Nobody objects to Davis having beliefs. It's her attempt to use a government position to impose them on others that's the problem.
That said, in response to the GP, an asshole is an asshole. You don't become less of one simply because really you are one. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. It's like the opposite of a truism.
Well, 90% of them are off-topic, complaining about the wording, or just trolls about Java. I'm not entirely sure what nuanced discussion in the -1 realm you're referring to. I think the nearest I saw to a remotely reasonable modded down comment was a whine about how the poster felt the browser was not the right place for a computer emulator, which... didn't address even the reasons implied in TFS.
Me, I'm very glad people are building these things. Keeping older platforms alive isn't just nice for nostalgia reasons, it reminds us of the good things we're missing today and stops them from being forgotten.
Any reason beyond out of control paranoia why you'd think Microsoft would do something so outrageously destructive? Remember: forced updates mean forced incompatibilities. A sizable minority of the population will find their PCs unfit for purpose the moment Windows 10 is installed on it.
The lawsuits would bankrupt Microsoft in a matter of weeks.
Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor sex scandal using a superficial and extremely dubious "perjury" hook. I Have no idea what the "Tyson payoff" was, but the other scandals you mention are fabricated. Whitewater was extensively investigated by a special prosecutor hostile to the Clintons (the one that eventually changed the subject to Monica Lewinsky because he couldn't find anything in Whitewater - the weird bit is that this should have been obvious from the beginning, the Clintons were victims, not beneficiaries, of Whitewater.) Foster was a close personal friend of the Clintons and there's no evidence or reason to believe he did anything other than commit suicide. Ron Brown is just another name thrown in by the lunatics who were trying to invent the Vince Foster accusations.
I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Benghazi for extra credit.
Two notable observations one can make:
1. Evidence thus far is that the Clintons are held to a higher standard than most other politicians. That's true in emailgate too. Clinton followed previous secretaries of state in not using government email. And right now this article is worded to make what was probably an oversight look like a grand conspiracy because Clinton. If every lunatic accusation made by some fringe wacko ends up with sizable numbers members of Congress demanding investigations, that's not an example of "the laws (not applying to) the Clintons". That's an example of someone being persecuted.
2. The fact that clearly fabricated conspiracies are invented every five minutes by Clinton's opponents, and brought up over and over again long after they've been extensively debunked (or look ridiculous from the start. Vince Foster, really?) is why at this stage, if a real conspiracy came to light involving the Clintons, the chances are it would be laughed out of the public arena.
emailgate appears, thus far, to be a nontroversy, a made-up conspiracy whose advocates cannot show anything beyond minor issues of judgement (and then only dubious issues) as bad for Clinton (or Clinton's staff.)
Give it up. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for President. Alas, oddly enough, most of those reasons apply to progressives, Republicans probably wouldn't have an issue with 99% of them...
It sucks in software when something that worked well is declared obsolete, and is replaced with something fairly suboptimal in an apparent attempt to chase a market for devices that aren't particularly mature or productivity oriented.
I commend the GNOME 3 developers for at least part acknowledging there's a problem by developing extensions to bring back the desktop, but really, it's not "hating" to acknowledge that it's doing nobody any favors, not GNOME, not end users, not anyone, to rely on that to solve the problem, and treat desktop users as second class citizens even though they make up the majority of users.
Criticism is a good thing. Would you have us just ignore GNOME and switch to other platforms, refusing to say why?
The responses saying they switched to X or Y are usually referring to one of the forks of GNOME 2 that were created as a direct response to GNOME 3's tablet orientation, so I'm not sure how you can say GNOME was "never filling a void". Nor was there a void for an interface that runs decently with a touch screen, Android seems to be doing that very well, and people are actually using Android.
And yeah, Microsoft made the same mistake as the GNOME team after both GNOME and Ubuntu did, but seem to have learned from the mistake far, far, quicker.
Well, no, my research includes using a heavily customized version at home (heavily in order to get my precious desktop back), which I'm afraid to upgrade (and thus on an LTS version of Ubuntu as a result) for fear my hacks, customizations, et al, will be lost with the next iteration. Alternatives are Unity - which I'm unimpressed with and suffers many of the same mindset flaws - and one of the forks of GNOME 2 which I don't feel are as integrated with modern software.
As for your last sentence, I was actually talking about GNOME. Windows 8 only came into it to point out that one major software entity realized that tabletization was a bad idea and walked it back.
I do understand you were spring-boarding off my comment to say something positive about GNOME, but still...
