Let me fix your analogy for you, because it is decidedly broken.
Imagine you're running a marathon, and one group of people get a 300-year head start. At some point in time, things change, so you take all those people that weren't allowed to compete before, move them up so they're with the rest of the pack. You hire personal trainers and coaches to teach them best running practices. You give them extra energy drinks and powerbars, and provide breaks from the marathon only for them, so they can get used to the pace. Even though they now have several advantages to make them competitive, they decide that it's more interesting to running backwards. They also claim their sneakers and shorts are not of the right color, and the wind is blocking them. Every attempt to show them that everyone else is dealing with the same problems is met with them covering their ears while yelling "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA".
That's what your analogy should really have been.
"Affirmative action is about letting people catch up so they can advance beyond their parents' social and economic class."
Explain to me why immigrant families face much bigger obstacles than other minorities, yet they thrive? The majority of them don't have a higher education, and will be lucky to have finished 12th grade. The parents often need their children to explain fairly basic things like bill statements, job and loan applications, etc. They also can't apply for the same types of loans or government assistance like natural-born citizens, because they're not entitled to them. They have to work extremely hard to make ends meet, sometimes working multiple jobs, yet a lot of them own their homes, have cars, save enough to send money back home, etc. Immigrants have to work ten times as hard as any natural-born US citizen to get the same things, yet somehow, affirmative action is needed for 'minorities' to catch up, "so they can advance beyond their parents' social and economic class."
I got news for you: I'm also a legal resident but not a citizen.
Like you, I pay "30% tax to SS, Medicare, and who the hell knows what else, and yet I cannot take any SS, Medicare, or affirmative action benefits."
Guess what, the opportunities I have here are far better than anything I could have done in my home country. Maybe you should consider going back "a little southeast of the Florida Keys" if it's such a burden to you.
Interestingly enough, the link you posted does not quote any sources nor has a link to the report mentioned in the first paragraph. However, the The Center for Responsible Lending is not exactly an unbiased source of information, since several of its board members are leading members of the NAACP and other civil rights organizations so they have a vested interest in the outcome of this study.
In the report, there is an interesting statement in the executive summary:
This analysis does not allow us to estimate precisely how much race and ethnicity increase the prices charged to borrowers. It is also beyond the scope of this paper to determine definitively why these disparities exist. However, we do posit several possible causes, including the considerable leeway mortgage originators have to impose charges beyond those justified by risk-based pricing.
What that says is "We can't really state for a fact that race/ethnicity is why they can be charged higher rates, so we're going to make shit up and claim that the white man is keeping them down." But don't take my word for it. It's at the top of page 5 in the report.
"Many of those "they" are playing by the rules, are educated, have gone to college, have careers, etc. Is it right that even when you play by the rules, you still run up against bias?"
Where did you see that? Nowhere in the article says anything like what you're saying, so you're pulling stuff out of your ass. Nevermind that historically, minorities have worse financial track records, meaning they're a higher liability, therefore lenders have to take extra precautions when lending to them. Blame that on the idiots that have screwed up in the past.
"And you're saying they should blame that on civil rights leaders?"
You're mixing apples and oranges. My first comment to blame the so-called 'civil rights leaders' like Sharpton and Jackson was to the fact that they constantly argue that minorities cannot succeed without help, which means that those who do succeed are always going to be viewed as not having done so by their own merits and competence, but because they were 'given a pass'. This had nothing to do with the other comment about housing, which was my reply to a different poster all together. Reading comprehension will take you a long way.
Housing is a completely different subject, with its own set of problems. A big part of the reason African-Americans can't buy "housing in 'good' areas" in modern days has more to do with their average crap credit history(which is a fact), rather than racial discrimination. You should blame this on poor personal decisions, not society is racist. It is no one else's fault that you have bad credit, low education, and a low-paying job, specially when there are *dozens* of ways minorities can get good educations (good, not great). Of course, stating that fact will be considered by many to make me 'racist'. Never mind that it's the truth.
Not everyone can go to a Princeton or a Harvard, but everyone can go to a community college. One of current the presidential candidates is an African-American college graduate who's product of a single-parent home, and his wife is also the perfect example of how hard work and dedication is proof that anyone, regardless of color can make it.
There is still some racial bias, but my point is that there will always be racial bias as long so-called 'civil rights leaders' can profit from stirring up discontent and shift blame. After all, it's a lot easier to stomach someone saying "You're poor because the white man is keeping you down" rather than "You're poor because you don't put any effort in educating yourself and don't stop spending money on stupid shit like rims".
