How the hell is someone who doesn't want to devote his entire life to Linux, ever supposed to know what is the best configuration to be running?
That's what you and the article author don't understand. There is no best configuration. There is the configuration you like, that you hand-crafted yourself to work to your needs best. As far as the "jerkishness" of linux geeks, it's because they are traditionally pragmatic, and come from a programmer/engineer mentality. They don't ask questions about how something works, they pull out their Leatherman and tear it apart to find out for themselves. If you want to understand the tao of linux, don't ask questions, answer your own. And while you are at it, answer them by *doing*, not by listening to what some "expert" thinks.
That's what *all* of these "linux will never get mainstream adoption" articles miss. The fact is nobody who develops it cares whether or not it does. They are scratching an itch, and to hell with what anyone else thinks.
The right answer for the software developer above is: so don't release it as binary. Release it as source, and if it's good software and the interface is abstracted decently it will get ported to a variety of windowing toolkits. Unless you only want to release it as binary, in which case, keep your software. You're better off selling to a windows platform.
If I install Ubuntu, how do I know I didn't make a mistake by not installing Fedora?
Install both and find out. Or, install the first one, and if it works for you, don't bother installing the other one.
Or similarly with KDE vs. GNOME? And where is anyone supposed to learn all this, except from snobbish jerks who ket their kicks making fun of people who know less than they do?
See above. And the way to learn is by doing. Download an iso. Install it on a spare machine. Don't be afraid of breaking things. Experiment. Have fun.
If that's antithetical to the way you use computers, then be happy with windows.:)
Actually, that's not a dig on the firewall, it's a dig on the UAC built into vista. Right now, with most of the software out there assuming you are a local administrator, running with UAC turned on is an exercise in frustration. Every time you turn around, there is another "accept or deny" messagebox popping up. It sucks. Google for UAC, and you'll see plenty of people irritated by it.
The Apple commercial was spot on in that regard, I believe.
What they don't mention, obviously, is that the situation will get a lot better as more software authors fix their applications to do things in a "don't assume the user is an admin" way -- writing prefs to HKCU rather than HKLM, storing user files in %USERPROFILE% rather than in Program Files, or (my favorite) the retarded was the ADP payroll software writes temp files in the windows directory. Duh.
But the commercial was a faithful reproduction of the annoying UAC dialogs, in my opinion. It really does suck that much.
This patch (or module, actually) comes with an H.323 decoding library that is based on H.225 version 4, H.235 version 2 and H.245 version 7. It is extremely optimized for Linux kernel and decodes only the absolutely necessary objects in a signal.... The total size of code plus data is less than 20 KB.
Doesn't look like a gatekeeper or anything, that looks like an honest-to god ipconntrack nat implementation.
For the other responder to my initial post. I have taken your offer into consideration but have decided to decline.
lol.
Re:support for the h.323 protocol, quite unlikely
on
Linux 2.6.17 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I read that as ip conntracking to allow videoconferencing devices that follow the h.323 standard to be natted.
obtw: your pedant bit is apparently stuck high. just a fyi -- didn't know if you realized it.:)
I can't decide if you purposely choose to argue a position that I am not making because you are troll, or if you seriously do not understand the argument I'm making.
Let me boil it down for you. My argument is this: doing bad things because it's difficult to do the right thing is lazy. That's it. That's my whole premise. Compromising your morals or ideals (whatever they are, and I'll agree that they are culturally relative) isn't necessary to achieve your goals. It's harder, but not impossible. That's it. If you do the expedient thing rather than the right thing, it's because you are lazy -- intellectually or otherwise.
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against. You seem to be forwarding the position that there is some amount of oppression or depravation that one can suffer that make it okay to fly airplanes in to buildings. Or at least that's the original argument you made -- you've backed off from that, and now I don't even have an idea of what your position is at all. Other than that having high ideas and moral standards is naive. I think it's not, but maybe that's just my naivete, and I should be running around doing immoral things like everyone else. I just can't do it, though, because again I must say that anyone that compromises morals or ideals for the sake of expediency is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions. If that's not you, then I apologize. But that certainly appears to be the position that you are taking... that ideals aren't important and that "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
I'll let you have the last word, though, because I'm done here.
