So, what makes you think that your StarOffice problems have anything to do with GNOME? You said yourself that you upgraded a bunch of other things at the same time.
Also, why are you complaining here? Complain to the developers. File bug reports. It doesn't take any longer, and you will be much more likely to get the ear of someone who's actually in a position to fix the problem.
Perhaps you aren't aware that your beloved SCIENCE was created BY Christians and FOR Christians. Almost all of the greatest scientists of history have been Christians. Even today, the founders of almost all branches of science are Christian.
References?
Yes, some scientists are Christians. They don't, however, seem to be the paranoid, obnoxious brand of Christian that you obviously are.
Perhaps you believe in "evolution", or that life came into existence on its own. Well, you should be aware that prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References? Or are you above such petty matters as this?
Atheism has been disproven over and over again with hard science.
References? You should also realise that any scientist worth his salt, be he religious or non-religious, will consider the validity of any given religion to be a question that's outside the realm of science.
All true, unbiased scientists are Christian.
Wait a minute... In the previous paragraph, you state:
...prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
So, the atheists, in effect, disproved one of their own theories? Gasp!!! That seems like an awfully unbiased thing to do!
So who's the one believing in fairy tales?
You. Not only that, you are inventing more fairy tales to bolster the fairy tales you already believe in.
Why the attack on science, anyway? The previous poster didn't mention it at all.
Perhaps you aren't aware that your beloved SCIENCE was created BY Christians and FOR Christians. Almost all of the greatest scientists of history have been Christians. Even today, the founders of almost all branches of science are Christian.
References?
Yes, some scientists are Christians. They don't, however, seem to be the kind of paranoid, obnoxious brand of Christian that you obviously are.
Perhaps you believe in "evolution", or that life came into existence on its own. Well, you should be aware that prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References? Or are you above such petty matters as this?
Atheism has been disproven over and over again with hard science.
References? You should also realise that any scientist worth his salt, be he religious or non-religious, will consider the validity of any given religion to be a question that's outside the realm of science.
All true, unbiased scientists are Christian.
Wait a minute... In the previous paragraph, you state:
...prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
So, the atheists, in effect, disproved one of their own theories? Gasp!!! That seems like an awfully unbiased thing to do!
So who's the one believing in fairy tales?
You. Not only that, you are inventing more fairy tales to bolster the fairy tales you already believe in.
Why the attack on science, anyway? The previous poster didn't mention it at all.
Aw, poor bebe! Those mean, nasty Slashdotters have the nerve to moderate down your posts! How dare they! Your posts are imbued with the Light and the Power of the LORD! Anyone who disagrees must be in league with the Devil and will burn in the fiery pits of HELL!!!
sarcasm == OFF;
Sorry, bud. You blew your karma bonus, fair and square. Open your eyes and see the light. Insightful and thoughtful comments, by and large, get moderated up, or, at least, aren't moderated down, whether they agree with the 'status quo' or not.
Your comments, however, were neither thoughtful nor insightful. They were paranoid, obnoxious, and bordering on delusional. That is why you got moderated down.
So, try again. Try to articulate your thoughts in a rational, thoughtful manner. Try not to come off as a raving net.kook. That way, perhaps somebody will take you seriously.
This has been an alternate viewpoint. Will you consider it, or will you be blinded by your own predjudices?:)
Using the PAE36 extensions found on recent Intel processors. As the name implies, they give you an extra four address lines, allowing you to address 64Gb.
didn't eat file systems (unlike 2.2.5-2.2.14 Kernels)
Exactly _one_ of those versions had known fs integrity problems -- 2.2.8. You'll find that 2.2.9 was released about one day later.
it didn't leave the FS in a shitty state that required manual intervention like ALMOST EVERY LINUX CRASH I've ever had/seen.
Really? The only Linux crash I've had that required manual intervention to reboot I managed to trace back to a hardware problem.
Thats pretty crummy, especially when it couldn't even use all of the 1GB of memory in the box,
Current 2.3 releases support up to 64M on Intel hardware.