I'll have to find a PPA (Ubuntu 15.04 Vivid Vervet) and try it again. Last few experiences required rather a lot of customization to get a UI that was remotely oriented towards desktop use, but perhaps it's improved.
Yeah, that's the point. What you're given by default (and what GNOME's developers seem to focus on) is the touch oriented interface. Getting the desktop means installing extensions.
Microsoft made the same mistake with Windows 8. You could get to the desktop with the default UI, and you could add extensions to make it more optimal (albeit not from Microsoft, at least GNOME's own developers are doing the equivalent of "giving you a start menu"), but it wasn't what desktop users wanted.
Windows 10, for all its faults (and it has a million of them) fixed that and focuses on the desktop. It's time GNOME did the same thing.
Screenshot on that page showing a screen you'd only love to use on a tablet.
8.1 was a very nice tablet UI. Unfortunately, Windows, like GNOME, is almost always used on desktops. Controlled by mice and keyboards. Perhaps it's time the GNOME team recognized the need to focus on that again and made the desktop the priority of the project.
Americans started working on building similar aircraft but gave up not because it was impossible, but because they could see that the aircraft would never be commercially viable.
They were right. Concorde just wasn't commercially viable - at least, not in the form of a mass market product. That's why Concorde didn't sell.
Nobody on the Western side of the Atlantic "hates" Concorde, it's admired as an amazing feat of engineering. But if it was simply the case that Boeing's engineers had broken their pencils in frustration, telling their bosses "It just can't be done and we just wet our diapers, wah wah! #gamergate" then you'd have expected Concorde to be a ridiculous commercial success for its manufacturers - they were the only people in town making supersonic passenger planes. They had a monopoly!
Why wasn't Concorde a success? Because:
1. Sonic booms were simply unacceptable over land. No country in the world wanted the planes to fly supersonic. This pretty much limited its routes to flying over major oceans. London to Sidney? Would never happen, that'd mean crossing Europe and Asia.
2. It guzzled fuel like no tomorrow, and once it finally started to fly, fuel prices hit the roof.
Goes GTA V run under Wine? I was incredibly impressed by the performance of GTA IV under Wine which felt pretty much native.
Me: I'd like the Saints Row series (well, the PC versions - I know SR-I will never be available), plus it'd be nice for someone to pick up the already made but pretty much impossible to get port of Alpha Centauri. It doesn't run under Wine (though a customized Wine existed at one point that supported it, but Wine's developers opted not to incorporate those changes), and the only places that I've seen that "sell" Alpha Centauri for GNU/Linux are always out of stock, and have a retail price in the stratosphere.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all
other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
.
Well, possibly, but honestly that doesn't matter. What matters to users of GNU/Linux distributions is that the games can be downloaded and will work without the need to fiddle with other software (such as an independently installed version of Wine), without risk that only half of it works because the rest isn't supported by Wine, etc.
If the developers have used a compatibility layer to make it easier, good for them. That helped them save them and makes it more likely they'll port their games in future. It's infinitely better than either a list of hacks needed to make it run under an independently installed copy of Wine, or no support at all.
If tulips suddenly started being speculated upon in the style of a commodity, the regulators would treat tulips the same way. This is not the government blessing or recommending Bitcoin, merely recognizing that trading it fits certain regulatory laws and structures.
Yeah, the 18th Century was totally the place you wanted to be if you were poor. My estimation of Ben Franklin just took a nosedive, assuming this quote is real.
There has been no time in history when being poor did anything but suck.
Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 aren't remotely similar, no. There are drastic UI and functionality changes, and on the hardware I've tried 10 on, it's significantly more resource intensive.
The real question is would they make this available to regular 8.1 users who aren't entirely comfortable about jumping to Windows 10 right now?
Windows RT was only available for tablets, and (hacks combined with custom compiled executables aside - there really aren't many ARM Windows executables) only capable of running Microsoft Office on the "desktop" side. So this new Start button is of questionable usefulness, it's something the vast majority of RT users will never see.
Regular X86/X86-64 Windows 8.1, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from a Start button.
Sexbots... Well, it depends on the type of robot I suppose. If it's just a mechanical hand jacking you off, that's quite different to an ultra-realistic simulation of a human being.
Yes but what of it? It's still not sex with a human being. Unless the human is actually being tricked by the robot, there's no chance whatsoever they'll believe this is anything but a form of masturbation.
If you want to get into the "fully aware it's not real" argument, I again direct you to discussion of photoshopped magazine models.
