They are talking about Click to activate ActiveX controls as being a security benefit thats been added for the user - I thought it was because of losing the patent dispute?
Companies do this stupid stuff all the time. It's called "Spin".
Banks were marketting the instant scan of checks to customers as a security feature. "See your checks online right away, to be able to spot fraud easier!" In truth? With the instant scans of the checks, "check float" has been removed, and a big issue that banks had with some illegal behavior that most people thought were ok, is gone.
Heck, sometimes it comes to down right lies. I worked for a certain ISP signing people up for service, and if we were having computer problems, like a crash or something, we were told to tell customers that we were "upgrading" our system to provide "better customer service in the future". Which of course is a lie, because the network just sucked and was slow as crap, and the computer would crash and reboot all the time.
I don't believe any "feature" anymore as of Java, which marketed things like "architecture neutral", when I realized, it wasn't "architecture neutral" it was just designed to be an easily emulated architecture.
1)Why not? It's geeky, it's fun, it's what being a nerd is all about.
Best reason.
2)Games. What if you want to be productive on OSX but want to reboot to play some win-only games every so often
Next most important one. Many people would love to have a Mac for everyday activities like E-Mail, Web Surfing and such, but they would lose their games (because they like to play EVERYTHING), so a Mac alone wouldn't work.
3)tax software. This is a big one for this, why bother buying a win machine for something you do once a year when you can just install win on your nice mac.
Emulation is better for this. VirtualPC+Windows costs less than Windows. It's also less work than getting Windows to boot on an EFI computer. Plus, you can make a small disk image install WinXP, burn it to a CD/DVD-ROM, and offload it until next year, so you're not consuming HD space for it.
4)Some people honestly like apple hardware but need to run windows. Try finding a non-apple box with as small a desk footprint as a mac mini.
Another valid point. But I still would feel bad making an Apple computer run Windows exclusively. Of course, I feel bad for any computer running Windows exclusively.
5)Along the same lines, people who do all their work on laptops and dont want to carry 2 laptops around can now just carry a macbook pro.
This is usually better served with Emulation. If you use mostly Windows, get a Win PC, and PearPC, and if you mostly use Macs, then get a MacBook Pro, and VirtualPC (if it ever comes out for the x86 chips). As long as you don't need heavy 3D graphics, even PearPC performance isn't bad.
6)Quick compatability checks for software. Yes, I realize that for major cross platform dev you might want 2 boxes, but for quick checks (see the laptop comment too) this is invaluable.
This is *by far* better served with emulation than with real hardware. If I had an actual computer for every virtual computer I had, I would need a very large office, and a very large apartment. But the virtual nature of emulation means I'm able to have a ton more machines than I actually physically have.
This is immensely powerful! Even dual booting isn't an option. For instance, at work, I need a computer that is available all the time to check my email and scheduling. I can't just reboot to try out the latest build we made, or what not. It's just not feasable.
Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2:
List Price: $299.99
Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac 7.0 with Windows XP Professional:
List Price: $249.99
Wow! It like, boggles the mind. I mean, CostOf(VirtualPC + Windows) CostOf(Windows)
But, it's true!
You can't install with the Windows CDs from the VirtualPC disks though. So, that means you can't just go out save $50 buying the VirtualPC edition, and install it on your computer.
This post has been labeled sedicious... please report to your local terrorist detainment camp, and allow them to re-educate you to be a Proper Patriotic American.
You commy filth piss me off... *gets a whisper from an aid in the ear* Oh... I mean, you TERRORIST filth piss me off...
Your brain is the source of the information? So you made it up yourself?
I have no further source than that. But of course, I couldn't give you the source for where I heard that Armstrong said "One giant step for man, one giant leap for mankind." when he stepped off the lunar lander.
I mean, the original source, I can easily find sources to back it up, but then, I can easily find sources to back up that Bill Gates said "640k is enough for anyone".
No, but you can't even tell me who said he did say it, apart from your own brain, which means even less.
