemingly all around them. Between being lost and scared, the three start to bicker and eventually argue and fight. After several more nights of sounds outside the tent, the worst comes when the tent is assaulted by what sounds like playful children who quickly run off when chased. After that, the trio decide to take watches at night. One night, Josh disappears. Next day, Heather and Mike search, yell, but do not find him. They camp the next night alone and they heard Josh yelling for help, upon waking the next morning they find a tied bundle of sticks with strips of cloth from Josh's shirt. Later, Heather opens the bundle of sticks alone and finds what appears to be a tongue inside. She privately freaks, but her and Mike continue on. The next night, they hear Josh again, this time Mike runs and follows, with Heather close behind. (Filming of course.) Mike finds the house, goes inside, up the stairs, down the stairs, ends up in the cellar, Heather follows, both die. (We presume.) End of movie.
Now, what exactly happened? My sister's thoughts on the issue, assuming that the witch *was* real:
Josh was not kidnapped, per se, but was possessed instead. Think about these few things: 1.) He was the first to hear the sounds at night. 2.) His hear is the only gear to have the "oily substance" all over them. 3.) He started talking weird after the first few nights of sounds, talking about "being distanced" from the world and such.
Maybe, much in the same way that Rustin Parr was "possessed" when he killed the children in the 1940's. There is never any proof that it is *Josh's* tongue in the bundle of sticks, it could be an animals or another victom's. The ghost, using Josh, lures the other two to the old house where they are needed so she can Josh can perform the unholy rituals the ghost needs to survive. What happens to Josh afterwards? *Somebody* had to bury the film footage to hide it, and I'd be willing to bet that he is still out there, somewhere...biding his time to do more of the witch's bidding.
Plausible? It makes a strange sort of sense, actually, but who knows? Our only other theory had to do with Bun Bun from Sluggy Freelance.
ATTENTION: MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKED FOR!!! DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU PLAN TO SEE THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, AND DON'T WANT IT SPOILED!!!
Okay, that said...
You missed a *lot* of what was shown in the last few scenes, that actually made the whole deal even spookier.
1.) Bloody children's handprints on the walls, all up and down the walls along the stairs. That, in and of itself, was creepy... Especially when you tie in the history of the house, plus what was heard on the night before Josh disappeared.
2.) The occult symbols that also were on some walls as Mike and Heather moved throughout the house. Heather actually stops and points the camera at one triangle looking symbol for a brief moment. From the webpage, in the interview with Rustin Parr, on of the reporters asked Rustin if he is the one who drew the the strange writing on his walls.
There might be more, but I'd have to watch it again, which I would not mind. I'm sure there is something I missed the first time.
This is an issue I have had to deal with for the last four years. It was then that I moved from BBSing to the 'Net and the gateways of meeting people online opened up. Since then, I have met...oh, quite a few...about 5 or so people that I met in chat rooms in Real Life. And, although she would kill me if she saw this, I met my fiance online as well. I'll get to why she'd kill me in a moment....
Fact is, though, we *do* make friends online. But, just like meeting friends at college, you have to be paranoid and cautious. Perhaps, more so. Most of all, use a bit of what we have in Common Sense. When I met my first person, I traveled to LA, so you can imagine that I was very cautious even though we talked on the phone quite often for several months. We met in a public place, with plenty of people, and talked before we ever left anywhere else together.
That set the pattern for all the rest of the meetings.
I did not have to read any "Rules of Meeting People In Real Life" before hand, I just used my head before I jumped the gun. In fact, I had never seen a list like that until *after* that first trip. I knew there were risks involved and I could forsee the consequences, so I took measures to prevent them. Nothing is perfect, however, but a good bit of precaution can go a long way.
And you might end up making a good Real Life friend out of it.
Now, on to my fiance. She is actually one of the first people I talked to in a "Internet" chat room and we became friends over time, even collabing on some stories. Over time, our friendship was more. Now, at that time, the idea of a 'Net relationship was not on my mind...the idea was kind of...well, silly. But, at the same time, I could not deny that I felt more than just friendship. Through our collabs and our long phone talks, we got to know each other pretty well. So, it was decided, that for once and for all, we'd have to meet face to face -- just to find out.
We met, I met her parents and family and we took things slowly. A step at a time, just to make sure we *knew* what we were doing and not making some huge mistake...possibly one that would ruin a good friendship. We knew that it would be risky, open to much criticism, but after that first week with her, I knew I did not want to be apart.
