* Installers
* Broken legacy applications that have no concept of proper storage locations (e.g. The Desolate Room - in this case, it tried writing a file to c:\)
* Debuggers (e.g. MS Visual Studio)
* System configuration utilities.
That seems reasonable. Which of these would WinSCP qualify as? None that I could possibly imagine.
The fact of the matter is, why should I need to go through all this work only to get what I had perfectly well in XP. Based on my experience, Vista is bigger, slower (in many cases much slower!), a complete hassle to use and there is absolutely nothing about it I prefer over XP. I like XP, despite its problems, although I use Ubuntu on all my machines. However, I still use XP at work, and there are a couple of Windows apps that I find indispensible that won't run on Wine, so I keep a Windows 2000 virtual machine around at home for those. Windows 2000 and XP were decent products that I used for years, and I was a Windows developer for over 15 years, so I'm not a Microsoft hater. But after I bought a laptop with Vista on it, and even worse, bought a low-end laptop for my wife that was significantly more powerful than the one it replaced, but with Vista it was unusably slow (even with an extra gig of memory). She hated it... it was the slowest-operating computer I think I've ever used. I put Ubuntu on there and it's as snappy as my much more powerful lappy for typical operations.
I had the same problem. Every time I wanted to rename something on the desktop I had to jump through hoops. Every time I wanted to run some perfectly safe piece of software I had to give Vista special permission to run it. How is it protecting anyone when you have to give permission to run a program you've already run a hundred times. Vista adds nothing for experienced users and takes plenty. I agree with the assessment that it is a complete failure.
I think the parent was pointing out the difference between "should be" and "is".
I hate to sound like the groupies that flood the 'net with this kind of stuff, but there's only one candidate for U.S. President that won't keep up this kind of crap... you know who I mean.
Ewwww, you want a Nobel Peace Prize? You mean that complete farce that they award to people like Al Gore or Yassar Arafat?
As far as the U.S. Presidency goes, more power to you, you can handily win against the crowd of third-string candidates that are currently in the running.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
False, physics does not speak to what came before the Big Bang because there is nothing left from that time to see. Any reasonable person can see that making the leap to there being nothing before then because we can't see it is a much more extraordinary claim than that the evidence of such existence has merely been destroyed by the event. So I'll stick with the idea that takes less extraordinary evidence since, in the face of no evidence whatsoever, it seems a lot more likely.
I misspoke. I should have said "Matter did not exist at the time of the Big Bang"
It has been clear from the first that you are just a fucking moron.
Ah, and I can see by this witty rejoinder that you are far more intelligent. Really, man, take a rage dump. It's just a conversation.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules? If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.
Didn't that already happen? I mean what part of the Bill of Rights isn't habitually violated, other than the quartering of soldiers in our houses. Is there anything couldn't possibly be rationalized by the Interstate Commerce Clause? I sure haven't heard it. Our government has been increasing its power geometrically for some decades, and it's showing no signs of stopping, but rather of accelerating. I'm sure the Founders wouldn't recognize the country they created, because it no longer exists. In fact, one could argue it hasn't existed since the 1860's.
If you are a competent, intelligent human being, you're probably going to be disqualified for jury duty anyway. Lawyers want rubes they can sway or intimidate with lame emotional appeals or spurious logic. They certainly don't want the case tried on its merits.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
Regardless, everything has a cause, and just evading the question by assuming the causes are infinite is no more convincing than a gratuitous declaration that God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You seem to treat the non-existence of God as self-evident, but it is not only not self-evident, but it is hard to conceive of existence without some sort of Uncaused First Cause.
Also, parroting my criticisms of your post back to me almost verbatim isn't very original or entertaining. Good trolls have a sense of humor. You're just angry. You'd better avoid salt and fried foods.
Saying existence was "always there" eludes the question. After pondering Aquinas' "proofs" of the existence of God for many years, and never finding them convincing, I finally decided they show the existence of God is no harder to prove than the non-existence of God. That might not be what he meant, but it's more than his critics will admit.
It always amuses me when people are guilty of that to which they think they are most immune. It happens more often than one would think, and is especially epidemic in politics.
Sorry for replying twice, but further consideration reveals how truly pathetic your response is.