Who says he said it? Tons of people, common culture. You need more? Go to any computer geek and ask them "Who said, '640k is enough for anyone?'" Go ahead, do a poll, let's see how many responses you get.
I consider the truth to be more important than popular belief, to the extent that I would say it's a completely flawed example of a short-sighted quote... unless of cause you preface it by saying "imagine if someone had said", rather than (intended or otherwise) perpetuating a myth.
Right, I for one am also for the truth rather than popular belief. To that end, I don't understand why there's any culture at all? I mean, it's all just popular belief. That George Washington was the first president of the United States, that Gorbechov is more beloved in East Germany than in Russia, that Squirrels nibble on nuts...
That Peanut Butter and Jelly is something tasty/absolutely disgusting.
That when the first person landed on the moon, he said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
It's all hearsay, unless I actually researched it myself. In which case, I can tell you facts about my life, but anything else is just going to be "someone told me so", with more or less credibility to certain points or another.
It's very difficult to attribute quotes to people. If they change their mind, they'll say, "I would never say anything like that." I mean, hell, we can't even get witnesses in a court case to agree on the actual events of an incident, that's why we don't allow for hearsay... because if we can hardly trust people's accounts of the same witnessed incident, then how could we trust what one person says another person said?
I don't give a crap. Society makes Bill play the fool for a short-sighted comment, and that's good enough for me most of the time. Unless I have to swear an oath to only tell the truth, then I don't see how it's any less than "close enough for government work".
Yeah, I have a copy of a hobbiest magazine about the TRS-80, which talked about how to replace a capacitor on the TRS-8, and thus increase the clock-rate and kick up the 2MHz to I think 4MHz or something. (And you thought over-clocking was a new phenomena?)
Anyways, the post also talked about putting a switch on the computer so you can flip it between the (and these are pretty accurate quotes) "blazing" 2MHz, or the "lightning-fast" 4MHz.
Of course, I was reading this much later in the ages of the super-hot 100MHz 486-DX2s... I mean... who could imagine calling 2MHz fast?
*** Disclaimer: Numbers, speeds, and quotes are not exact, but are representative, and exact value in this post is purely coincidental.
The same source I trust for everything else that I believe that I know. My brain. Which is--yes--fallable. But at some point, everything I read or hear has to be processed by my brain and it tells me whether I should believe it or not.
So, I get somethings wrong, and people correct me, but if I don't know you or give a shit about you, then you're not exactly a trustworthy source for *me*. I could give a flying hoot if you think you're trustworthy.
Of course, just because Bill says he didn't say it, doesn't mean anything. If I said something extremely embarrassing, I would refute statements that said I said it, too.
In fact, I never claimed that Bill said "640k memory is enough for anyone". In fact, I *told* you that I knew he didn't say it. It's still a perfect example of a popularly believed short-sighted quote, that this comment will likely also enter into, whether it has credibility or not.
If we can only get the most memorable quote in the world right once we hear it, even if we're the person who spoke those words, then why should we trust any quote that hasn't been recorded for the preservation of history?
Well then, amoung the long list of the one guy saying no one would need a computer in their home (which is true, if you think about computers as he was thinking about them)
This quote if it stands up to scrutiny will be viewed in the future as stupidly short-sighted.
Of course, it's probably wrong just like every quote that everyone remembers, and thus will serve only to make people like me look like idiots when we talk about people being short-sighted.
and partly because I assumed that everybody knows how to use google.
I did use google... try finding anything with "640k is enough for anyone" on Google that doesn't represent the statement as correct, and attribute it to Bill Gates.
Maybe it's just that it's filtering my results for German, or something, but I couldn't find anything that even said that Bill Gates didn't say it. And when I added "misquote" to the search criteria, then 0 results.
It was a misquote from what he actually said; quoting a misquote, esp in the context of it being an actual quote, is a laugh-and-pointable offense.
Take it like a man. I laugh and point at you thus.
