There are many of these comments and I'll reply to this one only. Run something like top on Linux. Notice that even if X is running, if you aren't using it it isn't taking resources. I'm not a Microsoft fan, and I don't run it except to play games, but I can't believe they got things so very wrong that they're any different: if you aren't using the GUI, it won't be taking resources. Regardless of the OS, this is just normal in any modern multitasking system. Yes, the GUI will have been loaded, so boot time might be a tad slower, but once you've booted up and the system is running the OS is going to push the unused stuff off to the side. Within five minutes, the GUI may still be using swap file, but it won't be using CPU. And it'll only take five minutes with a system that isn't used very often (and even then, five minutes is probably extreme). Prove me wrong with actual numbers, not idiotic "I hate Microsoft so they must have gotten it wrong" rants.
Complain about Microsoft for the right reasons. This is just silly. I'll repeat it one more time for effect: If the GUI isn't being used, IT'S NOT USING CPU! Again, I'm willing to be wrong, and I've spent so little time with MS operating systems that I easily could be wrong, but you have to show me numbers, not opinions.
> Long ago, professional writers like John Hodgman included narrative arcs and > well-wrought plotlines with their books. Perhaps we don't need them any more. > Maybe the Internet has changed our brain and made us happy to graze from the > bar without the need of a sitdown meal. To put on my PROFESSIONAL POSTER hat, > I think that the Internet has made us accustomed to getting our stuff in > loosely joined pieces.
Am I now Old School, then, because I like reading someone who can spell and finish sentences? Don't need plotlines and narrative arcs? I'm not in that "we", sir. This sounds like a particular kind of book, not a harbinger of all that will come. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy this book, because I probably would, I'm just saying I'd enjoy it for what it is: an idiosyncratic collection of drivel to read in bits and pieces while getting rid of shits and feces (and no one will ever pardon me for that, but I'm okay because I still like me).
The Internet may allow the idiots to be louder now, but the smart folk can still tell the difference. I'm not the brightest cookie in the tool shed, but I'll go for the sitdown meal every time.
A lawyer who proposes to give away $10,000 without caveats and addendums, clauses and subclauses? No contract whatsoever, just a plain and simple offering? And he means it literally?
Yeah, and pigs can fly. Keyword here: LAWYER. Nuther keywords: NO CONTRACT. Um, satire. Yeah, it may be satire that no GTA-loving audience would get, or it may be that all of the responses were similarly satire, but you just have to figure a lawyer without a contract has to be joking.
Ahem. Queef Latina, um, pardonay mwah, but, uh, you have a booger hanging off the tip of your nose. Not sure how you got it there.... Don't worry, we respect you every bit as much as we EVER did. Seriously.
Awesome job not biting your tongue off, though. Your parents must be very proud.
> Until you start asking permission to look in > somebody's general direction, and getting > everybody in the frame;s permission before > taking vacation pictures, I will continue to > disagree with you.
I am from the US. And while I don't expect everyone to ask my permission to look in my direction, or to take a picture while I'm walking by, I do expect them to ask if they are going to shove a small, virtually hidden camera up my knickers.
I've been to Germany, Crete, Spain, and elsewhere. I've generally found people overseas to be more courteous than Americans, but maybe that's just me. I've heard of men jacking off in public while women played soccer. That was, I believe, Italy. And I find that also rather disgusting, but it was in plain sight. They were concealing nothing, and so I don't have nearly as much of an issue with it as when a man follows a woman around and, without her knowledge, takes pictures of her and her privates and publishes them on the Internet. Two completely different circumstances, both disgusting, one offensive and one...disagreeable.
You keep restating that different people have different opinions. Keep restating that until you understand it and all of its ramifications.
I'm not going to sling insults any longer, but I am going to try to state my opinion perhaps more clearly than before. If you don't mind people looking up your clothing, that's fine. Some do, some don't. But, in all cases the person choosing to look up someone's clothes should get permission before doing so. I do realize that different people will have different opinions about what is acceptible. That's a very good use for language: I can ask you if my desired action would offend you.
That is simple common courtesy. Would your mother also not find skirtcams offensive? Your grandmother? Should they also be forced to wear pants? Maybe this example will help: If I'm severely allergic to kool-aid, should I stay home because you might splash a bucketful of kool-aid on me? No. I should be able to go outside comfortably, knowing that if you want to splash kool-aid on me you'll ask or otherwise give me fair warning of your intentions so that I can stop you. (If it rains kool-aid because of some weather anomoly, that's a completely different story.) But I shouldn't have to worry about your intentions toward me; you'll tell me what they are.
I consider the laws here basically irrelevant; in my opinion they generally exist to enforce and define good behavior that should be innate. That doesn't mean there is one, universal definition of good behavior. It means that if I don't know whether my action will offend you, I'll ask, or at the least I'll allow you to inform me of the offense and thereafter respect your wishes. This can get tricky at times, but I believe that if we simply do our best to respect the feelings of those around us we'll all get along fine. That sounds a little squishy, but it's what I believe ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you").