First off, mater was indeed created at the Big Bang, according to current scientific theory. I don't know how believing what the smartest physicists in the world believe makes me stupid or lacking in imagination. I happen to think these guys are very smart, have more imagination than almost anyone in the world, and, here's the scary part, some of them even believe in God. How's that for ironic?
Second, I said it doesn't make sense for "existence" to spring forth ex nihilo... I'm not talking about something as concrete and simplistic as matter. I'm talking about that in which matter resides. Matter didn't always exist and indeed was created, this has been basic, and well-accepted, science for the better part of a century.
You post is a really lame example of a troll, and I would furthermore hate to judge all non-believers based on your example, because if I were to do so, I might conclude that non-believers are all a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who think ad hominem attacks constitute reasoned discourse. But, of course, I don't think that.
How's that? Matter exists, what makes you think it was "created?" This is easy and rather logical to believe. If you lack the imagination or intelligence (or both) to grasp such a simple abstraction from our self-centered tendencies that's your failing. Kind of sad really.
If you're going to troll, you need to do better than that. Let's do this slowly.
Um, yes, all the way back in HTML 1.0 -- any amount of contiguous whitespace characters is to be treated as a single space. If you want two spaces after a period, you have to trick it by making one of them an nbsp. Which you can do, but it's a pain to type after every sentence.
Given that so many people have the spelling and grammar skills of a remedial fourth-grader, that little issue gets lost in the noise. It still type it though, even when I know it won't show up.
It doesn't answer the question at all, and I'm surprised by your logical fallacy.
Just because stimulating the brain a certain way gives an experience comparable to the "presence of God" doesn't mean that that's the only way you can feel the presence of God. You can extract certain compounds and use them to convince someone he is smelling violets, or roses or food, but that doesn't mean every time he smells those things it's only because someone is spraying those compounds in the air. It could be because those things (violets, roses, food) are really present.
Furthermore, as a religious person who believes in God, I've never experienced the sensation of a presence in that way. I believe God is there, but it doesn't seem He's chosen that way to reveal Himself to me.
If it crosses that limit it losses all the mail in the folder up to that point. IMO that is the cardinal sin of programming - permanently lossing data. They've known about this bug for at least a year - because I made it known at that time and had some not so helpful feedback from developers. But it still happens.
Well, at least you're not spelling it "loosing".
Outlook 2003 had that same problem, except for the whole data store since everything is stored by default in one file. I don't know if it was ever fixed, but when I discovered that (by losing data), and worse that it was apparently well-known, I promptly switched to Thunderbird (around version 0.4) and never looked back. Of course, backups saved my bacon.
I'm not trying to get Mozilla off the hook on that problem, but they still have a better track record than Microsoft.
Excellent parable. I wish Nasrudin was an IP-rights lawyer. I think only an unshakable Zen master could deal with the absurdity of today's IP-rights environment without going insane.
Client: "Do I have a right to sue for second-hand radio enjoyment?" Nasrudin: "Only if the painter can sue the customer of his portrait over those who view his masterpiece."
In other words, you cannot own a person's perception of something, so the question doesn't even make sense.
It's kind of a lame analogy, but it's coming down to IP meaning "wning whether or not someone can perceive something" and the perception of something being the thing of value. The ultimate conclusion of which, the way things are right now, is that the copyright owner has the right to install wetware to interrupt and/or filter the nerve impulses of unlicensed consumers of their product.
- ConceptJunkie (likes concepts, but lousy at Zen)
Slashdot Mirror
Only apps that require this would be:
* Installers
* Broken legacy applications that have no concept of proper storage locations (e.g. The Desolate Room - in this case, it tried writing a file to c:\)
* Debuggers (e.g. MS Visual Studio)
* System configuration utilities.
That seems reasonable. Which of these would WinSCP qualify as? None that I could possibly imagine.