BTW, FreeBSD 4.0 has support for USB Ethernet adaptors, like those on the Sony VAIO's. Linux barely supports USB, not to mention anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse. Where's that desktop now?:)
Right. Current Linux 2.3 releases support USB mice, keyboards, joysticks, cameras, scanners, printers, serial ports, audio, and more. But, I guess, without those USB ethernet adapters, Linux is toast on the desktop.:P
Looking at the supported hardware list for FreeBSD 4.0, I don't see any other USB peripherals supported other than your precious ethernet adaptors. Where's the beef?:)
You know, you're exactly the kind of BSD user that the previous poster was complaining about. A lot of 'FreeBSD is more stable/faster for me', a bunch of demonstrably _wrong_ facts, and not one iota of solid proof to back up your claims.
This is exactly what I've been looking for for a long time... an unbiased, OS-bigotry-free comparison of Linux and FreeBSD. I was beginning to think that I wasn't going to find one. Thanks.
So are you saying that, by believing that man's problems are caused by a sick heart (Im talking about everybody, not anyone specifically...) and believing in a God (whether or not you call him Jesus Christ) means that we are sitting idly by letting the world fall apart? Do you think that trusting in a higher being means removing yourself from society and not working for good?
It really doesn't matter whether you believe in God, the Buddha, the Great Pink Forgloon, or nothing at all. The problem is in how you characterise the issue. 'Sick heart'? That's simply too vague. I'll agree there are many sick hearts out there, but they are sick in a variety of different ways, for a variety of different reasons.
So, do you do charity work? Humanitarian work? Well, if you do, good for you! Easing the suffering of others is most definately a worthwhile cause. But, keep in mind that it is only a band-aid solution. Even if you manage to alleviate suffering in one place, you can bet that more suffering will arise to take its place so long as the underlying problems remain unresolved.
It does not mean any of that at all. In fact it means the exact opposite. It means striving to better society. But sadly, society is fixed in its ways.
Not totally. The affluence and freedom enjoyed by the Western world today came about because society _can_ change.
And no, I am not talking about enforcing my beliefs on everyone. Im talking about getting people to stop killing each other for one
But you see, in order to get people to stop killing one another, you first have to figure out _why_ they're killing one another in the first place. And simply saying 'because of sin' isn't helpful. Given that the root cause is 'sin', can you give me some practical, real-world solutions for the problem?
But it is pointless to argue to a moral relativist.
Moral relativist? I suppose, in the sense that I believe that the moral implications of a given action are dependent upon the circumstances surrounding that action, I am. But so what? I suspect that you are one too, whether or not you choose to admit it.
Maybe you should try to hear out what people have to say before ignoring every word.
Perhaps you should stop calling the kettle black.
I am just wondering why you deny the existance of sin?
Because it isn't a useful concept. It takes a whole range of separate problems, which may be soluble if tackled one-by-one, and merges them all into one huge, overwhelming problem that no-one could possibly hope to solve. In terms of finding a lasting solution to the world's problems, it is a step backwards.
Or do you sincerely believe that you have the answers for humanity?
As I said earlier in this thread, if I did, I wouldn't be hanging around Slashdot.
Do you think that people will actually change their behavior on a mass scale, and suddenly embrace each other with open arms?
No. Only fools believe in quick fixes. Where did I say that change would be instantaneous, anyway?
No one can change people. People will never change.
As I said before, this type of attitude dooms you to failure. Undoubtedly, people in the middle ages thought the same way. It must have been unthinkable that the common man would escape the realities of the day: backbreaking work, crushing poverty, squalid conditions, and short life expectancy?
Well, guess what? A significant proportion of the world's population _has_. Why? Because, starting in the Renaissance, people stopped believing that there was nothing they could do. They identified the causes of some of the most pressing problems, and came up with practical solutions. Conditions improved dramatically. Amazing, that.
All one can do is strive for the best changes they can make in this world. Please don't say that we are not doing that because we don't agree with you about everything.:)
You may very well be helping in the best way you know how. However, don't exclude the possibility that someone might come along, look at the problem from a different perspective, and come up with a more effective solution.
'Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed himself indefinitely.'
So goes the old cliche. It's a cliche because it's true. However, it's difficult to teach a man to fish when he's dying of starvation.
So, you may need to give the man a fish in order to stave off imminent starvation. That does not mean that he can't be taught to fish.