I guess I'm just apalled that we've come so far in so many ways and yet it seems we still have not come far enough socially to treat each other with respect and honesty. (this is a general statement, not directed specifically at you or anyone else)
> If you can't tell who the picture is of, then > the person in the picture has maintained their > privacy.
And you honestly think there's going to be no context? You honestly believe that the voyeur will not ensure a full-body picture of the woman whose underwear he is about to photograph? I agree, you're an idiot.
I also agree that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that we should not have our underwear photographed because of someone else's lascivious whim unless that person asks our permission. This is called common courtesy.
You may be an exhibitionist and so you can give your permission to have your underwear photographed. Others of us aren't exhibitionists; we prefer privacy rules along the lines of: deny=all, allow=these.
Or perhaps you're just far too stupid to imagine yourself in that situation, perhaps wearing a kilt one day and finding out the next that someone you don't know has posted pictures of your face, your body, and your underwear on the Internet for all and sundry to view. Can you take a moment to really imagine what it would feel like, or do you quickly toss out, "I wouldn't care," while you jack off to yet another skirtcam site?
$0.02: There is also not one iota of evidence of any kind that God does not exist. Or rather, there is evidence that God might exist and there is evidence that he might not. There is no proof of either theory. In my opinion, neither theory can be proved. Whether God exists or not must be taken on faith. My father is a devout atheist. I listened to him prove God's non-existence for many years. I tried to believe him for many years. But I've never seen anything that effectively proves that God doesn't exist. And so now I go with my heart on this topic.
I believe in science. I believe in God. I believe the two are compatible and complimentary.
My Take: I've been using USB floppy drives. Well, A USB floppy. I use floppy drives about every six months, sometimes for transferring net drivers (Windows; I've never had to do that for Linux or FreeBSD, oddly) and sometimes for installing an OS via FTP (Linux and FreeBSD; I've never been able to do that for Windows, oddly). Having just one saves space in the system and time and money and...I definitely prefer it. Plug it in, use it, unplug it, store it for the next system.
We'll be getting a USB CD-ROM soon, too, and most of our new boxes won't have either inside, just a harddrive (I also don't use CDs very often).
Slashdot Mirror
There are many of these comments and I'll reply to this one only. Run something like top on Linux. Notice that even if X is running, if you aren't using it it isn't taking resources. I'm not a Microsoft fan, and I don't run it except to play games, but I can't believe they got things so very wrong that they're any different: if you aren't using the GUI, it won't be taking resources. Regardless of the OS, this is just normal in any modern multitasking system. Yes, the GUI will have been loaded, so boot time might be a tad slower, but once you've booted up and the system is running the OS is going to push the unused stuff off to the side. Within five minutes, the GUI may still be using swap file, but it won't be using CPU. And it'll only take five minutes with a system that isn't used very often (and even then, five minutes is probably extreme). Prove me wrong with actual numbers, not idiotic "I hate Microsoft so they must have gotten it wrong" rants.
Complain about Microsoft for the right reasons. This is just silly. I'll repeat it one more time for effect: If the GUI isn't being used, IT'S NOT USING CPU! Again, I'm willing to be wrong, and I've spent so little time with MS operating systems that I easily could be wrong, but you have to show me numbers, not opinions.
---Bruce
> Long ago, professional writers like John Hodgman included narrative arcs and
> well-wrought plotlines with their books. Perhaps we don't need them any more.
> Maybe the Internet has changed our brain and made us happy to graze from the
> bar without the need of a sitdown meal. To put on my PROFESSIONAL POSTER hat,
> I think that the Internet has made us accustomed to getting our stuff in
> loosely joined pieces.
Am I now Old School, then, because I like reading someone who can spell and finish sentences? Don't need plotlines and narrative arcs? I'm not in that "we", sir. This sounds like a particular kind of book, not a harbinger of all that will come. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy this book, because I probably would, I'm just saying I'd enjoy it for what it is: an idiosyncratic collection of drivel to read in bits and pieces while getting rid of shits and feces (and no one will ever pardon me for that, but I'm okay because I still like me).
The Internet may allow the idiots to be louder now, but the smart folk can still tell the difference. I'm not the brightest cookie in the tool shed, but I'll go for the sitdown meal every time.
---Bruce
A lawyer who proposes to give away $10,000 without caveats and addendums, clauses and subclauses? No contract whatsoever, just a plain and simple offering? And he means it literally?
Yeah, and pigs can fly. Keyword here: LAWYER. Nuther keywords: NO CONTRACT. Um, satire. Yeah, it may be satire that no GTA-loving audience would get, or it may be that all of the responses were similarly satire, but you just have to figure a lawyer without a contract has to be joking.
