You're all a bunch of gibbering idiots. None of you could shell-script your way out of a paper bag. Don't you bunch of fucking clods know anything at all about anything at all? Anyone even slightly in the know would correctly say that TWM is the One, True Window Manager.
Any differing opinions will be considered heresy and disregarded.
Hey, how about not being so farking lazy and typing the word "YOU" instead of using the letter "U"?
Your post could be so much more easily deciphered if it had been written properly. Is it not easier to read this:
Isn't the item that is being enhanced partially owned by the person who owns the patent? So, really, they could come back and say that YOUR kids are not ALL yours!! Not only that, but if you had modifications made and were not able to pay for them (after the child was born) then they could REPO your kids..
Is it really that much of a burden to type the extra two characters, that your meaning becomes clear to your fellow man? I had to read your statement a couple of times because I kept stumbling over "ur", gestalting it into "our".
PUH-LEEZ! You say that anyone who can afford $30 worth of cheap-o computer hardware can run Linux and can, in a few short years, be prepared to take a top-paying job in the US? Come now. Surely you jest. There are a few problems with that theory. One of which is distribution. Even if a Mexican farmer, mired in the pit of poverty, were able to scrape together $30 for a PoS computer, where would he buy it?
More likely is the case that cheap fuel cells will change the face of humanity. Those exist NOW, but are encumbered by our DoD, DoE, and the energy industry in this country. If these things were to hit the market in an affordable fashion, gone would be the days of coal-burning power plants or (though they are much cleaner and safer) nuclear fission reactors. If ever fusion enters the picture in a meaningful way, and we've figured out a way to make a H->He-fusion/He->H-fission breeder reactor, power will be cheap and plentiful for everyone on earth.
THAT will be a revolution, and THAT will allow the hypothetical Mexican farmer to have the leisure time to buy a computer, learn C and C++ (or whatever), and go and search for a top-paying job in the US without starving.
Cripes... you'd think these people were running Linsux on their brains the way the reality mapping has been virtualized.
> In addition, a lot of that slash-and-burn farming is done to raise cattle for sale in America.
Umm... no.
The US beef industry is incredibly productive. Yes, the US uses lots of nifty hormones and whatnot in the food we feed the cows. Yes, it is probably those practices which have seen, as one of the earlier posters alluded to, and which I can see by observation to be true, sexual biological maturity occurring at an ever earlier age.
It is a fact, though, that the US _exports_ beef worldwide.
> Who, might I ask, are geek girls supposed to find a date with?
Me. I like geek girls.:-)
> This also begs the question: why can't geek girls be supportive, compassionate, and loving?
I don't know if he meant that, per se. Fact is, though, that obsessive behavior (sometimes to the point of neglecting other, very important life details) is a pretty common trait in geeks. Ever lose track of the time when coding something, or researching some little nuance of an algorithm that has piqued your interest? I have. I can see where that could become a bone of contention in a relationship, unless both people understand what's going on. The geek in question (be it a male or female of the species) must know that that behavior is not conducive to gettin' a little lovin' once in a while. The other half of the relationship must also realize that the behavior is not intentional, and that that behavior in no way means that the geek thinks or feels less of you.
Lots of us geeks have a problem with self-image. If I had a significant other, and that person spent more time doing (whatever) than spending time with me voluntarily, I might deduce (correctly or incorrectly) that that person has found a flaw in me that is causing them to not want to spend time with me. Geek guys and geek girls are susceptible to this mindset, and some might not realize that another's obsession with computing and technology might not be an escape from their inadequacy as a partner.
That said, I've examined myself and have noted that, while I have no problem concentrating on some little bit of code I'm toying with for hours on end, or rearranging and rewiring 3+ TB of disks with about 5 minutes of thought, I cannot seem to remember to take my vitamins in the morning. Neglecting those things doesn't mean that I value them less (when I've had the mindset to take my vitamins and thyroid medication for, say, a week straight, I'm rewarded greatly - those things really do help you feel better...), but it's a quirk in my personality.