The fact of the matter is, why should I need to go through all this work only to get what I had perfectly well in XP. Based on my experience, Vista is bigger, slower (in many cases much slower!), a complete hassle to use and there is absolutely nothing about it I prefer over XP. I like XP, despite its problems, although I use Ubuntu on all my machines. However, I still use XP at work, and there are a couple of Windows apps that I find indispensible that won't run on Wine, so I keep a Windows 2000 virtual machine around at home for those. Windows 2000 and XP were decent products that I used for years, and I was a Windows developer for over 15 years, so I'm not a Microsoft hater. But after I bought a laptop with Vista on it, and even worse, bought a low-end laptop for my wife that was significantly more powerful than the one it replaced, but with Vista it was unusably slow (even with an extra gig of memory). She hated it... it was the slowest-operating computer I think I've ever used. I put Ubuntu on there and it's as snappy as my much more powerful lappy for typical operations.
I had the same problem. Every time I wanted to rename something on the desktop I had to jump through hoops. Every time I wanted to run some perfectly safe piece of software I had to give Vista special permission to run it. How is it protecting anyone when you have to give permission to run a program you've already run a hundred times. Vista adds nothing for experienced users and takes plenty. I agree with the assessment that it is a complete failure.
Somewhere in the distance, I hear the sound of someone slapping his head and screaming "D'Oh!"
Oops. I meant "Giullary", nor is it "Obomney"
I think the parent was pointing out the difference between "should be" and "is".
I hate to sound like the groupies that flood the 'net with this kind of stuff, but there's only one candidate for U.S. President that won't keep up this kind of crap... you know who I mean.
(Hint: It ain't Guillary.)
Ewwww, you want a Nobel Peace Prize? You mean that complete farce that they award to people like Al Gore or Yassar Arafat?
As far as the U.S. Presidency goes, more power to you, you can handily win against the crowd of third-string candidates that are currently in the running.
That's good. They should want logical people _all_ the time.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
False, physics does not speak to what came before the Big Bang because there is nothing left from that time to see. Any reasonable person can see that making the leap to there being nothing before then because we can't see it is a much more extraordinary claim than that the evidence of such existence has merely been destroyed by the event. So I'll stick with the idea that takes less extraordinary evidence since, in the face of no evidence whatsoever, it seems a lot more likely.
I misspoke. I should have said "Matter did not exist at the time of the Big Bang"
It has been clear from the first that you are just a fucking moron.
Ah, and I can see by this witty rejoinder that you are far more intelligent. Really, man, take a rage dump. It's just a conversation.
Read the Federalist Papers... they don't make much sense if there's no right to secede.
And...
1. [topic]
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
Thats fine and dandy, but at what point did government stop playing by the rules? If the constitution is irrelevant, then why don't we simply ignore it all together.
Didn't that already happen? I mean what part of the Bill of Rights isn't habitually violated, other than the quartering of soldiers in our houses. Is there anything couldn't possibly be rationalized by the Interstate Commerce Clause? I sure haven't heard it. Our government has been increasing its power geometrically for some decades, and it's showing no signs of stopping, but rather of accelerating. I'm sure the Founders wouldn't recognize the country they created, because it no longer exists. In fact, one could argue it hasn't existed since the 1860's.
If you are a competent, intelligent human being, you're probably going to be disqualified for jury duty anyway. Lawyers want rubes they can sway or intimidate with lame emotional appeals or spurious logic. They certainly don't want the case tried on its merits.
That means no movement and no thought.
Don't look now, but it's already happened in Washington, D.C.
Well, according to conventional physics, matter did not exist before the Big Bang.
Regardless, everything has a cause, and just evading the question by assuming the causes are infinite is no more convincing than a gratuitous declaration that God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You seem to treat the non-existence of God as self-evident, but it is not only not self-evident, but it is hard to conceive of existence without some sort of Uncaused First Cause.
Also, parroting my criticisms of your post back to me almost verbatim isn't very original or entertaining. Good trolls have a sense of humor. You're just angry. You'd better avoid salt and fried foods.
Precisely my point.
Saying existence was "always there" eludes the question. After pondering Aquinas' "proofs" of the existence of God for many years, and never finding them convincing, I finally decided they show the existence of God is no harder to prove than the non-existence of God. That might not be what he meant, but it's more than his critics will admit.
It always amuses me when people are guilty of that to which they think they are most immune. It happens more often than one would think, and is especially epidemic in politics.
Wow, I wondered when /. would get to the point of not even bothering to link the articles. After all, no one reads them anyway...