The reason you find skepticism in any industry for the capabilities of a colored person is because of the bang-up job the so-called 'civil rights leaders' have done yelling and screaming about how minorities cannot achieve anything without assistance. It is exactly what affirmative action has turned into; rather than give those a real opportunity to those who work hard for it, it became just another way to 'milk the system', so instead of having those most capable, you end up favoring those who are the loudest (regardless of color).
You may refer to this as the 'soft bigotry of lowered expectations'. You might think that it's yet another racist thing, but can it be really racist when those directly responsible for it are your from your own race?
As long as you have 'reverse discrimination' (which is what affirmative action effectively is), you cannot and should not complain that you're not evaluated on your own merits. Don't blame the industry; blame the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons.
Assuming he's referring to the lists of recordings found on that Boston U. IP address, I don't think Mediasentry would have to 'be' in Massachusetts to get those lists. Whoever was making those files available was 'advertising' their availability to the whole world when he/she is on a P2P network, so Mediasentry could conceivably never step foot in Massachusetts to obtain this data.
I'm in the West Coast, but I could easily get a listing for MP3 files available on publicly-accessible webservers on Boston U.'s network if I spent 10 minutes looking for them, and I wouldn't have to be a 'private investigator' in MA to get them After all, these 'precious snowflakes' are advertising that they have this stuff available to everyone.
i>"Except that the/home/username directory in Unix stores a lot more than just data.It's also where configuration information, and even the applications themselves, go."
Not entirely true. In most modern distributions, applications get installed system-wide with very little input from the user, other than querying you for your root password. You only have applications installed in your home directory if you compile them yourself, which was not mentioned in the article.
"Program configuration is often critical, and when in files lives in at least 4 places, none of which are under My Documents. And then there's registry information, which isn't even in the filesystem."
If you want to be pedantic, then he'd also have to back up/etc,/usr/share/applications,/usr/share/application-registry, and possibly a dozen others directories that contain configuration information for whatever is installed on his system. In the context of the article, he was apparently referring to files he commonly uses, not the applications themselves, and that's why I specifically mentioned the My Documents folder.
"And then there's the chunks of the application that don't go into it's Program Files folder or wherever else you installed it, but go into Windows system folders. No, applications aren't supposed to do that."/etc./usr/bin./usr/lib./usr/local/*./usr/share/*. What me to keep going?
"And then there's registry information, which isn't even in the filesystem."
Wrong. Read this link, and you will get better informed about where the Windows registry actually lives (*hint* it's actually on the filesystem). It's not 'readable' just like your rpm db isn't readable, but just like you use utilities to manipulate your rpm database, you manage the registry the same way.
"No, that doesn't stop them even in this day and age. Why do you think so many applications get heartburn under Vista (which is pickier about such misbehavior)?"
He's not using Vista, he's using XP so your point is moot. You did read the article, right?
"Basically, on a Unix system if I save a copy of my home directory tree I'm pretty much guaranteed to have gotten not only all my data but all the configuration information and other things I need to restore not just my data but my application environment. On Windows, if I save a copy of My Documents I'll lose the majority of my application environment."
If you back up your User Folder under Documents & Settings (not just the My Programs folder) in Windows, you are not only backing up your documents, but your applications configuration options, your Music, Photos, etc, very much like a typical home directory. Howerver, as I said above, he was apparently referring to files he commonly uses and works with, not applications.
The bottom line is that the lines I quoted directly from the article were not accurate, or just misinformed. If he really wants to make comparisons between systems, he should at least know both of them equally well to at least give an impression of having an objective opinion.
While reading the article, I noticed a few funny things:
"And here's the funny thing: Windows feels a lot more Linuxlike to me than Mac OS. In many ways it seems as if it's a slightly clumsy knockoff of KDE. But it also has a lot more in common with GNOME than Mac OS does."
He should really have said that KDE is a great knock-off of Windows, and that Gnome has a lot in common with it. After all, they both 'borrowed' heavily from Windows, not the other way around.
"Backing up my data in Windows is lots harder than backing up a/home or/username directory in Linux, because Windows seems to scatter data all over the place. Why this is I do not know, but no doubt someone at Microsoft could tell me why this inconvenience is a good thing, not a bad one, just as I'm sure they could tell me why all kinds of annoying pop-up balloons that interfere with my work (instead of letting me concentrate on what I'm doing) make my life easier instead of harder.