And, for the record, there has never been any sexual intercourse. She is a stick-by-her-guns kind of woman and she will not until marriage. Male as I am, this has frustrated me, but at the same time, boosted my pride in her.
That was back in '96. It's '99 now and our eventual marriage is just around the corner. Her parents approve of me -- and them being very traditional Chinese descent, I had a big mountain to climb there *wipes brow* -- and so does her extended family.
However, she *hates* to let people know how we met. She fears the stigma and heavy critisicm that 'Net relationships have. Hell, even I had some negative beliefs about such before hand. If someone asks about it, she will tell, but she will never volunteer. I, personally, think we are freaky and abnormal, because we have succeeded in building a loving relationship from what started, in the beginning, as a chat and e-mail. I would, however, not recommend it to people who do not have the patience for it.
One thing, though, that has helped us succeed: brutal honesty. And we know all about honesty on the 'Net now, don't we? Heh.
As with any community and culture, there are the bad elements who are self-centered, self-serving, and with no personal respect for others. At time, we are all guilty of this, but the majority are better people than that. The minority, those who lie, devise, and purposely cause harm for their own satisfaction are those to look out for. And, of course, they're now on the 'Net as well.
I'll never tell someone not to meet someone off the 'Net, but I will urge them to think carefully, ponder about the consequences, and not to take risky chances until you have gotten to spend more time with a person in real life in public.
As with all things we do, online and off, we have to use common sense and consequences to guide us.
Um, try to explain mounting a CD-ROM or floppy for access. Until that one little simple function is taken care of, too many people are not going to be productive on Linux. Most of us, we're spoiled because we're geeks.
At one point, a few months ago, I was going to put RH5.2 on my mother machine to get rid of her Windoze problems...but I stopped and thought, "She already bugs me enough with Windows, but at least she can surf, listen to her CD's and handles most installations herself." Now, I would still be stuck at my parents place if I had done that. True, her machine would run a *lot* better and stable, but my sanity would not....
Yo...you have a point. Most businesses *do not* want profit. Profit is taxable, thus bad. However, they usually want enough to reinvest into their business and to get the most out of what they invest in.
But it's a bit of the greed of the few who muck things up. They want personal gain that comes from the net profits, but most businesses do not operate that way. They'd lose a lot to taxes in the long run.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually...I just got RH 7.2, and although I placed Gnome as the default desktop, I also slapped KDE 2.2 on there, since I haven't tried KDE since 1.2 or there abouts. I did not like KDE back then...
...but since my first time trying the new KDE, I have yet to go back to Gnome. I still use my fave gnome apps, but Konqueror and the rest just blew me away and I found myself wanting to use them so much, I installed KDE 2.2 on my work machine as well.
BOTH Gnome and KDE have their merits and flaws, but I think I have been converted to KDE for now. I am one who actually likes Nautilus, but even on my 900mhz, it kinda drags upon start up or loading a new window... Konqueror jumps up and says, "Ready to serve! Which website would you like me to anti-alias today?" before I can set down my glass of cola.
Oh, and the fading menus are nice too, but I eventually turned those off since I like my menus to just show up...not animate, not fade, just be there to click on.
Ya know, I do agree with you to a point: MS did push/prode some for of standards on personal computers back in the day. The merits of their system (I hated DOS then too) can be debated elsewhere.
Now, that said...
What if there had never been Microsoft? What if Bill Gates had decided to sell insurance and then get into designing role-playing games instead?
Would we not have PC's today? Would we still be in the 70's era of computers?
I highly doubt it. Somehow, we would have stilled ended up with PCs today, probably just with another OS and such. (Like OS Warp or even a true desktop *nix, who knows?)
So, arguing that MS is responsible for where we are today is kinda pointless and giving them lots of credit for it is just as so. They were in the right place, pushed the right buttons, and did so at the right time. Nothing more.
For Win32, I use an alternative desktop shell called Geoshell. (Or ge0Shell, whatever.) It's really nice...cuts down on resource load, etc... And it's opened source. Basically, it puts "geobars" on your desktop that you add plug-ins too that can do nifty things.
With it, I have little to no desire to see Gnome on a Win32 desktop (other than for the geekiness of it
Links:
http://www.geoshell.com/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/geoshell
This might have already been mentioned, but The Sims would work great. Mostly icon based, teaches problem solving, basic budget management, and maybe an added benefit considering your situation, but also basic human interaction. (Being nice is better, etc... ;)
Well...