Sorry for replying twice, but further consideration reveals how truly pathetic your response is.
First off, mater was indeed created at the Big Bang, according to current scientific theory. I don't know how believing what the smartest physicists in the world believe makes me stupid or lacking in imagination. I happen to think these guys are very smart, have more imagination than almost anyone in the world, and, here's the scary part, some of them even believe in God. How's that for ironic?
Second, I said it doesn't make sense for "existence" to spring forth ex nihilo... I'm not talking about something as concrete and simplistic as matter. I'm talking about that in which matter resides. Matter didn't always exist and indeed was created, this has been basic, and well-accepted, science for the better part of a century.
You post is a really lame example of a troll, and I would furthermore hate to judge all non-believers based on your example, because if I were to do so, I might conclude that non-believers are all a bunch of narrow-minded bigots who think ad hominem attacks constitute reasoned discourse. But, of course, I don't think that.
How's that? Matter exists, what makes you think it was "created?" This is easy and rather logical to believe. If you lack the imagination or intelligence (or both) to grasp such a simple abstraction from our self-centered tendencies that's your failing. Kind of sad really.
If you're going to troll, you need to do better than that. Let's do this slowly.
Matter exists. Where did it come from?
How dare you be responsible and intelligent about something? This is the 21st century. Self-governance is out of style.
Yeah, but it doesn't seem like what they found was a "good journalist".
Why would anyone consider whether or not something exists when there is no evidence to suggest that there is such a thing in the first place?
Because it is equally inconceivable that existence sprang forth ex nihilo without God.
Matters of faith aside, I find the existence of an Uncaused First Cause to satisfy Occam's Razor quite well.
In other words, to me, the only thing that is as hard to believe as the existence of God is the non-existence of God.
Um, yes, all the way back in HTML 1.0 -- any amount of contiguous whitespace characters is to be treated as a single space. If you want two spaces after a period, you have to trick it by making one of them an nbsp. Which you can do, but it's a pain to type after every sentence.
Given that so many people have the spelling and grammar skills of a remedial fourth-grader, that little issue gets lost in the noise. It still type it though, even when I know it won't show up.
It doesn't answer the question at all, and I'm surprised by your logical fallacy.
Just because stimulating the brain a certain way gives an experience comparable to the "presence of God" doesn't mean that that's the only way you can feel the presence of God. You can extract certain compounds and use them to convince someone he is smelling violets, or roses or food, but that doesn't mean every time he smells those things it's only because someone is spraying those compounds in the air. It could be because those things (violets, roses, food) are really present.
Furthermore, as a religious person who believes in God, I've never experienced the sensation of a presence in that way. I believe God is there, but it doesn't seem He's chosen that way to reveal Himself to me.
If it crosses that limit it losses all the mail in the folder up to that point. IMO that is the cardinal sin of programming - permanently lossing data. They've known about this bug for at least a year - because I made it known at that time and had some not so helpful feedback from developers. But it still happens.
Well, at least you're not spelling it "loosing".
Outlook 2003 had that same problem, except for the whole data store since everything is stored by default in one file. I don't know if it was ever fixed, but when I discovered that (by losing data), and worse that it was apparently well-known, I promptly switched to Thunderbird (around version 0.4) and never looked back. Of course, backups saved my bacon.
I'm not trying to get Mozilla off the hook on that problem, but they still have a better track record than Microsoft.
Excellent parable. I wish Nasrudin was an IP-rights lawyer. I think only an unshakable Zen master could deal with the absurdity of today's IP-rights environment without going insane.
Client: "Do I have a right to sue for second-hand radio enjoyment?"
Nasrudin: "Only if the painter can sue the customer of his portrait over those who view his masterpiece."
In other words, you cannot own a person's perception of something, so the question doesn't even make sense.
It's kind of a lame analogy, but it's coming down to IP meaning "wning whether or not someone can perceive something" and the perception of something being the thing of value. The ultimate conclusion of which, the way things are right now, is that the copyright owner has the right to install wetware to interrupt and/or filter the nerve impulses of unlicensed consumers of their product.
- ConceptJunkie (likes concepts, but lousy at Zen)