Unfortunately, we are rather prone to sin, and the only way to stop sinning is to allow Him to take over for us.
Yes, indeed. Just trust Big Brother. He'll take care of everything...
But because people are selfish, and want to control their own lives (imagine that),
Aha! You've managed to successfully split one smaller problem off of that monolithic block you call 'sin'. Congratulations! Keep it up; you might just get somewhere yet.
The whole situation will continue to go down hill until the end of the world.
You know, this already happened once, in approximately 500 AD. However, when people stopped thinking the way you think, and started focussing on practical ways to improve society, things got better.
So trying to come up with a grand social scheme is a lost cause right from the get-go.
One thing's for sure... if nobody tries, nobody is going to succeed.
Sorry for what most of you will consider Christian garbage, but I believe that this is the truth, and if anyone wants to argue with me without stereotyping Christians, I'm very willing to hear
I'm not going to argue with your religious beliefs. They're your beliefs, and you are entitled to them -- I certainly don't want them.:)
I will point out, though, that your world view is spectacularly non-useful when it comes to the issue of improving the human condition. Perhaps a 'grand social scheme' will fail to solve the world's problems. There's always that risk. However, sitting idly by waiting for the world to come to rack and ruin will _inevitably_ fail to solve the world's problems.
So, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Well, a symptom is a problem in it's own right, and should be treated as such. It must be kept in mind, though, that there is an underlying problem, and if that problem is not addressed, any symptomatic treatment will invariably be temporary.
In the quest for the underlying causes of these problems, though, I have a number of observations:
- There is more than one cause.
- There is probably several layers of problems between these problems and their root cause(s).
- The root problems are at best intractable, and at worst, totally insoluble.
A fellow by the name of Karl Marx had the idea that private property was the cause of these ills. A vast experiment was carried out to test this (well, that wasn't what was on the minds of the people involved, but it was an experiment, none the less.) The experiment got off track before it even began. The details of exactly how this happened can be read in any history textbook dealing with the early 20th century.
So, the experiment really didn't prove anything that wasn't already known. Even had it been successful, and private property was indeed a cause of world problems, it is likely that it isn't the only cause. So these states would likely still have problems.
So, if anyone wants to take up the challenge of identifying the root causes of the world's problems, go ahead. There's undoubtedly a Nobel prize in the offing for anyone who can do this. Likely, though, individuals of the required calibre aren't hanging around Slashdot.:P
It's a little more interesting if you have a card, like my Voodoo Banshee, which has a buggy 3.3.5 server. Sure, a fixed version is available at 3dfx's website, but still, it's nice to have working drivers in the 'official' version.
- They squeak a lot under normal usage, suggesting an inferior mechanism.
- I've noticed that mysterious wounds have appeared on my fingertips from using them.
- They occasionally leave messes on the mousepad.
- They also occasionally shred the mousepad.
- They have a tendency to disappear when you step away from your computer.
- Ones that don't disappear tend to become inoperative in a matter of days.
In short, these mice suck. They should be avoided at all costs!
:P
Re:Functionality Makes It To A Linux GUI
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 1
Specific examples, please. If you simply rant on like this, you will doubtlessly be ignored, because you haven't given anyone any indication of what you think the problem is.
Besides which, statements like 'Gnome has got a long way to go in useability, particularly in the window manager department' tend to argue that you simply don't know what you're talking about. GNOME is WM independent. If you have WM problems, then the criticism is better directed against the specific WM that you're having trouble with.
Re:Too Many Of The Same Old Mistakes
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 1
Care to give some examples of this alleged non-functionality and inconsistency of the various window managers?
Do read the comments carefully. He didn't advocate getting rid of interrupts, he merely stated that almost all of the peripherals you'd be getting rid of in a 'legacy-free' system require an IRQ.
Also, yes, interrupt sharing is a good idea, and, in a way, that's what a USB bus does. The USB controller requires one interrupt, but you can connect up to 127 devices to it.
Well, you don't necessarily need a working _original_ remote.
If you have a piece of equipment without a remote, you can always pick up one of those pre-programmed ones (they're cheap like borcht these days) and use it to program the monkey-see-monkey-do remote.
http://fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de/~columbus/lirc/index. html
Since some people are asking about using their laptop's IrDA port to control consumer electronic devices, I'll point them to LIRC, the Linux Infrared Remote Control project. More information can be found at the above site.
