The program you are describing was called "SoundMaster." It would let you assign sounds to TONS of different system events. Very cool.
Re:Religious bigotry: alive and well in the USA.
on
Spoonful of Quickies
·
· Score: 2
I love every comment made to this... they all say "Christians are...", "Christians do...", etc.
I'd just like to point out that their are MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHRISTIANS! "Christian" is a very diverse term that can mean Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalean (sp?), or any of a number of groups. All with different philosphies and interpretations of "Christianity."
Basically the only things that make a person a "Christian" is (1) They believe in the same God that Moses did. (2) They believe that Jesus is the living son of said God. (3) They believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, so that whoever believes (1) and (2) will be forgiven their transgressions.
Beyond that, "Christians" have many different beliefs. So, you people who generalize Christians as being "super-right-wing extremists who hate everybody but their own kind" is about the equivalent of saying "every black man is a gun-toting, gang-banging murderer." Prejudice. Generalizing the entire group into the category of the most visible members.
I, for one, am sick of it. I AM a Christian. But, I don't fall into very many (if any) of you people's generalizations. I have a lot of friends just like me. We don't hate people. I don't hate people who do what I percieve as wrong. I don't like what they do... but I'm not the one to tell them what to do now, am I? "Love thy neigbor." That is a key verse in the Bible. It can basically be "Love the sinner, not the sin."
All I ask is that you people quit generalizing that EVERY Christian is a "right-wing extremist, hateful, bigoted, Bible-thumping freak." There are those who are, but there a many of us who aren't. I don't go around calling you a "fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan" because you don't believe as I do. Quit doing that to me.
Out of all the responses to my original post, this is the only one that (a) is sensible, (b) understood my use of overstatement, a (c) didn't annoy me.
Thank you for seeing my point and responding with the answer I was looking for. And not even insulting Christians.
Ever use a search engine? Quite a bit of the returned links are porn sites. (A notable exception is Google.)
Smoking is no more a public health issue than the internal combustion engine or volcanic eruptions, which aren't getting banned from public places anytime soon.
And speed limits are set up mostly for safety reasons. Ever drive a road at 90 MPH? Not much time to react to road conditions. They don't make school zones 20 MPH for no reason other than revenue.
Actually, I don't have kids (yet), but if I did, I certainly would take them to the library often. You obvously didn't catch the overstatement in what I wrote. Oh well.
I wouldn't mind seeing you filtered. I'd like to see porn filtered. And pro-drug sites... maybe filter out all pro-liberal sites. Yeah, that sounds good. Maybe we can filter Clinton's speeches because lies are bad. God knows the Starr report should have been filtered. I couldn't use the 'net for days. Hell, I want to filter TV too. Pretty worthless mind-warping stuff. Maybe filter traffic signs. I hate being told what speed to go, and how to drive. Oh, and have you listened to what they play on the radio nowadays? That crap NEEDS filtering. Of course, older music wasn't much better, so lets filter it all. Well, I've got a good idea! Lets just sew everyone's mouth shut and cut off their fingers, so we don't have to listen to anyone or let them write a thing! Perfect!
On a serious note, I am a Christian, and I also don't agree with censorship. But since I don't want my kids looking at stuff I don't want them to see, I guess I just shouldn't let them go to the library without me with them, right? Well, since I work for a living, I guess I can't be there to take them to the library very often, so maybe they'll get to go once or twice a year.
Or, maybe it's not so bad to filter porn from libraries. How many of you out there, Christian or not, conservative or liberal really think children (or anyone for that matter) should be looking at porn in a public library?
Even better, why can't I smoke whereever I want to? Why am I being stopped from doing what I want to? I'll tell you why... because some people don't like my smoke, and I understand that. So all I ask is maybe a little reciprocol agreement here... I won't smoke around you, and you don't let my kids look at porn, or see you looking at it.
No, I am aware that most people on the "right" support excessive deregulation. I support deregulation to an extent, but I'd LOVE to see advertisements regulated like guns are now. I've got no problem with people making money, even lots of it. (Hell, I'd like to do it someday.) But there is something that needs to be considered: Ethics. What Phoenix plans to do us unethical. So are billboards, IMHO. TV commercials are OK because they keep broadcast TV free, but what the hell does a billboard get me? Not a better view, for sure. At least I can choose not to watch TV, but I can't avoid seeing the big, ugly billboards on the way to the office every day.