Cheers.
Ah, wait... there are some things I just can't let you get away with.
But note that I'm saying they are wrong based strictly on Christian ideals, not that what they are doing is wrong in comparison to something else.
There are such things as relative morality. For example, food based proscriptions, or honoring days of worship. Some morals come from above God, though, not from God. Example: Thou shalt not kill is a morally wrong not because it's a commandment, but rather, it's a commandment because it's morally wrong. That is, it was morally wrong before God put it down in the book. It's a moral absolute that derives itself from outside of theology. If God had said it was okay to kill whoever you want, it would still be morally wrong to do so. That's a moral value that is higher than God. (IMHO)
So yeah, if you were to say it's wrong to judge people by what kind of utensil the use to eat their salad, I'd agree with you, passing judgement on that is wrong because it doesn't take into account cultural relativism. Or what dress people wear, etc. But not when we are talking about flying planes into buildings. That's morally wrong. Period. No relativism there, and I've got not problem whatsoever labeling that act as morally wrong. And if they stoop to doing something they know is morally wrong, then they are intellectually dishonest.
Otherwise, I suggest you take your intellectual courage to Iraq and tell those terrorists that they are lazy and intellectually dishonest, and see how many converts you make.
I don't have a sales quota on this. I don't care whether it's a popular opinion among terrorists or not. And the snark here seems to be of the "put up or shut up" variety, and I'll remind you again that I also was enlisted during the first gulf war. I already have put up, and consequently have no need to shut up.
I'm saying that *you have to walk in the other person's shoes* before you can even begin to understand their position on any particular issue
Sure, for stuff like what utensil they use to eat their salad, as mentioned above. Not for flying planes into buildings. Morally wrong. Period. And I'm not passing judgmen
Wow. You are really reaching. I said I could understand what drives people to commit acts of terrorism, not that they hold no responsibility for terrorist actions. I still think violence is the lazy way to achieve the goals they want to achieve. I can understand why they do it and still believe that it's the wrong thing. That's my underlying thesis. That there isn't a case where one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealism to achieve positive change. People do. I understand that. I don't believe they have to, and if they do, it's because they are intellectually lazy.
I have no idea what Christian ideals has to do with this.
You apparently think it's okay to do bad things if it's too hard to do the right thing. I don't. Furthermore, I think anyone that holds your position is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
But believe what you want. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I think we are mostly on the same page. Even the twenty years ago part. Well, 19 years -- I enlisted in 87. And my beliefs have changed too... I do see what America does differently than I did. And I understand fundamentally why this country enrages people to the point that they do violent things against our people.
My argument, though, is that there is a right way to fight that power, and it doesn't have to involve compromising your moral principles to do so. Oppressed by a occupationist force, beaten down by a repressive government, whatever... there is a moral high ground and one doesn't have to abandon it to win.
The Tienanmen square picture of the guy in front of the tanks is still the most poignant expression of that idea I can communicate. I understand your point, but I just don't believe you ever have to compromise your morals or ideals for any reason. Maybe that's why I think so -- I'm too idealistic to see the "truth", but I don't think that's the case. Or if it is, I just don't care. I'll still do what I think is right, even if it means I'm tilting at windmills. So be it.
In the end maybe we just have to agree to disagree.
Are you serious? Flying a plane into a building is morally wrong, and those who stoop to actions like that rather than maintain the moral high ground are lazy. Yeah, it would be difficult to bring attention to their cause, and intellectually I understand why they did what they did. Still wrong. Still morally bankrupt. And a fundamentally the lazy way to gain that attention.
In short, I utterly reject the idea that one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealistic goals to accomplish anything in this world. Sure, maybe it's a tougher slog, but it's possible, honorable, and the right thing to do.