Things I'd be concerned about, though:
- What exactly is the range of the IrDA port?
- Where is the IrDA port physically located?
Another possibility is the serial port gizmo that the site describes. I can see definite advantages with it:
- It's currently supported.
- It would likely be mounted on the back of the computer. This way, if you're sitting watching TV with your laptop in your lap, the IR LED will be pointed at the TV, instead of off to the side or at your stomach. Even if your laptop's serial port is in some wierd location, you can modify the device's design to make the LED point in the right direction.
- It can be used with laptops with no IrDA ports, or even desktops.
--quote-- More and more sites use flash, but even that works for me (linux NN under FreeBSD). --quote--
Well, I know it's out there. I just haven't yet seen a compelling reason to install it.
I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but from what I've seen, a SF animation screams out, "This site is content free, but maybe if I show you a cool animation, you won't notice that!"
100% of the genuinely useful sites I've visited have worked just fine with Netscape.
In fact, probably a good 90% of the genuinely useful sites I've visited work just fine in Lynx.
About the only sites I've had trouble with are the ones that use Shockwave Flash, and I've yet to find anything useful on any of them, anyway. Not to mention that they're not all that common.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what makes you think that your StarOffice problems have anything to do with GNOME? You said yourself that you upgraded a bunch of other things at the same time.
Also, why are you complaining here? Complain to the developers. File bug reports. It doesn't take any longer, and you will be much more likely to get the ear of someone who's actually in a position to fix the problem.
Perhaps you aren't aware that your beloved SCIENCE was created BY Christians and FOR Christians. Almost all of the greatest scientists of history have been Christians. Even today, the founders of almost all branches of science are Christian.
...prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References?
Yes, some scientists are Christians. They don't, however, seem to be the paranoid, obnoxious brand of Christian that you obviously are.
Perhaps you believe in "evolution", or that life came into existence on its own. Well, you should be aware that prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References? Or are you above such petty matters as this?
Atheism has been disproven over and over again with hard science.
References? You should also realise that any scientist worth his salt, be he religious or non-religious, will consider the validity of any given religion to be a question that's outside the realm of science.
All true, unbiased scientists are Christian.
Wait a minute... In the previous paragraph, you state:
So, the atheists, in effect, disproved one of their own theories? Gasp!!! That seems like an awfully unbiased thing to do!
So who's the one believing in fairy tales?
You. Not only that, you are inventing more fairy tales to bolster the fairy tales you already believe in.
Why the attack on science, anyway? The previous poster didn't mention it at all.
Perhaps you aren't aware that your beloved SCIENCE was created BY Christians and FOR Christians. Almost all of the greatest scientists of history have been Christians. Even today, the founders of almost all branches of science are Christian.
...prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References?
Yes, some scientists are Christians. They don't, however, seem to be the kind of paranoid, obnoxious brand of Christian that you obviously are.
Perhaps you believe in "evolution", or that life came into existence on its own. Well, you should be aware that prominent atheists CALCULATED the probability that life could come into existence without intelligent intervention, and concluded that it was BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE.
References? Or are you above such petty matters as this?
Atheism has been disproven over and over again with hard science.
References? You should also realise that any scientist worth his salt, be he religious or non-religious, will consider the validity of any given religion to be a question that's outside the realm of science.
All true, unbiased scientists are Christian.
Wait a minute... In the previous paragraph, you state:
So, the atheists, in effect, disproved one of their own theories? Gasp!!! That seems like an awfully unbiased thing to do!
So who's the one believing in fairy tales?
You. Not only that, you are inventing more fairy tales to bolster the fairy tales you already believe in.
Why the attack on science, anyway? The previous poster didn't mention it at all.
sarcasn == ON;
:)
Aw, poor bebe! Those mean, nasty Slashdotters have the nerve to moderate down your posts! How dare they! Your posts are imbued with the Light and the Power of the LORD! Anyone who disagrees must be in league with the Devil and will burn in the fiery pits of HELL!!!
sarcasm == OFF;
Sorry, bud. You blew your karma bonus, fair and square. Open your eyes and see the light. Insightful and thoughtful comments, by and large, get moderated up, or, at least, aren't moderated down, whether they agree with the 'status quo' or not.
