Wow, look how large your balls are! No replacement for displacement, right Chachi?
There's an awfully good reason why NASCAR fan == backwoods moron and you've proved it in spades. Pry open your droopy eyelids and grok this: there is no American car available for less than $40,000 that can touch a Japanese car of similar value in any situation where the road curves -- end of story. I don't care how many CFM your fifty-year-old technology carb flows, it doesn't mean much when the thing handles like a shopping cart.
Ever actually driven a real car (read: import)? Didn't think so.
PS: You may want to put that dash back in -- it's a structural part of American cars.
Re:In car talk, this would be called a "Sleeper".
on
Neat IBM 5150 Case Mod
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Dude, not to belittle your accomplishment, but any car can be reasonably fast in a straight line. Show me a Chevette that can out-corner a 93 Prelude and I'll bow at your feet.
Re: Look what I found, uncle malda.
on
Ethernet MP3 Player
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Where's the proof from a reputable source? Since when is Slashdot worth enough for VA to risk its entire future? If this isn't a stupid troll, Rob got screwed in a big way.
Aside from games, which no one of any consequence cares about, what are you really going to do with one of the 1.5+ ghz monsters available? In the real world, it doesn't mean much.
Ogg is as good, if not better technically.
In your opinion. Mine is that, pound for pound, MP3s have a less-tinny sound. Who's right?
The political motivation is *not* bullshit. For me, the issues at stake are just a bit more important than my existing mp3 collection. It's sad that so many people are so lazy and shortsighted.
Lazy and shortsighted? That's zealotry, plain and simple. Ogg doesn't play on a lion's share of existing hardware, produces (again, purely my opinion) inferior sounding files and isn't different enough in any way to warrant more than a glance from hardware manufacturers anytime soon. I assume that the original "take one for the team" means using a solution that is missing functionality in order to forward political goals which I personally don't care about. As a result, I'm lazy and shortsighted? Pure crap, but not surprising.
Aside from the obvious pirate music angle which affects Ogg the same as MP3, there are no legal or ethical reasons for an individual to switch. Hence, any calls to arms is based on nothing but bullshit politics.
And if their (sic) is, take one for the team! Stop using mp3's, and completely reencode your entire cd collection into.ogg files.
Oh, so it again comes down to "even if we're not as good technically, support us anyway out of sheer principle". Give those of us without bullshit political motivation a reason to switch and I'll happily do so.
Sure, and absolutely everyone subscribes to the same left-wing philosophy as you. Why oh why would some of the brightest minds in the industry want to jump on a bandwagon that is as shaky as OSS has become and still features a questionable (at best) "pay for support" revenue model? Recent history has clearly shown what happens when the VC money runs out.
Believe it or not, there are those to whom a relatively steady paycheck is more important than pie-eyed ideals. Not all of us are satisfied living in a dingy office at MIT.
Apparently I don't get it and don't see how the Taco bashing in this thread is anything but pure hypocrisy. The exact same comments he made would be embraced by nearly all if they were posted by someone called "Linuxd00d". Where's the beef?
In closing, please explain how I have suddenly joined you with my comments.
The hypocrisy is flying around this place like shit from howler monkeys today. You're all bashing Taco for his outwardly elitist commentary when the exact same thing flows from most of you on a daily basis. Read virtually any thread around here with as must objectivity as you can muster and it's difficult to miss. God forbid anyone suggest that non-OSS software is better for a certain task or ask a seemingly obvious question.
Personally, I congratulate Rob for having the balls to at least be blunt about it instead of the thinly veiled digs routinely employed by the vast majority of you.
Now, whip out the -1, Troll or Offtopic marking for this as fast as possible and sit back satisfied that another dissenting opinion has been eliminated. It's your duty, isn't it?
I'll type this very slowly and clearly to ease the task of wrapping your head around a seemingly simple concept:
Microsoft IS the desktop if for no other reason than the fact that there are no worthy alternatives that don't require unusually expensive hardware (Mac). I don't care how you feel about Linux, it's not even in the same league for dozens of reasons that I can't be bothered to find because they've have been posted around here on literally countless occasions. If Microsoft is legally unable to release XP, the desktop market will be seriously affected negatively.
You can hate this reality all you want, but the truth is the truth. Microsoft has more than 80% of the desktop market because Windows is head and shoulders above everthing else on the x86 platform, no matter what the pro-Linux HFUD (Hypocritical FUD) that is sprayed around this place like champagne on SuperBowl Sunday attempts to 'prove'.
Oh, and before any number of you fire up the "do you work for Microsoft?" machine -- no, I don't. Have I used alternative OSs for enough time to properly compare? Yes, I have. I don't like Microsoft products any more than anyone else and wish deeply for alternatives. Luckily for me, my head is far enough outside my ass to see that none exist.
I just noticed something awesome in this shot from the New York protest. Check the red "no parking" sign in the top-left corner of the pic. It's a bit fuzzy, but the text is:
NO PARKING
NOT 5 MINUTES
NOT 30 SECONDS
NOT AT ALL!
