Don't like the documentation? Don't use the software if all you can do is complain about it and its documentation. The manual pages seem good enough for me 95% of the time, while the remaining 5% is trying to use some much more complex program and honestly, there is much better documentation to be found elsewhere, including a quick Google search. Like, say... the project's own web site. You might laugh at the man pages, but at least they're available.
DOS sure as hell didn't have that luxury, and Windows' help system was always a joke--you're literally better off just doing a web search if you have any fancy questions, because even if you do did find the subject you're looking for, it is most likely completely inadequate and devoid of relevancy. It seems like Microsoft's "help" pages contain less actual relevant content than they do questions like "was this article useful? Did it help? How would you rate it?"
I'm sorry, but I'll take those "haha, man pages" any day.
But, I'm not trying. You think I'd waste my time really trying to be funny here on Slashdot? That was posted in just seconds with next to no energy wasted on thinking.
I know, which is why I use the code 12345678: to be different and have a combination that is harder to guess because no one else would have imagined it. Ever.
Clarification on how my thinking is wrong? You could argue that there was one "major version" in five years, but not one "release" in five years. Unless for some bizarre reason, probably to stretch the facts and warp reality, you don't consider 3.0 before it a "release."
"The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 3.1 codenamed ``sarge'' after nearly three years of constant development."
I don't know, but my thinking seems a bit more in line with Debian's own press release than your warped view of it. And 4.0/Etch was released in an acceptable amount of time after.
The sandbox style of Fedora and over stable style of Red Hat just doesn't cut it. It seems as though Fedora changes too rapidly and breaks stuff often and Red Hat is so "stable" that binaries lag far behind.
I agree. This is exactly why I generally stay away from the Fedora/Red Hat family. I have to say though that I respect Red Hat's stability and would use it over Fedora any day, but really, I think I'll just stick with Slackware and Debian and their derivatives for stability and decently-spaced releases. For a desktop/laptop machine though even they can become quite stale, and while openSUSE is a bit bloated, I do like their 8-month release schedule... because let's face it, the standard 6 months of Ubuntu and Fedora is just not enough. The fact that they're both typically buggy as hell only confirms it.
On the other hand, I have recently switched to tiling window managers, and the experience has triggered a major change in the way I think of a lot of things computing-related including the software I use and whether it is a bit older or more current... so I might some day revisit this stance.
Debian 4.0 to 5.0: 4/8/2007, 2/15/2009. About two years. Debian 5.0 to 6.0: 2/15/2009, 2/6/2011. About two years. Debian 6.0 to 7.0: 2/6/2011, 5/4/2013. About two years.
In other words, your complaint is either outdated or just completely false.
Even going back a bit further, pre-4.0, I see: Debian 3.0 to 3.1: 7/19/2002, 6/6/2005. About three years. Debian 3.1 to 4.0: 6/6/2005, 4/8/2007. About two years.
Going back even further, releases were even more frequent, done once or even more than once a year with a few exceptions. So really, where the hell do you get five years? Are you combining the cycles of two versions or something? Maybe 3.0 and 3.1? If so, how is that fair? No matter what, it's still far less time than people had to wait on Windows XP from release (10/25/2001) for a worthy successor (translation: Windows 7... 10/22/2009, eight years).
Wait... Fedora is actually stable enough for the desktop? Since when? Last I checked it was pretty unstable, bleeding edge, quick to add untested shiny new stuff at random, and this is why I dismissed it after my trial and never actually ran it on my machines...
And this was long before GNOME 3, more around the time it (prematurely) adopted KDE 4...
1) Is that not supported as a mount option in many file systems on UNIX-like operating systems? 2) Even if it is theoretically "safe" I would still consider a proper unmount the right thing to do, and I would not just "pull the plug" under any circumstances. Doesn't matter what the OS is.
Yup, they missed the boat. Anyone who has used a SSD will go back to using a regular HD when they stop making SSDs, and the last available one breaks.