Get over it, Roblimo. Windows does have a/home/ equivalent, namely the My Documents folder. Almost every single application will by default use that directory as the default location for any files you use, so if you do want to back up your data, just backup that directory. Even your precious Sony Vegas works like that.
Anyway, not a bad article, but then again, there was nothing remarkable about it. I wonder if I could get a paying gig writing fluff like Roblimo, but I guess I need to publish a couple fluff books first...
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that being a physicist and knowing how to write code are no match for common sense.
The 'ethics bill' bill he voted on was pushed by Nancy Pelosi to create a outside panel to replace the House Ethics Committee, which many (rightly) consider nearly useless for its lack of aggressiveness, but the creation of this "Office of Congressional Ethics" will be little more than just additional bureaucracy and wasted money, besides its direct application as a bullet point on an election-year campaign flyer.
As a freshman congressman, he's going to vote the way he's told by the senior party membership like, say, Pelosi. And as far as getting into any science/tech committees, he might have to get in line; he's a *freshman*, so he has virtually no influence.
I suggest you all read this post by Gray Knowlton, the group product manager for MS Office, where he clarifies some of the more incendiary statements by the SFLC.
He make some pretty reasonable arguments, and calls the blatant bias against MS, when IBM and sun get a free pass even though their own version of the OSP has the same restrictions as MS. Very interesting to see the kettle lashing back at pot.
I was the first one in this sub-thread to use the term "Vista only", in an attempt to shorten your long-winded post.
Your first post on the thread about the link being dead actually said "I agree that XP will last a year or two, but the gamers are going to sniff out the problems: such as Halo II being able to be run only on Vista".
So in short, you were wrong on your original statement. Your angry replies to other posts were just plain sad. Stop whining, it makes you look like a angry pedantic child.
While your post may not have been off-topic, the link he posted *can* be seen. I just clicked on it and here's the first few lines from the text:
"Million of Halo 2 fans/Windows XP users are rejoicing due to the fact that yesterday, a team of hackers known as "Razor1911 released a patch that allowed Windows XP users to install Halo 2 on their PC. A while back Falling Leaf Systems announced that they were to release compatibility drivers legally so that XP users can play Halo 2, but Razor1911 claimed that they beat them too it, and there's no doubt that they're right. Although there are still compatibility issues with the new patch, Halo 2 does run on most Windows XP machines, mostly in single player mode - there have been many complaints regarding the online multiplayer. Razor1911 has also released a re-pack pirated version of Halo 2 that should run better than the original Vista DVD, which included the patch with it. Along with Halo 2, Razor1911 has also released an XP patch for Shadowrun."
Oh yah, it also seems like you were wrong about Halo II being Vista only....
Now US confiscates property of Europeans but which happened to be registered in USA ??
You're talking apples and oranges. The Fidel regime confiscated all the property belonging to U.S. citizens as part of the pissing contest he was engaging with Washington shortly after his revolution. There were no warnings, no buybacks, nothing. You were paid a visit by someone from the government, who told you something along the lines of "This is now property of the Cuban people, GTFO", and that was it. Much like what happened to the white farmers in Zimbabwe a few years ago when Mugabe decided to appropriate their lands.
In this particular case, there is an actual law in place that explainsin no uncertain terms that if you do business with Cuba, you're subject to penalties, depending on what you do. Ignorance of the law is not exactly an excuse to break it.
There is no irony in it, and 'sovereign risk' has nothing to do with this specific case.
Do you realize (and the FP even says as much) that this involves a NON-AMERICAN company denied access to its own name because of a dick-waving contest that Kennedy lost (by default) almost 40 years ago?
A "NON-AMERICAN" company which happens to have its domain names registered with an American company based in Bellevue, Washington. This means that (just like any other foreign company with offices in the US) the non-american company falls under the restrictions just like any other american-based business. Not too hard to understand, right?
...As opposed to the geographically ignorant (unless we've "brought democracy" to Spain in the past few hours and I missed the announcement...)?
Reading comprehension might serve you better in the future. I suggest you re-read the actual article, rather than just spew uninformed comments for no reason.
... do you realize that these restrictions have been in place since 1962 because the Cuban government expropriated the property of U.S. citizens and corporations in Cuba?
Once again, those who seem historically ignorant are quick to condemn the current administration for something that has (arguably) been in place for over 40 years...
