It continues to amaze me how much bitching people can do about tailgaters when most of the time all they need to do is simply move out of the way and let them pass. I'd take a tailgater anyday over some self-righteous asshole in front of me who feels he/she has a right to obstruct traffic and tell me how fast i should or should not go.
On the other hand, tailgating in the right-hand lane, and sometimes in single lane roads...sure, throw the book at them.
The first defcon I went to (defcon 3) had a crowd that was much more focused on doing meaningful hacking (some ethical, some otherwise) in the field...it seems like now it's a bunch of 20 year olds who think they're hackers because they know how to reprogram their mac address on their linux labtop.
What do you expect from an 80 dollar conference?
As much as I hate the concept of $1000+ conference fees, it really does help keep out much of the riff-raff.
I'll leave aside the issue of generalising what three billion women want (makes about as much sense as me saying that all men want 'x')
You need not even do that. Generalizations are a fair "first expectation" of anybody, so long as you don't write that impression in stone. Essentially, you see a pattern, you heed it. Someone steps outside that pattern, you change your opinion of that individual. If a new pattern starts to form, you heed it, and so on.
If someone is only nice because they are afraid to upset someone, then are they really nice? I wouldn't think so. But a man who will stand up for you, protect you? Now that would be nice.
It's not enough. I've done the confident thing. I defend my friends and my girl (taken martial arts, frequent the gym, stay in shape). I'm prideful, and at times on the verge of arrogant. But I'm also nice and giving and friendly and honest, etc.
As a result, time and time again (and I mean countless times), women have chosen over me my friends who are "prettyboys", so to speak...the players, the assholes, the true arrogant pompous fools who have looks and a smart mouth and little more. These are the ones that act unpredictably and brashly, because they care for nothing and have nothing to lose. They're also the ones who would drop a girl at a moment's notice, because what do they care? (that's what being unpredictable is)
You won't convince me that girls actually seek niceness, as least not til the age of 25+, when they are maybe feeling old and looking to settle down. Nice guys are "just friends" for a loooong period of time. Women go through their "sowing oats" period just as men do. In fact, I'm beginning to believe they do it more often than men.
Worst yet, by the time the realization that niceness is good comes around, all the assholes have either actually matured or realized their original ways no longer work, so they fake it. So all those guys that were genuinely nice and single throughout their youth still have stiff competition in their adult years from a bunch of poseurs who frankly imo don't deserve a girl (call that a small chip on my shoulder if you will)
Bzzt! A true Computer Scientist is someone who researches computational theory, information theory, encryption theory, etc. He is a producer of knowledge and mathematics, not end products. To him, a modern computer is the end product of computational research.
Not all Computer Scientists are hard-core theorists, man. There any many aspects of Computer Science, only one of which is deep magic math formulaic research. Implementation is just as big of a part of Computer Science (else they wouldn't even TEACH classes like programming, software design & documentation, firewalls/perimiter security, etc, etc as a way to the major). In fact, at my school, though lots of math courses were a requirement of the degree, the main chunk were classes that dealt with implementation (CS courses, not math courses).
You seem to have no problem lumping "programmers" into a category, but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer. And yes that differs from your dime-a-dozen programmers that spit out uncommented, undocumented spaghetti code and non-optimized garbage code that runs slow as molasses and has hundreds of bugs laced throughout. To be a "good" programmer requires the CS theory and background, the algorithms, the knowhow, the ability to actually design something rather than just churn out crap.
I don't relish the math in CS, frankly I hate most of it...inductive proofs incur my seething hatred. But I still think of myself as a Computer Scientist, because frankly I'm not a Math major, nor are the two degrees equivalent (though in the past they largely were).
Once again, I think the term "software engineer" is a bastardization of the "engineer" term. Practically every engineering field out there required SOME knowledge of things such as Dynamics, Materials Science, Flows, etc...whether you're a Civil, a Mech, an EE...you ALL get this basic background because it's a common thread to the science of building things and working with materials (THAT's engineering...creating things from materials). I'm very annoyed that it somehow wormed its way into CS.