That's not a bad analogy, but I'm afraid that I don't share the same feelings on Microsoft's marketing of IE as most of the people around here. Unlike many other shootouts between competing applications, the average schlub wandering about the net is aware of both players and, often, has even used both enough to make an informed choice. Microsoft's bundling of IE certainly didn't help Netscape (duh), but I feel that a superior Navigator product would have been reason enough for a simple download -- I've done it, you probably have too. It's no big deal for even unschooled users.
If you've used IE 4+, it's no secret that the gap began to widen at that point and because a superior product was bundled with the Windows, there was very little incentive to download NN. Perhaps I've proven your point in that last sentence, but don't forget that the anti-trust case you've called upon wasn't over bundling IE with Windows, but about the supposed integration. I am decidedly of the opinion that if Netscape had built a better browser (and used their healthy and pre-existing name-recognition), all the bundling in the world wouldn't have tipped the scales as far as we currently see. The average user may may not know that there are alternatives to virtually any product he uses, but Navigator is, in my opinion, well known enough even among ham-and-eggers to have made a fight of it with a good product.
Was Microsoft heavyhanded in the browser war? Absolutely. But, to steal from your analogy, Netscape basically handed over the wallet before it was demanded and then Microsoft continued with the stabbing just to be nasty.
I wasn't trolling at all, but I do get very tired of seeing everyone blame Microsoft for Netscape's demise by default. Look at it this way -- MSIE's dominance only really started when Netscape 4.x started to lag behind. Sites that I build using CSS or nested tables display fine in everything but NN 4.x which, until recently, was their 'flagship' product. That, my friend, along with the instability and speed problems, equals a crap browser. Wonder why Netscape lost? Compare it to virtually anything else out there and it's no secret.
Bottom line: If Netscape had continued to keep up with the race software-wise, the politics could have been overcome simply by having more people specifically want Navigator. In this case, the monopoly only exists because the competition fell behind technologically speaking.
All I'm seeing is longwinded "gimme, gimme" sentiment stinking up this thread. If you think that paying privateer content providers is unethical, wrong or somehow beneath you, don't do it. Then get ready to enjoy hours of free surfing on ZDnet, CNN.com and CNet, because those are the only entities who can afford to keep it up otherwise with the current (and I use this term very loosely) revenue model for the web.
I run a public site without any advertising or subscription fees and, currently, I do it for the sheer enjoyment. I send out less than 80,000 pages a month, so the costs are minimal. What happens if or when that number starts multiplying? I don't have a multi-(m/b)illion dollar conglomerate backing me, so I either find a way to make money or board up the windows. Sheer enjoyment fades fast when I'm bankrolling a few hundred a month on bandwidth with absolutely zero coming in.
The TV versus web comparisons generally don't work, but one that does is the financial aspect of PBS versus the major networks. Unless you want your "web experience" bloated with all kinds of truly useless advertising (which will still quite likely not work), prepare for other alternatives which include paying directly to keep unfunded sites alive. Maybe this idea isn't so shit hot, but I strongly suggest that you get used to it, because if people like me can't find a viable way of generating some money from our private sites then I suggest you learn to like the unbiased reporting of the big media outlets... they can afford cheapskates.
Pfft, youngsters. Back in my space exploration days, we didn't have these 'pressurized suits' while outside the ship for maintenance tasks. No, we expanded like hot freaking marshmallows and burned like, uh, hot... freaking... marshmallows until the job was done.
Slashdot Mirror
There's an awfully good reason why NASCAR fan == backwoods moron and you've proved it in spades. Pry open your droopy eyelids and grok this: there is no American car available for less than $40,000 that can touch a Japanese car of similar value in any situation where the road curves -- end of story. I don't care how many CFM your fifty-year-old technology carb flows, it doesn't mean much when the thing handles like a shopping cart.
Ever actually driven a real car (read: import)? Didn't think so.
PS: You may want to put that dash back in -- it's a structural part of American cars.
Dude, not to belittle your accomplishment, but any car can be reasonably fast in a straight line. Show me a Chevette that can out-corner a 93 Prelude and I'll bow at your feet.
Where's the proof from a reputable source? Since when is Slashdot worth enough for VA to risk its entire future? If this isn't a stupid troll, Rob got screwed in a big way.
What are you, new around here? Every Slashdot writer, regardless of actual name, is Taco.
Aside from games, which no one of any consequence cares about, what are you really going to do with one of the 1.5+ ghz monsters available? In the real world, it doesn't mean much.
In your opinion. Mine is that, pound for pound, MP3s have a less-tinny sound. Who's right?
The political motivation is *not* bullshit. For me, the issues at stake are just a bit more important than my existing mp3 collection. It's sad that so many people are so lazy and shortsighted.