I understand the outrage at having our government use spy satellites to spy on us, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Google virtually doing the same thing. If anything, we think it's cool, and applaud all the numerous 'mashups' that have emerged and whatnot. For that, we volunteer all kinds of information, because it's not The Man(tm).
At least the government is still trying to convince detractors of this program that they'll ask for warrants and whatnot; Google does it with impunity, daily, and you think it's cool!
Wake up, people. Be consistent in your positions. If you're going to whine about how The Man(tm) is trying to make 1984 look like child's play, then complain about Google basically doing the same exact thing, with *YOUR* help (but in a much cooler way).
Collaboration can be overrated. If the people that are 'working' on your project are more of an hindrance for you rather than being helpful, I think they need to shut the hell up, get off your back, and let you do your work. That is one of the things that Zed mentioned in his rant about Kevin Clark, how he and Zed were at odds with controlling access to the main Utu repository, and Kevin accidentally proved Zed to be right, when he (Kevin) accidentally wiped the configure file for the whole project. I'd say that's some serious irony for you.
You can be Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Ada Augusta all rolled into one. But if you are surrounded by idiots, none of your big ideas are going to go anywhere, no matter how good they are. But hey, at least you're 'collaborating'.
Thank you for your interest in the feedback program. Due to overwhelming response, the supply of gifts has been exhausted so we have closed our free product offer on 12/11/2007 at 2pm Pacific Time. Thanks to everyone that participated!
Have you paused to consider that maybe it was done under anonymity to preserve whatever karma they may have here on/., and not because of fear of governmental persecution?
While I don't necessarily agree with the way he/she phrased his/her disagreement with the OP, I'll be the first one to admit that someone making a post against a popular opinion (Bush is the devil, the US turning into 1984, etc) will often time result in them getting modded down by 'activist' mods with a deliberate anti-government bias.
Try checking this comment later and you'll probably find it modded Troll/Flamebait/Offtopic, etc. Maybe then you'll understand why he/she went for the Anonymous Coward banner.
I'd say it depends on who you ask...
on
Is SETI Worth It?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The article is a nice attempt at arguing that 'investing in SETI' can prove to be useful 'down the road' by using some examples of how the curious and inquisitive minds of the past yielded immense discoveries and scientific progress that benefit us all, but it's akin to comparing apples to oranges.
The pragmatist in me says that SETI is a curious way for a few people to spend their time looking for signs of life 'somewhere out there' in the Universe, but it has no practical use. I mean, honestly, let's assume that tomorrow, we capture a signal from an alien civilization. Finally, the answer to 'Are we alone in the Universe?' is answered, great. Then what? Chances are that the transmission is (by the time we received it) hundreds or thousands of years old. During that time, the civilization that sent it could have vanished for a number of reasons, of which we'd have no clue about.
If anything, such a discovery would only lead to more problems, since in one single swoop, a number of major religious beliefs would be shattered, therefore leaving a bunch of pissed-off fundamentalists in a tizzy. The best and brightest would be infinitely pleased with such a discovery, but unfortunately, they're a nearly insignificant minority compared to the idiot masses.
The bottom line is that if the SETI folks want to spend their time listening to space static or looking up at the stars, let them. It's their project, and if they can find the people to fund them, more power to them. If someday they find messages from 'little green/alien men', great. I'd be willing to wager that none of us will be around to congratulate them.
Actually, I have a TiVo Series 3 that I purchased when I moved to my new condo back in December 2006. I called my cable company (Charter, to be precise), told them I had a TiVo Series 3, and that I wanted 2 cablecards so that I could get their HD channels package. Two days later, I had a technician over, who plugged the cards in and worked with me on getting everything set up.
No problems, no questions asked, and they even came back a few days later when one of the cards started malfunctioning, and replaced it without incident. I pay an extra $4/month for the cablecards ($2/each), and that's about it. Everything works fine, even Pay-Per-View events like UFC or boxing events, and they've been nothing but helpful whenever I called them with any questions.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me fix your analogy for you, because it is decidedly broken.
Imagine you're running a marathon, and one group of people get a 300-year head start.
At some point in time, things change, so you take all those people that weren't allowed to compete before, move them up so they're with the rest of the pack. You hire personal trainers and coaches to teach them best running practices.
You give them extra energy drinks and powerbars, and provide breaks from the marathon only for them, so they can get used to the pace.
Even though they now have several advantages to make them competitive, they decide that it's more interesting to running backwards. They also claim their sneakers and shorts are not of the right color, and the wind is blocking them. Every attempt to show them that everyone else is dealing with the same problems is met with them covering their ears while yelling "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA".