1.) If, lets say MS (or any other company) planted users to promote their product on Slashdot, it would just be very sad and kinda funny.
2.) If both of those posters, just by coincidence, happen to write the exact same phrases in almost the exact same way, then I would think they share something beyond our material realm of understanding. They should meet face to face and get together. They could have beautiful children.
I never really thought the rumors of MS lackeys were on slashdot posting pro-MS stuff was true, really...just geek paranoia, but after reading through the messages for this story, I came upon these two...and the almost exact phrases makes me wonder...
>Re:windows xp is the shit. (Score:1)
>by stevenbee on Thursday August 30, @08:12AM (#2234385)
>(User #227371 Info)
>I've been running Windows XP for the last couple
>of weeks. It's amazingly fast and stable.
>The interface is clean and intuitive. Can't wait
>to see what developers do with it. The
>drivers and gaming support are awesome. Truly an
>amazing OS, maybe the best yet.
...and...
>Re:On Oct. 25th (Score:1)
>by Waldo_Jeffers on Thursday August 30, @08:19AM (#2234408)
>(User #518590 Info)
>I've been running Windows XP for the last couple
>of weeks. It's amazingly fast and stable.
>The interface is clean and intuitive. Truly an
>amazing Desktop OS, maybe the best yet.
...is it just me or not? Funky.
I think it's easy for us geeks to forget why such things as Red Carpet are needed.
;)
I will always argue that apt-get has to be one of the best linux app installers, but a huge part of apt-get is command-line oriented. Red Carpet, although using rpm's, is graphical and is much easier for a gui-oriented linux user to handle. I've used Red Carpet and I like what I see so far, it goes a long way of making linux newbie-friendly. (...and all you CLI die-hards, please just hush.
As long as they price it right, I think a service like Red Carpet would be worth the money, just for ease of use, point-n-click, user-friendliness of installing new software and updates -- something that will bring *nix further along, because right now, I see two things holding us back: a really kick-ass office suite (coming along nicely, really) and ease-of-use software installation.
I, for one, am willing to pay money for *good* software and services...
The article seems to make it sound as if l0phtcrack made it possible for him to do what he did...when, in reality, it was the operating system on the server that l0phtcrack uses.
Does that mean we (they) should ban the OS instead?
Holland may have the voter sway locally, but with such strong groups as the Family Research Council and the American Family Association, it's not just a local thing.
I'm from Grand Haven and can attest to what you mention about this area's highly religious community. Yet, it's not even that that pertains to the problem here.
The problem lies in the fact that people just don't want to be responsible -- it is easier to say, "Sure, let's filter!" than it is to say, "Hmm, maybe I should be looking over Robbie's shoulder and keep an eye on him."
I've worked at a local ISP here in Grand Haven for the last several years and have talked to a wide group of our users about a great many things dealing with the 'Net. A lot of newbie parents *do* ask about pornagraphy and other related "indecent" material that is freely available on the Internet. When they ask [me] what they can do about it, I answer, "Well, you can get some filtering software to block some things, but nothing is going to help as well as just keeping an eye on what they are doing online."
I tend to get one of two replies...
They either understand or I'll get something along this line, "Well, they are online when I'm at work..." or "I don't have time to watch them surf about looking for Pokemon..." Those are the more gentle; I once had a customer more forcibly tell me that they were his children and he trusted them and did not need to watch them. (I refrained from asking the obvious...)
The fact is, though, we as Americans don't let our children smoke because it's bad for them. We don't let them have guns because firearms are dangerous. We don't let them drive because they might hurt themselves.
Why then, if the 'Net is such a dangerous place for our children, are we willing to let them go without supervision in the first place, and let some piece of flimsy software do the parental guidance instead?
The answer lies in the fact that your average online parent does not know how the 'Net works beyond clicking a link or e-mail. They don't understand it and are unsure how to guide their children online. We can recommend that our children don't smoke because we know why it's bad for them. We teach them how to handle firearms as they grow older because we know the consequences of accidental shootings. And we school our children how to drive a vehicle because we have all rubbernecked and saw our share of totaled cars and broken lives. Parents can understand those things, they are familiar with the how's and why's, but not so with the web. It's too new and unknown.