First, a quick disclaimer: I have not used an SSD. I think they are still overpriced for what they are and that they are just not worth it.
Anyway, I have a hard time believing that after I've tried an SSD, I won't go back. Are you seriously saying that for pure data storage (ie. speed is NOT a consideration), SSDs are the way to go? I mean, I can understand using one in a laptop (for shock resistance) or as a small main system drive in a desktop, with a second drive--a HDD--for data storage. Also, don't forget--setting swap space on one of those things might end up breaking your expensive new toy.
Also, I'll wait for the "early adopters" with more money than brains to do the beta testing... I'm sure there's plenty of things we just don't know about these things yet. I've already heard some negative things about them that contradict the stories of pure rosy perfection that people originally claimed of these storage devices. Meanwhile, if I ever find one cheap (SLC for reliability) I might pick it up for a system drive, but until then (and even for a while after, once SSDs have proven themselves) I'll be sticking with hard drives.
I've got one program that runs on DOS. It's been running continously since 1995 (24x365).
That's great, but I'm talking about right now, in 2013--not 18 years ago.
The only crashes are when power goes out and it comes back from those crashes with no corruption and no need for a manual restart. When power comes back it just picks up where it went down. My Linux systems don't have that kind of uptime.
Just a simple crash in Win9x would leave my file system so fucked the operating system would typically need to be completely reinstalled every few months. I have a hard time believing that DOS, which uses the same file system and *is* the core behind the Win9x series, would be much more reliable (especially during a power failure), and it's laughable that you're comparing the uptime of DOS to Linux.
My Linux-based router would behave in the way you are describing: stays up and running until the power goes out. My desktop most likely would too if I let it, but I tend to keep it up to date and properly maintained so the uptimes don't get that high. With DOS, there basically is no such thing as maintenance: it's dead. No updates, no reboots. Just an old, creaky, antique piece of shi--er, I mean, software.
If it weren't for hardware becoming hard to get I would keep it on DOS. It's a nice simple OS that does what it's told to do.
My experience was that I had to fight with DOS just to get it to do what I wanted and deal with many odd behaviors, similarly to its successor Windows, but I will agree that it is extremely simple... just not very nice. It's good for nostalgia, especially classic PC gaming, but in my opinion that's about it. And with modern processors just operating way too fast to run many of these games, DOSBox seems more useful in that particular case than DOS itself.
I really hope that by saying "people with a need for DOS should still be using DOS" you are referring to FreeDOS, because MS-DOS and all of its main competitors have long been dead... and is there even a single living, supported traditional/proprietary DOS variant other than FreeDOS even available? DOS can still be used in extremely rare special cases, but I'd personally have a hard time recommending *anyone* to use such an obscure, unsupported OS... you're better off just seeing if other options will work these days, and using DOS as a last resort, only when all else fails.
Seriously? Mozilla is building fucking Facebook directly into the browser? Someone please hand me a noose.
I thought Firefox was supposed to fight the original suite's bloat... and now, all they can add is a fucking "share" button and tamper with the logo (which I could barely tell the difference between looking at them side by side)? Mozilla, you are pathetic. Copy every aspect of Chrome... and then, give us a god damn worthless social networking button.
1. Disable third-party cookies 2. Install Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper 3. Install NoScript 4. Install DoNotTrackMe 5. Turn on the worthless "Do Not Track" header, if only just to further get the point across. 6. Clear cookies if you previously went to sites before disabling them, because you've likely got some Facebook tracking garbage on your machine.
Have you ever sat beside a fiending lifetime tobacco smoker who's scrambling behind the wheel with both hands, trying to grab his pack of cigarettes and lighter, and then pull one out and try to light it? If you truly think that there is no attention involved in that, then sorry, but you're full of shit. And let me remind you how many hands it takes to do each of these steps: both of them. So not only is your mind and focus on getting that cigarette lit and in your mouth, you've really got no hand available to actually--you know--drive. And that alone--not having free hands to steer--is dangerous itself. Not to mention fucking stupid.