That's what your analogy should really have been.
"Affirmative action is about letting people catch up so they can advance beyond their parents' social and economic class."
Explain to me why immigrant families face much bigger obstacles than other minorities, yet they thrive? The majority of them don't have a higher education, and will be lucky to have finished 12th grade. The parents often need their children to explain fairly basic things like bill statements, job and loan applications, etc.
They also can't apply for the same types of loans or government assistance like natural-born citizens, because they're not entitled to them. They have to work extremely hard to make ends meet, sometimes working multiple jobs, yet a lot of them own their homes, have cars, save enough to send money back home, etc.
Immigrants have to work ten times as hard as any natural-born US citizen to get the same things, yet somehow, affirmative action is needed for 'minorities' to catch up, "so they can advance beyond their parents' social and economic class."
Right.
I got news for you: I'm also a legal resident but not a citizen.
Like you, I pay "30% tax to SS, Medicare, and who the hell knows what else, and yet I cannot take any SS, Medicare, or affirmative action benefits."
Guess what, the opportunities I have here are far better than anything I could have done in my home country. Maybe you should consider going back "a little southeast of the Florida Keys" if it's such a burden to you.
Interestingly enough, the link you posted does not quote any sources nor has a link to the report mentioned in the first paragraph.
However, the The Center for Responsible Lending is not exactly an unbiased source of information, since several of its board members are leading members of the NAACP and other civil rights organizations so they have a vested interest in the outcome of this study.
Of course, it's easier to just post this link rather than look at the actual study. Here, let me help you.
The report quoted by the CNN article is here: http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/research/page.jsp?itemID=29371010
In the report, there is an interesting statement in the executive summary:
This analysis does not allow us to estimate precisely how much race and ethnicity increase the prices charged to borrowers. It is also beyond the scope of this paper to determine definitively why these disparities exist. However, we do posit several possible causes, including the considerable leeway mortgage originators have to impose charges beyond those justified by risk-based pricing.
What that says is "We can't really state for a fact that race/ethnicity is why they can be charged higher rates, so we're going to make shit up and claim that the white man is keeping them down." But don't take my word for it. It's at the top of page 5 in the report.
"Many of those "they" are playing by the rules, are educated, have gone to college, have careers, etc. Is it right that even when you play by the rules, you still run up against bias?"
Where did you see that? Nowhere in the article says anything like what you're saying, so you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Nevermind that historically, minorities have worse financial track records, meaning they're a higher liability, therefore lenders have to take extra precautions when lending to them. Blame that on the idiots that have screwed up in the past.
"And you're saying they should blame that on civil rights leaders?"
You're mixing apples and oranges. My first comment to blame the so-called 'civil rights leaders' like Sharpton and Jackson was to the fact that they constantly argue that minorities cannot succeed without help, which means that those who do succeed are always going to be viewed as not having done so by their own merits and competence, but because they were 'given a pass'.
This had nothing to do with the other comment about housing, which was my reply to a different poster all together. Reading comprehension will take you a long way.
Housing is a completely different subject, with its own set of problems. A big part of the reason African-Americans can't buy "housing in 'good' areas" in modern days has more to do with their average crap credit history(which is a fact), rather than racial discrimination.
You should blame this on poor personal decisions, not society is racist.
It is no one else's fault that you have bad credit, low education, and a low-paying job, specially when there are *dozens* of ways minorities can get good educations (good, not great).
Of course, stating that fact will be considered by many to make me 'racist'. Never mind that it's the truth.
Not everyone can go to a Princeton or a Harvard, but everyone can go to a community college. One of current the presidential candidates is an African-American college graduate who's product of a single-parent home, and his wife is also the perfect example of how hard work and dedication is proof that anyone, regardless of color can make it.
There is still some racial bias, but my point is that there will always be racial bias as long so-called 'civil rights leaders' can profit from stirring up discontent and shift blame.
After all, it's a lot easier to stomach someone saying "You're poor because the white man is keeping you down" rather than "You're poor because you don't put any effort in educating yourself and don't stop spending money on stupid shit like rims".
The reason you find skepticism in any industry for the capabilities of a colored person is because of the bang-up job the so-called 'civil rights leaders' have done yelling and screaming about how minorities cannot achieve anything without assistance.
It is exactly what affirmative action has turned into; rather than give those a real opportunity to those who work hard for it, it became just another way to 'milk the system', so instead of having those most capable, you end up favoring those who are the loudest (regardless of color).