Hey, I have a better idea... instead of pointing and laughing, how about you help someone out, and actually link to something that supports your arguement.
You're still not going to get a denial from anyone that a USPTO official said essentially we've invented everything.
Yeah, there was that whole big stink about the US gov having control over ICANN.
It's interesting now that these US companies are now asking the US government to force ICANN in exactly the same way that everyone abroad was concerned about.
Not to say that one way is better than the other... just that ICANN and the US gov keep insisting that the US gov won't regulate it, and the irony of VeriSign's competitors asking for exactly such an action.
I'm not debating that it's unlikely that this will every actually make it into an enforceable action.
But then, legislative bodies all over have passed a hojillion restriction of information acts.
Heck, while this bill could be made to seem innocuous, and protect it from being declared unconsitutional, some over-zealous prosecutor might in the future sieze the opportunity to take advantage of this law to advance his case in some random way. Threaten a paper to at least attempt to try them under this law, if they don't pass up the source of the person, who actually did violate this law.
Any law can be abused, despite any checks and balances designed to make sure that that law can't be.
I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.
Right, like the PATRIOT Act. I'm glad no one got all upset about that bill before it passed. Thank GOD, we have the PATRIOT Act to protect us from Terrorists <font size=-7>and other miscreants, or anyone else that the executive branch can find a justification for using it against them</font>
I don't need some reviewer to tell me why I won't like Vista. I can get my hands on it, but I still don't use it at home. Why? Because no matter how much they change, it's still Windows, and I'm a *nix man.
Plus, Windows XP is already painfully slow to interact with already, I don't need it to be any worse.
Oh, also those nice lovely aero glass windows? It makes it REALLY hard to just at a glance spot which window is active, and which is not.
So, I don't care about reviews. At some point, I'll have to use Vista at work, but I'll never be using it at home.
Well since I was right, and you were wrong it was you was speaking out of your ass. You could have done the research in five seconds using google, it's not my job to do that for you. It behooves you to do a google search before you post in a public forum dont you think?
Since the purpose of a public forum is not to post fact, but rather opinion, I certainly don't feel inclined to check my persumed facts. Especially, if I mark said suspicious facts properly.
Why did I persume that the FBI were a part of the DHS? Wow, maybe it's because other people thought the same thing at some point, like specifically the people that were setting up the department. Why didn't I know for certain? Honestly, I don't care that much about the inner workings of my government.
Doesn't change the fact that there are more assertive and less confrontational ways to correct people than "Consider yourself corrected." Considering that if you were more assertive, I'd have believed you, and if you were less confrontational, I'd have been coaxed into believing you. But rather, I doubted you, and got in a big ol' argument on a public forum because you failed to present yourself in any way that lends towards persuassion.
I mean, shit, there are three huge areas of persuassion that work: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos: "I'm a polisci major, and you're wrong." Pathos: "Actually, you're incorrect. They considered it, but it didn't go up." and Logos: "You're wrong, here's the google link that it took me 15 seconds to search for."
Somehow you managed to miss all three of these enormous persuassive points, and then you wonder why I didn't believe you, and then you try and pawn it off on me that I should have checked my facts? I clearly indicated that I was working off personal recollection. If you had any more input than that, you should use one of the three above persuassive techniques to back that shit up.
Of course, the way the US works, it's a wonder if you could even trust the citizenry enough to do something like this... If politicians are actually a reflection of the citizens of that country, I don't think you could trust the average American further than you can throw them.
Throw out my comment of "If politicians are actually a reflection of the citizens of that country." I'll agree, that the people of Iraq are not defined by the behavior of Saddam Hussein, but then that wasn't a free democracratic republic. I think in a free democratic republic, you're much more likely to end up with the people in power being more representative of the people of that country than if there's just some dictator at the top.