> Guys need to be willing to drop coding for a night because sometimes their partner needs them > too.
Indeed. The question isn't whether the person values you enough to drop whatever he or she is doing, but whether the fact that he or she is needed is even realized.
Had I a significant other, I might be doing something quite geeky, walking around my apartment in my underwear (ack! the horror!) waving my hands around in a seemingly senseless dance in front of me (which is actually my using the air like an invisible whiteboard, figuring out some bit of an algorithm), and not notice that my partner was sitting on the couch, her knees drawn to her chest, staring blankly into the cushions, obviously bothered by something. It wouldn't be because I don't care for her, or that I'm insensitive to her needs, but that I've gone off on a tangent and need to be snapped back to reality.
Oh, well... too much. Gotta go out and find a geek girl to make us both unhappy (hell... I'd like someone to discuss weirdo algorithms with, bounce ideas off of her and see if she has any input that might help me...).
Which is, of course, perfectly idiotic. NH3 is (I hope I'm not wrong yet again) Ammonia, whereas Cyanide is HCN. Still, though, that wouldn't be so hard to do.
>... freaks, geeks and rabble-rousers can build giant robo war-wabbits...
YES! YES! YES!
I, too, want a giant war-wabbit! I just have to design one, program a nano-director computer to construct it, build a huge nano-vat in my back yard, and feed it a couple hundred pounds of scrap iron a day. In a few weeks, *POOF* ! World-domination made easy!
> And what is done with these constituent atoms? This material has to be taken care of somehow, it > doesn't just magically disappear with a sprinkling of "nanites".
Simple! Turn the waste products into nutrients for your body! The carbon and whatnot in your waste products can surely be converted back to glucose!
I dunno... look at us humans. There were what, four humans on Noah's ark, of which two shared genes (Noah and his son), and only one pair of which (the son and his wife) presumably reproduced? Hell, look what happened to us!
Just a quick note, GEOS 1.24 (and, I suspect, New Deal) worked BEAUTIFULLY under DOSEmu. So, you could theoretically have the best of both worlds.
Have the network setup under DOSEmu route through a Linux network interface, and make ssh, etc. available for your remote admin tasks. Run DOSEmu on it, and have New Deal come up in the autoexec.bat or whatever.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch, but once it's set up, it should be stable. And, since it's so small, you could have a spare copy of the system on hand. You could set up a different logical DOS drive or something to save Grandpa's documents and configurations and whatnot.
Yes! That is *JUST* the answer! I had forgotten the name of the company that bought GeoWorks, but I have to admit, that was the best little windowing system I've ever seen.
The word processor was very capable, fonts were scaleable, setup was dirt-simple, and the system was fairly complete. It was robust, fast, fast, fast, and extremely stable.
A 286, using GeoWorks 1.24 (I still have a copy), was able to evenly multitask 40+ windows doing all the weird graphics demo stuff they bundled with that version (not many, but hey...). It was SLICK.
Well, you see, there's a little problem with the picture you've painted. It's called the Constitution.
Yes, the President is in charge of handling foreign affairs. But, by the decree of the Constitution, the Senate must ratify all treaties, or they're invalid.
That's the legislative branch's check over the power of the President.
Whether or not the Congress deregulated cable means nothing to me. I don't use it, nor do I care to. I think television, on the whole, is a waste of time.
Did you happen to notice a glaring omission in the roster of adherents to this test ban treaty? Shall I give you a hint as to which nation was not on that list? Think big and red. That's right! It's CHINA!
The Congress did the *right* thing. If only they'd have had the opportunity to put down the "treaty" that we're adhering to which is seeing us giving up the Panama canal.
(FWIW, this "treaty" we're in the process of making good was more or less an executive order by Jimmy Carter, and was never ratified by our Senate - yet another Democrat giving away our national security).
Not that the Republicans are any better. Hell, I'm very disappointed in the Republicans for their pandering to the left in this country, and failing to keep their promises. But, then, I'm not a Republican, either.
