I have a Sager with a 20" screen and it's plenty portable, thanks. Apple seems to do ok with larger screens, too.
I'm just saying, for a million bucks, I'd expect top-notch EVERYTHING. But I do agree, they can keep the damned laptop. If I have a million bucks to blow on a laptop, I probably also have a lackey to follow me around and type things into my laptop for me...
Your sarcasm sucks nearly as much as your definition of "funnypics". While you're furiously masturbating to the wonderment of your linguistic aptitude, why don't you see whether you can find a definition for "jack up" in that wiki? We technical illiterates crave the beneficence of your wisdom.
Ok, that last one is actually a post-Katrina pic. But still -- gimme a fucking break with the slash elitism. Judging by the slashdotters I know, most people on slashdot live like animals.
I searched (quickly, and not very thoroughly) and didn't find it, but I believe when Slashdotters were polled, most of us actually use Windows. Just like everybody else. Go figure.
I'd be a lot more interested in an explanation of why science fiction is always lumped in with dragons and elves and wizards and all that fantasy-genre crap. They're about as diametrically opposed as it gets, with science fiction being extremely technology-oriented (usually), and fantasy being an essentially anything-goes pseudo-medieval situation. Granted there are "crossover" stories, but you're going to get that across the entire spectrum of writing.
As a sci-fi fan with a particular attraction to so-called "hard science" novels, I find it especially annoying to have to dig through endless reams of fantasy 10-part-series titles (inevitably named things like Dragon[fill-in-the-blank]) just to find a few decent sci-fi books.
You know, a massive free source control system does sound like the sort of thing Google would tackle. I don't know about the multiplatform compile angle, but the other basic aspects of a system like SF seems to be right up their alley.
LOL... I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it. If you're producing anything that'll be electrically connected to my machine, you'd better be able to afford at least a $500 certificate.
"The problem is that now all the hardware in the world can only be created with Microsoft's approval, which is way too much control for a single company."
That's the same stupid nonsense people were saying when Microsoft introduced driver signing. It is only DRM-related drivers that absolutely require a free Microsoft-issued PIC (Publishers Identification Certificate), which in turn requires a class 3 Verisign certificate ($500/yr). All other drivers can be loaded unsigned.
I won't pretend that I think this is good -- like most people, I'm opposed to this DRM nonsense, for starters -- but the point is that your statement is absolutely incorrect.
Re:Why "Fortunately for the human race"?
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 1
Would you prefer that we evil white folks ship everyone else to another planet?
Not necessarily. If an XP->Vista install does invalidate your XP key (an as yet unproven supposition), then what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to reinstall Vista? Will it allow you to use the old XP key as an upgrade?
XP asks for the key long before it phones home. You have 30 days to request an audience with the validation servers. In the scenario you describe, it basically doesn't matter that the XP key has been invalidated because you'll presumably just install Vista over it as soon as the XP install is finished.
Of course, I'm assuming Vista doesn't need to see a *validated* key which has received the blessings of Microsoft, but rather only a key that the installer accepted.
A story about HP machines in France is not support for your sweeping comment.
Just a few months back I helped my mother-in-law pick out a no-OS PC and the list of choices I showed here included machines from such major retailers as Wal-Mart, CompUSA, and Circuit City. Christ, the cretins of Wal-Mart will even sell you a Linspire PC with Linux pre-installed if that's your thing.
I'm no fan of monopolies, and Microsoft has pissed me off quite a bit in the past (though I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth MS-hater, either), but the point is, your statement is dead wrong in the US at least, and I would suspect outside the US as well.
One system I wrote and now update and maintain has several thousand simultaneous internal users and typically around 100,000 public users on it at any given moment spread throughout about 95 countries, and it transfers over $100 billion in securities each year. We update it live once a month, and sometimes as often as once a week. I don't have millions of simultaneous users, but the dollar value and associated risk of each transaction is substantially higher.
The earlier poster is correct -- there isn't anything all that out of the ordinary about it.
I'm not sure why you would suppose that this hypothetical weapon would only kill people. Although the weapons-angle is an obvious one, nothing in the article says anything about using the information to create weapons, but much of the article does mention sequences which may be incompatible with life in general. For example, tens of thousands of the sequences identified so far "have never been reported in any species".