ANYWAYS, disregard that statement and the rest of my argument does not lose much more weight. Americans are generally (in my opinion) dirty sneaky bastards, who regularly circumvent "pointless" laws, and generally show themselves to be untrustworthy to follow laws. We constantly seek to get out of jury duty, it's so rare for someone to report an error in their favor that people are visually shocked if you bring it up, our children begin drinking alcohol well before they are legally permitted, and we all generally speed everywhere, and break otherwise "innocuous" traffic laws (which lead my sister who has lived in Holland for the past 10 years to remark that she gets freaked out by watching Americans drive)
Consider for a second though, that perhaps these failures to adhere strictly to the letter of the law are a result of two matters. American law being overly restrictive, and overburdening, and the general human attitude to break small laws in common everyday life when it is obtrusive.
In Germany they don't always check to see your ticket on local transit lines (in the period of a whole month, where I rode the Munich local system at least twice daily on the work days, I only had my ticket checked twice.) Do they not know that people ride the trains without a ticket? Of course they know, there's a word for it: "schwarzfahren" (schwarz=black fahren=to ride), they know damn well that people are doing it.
Germany, rather than becoming an oppressive non-citizen-trusting authority, just hikes up the cost of an infraction such as to discourage people from riding without a ticket. No greater cost of upkeep, and a greater generation of funds (although one should probably be hoping to get less money off of violators in this method.)
Or like the US one can take the other approach. One can get upset that people aren't following the law, and funnels more and more money into programs to prevent people from riding without a ticket until at some point, one is treating one's citizens like children, who can't ever be trusted to do the right thing.
I'll leave it as a problem for the reader where their particular country lies.
You asked someone to correct you, I did. Did you really also want me to give you the google search I used? Anyway the wikipedia page on homeland security lays it all out in plain english.
Yes, I unfortunately expect corrections to be constructive. Thus "take my word for it" is pretty useless in this sort of a case. So after you made the comment, I had to go and google it myself and find the wikipedia article (actually the German version, since I use German Windows) which spells it out clearly.
This doesn't solve the whole matter though that when I asked for a correction, the only thing you gave me was "you're wrong." Putting it so bluntly and accusatively essentially gives me a psychological drive to try and prove *you* wrong, even if you're right. So, I have to go around looking to either confirm or deny your facts. Placing some more construction information such as, "No, the FBI isn't part of the DHS, but when they were starting to form the DHS, there was a lot of talk surrounding whether the FBI and CIA should be a part of the DHS, but in the end neither was made to be."
See, you decided to save all that time giving me even a google link, to just say "You've been corrected", and now you have to spend all this time defending your position. Hell, just saying "No, actually the FBI isn't part of the DHS http://www.google.com/search?q=department+of+homel and+security+fbi" at least would have made it look like you were backing it up, and not just speaking out your ass.
For those of you looking for quite entertaining reviews of products that are quite obviously scams like this, I highly recommend articles like this one on Dan's Data
Thanks for destroying my productivity for the week. Now, when I get home from work, I'm going to sit there reading articles rather than working on more important things, like playing WoW.
Actually, in Germany all the metal detectors were set so high that they would trigger off a zipper (because that's the only metal I had on at all) Then you get through to some guy with a metal detecting wand.
In fact, Frankfurt airport for my connecting flight, they didn't even have metal detectors. They just had the guy and girl with the wands, who give you a thorough close-contact search.
Slashdot Mirror
They are talking about Click to activate ActiveX controls as being a security benefit thats been added for the user - I thought it was because of losing the patent dispute?
Companies do this stupid stuff all the time. It's called "Spin".
Banks were marketting the instant scan of checks to customers as a security feature. "See your checks online right away, to be able to spot fraud easier!" In truth? With the instant scans of the checks, "check float" has been removed, and a big issue that banks had with some illegal behavior that most people thought were ok, is gone.
Heck, sometimes it comes to down right lies. I worked for a certain ISP signing people up for service, and if we were having computer problems, like a crash or something, we were told to tell customers that we were "upgrading" our system to provide "better customer service in the future". Which of course is a lie, because the network just sucked and was slow as crap, and the computer would crash and reboot all the time.