Hell, this isn't even a representative democracy, let alone a pure one. All those motherfuckers are representing is the almighty dollar, not We the People as the Constitution states that they are supposed to do. They have basically sold one of our most important amendments that was in our Bill of Rights for a quick personal fix of $$$. George Carlin said it best when he said that the U.S. government has been bought and sold a long time ago. They might as well take that money they obtained through bribery and use it to re-write the entire U.S. Constitution--by now it needs it more than ever, because at this point it's clear that all it is is a fucking joke and everyone in the government is just wiping their ass with it anyway, laughing all the way while everyone watches fucking American Idol or the latest knockoff.
So your rage against bluetooth while driving should be equally directed at using speakerphone while driving.
I honestly think using a phone in the car is a very bad idea no matter what, speakerphone or not. But I would think if you just crank the volume and set the phone down with the speaker facing you, there are two less likely things to cause a distraction/accident:
1. You can't drop it, because it's not in your hand, and 2. It won't fall out of your ear leaving you scrambling to catch it like a headset.
No doubt though, I fully agree that talking on a phone while driving is just dumb. I think it's equally dumb to be fiddling with a cigarette getting your drug fix behind the wheel, but I'm always seeing inconsiderate assholes flicking their lit butts out the window as well. The bottom line is, the only thing a person should be doing while behind the wheel is driving and focusing on maneuvering the vehicle... there are no exceptions. Unless it is in park on the side of a road or in a slot in a parking lot.
You seriously can't be proposing a speaker phone as a replacement for a bluetooth!??
For a car, damn right, and that's primarily what I meant when talking about speakerphone. Unless you're always driving with a nosey passenger beside you, in which case maybe you don't need a phone after all. Just bullshit with them, it would be safer than worrying about volume levels and buttons and shit when you should be keeping your eyes on the damn road anyway.
Why do you think everyone around you needs to hear BOTH sides of your pathetic the conversation about picking up a dozen eggs, and when are you going to clean up your room?
Again, you took my original intended meaning out of context. I did also mention holding the phone up to your ear... and yeah, I was referring to store use when doing that. And you know, before cell phones ever even existed we got along just fine in stores talking, in person, right in the store. How exactly is speakerphone any different, other than like I said, it would make much more sense to just bring the other person with you. Save your minutes, save your battery, avoid having to use the phone to begin with if it's not even needed in the first place.
And explain how I am going to drag the person on the other end of the phone into the store with me when they are 3 states away, and stuck in their office?
What, do you get groceries for someone who lives three states away, or is just on the job at the time? If the second, simple: 1. Re-schedule it so they can go with you and figure out what you want. 2. Grocery list. How hard is it to get together and decide what you need, write it down (or use some electronic method), and just go on your own?
Man, where would we be without our fucking cell phones?! How did we survive for so long before they were invented?!?
If they can't do their job properly to begin with--stocking the shelves with what people want--then what makes you think that tracking you will change anything? They are supposed to keep track of inventory, and if they just don't carry something, then that kind of is up to the customer to either look elsewhere or ask a manager if they can get it in. Automatic tracking will not solve anything... all it will do is violate your privacy even further. But hey, it's not like they don't have dozens or even hundreds of cameras spread all throughout their perimeter, both inside and out, spying on you. What's a bit more going to hurt, other than your own battery power in this case?
Which means, this is just another good reason not to use a Bluetooth headset! Really, I can imagine a headset being of use in, say, a car--where you need to focus on the road/wheel and holding something up to your ear is just dumb (but let's face it--humans won't stop being morons until they're all dead). But outside of a car setting, I really don't see what the point is in having such a system--and even then, what's wrong with speakerphone? In a store, maybe you get some minor convenience being able to look at shit and bullshit at the same time while having two free hands, but in that case why didn't you drag the person on the other end of the phone line in the store with you to begin with? And I'm having a hard time even thinking of a reason that these two uses--car and stores--are valid alternatives to just waiting to call later.
