What, precisely, are we re-evaluating? Novelty for novelty's sake is a disease. Stability can be important, even overridingly so.
Gnome 2 has for years been the standard in the Linux desktop, despite the fact that it is widely reviled even by many of its own users. It is an albatross around the neck of the Linux desktop. It has to die.
I agree with (what I assume is) your position that Unity is not the right direction to take away from that mess. But it's a direction. As is Gnome 3. I don't like Gnome 3 either, but at least we're trying again, at least we're talking about it again. And even if the lessons we take from this experience are all "things not to do," we're learning something.
I have to say, I refuse to use Unity, I spit on Chromium in disgust, I've never even heard of LightDM, and I wouldn't install Ubuntu on one of my own machines if you paid me money...but you have made the best and most profound point on these topics that I have yet seen. +6 to you.
I work in the end user business, but I bet we're dealing with the same commodity crap. I would say that the majority of the time it's just shit parts. Cheap power supplies, underpowered fans, shit like that. It's amazing how many motherboards I've seen scorched because some manufacturer was too cheap to put on another $0.03 worth of heat sink compound. Sometimes I get the gems like "somebody dropped a bowling ball on the laptop," but honestly most people lack the skill to really break something. That takes a professional:)
The operative part of the GP's post that I was taking issue with was "pretends to run in every election." (emphasis mine) I was aware of your datapoint.
Nope, mainly because you're use of the word "predation" is exactly the kind of hyperbole that ended up putting egg on Clinton's face.
Hyperbole? The man lied under oath while he was in court for sexually harassing a woman who worked for him. That's not hyperbole. That's public record.
Give them root access / log them in as root for a fair comparison to the typical windows user's setup and see how long that lasts.
I sell Linux machines. If you buy a box from me, you have sudo. To the best of my knowledge, no customer of mine has ever been pwnt in the last five years. Fair enough for you?
but rather the fact that a fairly large number of Americans were sympathetic to him
I couldn't care less. The man lied under oath.
and viewed Gingrich as Starr as nothing more than scandal-hungry bastards
That's certainly true. And it changes nothing.
but to imagine that the President of the United States would get tossed out of office because he lied about a blow job requires a kind of fantasy existence not appropriate for people who live in the adult world.
He lied under oath during an unrelated (except inasmuch as it shows a pattern of sexual predation) trial for sexual harassment. I find it surprising how cavalierly that fact is dismissed in that discussion. Do you not find that alarming?
It's a big deal if it's about corruption or treason.
No, it's a felony. It's a big deal.
No matter how you try to frame it
I'm not framing anything. I'm giving facts.
no one is going to buy it if it's about getting a blowjob from an intern.
It wasn't about getting a blowjob from an intern. The specific statement in which Clinton perjured himself was about Monica Lewinsky, but he was facing sexual harassment charges from Paula Jones, a former employee of the state of Arkansas from when Bill Clinton was governor. Do you not find obstruction of justice during a sexual harassment hearing serious?
The man lied under oath. That's not a minor deal. That's a big deal.
But to me the bigger deal was that the Bill Clinton impeachment circus further eroded our expectations of and respect for the office of President. Certainly he can't be held wholly responsible for that, but he is part of a direct line of Presidential malfeasance that ultimately got us to where we are today. And that's a big deal too.
For one thing, most of the reviews are from '02 - '04. Moderately early in the internet game and pretty recently after he resigned as Speaker of the House. To say that he was paying someone else to do it is probably a little bit farfetched just in terms of the chronology. I doubt he was sitting around in 2002 thinking about running for President in 2012 and thought to himself "hey, I know, I'll pay someone to write book reviews for me on the internet." It just doesn't make any sense.
Two, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces by him or heard him speak, the book reviews do sound like him.
God damn, you're still banging the drum, aren't you?
you believe that a politician's online presence is solely created by the politician himself and not the work of many "consultants" whose entire job in Washington is to create an online presence for politicians, including tweets, blog posts, and posts on conservative "think-tank" websites?
Considering that the bulk of the reviews are from 2002 - 2004, I rather doubt that that is the case in this instance. And the reviews sound like him, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces or anything by him. But you wouldn't know that. Because you haven't looked, have you?
So, rather than evaluate his actual record in public office (which Gingrich has) we should just cast our votes based on his reading list? If that's the case, then I want to see him give oral reports on the books he's claimed to have read. If as a nation we're going to force the current occupant of the White House to provide documentary proof of his innocence of the crime of presidenting while black, then the least we can do is force the most puffed-up, self-absorbed, unctuous and perfidious blow-hard in Washington to prove that he's actually read the books that the Amazon account in his name has claimed to have read.