What's next? We're going to start calling architects "Floorplan engineers"? or musicians "Lyrical engineers"? I mean, come on...there's TONS of fields out there that create/build/architect something. That doesn't make them all engineers.
Frankly I'm ticked off that the "programmer" label took the bad rap it did. I liked calling myself a programmer.
Well I guess we can end this silly war over semantics now, unless you have something else to say?
CNN article
One of my personal peeves is addressed in the CNN article:
The game will ship on either three or four CDs. Despite the hopes of hard-core gamers, though, there will not be a DVD version of the game, id Software CEO Todd Hollenshead told CNN/Money.
"There's just not a compelling reason," he said, taking a break from a company celebration.
"I know some gamers are hoping to use the DVD players on their machines for something other than watching movies, but there are downsides," he said. "For us the cost of the goods and the cost of the replication and having to make two masters just isn't worth it."
Compelling reason? TWO masters? Man, everyone and their mother has a DVD drive in their comp nowadays. How about doing a DVD ONLY release. Backwards compatibility is great and all, but frankly if you can't afford 20 bucks for a DVD drive and/or don't have one by now, you probably wouldn't buy this game in the first place.
What's the damn holdup with the transition to DVD games? I'm fed up with this Multi-CD crap.
You show typical engineer bias throughout your post. It carries the "holier than thou" attitude most engineers thrive on. Well, I'm a computer scientist. I chose my field because I enjoy working with software over hardware, programming instead of soddering, logic instead of circuits.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know. Your very tirade contradicts itself...you claim scientists tend to do the research because they love it. They have a keen insight into the universe and its working, and generally won't stop research even if they can't find funding...then in the next paragraph you claim engineers would be the ones who would go out of their way to research some extragavant idea of colonizing some distant planet.
A "software engineer" is a misnomer...the correct term is "computer scientist". Frankly, unless a "computer engineer" is working with boards or microcontrollers or low-level electronics in some way, he's in the wrong field. Software is our domain, and we excel in it, be it apps, OSes, or otherwise. Just because we don't produce tangible things like bridges or buildings doesn't make our work any less significant, or difficult.
Let me be the first to say... HAHAHAHAHAHA.. choose to use? No, we choose to use Mozilla, Opera, Firefox, and the like... but we didn't choose IE.
Laugh all you want man, I chose IE, and I think alot of other people did. When I first started browsing, Firefox flat out didn't exist, not sure about Opera. The only two options were really Netscape or IE, and Netscape is a piece of garbage.
Over the years, I haven't had many complaints about IE. When used by an aware, security-conscious user (which means turning off ActiveX and all that crap), it for the most part behaves admirably and is still hands down the fastest browser I've ever used (and most responsive to the "stop" button)
1. This is not a problem with the browser, it is a problem with the OS
What arrogance.
Does IE have this bug?
If not, it's a FIREFOX BUG...aka, it's a serious security flaw the Firefox browser has that other browsers due not.
As this program remains in pre-release numbers, and still does not even come close to dominating market share, I'll be _very_ interested to see what further flaws are discovered in the future.
I'm sure the typical arrogant "Firefox is impervious" argument will reign on Slashdot though.. The only real advantage Firefox has over IE is that it's more _defaultly_ secure. Install enough plugins (such as the ActiveX plugin) and you can make Firefox just as dangerous as IE. On the flipside, turn off enough "features" and IE can be made very secure.
Windows flaw...pish...if I put something in my browser that was capable of calling "rm -rf/", would you also blame the inventor of the rm program? Or how bout the shell? Maybe the OS? *smirk*
Software piracy is "far-fetched?" Why do you think all the games companies are so eager to move to consoles now?
The reason is market-driven, not company-driven.
Consumers want consoles, be it for simplicity of running games or use of a joystick or what-have-you.
Your implication that consoles are harder to pirate that PC is incorrect. If anything, it's easier. Due to the "universal design", a single mod to the system and _all game copies_ work for your system. I know of Xbox/PS2 mods that allow any copied CD to work, and allow any game to be copied to an added hard drive.