Your comments, however, were neither thoughtful nor insightful. They were paranoid, obnoxious, and bordering on delusional. That is why you got moderated down.
So, try again. Try to articulate your thoughts in a rational, thoughtful manner. Try not to come off as a raving net.kook. That way, perhaps somebody will take you seriously.
This has been an alternate viewpoint. Will you consider it, or will you be blinded by your own predjudices?
Using the PAE36 extensions found on recent Intel processors. As the name implies, they give you an extra four address lines, allowing you to address 64Gb.
I rather run a real UNIX that the UNIX wannabe you promote.
I'll take the fact that you must resort to insults as an indication that you don't have any facts to back up your position.
XFree86 has crashed Linux(It just the kernel) several times, never had a problem with that on any of the BSDs.
XFree86 requires root access to operate. Any program that requires root access may trivially crash the kernel, be it Linux or FreeBSD.
USB sucks anyways.
Do I detect a hint of sour grapes?
C'mon, guys. If FreeBSD is as superior to Linux as you say it is, you should be able to bring up some facts which prove it, right?
Current 2.3 releases support up to 64M on Intel hardware.
D'oh... meant 64 Gb
didn't eat file systems (unlike 2.2.5-2.2.14 Kernels)
:)
:P
:)
Exactly _one_ of those versions had known fs integrity problems -- 2.2.8. You'll find that 2.2.9 was released about one day later.
it didn't leave the FS in a shitty state that required manual intervention like ALMOST EVERY LINUX CRASH I've ever had/seen.
Really? The only Linux crash I've had that required manual intervention to reboot I managed to trace back to a hardware problem.
Thats pretty crummy, especially when it couldn't even use all of the 1GB of memory in the box,
Current 2.3 releases support up to 64M on Intel hardware.
BTW, FreeBSD 4.0 has support for USB Ethernet adaptors, like those on the Sony VAIO's. Linux barely supports USB, not to mention anything other than a Keyboard and Mouse. Where's that desktop now?
Right. Current Linux 2.3 releases support USB mice, keyboards, joysticks, cameras, scanners, printers, serial ports, audio, and more. But, I guess, without those USB ethernet adapters, Linux is toast on the desktop.
Looking at the supported hardware list for FreeBSD 4.0, I don't see any other USB peripherals supported other than your precious ethernet adaptors. Where's the beef?
You know, you're exactly the kind of BSD user that the previous poster was complaining about. A lot of 'FreeBSD is more stable/faster for me', a bunch of demonstrably _wrong_ facts, and not one iota of solid proof to back up your claims.
Is a little bit of integrity too much to ask?
Well, it's pretty darn obvious where you stopped reading. :P
This is exactly what I've been looking for for a long time... an unbiased, OS-bigotry-free comparison of Linux and FreeBSD. I was beginning to think that I wasn't going to find one. Thanks.
So are you saying that, by believing that man's problems are caused by a sick heart (Im talking about everybody, not anyone specifically...) and believing in a God (whether or not you call him Jesus Christ) means that we are sitting idly by letting the world fall apart? Do you think that trusting in a higher being means removing yourself from society and not working for good?
It really doesn't matter whether you believe in God, the Buddha, the Great Pink Forgloon, or nothing at all. The problem is in how you characterise the issue. 'Sick heart'? That's simply too vague. I'll agree there are many sick hearts out there, but they are sick in a variety of different ways, for a variety of different reasons.
So, do you do charity work? Humanitarian work? Well, if you do, good for you! Easing the suffering of others is most definately a worthwhile cause. But, keep in mind that it is only a band-aid solution. Even if you manage to alleviate suffering in one place, you can bet that more suffering will arise to take its place so long as the underlying problems remain unresolved.
It does not mean any of that at all. In fact it means the exact opposite. It means striving to better society. But sadly, society is fixed in its ways.
Not totally. The affluence and freedom enjoyed by the Western world today came about because society _can_ change.