You don't have to be young and inexperienced to be idealistic. Having high ideals and living up to them is harder when you are grown up and experience the real world, but it can be done. Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".
To let America slide from a beacon of hope in the world to a distrusted mad dog because it's too hard to do the right thing is frankly disgusting.
I don't know. I think this played on many levels. On one level, you are right... he's Steven Colbert playing a commentator who believes he's praising the president, but the praise backfires and the results are comedic. Ha, ha, he's lampooning O'Reilly.
On a level deeper, though, Steven gets to say thing as the commentator that he couldn't just stand up in front of that crowd and say. He gets to say what he really believes, only say it in a way that's funny when coming out of the mouth of Colbert the pundit.
Example: he's asking the president why he wasn't considered for the part of the white house press secretary. At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious. He has nothing but contempt for those people. Meanwhile, they laugh... they LAUGH... because ha, ha.. he's lampooning O'Reilly. Except he's not.
You can see that same mechanism in effect in several of his "jokes". He really is pushing wickedly vicious attacks at the president and the press, and they can't decide whether to laugh or not, because they aren't sure what level to take it at.
I thought it was brilliant -- he was able to attack them savagely, and still come across like he was tossing softballs. Amazing.
And I'm not sure you got the point of Colbert's monologue. I don't believe he was playing for laughs. I think he saw an opportunity to actually put his money where his mouth was, and took it. You are right. It was out of place for the event, but I think that was exactly the point. Letting everyone laugh comfortably while we prosecute a war in another country without being able to answer a fundamental question like "why did we go to war" wasn't on his agenda. And it shouldn't be. Good for him, I say.
And of course while googling for sites that backed up my point, I used TFA to justify TFA. D'oh. Sorry.
Feel free to mod me "-1 tard".
And just to prove my idiocy, here is a nice chart showing that peak production and depletion midpoint are not always the same.
Even so, I believe I am still kinda half-right, in that while the Hubbert model might not be right or even accurate, if you use that model, it shows that peak production and depletion midpoint coincide. For what it's worth. D'oh.
If you use the Hubbert methodology, algebraically (and empirically, based on the US oil peak) peak oil production is indeed achieved at the midpoint of oil depletion.
For 2 trillion dollars, we could fund a free nationwide shuttle service for bar patrons.
Okay, ridiculous, I know (or am I *required* to spell it "rediculous"?), but the point that I think both of us agree on is that that whatever iraq is causing us, the benefit we gain in terms of reducing our terrorist threat isn't worth the money. Just from a pure cost-benefit standpoint.
I don't know what specifically could be done to lower drunk driving fatalities, but we might be able to fund studies to see why the the percentages of drunk driving fatalities are 3-4 times lower in sweden or finland then they are in the US. I'm confident we could bring that study in at under $2T. Or whatever the real number is.
And I guess I see your point, but I'm of the opposite view. Spending that money on almost *anything* else would probably have better effects than going into Iraq, in my opinion. I just feel that there are plenty of things we could have done with the money to have objectively better results./me shrugs. I might be wrong, though.
Yup, but traffic fatalities involving alcohol account for nearly 50% of those numbers. Those deaths are eminently preventable.
Also, if the studies detailing costs associated with Iraq alone are to be believed, we'll have spent 2 trillion dollars there. What could that have done if we spent it on combatting drunk driving? Or suicide prevention programs? Would our country be objectively safer?
The difference between what you experience and what the parent poster experienced is the fact that you were running stock firmware, and the parent poster was running unslung or debonaras, or any one of the other replacement firmwares for the slug.
The linksys firmware might suck, I don't know, having scraped off the linksys dreck immediately upon plugging the device in.
You might just give unslung a shot. It's easy, and fixes most (all?) the complaints you've mentioned.
Yes... osx boot times completely suck. That's why I only reboot after updates.
Time from opening lid of powerboot to idle desktop: 2-3 sec. Time from closing lid of powerbook to glowing white "sleep" light: 4-5 seconds, but doesn't much matter.