I don't believe any "feature" anymore as of Java, which marketed things like "architecture neutral", when I realized, it wasn't "architecture neutral" it was just designed to be an easily emulated architecture.
1)Why not? It's geeky, it's fun, it's what being a nerd is all about.
Best reason.
2)Games. What if you want to be productive on OSX but want to reboot to play some win-only games every so often
Next most important one. Many people would love to have a Mac for everyday activities like E-Mail, Web Surfing and such, but they would lose their games (because they like to play EVERYTHING), so a Mac alone wouldn't work.
3)tax software. This is a big one for this, why bother buying a win machine for something you do once a year when you can just install win on your nice mac.
Emulation is better for this. VirtualPC+Windows costs less than Windows. It's also less work than getting Windows to boot on an EFI computer. Plus, you can make a small disk image install WinXP, burn it to a CD/DVD-ROM, and offload it until next year, so you're not consuming HD space for it.
4)Some people honestly like apple hardware but need to run windows. Try finding a non-apple box with as small a desk footprint as a mac mini.
Another valid point. But I still would feel bad making an Apple computer run Windows exclusively. Of course, I feel bad for any computer running Windows exclusively.
5)Along the same lines, people who do all their work on laptops and dont want to carry 2 laptops around can now just carry a macbook pro.
This is usually better served with Emulation. If you use mostly Windows, get a Win PC, and PearPC, and if you mostly use Macs, then get a MacBook Pro, and VirtualPC (if it ever comes out for the x86 chips). As long as you don't need heavy 3D graphics, even PearPC performance isn't bad.
6)Quick compatability checks for software. Yes, I realize that for major cross platform dev you might want 2 boxes, but for quick checks (see the laptop comment too) this is invaluable.
This is *by far* better served with emulation than with real hardware. If I had an actual computer for every virtual computer I had, I would need a very large office, and a very large apartment. But the virtual nature of emulation means I'm able to have a ton more machines than I actually physically have.
This is immensely powerful! Even dual booting isn't an option. For instance, at work, I need a computer that is available all the time to check my email and scheduling. I can't just reboot to try out the latest build we made, or what not. It's just not feasable.
From Amazon.com:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2:
List Price: $299.99
Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac 7.0 with Windows XP Professional:
List Price: $249.99
Wow! It like, boggles the mind. I mean, CostOf(VirtualPC + Windows) CostOf(Windows)
But, it's true!
You can't install with the Windows CDs from the VirtualPC disks though. So, that means you can't just go out save $50 buying the VirtualPC edition, and install it on your computer.
This post has been labeled sedicious... please report to your local terrorist detainment camp, and allow them to re-educate you to be a Proper Patriotic American.
You commy filth piss me off... *gets a whisper from an aid in the ear* Oh... I mean, you TERRORIST filth piss me off...
Your brain is the source of the information? So you made it up yourself?
I have no further source than that. But of course, I couldn't give you the source for where I heard that Armstrong said "One giant step for man, one giant leap for mankind." when he stepped off the lunar lander.
I mean, the original source, I can easily find sources to back it up, but then, I can easily find sources to back up that Bill Gates said "640k is enough for anyone".
No, but you can't even tell me who said he did say it, apart from your own brain, which means even less.
Who says he said it? Tons of people, common culture. You need more? Go to any computer geek and ask them "Who said, '640k is enough for anyone?'" Go ahead, do a poll, let's see how many responses you get.
I consider the truth to be more important than popular belief, to the extent that I would say it's a completely flawed example of a short-sighted quote... unless of cause you preface it by saying "imagine if someone had said", rather than (intended or otherwise) perpetuating a myth.
Right, I for one am also for the truth rather than popular belief. To that end, I don't understand why there's any culture at all? I mean, it's all just popular belief. That George Washington was the first president of the United States, that Gorbechov is more beloved in East Germany than in Russia, that Squirrels nibble on nuts...