So... save your battery, fuck Bluetooth, and fuck these stores' tracking. With years of fighting the scumbags and assholes in the web/online advertisement industry and more recently the extreme backlash on the U.S. government for their mass surveillance programs, you'd think these dipshits would eventually get the fucking point. But no--they never do, because they will stop at nothing to get even more from you.
Is the kernel-level DRM as structurally sound as it was, the day Microsoft ripped off VMS from DEC, back when, you know, such user-hostile garbage didn't exist in the system?
Snowden is wanted for breaking the law with his "illegal deed" basically putting the government on the spot and saying that people in the government are breaking the laws themselves, having effectively corrupted the government to the point where the basic democratic republic nature of it no longer works correctly. Now, the government can't get to him. But, all of these other people who he put in the spotlight are still here in the U.S., sitting in their nice and cozy office chairs, getting paid government checks with *your* tax dollars.
How about for now the government focuses on what they can--the people behind the blatant violations of our Bill of Rights who either put these spy programs in place or continue to give false praises with no real substance? How about we impeach Obama's ass? Oh yeah, I almost forgot--to get even the slightest chance of impeachment these days, you have to get your dick sucked in office. How about we quit our manhunt and start looking right in our own fucking government? Edward has brought to light plenty of corruption that needs to be investigated. The government needs to quit using him as a way to redirect the blame.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't like the documentation? Don't use the software if all you can do is complain about it and its documentation. The manual pages seem good enough for me 95% of the time, while the remaining 5% is trying to use some much more complex program and honestly, there is much better documentation to be found elsewhere, including a quick Google search. Like, say... the project's own web site. You might laugh at the man pages, but at least they're available.
DOS sure as hell didn't have that luxury, and Windows' help system was always a joke--you're literally better off just doing a web search if you have any fancy questions, because even if you do did find the subject you're looking for, it is most likely completely inadequate and devoid of relevancy. It seems like Microsoft's "help" pages contain less actual relevant content than they do questions like "was this article useful? Did it help? How would you rate it?"
I'm sorry, but I'll take those "haha, man pages" any day.
But, I'm not trying. You think I'd waste my time really trying to be funny here on Slashdot? That was posted in just seconds with next to no energy wasted on thinking.
I know, which is why I use the code 12345678: to be different and have a combination that is harder to guess because no one else would have imagined it. Ever.
Clarification on how my thinking is wrong? You could argue that there was one "major version" in five years, but not one "release" in five years. Unless for some bizarre reason, probably to stretch the facts and warp reality, you don't consider 3.0 before it a "release."
"The Debian Project is pleased to announce the official release of Debian GNU/Linux version 3.1 codenamed ``sarge'' after nearly three years of constant development."
Source? Right here: http://www.debian.org/News/2005/20050606
I don't know, but my thinking seems a bit more in line with Debian's own press release than your warped view of it. And 4.0/Etch was released in an acceptable amount of time after.
The sandbox style of Fedora and over stable style of Red Hat just doesn't cut it. It seems as though Fedora changes too rapidly and breaks stuff often and Red Hat is so "stable" that binaries lag far behind.
I agree. This is exactly why I generally stay away from the Fedora/Red Hat family. I have to say though that I respect Red Hat's stability and would use it over Fedora any day, but really, I think I'll just stick with Slackware and Debian and their derivatives for stability and decently-spaced releases. For a desktop/laptop machine though even they can become quite stale, and while openSUSE is a bit bloated, I do like their 8-month release schedule... because let's face it, the standard 6 months of Ubuntu and Fedora is just not enough. The fact that they're both typically buggy as hell only confirms it.