You may refer to this as the 'soft bigotry of lowered expectations'. You might think that it's yet another racist thing, but can it be really racist when those directly responsible for it are your from your own race?
As long as you have 'reverse discrimination' (which is what affirmative action effectively is), you cannot and should not complain that you're not evaluated on your own merits. Don't blame the industry; blame the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons.
I don't understand how NewYorkCountryLawyer claims that the Exhibits (Cease & desist order, printouts) constitute 'irrefutable proof'.
Assuming he's referring to the lists of recordings found on that Boston U. IP address, I don't think Mediasentry would have to 'be' in Massachusetts to get those lists.
Whoever was making those files available was 'advertising' their availability to the whole world when he/she is on a P2P network, so Mediasentry
could conceivably never step foot in Massachusetts to obtain this data.
I'm in the West Coast, but I could easily get a listing for MP3 files available on publicly-accessible webservers on Boston U.'s network if I spent 10 minutes looking for them, and I wouldn't have to be a 'private investigator' in MA to get them After all, these 'precious snowflakes' are advertising that they have this stuff available to everyone.
i>"Except that the /home/username directory in Unix stores a lot more than just data.It's also where configuration information, and even the applications themselves, go."
/etc, /usr/share/applications, /usr/share/application-registry, and possibly a dozen others directories that contain configuration information for whatever is installed on his system.
/etc. /usr/bin. /usr/lib. /usr/local/*. /usr/share/*. What me to keep going?
Not entirely true. In most modern distributions, applications get installed system-wide with very little input from the user, other than querying you for your root password. You only have applications installed in your home directory if you compile them yourself, which was not mentioned in the article.
"Program configuration is often critical, and when in files lives in at least 4 places, none of which are under My Documents. And then there's registry information, which isn't even in the filesystem."
If you want to be pedantic, then he'd also have to back up
In the context of the article, he was apparently referring to files he commonly uses, not the applications themselves, and that's why I specifically mentioned the My Documents folder.
"And then there's the chunks of the application that don't go into it's Program Files folder or wherever else you installed it, but go into Windows system folders. No, applications aren't supposed to do that."
"And then there's registry information, which isn't even in the filesystem."
Wrong. Read this link, and you will get better informed about where the Windows registry actually lives (*hint* it's actually on the filesystem). It's not 'readable' just like your rpm db isn't readable, but just like you use utilities to manipulate your rpm database, you manage the registry the same way.
"No, that doesn't stop them even in this day and age. Why do you think so many applications get heartburn under Vista (which is pickier about such misbehavior)?"
He's not using Vista, he's using XP so your point is moot. You did read the article, right?
"Basically, on a Unix system if I save a copy of my home directory tree I'm pretty much guaranteed to have gotten not only all my data but all the configuration information and other things I need to restore not just my data but my application environment. On Windows, if I save a copy of My Documents I'll lose the majority of my application environment."
If you back up your User Folder under Documents & Settings (not just the My Programs folder) in Windows, you are not only backing up your documents, but your applications configuration options, your Music, Photos, etc, very much like a typical home directory. Howerver, as I said above, he was apparently referring to files he commonly uses and works with, not applications.
The bottom line is that the lines I quoted directly from the article were not accurate, or just misinformed. If he really wants to make comparisons between systems, he should at least know both of them equally well to at least give an impression of having an objective opinion.
While reading the article, I noticed a few funny things:
/home or /username directory in Linux, because Windows seems to scatter data all over the place. Why this is I do not know, but no doubt someone at Microsoft could tell me why this inconvenience is a good thing, not a bad one, just as I'm sure they could tell me why all kinds of annoying pop-up balloons that interfere with my work (instead of letting me concentrate on what I'm doing) make my life easier instead of harder.
/home/ equivalent, namely the My Documents folder. Almost every single application will by default use that directory as the default location for any files you use, so if you do want to back up your data, just backup that directory. Even your precious Sony Vegas works like that.
"And here's the funny thing: Windows feels a lot more Linuxlike to me than Mac OS. In many ways it seems as if it's a slightly clumsy knockoff of KDE. But it also has a lot more in common with GNOME than Mac OS does."
He should really have said that KDE is a great knock-off of Windows, and that Gnome has a lot in common with it. After all, they both 'borrowed' heavily from Windows, not the other way around.
