So when it's Belize or some other central-American country it's corruption, but if it's the United States we're talking about it's "problems?" Just little pesky problems? That sounds like pure hypocrisy to me. If you really want to play the dictionary game, could they not be called "problems" in Belize as well--perhaps just bigger ones?
That sounds to me like the same reasoning people have when they whine when someone calls other people who are mentally retarded "retarded", and then request that everyone refers to them as being "slow," "special," "challenged" or some other--dare I say it--retarded word. It's the same damn thing, just different wording, purposely more neutral and less negative in connotation, or even pointlessly positive in some cases. All to change the perception.
Just because corruption is not as bad here doesn't mean that it does not exist.
For your murder/jaywalking comparison, though I'm not talking about either one here, the United States government considers many relatively harmless, petty things as "crimes" with severe criminal penalties. People get punished hardcore for stupid shit every day here in the U.S. in ways that make their actual "crimes" seem as pathetic as jaywalking. Jails and prisons are meant to keep dangerous people away from society where they cannot harm people, yet with the current laws people are held imprisoned for things that are completely harmless. One famous case in point? Tommy Chong. Time in the slammer with potentially actual dangerous people for being involved in selling glass pipes. People harmed? Zero. Last I heard, no one was beat to death with a fucking bong.
Ah, after a quick look I thought it had to be in there somewhere but didn't find it. After some more searching, I did finally find it. It's under Search Tools; I thought it would be under Advanced search.
I just tried Bing, but by the time I got to around page 20 (skipping every 4-5 pages), I was given a captcha trying to get me to type some bullshit hard-to-read gibberish in to verify I'm not a machine. Fuck that shit, and I'll pass on using Bing in the future. Nice try, Microsoft. Not only did I still not find anything relevant, I was unable to skip through the search results to actually find something of interest without being bothered and accused of being a malicious computer.
"We know you want to get back to searching, and we want to help you do that. We ask that you view the characters in the following picture and enter them in the box below."
Sure they want to help me get back to searching. Goodbye, Bing. You've helped immensely at reminding me that there are better search engines out there, where even if I still can't find something relevant for a particular query, at least their sites don't actively get in the way and prevent you from viewing the results.
You talk as if the good old USA federal government doesn't have its own serious set of corruption issues. Hint: it's full of them too. Pick your poison. That said, leaving the U.S. for Belize, of all countries, was an incredibly stupid move. Surely there are some much better places in the world to pick from.
You can't. Nothing is more powerful than the Almighty Dollar, which all of these companies worship, and their stockholders jizz all over themselves every time they find out how to make even more money. Doesn't matter how crooked that method is.
If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.
Already did this many years ago. Canonical has given me countless reasons to recommend against them since approximately 2008-2009. This, since it was announced, was just yet another in a long string of reasons for me to be against installing Ubuntu on any of my own machines in the future as well as to stop recommending it to other people. I'm sorry, but if I'm searching for a local file with a somewhat private name, there is no reason whatsoever for that text to be sent over to Canonical and Amazon. And if I wanted to be sold shit, I would just head to amazon.com or newegg.com... last I checked, Ubuntu came fully equipped with a web browser and capable of allowing its users to securely and expectedly order products without having to send every single "local" system search out to corporations.
Very good points. I fail to see how it is possible to get any number really, because there really are no accurate "stats" to go by that are anywhere near honest and accurate. Bullshit is the term I would use for it, honestly. It's mind-boggling just how distorted any potential "stats" actually are when it comes to Windows sales. They're basically as good as nothing.
It wasn't long ago I saw on OSNews that Windows 8 was selling great; now supposedly it's not. To be honest, I had a hard time believing that it was pushing new PCs faster than they would go to begin with, despite the artificial sales boost in the form of dirt-cheap upgrade discounts. So really, given the fact that Microsoft basically has all the OEMs in their pockets and a "Windows sale" is really just a "new PC sale," how the hell can any such claims of "Windows sales" be made anyway? Isn't that an impossible number to pin down, given that most new PC buyers will be stuck with Windows 8 due to Microsoft pushing it and all the OEMs pre-loading it by default as a result?