That Peanut Butter and Jelly is something tasty/absolutely disgusting.
That when the first person landed on the moon, he said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
It's all hearsay, unless I actually researched it myself. In which case, I can tell you facts about my life, but anything else is just going to be "someone told me so", with more or less credibility to certain points or another.
It's very difficult to attribute quotes to people. If they change their mind, they'll say, "I would never say anything like that." I mean, hell, we can't even get witnesses in a court case to agree on the actual events of an incident, that's why we don't allow for hearsay... because if we can hardly trust people's accounts of the same witnessed incident, then how could we trust what one person says another person said?
I don't give a crap. Society makes Bill play the fool for a short-sighted comment, and that's good enough for me most of the time. Unless I have to swear an oath to only tell the truth, then I don't see how it's any less than "close enough for government work".
Yeah, I have a copy of a hobbiest magazine about the TRS-80, which talked about how to replace a capacitor on the TRS-8, and thus increase the clock-rate and kick up the 2MHz to I think 4MHz or something. (And you thought over-clocking was a new phenomena?)
Anyways, the post also talked about putting a switch on the computer so you can flip it between the (and these are pretty accurate quotes) "blazing" 2MHz, or the "lightning-fast" 4MHz.
Of course, I was reading this much later in the ages of the super-hot 100MHz 486-DX2s... I mean... who could imagine calling 2MHz fast?
*** Disclaimer: Numbers, speeds, and quotes are not exact, but are representative, and exact value in this post is purely coincidental.
The same source I trust for everything else that I believe that I know. My brain. Which is--yes--fallable. But at some point, everything I read or hear has to be processed by my brain and it tells me whether I should believe it or not.
So, I get somethings wrong, and people correct me, but if I don't know you or give a shit about you, then you're not exactly a trustworthy source for *me*. I could give a flying hoot if you think you're trustworthy.
Of course, just because Bill says he didn't say it, doesn't mean anything. If I said something extremely embarrassing, I would refute statements that said I said it, too.
In fact, I never claimed that Bill said "640k memory is enough for anyone". In fact, I *told* you that I knew he didn't say it. It's still a perfect example of a popularly believed short-sighted quote, that this comment will likely also enter into, whether it has credibility or not.
If we can only get the most memorable quote in the world right once we hear it, even if we're the person who spoke those words, then why should we trust any quote that hasn't been recorded for the preservation of history?
Right.
Well then, amoung the long list of the one guy saying no one would need a computer in their home (which is true, if you think about computers as he was thinking about them)
This quote if it stands up to scrutiny will be viewed in the future as stupidly short-sighted.
Of course, it's probably wrong just like every quote that everyone remembers, and thus will serve only to make people like me look like idiots when we talk about people being short-sighted.
But here is also an email from gates: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180#fn*
Yeah, well let's all trust Bill about what he said, because no one could possible forget the most important quote that has been attributed to them in their entire life.
and partly because I assumed that everybody knows how to use google.
I did use google... try finding anything with "640k is enough for anyone" on Google that doesn't represent the statement as correct, and attribute it to Bill Gates.
Maybe it's just that it's filtering my results for German, or something, but I couldn't find anything that even said that Bill Gates didn't say it. And when I added "misquote" to the search criteria, then 0 results.
That's why I asked for a link.
It was a misquote from what he actually said; quoting a misquote, esp in the context of it being an actual quote, is a laugh-and-pointable offense.
Take it like a man. I laugh and point at you thus.
Hey, I have a better idea... instead of pointing and laughing, how about you help someone out, and actually link to something that supports your arguement.
You're still not going to get a denial from anyone that a USPTO official said essentially we've invented everything.
Just like we all point to anyone who quotes that and laugh
I didn't say Bill Gates said it.
But someone did.
Yeah, I can just imagine that 50 years from now, (at least) people will point to this comment and laugh.