Even back in 1995, 16MB e-mail attachments were hardly "unheard of"... I worked for a multimedia company at the time and we regularly e-mailed around enormous files. A good friend of mine has a GIS business and his files are truly enormous -- extremely high res aerial photography regularly yields individual files in the 50GB range.
I must still disagree that subdividing a group from within is somehow automatically more dishonest than subdivisions made from without.
That being said, I do agree with literally everything else you have written this time around, and have been saying essentially the same thing myself for the past several years. I am still partial to the conservatives (in the current definition) simply because they're less attractive to the loose-cannon bad-kind-of-freak demographic, though I am certainly not one of "them" -- it is a sad case of having to choose the lesser of two evils. Fractionally lesser is still less.
So fine distinctions are appropriate as long as you're not claiming membership in the group? Don't kid yourself, your response wasn't especially "epic" in the first place. Snide and condescending, yes, but consider the possibility you merely failed to express your opinion with sufficient clarity. Why is it inappropriate for the original poster to claim only partial agreement with his party, yet you feel it is entirely appropriate to subdivide that party into different groups for the purposes of your argument? I see no difference.
Perhaps you should focus that "very large" brain you're so impressed with on more basic pursuits. I assume you mean to suggest I misunderstood what you wrote, not "read," and the word is spelled "sequitur."
Slashdot Mirror
I have a Sager with a 20" screen and it's plenty portable, thanks.
Apple seems to do ok with larger screens, too.
I'm just saying, for a million bucks, I'd expect top-notch EVERYTHING. But I do agree, they can keep the damned laptop. If I have a million bucks to blow on a laptop, I probably also have a lackey to follow me around and type things into my laptop for me...
I thought about posting that same quote... but you know, a 17" screen really makes me question their devotion to the concept he describes.
Your sarcasm sucks nearly as much as your definition of "funnypics". While you're furiously masturbating to the wonderment of your linguistic aptitude, why don't you see whether you can find a definition for "jack up" in that wiki? We technical illiterates crave the beneficence of your wisdom.
I doubt people on slashdot would ever spill stuff, but normal people might.
Yeah, nerds, geeks and IT choads have a reputation for cleanliness and orderliness.
Loser
MacLoser
A third loser
TEH WINNAR!!1
Ok, that last one is actually a post-Katrina pic. But still -- gimme a fucking break with the slash elitism.
Judging by the slashdotters I know, most people on slashdot live like animals.
I searched (quickly, and not very thoroughly) and didn't find it, but I believe when Slashdotters were polled, most of us actually use Windows. Just like everybody else. Go figure.
I'd be a lot more interested in an explanation of why science fiction is always lumped in with dragons and elves and wizards and all that fantasy-genre crap. They're about as diametrically opposed as it gets, with science fiction being extremely technology-oriented (usually), and fantasy being an essentially anything-goes pseudo-medieval situation. Granted there are "crossover" stories, but you're going to get that across the entire spectrum of writing.
As a sci-fi fan with a particular attraction to so-called "hard science" novels, I find it especially annoying to have to dig through endless reams of fantasy 10-part-series titles (inevitably named things like Dragon[fill-in-the-blank]) just to find a few decent sci-fi books.
If by "interesting" you mean "predictable" then I think you're on to something.
Who the fuck would pay anyone to troll Slashdot? Seriously. Get a grip.
It's slashdot. Nothing which happens here matters to anyone.
and me being the drole american
Drole? This American notices you responded with an imaginary spelling.
You know, a massive free source control system does sound like the sort of thing Google would tackle. I don't know about the multiplatform compile angle, but the other basic aspects of a system like SF seems to be right up their alley.
"lets add an index to the database"
"Lets eliminate that piece of the code, it doesnt do anything anyway"
It sounds like you got a bunch of people in the room to discuss the stuff they should have done anyway.
In that case you are also disassociating yourself from Microsoft's user-base, and that very clearly is not a sound business decision.