Being a lazy bastard I usually jsut leave my case open for cooling
You do of course realize that an open computer actually runs hotter than an enclosed computer because you're eliminating the "semi-vacuum" sealed environment the fans use to move air?
Do you really prefer hunting through pages and pages of drop-down menus for the one checkbox that does what you want? Isn't it easier to just type 'man program' and be pointed to the right configuration file and right entry?
*blink*
Lemme get this straight...
You're saying that man pages eliminate the need for hunting?
Have you tried searching one of those mofos for something non-common? How bout the ones with multiple man pages?
Have you seen man gcc lately? Try figuring out how to set/uset some obscure settings from that garble of flat file data. I'll take a menu based hierarchy _anyday_
Hm, I suspect that the synchronized flow state isn't stable: The main reason: People are driving too close to each other.
If there is just a small change in velocity of one driver, the next guy is going to respond to it by hitting the breaks. The next guy is going to panic and hit it harder, and so it goes. I've seen this happen in real life many times: Just a small riple can make a jam, three or four cars involved is sufficient.
You say the main reason of this is people driving too close. I say it's poor drivers.
Just as often I've seen people randomly hit their brakes for no reason. All the time I'll see people overreact on braking (aka when those 3 people in front of me hit their brakes, I continue coasting and never need to hit the brakes. Anyways, if they kept the damn passing lane clear of traffic, there wouldn't be such an interruption in flow.
The main bane/cause/continuation of those jams are the self-righteous pricks that say "hell, traffic isn't going anywhere, I'll sit in the fast lane". They're probably the same people that sit in the fast lane when it's raining and they (or their car) is incapable of going faster than the speed limit, so they assume the rest is true of everyone else. These types of people are the causes of jams.
Just look on the road...whenever a cop is around doing the speed limit, traffic piles up. You think is due to speeding or following close? Hell no, it's due to traffic obstruction, namely people blocking all lanes and refusing to move.
The whole German driving idea is to overtake you as soon as possible and then driving at the same or even lower speed than before.
*blink* Dude, this is how passing should be done. Pass quickly as not to obstruct faster passing traffic and then get out of the way quickly.
The lower speed thing you said is wrong, yes. If you pass somebody, you damn well better be going faster than them afterwards, even if that speed difference is only 1 MPH.
I hate seeing people speeding to red lights, when if they'd just follow the flow of traffic and the lights they'd get where they're going just as fast, and without causing traffic jams. I'm a terrible driver, but I figured this simple thing out pretty early on. Why can't the rest of drivers?
I don't see how speeding towards a red light would cause a traffic jam. Now if you're referring to "speeding towards a green/soon-yellow light to beat the red", that's another story, and YES there is a time difference. I can't count the number of times I've beaten the light and left the poor sap with nowhere to go and nothing to do sitting back at the light. In a town where these damned reds last upwards of 1-2 minutes, the cumulative amount of time saved on subsequent lights/traffic flows/etc becomes quite substantial.
All that is irrelevant anyways. My time is precious just as yours is. Who are you to claim what a minute of my time is worth? It's simple courtesy...just get the hell out of the way of faster drivers. Why is that so hard?
I drive a stickshift and consequently cannot stand stop n' go traffic on a freeway. So I even it out and am able to maintain a consistent speed regardles of the sporadic flow ahead of me. This of course pisses off the person behind me because I have "too much space" in front of me. They usually don't realize that I'm doing them, their car, and their gas mileage a favor. I wish people would just think about these things. The easiest lane to be in in this type of traffic is usually the lane with all the trucks, as they too cannot stand the constant shifting and braking of stop n' go traffic.
Do it in a passing lane and I'll certainly care. Leaving a gap of open space in any tight traffic is just _begging_ people to cut into your lane. I don't know how you haven't seen it. Though you may think this is not "slowing" anyone down, remember that for every car that fills the space you left, you need to slow down to leave the same gap. What this leads to is your lane of traffic losing alot of speed/progress (rightfully pissing off those behind you) simply because you want your own comfortable drive. Hey man, you didn't have to buy a stick. And if you want to do that, at _least_ have the common courtesy not to do it in a passing lane.