Lazy and shortsighted? That's zealotry, plain and simple. Ogg doesn't play on a lion's share of existing hardware, produces (again, purely my opinion) inferior sounding files and isn't different enough in any way to warrant more than a glance from hardware manufacturers anytime soon. I assume that the original "take one for the team" means using a solution that is missing functionality in order to forward political goals which I personally don't care about. As a result, I'm lazy and shortsighted? Pure crap, but not surprising.
Aside from the obvious pirate music angle which affects Ogg the same as MP3, there are no legal or ethical reasons for an individual to switch. Hence, any calls to arms is based on nothing but bullshit politics.
Oh, so it again comes down to "even if we're not as good technically, support us anyway out of sheer principle". Give those of us without bullshit political motivation a reason to switch and I'll happily do so.
Believe it or not, there are those to whom a relatively steady paycheck is more important than pie-eyed ideals. Not all of us are satisfied living in a dingy office at MIT.
VT100? Who are you, Liberace? I use a VT52 and feel like a chump because it's smaller than a tuba.
In closing, please explain how I have suddenly joined you with my comments.
Personally, I congratulate Rob for having the balls to at least be blunt about it instead of the thinly veiled digs routinely employed by the vast majority of you.
Now, whip out the -1, Troll or Offtopic marking for this as fast as possible and sit back satisfied that another dissenting opinion has been eliminated. It's your duty, isn't it?
Feature creep. Is there really a need for user messaging and crap like that?
PuTTY works well. I don't have a link, but it's popular and easy to find.
---
There's really only about a hundred people around this place.
---
Microsoft IS the desktop if for no other reason than the fact that there are no worthy alternatives that don't require unusually expensive hardware (Mac). I don't care how you feel about Linux, it's not even in the same league for dozens of reasons that I can't be bothered to find because they've have been posted around here on literally countless occasions. If Microsoft is legally unable to release XP, the desktop market will be seriously affected negatively.
You can hate this reality all you want, but the truth is the truth. Microsoft has more than 80% of the desktop market because Windows is head and shoulders above everthing else on the x86 platform, no matter what the pro-Linux HFUD (Hypocritical FUD) that is sprayed around this place like champagne on SuperBowl Sunday attempts to 'prove'.
Oh, and before any number of you fire up the "do you work for Microsoft?" machine -- no, I don't. Have I used alternative OSs for enough time to properly compare? Yes, I have. I don't like Microsoft products any more than anyone else and wish deeply for alternatives. Luckily for me, my head is far enough outside my ass to see that none exist.
---
This guy ain't protesting much aside from the fact that she's still wearing pants. Down with pants! Up with skirts!
---
NO PARKING
NOT 5 MINUTES
NOT 30 SECONDS
NOT AT ALL!
Meh, it made me chuckle.
---
Ho-lee smokes, that could be as high as a hundred bucks!
---
If you've used IE 4+, it's no secret that the gap began to widen at that point and because a superior product was bundled with the Windows, there was very little incentive to download NN. Perhaps I've proven your point in that last sentence, but don't forget that the anti-trust case you've called upon wasn't over bundling IE with Windows, but about the supposed integration. I am decidedly of the opinion that if Netscape had built a better browser (and used their healthy and pre-existing name-recognition), all the bundling in the world wouldn't have tipped the scales as far as we currently see. The average user may may not know that there are alternatives to virtually any product he uses, but Navigator is, in my opinion, well known enough even among ham-and-eggers to have made a fight of it with a good product.
Was Microsoft heavyhanded in the browser war? Absolutely. But, to steal from your analogy, Netscape basically handed over the wallet before it was demanded and then Microsoft continued with the stabbing just to be nasty.
---
Bottom line: If Netscape had continued to keep up with the race software-wise, the politics could have been overcome simply by having more people specifically want Navigator. In this case, the monopoly only exists because the competition fell behind technologically speaking.
---
I run a public site without any advertising or subscription fees and, currently, I do it for the sheer enjoyment. I send out less than 80,000 pages a month, so the costs are minimal. What happens if or when that number starts multiplying? I don't have a multi-(m/b)illion dollar conglomerate backing me, so I either find a way to make money or board up the windows. Sheer enjoyment fades fast when I'm bankrolling a few hundred a month on bandwidth with absolutely zero coming in.
The TV versus web comparisons generally don't work, but one that does is the financial aspect of PBS versus the major networks. Unless you want your "web experience" bloated with all kinds of truly useless advertising (which will still quite likely not work), prepare for other alternatives which include paying directly to keep unfunded sites alive. Maybe this idea isn't so shit hot, but I strongly suggest that you get used to it, because if people like me can't find a viable way of generating some money from our private sites then I suggest you learn to like the unbiased reporting of the big media outlets... they can afford cheapskates.
---
Do you? Netscape killed Netscape, but I wouldn't expect a Slashdotter to understand.
---
And we liked it.
---
Yeah, you're right... we'd all be using Macs.
---
Carol Burnette? Man, I am with you there.
---