I would say that discussions of photoshopped magazine models are themselves ludicrously off-topc, unless you're saying there are photoshops so convincing out there that there are people who are convinced they're looking at a real person and not a sheet of paper or computer monitor.
I would suggest that someone who's that far gone probably has enough problems that they probably require 24/7 supervision.
This is pretty basic stuff. If you're aware that it's a machine, you know that you're engaged in masturbation. And as we're not talking about some edge case of abuse where people might program robots to hook up with victims who are completely unaware that they're dealing with a robot, but normal, everyday, use of these devices, I don't see how we're talking about anything but the latest version of an activity that's literally tens of thousands of years old (and probably older if you want to include ancestor species.)
Your logic being what, exactly? The reply doesn't match the quote, or perhaps you failed to understand the quote (hard, because it's not a lot of words, but I am talking to a group that regularly refuses to believe someone is saying what they actually are saying)
We've had 25,000 years of masturbation. Why would a technical upgrade to how we masturbate affect our relationship with women?
The more I think about it, the less I think "sexbots" will change anything for the better or worse. Is there really a significant difference between fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with a box of tissues and a hard working left hand, and fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with your whatever being worked by a robot that looks just like her (but you know it's a robot)? (Written to assume, as the researcher does, a hetero-male scenario, but you can obviously substitute for other combinations)
The sexbot might be (potentially) more fun, but ultimately it's still masturbation, a single lone person who's fully aware they're not actually having sex with anyone.
Still dodging. It was a simple yes/no question. Someone interested in discussion would have answered them or acknowledged the consequences of the answer.
You're not interested though. You're a partisan coward, throwing out apologia for when someone you politically agree with does something stupid, but not even able to post apologia that's fair and reasonable, and unable to even acknowledge it. You can't bring yourself to answer the question because you know Corbyn is, actually, on the wrong side of this issue.
You could have just stayed quiet. Instead, pretty much every time someone has raised the issue of Corbyn signing on to a document explicitly praising the the subsidization of homeopathy, you've posted the same blatantly misleading and impossible to justify "defense".
You're not helping anyone by doing this, least of all yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody objects to Davis having beliefs. It's her attempt to use a government position to impose them on others that's the problem.
That said, in response to the GP, an asshole is an asshole. You don't become less of one simply because really you are one. I mean, that doesn't even make sense. It's like the opposite of a truism.
Well, 90% of them are off-topic, complaining about the wording, or just trolls about Java. I'm not entirely sure what nuanced discussion in the -1 realm you're referring to. I think the nearest I saw to a remotely reasonable modded down comment was a whine about how the poster felt the browser was not the right place for a computer emulator, which... didn't address even the reasons implied in TFS.
Me, I'm very glad people are building these things. Keeping older platforms alive isn't just nice for nostalgia reasons, it reminds us of the good things we're missing today and stops them from being forgotten.
Or not.
Any reason beyond out of control paranoia why you'd think Microsoft would do something so outrageously destructive? Remember: forced updates mean forced incompatibilities. A sizable minority of the population will find their PCs unfit for purpose the moment Windows 10 is installed on it.
The lawsuits would bankrupt Microsoft in a matter of weeks.
Bill Clinton was impeached over a minor sex scandal using a superficial and extremely dubious "perjury" hook. I Have no idea what the "Tyson payoff" was, but the other scandals you mention are fabricated. Whitewater was extensively investigated by a special prosecutor hostile to the Clintons (the one that eventually changed the subject to Monica Lewinsky because he couldn't find anything in Whitewater - the weird bit is that this should have been obvious from the beginning, the Clintons were victims, not beneficiaries, of Whitewater.) Foster was a close personal friend of the Clintons and there's no evidence or reason to believe he did anything other than commit suicide. Ron Brown is just another name thrown in by the lunatics who were trying to invent the Vince Foster accusations.
I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Benghazi for extra credit.
Two notable observations one can make:
1. Evidence thus far is that the Clintons are held to a higher standard than most other politicians. That's true in emailgate too. Clinton followed previous secretaries of state in not using government email. And right now this article is worded to make what was probably an oversight look like a grand conspiracy because Clinton. If every lunatic accusation made by some fringe wacko ends up with sizable numbers members of Congress demanding investigations, that's not an example of "the laws (not applying to) the Clintons". That's an example of someone being persecuted.