Of course, a truly smart criminal would know that a smart investigator would realize that most people know that you shouldn't ask for the check to be written out to your own real name; so he should not have the check written to his own name. But naturally, a well-trained detective would recommend that possibility and immediately discount the possiblity that the name he demanded to be written on the check was his own name; so he should have used his own name.
But the company he was blackmailing was located in Connecticut, which is kind of like a miniature Australia; and everybody knows that Australia is populated by criminals...
Me: Truly you have a dizzying intellect!
You: *high-pitched voice* I'm just getting started!
- Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line!
No, truth is the opposite of lying, which is stating things as facts which aren't true. I have yet to see a single fact in F911 that has been proven false.
A lie of omission is still a lie.
And yes, people who go out of their way to bend the truth, distort the facts, and simply cut-n-paste things together to support their own side more favorably are liars, whether or not their actual argument holds any weight.
For example, it _is_ true that Columbine killers played video games and then killed a bunch of people. It does not (and did not) take alot of coaxing of the facts and bending of the truth and stressing of certain words/facts and exclusion of others to make it look like video games lead to serial killing. According to the way you're defining "truth", the anti-videogame advocates were comepletely in the right telling their "facts" as they saw fit.
I can think of many other examples of facts rearranged/pasted together/massaged/bent to support absurd arguments. I still call it lying.
It's time that folks admitted that the other side is sometimes right. I'll happily admit that the Republicans were right when they said deficit spending was bad. Will the Republicans admit it when some Democrats said that we should do something about the Taliban in 1999 (too bad Bill didn't listen), or that we should hold off dealing with Hussein in 2001 because he was already effectively quarantined and can be kept in place with an occassional bombing, while we need the resources to deal with terrorism first, lest me make of Iraq another terrorist training camp, that we were right (too bad it took Kerry so long to get around to that opinion)? Nope.
Up until this paragraph, I listened calmly to what I believed was information coming from a semi-informed levelheaded individual, but MAN do you have a huge chip on your shoulder.
I read that paragraph and see quite evidently that yes you're just as arrogant and biased as the rest of my liberal friends...you wonder why even the level-headed open eared republicans don't want to listen to you. In that _very paragraph_ you spoke of how each side should acknowledge that the other side is right at times.
Then, in a blaze of insurmountable cynicism/arrogance, you decide to list the thing that has largely crossed over party lines (deficit spending) that is an awful thing (aka you're saying "yeah the Republicans were right at first, but now they're still doing it wrong, the morons")...why not list something they're doing right NOW if you at least want to try to FEIGN "levelheadedness/fairness"? Why make it so dead obvious that you are just as biased and closeminded as the very people you just decried?
For the Democrats, you list something that I flat-out believe is vain posturing at best, with regards to "knowing what should have been done, but not doing it"...please, hindsight is 20-20 and Clinton is _full_ of it...I thought he was a liar _before_ he wrote a book and removed all doubt. Claiming the "relationship" was totally Lewinsky's fault was _stupid_...to think anyone would believe that tripe is absurd.
Next time, don't be such a biased ass in attempting to present your argument, and maybe I'll think your opinion is worth more than a scoff.
However... My IE takes around 6 seconds (proxy resolution) to render the home page. If I open the browser and want to type an URL to go somewhere else than the home page, I'd better do it before the 6 seconds elapse, or... Pfft!!! It erases all I've written and displays the home page URL!
Why the hell are you using a homepage anyways? The concept of a homepage is assinine...it offers nothing that standard bookmarks don't provide already.
Use about::blank as your homepage, and this is a moot issue.
If you _really_ want to have a homepage, just click Stop before you begin typing the URL.
And if they are running a Unix variant that attachment will only run at user level.
Lemme get this straight. When making this comparison, you assume incompetent Windows users, but competent Unix users? How fair is that? It's just as easy to not run as Administrator in Windows as it is not to run as root on a Unix variant.