The Phoenix BIOS boot-up ads are a worse case, because not only are they advertising someone else's product intrusively, but on something I paid for. This is intolerable. If I wanted to pay to see advertisements, I'd buy a newspaper.
But, what pissed me off about about blaming the "right-wing" is that original poster blamed all of the "right-wing" for what is the current state of advertising in this country. I hate getting stereotyped with the aristocrats who got into politics because they support extreme deregulation. I don't support extreme deregulation, but I do support the ability of a person who applies themself in life, to make as much money as possible. Just as long as they don't intrude on my personal space, or the local scenery. And my computer's boot up screen is for damned sure my personal space.
Of course the right-wing fringe in the US, rasing the banner of "freedom", hates the idea of any sort of regulation...
Why does it have to be right-wing this, right-wing that? I consider myself right-wing in most cases. You say "right-wing" while stereotyping all of us right-wingers with the extreme right-wing. Thanks a lot. So, let me tell you about me and my "right-wing" (and as you would imply, extreme deregulationist, advertisment-loving, bible-thumping, gay-bashing school lunch taker) friends:
Some of us on the "right" don't support total deregulation. Regulation is necessary. Microsoft is a key example of something that should be regulated... why? Because it's a "utility." You basically need Windows to use a computer if you aren't a geek. There are, of course, alternatives, like there are to city water, but overall, if the average Joe buys a computer, he needs Windows to do anything with it.
On to the point: Me and my "right-wing" (you would imply extremist Jesus freaks who bomb abortion clinics) friends hate advertising. Most of us don't watch mainstream TV because of it. I hate billboards, skywriting, and TV commercials. I hate banner ads. I am not an uncommon "right-winger" in this regard.
And, furthermore, I can tell you that some of the most obnoxious ads come from the "left-wing"... and I mean "stop smoking" ads and billboards. Half the commercials on TV here in Oregon are taxpayer-funded "stop smoking" commercials, along with several billboards as you enter the city limits. They are more annoying than any other. They are the biggest, most colorful, and most prominently displayed billboards around. I hate them, too.
So, think twice the next time you want to say "the right-wing" in a sentence and then proceed to tell what all of us "right-wingers" do. And you "left wingers" want us to quit stereotyping. Practice what you preach.
Brought to you by a Second Amendment-supporting, Independent Protestant who votes Republican at every election. I may not agree with all "right-wing" philosophies, but I've looked at both sides, and I think "right-wing" is better than "left-wing." At least our "right-wing" presidents have the decency, and the balls to resign when they shame the office.
What you want is a 4Dtv satellite system. Check it out here.
The 4Dtv IRD (integrated receiver-decoder) can receive analog and digital C- and Ku-band signals, and is compatible with HDTV. It has an interactive program guide, a modem for Pay-per view purchasing, and a videocipher II module is available. It also has satellite internet capability.
This is the system we are using at home, and it works great. You can get a decent channel packages for about $15/month, and there are also hundreds of free channels, and tons of satellite radio stations.
Do yourself a favor. Don't go with a mini dish like DSS or DirectTV. Go with a big dish and get a 4Dtv receiver. You won't be sorry.
This is the last thing I ever expected... BK franchises with internet access. It might actually make me start going there again if they do it in my town.
Anyone else think the new fries kinda suck? The best fast food would have BK sandwiches, McD fries, and DQ drinks, and BR31F desserts.
About some things commented on here...
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 3
I'll start off by putting on my asbestos underwear.
I support intellectual property that is truly new and unique. I DO NOT support ideas that are not new or just spinoffs, or really stupid patents.
If I write some damn awesome software, or invent something really unique and new, why should I not profit from it? Without intellectual propery laws, it would be an interesting world, where secret societies and guilds of tradesmen kept their secrets quiet to protect their intellectual property. Where they would kill to keep it safe. Sound familiar? Just remember, those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We need intellectual property laws. We also need a responisble patent office, too. We don't have one yet.