Possibly, I'm not really sure, but I actually thought it had something to do with the fact that WA3 was such a major departure (IIRC it was a brand new program, it didn't even support classic Winamp skins).
Perhaps it would be a problem if you to have to look down at your keyboard to type and saw nasty gooey gunk every time... and worse, even not looking, the stuff would make your keys slippery. But that's never going to happen unless you eat while or after typing, without washing your hands. Plus--if you have the ability to type without looking, then you would *never* have to look at it even if it is there. I tend to not eat while typing, but some things--like Cheetos--can slide, because they can be eaten with one hand, and I can type with the other. This sort of thing would certainly not be comfortable, and probably not even possible on a cell phone.
Still, the natural oils and sweat on our hands are enough to make screens look seriously nasty, while a traditional keyboard will keep purring away with no major difference in functionality or appearance. No Cheetos necessary. And those natural oils, no amount of hand washing will be able to completely eliminate. They're just there, always will be, and will reappear in relatively short time after washing your hands.
Plus... I'd rather get a $25 keyboard messy and have to clean it than a fucking $125 touchscreen on a complicated electronic device with speakers, buttons, etc. that by its nature should be kept *away* from water as much as possible...
VLC has been to unstable for me and in general just doesn't tend to work as it's supposed to. In fact, my experience with it has been so consistently bad, I honestly don't get why it's so damn popular.
Whoosh. Apparently you don't get the point. I was slamming Flash, Java and similar plug-ins.
Here, let me try to spell it out for you: The 64-bit version of Firefox doesn't support insecure plug-ins; therefore, unless you would run NoScript anyway, the 64-bit version of Firefox is more secure. But apparently those shiny insecure features are more important to Mozilla than the security benefits. Get it?
The difference is, Winamp's version numbering actually made sense. There was Winamp 2, and then the flop that brought with it freeform skinning known as Winamp 3. Because Winamp 3 was a failure (I don't know why, I liked it...), Nullsoft decided to go back to the drawing board. They decided to extend the current Winamp at the time (version 2) with plug-ins to handle freeform skinning and various other features they planned in the rewrite (version 3). The result of combining (version) two and (version) three was... drumroll... 5. 2+3=5.
But that happened many years ago; Winamp has been at version 5.xxx ever since. The main problem I see with Winamp was not exactly its version numbering system (although it can be confusing at times with so many digits after a single decimal, though that is not a problem with the current 5.63), but the fact that AOL has for years been adding a whole shitload of garbage to the installer, and it's installed by default, with no sane "full, but without the useless options" setting. And that's not including the endless unchecks to get rid of unwanted sponsored garbage. There's literally so much useless junk installed in a "full" installation, it's actually very difficult to get a nice, light, clean install without loads of crap that you don't need.
I miss the days of being able to select a "full" installation, uncheck maybe 6-12 things, install and be done with it. Now... half the new garbage, I don't even know what it is... and after running Linux for so long (ie. no Winamp, unfortunately), it's even worse trying to figure out what's what. What it needs is more options than just light/minimal and full... all or nothing is just not a good compromise.
Memory leaks have been a problem with Firefox since back around version 2.0. Already at version 17, clearly Mozilla Corporation is more interested in inflating the version number than actually fixing decade-old performance problems. Ironically, such high version numbers with the same old problems make them look even worse than they did with a sane versioning system... apparently that never crossed anyone's mind at Mozilla.
So, Firefox is already set to get out of its teens. What's next? Firefox 30 late 2013? Version 100 by 2016? Pretty soon they're going to have to do something, because people are going to get fucking sick of counting up an entire version pointlessly every god damn month.
All you'll miss really is Wine maybe, and that's only because the Windows programs it is designed to run were compiled for and depend on x86... most native programs for Linux are fully capable of being compiled for one of the other dozens of CPU architectures that Linux supports if needed since their source code is available. Nothing is even stopping you from doing it yourself.
Chances are if something happened, there would be a handful of new ARM-specific distros practically overnight that don't sacrifice any major functionality or compatibility.