Frankly, if UNIX was the popular system instead of Windows, you'd find _just as many_ lazy people logging on as root all the time instead of an unpriviledged account. And its because they're just that, lazy.
You said: Outlook and Outlook Express do not let you open attachments by default.
You meant: Outlook XP and Outlook Express XP do not let you open attachments by default.
Unfortunately, it will take several years until those versions become the "most prevalent on the internet" versions. Let's see - 2 years ago means that anyone running Office 2002 or prior is a virus-factory.
Re-post this same message in about 6 years when you can convincingly say that "Outlook" [generically] does NOT let you open attachments by default. I dare surmise that the vast majority of Outlook users are NOT running Outlook XP.
Patches are out you know.
I've been running patched Office 2002 which has the annoying trait listed above. It's fair to use "Outlook" generically, seeing as how the "2 years ago" Linux model is defaultly running an exploitable version of SSH. If you're going to discuss unpatched models only, of course something (anything!) is going to be a virus factory.
The same finding holds for much of the perl language. The thought in mind for a lot of perl's syntax design is to omit as writing much as possible. The implicit $_, the unless rather than if not, abbreviated versions of everything, like q//, qq//, qx//, etc. The problem is you can't look up something that's been omitted because you don't know what to look for. When exactly can I use the $_ variable? When a program says "shift;", I can't just look up "shift" in the perl manual somewhere, I have to already know about how @_ works in order to understand what the program is doing. I mean, sure, if you already know perl backwards and forwards, and you're the only one that's ever going to see its internals, then I guess it makes sense for you, but for everything else it doesn't.
That doesn't make any sense. You're saying "a person needs to understand the language to understand the code, why can't you just make it so I understand the code without knowing the language?" I mean, given the examples you stated, I can make similar parallels about looking up "volatile" or "virtual" in C/C++ or looking up Java attributes for a given class. The anonymous variables in Perl (@_, $_, etc) are a basic concept...If you've taken the time to learn the language (be it class, camel book, or otherwise), you'd know of them.
Admittably, it does make indexing a bitch (ala looking up a symbol), but the camel book does a decent job, and that's what we have a Cookbook for anyways.
If anything I think the title ("Experience and Tips?") and the corresponding paragraph full of questions is enough to show that he's merely a smart kid seeking direction. Christ people, get over yourselves...what's with all this leaping for pitchforks? He never said he was God. He said we was a person of above-average intelligence seeking direction from other people of above-average intelligence. Lordy, this outcry shocks me. This is _not_ a pissing match people. Stop telling him to grow up and do it yourselves.
In all immodesty, I'm one of those who is a lot smarter than most people in certain ways. But who the hell cares? There is more to life than being able to analyze and synthesize facts. I was a lot happier once I got over myself and figured out that there was something to learn from everyone, yes, even the point-haired idiot who wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, but is brilliant in social situations. Or is brilliant at fly-fishing. Or is a great father.
Intelligence in all isn't a measure of what you know, it's a measure of what you are capable of knowing. Dictionary.com reports the exact definition as "1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." Acquire and apply. That's very important. People who are good at fly-fishing are probably as such because they've spent years upon years (if not their whole life) doing so. It doesn't equate to intelligence. You could set a single intelligent man who knows nothing of fly-fishing to the task and see how long it takes him to Acquire and Apply the same skills (i would argue he could achieve the same level of expertise in a shorter amount of time)
Much can be said for experience, and I do believe that intellect without experience can be highly ignorant. However, I believe real smarts are a unique trait, and worthy of being proud of. Not everyone can just pick up a book on something and just teach themselves a new trade, be it whatever...computers, cooking, home-building, you name it. The 3 above categories are all hobbies of mine (computers being the career). They're all distinctly different fields, though I do believe my intellect has allowed me to grok and assimilate the knowledge faster than the average person. And yes I consider this a strength, and a unique one at that.
On a side note, for every post that criticizes this poster for being arrogant and full of themselves, look to yourself. Who are you to make such a statement? You don't even know the person. For all you know, he COULD be Einstein, and you're just a gigantic jackass. So I'd personally say "get off your high horse" yourself. A man should be able to claim above-average intelligence without being berated in such a manner.