And no, I am not talking about enforcing my beliefs on everyone. Im talking about getting people to stop killing each other for one
But you see, in order to get people to stop killing one another, you first have to figure out _why_ they're killing one another in the first place. And simply saying 'because of sin' isn't helpful. Given that the root cause is 'sin', can you give me some practical, real-world solutions for the problem?
But it is pointless to argue to a moral relativist.
Moral relativist? I suppose, in the sense that I believe that the moral implications of a given action are dependent upon the circumstances surrounding that action, I am. But so what?
I suspect that you are one too, whether or not you choose to admit it.
Maybe you should try to hear out what people have to say before ignoring every word.
Perhaps you should stop calling the kettle black.
I am just wondering why you deny the existance of sin?
Because it isn't a useful concept. It takes a whole range of separate problems, which may be soluble if tackled one-by-one, and merges them all into one huge, overwhelming problem that no-one could possibly hope to solve. In terms of finding a lasting solution to the world's problems, it is a step backwards.
Or do you sincerely believe that you have the answers for humanity?
As I said earlier in this thread, if I did, I wouldn't be hanging around Slashdot.
Do you think that people will actually change their behavior on a mass scale, and suddenly embrace each other with open arms?
No. Only fools believe in quick fixes. Where did I say that change would be instantaneous, anyway?
No one can change people. People will never change.
As I said before, this type of attitude dooms you to failure. Undoubtedly, people in the middle ages thought the same way. It must have been unthinkable that the common man would escape the realities of the day: backbreaking work, crushing poverty, squalid conditions, and short life expectancy?
Well, guess what? A significant proportion of the world's population _has_. Why? Because, starting in the Renaissance, people stopped believing that there was nothing they could do. They identified the causes of some of the most pressing problems, and came up with practical solutions. Conditions improved dramatically. Amazing, that.
All one can do is strive for the best changes they can make in this world. Please don't say that we are not doing that because we don't agree with you about everything.
You may very well be helping in the best way you know how. However, don't exclude the possibility that someone might come along, look at the problem from a different perspective, and come up with a more effective solution.
'Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed himself indefinitely.'
So goes the old cliche. It's a cliche because it's true. However, it's difficult to teach a man to fish when he's dying of starvation.
So, you may need to give the man a fish in order to stave off imminent starvation. That does not mean that he can't be taught to fish.
Unfortunately, we are rather prone to sin, and the only way to stop sinning is to allow Him to take over for us.
Yes, indeed. Just trust Big Brother. He'll take care of everything...
But because people are selfish, and want to control their own lives (imagine that),
Aha! You've managed to successfully split one smaller problem off of that monolithic block you call 'sin'. Congratulations! Keep it up; you might just get somewhere yet.
The whole situation will continue to go down hill until the end of the world.
You know, this already happened once, in approximately 500 AD. However, when people stopped thinking the way you think, and started focussing on practical ways to improve society, things got better.
So trying to come up with a grand social scheme is a lost cause right from the get-go.
One thing's for sure... if nobody tries, nobody is going to succeed.
Sorry for what most of you will consider Christian garbage, but I believe that this is the truth, and if anyone wants to argue with me without stereotyping Christians, I'm very willing to hear
I'm not going to argue with your religious beliefs. They're your beliefs, and you are entitled to them -- I certainly don't want them.
I will point out, though, that your world view is spectacularly non-useful when it comes to the issue of improving the human condition. Perhaps a 'grand social scheme' will fail to solve the world's problems. There's always that risk. However, sitting idly by waiting for the world to come to rack and ruin will _inevitably_ fail to solve the world's problems.
So, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Well, the army's purpose is to do things during wartime that would be highly illegal during times of peace...
There is one underlying cause and it has been the same for the entire history of man: SIN.
Sir Isaac Newton? Really?
Doesnt seem like such a revelation now doesnt it?
You haven't identified anything. You've merely stuck a label on it.
And I dont think anyone is going to stop people from sinning any time soon...
If you merely bundle all the world's ills together and give them a label, then it is indeed hopeless.
If you want to have any chance at all at actually solving them, you'll have to be _much_ more specific.
Well, a symptom is a problem in it's own right, and should be treated as such. It must be kept in mind, though, that there is an underlying problem, and if that problem is not addressed, any symptomatic treatment will invariably be temporary.
