Also, you have a point, Stupid people are less likely to go crazy than intelligent people.
A person whos too ignorant to be aware, can never truely become paraniod.
However someone whos aware of everything is bound to be paraniod at some point however, paraniod to the level that they dont eat at all, usually thats a sign of unstability.
Its ok to be paraniod, its bad to be unstable and paraniod to the point where you harm yourself or others.
Do you know the Ruy Lopez, English, Modern, Kings Indian? I bet you dont know any openings.
Do you know how the game works? Learn how it works, then play someone on an even level, every single move you make will be in anticipation of a move that you think they will make, the surprise is when they make the move you never expected, causing you to change your entire plan, or when they block your attempts to gain an advantage.
Chess does deal with people, You manipulate their peices on the board, if you are really good you can beat a person so bad that you pretty much can control where all their peices will be.
I beat a person in chess so bad once that I was telling them exactly where their peices would move before they moved it, and pretty much had all their peices locked up where they couldnt move anything but their king, then chased their king around with pawns toying with them even though i could have mated them, I eventually mated them with something like a pawn.
Its fun to beat someone and beat them in a way where they KNOW they cant compare to you however its also fun to barely beat a person knowing they are playing better than you but catching them.
to be honest, getting girls has less to do with your mental ability and more to do with your physical ability.
However, if you are a chessplayer AND rich, well you'll most likely get any girl you want, however chess isnt going to make you rich, better off being a programmer.
Actually Boxing is about hitting a person more times than they hit you.
the strategy only comes into play when you box someone who hits harder and whos faster and better physically.
This is why people like holyfield knock out mike tyson, or out of shape buster douglas even.
This is also why old george forman would knock out any young boxer you through at him
Chess is the same, theres natural talent, some people are naturally talented at chess and kick peoples ass without knowing how, but theres also strategies, openings, and tricks, and no matter how much natural talent you have, if you dont know an opening, or a trick being pulled on you, you lose.
Chess is about memorizing openings, as it is about how many moves you can see ahead and plan for.
Chess is like any other sport, talk to tiger woods about how he feels when he wins a golf tournament, Talk to world champion boxer lennox lewis about how he feels when he beats the shit out of someone, or just talk to a scientist, ask the scientist how they feel when they make a discovery or solve an equation.
Everyone gets a trill out of what they do, this is what makes it an art, a sport, and life for these people, they want to be the best at what they do and want to win. I'm sure president Bush had a rush of testosterone when he edged out Al Gore in the US supreme court and became President of the USA.
The best Chess player in the world is bobby fischer, he was once an American before we abandoned him and locked him out of the country.
And what hooligan on the street do you know who plays chess, i'd think street hooligans are too busy stealing cars, robbing people, and doing other stereotypical dumb stuff to have time to do something stereotypical of intelligent people like chess, or read books.
But thats stereotypes not reality. Class has nothing to do with intelligence level, more to do with how much $ you have.
Actually I was paraniod before I played chess, And before I played chess I was not paraniod.
I played chess, but chess didnt make me who I am.
Chess is just a game, however at the upper levels it becomes an art. Winning and Losing is part of the game, of course competitive people want to win all the time.
Chess is like any other sport, go talk to micheal jordan and find out hes a paraniod thrill seeker who wants to see every basket go in, win every championship and watch his testosterone levels rise when he dunks in shaqs face.
Really, anyone whos competitive, gets a trill from winning, thats why they are competitive.
Broadband, Cable TV, and Setop Boxes all have one thing in common. THEY NEED AN OS.
Imagine users watching TV, Running all their PC software, using the broadband aspects of cable to connect to the net.
IT all makes sense. The OS is the only peice missing from this.
They NEED an OS, they dont want to use Microsofts.
And of course all the enhancements they do for this settop box OS will also apply to the desktop because they also need to keep Microsoft from leveraging them with XP and.Net and MSN.
Its more profitable to take Marketshare from Microsoft and Apple by releasing a general purpose OS which is compatible with the Windows and OSX internals.
Its also profitable to use TimeWarners cable company to give away free settop boxes (appliances) and then charge a monthly fee to pay for the box and the content, cable style.
It would be just like cable but a slightly more expensive bill.
Work with Microsoft? The same way Apple tried to before getting screwed? Or Xerox? or IBM?
I think AOL knows they cant work with Microsoft when Microsoft has MSN, Media Player, and all these products threatening their marketshare, AOL is simply threatening Microsoft in the same way.
You are telling AOL to bow down and kiss Microsofts feet and be Microsofts bitch without even putting up a fight.
I dont think the entire company is going to focus on saving the less profitable content department at the expense of the highly profitable services department.
Even Microsoft knows services are more profitable.
But it depends, if that one department of the HUGE services Company known as AOL TW has the most political influence internally, thats when theres a problem.