There is no easy answer, really, because there is no one single person, no one single parent, and no one single child. I know that filtering is surely not the way, until such time that computers can use real intelligence instead of regular expression matches, which obviously can be fooled.
SynTruth
Amen. (Or whatever) Being elite (l33t,er33t, whatever) just means joining somebody else's definition of correct, even if it's wrong.
Blah.
I generally distrust those who take pride in being elite, as they often become that which they tend to dislike in the first place. Heh.
Hmmm, I disagree...
M$ would have the smell of a well used, widely applied vat of petroleum jelly. From 1980, of course.
Oh, and userfriendly.org would smell like a mixture of very strong coffee and lady's perfume. Heh.
He controls your destiny.
He's a part of who you are.
Your next raise depends on him...
Go give him a hug.
But wait a minute, my camera is in the car...
Yeah, well...Bezerkeley is a helluva lot better and fun to be around than some boring places. Like, let's say, the West Michigan area around Holland and Grand Haven. I recommend a visit, for FreeBSD or not, just to experience the place.
Okay, so if you saw the movie, you know how it ends. But, *what* happened? I thought about it long afterwards, was it the ghost, or something less paranormal, but equally deadly.
I saw the movie with my sister, her daughters, and my friend. My friend didn't like it, my nieces didn't sleep that night, my sister was spooked and thoughtful, and I was just thoughtful and spooked. However, she had better thoughtfulness than I did. Go figure.
Anyways, here is a small recap of what happened:
Heather, Josh, and Mike go hiking to look for "the old cemetary" which they never really found, unless you count the clearing with the piles of rocks as it. Slowly the realize they are lost, because of Heather's assurance she knows the way, when she doesn't. Eventually, they stumble upon another clearing with human effigies made out of bound sticks hanging from the trees. Heather cuts one down to take with her. At night, for sure lost now, they hear things at night when they camp, seemingly all around them. Between being lost and scared, the three start to bicker and eventually argue and fight. After several more nights of sounds outside the tent, the worst comes when the tent is assaulted by what sounds like playful children who quickly run off when chased. After that, the trio decide to take watches at night. One night, Josh disappears. Next day, Heather and Mike search, yell, but do not find him. They camp the next night alone and they heard Josh yelling for help, upon waking the next morning they find a tied bundle of sticks with strips of cloth from Josh's shirt. Later, Heather opens the bundle of sticks alone and finds what appears to be a tongue inside. She privately freaks, but her and Mike continue on. The next night, they hear Josh again, this time Mike runs and follows, with Heather close behind. (Filming of course.) Mike finds the house, goes inside, up the stairs, down the stairs, ends up in the cellar, Heather follows, both die. (We presume.) End of movie.
Now, what exactly happened? My sister's thoughts on the issue, assuming that the witch *was* real:
Josh was not kidnapped, per se, but was possessed instead. Think about these few things: 1.) He was the first to hear the sounds at night. 2.) His hear is the only gear to have the "oily substance" all over them. 3.) He started talking weird after the first few nights of sounds, talking about "being distanced" from the world and such.
Maybe, much in the same way that Rustin Parr was "possessed" when he killed the children in the 1940's. There is never any proof that it is *Josh's* tongue in the bundle of sticks, it could be an animals or another victom's. The ghost, using Josh, lures the other two to the old house where they are needed so she can Josh can perform the unholy rituals the ghost needs to survive. What happens to Josh afterwards? *Somebody* had to bury the film footage to hide it, and I'd be willing to bet that he is still out there, somewhere...biding his time to do more of the witch's bidding.
Plausible? It makes a strange sort of sense, actually, but who knows? Our only other theory had to do with Bun Bun from Sluggy Freelance.
I add the same:
ATTENTION: MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKED FOR!!! DO NOT READ AHEAD IF YOU PLAN TO SEE THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, AND DON'T WANT IT SPOILED!!!
Okay, that said...
You missed a *lot* of what was shown in the last few scenes, that actually made the whole deal even spookier.
1.) Bloody children's handprints on the walls, all up and down the walls along the stairs. That, in and of itself, was creepy... Especially when you tie in the history of the house, plus what was heard on the night before Josh disappeared.
2.) The occult symbols that also were on some walls as Mike and Heather moved throughout the house. Heather actually stops and points the camera at one triangle looking symbol for a brief moment. From the webpage, in the interview with Rustin Parr, on of the reporters asked Rustin if he is the one who drew the the strange writing on his walls.