LOL... I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it. If you're producing anything that'll be electrically connected to my machine, you'd better be able to afford at least a $500 certificate.
"The problem is that now all the hardware in the world can only be created with Microsoft's approval, which is way too much control for a single company."
That's the same stupid nonsense people were saying when Microsoft introduced driver signing. It is only DRM-related drivers that absolutely require a free Microsoft-issued PIC (Publishers Identification Certificate), which in turn requires a class 3 Verisign certificate ($500/yr). All other drivers can be loaded unsigned.
I won't pretend that I think this is good -- like most people, I'm opposed to this DRM nonsense, for starters -- but the point is that your statement is absolutely incorrect.
Would you prefer that we evil white folks ship everyone else to another planet?
Christ, talk about flamebait.
Not necessarily. If an XP->Vista install does invalidate your XP key (an as yet unproven supposition), then what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to reinstall Vista? Will it allow you to use the old XP key as an upgrade?
XP asks for the key long before it phones home. You have 30 days to request an audience with the validation servers. In the scenario you describe, it basically doesn't matter that the XP key has been invalidated because you'll presumably just install Vista over it as soon as the XP install is finished.
Of course, I'm assuming Vista doesn't need to see a *validated* key which has received the blessings of Microsoft, but rather only a key that the installer accepted.
Actually the pluralization is malformed...
Having a small machine that can run independently of the power grid indefinitely would be nice.
:)
I call mine "a generator."
"Ever tried to buy a bare PC? Seems you can't."
Bullshit.
A story about HP machines in France is not support for your sweeping comment.
Just a few months back I helped my mother-in-law pick out a no-OS PC and the list of choices I showed here included machines from such major retailers as Wal-Mart, CompUSA, and Circuit City. Christ, the cretins of Wal-Mart will even sell you a Linspire PC with Linux pre-installed if that's your thing.
I'm no fan of monopolies, and Microsoft has pissed me off quite a bit in the past (though I'm no foaming-at-the-mouth MS-hater, either), but the point is, your statement is dead wrong in the US at least, and I would suspect outside the US as well.
Sweet, I didn't realize the laptops also float. :)
One system I wrote and now update and maintain has several thousand simultaneous internal users and typically around 100,000 public users on it at any given moment spread throughout about 95 countries, and it transfers over $100 billion in securities each year. We update it live once a month, and sometimes as often as once a week. I don't have millions of simultaneous users, but the dollar value and associated risk of each transaction is substantially higher.
The earlier poster is correct -- there isn't anything all that out of the ordinary about it.
I'm not sure why you would suppose that this hypothetical weapon would only kill people. Although the weapons-angle is an obvious one, nothing in the article says anything about using the information to create weapons, but much of the article does mention sequences which may be incompatible with life in general. For example, tens of thousands of the sequences identified so far "have never been reported in any species".
Even back in 1995, 16MB e-mail attachments were hardly "unheard of"... I worked for a multimedia company at the time and we regularly e-mailed around enormous files. A good friend of mine has a GIS business and his files are truly enormous -- extremely high res aerial photography regularly yields individual files in the 50GB range.
I must still disagree that subdividing a group from within is somehow automatically more dishonest than subdivisions made from without.
That being said, I do agree with literally everything else you have written this time around, and have been saying essentially the same thing myself for the past several years. I am still partial to the conservatives (in the current definition) simply because they're less attractive to the loose-cannon bad-kind-of-freak demographic, though I am certainly not one of "them" -- it is a sad case of having to choose the lesser of two evils. Fractionally lesser is still less.
I appreciate the reasoned responses.
So fine distinctions are appropriate as long as you're not claiming membership in the group? Don't kid yourself, your response wasn't especially "epic" in the first place. Snide and condescending, yes, but consider the possibility you merely failed to express your opinion with sufficient clarity. Why is it inappropriate for the original poster to claim only partial agreement with his party, yet you feel it is entirely appropriate to subdivide that party into different groups for the purposes of your argument? I see no difference.
Perhaps you should focus that "very large" brain you're so impressed with on more basic pursuits. I assume you mean to suggest I misunderstood what you wrote, not "read," and the word is spelled "sequitur."