I wouldn't want to be called an apologist or anything, but my laptop seems *way* faster to me than my xp box, just because my pb is essentially instant-on, what with the quick sleep times. It is annoying when you have to do a full boot though. Although 10.4 is some better in this regard than 10.3. Guess it's dictated by usage. Perhaps they spent time optimizing sleep times, not boot times, in that they expected people to sleep more often. Dunno.
Wait... here's a better idea. Rather than having a native app, which you would have to re-write for every single OS out there, why not just write to some abstract machine specification, and then write interpreters for that abstract machine on each OS? Then you could build libraries in this hypothetical p-code, and they would be instantly portable across every platform. w00t! It would be nirvana! "translate to p-code once, interpret anywhere!"
Maybe they should talk to the Sun guys about this. Maybe they have some experience in this area.
Or maybe that momentum is still going on, just that nobody is crowing about it. I don't jump and down and evangelize about every w2k server I replace with linux, but I've replaced a lot of them this last year.
Then again, I don't talk much about installing a Windows box, either. It's just "doing my job".
Maybe it's just that now it's a matter of acceptance, of choosing the right tool for the job, and not so much a matter of ideology. Maybe it's just not worth hyping anymore, as it's isn't a "new and untested" technology. I don't see anyone agonizing over the ethernet versus token ring debate anymore, either.
Don't really know, but from my perspective, the momentum is still there. Perhaps it's even increasing...
Slashdot Mirror
But now I've lost track of whose the troller, and whose the trollee. :)
How the hell is someone who doesn't want to devote his entire life to Linux, ever supposed to know what is the best configuration to be running?
That's what you and the article author don't understand. There is no best configuration. There is the configuration you like, that you hand-crafted yourself to work to your needs best. As far as the "jerkishness" of linux geeks, it's because they are traditionally pragmatic, and come from a programmer/engineer mentality. They don't ask questions about how something works, they pull out their Leatherman and tear it apart to find out for themselves. If you want to understand the tao of linux, don't ask questions, answer your own. And while you are at it, answer them by *doing*, not by listening to what some "expert" thinks.
That's what *all* of these "linux will never get mainstream adoption" articles miss. The fact is nobody who develops it cares whether or not it does. They are scratching an itch, and to hell with what anyone else thinks.
The right answer for the software developer above is: so don't release it as binary. Release it as source, and if it's good software and the interface is abstracted decently it will get ported to a variety of windowing toolkits. Unless you only want to release it as binary, in which case, keep your software. You're better off selling to a windows platform.
If I install Ubuntu, how do I know I didn't make a mistake by not installing Fedora?
Install both and find out. Or, install the first one, and if it works for you, don't bother installing the other one.
Or similarly with KDE vs. GNOME? And where is anyone supposed to learn all this, except from snobbish jerks who ket their kicks making fun of people who know less than they do?
See above. And the way to learn is by doing. Download an iso. Install it on a spare machine. Don't be afraid of breaking things. Experiment. Have fun.
If that's antithetical to the way you use computers, then be happy with windows. :)
Actually, that's not a dig on the firewall, it's a dig on the UAC built into vista. Right now, with most of the software out there assuming you are a local administrator, running with UAC turned on is an exercise in frustration. Every time you turn around, there is another "accept or deny" messagebox popping up. It sucks. Google for UAC, and you'll see plenty of people irritated by it.
The Apple commercial was spot on in that regard, I believe.
What they don't mention, obviously, is that the situation will get a lot better as more software authors fix their applications to do things in a "don't assume the user is an admin" way -- writing prefs to HKCU rather than HKLM, storing user files in %USERPROFILE% rather than in Program Files, or (my favorite) the retarded was the ADP payroll software writes temp files in the windows directory. Duh.
But the commercial was a faithful reproduction of the annoying UAC dialogs, in my opinion. It really does suck that much.
the Internet happened largely because of Microsoft
I believe you misspelled "Al Gore".