So, on to the infective aspect of the GPL:
Say I am writing SuperProgram2000, and I need a blinkenLights() function for it. I want my software to be propriety, because I want to make money off of it.
I notice that someone else has a GPLed program out there with a damn nice blinkenLights() that is perfect for my application. I have a few choices here:
1. I can write my own blinkenLights(), but it's big and complex, and could add months to my development time, and it's already been done anyway. 2. I can steal the other guy's blinkenLights() and face possible legal issues were it discovered. 3. I can use the other guy's blinkenLights() and give him credit, and be forced to place my entire program under the GPL, and lose my profit. THIS IS INFECTIVE. 4. I can ask him to license blinkenLights() to me under a different license, either for free, for royalty, or for flat-fee. But what could happen?
Suppose someone notices that the blinkenLights() in my code look a lot like the blinkenLights() in a nifty GPL program. He tells the FSF. The FSF sues me. Suppose they don't accept the fact that I licensed blinkenLights() from the original author, because the code exists as GPL in the rest of the world. I'd have to fight a legal battle and it would cost me time. I'd probably win, but it would still cost me time.
So, I am not sure if the GPL and the FSF can be trusted. And the GPL is definitely against intellectual property, which is a big part of capitalism nowadays.
For the record, RMS is probably anti capitalist for that reason, and maybe leans socialist, but he's no communist like the article said. RMS is doing good work, but is the motivation out of altruism, or is it to further a political view?
He may say it's altruism, and makes software free in a "free speech" sense, but I could also say the Sun is blue, and you would really have no way of knowing what color I see the sun as.
Linux is worse than Microsoft stuff. Take off your biasing blinders once is while.
The only things M$ stuff has that Linux doesn't have is: Ease of installation, and huge commercial application support.
The things Linux has that M$ stuff doesnt: Stability, speed, free source code, security, and rapid bug fixing.
But that's not why I say Linux is better. I used Linux for the first time back when it was kernel.99. I downloaded a disk off of the internet called "The Discus- Linux on a single disk" and played with it. It was interesting, but I never thought much more on it.
That is, until someone gave me a l/p on their dial-in Linux box. That was when the 1.0 kernels were out. I thought it was ultra cool that it could run DOS stuff, and display it all over my modem. Remote computing is neat.
But I still used MS-DOS at home. I didn't like Windows 3.1, not because I hated Microsoft, but because my HDD was small, and I was a mere high-school student. My old 386sx-25 with a 40 MB hard disk couldn't handle it.
So, I graduated high school, and went into the Army. I got a real computer with my new steady income and installed Win95. I thought Win95 was cool, a lot better interface than the Mac, and much better than Windows 3.1. But a friend of mine was running Linux.
I got a slackware 3.0 CD, kernel 1.2.x, and tried it out. I learned a lot about Linux, and got it set up nicely, and it wasn't as hard as the horror stories. After about a year of having Linux on my machine, something happened: When I first installed Linux, I booted it maybe 1% of the time... after a year, I was booting it constantly, only loading Win95 when I wanted to play games.
So, what was it about Linux that made me keep coming back to it instead of using Win95 all the time? For one thing, it was FUN. I could tweak the system in all sorts of ways. It was educational. I learned about C and Perl and networking. It was also FAST. It made my P100 fly compared to Win95, even with X. I could also DIAL-IN and USE my LINUX box from other places. That was cool. I even got an X server for Win95 and put it on one of our laptops so I could use my stuff from elsewhere. That was way cool.
So, that's what I think makes Linux better. You get all this stuff for free, totally customizable, and not all that hard to use if you are willing to learn. All that stuff you pay extra for with Microsoft-based products.
I still use Win98, and am even a beta tester for it, but basically I only use it when I want to play games.
So, what I am trying to say is, I am not biased, nor do I feel that Linux should be restricted to the "genius/geek/nerd" class, nor do I hate Microsoft. I may hate their business practices, but I don't hate their products. In fact, I like MS Office. But I do think that Linux is better, not because it's a Microsoft alternative, but because it is truly better, if you give it a chance.
I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft, a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very successful in the long run. I've looked at the source and there are pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies drastically. My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If you're using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long way to go.