If we are getting more evil, we blame those who made that possible. That includes those who think participating in an election is a mere exercise to feel blameless.There are large numbers of voters who will always stick to their party, no matter which candidate runs. If that number is bigger then the number of people who have even heard of your alleged "decent job doing guy", then voting for him is an exercise in futility. It's possible to get a fairly good idea whether that's the case using polls. If you ignore that information you should be blamed for doing so.
Ah yes, the "don't waste your vote" argument. In 2008, all my Democrat friends tried to harass me with that line of thought. "If you don't vote for Obama, there'll be another war, we'll be in Afghanistan for another decade, we'll keep torturing people and we'll lose all our civil liberties!"
And damned if they weren't right. I didn't vote for Obama and that's exactly what happened.
Wait a minute, I should "assess someone's intellectual capacity" based on a "recommend" an account in his name gave on Amazon?
It's a form of insight into someone's intellectual habits, yes.
Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.
Based on the fact that you've dragged that pisspoor joke out through two posts now, my assessment of your capacity for wit is not high.
Among the "mainstream" Republican candidates (if you can still count Gingrich as "mainstream"), Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the most educated, well-spoken, most recognized (for good or ill), and most coherent (as in philosophy). Especially against the field of sleazeballs (Romney) and nutters (Bachmann) that seem to be lining up for the bid, I think he's got a real shot at the nomination.
Disclaimer: I am not a Republican or a Gingrich supporter. I do really loathe Michelle Bachmann.
What, exactly did you expect to do with him, anyway?
If it hadn't occurred to you by now that he might have some intelligence value...well, you're as dumb as you sound. Do I have to spell this out for you?
The only reply to the rest of your comment that I can muster the patience for is: "What the fuck, are you like 14?"
Slashdot Mirror
A user list? If people are too stupid to remember their username, they don't deserve to log in.
Shut the fuck up.
Because everyone loves three year old software. STFU about LTS already.
What, precisely, are we re-evaluating? Novelty for novelty's sake is a disease. Stability can be important, even overridingly so.
Gnome 2 has for years been the standard in the Linux desktop, despite the fact that it is widely reviled even by many of its own users. It is an albatross around the neck of the Linux desktop. It has to die.
I agree with (what I assume is) your position that Unity is not the right direction to take away from that mess. But it's a direction. As is Gnome 3. I don't like Gnome 3 either, but at least we're trying again, at least we're talking about it again. And even if the lessons we take from this experience are all "things not to do," we're learning something.
I have to say, I refuse to use Unity, I spit on Chromium in disgust, I've never even heard of LightDM, and I wouldn't install Ubuntu on one of my own machines if you paid me money...but you have made the best and most profound point on these topics that I have yet seen. +6 to you.
No one is talking about mobile phones or tablets.
Depends on the application
Better yet!
I work in the end user business, but I bet we're dealing with the same commodity crap. I would say that the majority of the time it's just shit parts. Cheap power supplies, underpowered fans, shit like that. It's amazing how many motherboards I've seen scorched because some manufacturer was too cheap to put on another $0.03 worth of heat sink compound. Sometimes I get the gems like "somebody dropped a bowling ball on the laptop," but honestly most people lack the skill to really break something. That takes a professional :)
You don't work in the business, do you?
The operative part of the GP's post that I was taking issue with was "pretends to run in every election." (emphasis mine) I was aware of your datapoint.
Nope, mainly because you're use of the word "predation" is exactly the kind of hyperbole that ended up putting egg on Clinton's face.
Hyperbole? The man lied under oath while he was in court for sexually harassing a woman who worked for him. That's not hyperbole. That's public record.
Give them root access / log them in as root for a fair comparison to the typical windows user's setup and see how long that lasts.
I sell Linux machines. If you buy a box from me, you have sudo. To the best of my knowledge, no customer of mine has ever been pwnt in the last five years. Fair enough for you?
I'm not defending his lying under oath
Well, good. Let's start there.
but rather the fact that a fairly large number of Americans were sympathetic to him
I couldn't care less. The man lied under oath.
and viewed Gingrich as Starr as nothing more than scandal-hungry bastards
That's certainly true. And it changes nothing.
but to imagine that the President of the United States would get tossed out of office because he lied about a blow job requires a kind of fantasy existence not appropriate for people who live in the adult world.
He lied under oath during an unrelated (except inasmuch as it shows a pattern of sexual predation) trial for sexual harassment. I find it surprising how cavalierly that fact is dismissed in that discussion. Do you not find that alarming?