On the other hand, I have recently switched to tiling window managers, and the experience has triggered a major change in the way I think of a lot of things computing-related including the software I use and whether it is a bit older or more current... so I might some day revisit this stance.
Debian 4.0 to 5.0: 4/8/2007, 2/15/2009. About two years.
Debian 5.0 to 6.0: 2/15/2009, 2/6/2011. About two years.
Debian 6.0 to 7.0: 2/6/2011, 5/4/2013. About two years.
In other words, your complaint is either outdated or just completely false.
Even going back a bit further, pre-4.0, I see:
Debian 3.0 to 3.1: 7/19/2002, 6/6/2005. About three years.
Debian 3.1 to 4.0: 6/6/2005, 4/8/2007. About two years.
Going back even further, releases were even more frequent, done once or even more than once a year with a few exceptions. So really, where the hell do you get five years? Are you combining the cycles of two versions or something? Maybe 3.0 and 3.1? If so, how is that fair? No matter what, it's still far less time than people had to wait on Windows XP from release (10/25/2001) for a worthy successor (translation: Windows 7... 10/22/2009, eight years).
Debian release history data obtained here: http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian
[Although, as someone already said, the same data can probably be found elsewhere, including Wikipedia.]
Wait... Fedora is actually stable enough for the desktop? Since when? Last I checked it was pretty unstable, bleeding edge, quick to add untested shiny new stuff at random, and this is why I dismissed it after my trial and never actually ran it on my machines...
And this was long before GNOME 3, more around the time it (prematurely) adopted KDE 4...
There's no such thing as an unmount in legacy DOS, I don't know about FreeDOS.
Which is exactly why I just don't feel comfortable with DOS, and would not trust it. ;)
1) Is that not supported as a mount option in many file systems on UNIX-like operating systems?
2) Even if it is theoretically "safe" I would still consider a proper unmount the right thing to do, and I would not just "pull the plug" under any circumstances. Doesn't matter what the OS is.
Yup, they missed the boat. Anyone who has used a SSD will go back to using a regular HD when they stop making SSDs, and the last available one breaks.
First, a quick disclaimer: I have not used an SSD. I think they are still overpriced for what they are and that they are just not worth it.
Anyway, I have a hard time believing that after I've tried an SSD, I won't go back. Are you seriously saying that for pure data storage (ie. speed is NOT a consideration), SSDs are the way to go? I mean, I can understand using one in a laptop (for shock resistance) or as a small main system drive in a desktop, with a second drive--a HDD--for data storage. Also, don't forget--setting swap space on one of those things might end up breaking your expensive new toy.
Also, I'll wait for the "early adopters" with more money than brains to do the beta testing... I'm sure there's plenty of things we just don't know about these things yet. I've already heard some negative things about them that contradict the stories of pure rosy perfection that people originally claimed of these storage devices. Meanwhile, if I ever find one cheap (SLC for reliability) I might pick it up for a system drive, but until then (and even for a while after, once SSDs have proven themselves) I'll be sticking with hard drives.
I've got one program that runs on DOS. It's been running continously since 1995 (24x365).
That's great, but I'm talking about right now, in 2013--not 18 years ago.
The only crashes are when power goes out and it comes back from those crashes with no corruption and no need for a manual restart. When power comes back it just picks up where it went down. My Linux systems don't have that kind of uptime.
Just a simple crash in Win9x would leave my file system so fucked the operating system would typically need to be completely reinstalled every few months. I have a hard time believing that DOS, which uses the same file system and *is* the core behind the Win9x series, would be much more reliable (especially during a power failure), and it's laughable that you're comparing the uptime of DOS to Linux.
My Linux-based router would behave in the way you are describing: stays up and running until the power goes out. My desktop most likely would too if I let it, but I tend to keep it up to date and properly maintained so the uptimes don't get that high. With DOS, there basically is no such thing as maintenance: it's dead. No updates, no reboots. Just an old, creaky, antique piece of shi--er, I mean, software.