Luckily, this is where NoScript comes in handy; it can help protect against nearly all 95% of those bad scripts . Unfortunately, with so many sites requiring scripts just to properly load the page, there will undoubtedly be several that you need to enable scripting for if you really want to see their contents. But it still protects against a very large percent of them, and it will speed up your browsing at the same time.
I do miss the good old days, when a web page really was a web page, and every once in a while there actually would be a little script to allow something small and simple that otherwise wouldn't be possible with plain HTML. Now, sites are virtually nothing *but* scripting, and they feel like bloated pigs just trying to load them. Kind of like certain operating systems...
That was about the 64-bit build, running exclusively in 64-bit mode. Running the 32-bit version of Firefox on 64-bit Windows is still fully supported. The big problem with 64-bit Firefox on Windows was that, unlike Linux, plug-in developers (read: Adobe) didn't port their plug-ins to 64-bit, and only released them in 32-bit variants.
Which means potentially better security in a Windows program version than a Linux version for once, and one less thorn in the side of Windows/Firefox users. But no no no... Mozilla can't just allow that. That would be just too much of a good thing for their users.
Seriously, who gives a shit? Just a quick search on this guy shows that he deserves whatever he gets. He has a history of breaking the law and moving to different countries to run from the government. Not to mention, he is filthy rich and can just keep doing it--over and over again--which he seems to be doing. Most people who break the law don't exactly have that luxury, so why should this dick?
Google fanboy? Nah, just someone who has a lack of trust toward Microsoft.
And if by FUD you mean the fact that I called DDG "Bing in disguise," well, I stand corrected--I thought the site *did* use Bing for its search engine until another person replying brought up that it actually uses multiple engines.
Slashdot Mirror
As a gamer, I actually strongly agree on this... they should be taken care of, preserved, ba a part of a museum. That's lots of history he's selling.
BSNES is awesome, by the way.
So when it's Belize or some other central-American country it's corruption, but if it's the United States we're talking about it's "problems?" Just little pesky problems? That sounds like pure hypocrisy to me. If you really want to play the dictionary game, could they not be called "problems" in Belize as well--perhaps just bigger ones?
That sounds to me like the same reasoning people have when they whine when someone calls other people who are mentally retarded "retarded", and then request that everyone refers to them as being "slow," "special," "challenged" or some other--dare I say it--retarded word. It's the same damn thing, just different wording, purposely more neutral and less negative in connotation, or even pointlessly positive in some cases. All to change the perception.
Just because corruption is not as bad here doesn't mean that it does not exist.
For your murder/jaywalking comparison, though I'm not talking about either one here, the United States government considers many relatively harmless, petty things as "crimes" with severe criminal penalties. People get punished hardcore for stupid shit every day here in the U.S. in ways that make their actual "crimes" seem as pathetic as jaywalking. Jails and prisons are meant to keep dangerous people away from society where they cannot harm people, yet with the current laws people are held imprisoned for things that are completely harmless. One famous case in point? Tommy Chong. Time in the slammer with potentially actual dangerous people for being involved in selling glass pipes. People harmed? Zero. Last I heard, no one was beat to death with a fucking bong.
Ah, after a quick look I thought it had to be in there somewhere but didn't find it. After some more searching, I did finally find it. It's under Search Tools; I thought it would be under Advanced search.
Corruption is corruption, no matter how major or minor it is.
I just tried Bing, but by the time I got to around page 20 (skipping every 4-5 pages), I was given a captcha trying to get me to type some bullshit hard-to-read gibberish in to verify I'm not a machine. Fuck that shit, and I'll pass on using Bing in the future. Nice try, Microsoft. Not only did I still not find anything relevant, I was unable to skip through the search results to actually find something of interest without being bothered and accused of being a malicious computer.
"We know you want to get back to searching, and we want to help you do that.
We ask that you view the characters in the following picture and enter them in the box below."