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to stipulate the Rove didn't cause the hurricane.
He puts on that dopey comic book guy facade when he's out in public, but I'm pretty sure he has a persian cat and a monocle at home.
Yeah, but with an anonymous maintainer, who do you email patches to?
Unlikely or not, that's what it appears to be. h.323 conntrack nat helper
This patch (or module, actually) comes with an H.323 decoding library that is based on H.225 version 4, H.235 version 2 and H.245 version 7. It is extremely optimized for Linux kernel and decodes only the absolutely necessary objects in a signal. ... The total size of code plus data is less than 20 KB.
Doesn't look like a gatekeeper or anything, that looks like an honest-to god ipconntrack nat implementation.
For the other responder to my initial post. I have taken your offer into consideration but have decided to decline.
lol.
I read that as ip conntracking to allow videoconferencing devices that follow the h.323 standard to be natted.
:)
obtw: your pedant bit is apparently stuck high. just a fyi -- didn't know if you realized it.
I can't decide if you purposely choose to argue a position that I am not making because you are troll, or if you seriously do not understand the argument I'm making.
Let me boil it down for you. My argument is this: doing bad things because it's difficult to do the right thing is lazy. That's it. That's my whole premise. Compromising your morals or ideals (whatever they are, and I'll agree that they are culturally relative) isn't necessary to achieve your goals. It's harder, but not impossible. That's it. If you do the expedient thing rather than the right thing, it's because you are lazy -- intellectually or otherwise.
I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against. You seem to be forwarding the position that there is some amount of oppression or depravation that one can suffer that make it okay to fly airplanes in to buildings. Or at least that's the original argument you made -- you've backed off from that, and now I don't even have an idea of what your position is at all. Other than that having high ideas and moral standards is naive. I think it's not, but maybe that's just my naivete, and I should be running around doing immoral things like everyone else. I just can't do it, though, because again I must say that anyone that compromises morals or ideals for the sake of expediency is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions. If that's not you, then I apologize. But that certainly appears to be the position that you are taking... that ideals aren't important and that "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
I'll let you have the last word, though, because I'm done here.
Cheers.
Ah, wait... there are some things I just can't let you get away with.
But note that I'm saying they are wrong based strictly on Christian ideals, not that what they are doing is wrong in comparison to something else.
There are such things as relative morality. For example, food based proscriptions, or honoring days of worship. Some morals come from above God, though, not from God. Example: Thou shalt not kill is a morally wrong not because it's a commandment, but rather, it's a commandment because it's morally wrong. That is, it was morally wrong before God put it down in the book. It's a moral absolute that derives itself from outside of theology. If God had said it was okay to kill whoever you want, it would still be morally wrong to do so. That's a moral value that is higher than God. (IMHO)
So yeah, if you were to say it's wrong to judge people by what kind of utensil the use to eat their salad, I'd agree with you, passing judgement on that is wrong because it doesn't take into account cultural relativism. Or what dress people wear, etc. But not when we are talking about flying planes into buildings. That's morally wrong. Period. No relativism there, and I've got not problem whatsoever labeling that act as morally wrong. And if they stoop to doing something they know is morally wrong, then they are intellectually dishonest.
Otherwise, I suggest you take your intellectual courage to Iraq and tell those terrorists that they are lazy and intellectually dishonest, and see how many converts you make.
I don't have a sales quota on this. I don't care whether it's a popular opinion among terrorists or not. And the snark here seems to be of the "put up or shut up" variety, and I'll remind you again that I also was enlisted during the first gulf war. I already have put up, and consequently have no need to shut up.
I'm saying that *you have to walk in the other person's shoes* before you can even begin to understand their position on any particular issue
Sure, for stuff like what utensil they use to eat their salad, as mentioned above. Not for flying planes into buildings. Morally wrong. Period. And I'm not passing judgmen
Wow. You are really reaching. I said I could understand what drives people to commit acts of terrorism, not that they hold no responsibility for terrorist actions. I still think violence is the lazy way to achieve the goals they want to achieve. I can understand why they do it and still believe that it's the wrong thing. That's my underlying thesis. That there isn't a case where one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealism to achieve positive change. People do. I understand that. I don't believe they have to, and if they do, it's because they are intellectually lazy.