Linux is more unreliable than M$ crap? Come on. That looks like a to-hell with Linux to me. He's calling it dead-end, without even giving it a chance. Did he write all his software in a day?
You say, "I am right, the hell with you." And, of course the person who has been "to helled with" wants to prove his point, and so he goes off and does it. That's ultimately the way you prove a point. So that is the way most of the arguments are done simply by trying them.
He's right about this. We are the to-helled people here, and we need to go ahead and prove that Linux can do all it can, and more.
(P.S.) It's annoying that the HTML tags are lost when you preview your comments
I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft, a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very successful in the long run. I've looked at the source and there are pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies drastically. My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If you're using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long way to go. Linux is more unreliable than M$ crap? Come on. That looks like a to-hell with Linux to me. He's calling it dead-end, without even giving it a chance. Did he write all his software in a day? You say, "I am right, the hell with you." And, of course the person who has been "to helled with" wants to prove his point, and so he goes off and does it. That's ultimately the way you prove a point. So that is the way most of the arguments are done simply by trying them. He's right about this. We are the to-helled people here, and we need to go ahead and prove that Linux can do all it can, and more.
Apparently, under windoze, the TNT2 drivers will work on a TNT (and be faster than the TNT drivers)... if they release TNT2 drivers for Linux, maybe it will be true as well.
But in all the years I have been using the Internet, I have never clicked on a banner ad, and I personally find them very annoying.
One of the thinks I liked about the 'net before Clinton and Gore got ahold of it was that it wasn't loaded up with ads like television is. Now it's worse.
Now, my mailbox is loaded with spam, mostly from porn sites, most other sites have 2 or more banner ads on them, and every time I make a record update to my domain name, I get more spam from people who want me to pay them to host my site. (I host my own site, damnit, and several others)
I commend Slashdot for keeping the ads down. It's still the first thing I see on the page, but at least ads aren't the first 2 or 3 things I see.
Another annoying thing about ads is this: I use a modem from home, and the damn ads, especially animated ones, take forever to load.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, banner ads piss me off. I don't click on them, and try not to pay attention to them. I don't mind a banner ad, but I don't want to be blitzed with advertising.
And you don't want to know what I think of telemarketers...
I'm beginning to think that you saw my post as an attempt to justify or excuse the killings in some way. If so, please allow me to apologize. That was not at all my intent. I was rambling about the politics swirling around the whole thing, not about the event itself.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Apology accepted, and please accept mine for thinking that.
Now that I think about it, that's pretty depressing, isn't it?
Yeah, it's pretty depressing that it happened, but I think we'll see more of it.
Watching the right-wing spin evolve.
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
So what did your last 3 paragraphs have to do with the rest of your argument?
At any rate, from what I've been seeing on the news, the conclusion was that the "pipe bombs used as grenades" were responsible for most of the deaths and injuries.
But this doesn't really matter. The simple fact is, those two kids were obviously insane, and criminal.
I could find it reasonable that a person could have one specific place to direct revenge toward, if driven to a certain point, like killing one person in a fit of rage. But, nobody in their right minds just goes on a killing spree because they feel hated.
Come on, do you really think that ALL the jocks in that school teased them? All the popular people? I seriously doubt it.
Those two were simply messed up in the head. Crazy. Insane. Loco. Whatevery you want to call it, that's what they were.
Guns a positive factor in the tragedy
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
I think it was a *very* good thing that the kids had guns available to them. They were *already* using explosives -- do you *really* think that they would have just not bothered if they hadn't had guns? I very seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that had they lacked guns, *none* of the people in the school would have survived -- because they would have simply blown the entire place up. You can run and hide from someone with a gun. You can't hide from an explosion. Especially if you don't know it's coming. Were I a moderator, this comment would have been bumped up. A damn good point.
Guns are now harder than ever to get ahold of in the U.S. You can't just walk into a store and buy one without a wait period and a background check.
These kids got guns. More than likely illegally, by theft or black market. That makes them criminals.
They also made pipe bombs, which are highly illegal, which also killed the most people at the school. Not the guns.
Issue #2: Other influences.
