Is this going to be a case of "self-updating windows systems = evil" versus "self-updating linux systems = good"?
Only if "self-updating Linux systems != all the shit microsoft breaks when they change something and tell users to update automatically."
You see, most (reasonable) people's objections is not to self-updating; it's to updating automatically without checking that it works first. Also, I think that this is probably instance #5,432,765,980 of Someone Confusing Differing-Opinions-Held-By-Differing-Individuals With GroupThink. Get a clue.
The difference is that Opera has actually been available for since 1996. OpenOffice has been around since 2000, and only hit v1.0 status in 2002.
Ebbeh? Um, maybe you are trolling, but I'll bite: OpenOffice isn't a web browser.
For the past nine years you could have been using a browser that was more secure than MSIE. In all that time you would never have worried about a web page hijacking your browser and fubaring your system.
For the past nine years, I *have* been using a browser that is more secure than MSIE. It was called Netscape originally, then Mozilla. And I've never worried about web page hijacking my browser and fubaring my system, because my systems of choice (namely OS/2 and Linux) don't have those problems.
I gotta ask: was waiting for "free" worth an extra six years of suffering?
Myself, I think y'all paid heavily for your reluctance to cough up some pissant cash.
Projecting motivations on to other people is a very dangerous line of reasoning (if it can be called that). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason that some people used Mozilla/Firefox because it was Free as in speech and not because it was free as in beer? That maybe some people liked being able to hack on the software they used instead of just using something they couldn't touch, and therefore couldn't trust?
Myself, I think you are just bitter that "your" browser is losing to Firefox. But then, that would be projecting a motivation on to you, and that would be faulty reasoning, wouldn't it?;)
In an age when parents are suing schools for not keeping adequate track of their children (see http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/001699.html) is this any wonder?
Am I the only one who thinks that the solution to this is not more invasions of privacy (via tags), but less legal bullshit (via less lawyers, more personal responsibility, and less stupid laws)?
On the surface making sure kids stay in school and learn gives them the best chance for success as adults..
Anyone who thinks that schools are anything other than conditioning camps to keep kids from making trouble while their parents slave away just to survive should read this
Of 10 people, 9 are in the former category while but 1 are in the latter.
And arguably 2-5 of those 9 people don't need to be paying interest; they could easily afford to not use credit, but they have to have things now. They are perfect consumers, buying on credit to get the latest and greatest toys.
I'll agree, the power structure in this country (and most of the world) is pretty fucked up, but even when people are informed of it, the majority chooses to vote against their best interests (think recent election statistics, and if you're not easily offended, read this).
Like it said it's only mostly true. For you (and the small minority like you) and possibly cultures without currency (or any concept of debt; think aborigines), this rule of course doesn't apply.
and I know plenty of people who do both (think small business owner)
Let A be interest collected. Let B be interest paid. If A - B > 0, you collect interest. If B - A > 0, you pay interest.
Screwing over consumers with high interest. What do YOU think it's for?
There are two types of people: those who pay interest, and those who collect it. I don't know where that quote is from originally, but I've found it to mostly be true.
MythTV plays my OGG's just fine, as does my wife's Rio Karma. Given the openness and Freedom of OGG (not to mention quality) versus MP3 and AAC, any new device I am going to use must be able to play OGG. I regret that I got my Aiwa MP3 car stereo before I knew about OGG, but at least it has a line in for things like the Karma. Or, I might just replace it with a Linux based deck.
When I look to donate money to a cause, I don't donate to an "adopt an african child" program, I donate to a local foodbank. When I volunteer time, I don't go to South America and build schools, I help Habitat for Humanity.
Indeed. The saying "think globally, act locally" comes to mind. Most people *can't* act globally. Even those that can would be wise to invest their efforts in the country that made it possible for them to make those efforts in the first place. It encourages and reinforces good systems. I'm glad to see that at least one person with great power (in the form of finances) has recognized that it is a bad idea to turn your back on the country that made you rich.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an isolationist or anti-anyone-but-america type person. It's just that I think that if other countries tried improving from the bottom up through freedom and improving quality of life, they could reap the benefits America has seen. Not that America's perfect (and steadily getting worse), but it's done fairly well so far.
In the US. But in Europe and Japan they use Nuclear power extensively. Even though they have much more to lose in the event of a disaster due to the population density. I'm I the only one that wonders about this?
A lot of us just figure that Americans are blitheringly stupid, especially after this last election (and yes, I am an American).
(for those who didn't get it, yes I am making fun of all the people who asked "where's the mac version?" in response to the announcement of Doom 3 for Linux. And, yes, I already know there's a Linux version)
Even the scientific community is no exception. Tell someone 'Einstein was wrong' and you would probably get beaten badly even before you say a word about evidence.
Any true scientist will not give you a cold stare or beat you badly. He may cock an inquisitive eyebrow, but that's about the most emotional thing I think you'd see out of a true scientist. A true scientist would say "Really? Please show me." The ultimate scientist would have no beliefs.