While you are correct that nothing stopped other providers from building large fiber networks, government regulation and enforced monopolies have and continue to prevent those other providers (which DO exist) from offering these services to the public, since they can't reasonably reach every house.
You might have a thread in a huge backbone fiber mesh running right along the street where you live, but you can't get any kind of access to that fiber because of government regulation. They legally *can't* bring it to your house.
Don't use your brain! No! Just rant and rave about "evil Republicans" and don't take a few minutes to actually _think_ about the way the government is structured. Oh, and _DON'T_ remind yourself that it is... say it with me... DEMOCRATS who run the FCC (yes, the FCC is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH agency).
Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.
*I*, who already *have* DSL, *do*, in fact, care about *your* taxes.
I think *you* are paying too much in taxes, too! Do you really want to pay more in taxes, and then pay line and ISP charges on top of that?
If high-speed internet access is so important to you that you would impose the cost of making it possible for you to have it upon me by way of taxation, then I would suggest to you that you have a problem. If it's that important, move to an area that has it or that will have it soon. I did.
Slashdot Mirror
Pardon me, but just what in the fuck are you talking about?
Nowhere in his statment (which I thought was actually rather amusing) did he ONCE mention Jewish people. Not ONCE.
You, sir, are full of shit.
--Corey
WindowMaker... feh.
You're all a bunch of gibbering idiots. None of you could shell-script your way out of a paper bag. Don't you bunch of fucking clods know anything at all about anything at all? Anyone even slightly in the know would correctly say that TWM is the One, True Window Manager.
Any differing opinions will be considered heresy and disregarded.
Benighted heathens, all of you!
--Corey
Hey, how about not being so farking lazy and typing the word "YOU" instead of using the letter "U"?
Your post could be so much more easily deciphered if it had been written properly. Is it not easier to read this:
Isn't the item that is being enhanced partially owned by the person who owns the patent? So, really, they could come back and say that YOUR kids are not ALL yours!! Not only that, but if you had modifications made and were not able to pay for them (after the child was born) then they could REPO your kids..
Is it really that much of a burden to type the extra two characters, that your meaning becomes clear to your fellow man? I had to read your statement a couple of times because I kept stumbling over "ur", gestalting it into "our".
Sheesh...
--Corey
> Oh, you mean like a kind of 'lint' for clothes - er, wait a minute...
There needs to be a moderation topic called "groaner".
I cannot begin to express the extent to which my head hurts after reading that line. Good job!
--Corey
> (paraphrase) .. Linux will set the world free.
PUH-LEEZ! You say that anyone who can afford $30 worth of cheap-o computer hardware can run Linux and can, in a few short years, be prepared to take a top-paying job in the US? Come now. Surely you jest. There are a few problems with that theory. One of which is distribution. Even if a Mexican farmer, mired in the pit of poverty, were able to scrape together $30 for a PoS computer, where would he buy it?
More likely is the case that cheap fuel cells will change the face of humanity. Those exist NOW, but are encumbered by our DoD, DoE, and the energy industry in this country. If these things were to hit the market in an affordable fashion, gone would be the days of coal-burning power plants or (though they are much cleaner and safer) nuclear fission reactors. If ever fusion enters the picture in a meaningful way, and we've figured out a way to make a H->He-fusion/He->H-fission breeder reactor, power will be cheap and plentiful for everyone on earth.
THAT will be a revolution, and THAT will allow the hypothetical Mexican farmer to have the leisure time to buy a computer, learn C and C++ (or whatever), and go and search for a top-paying job in the US without starving.
Cripes... you'd think these people were running Linsux on their brains the way the reality mapping has been virtualized.
--Corey
Emigrate: think Exodus.
Immigrate: think Inundate.
--Corey
> In addition, a lot of that slash-and-burn farming is done to raise cattle for sale in America.
Umm... no.