There might be more, but I'd have to watch it again, which I would not mind. I'm sure there is something I missed the first time.
*sighs*
This is an issue I have had to deal with for the last four years. It was then that I moved from BBSing to the 'Net and the gateways of meeting people online opened up. Since then, I have met...oh, quite a few...about 5 or so people that I met in chat rooms in Real Life. And, although she would kill me if she saw this, I met my fiance online as well. I'll get to why she'd kill me in a moment....
Fact is, though, we *do* make friends online. But, just like meeting friends at college, you have to be paranoid and cautious. Perhaps, more so. Most of all, use a bit of what we have in Common Sense. When I met my first person, I traveled to LA, so you can imagine that I was very cautious even though we talked on the phone quite often for several months. We met in a public place, with plenty of people, and talked before we ever left anywhere else together.
That set the pattern for all the rest of the meetings.
I did not have to read any "Rules of Meeting People In Real Life" before hand, I just used my head before I jumped the gun. In fact, I had never seen a list like that until *after* that first trip. I knew there were risks involved and I could forsee the consequences, so I took measures to prevent them. Nothing is perfect, however, but a good bit of precaution can go a long way.
And you might end up making a good Real Life friend out of it.
Now, on to my fiance. She is actually one of the first people I talked to in a "Internet" chat room and we became friends over time, even collabing on some stories. Over time, our friendship was more. Now, at that time, the idea of a 'Net relationship was not on my mind...the idea was kind of...well, silly. But, at the same time, I could not deny that I felt more than just friendship. Through our collabs and our long phone talks, we got to know each other pretty well. So, it was decided, that for once and for all, we'd have to meet face to face -- just to find out.
We met, I met her parents and family and we took things slowly. A step at a time, just to make sure we *knew* what we were doing and not making some huge mistake...possibly one that would ruin a good friendship. We knew that it would be risky, open to much criticism, but after that first week with her, I knew I did not want to be apart.
And, for the record, there has never been any sexual intercourse. She is a stick-by-her-guns kind of woman and she will not until marriage. Male as I am, this has frustrated me, but at the same time, boosted my pride in her.
That was back in '96. It's '99 now and our eventual marriage is just around the corner. Her parents approve of me -- and them being very traditional Chinese descent, I had a big mountain to climb there *wipes brow* -- and so does her extended family.
However, she *hates* to let people know how we met. She fears the stigma and heavy critisicm that 'Net relationships have. Hell, even I had some negative beliefs about such before hand. If someone asks about it, she will tell, but she will never volunteer. I, personally, think we are freaky and abnormal, because we have succeeded in building a loving relationship from what started, in the beginning, as a chat and e-mail. I would, however, not recommend it to people who do not have the patience for it.
One thing, though, that has helped us succeed: brutal honesty. And we know all about honesty on the 'Net now, don't we? Heh.
As with any community and culture, there are the bad elements who are self-centered, self-serving, and with no personal respect for others. At time, we are all guilty of this, but the majority are better people than that. The minority, those who lie, devise, and purposely cause harm for their own satisfaction are those to look out for. And, of course, they're now on the 'Net as well.
I'll never tell someone not to meet someone off the 'Net, but I will urge them to think carefully, ponder about the consequences, and not to take risky chances until you have gotten to spend more time with a person in real life in public.
As with all things we do, online and off, we have to use common sense and consequences to guide us.
Nothing else will suffice.
I have decided to call my system simply this:
!MSWindows
Takes care of it all. Have a nice day and eat more bran, will ya?
Um, try to explain mounting a CD-ROM or floppy for access. Until that one little simple function is taken care of, too many people are not going to be productive on Linux. Most of us, we're spoiled because we're geeks.
At one point, a few months ago, I was going to put RH5.2 on my mother machine to get rid of her Windoze problems...but I stopped and thought, "She already bugs me enough with Windows, but at least she can surf, listen to her CD's and handles most installations herself." Now, I would still be stuck at my parents place if I had done that. True, her machine would run a *lot* better and stable, but my sanity would not....
Yo...you have a point. Most businesses *do not* want profit. Profit is taxable, thus bad. However, they usually want enough to reinvest into their business and to get the most out of what they invest in.
But it's a bit of the greed of the few who muck things up. They want personal gain that comes from the net profits, but most businesses do not operate that way. They'd lose a lot to taxes in the long run.