I'm on the internet often. I own guns. I have, and wear, a trenchcoat. I play "violent" video games. I've watched Natural Born Killers and other violent movies. I watch a lot of TV. I came from a middle class family in rural America. I was an outcast. I was teased. I wasn't good at sports in high school. I got my ass kicked a few times just for being the only person to get an A in a class.
YOU DIDN'T SEE ME WANTING TO SHOOT UP MY SCHOOL!!!
By the time I was a junior in high school, I had turned all this around anyway... when I learned we can be what we make of ourselves, not what other people try to make us.
I joined the Army after high school. I am now a successful SysAdmin and marketing manager.
The problem with these kids is that they were seriously disturbed. They lacked the moral filter that most people are born with. They were insane. Plain and simple. No sane person would do what they did. They had guns. They made pipe-bombs. They were criminals.
Read that again: These two kids were criminals, and they were not sane.
So, now you, and those in the government are going to promote the solution to the wrong problems... the solution to what is really not a problem.
More gun restrictions. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens like me to buy guns for sporting purposes and self defense (self defense from criminals like those two kids) So, now criminals will still be able to steal guns or buy them on the black market. Solving the "gun problem" only puts guns into the wrong hands.
We'd better ban video games like Doom and Quake while we're at it. They are obviously a problem, and forcing the millions of people that play them toward violent tendencies.
Oh, and don't forget to treat violent movies like XXX movies. Make sure people feel ashamed when they are asked for their ID to rent or purchase one.
Oh, and no more trenchcoats. Obviously you are violent if you wear one.
That's where all this is leading. America has more violent crimes than ever before, at a time when we have less freedom than we ever had before.
It can also be noted that this kind of stuff happens on government property damn near every time. Whether it's a Post Office, a school, or the local DMV.
At any rate, before I start rambling on this subject, I'll restate why this happened:
This happened because those two INSANE high school kids illegally obtained guns, illegally manufactured explosive devices, and illegally brought them to school.
So, I can describe the problem these two kids had: Criminal insanity.
Nobody in their right mind does stuff like this. It wasn't any outside influence that made them this way. They were born with it. An outside influence may have triggered what was inside their minds, but it was already there.
But go ahead and blame it on guns, games, and movies. Take the easy way out while pursuing your agenda. Why should I care? Because when you take my guns away and criminals are still walking around with their illegal weapons, I'll be getting ready to die anyway, because with each step toward banning guns, you increase the chances of people like me getting killed in violent crime. Thanks
I must say that was a very well written article. It pointed out the M$ sponsoring of the "benchmark," which is a key thing to note about the testing: M$ paid for it all.
The fact that they showed how it is possible to find the information that Mindcraft claimed it was not able to get proves that Mindcraft really didn't try all that hard to do the optimizations.
I'm glad that ZD is exposing M$ and it's lackey companies like Mindcraft for who they really are!
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
In other words, Linux users have a choice on how they want their GUI to look. God forbid we have choices.
``People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,'' he said.
Does that sentence not make any sense?
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
Funny, I have a friend who is doing a web browser all by himself as a senior project... and it promises to be better than IE. I am trying to convince him to GPL it.
These changes definitely sound good. I think it'll work well keeping the average reader as the moderator, that way when someone comes across a comment and says to theirself "Wow, that's a good comment!" then the ones that are truly good comments will be upped.
Likewise, the ones where the moderator says "This is a really lame comment!" will be downed.
Slashdot Mirror
The program you are describing was called "SoundMaster." It would let you assign sounds to TONS of different system events. Very cool.
I love every comment made to this... they all say "Christians are...", "Christians do...", etc.
I'd just like to point out that their are MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF CHRISTIANS! "Christian" is a very diverse term that can mean Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalean (sp?), or any of a number of groups. All with different philosphies and interpretations of "Christianity."
Basically the only things that make a person a "Christian" is (1) They believe in the same God that Moses did. (2) They believe that Jesus is the living son of said God. (3) They believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, so that whoever believes (1) and (2) will be forgiven their transgressions.
Beyond that, "Christians" have many different beliefs. So, you people who generalize Christians as being "super-right-wing extremists who hate everybody but their own kind" is about the equivalent of saying "every black man is a gun-toting, gang-banging murderer." Prejudice. Generalizing the entire group into the category of the most visible members.