---Bruce
Ahem. Queef Latina, um, pardonay mwah, but, uh, you have a booger hanging off the tip of your nose. Not sure how you got it there.... Don't worry, we respect you every bit as much as we EVER did. Seriously.
Awesome job not biting your tongue off, though. Your parents must be very proud.
---Bruce
Toenail clippings aren't just extra protein? Ack! I've been LIED to!
---Bruce "Mr. Disillusioned"
> Until you start asking permission to look in
> somebody's general direction, and getting
> everybody in the frame;s permission before
> taking vacation pictures, I will continue to
> disagree with you.
I am from the US. And while I don't expect everyone to ask my permission to look in my direction, or to take a picture while I'm walking by, I do expect them to ask if they are going to shove a small, virtually hidden camera up my knickers.
I've been to Germany, Crete, Spain, and elsewhere. I've generally found people overseas to be more courteous than Americans, but maybe that's just me. I've heard of men jacking off in public while women played soccer. That was, I believe, Italy. And I find that also rather disgusting, but it was in plain sight. They were concealing nothing, and so I don't have nearly as much of an issue with it as when a man follows a woman around and, without her knowledge, takes pictures of her and her privates and publishes them on the Internet. Two completely different circumstances, both disgusting, one offensive and one...disagreeable.
You keep restating that different people have different opinions. Keep restating that until you understand it and all of its ramifications.
---Bruce
I'm not going to sling insults any longer, but I am going to try to state my opinion perhaps more clearly than before. If you don't mind people looking up your clothing, that's fine. Some do, some don't. But, in all cases the person choosing to look up someone's clothes should get permission before doing so. I do realize that different people will have different opinions about what is acceptible. That's a very good use for language: I can ask you if my desired action would offend you.
That is simple common courtesy. Would your mother also not find skirtcams offensive? Your grandmother? Should they also be forced to wear pants? Maybe this example will help: If I'm severely allergic to kool-aid, should I stay home because you might splash a bucketful of kool-aid on me? No. I should be able to go outside comfortably, knowing that if you want to splash kool-aid on me you'll ask or otherwise give me fair warning of your intentions so that I can stop you. (If it rains kool-aid because of some weather anomoly, that's a completely different story.) But I shouldn't have to worry about your intentions toward me; you'll tell me what they are.
I consider the laws here basically irrelevant; in my opinion they generally exist to enforce and define good behavior that should be innate. That doesn't mean there is one, universal definition of good behavior. It means that if I don't know whether my action will offend you, I'll ask, or at the least I'll allow you to inform me of the offense and thereafter respect your wishes. This can get tricky at times, but I believe that if we simply do our best to respect the feelings of those around us we'll all get along fine. That sounds a little squishy, but it's what I believe ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you").
I guess I'm just apalled that we've come so far in so many ways and yet it seems we still have not come far enough socially to treat each other with respect and honesty. (this is a general statement, not directed specifically at you or anyone else)
---Bruce
> If you can't tell who the picture is of, then
> the person in the picture has maintained their
> privacy.
And you honestly think there's going to be no context? You honestly believe that the voyeur will not ensure a full-body picture of the woman whose underwear he is about to photograph? I agree, you're an idiot.
I also agree that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that we should not have our underwear photographed because of someone else's lascivious whim unless that person asks our permission. This is called common courtesy.
You may be an exhibitionist and so you can give your permission to have your underwear photographed. Others of us aren't exhibitionists; we prefer privacy rules along the lines of: deny=all, allow=these.
Or perhaps you're just far too stupid to imagine yourself in that situation, perhaps wearing a kilt one day and finding out the next that someone you don't know has posted pictures of your face, your body, and your underwear on the Internet for all and sundry to view. Can you take a moment to really imagine what it would feel like, or do you quickly toss out, "I wouldn't care," while you jack off to yet another skirtcam site?
---Bruce
$0.02: There is also not one iota of evidence of any kind that God does not exist. Or rather, there is evidence that God might exist and there is evidence that he might not. There is no proof of either theory. In my opinion, neither theory can be proved. Whether God exists or not must be taken on faith. My father is a devout atheist. I listened to him prove God's non-existence for many years. I tried to believe him for many years. But I've never seen anything that effectively proves that God doesn't exist. And so now I go with my heart on this topic.
I believe in science. I believe in God. I believe the two are compatible and complimentary.
---Bruce
My Take: I've been using USB floppy drives. Well, A USB floppy. I use floppy drives about every six months, sometimes for transferring net drivers (Windows; I've never had to do that for Linux or FreeBSD, oddly) and sometimes for installing an OS via FTP (Linux and FreeBSD; I've never been able to do that for Windows, oddly). Having just one saves space in the system and time and money and...I definitely prefer it. Plug it in, use it, unplug it, store it for the next system.
We'll be getting a USB CD-ROM soon, too, and most of our new boxes won't have either inside, just a harddrive (I also don't use CDs very often).
---Bruce