2. The fact that clearly fabricated conspiracies are invented every five minutes by Clinton's opponents, and brought up over and over again long after they've been extensively debunked (or look ridiculous from the start. Vince Foster, really?) is why at this stage, if a real conspiracy came to light involving the Clintons, the chances are it would be laughed out of the public arena.
emailgate appears, thus far, to be a nontroversy, a made-up conspiracy whose advocates cannot show anything beyond minor issues of judgement (and then only dubious issues) as bad for Clinton (or Clinton's staff.)
Give it up. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton for President. Alas, oddly enough, most of those reasons apply to progressives, Republicans probably wouldn't have an issue with 99% of them...
I never mentioned taskbars, what on Earth are you talking about?
It sucks in software when something that worked well is declared obsolete, and is replaced with something fairly suboptimal in an apparent attempt to chase a market for devices that aren't particularly mature or productivity oriented.
I commend the GNOME 3 developers for at least part acknowledging there's a problem by developing extensions to bring back the desktop, but really, it's not "hating" to acknowledge that it's doing nobody any favors, not GNOME, not end users, not anyone, to rely on that to solve the problem, and treat desktop users as second class citizens even though they make up the majority of users.
Criticism is a good thing. Would you have us just ignore GNOME and switch to other platforms, refusing to say why?
The responses saying they switched to X or Y are usually referring to one of the forks of GNOME 2 that were created as a direct response to GNOME 3's tablet orientation, so I'm not sure how you can say GNOME was "never filling a void". Nor was there a void for an interface that runs decently with a touch screen, Android seems to be doing that very well, and people are actually using Android.
And yeah, Microsoft made the same mistake as the GNOME team after both GNOME and Ubuntu did, but seem to have learned from the mistake far, far, quicker.
Well, no, my research includes using a heavily customized version at home (heavily in order to get my precious desktop back), which I'm afraid to upgrade (and thus on an LTS version of Ubuntu as a result) for fear my hacks, customizations, et al, will be lost with the next iteration. Alternatives are Unity - which I'm unimpressed with and suffers many of the same mindset flaws - and one of the forks of GNOME 2 which I don't feel are as integrated with modern software.
As for your last sentence, I was actually talking about GNOME. Windows 8 only came into it to point out that one major software entity realized that tabletization was a bad idea and walked it back.
I do understand you were spring-boarding off my comment to say something positive about GNOME, but still...
I'll have to find a PPA (Ubuntu 15.04 Vivid Vervet) and try it again. Last few experiences required rather a lot of customization to get a UI that was remotely oriented towards desktop use, but perhaps it's improved.
Yeah, that's the point. What you're given by default (and what GNOME's developers seem to focus on) is the touch oriented interface. Getting the desktop means installing extensions.
Microsoft made the same mistake with Windows 8. You could get to the desktop with the default UI, and you could add extensions to make it more optimal (albeit not from Microsoft, at least GNOME's own developers are doing the equivalent of "giving you a start menu"), but it wasn't what desktop users wanted.
Windows 10, for all its faults (and it has a million of them) fixed that and focuses on the desktop. It's time GNOME did the same thing.
Screenshot on that page showing a screen you'd only love to use on a tablet.
8.1 was a very nice tablet UI. Unfortunately, Windows, like GNOME, is almost always used on desktops. Controlled by mice and keyboards. Perhaps it's time the GNOME team recognized the need to focus on that again and made the desktop the priority of the project.
No, that was actually mentioned. They describe it as a form of "DRM".
Americans started working on building similar aircraft but gave up not because it was impossible, but because they could see that the aircraft would never be commercially viable.
They were right. Concorde just wasn't commercially viable - at least, not in the form of a mass market product. That's why Concorde didn't sell.
Nobody on the Western side of the Atlantic "hates" Concorde, it's admired as an amazing feat of engineering. But if it was simply the case that Boeing's engineers had broken their pencils in frustration, telling their bosses "It just can't be done and we just wet our diapers, wah wah! #gamergate" then you'd have expected Concorde to be a ridiculous commercial success for its manufacturers - they were the only people in town making supersonic passenger planes. They had a monopoly!
Why wasn't Concorde a success? Because:
1. Sonic booms were simply unacceptable over land. No country in the world wanted the planes to fly supersonic. This pretty much limited its routes to flying over major oceans. London to Sidney? Would never happen, that'd mean crossing Europe and Asia.
2. It guzzled fuel like no tomorrow, and once it finally started to fly, fuel prices hit the roof.
That's all. Maybe one day someone will solve those problems, but while Boeing didn't, neither did Aérospatiale and BAC. They built the best aircraft they could, and it wasn't what was needed. Boeing, without a government mandate behind it forcing it to make the thing, wisely backed away.