If it weren't for hardware becoming hard to get I would keep it on DOS. It's a nice simple OS that does what it's told to do.
My experience was that I had to fight with DOS just to get it to do what I wanted and deal with many odd behaviors, similarly to its successor Windows, but I will agree that it is extremely simple... just not very nice. It's good for nostalgia, especially classic PC gaming, but in my opinion that's about it. And with modern processors just operating way too fast to run many of these games, DOSBox seems more useful in that particular case than DOS itself.
I really hope that by saying "people with a need for DOS should still be using DOS" you are referring to FreeDOS, because MS-DOS and all of its main competitors have long been dead... and is there even a single living, supported traditional/proprietary DOS variant other than FreeDOS even available? DOS can still be used in extremely rare special cases, but I'd personally have a hard time recommending *anyone* to use such an obscure, unsupported OS... you're better off just seeing if other options will work these days, and using DOS as a last resort, only when all else fails.
DOS still works too, if you find the right hardware to run it on or use it in a virtual machine. Does that mean we should all be using DOS?
Seriously? Mozilla is building fucking Facebook directly into the browser?
Someone please hand me a noose.
I thought Firefox was supposed to fight the original suite's bloat... and now, all they can add is a fucking "share" button and tamper with the logo (which I could barely tell the difference between looking at them side by side)? Mozilla, you are pathetic. Copy every aspect of Chrome... and then, give us a god damn worthless social networking button.
1. Disable third-party cookies
2. Install Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper
3. Install NoScript
4. Install DoNotTrackMe
5. Turn on the worthless "Do Not Track" header, if only just to further get the point across.
6. Clear cookies if you previously went to sites before disabling them, because you've likely got some Facebook tracking garbage on your machine.
Done.
Have you ever sat beside a fiending lifetime tobacco smoker who's scrambling behind the wheel with both hands, trying to grab his pack of cigarettes and lighter, and then pull one out and try to light it? If you truly think that there is no attention involved in that, then sorry, but you're full of shit. And let me remind you how many hands it takes to do each of these steps: both of them. So not only is your mind and focus on getting that cigarette lit and in your mouth, you've really got no hand available to actually--you know--drive. And that alone--not having free hands to steer--is dangerous itself. Not to mention fucking stupid.
Hell, this isn't even a representative democracy, let alone a pure one. All those motherfuckers are representing is the almighty dollar, not We the People as the Constitution states that they are supposed to do. They have basically sold one of our most important amendments that was in our Bill of Rights for a quick personal fix of $$$. George Carlin said it best when he said that the U.S. government has been bought and sold a long time ago. They might as well take that money they obtained through bribery and use it to re-write the entire U.S. Constitution--by now it needs it more than ever, because at this point it's clear that all it is is a fucking joke and everyone in the government is just wiping their ass with it anyway, laughing all the way while everyone watches fucking American Idol or the latest knockoff.
Truly sad and fucking pathetic.
So your rage against bluetooth while driving should be equally directed at using speakerphone while driving.
I honestly think using a phone in the car is a very bad idea no matter what, speakerphone or not. But I would think if you just crank the volume and set the phone down with the speaker facing you, there are two less likely things to cause a distraction/accident:
1. You can't drop it, because it's not in your hand, and
2. It won't fall out of your ear leaving you scrambling to catch it like a headset.
No doubt though, I fully agree that talking on a phone while driving is just dumb. I think it's equally dumb to be fiddling with a cigarette getting your drug fix behind the wheel, but I'm always seeing inconsiderate assholes flicking their lit butts out the window as well. The bottom line is, the only thing a person should be doing while behind the wheel is driving and focusing on maneuvering the vehicle... there are no exceptions. Unless it is in park on the side of a road or in a slot in a parking lot.
You seriously can't be proposing a speaker phone as a replacement for a bluetooth!??