Sure they want to help me get back to searching. Goodbye, Bing. You've helped immensely at reminding me that there are better search engines out there, where even if I still can't find something relevant for a particular query, at least their sites don't actively get in the way and prevent you from viewing the results.
You talk as if the good old USA federal government doesn't have its own serious set of corruption issues. Hint: it's full of them too. Pick your poison. That said, leaving the U.S. for Belize, of all countries, was an incredibly stupid move. Surely there are some much better places in the world to pick from.
With all the results about his recent legal battles and arrest, I have no clue how you managed to find older interviews of him in a Google search.
You can't. Nothing is more powerful than the Almighty Dollar, which all of these companies worship, and their stockholders jizz all over themselves every time they find out how to make even more money. Doesn't matter how crooked that method is.
If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.
Already did this many years ago. Canonical has given me countless reasons to recommend against them since approximately 2008-2009. This, since it was announced, was just yet another in a long string of reasons for me to be against installing Ubuntu on any of my own machines in the future as well as to stop recommending it to other people. I'm sorry, but if I'm searching for a local file with a somewhat private name, there is no reason whatsoever for that text to be sent over to Canonical and Amazon. And if I wanted to be sold shit, I would just head to amazon.com or newegg.com... last I checked, Ubuntu came fully equipped with a web browser and capable of allowing its users to securely and expectedly order products without having to send every single "local" system search out to corporations.
And that leaves no artists actually doing their own thing, independently.
Very good points. I fail to see how it is possible to get any number really, because there really are no accurate "stats" to go by that are anywhere near honest and accurate. Bullshit is the term I would use for it, honestly. It's mind-boggling just how distorted any potential "stats" actually are when it comes to Windows sales. They're basically as good as nothing.
It wasn't long ago I saw on OSNews that Windows 8 was selling great; now supposedly it's not. To be honest, I had a hard time believing that it was pushing new PCs faster than they would go to begin with, despite the artificial sales boost in the form of dirt-cheap upgrade discounts. So really, given the fact that Microsoft basically has all the OEMs in their pockets and a "Windows sale" is really just a "new PC sale," how the hell can any such claims of "Windows sales" be made anyway? Isn't that an impossible number to pin down, given that most new PC buyers will be stuck with Windows 8 due to Microsoft pushing it and all the OEMs pre-loading it by default as a result?
Possibly, I'm not really sure, but I actually thought it had something to do with the fact that WA3 was such a major departure (IIRC it was a brand new program, it didn't even support classic Winamp skins).
Wow. I didn't know there were such strict guidelines (or any at all) on the use of fucking Internet slang here on Slashdot.
Perhaps it would be a problem if you to have to look down at your keyboard to type and saw nasty gooey gunk every time... and worse, even not looking, the stuff would make your keys slippery. But that's never going to happen unless you eat while or after typing, without washing your hands. Plus--if you have the ability to type without looking, then you would *never* have to look at it even if it is there. I tend to not eat while typing, but some things--like Cheetos--can slide, because they can be eaten with one hand, and I can type with the other. This sort of thing would certainly not be comfortable, and probably not even possible on a cell phone.
Still, the natural oils and sweat on our hands are enough to make screens look seriously nasty, while a traditional keyboard will keep purring away with no major difference in functionality or appearance. No Cheetos necessary. And those natural oils, no amount of hand washing will be able to completely eliminate. They're just there, always will be, and will reappear in relatively short time after washing your hands.
Plus... I'd rather get a $25 keyboard messy and have to clean it than a fucking $125 touchscreen on a complicated electronic device with speakers, buttons, etc. that by its nature should be kept *away* from water as much as possible...
VLC has been to unstable for me and in general just doesn't tend to work as it's supposed to. In fact, my experience with it has been so consistently bad, I honestly don't get why it's so damn popular.
Whoosh. Apparently you don't get the point. I was slamming Flash, Java and similar plug-ins.
Here, let me try to spell it out for you: The 64-bit version of Firefox doesn't support insecure plug-ins; therefore, unless you would run NoScript anyway, the 64-bit version of Firefox is more secure. But apparently those shiny insecure features are more important to Mozilla than the security benefits. Get it?