The evolutionists are wrong because there is no reason to try to prove that creationists are wrong. Doing all of this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life seems a bit strange.
You know, I'm willing to bet most "evolutionists" (myself included), don't give a flying fuck about creationists or proving them wrong. We're just looking for answers and have found creationism to be lacking. Scientists aren't doing all this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life; they're doing all this work to better understand they world we live in.
I really don't see the big fuss, whether God created the world one way or another, it doesn't affect the core basis of my beliefs. This has little to do with morality and my day to day life.
The big fuss is that it still remains true that as a set of cognitive beliefs about the existence of God in any recognizable sense continuous with the great systems of the past, religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability. Ergo, some of us don't believe in god because it's highly unlikely that he (she? it?) exists. Some would go so far as to say god _doesn't_ exist, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. As long as you (religionists) are willing to leave me alone, and not try to validate your beliefs via specious reasoning (ie, creation "science"), then there's no fuss. It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.
I think this is a bit simplistic. The senate had 735 Bills last year according to that site, with language such as:
"A producer member shall submit to the authority an application for the tax credit authorized by this section on a form provided by the authority. If the producer member meets all criteria prescribed by this section and is approved by the authority, the authority shall issue a tax credit certificate in the appropriate amount."
Imagine trying to understand 735 documents composed of such language, some of which can be many many pages, or make "small" adjustments to current laws. Some bills, I'm sure, are written and titled to purposely obfuscate their true intentions as well.
You know, there's a simple solution to this: DON'T PASS THE FUCKING BILL (or buck). If you don't understand it, don't pass it. If it's purposely written to obfuscate it's true nature, don't pass it. If it was submitted for vote and you aren't given enough time to read it DON'T FUCKING PASS IT!! How hard can this be?
That's it, from now on, I'm going to vote only for candidates that vote "no" on bills and presidents that veto anything that comes across their desk. The less laws, the better.
If you don't want to buy a car with Microsoft software on some device, tell the salesperson that you won;t buy like the car because it uses Microsoft software. It's that simple, really.
Um, duh? Am I the only one who did this before you suggested it?
I truely don't understand geeks who claim microsoft sucks but still for example have an xbox at home.
Repeat after me: not all geeks are alike, and despite appearances to the contrary, slashdot is not the borg collective. Some people here positively love Microsoft. Others avoid anything having to do with them at all costs. Yet others compromise (either wilfully or ignorantly) and don't really give a flying fuck, and use Linux on their servers, MacOSX on the desktop, and Windows/Xbox/consoles for games. And, yes, there are even those who are hypocrites. You can learn to ignore them, or continue being frustrated by them; the choice is up to you.
Do you dream of what some guy across the city childern future is?
Actually, I do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some selfless saint. It comes down to basic common sense: if that kid across the city is happy and well taken care of, how likely is it that he will go on a killing spree ala Columbine? On the other hand, you may be unpleasantly surprised when your child comes home in a body bag because that child across the city was abused or on drugs. Granted, the first priority is to take care of one's own, but to ignore the fact that we as a society are interconnected is just plain shortsighted.
To say that everyone should have a better future isn't the American Dream, its more, IMHO, of the Communist Dream.
Fine, then. Call me a communist if that makes you feel better. I've never really cared for labels much anyway, and you won't be the first (or the last) name caller to dismiss an idea via the cowardly route of ad hominem.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if "self-updating Linux systems != all the shit microsoft breaks when they change something and tell users to update automatically."
You see, most (reasonable) people's objections is not to self-updating; it's to updating automatically without checking that it works first. Also, I think that this is probably instance #5,432,765,980 of Someone Confusing Differing-Opinions-Held-By-Differing-Individuals With GroupThink. Get a clue.
Ebbeh? Um, maybe you are trolling, but I'll bite: OpenOffice isn't a web browser.
For the past nine years, I *have* been using a browser that is more secure than MSIE. It was called Netscape originally, then Mozilla. And I've never worried about web page hijacking my browser and fubaring my system, because my systems of choice (namely OS/2 and Linux) don't have those problems.
Projecting motivations on to other people is a very dangerous line of reasoning (if it can be called that). Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the reason that some people used Mozilla/Firefox because it was Free as in speech and not because it was free as in beer? That maybe some people liked being able to hack on the software they used instead of just using something they couldn't touch, and therefore couldn't trust?
Myself, I think you are just bitter that "your" browser is losing to Firefox. But then, that would be projecting a motivation on to you, and that would be faulty reasoning, wouldn't it?
Am I the only one who thinks that the solution to this is not more invasions of privacy (via tags), but less legal bullshit (via less lawyers, more personal responsibility, and less stupid laws)?
Anyone who thinks that schools are anything other than conditioning camps to keep kids from making trouble while their parents slave away just to survive should read this
And arguably 2-5 of those 9 people don't need to be paying interest; they could easily afford to not use credit, but they have to have things now. They are perfect consumers, buying on credit to get the latest and greatest toys.