I have no idea what Christian ideals has to do with this.
You apparently think it's okay to do bad things if it's too hard to do the right thing. I don't. Furthermore, I think anyone that holds your position is an intellectual coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.
But believe what you want. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Cheers.
I think we are mostly on the same page. Even the twenty years ago part. Well, 19 years -- I enlisted in 87. And my beliefs have changed too... I do see what America does differently than I did. And I understand fundamentally why this country enrages people to the point that they do violent things against our people.
My argument, though, is that there is a right way to fight that power, and it doesn't have to involve compromising your moral principles to do so. Oppressed by a occupationist force, beaten down by a repressive government, whatever... there is a moral high ground and one doesn't have to abandon it to win.
The Tienanmen square picture of the guy in front of the tanks is still the most poignant expression of that idea I can communicate. I understand your point, but I just don't believe you ever have to compromise your morals or ideals for any reason. Maybe that's why I think so -- I'm too idealistic to see the "truth", but I don't think that's the case. Or if it is, I just don't care. I'll still do what I think is right, even if it means I'm tilting at windmills. So be it.
In the end maybe we just have to agree to disagree.
Are you serious? Flying a plane into a building is morally wrong, and those who stoop to actions like that rather than maintain the moral high ground are lazy. Yeah, it would be difficult to bring attention to their cause, and intellectually I understand why they did what they did. Still wrong. Still morally bankrupt. And a fundamentally the lazy way to gain that attention.
In short, I utterly reject the idea that one has to compromise ethics, morality, or idealistic goals to accomplish anything in this world. Sure, maybe it's a tougher slog, but it's possible, honorable, and the right thing to do.
How can this even be arguable?
Bullshit.
You don't have to be young and inexperienced to be idealistic. Having high ideals and living up to them is harder when you are grown up and experience the real world, but it can be done. Only lazy and intellectually dishonest people do things that are morally/ethically/idealistically wrong and blame it on "the real world".
To let America slide from a beacon of hope in the world to a distrusted mad dog because it's too hard to do the right thing is frankly disgusting.
Or so I believe.
I don't know. I think this played on many levels. On one level, you are right... he's Steven Colbert playing a commentator who believes he's praising the president, but the praise backfires and the results are comedic. Ha, ha, he's lampooning O'Reilly.
On a level deeper, though, Steven gets to say thing as the commentator that he couldn't just stand up in front of that crowd and say. He gets to say what he really believes, only say it in a way that's funny when coming out of the mouth of Colbert the pundit.
Example: he's asking the president why he wasn't considered for the part of the white house press secretary. At which point, he stares right at the audience and says "I have nothing but contempt for these people". Look at his face when he says it. He's playing it for laughs, but he's deadly serious. He has nothing but contempt for those people. Meanwhile, they laugh... they LAUGH... because ha, ha.. he's lampooning O'Reilly. Except he's not.
You can see that same mechanism in effect in several of his "jokes". He really is pushing wickedly vicious attacks at the president and the press, and they can't decide whether to laugh or not, because they aren't sure what level to take it at.
I thought it was brilliant -- he was able to attack them savagely, and still come across like he was tossing softballs. Amazing.
And I'm not sure you got the point of Colbert's monologue. I don't believe he was playing for laughs. I think he saw an opportunity to actually put his money where his mouth was, and took it. You are right. It was out of place for the event, but I think that was exactly the point. Letting everyone laugh comfortably while we prosecute a war in another country without being able to answer a fundamental question like "why did we go to war" wasn't on his agenda. And it shouldn't be. Good for him, I say.
And I'm thinking $35M a month is enough to buy the expertise, equipment, and facilities to do all that.