Goes GTA V run under Wine? I was incredibly impressed by the performance of GTA IV under Wine which felt pretty much native.
Me: I'd like the Saints Row series (well, the PC versions - I know SR-I will never be available), plus it'd be nice for someone to pick up the already made but pretty much impossible to get port of Alpha Centauri. It doesn't run under Wine (though a customized Wine existed at one point that supported it, but Wine's developers opted not to incorporate those changes), and the only places that I've seen that "sell" Alpha Centauri for GNU/Linux are always out of stock, and have a retail price in the stratosphere.
"
[]"
Well, possibly, but honestly that doesn't matter. What matters to users of GNU/Linux distributions is that the games can be downloaded and will work without the need to fiddle with other software (such as an independently installed version of Wine), without risk that only half of it works because the rest isn't supported by Wine, etc.
If the developers have used a compatibility layer to make it easier, good for them. That helped them save them and makes it more likely they'll port their games in future. It's infinitely better than either a list of hacks needed to make it run under an independently installed copy of Wine, or no support at all.
If tulips suddenly started being speculated upon in the style of a commodity, the regulators would treat tulips the same way. This is not the government blessing or recommending Bitcoin, merely recognizing that trading it fits certain regulatory laws and structures.
Yeah, the 18th Century was totally the place you wanted to be if you were poor. My estimation of Ben Franklin just took a nosedive, assuming this quote is real.
There has been no time in history when being poor did anything but suck.
There's always squiggleslashcoins, they're free (if I give you one that is.)
Windows 8.1 and Windows 10 aren't remotely similar, no. There are drastic UI and functionality changes, and on the hardware I've tried 10 on, it's significantly more resource intensive.
The real question is would they make this available to regular 8.1 users who aren't entirely comfortable about jumping to Windows 10 right now?
Windows RT was only available for tablets, and (hacks combined with custom compiled executables aside - there really aren't many ARM Windows executables) only capable of running Microsoft Office on the "desktop" side. So this new Start button is of questionable usefulness, it's something the vast majority of RT users will never see.
Regular X86/X86-64 Windows 8.1, on the other hand, would greatly benefit from a Start button.
And this is how democracy really dies, one foolish, unreasonable, justification for the security state at a time.
Yes but what of it? It's still not sex with a human being. Unless the human is actually being tricked by the robot, there's no chance whatsoever they'll believe this is anything but a form of masturbation.
I would say that discussions of photoshopped magazine models are themselves ludicrously off-topc, unless you're saying there are photoshops so convincing out there that there are people who are convinced they're looking at a real person and not a sheet of paper or computer monitor.
I would suggest that someone who's that far gone probably has enough problems that they probably require 24/7 supervision.
This is pretty basic stuff. If you're aware that it's a machine, you know that you're engaged in masturbation. And as we're not talking about some edge case of abuse where people might program robots to hook up with victims who are completely unaware that they're dealing with a robot, but normal, everyday, use of these devices, I don't see how we're talking about anything but the latest version of an activity that's literally tens of thousands of years old (and probably older if you want to include ancestor species.)
Your logic being what, exactly? The reply doesn't match the quote, or perhaps you failed to understand the quote (hard, because it's not a lot of words, but I am talking to a group that regularly refuses to believe someone is saying what they actually are saying)
We've had 25,000 years of masturbation. Why would a technical upgrade to how we masturbate affect our relationship with women?
The more I think about it, the less I think "sexbots" will change anything for the better or worse. Is there really a significant difference between fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with a box of tissues and a hard working left hand, and fantasizing about having sex with {starlet of the month} with your whatever being worked by a robot that looks just like her (but you know it's a robot)? (Written to assume, as the researcher does, a hetero-male scenario, but you can obviously substitute for other combinations)
The sexbot might be (potentially) more fun, but ultimately it's still masturbation, a single lone person who's fully aware they're not actually having sex with anyone.
Still dodging. It was a simple yes/no question. Someone interested in discussion would have answered them or acknowledged the consequences of the answer.
You're not interested though. You're a partisan coward, throwing out apologia for when someone you politically agree with does something stupid, but not even able to post apologia that's fair and reasonable, and unable to even acknowledge it. You can't bring yourself to answer the question because you know Corbyn is, actually, on the wrong side of this issue.
You could have just stayed quiet. Instead, pretty much every time someone has raised the issue of Corbyn signing on to a document explicitly praising the the subsidization of homeopathy, you've posted the same blatantly misleading and impossible to justify "defense".
You're not helping anyone by doing this, least of all yourself.