"Backing up my data in Windows is lots harder than backing up a
Get over it, Roblimo. Windows does have a
Anyway, not a bad article, but then again, there was nothing remarkable about it. I wonder if I could get a paying gig writing fluff like Roblimo, but I guess I need to publish a couple fluff books first...
I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that being a physicist and knowing how to write code are no match for common sense.
The 'ethics bill' bill he voted on was pushed by Nancy Pelosi to create a outside panel to replace the House Ethics Committee, which many (rightly) consider nearly useless for its lack of aggressiveness, but the creation of this "Office of Congressional Ethics" will be little more than just additional bureaucracy and wasted money, besides its direct application as a bullet point on an election-year campaign flyer.
As a freshman congressman, he's going to vote the way he's told by the senior party membership like, say, Pelosi. And as far as getting into any science/tech committees, he might have to get in line; he's a *freshman*, so he has virtually no influence.
I suggest you all read this post by Gray Knowlton, the group product manager for MS Office, where he clarifies some of the more incendiary statements by the SFLC.
He make some pretty reasonable arguments, and calls the blatant bias against MS, when IBM and sun get a free pass even though their own version of the OSP has the same restrictions as MS. Very interesting to see the kettle lashing back at pot.
I was the first one in this sub-thread to use the term "Vista only", in an attempt to shorten your long-winded post.
Your first post on the thread about the link being dead actually said "I agree that XP will last a year or two, but the gamers are going to sniff out the problems: such as Halo II being able to be run only on Vista".
So in short, you were wrong on your original statement. Your angry replies to other posts were just plain sad.
Stop whining, it makes you look like a angry pedantic child.
While your post may not have been off-topic, the link he posted *can* be seen. I just clicked on it and here's the first few lines from the text:
"Million of Halo 2 fans/Windows XP users are rejoicing due to the fact that yesterday, a team of hackers known as "Razor1911 released a patch that allowed Windows XP users to install Halo 2 on their PC. A while back Falling Leaf Systems announced that they were to release compatibility drivers legally so that XP users can play Halo 2, but Razor1911 claimed that they beat them too it, and there's no doubt that they're right. Although there are still compatibility issues with the new patch, Halo 2 does run on most Windows XP machines, mostly in single player mode - there have been many complaints regarding the online multiplayer. Razor1911 has also released a re-pack pirated version of Halo 2 that should run better than the original Vista DVD, which included the patch with it. Along with Halo 2, Razor1911 has also released an XP patch for Shadowrun."
Oh yah, it also seems like you were wrong about Halo II being Vista only....
Now US confiscates property of Europeans but which happened to be registered in USA ??
You're talking apples and oranges. The Fidel regime confiscated all the property belonging to U.S. citizens as part of the pissing contest he was engaging with Washington shortly after his revolution. There were no warnings, no buybacks, nothing. You were paid a visit by someone from the government, who told you something along the lines of "This is now property of the Cuban people, GTFO", and that was it. Much like what happened to the white farmers in Zimbabwe a few years ago when Mugabe decided to appropriate their lands.
In this particular case, there is an actual law in place that explainsin no uncertain terms that if you do business with Cuba, you're subject to penalties, depending on what you do. Ignorance of the law is not exactly an excuse to break it.
There is no irony in it, and 'sovereign risk' has nothing to do with this specific case.
Yah, but that one seat comes with a few strings attached:
The Jews also have a representative in parliament who is obligated by law to support Iranian foreign policy and its Anti-Zionist position.
Also, you should mention that one seat out of a total of 290 is little more than a a sham.
Do you realize (and the FP even says as much) that this involves a NON-AMERICAN company denied access to its own name because of a dick-waving contest that Kennedy lost (by default) almost 40 years ago?
...As opposed to the geographically ignorant (unless we've "brought democracy" to Spain in the past few hours and I missed the announcement...)?
A "NON-AMERICAN" company which happens to have its domain names registered with an American company based in Bellevue, Washington. This means that (just like any other foreign company with offices in the US) the non-american company falls under the restrictions just like any other american-based business. Not too hard to understand, right?
Reading comprehension might serve you better in the future. I suggest you re-read the actual article, rather than just spew uninformed comments for no reason.
... do you realize that these restrictions have been in place since 1962 because the Cuban government expropriated the property of U.S. citizens and corporations in Cuba?
Do you also realize that it was made law in 1992 under the title of Cuban Democracy Act by U.S. Congressman Robert Torricelli (D)?
Once again, those who seem historically ignorant are quick to condemn the current administration for something that has (arguably) been in place for over 40 years...