Consider the fact that they didnt fire the nullsoft team, the mozilla team, and start selling AOL software CDs in stores. It would be impossible for them to remain profitable by selling content.
Time Warner however, at least the media and entertainment division however (the ones who are MPAA) if they had control, wouldnt even allow AOL to buy Redhat, if somehow AOL buys redhat, Redhat would simply be sold after an internal war of "What do to with Redhat."
AOL the services ISP company divisions would want to compete with Microsoft and do whats profitable.
TW and the movie division would want to maintain their core business at all cost.
1, make it so the OS itself doesnt run any programs directly, All your programs running off of AOLs main server which you can only access when you are subscribbed to AOLs network. AOL offers a napster like program which you can only access when subscribbed to AOLS network, also allowing Access to movies and so on through their subscription.
Service based software.
While this isnt all that bad, AOL will become your portal through which all your software runs, another version of.net just slightly more free, Open Source dot net.
Want access to the code? They'll force you to subscribe.
Another possible situation is AOL, the RIAA poisining the Linux Movement with $$ influence.
Controlling where development goes, slowing it down in places they dont like, so they dont like your software which breaks the DMCA, they make their package management and installer core software closed source and only allow licensed developers to use their nice installers, now your anti DMCA software becomes so hard to use that only programmers can handle it,
Fine for programmers like us but for casual users who dont know linux at all, they are locked out of all the little hacks to the AOLinux software
Slashdot Mirror
In life nothing is absolute.
Also, you have a point, Stupid people are less likely to go crazy than intelligent people.
A person whos too ignorant to be aware, can never truely become paraniod.
However someone whos aware of everything is bound to be paraniod at some point however, paraniod to the level that they dont eat at all, usually thats a sign of unstability.
Its ok to be paraniod, its bad to be unstable and paraniod to the point where you harm yourself or others.
ChessLine
Care to lose in a game of chess? Why talk about it, how about a challenge? This goes to any other Chess Player on this site.
Talk is cheap, So lets play and find out who the best Player on Slashdot really is shall we?
People who hang out and play chess usually are playing for money.
Usually people who arent good enough to win national tournaments but who are too good to play for free.
http://151.17.13.5/chessline/homepage.asp
ChessLine Go there to experience what chess is all about.
Maybe we can take this to the chessboards instead of bragging about our abilities on this forum.
Because you dont know how to really play chess.
Do you know the Ruy Lopez, English, Modern, Kings Indian? I bet you dont know any openings.
Do you know how the game works? Learn how it works, then play someone on an even level, every single move you make will be in anticipation of a move that you think they will make, the surprise is when they make the move you never expected, causing you to change your entire plan, or when they block your attempts to gain an advantage.
Chess does deal with people, You manipulate their peices on the board, if you are really good you can beat a person so bad that you pretty much can control where all their peices will be.
I beat a person in chess so bad once that I was telling them exactly where their peices would move before they moved it, and pretty much had all their peices locked up where they couldnt move anything but their king, then chased their king around with pawns toying with them even though i could have mated them, I eventually mated them with something like a pawn.
Its fun to beat someone and beat them in a way where they KNOW they cant compare to you however its also fun to barely beat a person knowing they are playing better than you but catching them.
to be honest, getting girls has less to do with your mental ability and more to do with your physical ability.
However, if you are a chessplayer AND rich, well you'll most likely get any girl you want, however chess isnt going to make you rich, better off being a programmer.
Actually Boxing is about hitting a person more times than they hit you.
the strategy only comes into play when you box someone who hits harder and whos faster and better physically.
This is why people like holyfield knock out mike tyson, or out of shape buster douglas even.
This is also why old george forman would knock out any young boxer you through at him
Chess is the same, theres natural talent, some people are naturally talented at chess and kick peoples ass without knowing how, but theres also strategies, openings, and tricks, and no matter how much natural talent you have, if you dont know an opening, or a trick being pulled on you, you lose.
Chess is about memorizing openings, as it is about how many moves you can see ahead and plan for.
Chess is like any other sport, talk to tiger woods about how he feels when he wins a golf tournament, Talk to world champion boxer lennox lewis about how he feels when he beats the shit out of someone, or just talk to a scientist, ask the scientist how they feel when they make a discovery or solve an equation.
Everyone gets a trill out of what they do, this is what makes it an art, a sport, and life for these people, they want to be the best at what they do and want to win. I'm sure president Bush had a rush of testosterone when he edged out Al Gore in the US supreme court and became President of the USA.
The best Chess player in the world is bobby fischer, he was once an American before we abandoned him and locked him out of the country.
And what hooligan on the street do you know who plays chess, i'd think street hooligans are too busy stealing cars, robbing people, and doing other stereotypical dumb stuff to have time to do something stereotypical of intelligent people like chess, or read books.