Like the "640k will be enough memory for anyone."
and the USPTO guy who said, "We've invented everything that needs to be invented."
Yeah, there was that whole big stink about the US gov having control over ICANN.
It's interesting now that these US companies are now asking the US government to force ICANN in exactly the same way that everyone abroad was concerned about.
Not to say that one way is better than the other... just that ICANN and the US gov keep insisting that the US gov won't regulate it, and the irony of VeriSign's competitors asking for exactly such an action.
I'm not debating that it's unlikely that this will every actually make it into an enforceable action.
But then, legislative bodies all over have passed a hojillion restriction of information acts.
Heck, while this bill could be made to seem innocuous, and protect it from being declared unconsitutional, some over-zealous prosecutor might in the future sieze the opportunity to take advantage of this law to advance his case in some random way. Threaten a paper to at least attempt to try them under this law, if they don't pass up the source of the person, who actually did violate this law.
Any law can be abused, despite any checks and balances designed to make sure that that law can't be.
I mean, we could spend all year talking about what some theoretical bill "could" make illegal, if it only had a chance to pass Congress, the President and the Supremes.
Right, like the PATRIOT Act. I'm glad no one got all upset about that bill before it passed. Thank GOD, we have the PATRIOT Act to protect us from Terrorists <font size=-7>and other miscreants, or anyone else that the executive branch can find a justification for using it against them</font>
So what is all this "Land of the free" I keep hearing about?
The first comment from my friend from Canada, who lives in the US said: "That's it, I'm moving back to Canada."
I din't say you couldn't scroll the page, I said that there wasn't a scrollbar. /me reloads the page
Hm... yep, still no SCROLLBAR there, of course, I can still scroll the page, but there's not SCROLLBAR being rendered on the page.
Safari hides the scrollbar, so I don't know what you're talking about.
From what I've read here, Konquerer still shows the scroll bar, and Opera doesn't have the scalp come off when you scroll.
So, Safari passes, everything else still got some work?
At least they all pass a hundred times better than IE...
I don't need some reviewer to tell me why I won't like Vista. I can get my hands on it, but I still don't use it at home. Why? Because no matter how much they change, it's still Windows, and I'm a *nix man.
Plus, Windows XP is already painfully slow to interact with already, I don't need it to be any worse.
Oh, also those nice lovely aero glass windows? It makes it REALLY hard to just at a glance spot which window is active, and which is not.
So, I don't care about reviews. At some point, I'll have to use Vista at work, but I'll never be using it at home.
Well since I was right, and you were wrong it was you was speaking out of your ass. You could have done the research in five seconds using google, it's not my job to do that for you. It behooves you to do a google search before you post in a public forum dont you think?
Since the purpose of a public forum is not to post fact, but rather opinion, I certainly don't feel inclined to check my persumed facts. Especially, if I mark said suspicious facts properly.
Why did I persume that the FBI were a part of the DHS? Wow, maybe it's because other people thought the same thing at some point, like specifically the people that were setting up the department. Why didn't I know for certain? Honestly, I don't care that much about the inner workings of my government.
Doesn't change the fact that there are more assertive and less confrontational ways to correct people than "Consider yourself corrected." Considering that if you were more assertive, I'd have believed you, and if you were less confrontational, I'd have been coaxed into believing you. But rather, I doubted you, and got in a big ol' argument on a public forum because you failed to present yourself in any way that lends towards persuassion.
I mean, shit, there are three huge areas of persuassion that work: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Ethos: "I'm a polisci major, and you're wrong." Pathos: "Actually, you're incorrect. They considered it, but it didn't go up." and Logos: "You're wrong, here's the google link that it took me 15 seconds to search for."
Somehow you managed to miss all three of these enormous persuassive points, and then you wonder why I didn't believe you, and then you try and pawn it off on me that I should have checked my facts? I clearly indicated that I was working off personal recollection. If you had any more input than that, you should use one of the three above persuassive techniques to back that shit up.