Slashdot Mirror
It continues to amaze me how much bitching people can do about tailgaters when most of the time all they need to do is simply move out of the way and let them pass. I'd take a tailgater anyday over some self-righteous asshole in front of me who feels he/she has a right to obstruct traffic and tell me how fast i should or should not go.
On the other hand, tailgating in the right-hand lane, and sometimes in single lane roads...sure, throw the book at them.
As much as I hate the concept of $1000+ conference fees, it really does help keep out much of the riff-raff.
Essentially, you see a pattern, you heed it.
Someone steps outside that pattern, you change your opinion of that individual.
If a new pattern starts to form, you heed it, and so on. It's not enough. I've done the confident thing. I defend my friends and my girl (taken martial arts, frequent the gym, stay in shape). I'm prideful, and at times on the verge of arrogant. But I'm also nice and giving and friendly and honest, etc.
As a result, time and time again (and I mean countless times), women have chosen over me my friends who are "prettyboys", so to speak...the players, the assholes, the true arrogant pompous fools who have looks and a smart mouth and little more. These are the ones that act unpredictably and brashly, because they care for nothing and have nothing to lose. They're also the ones who would drop a girl at a moment's notice, because what do they care? (that's what being unpredictable is)
You won't convince me that girls actually seek niceness, as least not til the age of 25+, when they are maybe feeling old and looking to settle down. Nice guys are "just friends" for a loooong period of time. Women go through their "sowing oats" period just as men do. In fact, I'm beginning to believe they do it more often than men.
Worst yet, by the time the realization that niceness is good comes around, all the assholes have either actually matured or realized their original ways no longer work, so they fake it. So all those guys that were genuinely nice and single throughout their youth still have stiff competition in their adult years from a bunch of poseurs who frankly imo don't deserve a girl (call that a small chip on my shoulder if you will)
You seem to have no problem lumping "programmers" into a category, but seem to think that any computer work that extends outside of logical proofs is the work of an engineer. That's simply untrue. When I architect, design, and write a program, it's the work of a computer scientist, not an engineer. And yes that differs from your dime-a-dozen programmers that spit out uncommented, undocumented spaghetti code and non-optimized garbage code that runs slow as molasses and has hundreds of bugs laced throughout. To be a "good" programmer requires the CS theory and background, the algorithms, the knowhow, the ability to actually design something rather than just churn out crap.
I don't relish the math in CS, frankly I hate most of it...inductive proofs incur my seething hatred. But I still think of myself as a Computer Scientist, because frankly I'm not a Math major, nor are the two degrees equivalent (though in the past they largely were).
Once again, I think the term "software engineer" is a bastardization of the "engineer" term. Practically every engineering field out there required SOME knowledge of things such as Dynamics, Materials Science, Flows, etc...whether you're a Civil, a Mech, an EE...you ALL get this basic background because it's a common thread to the science of building things and working with materials (THAT's engineering...creating things from materials). I'm very annoyed that it somehow wormed its way into CS.
What's next? We're going to start calling architects "Floorplan engineers"? or musicians "Lyrical engineers"? I mean, come on...there's TONS of fields out there that create/build/architect something. That doesn't make them all engineers. Frankly I'm ticked off that the "programmer" label took the bad rap it did. I liked calling myself a programmer.
Well I guess we can end this silly war over semantics now, unless you have something else to say?
What's the damn holdup with the transition to DVD games? I'm fed up with this Multi-CD crap.
You show typical engineer bias throughout your post. It carries the "holier than thou" attitude most engineers thrive on. Well, I'm a computer scientist. I chose my field because I enjoy working with software over hardware, programming instead of soddering, logic instead of circuits.
Why you place engineers on some sort of higher pedastal over scientists, I'll never know. Your very tirade contradicts itself...you claim scientists tend to do the research because they love it. They have a keen insight into the universe and its working, and generally won't stop research even if they can't find funding ...then in the next paragraph you claim engineers would be the ones who would go out of their way to research some extragavant idea of colonizing some distant planet.