And of course while googling for sites that backed up my point, I used TFA to justify TFA. D'oh. Sorry.
Feel free to mod me "-1 tard".
And just to prove my idiocy, here is a nice chart showing that peak production and depletion midpoint are not always the same.
Even so, I believe I am still kinda half-right, in that while the Hubbert model might not be right or even accurate, if you use that model, it shows that peak production and depletion midpoint coincide. For what it's worth. D'oh.
If you use the Hubbert methodology, algebraically (and empirically, based on the US oil peak) peak oil production is indeed achieved at the midpoint of oil depletion.
See here and here for examples.
For 2 trillion dollars, we could fund a free nationwide shuttle service for bar patrons.
/me shrugs. I might be wrong, though.
Okay, ridiculous, I know (or am I *required* to spell it "rediculous"?), but the point that I think both of us agree on is that that whatever iraq is causing us, the benefit we gain in terms of reducing our terrorist threat isn't worth the money. Just from a pure cost-benefit standpoint.
I don't know what specifically could be done to lower drunk driving fatalities, but we might be able to fund studies to see why the the percentages of drunk driving fatalities are 3-4 times lower in sweden or finland then they are in the US. I'm confident we could bring that study in at under $2T. Or whatever the real number is.
And I guess I see your point, but I'm of the opposite view. Spending that money on almost *anything* else would probably have better effects than going into Iraq, in my opinion. I just feel that there are plenty of things we could have done with the money to have objectively better results.
Yup, but traffic fatalities involving alcohol account for nearly 50% of those numbers. Those deaths are eminently preventable.
Also, if the studies detailing costs associated with Iraq alone are to be believed, we'll have spent 2 trillion dollars there. What could that have done if we spent it on combatting drunk driving? Or suicide prevention programs? Would our country be objectively safer?
I believe so.
The difference between what you experience and what the parent poster experienced is the fact that you were running stock firmware, and the parent poster was running unslung or debonaras, or any one of the other replacement firmwares for the slug.
The linksys firmware might suck, I don't know, having scraped off the linksys dreck immediately upon plugging the device in.
You might just give unslung a shot. It's easy, and fixes most (all?) the complaints you've mentioned.
So that's Ajax, is it? Strange... looked like phishing to me. :)
Remind me again why I'd want to put my im passwords into a random web page?
Yes... osx boot times completely suck. That's why I only reboot after updates.
Time from opening lid of powerboot to idle desktop: 2-3 sec.
Time from closing lid of powerbook to glowing white "sleep" light: 4-5 seconds, but doesn't much matter.
I wouldn't want to be called an apologist or anything, but my laptop seems *way* faster to me than my xp box, just because my pb is essentially instant-on, what with the quick sleep times. It is annoying when you have to do a full boot though. Although 10.4 is some better in this regard than 10.3. Guess it's dictated by usage. Perhaps they spent time optimizing sleep times, not boot times, in that they expected people to sleep more often. Dunno.
Wait... here's a better idea. Rather than having a native app, which you would have to re-write for every single OS out there, why not just write to some abstract machine specification, and then write interpreters for that abstract machine on each OS? Then you could build libraries in this hypothetical p-code, and they would be instantly portable across every platform. w00t! It would be nirvana! "translate to p-code once, interpret anywhere!"
Maybe they should talk to the Sun guys about this. Maybe they have some experience in this area.
Or maybe that momentum is still going on, just that nobody is crowing about it. I don't jump and down and evangelize about every w2k server I replace with linux, but I've replaced a lot of them this last year.
Then again, I don't talk much about installing a Windows box, either. It's just "doing my job".
Maybe it's just that now it's a matter of acceptance, of choosing the right tool for the job, and not so much a matter of ideology. Maybe it's just not worth hyping anymore, as it's isn't a "new and untested" technology. I don't see anyone agonizing over the ethernet versus token ring debate anymore, either.
Don't really know, but from my perspective, the momentum is still there. Perhaps it's even increasing...