Of course, the way the US works, it's a wonder if you could even trust the citizenry enough to do something like this... If politicians are actually a reflection of the citizens of that country, I don't think you could trust the average American further than you can throw them.
Throw out my comment of "If politicians are actually a reflection of the citizens of that country." I'll agree, that the people of Iraq are not defined by the behavior of Saddam Hussein, but then that wasn't a free democracratic republic. I think in a free democratic republic, you're much more likely to end up with the people in power being more representative of the people of that country than if there's just some dictator at the top.
ANYWAYS, disregard that statement and the rest of my argument does not lose much more weight. Americans are generally (in my opinion) dirty sneaky bastards, who regularly circumvent "pointless" laws, and generally show themselves to be untrustworthy to follow laws. We constantly seek to get out of jury duty, it's so rare for someone to report an error in their favor that people are visually shocked if you bring it up, our children begin drinking alcohol well before they are legally permitted, and we all generally speed everywhere, and break otherwise "innocuous" traffic laws (which lead my sister who has lived in Holland for the past 10 years to remark that she gets freaked out by watching Americans drive)
Consider for a second though, that perhaps these failures to adhere strictly to the letter of the law are a result of two matters. American law being overly restrictive, and overburdening, and the general human attitude to break small laws in common everyday life when it is obtrusive.
In Germany they don't always check to see your ticket on local transit lines (in the period of a whole month, where I rode the Munich local system at least twice daily on the work days, I only had my ticket checked twice.) Do they not know that people ride the trains without a ticket? Of course they know, there's a word for it: "schwarzfahren" (schwarz=black fahren=to ride), they know damn well that people are doing it.
Germany, rather than becoming an oppressive non-citizen-trusting authority, just hikes up the cost of an infraction such as to discourage people from riding without a ticket. No greater cost of upkeep, and a greater generation of funds (although one should probably be hoping to get less money off of violators in this method.)
Or like the US one can take the other approach. One can get upset that people aren't following the law, and funnels more and more money into programs to prevent people from riding without a ticket until at some point, one is treating one's citizens like children, who can't ever be trusted to do the right thing.
I'll leave it as a problem for the reader where their particular country lies.
You asked someone to correct you, I did. Did you really also want me to give you the google search I used? Anyway the wikipedia page on homeland security lays it all out in plain english.
l and+security+fbi" at least would have made it look like you were backing it up, and not just speaking out your ass.
Yes, I unfortunately expect corrections to be constructive. Thus "take my word for it" is pretty useless in this sort of a case. So after you made the comment, I had to go and google it myself and find the wikipedia article (actually the German version, since I use German Windows) which spells it out clearly.
This doesn't solve the whole matter though that when I asked for a correction, the only thing you gave me was "you're wrong." Putting it so bluntly and accusatively essentially gives me a psychological drive to try and prove *you* wrong, even if you're right. So, I have to go around looking to either confirm or deny your facts. Placing some more construction information such as, "No, the FBI isn't part of the DHS, but when they were starting to form the DHS, there was a lot of talk surrounding whether the FBI and CIA should be a part of the DHS, but in the end neither was made to be."
See, you decided to save all that time giving me even a google link, to just say "You've been corrected", and now you have to spend all this time defending your position. Hell, just saying "No, actually the FBI isn't part of the DHS http://www.google.com/search?q=department+of+home
For those of you looking for quite entertaining reviews of products that are quite obviously scams like this, I highly recommend articles like this one on Dan's Data
Thanks for destroying my productivity for the week. Now, when I get home from work, I'm going to sit there reading articles rather than working on more important things, like playing WoW.
Actually, in Germany all the metal detectors were set so high that they would trigger off a zipper (because that's the only metal I had on at all) Then you get through to some guy with a metal detecting wand.
In fact, Frankfurt airport for my connecting flight, they didn't even have metal detectors. They just had the guy and girl with the wands, who give you a thorough close-contact search.