:P
In the quest for the underlying causes of these problems, though, I have a number of observations:
- There is more than one cause.
- There is probably several layers of problems between these problems and their root cause(s).
- The root problems are at best intractable, and at worst, totally insoluble.
A fellow by the name of Karl Marx had the idea that private property was the cause of these ills. A vast experiment was carried out to test this (well, that wasn't what was on the minds of the people involved, but it was an experiment, none the less.) The experiment got off track before it even began. The details of exactly how this happened can be read in any history textbook dealing with the early 20th century.
So, the experiment really didn't prove anything that wasn't already known. Even had it been successful, and private property was indeed a cause of world problems, it is likely that it isn't the only cause. So these states would likely still have problems.
So, if anyone wants to take up the challenge of identifying the root causes of the world's problems, go ahead. There's undoubtedly a Nobel prize in the offing for anyone who can do this. Likely, though, individuals of the required calibre aren't hanging around Slashdot.
It's a little more interesting if you have a card, like my Voodoo Banshee, which has a buggy 3.3.5 server. Sure, a fixed version is available at 3dfx's website, but still, it's nice to have working drivers in the 'official' version.
Unfortunately, they don't work very well.
- They squeak a lot under normal usage, suggesting an inferior mechanism.
- I've noticed that mysterious wounds have appeared on my fingertips from using them.
- They occasionally leave messes on the mousepad.
- They also occasionally shred the mousepad.
- They have a tendency to disappear when you step away from your computer.
- Ones that don't disappear tend to become inoperative in a matter of days.
In short, these mice suck. They should be avoided at all costs!
:P
Specific examples, please. If you simply rant on like this, you will doubtlessly be ignored, because you haven't given anyone any indication of what you think the problem is.
Besides which, statements like 'Gnome has got a long way to go in useability, particularly in the window manager department' tend to argue that you simply don't know what you're talking about. GNOME is WM independent. If you have WM problems, then the criticism is better directed against the specific WM that you're having trouble with.
Care to give some examples of this alleged non-functionality and inconsistency of the various window managers?
Do read the comments carefully. He didn't advocate getting rid of interrupts, he merely stated that almost all of the peripherals you'd be getting rid of in a 'legacy-free' system require an IRQ.
Also, yes, interrupt sharing is a good idea, and, in a way, that's what a USB bus does. The USB controller requires one interrupt, but you can connect up to 127 devices to it.
Well, you don't necessarily need a working _original_ remote.
If you have a piece of equipment without a remote, you can always pick up one of those pre-programmed ones (they're cheap like borcht these days) and use it to program the monkey-see-monkey-do remote.
http://fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de/~columbus/lirc/index
Since some people are asking about using their laptop's IrDA port to control consumer electronic devices, I'll point them to LIRC, the Linux Infrared Remote Control project. More information can be found at the above site.
Things I'd be concerned about, though:
- What exactly is the range of the IrDA port?
- Where is the IrDA port physically located?
Another possibility is the serial port gizmo that the site describes. I can see definite advantages with it:
- It's currently supported.
- It would likely be mounted on the back of the computer. This way, if you're sitting watching TV with your laptop in your lap, the IR LED will be pointed at the TV, instead of off to the side or at your stomach. Even if your laptop's serial port is in some wierd location, you can modify the device's design to make the LED point in the right direction.
- It can be used with laptops with no IrDA ports, or even desktops.
Take a look at the Linux Infrared Remote Control project:
. html
http://fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de/~columbus/lirc/index
--quote--
More and more sites use flash, but even that works for me (linux NN under FreeBSD).
--quote--
Well, I know it's out there. I just haven't yet seen a compelling reason to install it.
I'm sure there are exceptions out there, but from what I've seen, a SF animation screams out, "This site is content free, but maybe if I show you a cool animation, you won't notice that!"
Horsefeathers.
100% of the genuinely useful sites I've visited have worked just fine with Netscape.
In fact, probably a good 90% of the genuinely useful sites I've visited work just fine in Lynx.
About the only sites I've had trouble with are the ones that use Shockwave Flash, and I've yet to find anything useful on any of them, anyway. Not to mention that they're not all that common.