For a car, damn right, and that's primarily what I meant when talking about speakerphone. Unless you're always driving with a nosey passenger beside you, in which case maybe you don't need a phone after all. Just bullshit with them, it would be safer than worrying about volume levels and buttons and shit when you should be keeping your eyes on the damn road anyway.
Why do you think everyone around you needs to hear BOTH sides of your pathetic the conversation about picking up a dozen eggs, and when are you going to clean up your room?
Again, you took my original intended meaning out of context. I did also mention holding the phone up to your ear... and yeah, I was referring to store use when doing that. And you know, before cell phones ever even existed we got along just fine in stores talking, in person, right in the store. How exactly is speakerphone any different, other than like I said, it would make much more sense to just bring the other person with you. Save your minutes, save your battery, avoid having to use the phone to begin with if it's not even needed in the first place.
And explain how I am going to drag the person on the other end of the phone into the store with me when they are 3 states away, and stuck in their office?
What, do you get groceries for someone who lives three states away, or is just on the job at the time? If the second, simple:
1. Re-schedule it so they can go with you and figure out what you want.
2. Grocery list. How hard is it to get together and decide what you need, write it down (or use some electronic method), and just go on your own?
Man, where would we be without our fucking cell phones?! How did we survive for so long before they were invented?!?
If they can't do their job properly to begin with--stocking the shelves with what people want--then what makes you think that tracking you will change anything? They are supposed to keep track of inventory, and if they just don't carry something, then that kind of is up to the customer to either look elsewhere or ask a manager if they can get it in. Automatic tracking will not solve anything... all it will do is violate your privacy even further. But hey, it's not like they don't have dozens or even hundreds of cameras spread all throughout their perimeter, both inside and out, spying on you. What's a bit more going to hurt, other than your own battery power in this case?
Which means, this is just another good reason not to use a Bluetooth headset! Really, I can imagine a headset being of use in, say, a car--where you need to focus on the road/wheel and holding something up to your ear is just dumb (but let's face it--humans won't stop being morons until they're all dead). But outside of a car setting, I really don't see what the point is in having such a system--and even then, what's wrong with speakerphone? In a store, maybe you get some minor convenience being able to look at shit and bullshit at the same time while having two free hands, but in that case why didn't you drag the person on the other end of the phone line in the store with you to begin with? And I'm having a hard time even thinking of a reason that these two uses--car and stores--are valid alternatives to just waiting to call later.
So... save your battery, fuck Bluetooth, and fuck these stores' tracking. With years of fighting the scumbags and assholes in the web/online advertisement industry and more recently the extreme backlash on the U.S. government for their mass surveillance programs, you'd think these dipshits would eventually get the fucking point. But no--they never do, because they will stop at nothing to get even more from you.
Is the kernel-level DRM as structurally sound as it was, the day Microsoft ripped off VMS from DEC, back when, you know, such user-hostile garbage didn't exist in the system?
Too bad it's just a kernel, and pretty much the entirety of the system aside from the kernel sucks ass and is getting worse at a rapid rate...
You really don't think there'd be an "app" for that? Complete with its own enabling (or is that disabling?) DRM? Seriously?
Snowden is wanted for breaking the law with his "illegal deed" basically putting the government on the spot and saying that people in the government are breaking the laws themselves, having effectively corrupted the government to the point where the basic democratic republic nature of it no longer works correctly. Now, the government can't get to him. But, all of these other people who he put in the spotlight are still here in the U.S., sitting in their nice and cozy office chairs, getting paid government checks with *your* tax dollars.
How about for now the government focuses on what they can--the people behind the blatant violations of our Bill of Rights who either put these spy programs in place or continue to give false praises with no real substance? How about we impeach Obama's ass? Oh yeah, I almost forgot--to get even the slightest chance of impeachment these days, you have to get your dick sucked in office. How about we quit our manhunt and start looking right in our own fucking government? Edward has brought to light plenty of corruption that needs to be investigated. The government needs to quit using him as a way to redirect the blame.