A "software engineer" is a misnomer...the correct term is "computer scientist". Frankly, unless a "computer engineer" is working with boards or microcontrollers or low-level electronics in some way, he's in the wrong field. Software is our domain, and we excel in it, be it apps, OSes, or otherwise. Just because we don't produce tangible things like bridges or buildings doesn't make our work any less significant, or difficult.
Over the years, I haven't had many complaints about IE. When used by an aware, security-conscious user (which means turning off ActiveX and all that crap), it for the most part behaves admirably and is still hands down the fastest browser I've ever used (and most responsive to the "stop" button)
What arrogance.
Does IE have this bug?
If not, it's a FIREFOX BUG...aka, it's a serious security flaw the Firefox browser has that other browsers due not.
As this program remains in pre-release numbers, and still does not even come close to dominating market share, I'll be _very_ interested to see what further flaws are discovered in the future.
I'm sure the typical arrogant "Firefox is impervious" argument will reign on Slashdot though.. The only real advantage Firefox has over IE is that it's more _defaultly_ secure. Install enough plugins (such as the ActiveX plugin) and you can make Firefox just as dangerous as IE. On the flipside, turn off enough "features" and IE can be made very secure.
Windows flaw...pish...if I put something in my browser that was capable of calling "rm -rf /", would you also blame the inventor of the rm program? Or how bout the shell? Maybe the OS? *smirk*
The reason is market-driven, not company-driven.
Consumers want consoles, be it for simplicity of running games or use of a joystick or what-have-you.
Your implication that consoles are harder to pirate that PC is incorrect. If anything, it's easier. Due to the "universal design", a single mod to the system and _all game copies_ work for your system. I know of Xbox/PS2 mods that allow any copied CD to work, and allow any game to be copied to an added hard drive.
You do of course realize that an open computer actually runs hotter than an enclosed computer because you're eliminating the "semi-vacuum" sealed environment the fans use to move air?
Lemme get this straight...
You're saying that man pages eliminate the need for hunting?
Have you tried searching one of those mofos for something non-common? How bout the ones with multiple man pages?
Have you seen man gcc lately? Try figuring out how to set/uset some obscure settings from that garble of flat file data. I'll take a menu based hierarchy _anyday_
Just as often I've seen people randomly hit their brakes for no reason. All the time I'll see people overreact on braking (aka when those 3 people in front of me hit their brakes, I continue coasting and never need to hit the brakes. Anyways, if they kept the damn passing lane clear of traffic, there wouldn't be such an interruption in flow.
The main bane/cause/continuation of those jams are the self-righteous pricks that say "hell, traffic isn't going anywhere, I'll sit in the fast lane". They're probably the same people that sit in the fast lane when it's raining and they (or their car) is incapable of going faster than the speed limit, so they assume the rest is true of everyone else. These types of people are the causes of jams.
Just look on the road...whenever a cop is around doing the speed limit, traffic piles up. You think is due to speeding or following close? Hell no, it's due to traffic obstruction, namely people blocking all lanes and refusing to move.
*blink* Dude, this is how passing should be done. Pass quickly as not to obstruct faster passing traffic and then get out of the way quickly.
The lower speed thing you said is wrong, yes.
If you pass somebody, you damn well better be going faster than them afterwards, even if that speed difference is only 1 MPH.
All that is irrelevant anyways. My time is precious just as yours is. Who are you to claim what a minute of my time is worth? It's simple courtesy...just get the hell out of the way of faster drivers. Why is that so hard?
Do it in a passing lane and I'll certainly care. Leaving a gap of open space in any tight traffic is just _begging_ people to cut into your lane. I don't know how you haven't seen it. Though you may think this is not "slowing" anyone down, remember that for every car that fills the space you left, you need to slow down to leave the same gap. What this leads to is your lane of traffic losing alot of speed/progress (rightfully pissing off those behind you) simply because you want your own comfortable drive. Hey man, you didn't have to buy a stick. And if you want to do that, at _least_ have the common courtesy not to do it in a passing lane.You: *high-pitched voice* I'm just getting started!