I'll agree, the power structure in this country (and most of the world) is pretty fucked up, but even when people are informed of it, the majority chooses to vote against their best interests (think recent election statistics, and if you're not easily offended, read this).
Like it said it's only mostly true. For you (and the small minority like you) and possibly cultures without currency (or any concept of debt; think aborigines), this rule of course doesn't apply.
Let A be interest collected. Let B be interest paid. If A - B > 0, you collect interest. If B - A > 0, you pay interest.
There are two types of people: those who pay interest, and those who collect it. I don't know where that quote is from originally, but I've found it to mostly be true.
MythTV plays my OGG's just fine, as does my wife's Rio Karma. Given the openness and Freedom of OGG (not to mention quality) versus MP3 and AAC, any new device I am going to use must be able to play OGG. I regret that I got my Aiwa MP3 car stereo before I knew about OGG, but at least it has a line in for things like the Karma. Or, I might just replace it with a Linux based deck.
Indeed. The saying "think globally, act locally" comes to mind. Most people *can't* act globally. Even those that can would be wise to invest their efforts in the country that made it possible for them to make those efforts in the first place. It encourages and reinforces good systems. I'm glad to see that at least one person with great power (in the form of finances) has recognized that it is a bad idea to turn your back on the country that made you rich.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an isolationist or anti-anyone-but-america type person. It's just that I think that if other countries tried improving from the bottom up through freedom and improving quality of life, they could reap the benefits America has seen. Not that America's perfect (and steadily getting worse), but it's done fairly well so far.
A lot of us just figure that Americans are blitheringly stupid, especially after this last election (and yes, I am an American).
A: Only if they can put it in SUVs (in other words: No). Next question.
Only if you're a vegetarian (or Hindu, I suppose).
(for those who didn't get it, yes I am making fun of all the people who asked "where's the mac version?" in response to the announcement of Doom 3 for Linux. And, yes, I already know there's a Linux version)
Corrected link.
Excuse me?.
I was wondering if someone was going to notice that
Of course they have a reason! They want to see a flamefest! Don't you know that slashdot editors are really the ultimate trolls?
Any true scientist will not give you a cold stare or beat you badly. He may cock an inquisitive eyebrow, but that's about the most emotional thing I think you'd see out of a true scientist. A true scientist would say "Really? Please show me." The ultimate scientist would have no beliefs.
You know, I'm willing to bet most "evolutionists" (myself included), don't give a flying fuck about creationists or proving them wrong. We're just looking for answers and have found creationism to be lacking. Scientists aren't doing all this work just to show that somebody's imaginary friend didn't create life; they're doing all this work to better understand they world we live in.
The big fuss is that it still remains true that as a set of cognitive beliefs about the existence of God in any recognizable sense continuous with the great systems of the past, religious doctrines constitute a speculative hypothesis of an extremely low order of probability. Ergo, some of us don't believe in god because it's highly unlikely that he (she? it?) exists. Some would go so far as to say god _doesn't_ exist, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. As long as you (religionists) are willing to leave me alone, and not try to validate your beliefs via specious reasoning (ie, creation "science"), then there's no fuss. It's when people try forcing their beliefs on me and tell me that their way is the one true way that I start to get a little indignant.
You know, there's a simple solution to this: DON'T PASS THE FUCKING BILL (or buck). If you don't understand it, don't pass it. If it's purposely written to obfuscate it's true nature, don't pass it. If it was submitted for vote and you aren't given enough time to read it DON'T FUCKING PASS IT!! How hard can this be?
That's it, from now on, I'm going to vote only for candidates that vote "no" on bills and presidents that veto anything that comes across their desk. The less laws, the better.
Um, duh? Am I the only one who did this before you suggested it?
Repeat after me: not all geeks are alike, and despite appearances to the contrary, slashdot is not the borg collective. Some people here positively love Microsoft. Others avoid anything having to do with them at all costs. Yet others compromise (either wilfully or ignorantly) and don't really give a flying fuck, and use Linux on their servers, MacOSX on the desktop, and Windows/Xbox/consoles for games. And, yes, there are even those who are hypocrites. You can learn to ignore them, or continue being frustrated by them; the choice is up to you.
Actually, I do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some selfless saint. It comes down to basic common sense: if that kid across the city is happy and well taken care of, how likely is it that he will go on a killing spree ala Columbine? On the other hand, you may be unpleasantly surprised when your child comes home in a body bag because that child across the city was abused or on drugs. Granted, the first priority is to take care of one's own, but to ignore the fact that we as a society are interconnected is just plain shortsighted.
Fine, then. Call me a communist if that makes you feel better. I've never really cared for labels much anyway, and you won't be the first (or the last) name caller to dismiss an idea via the cowardly route of ad hominem.
A: No. See my sig. Next question.