I understand the outrage at having our government use spy satellites to spy on us, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Google virtually doing the same thing. If anything, we think it's cool, and applaud all the numerous 'mashups' that have emerged and whatnot.
For that, we volunteer all kinds of information, because it's not The Man(tm).
At least the government is still trying to convince detractors of this program that they'll ask for warrants and whatnot; Google does it with impunity, daily, and you think it's cool!
Wake up, people. Be consistent in your positions. If you're going to whine about how The Man(tm) is trying to make 1984 look like child's play, then complain about Google basically doing the same exact thing, with *YOUR* help (but in a much cooler way).
Collaboration can be overrated. If the people that are 'working' on your project are more of an hindrance for you rather than being helpful, I think they need to shut the hell up, get off your back, and let you do your work.
That is one of the things that Zed mentioned in his rant about Kevin Clark, how he and Zed were at odds with controlling access to the main Utu repository, and Kevin accidentally proved Zed to be right, when he (Kevin) accidentally wiped the configure file for the whole project. I'd say that's some serious irony for you.
You can be Albert Einstein, Alan Turing, and Ada Augusta all rolled into one. But if you are surrounded by idiots, none of your big ideas are going to go anywhere, no matter how good they are. But hey, at least you're 'collaborating'.
"...and even today it doesn't come pre-installed (as a default page) with any browser."
Have you installed Firefox lately? The default page you see when you first start up Firefox is this one.
Guess where it goes?
From an email just received (2:05AM 12/12/07):
What happened to the free product option?
Thank you for your interest in the feedback program. Due to overwhelming response, the supply of gifts has been exhausted so we have closed our free product offer on 12/11/2007 at 2pm Pacific Time. Thanks to everyone that participated!
Have you paused to consider that maybe it was done under anonymity to preserve whatever karma they may have here on /., and not because of fear of governmental persecution?
While I don't necessarily agree with the way he/she phrased his/her disagreement with the OP, I'll be the first one to admit that someone making a post against a popular opinion (Bush is the devil, the US turning into 1984, etc) will often time result in them getting modded down by 'activist' mods with a deliberate anti-government bias.
Try checking this comment later and you'll probably find it modded Troll/Flamebait/Offtopic, etc. Maybe then you'll understand why he/she went for the Anonymous Coward banner.
The article is a nice attempt at arguing that 'investing in SETI' can prove to be useful 'down the road' by using some examples of how the curious and inquisitive minds of the past yielded immense discoveries and scientific progress that benefit us all, but it's akin to comparing apples to oranges.
The pragmatist in me says that SETI is a curious way for a few people to spend their time looking for signs of life 'somewhere out there' in the Universe, but it has no practical use.
I mean, honestly, let's assume that tomorrow, we capture a signal from an alien civilization. Finally, the answer to 'Are we alone in the Universe?' is answered, great. Then what? Chances are that the transmission is (by the time we received it) hundreds or thousands of years old. During that time, the civilization that sent it could have vanished for a number of reasons, of which we'd have no clue about.
If anything, such a discovery would only lead to more problems, since in one single swoop, a number of major religious beliefs would be shattered, therefore leaving a bunch of pissed-off fundamentalists in a tizzy. The best and brightest would be infinitely pleased with such a discovery, but unfortunately, they're a nearly insignificant minority compared to the idiot masses.
The bottom line is that if the SETI folks want to spend their time listening to space static or looking up at the stars, let them. It's their project, and if they can find the people to fund them, more power to them. If someday they find messages from 'little green/alien men', great. I'd be willing to wager that none of us will be around to congratulate them.
"Sucking and pumping was meant for the kitchen.
I think porn producers cornered the market when it comes to those two...
... for a second, I could have sworn I read 'flashlight' in the summary as 'fleshlight'...
Actually, I have a TiVo Series 3 that I purchased when I moved to my new condo back in December 2006. I called my cable company (Charter, to be precise), told them I had a TiVo Series 3, and that I wanted 2 cablecards so that I could get their HD channels package.
Two days later, I had a technician over, who plugged the cards in and worked with me on getting everything set up.
No problems, no questions asked, and they even came back a few days later when one of the cards started malfunctioning, and replaced it without incident. I pay an extra $4/month for the cablecards ($2/each), and that's about it. Everything works fine, even Pay-Per-View events like UFC or boxing events, and they've been nothing but helpful whenever I called them with any questions.
I think I just proved you wrong, no?