- Never go in against a Sicilian, when *death* is on the line!
Read this if you want to try seeing a different side of the issue, or continue bathing in your own infallible magnificience
And yes, people who go out of their way to bend the truth, distort the facts, and simply cut-n-paste things together to support their own side more favorably are liars, whether or not their actual argument holds any weight.
For example, it _is_ true that Columbine killers played video games and then killed a bunch of people. It does not (and did not) take alot of coaxing of the facts and bending of the truth and stressing of certain words/facts and exclusion of others to make it look like video games lead to serial killing. According to the way you're defining "truth", the anti-videogame advocates were comepletely in the right telling their "facts" as they saw fit.
I can think of many other examples of facts rearranged/pasted together/massaged/bent to support absurd arguments. I still call it lying.
I read that paragraph and see quite evidently that yes you're just as arrogant and biased as the rest of my liberal friends...you wonder why even the level-headed open eared republicans don't want to listen to you. In that _very paragraph_ you spoke of how each side should acknowledge that the other side is right at times.
Then, in a blaze of insurmountable cynicism/arrogance, you decide to list the thing that has largely crossed over party lines (deficit spending) that is an awful thing (aka you're saying "yeah the Republicans were right at first, but now they're still doing it wrong, the morons")...why not list something they're doing right NOW if you at least want to try to FEIGN "levelheadedness/fairness"? Why make it so dead obvious that you are just as biased and closeminded as the very people you just decried?
For the Democrats, you list something that I flat-out believe is vain posturing at best, with regards to "knowing what should have been done, but not doing it"...please, hindsight is 20-20 and Clinton is _full_ of it...I thought he was a liar _before_ he wrote a book and removed all doubt. Claiming the "relationship" was totally Lewinsky's fault was _stupid_...to think anyone would believe that tripe is absurd.
Next time, don't be such a biased ass in attempting to present your argument, and maybe I'll think your opinion is worth more than a scoff.
Use about::blank as your homepage, and this is a moot issue.
If you _really_ want to have a homepage, just click Stop before you begin typing the URL.
Methinks you spent wayyyy too much time looking into this and could use another hobby :)
Frankly, if UNIX was the popular system instead of Windows, you'd find _just as many_ lazy people logging on as root all the time instead of an unpriviledged account. And its because they're just that, lazy.
I've been running patched Office 2002 which has the annoying trait listed above. It's fair to use "Outlook" generically, seeing as how the "2 years ago" Linux model is defaultly running an exploitable version of SSH. If you're going to discuss unpatched models only, of course something (anything!) is going to be a virus factory.
Admittably, it does make indexing a bitch (ala looking up a symbol), but the camel book does a decent job, and that's what we have a Cookbook for anyways.
If anything I think the title ("Experience and Tips?") and the corresponding paragraph full of questions is enough to show that he's merely a smart kid seeking direction. Christ people, get over yourselves...what's with all this leaping for pitchforks? He never said he was God. He said we was a person of above-average intelligence seeking direction from other people of above-average intelligence. Lordy, this outcry shocks me. This is _not_ a pissing match people. Stop telling him to grow up and do it yourselves.
Much can be said for experience, and I do believe that intellect without experience can be highly ignorant. However, I believe real smarts are a unique trait, and worthy of being proud of. Not everyone can just pick up a book on something and just teach themselves a new trade, be it whatever...computers, cooking, home-building, you name it. The 3 above categories are all hobbies of mine (computers being the career). They're all distinctly different fields, though I do believe my intellect has allowed me to grok and assimilate the knowledge faster than the average person. And yes I consider this a strength, and a unique one at that.
On a side note, for every post that criticizes this poster for being arrogant and full of themselves, look to yourself. Who are you to make such a statement? You don't even know the person. For all you know, he COULD be Einstein, and you're just a gigantic jackass. So I'd personally say "get off your high horse" yourself. A man should be able to claim above-average intelligence without being berated in such a manner.