It's a big deal if it's about corruption or treason.
No, it's a felony. It's a big deal.
No matter how you try to frame it
I'm not framing anything. I'm giving facts.
no one is going to buy it if it's about getting a blowjob from an intern.
It wasn't about getting a blowjob from an intern. The specific statement in which Clinton perjured himself was about Monica Lewinsky, but he was facing sexual harassment charges from Paula Jones, a former employee of the state of Arkansas from when Bill Clinton was governor. Do you not find obstruction of justice during a sexual harassment hearing serious?
once you get over the folksy charm, Clinton himself apparently has a formidable intellect.
No argument there.
Impeachment was supposed to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Perjury is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
The man lied under oath. That's not a minor deal. That's a big deal.
But to me the bigger deal was that the Bill Clinton impeachment circus further eroded our expectations of and respect for the office of President. Certainly he can't be held wholly responsible for that, but he is part of a direct line of Presidential malfeasance that ultimately got us to where we are today. And that's a big deal too.
You don't consider Newt Gingrich "bright and well-read?" Why not?
For one thing, most of the reviews are from '02 - '04. Moderately early in the internet game and pretty recently after he resigned as Speaker of the House. To say that he was paying someone else to do it is probably a little bit farfetched just in terms of the chronology. I doubt he was sitting around in 2002 thinking about running for President in 2012 and thought to himself "hey, I know, I'll pay someone to write book reviews for me on the internet." It just doesn't make any sense.
Two, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces by him or heard him speak, the book reviews do sound like him.
Gingrich has never run for President before. Do some research before you spout shit off.
God damn, you're still banging the drum, aren't you?
you believe that a politician's online presence is solely created by the politician himself and not the work of many "consultants" whose entire job in Washington is to create an online presence for politicians, including tweets, blog posts, and posts on conservative "think-tank" websites?
Considering that the bulk of the reviews are from 2002 - 2004, I rather doubt that that is the case in this instance. And the reviews sound like him, if you've ever read any op-ed pieces or anything by him. But you wouldn't know that. Because you haven't looked, have you?
So, rather than evaluate his actual record in public office (which Gingrich has) we should just cast our votes based on his reading list? If that's the case, then I want to see him give oral reports on the books he's claimed to have read. If as a nation we're going to force the current occupant of the White House to provide documentary proof of his innocence of the crime of presidenting while black, then the least we can do is force the most puffed-up, self-absorbed, unctuous and perfidious blow-hard in Washington to prove that he's actually read the books that the Amazon account in his name has claimed to have read.
Man, you are just hateful.
If we are getting more evil, we blame those who made that possible. That includes those who think participating in an election is a mere exercise to feel blameless.There are large numbers of voters who will always stick to their party, no matter which candidate runs. If that number is bigger then the number of people who have even heard of your alleged "decent job doing guy", then voting for him is an exercise in futility. It's possible to get a fairly good idea whether that's the case using polls. If you ignore that information you should be blamed for doing so.
Ah yes, the "don't waste your vote" argument. In 2008, all my Democrat friends tried to harass me with that line of thought. "If you don't vote for Obama, there'll be another war, we'll be in Afghanistan for another decade, we'll keep torturing people and we'll lose all our civil liberties!"
And damned if they weren't right. I didn't vote for Obama and that's exactly what happened.
Wait a minute, I should "assess someone's intellectual capacity" based on a "recommend" an account in his name gave on Amazon?
It's a form of insight into someone's intellectual habits, yes.
Well then, the fact that I've recommended Kant's Critique of Pure Reason indicates that I'm fucking brilliant. And since I "recommended" Jeff Gordon: Nascar Driver (Ferguson Career Biographies) [Hardcover] ISBN-10: 0816058857 I am qualified to win the Daytona 500.
Based on the fact that you've dragged that pisspoor joke out through two posts now, my assessment of your capacity for wit is not high.
He's got my vote.
Among the "mainstream" Republican candidates (if you can still count Gingrich as "mainstream"), Newt Gingrich is without a doubt the most educated, well-spoken, most recognized (for good or ill), and most coherent (as in philosophy). Especially against the field of sleazeballs (Romney) and nutters (Bachmann) that seem to be lining up for the bid, I think he's got a real shot at the nomination.
Disclaimer: I am not a Republican or a Gingrich supporter. I do really loathe Michelle Bachmann.
What, exactly did you expect to do with him, anyway?
If it hadn't occurred to you by now that he might have some intelligence value...well, you're as dumb as you sound. Do I have to spell this out for you?
The only reply to the rest of your comment that I can muster the patience for is: "What the fuck, are you like 14?"