The US beef industry is incredibly productive. Yes, the US uses lots of nifty hormones and whatnot in the food we feed the cows. Yes, it is probably those practices which have seen, as one of the earlier posters alluded to, and which I can see by observation to be true, sexual biological maturity occurring at an ever earlier age.
It is a fact, though, that the US _exports_ beef worldwide.
--Corey
I see your foo, and I raise you a bar!
--Corey
You gotta feel for the wife of a gynecologist, especially one in need of a little nookie.
"I swear, if I see one more of those..."
--Corey
I think that was a "Groo".
--Corey
> Who, might I ask, are geek girls supposed to find a date with?
:-)
Me. I like geek girls.
> This also begs the question: why can't geek girls be supportive, compassionate, and loving?
I don't know if he meant that, per se. Fact is, though, that obsessive behavior (sometimes to the point of neglecting other, very important life details) is a pretty common trait in geeks. Ever lose track of the time when coding something, or researching some little nuance of an algorithm that has piqued your interest? I have. I can see where that could become a bone of contention in a relationship, unless both people understand what's going on. The geek in question (be it a male or female of the species) must know that that behavior is not conducive to gettin' a little lovin' once in a while. The other half of the relationship must also realize that the behavior is not intentional, and that that behavior in no way means that the geek thinks or feels less of you.
Lots of us geeks have a problem with self-image. If I had a significant other, and that person spent more time doing (whatever) than spending time with me voluntarily, I might deduce (correctly or incorrectly) that that person has found a flaw in me that is causing them to not want to spend time with me. Geek guys and geek girls are susceptible to this mindset, and some might not realize that another's obsession with computing and technology might not be an escape from their inadequacy as a partner.
That said, I've examined myself and have noted that, while I have no problem concentrating on some little bit of code I'm toying with for hours on end, or rearranging and rewiring 3+ TB of disks with about 5 minutes of thought, I cannot seem to remember to take my vitamins in the morning. Neglecting those things doesn't mean that I value them less (when I've had the mindset to take my vitamins and thyroid medication for, say, a week straight, I'm rewarded greatly - those things really do help you feel better...), but it's a quirk in my personality.
> Guys need to be willing to drop coding for a night because sometimes their partner needs them
> too.
Indeed. The question isn't whether the person values you enough to drop whatever he or she is doing, but whether the fact that he or she is needed is even realized.
Had I a significant other, I might be doing something quite geeky, walking around my apartment in my underwear (ack! the horror!) waving my hands around in a seemingly senseless dance in front of me (which is actually my using the air like an invisible whiteboard, figuring out some bit of an algorithm), and not notice that my partner was sitting on the couch, her knees drawn to her chest, staring blankly into the cushions, obviously bothered by something. It wouldn't be because I don't care for her, or that I'm insensitive to her needs, but that I've gone off on a tangent and need to be snapped back to reality.
Oh, well... too much. Gotta go out and find a geek girl to make us both unhappy (hell... I'd like someone to discuss weirdo algorithms with, bounce ideas off of her and see if she has any input that might help me...).
--Corey
Man, that was a good one. I eventually puzzled out all the ad slogans.
I guess that means I'm a media whore.
--Corey
> NH3 (Cyanide) should be simple enough.
Which is, of course, perfectly idiotic. NH3 is (I hope I'm not wrong yet again) Ammonia, whereas Cyanide is HCN. Still, though, that wouldn't be so hard to do.
--Corey
> but there's bob alone knows how many other elements necessary to make a realistic apple
> (cyanide, for example).
NH3 (Cyanide) should be simple enough.
--Corey
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, eh?
Yeesh.
--Corey
> ... freaks, geeks and rabble-rousers can build giant robo war-wabbits ...
YES! YES! YES!
I, too, want a giant war-wabbit! I just have to design one, program a nano-director computer to construct it, build a huge nano-vat in my back yard, and feed it a couple hundred pounds of scrap iron a day. In a few weeks, *POOF* ! World-domination made easy!