The difference is, Winamp's version numbering actually made sense. There was Winamp 2, and then the flop that brought with it freeform skinning known as Winamp 3. Because Winamp 3 was a failure (I don't know why, I liked it...), Nullsoft decided to go back to the drawing board. They decided to extend the current Winamp at the time (version 2) with plug-ins to handle freeform skinning and various other features they planned in the rewrite (version 3). The result of combining (version) two and (version) three was... drumroll... 5. 2+3=5.
But that happened many years ago; Winamp has been at version 5.xxx ever since. The main problem I see with Winamp was not exactly its version numbering system (although it can be confusing at times with so many digits after a single decimal, though that is not a problem with the current 5.63), but the fact that AOL has for years been adding a whole shitload of garbage to the installer, and it's installed by default, with no sane "full, but without the useless options" setting. And that's not including the endless unchecks to get rid of unwanted sponsored garbage. There's literally so much useless junk installed in a "full" installation, it's actually very difficult to get a nice, light, clean install without loads of crap that you don't need.
I miss the days of being able to select a "full" installation, uncheck maybe 6-12 things, install and be done with it. Now... half the new garbage, I don't even know what it is... and after running Linux for so long (ie. no Winamp, unfortunately), it's even worse trying to figure out what's what. What it needs is more options than just light/minimal and full... all or nothing is just not a good compromise.
Memory leaks have been a problem with Firefox since back around version 2.0. Already at version 17, clearly Mozilla Corporation is more interested in inflating the version number than actually fixing decade-old performance problems. Ironically, such high version numbers with the same old problems make them look even worse than they did with a sane versioning system... apparently that never crossed anyone's mind at Mozilla.
So, Firefox is already set to get out of its teens. What's next? Firefox 30 late 2013? Version 100 by 2016?
Pretty soon they're going to have to do something, because people are going to get fucking sick of counting up an entire version pointlessly every god damn month.
All you'll miss really is Wine maybe, and that's only because the Windows programs it is designed to run were compiled for and depend on x86... most native programs for Linux are fully capable of being compiled for one of the other dozens of CPU architectures that Linux supports if needed since their source code is available. Nothing is even stopping you from doing it yourself.
Chances are if something happened, there would be a handful of new ARM-specific distros practically overnight that don't sacrifice any major functionality or compatibility.
Luckily, this is where NoScript comes in handy; it can help protect against nearly all 95% of those bad scripts . Unfortunately, with so many sites requiring scripts just to properly load the page, there will undoubtedly be several that you need to enable scripting for if you really want to see their contents. But it still protects against a very large percent of them, and it will speed up your browsing at the same time.
I do miss the good old days, when a web page really was a web page, and every once in a while there actually would be a little script to allow something small and simple that otherwise wouldn't be possible with plain HTML. Now, sites are virtually nothing *but* scripting, and they feel like bloated pigs just trying to load them. Kind of like certain operating systems...
That was about the 64-bit build, running exclusively in 64-bit mode. Running the 32-bit version of Firefox on 64-bit Windows is still fully supported. The big problem with 64-bit Firefox on Windows was that, unlike Linux, plug-in developers (read: Adobe) didn't port their plug-ins to 64-bit, and only released them in 32-bit variants.
Which means potentially better security in a Windows program version than a Linux version for once, and one less thorn in the side of Windows/Firefox users. But no no no... Mozilla can't just allow that. That would be just too much of a good thing for their users.
Seriously, who gives a shit? Just a quick search on this guy shows that he deserves whatever he gets. He has a history of breaking the law and moving to different countries to run from the government. Not to mention, he is filthy rich and can just keep doing it--over and over again--which he seems to be doing. Most people who break the law don't exactly have that luxury, so why should this dick?
Google fanboy? Nah, just someone who has a lack of trust toward Microsoft.
And if by FUD you mean the fact that I called DDG "Bing in disguise," well, I stand corrected--I thought the site *did* use Bing for its search engine until another person replying brought up that it actually uses multiple engines.
No thanks to you for the correction, though.