But thats stereotypes not reality. Class has nothing to do with intelligence level, more to do with how much $ you have.
Actually I was paraniod before I played chess, And before I played chess I was not paraniod.
I played chess, but chess didnt make me who I am.
Chess is just a game, however at the upper levels it becomes an art. Winning and Losing is part of the game, of course competitive people want to win all the time.
Chess is like any other sport, go talk to micheal jordan and find out hes a paraniod thrill seeker who wants to see every basket go in, win every championship and watch his testosterone levels rise when he dunks in shaqs face.
Really, anyone whos competitive, gets a trill from winning, thats why they are competitive.
In 1997 was IE at the level of mozilla? IE was about 4 years old in 1997.
Mozilla is 4 years old, its surpassed IE in every area and its not at 1.0 yet.
IE is almost 7.0.
IF Mozilla 1.0 is better than IE 7.0 then IE just plain sucks.
Mozilla also is more secure, you dont have to worry about being hacked through your browser.
Mozilla is a good project, it took 4 years to build, IE took 6-7 years to build.
So hows Mozilla late, and IE on time? Oh yeah, IE started 4-5 years before Mozilla.
I have the same exact laptop hahaha
Thousands of elitist programmers all using the same OS.
CNN and MSNBC make more money than everything mentioned up there with exception to maybe Windows.
Broadband, Cable TV, and Setop Boxes all have one thing in common. THEY NEED AN OS.
Imagine users watching TV, Running all their PC software, using the broadband aspects of cable to connect to the net.
IT all makes sense. The OS is the only peice missing from this.
They NEED an OS, they dont want to use Microsofts.
And of course all the enhancements they do for this settop box OS will also apply to the desktop because they also need to keep Microsoft from leveraging them with XP and
Its more profitable to take Marketshare from Microsoft and Apple by releasing a general purpose OS which is compatible with the Windows and OSX internals.
Its also profitable to use TimeWarners cable company to give away free settop boxes (appliances) and then charge a monthly fee to pay for the box and the content, cable style.
It would be just like cable but a slightly more expensive bill.
Has Mozilla 1.0 been released?
IT takes 4 years to make a catch up to a Moving target like IE.
1998 - 2002.
It took IE more than 6 years to get where it is right now.
Work with Microsoft? The same way Apple tried to before getting screwed? Or Xerox? or IBM?
I think AOL knows they cant work with Microsoft when Microsoft has MSN, Media Player, and all these products threatening their marketshare, AOL is simply threatening Microsoft in the same way.
You are telling AOL to bow down and kiss Microsofts feet and be Microsofts bitch without even putting up a fight.
Doesnt matter, AOL has more money than Apple, AOL can buy redhat, AOL can have other people build the hardware and software and pay them.
You dont need to have experience if you have money, Microsoft and Xbox are good examples.
Microsoft innovating where? what market share are we talking about that they dont already have?
It would take 1 year, maybe 2.
I dont think the entire company is going to focus on saving the less profitable content department at the expense of the highly profitable services department.
Even Microsoft knows services are more profitable.
But it depends, if that one department of the HUGE services Company known as AOL TW has the most political influence internally, thats when theres a problem.
Consider the fact that they didnt fire the nullsoft team, the mozilla team, and start selling AOL software CDs in stores. It would be impossible for them to remain profitable by selling content.
Time Warner however, at least the media and entertainment division however (the ones who are MPAA) if they had control, wouldnt even allow AOL to buy Redhat, if somehow AOL buys redhat, Redhat would simply be sold after an internal war of "What do to with Redhat."
AOL the services ISP company divisions would want to compete with Microsoft and do whats profitable.
TW and the movie division would want to maintain their core business at all cost.
Transgaming is a subscription service too. Add another 5 bucks a month to the subscribers of AOL.
Who ever said Netscape wasnt easy enough? Its not stable enough.
Time Warner duh
They could do a few things.
1, make it so the OS itself doesnt run any programs directly, All your programs running off of AOLs main server which you can only access when you are subscribbed to AOLs network. AOL offers a napster like program which you can only access when subscribbed to AOLS network, also allowing Access to movies and so on through their subscription.
Service based software.
While this isnt all that bad, AOL will become your portal through which all your software runs, another version of
Want access to the code? They'll force you to subscribe.
Another possible situation is AOL, the RIAA poisining the Linux Movement with $$ influence.
Controlling where development goes, slowing it down in places they dont like, so they dont like your software which breaks the DMCA, they make their package management and installer core software closed source and only allow licensed developers to use their nice installers, now your anti DMCA software becomes so hard to use that only programmers can handle it,
Fine for programmers like us but for casual users who dont know linux at all, they are locked out of all the little hacks to the AOLinux software