Sounds like a brilliant plan, to me.
--Corey
> And what is done with these constituent atoms? This material has to be taken care of somehow, it
> doesn't just magically disappear with a sprinkling of "nanites".
Simple! Turn the waste products into nutrients for your body! The carbon and whatnot in your waste products can surely be converted back to glucose!
--Corey
> ... can't be all that harmful to a species.
I dunno... look at us humans. There were what, four humans on Noah's ark, of which two shared genes (Noah and his son), and only one pair of which (the son and his wife) presumably reproduced? Hell, look what happened to us!
--Corey
Just a quick note, GEOS 1.24 (and, I suspect, New Deal) worked BEAUTIFULLY under DOSEmu. So, you could theoretically have the best of both worlds.
Have the network setup under DOSEmu route through a Linux network interface, and make ssh, etc. available for your remote admin tasks. Run DOSEmu on it, and have New Deal come up in the autoexec.bat or whatever.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch, but once it's set up, it should be stable. And, since it's so small, you could have a spare copy of the system on hand. You could set up a different logical DOS drive or something to save Grandpa's documents and configurations and whatnot.
Slick.
--Corey
Yes! That is *JUST* the answer! I had forgotten the name of the company that bought GeoWorks, but I have to admit, that was the best little windowing system I've ever seen.
The word processor was very capable, fonts were scaleable, setup was dirt-simple, and the system was fairly complete. It was robust, fast, fast, fast, and extremely stable.
A 286, using GeoWorks 1.24 (I still have a copy), was able to evenly multitask 40+ windows doing all the weird graphics demo stuff they bundled with that version (not many, but hey...). It was SLICK.
I would DEFINITELY recommend this system.
--Corey
Well, you see, there's a little problem with the picture you've painted. It's called the Constitution.
Yes, the President is in charge of handling foreign affairs. But, by the decree of the Constitution, the Senate must ratify all treaties, or they're invalid.
That's the legislative branch's check over the power of the President.
See how simple it is?
--Corey
Whether or not the Congress deregulated cable means nothing to me. I don't use it, nor do I care to. I think television, on the whole, is a waste of time.
Did you happen to notice a glaring omission in the roster of adherents to this test ban treaty? Shall I give you a hint as to which nation was not on that list? Think big and red. That's right! It's CHINA!
The Congress did the *right* thing. If only they'd have had the opportunity to put down the "treaty" that we're adhering to which is seeing us giving up the Panama canal.
(FWIW, this "treaty" we're in the process of making good was more or less an executive order by Jimmy Carter, and was never ratified by our Senate - yet another Democrat giving away our national security).
Not that the Republicans are any better. Hell, I'm very disappointed in the Republicans for their pandering to the left in this country, and failing to keep their promises. But, then, I'm not a Republican, either.
I voted Libertarian.
--Corey
While you are correct that nothing stopped other providers from building large fiber networks, government regulation and enforced monopolies have and continue to prevent those other providers (which DO exist) from offering these services to the public, since they can't reasonably reach every house.
You might have a thread in a huge backbone fiber mesh running right along the street where you live, but you can't get any kind of access to that fiber because of government regulation. They legally *can't* bring it to your house.
--Corey
What a fucking troll.
Don't use your brain! No! Just rant and rave about "evil Republicans" and don't take a few minutes to actually _think_ about the way the government is structured. Oh, and _DON'T_ remind yourself that it is... say it with me... DEMOCRATS who run the FCC (yes, the FCC is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH agency).
Got it? Good. Wanker.
--Corey
Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree.
*I*, who already *have* DSL, *do*, in fact, care about *your* taxes.
I think *you* are paying too much in taxes, too! Do you really want to pay more in taxes, and then pay line and ISP charges on top of that?
If high-speed internet access is so important to you that you would impose the cost of making it possible for you to have it upon me by way of taxation, then I would suggest to you that you have a problem. If it's that important, move to an area that has it or that will have it soon. I did.
--Corey