I, for one, am sick of it. I AM a Christian. But, I don't fall into very many (if any) of you people's generalizations. I have a lot of friends just like me. We don't hate people. I don't hate people who do what I percieve as wrong. I don't like what they do... but I'm not the one to tell them what to do now, am I? "Love thy neigbor." That is a key verse in the Bible. It can basically be "Love the sinner, not the sin."
All I ask is that you people quit generalizing that EVERY Christian is a "right-wing extremist, hateful, bigoted, Bible-thumping freak." There are those who are, but there a many of us who aren't. I don't go around calling you a "fornicating, left-wing, drug-loving, peace-freak pagan" because you don't believe as I do. Quit doing that to me.
Out of all the responses to my original post, this is the only one that (a) is sensible, (b) understood my use of overstatement, a (c) didn't annoy me.
Thank you for seeing my point and responding with the answer I was looking for. And not even insulting Christians.
Ever use a search engine? Quite a bit of the returned links are porn sites. (A notable exception is Google.)
Smoking is no more a public health issue than the internal combustion engine or volcanic eruptions, which aren't getting banned from public places anytime soon.
And speed limits are set up mostly for safety reasons. Ever drive a road at 90 MPH? Not much time to react to road conditions. They don't make school zones 20 MPH for no reason other than revenue.
Actually, I don't have kids (yet), but if I did, I certainly would take them to the library often. You obvously didn't catch the overstatement in what I wrote. Oh well.
I wouldn't mind seeing you filtered. I'd like to see porn filtered. And pro-drug sites... maybe filter out all pro-liberal sites. Yeah, that sounds good. Maybe we can filter Clinton's speeches because lies are bad. God knows the Starr report should have been filtered. I couldn't use the 'net for days. Hell, I want to filter TV too. Pretty worthless mind-warping stuff. Maybe filter traffic signs. I hate being told what speed to go, and how to drive. Oh, and have you listened to what they play on the radio nowadays? That crap NEEDS filtering. Of course, older music wasn't much better, so lets filter it all. Well, I've got a good idea! Lets just sew everyone's mouth shut and cut off their fingers, so we don't have to listen to anyone or let them write a thing! Perfect!
On a serious note, I am a Christian, and I also don't agree with censorship. But since I don't want my kids looking at stuff I don't want them to see, I guess I just shouldn't let them go to the library without me with them, right? Well, since I work for a living, I guess I can't be there to take them to the library very often, so maybe they'll get to go once or twice a year.
Or, maybe it's not so bad to filter porn from libraries. How many of you out there, Christian or not, conservative or liberal really think children (or anyone for that matter) should be looking at porn in a public library?
Even better, why can't I smoke whereever I want to? Why am I being stopped from doing what I want to? I'll tell you why... because some people don't like my smoke, and I understand that. So all I ask is maybe a little reciprocol agreement here... I won't smoke around you, and you don't let my kids look at porn, or see you looking at it.
No, I am aware that most people on the "right" support excessive deregulation. I support deregulation to an extent, but I'd LOVE to see advertisements regulated like guns are now. I've got no problem with people making money, even lots of it. (Hell, I'd like to do it someday.) But there is something that needs to be considered: Ethics. What Phoenix plans to do us unethical. So are billboards, IMHO. TV commercials are OK because they keep broadcast TV free, but what the hell does a billboard get me? Not a better view, for sure. At least I can choose not to watch TV, but I can't avoid seeing the big, ugly billboards on the way to the office every day.
The Phoenix BIOS boot-up ads are a worse case, because not only are they advertising someone else's product intrusively, but on something I paid for. This is intolerable. If I wanted to pay to see advertisements, I'd buy a newspaper.
But, what pissed me off about about blaming the "right-wing" is that original poster blamed all of the "right-wing" for what is the current state of advertising in this country. I hate getting stereotyped with the aristocrats who got into politics because they support extreme deregulation. I don't support extreme deregulation, but I do support the ability of a person who applies themself in life, to make as much money as possible. Just as long as they don't intrude on my personal space, or the local scenery. And my computer's boot up screen is for damned sure my personal space.
Of course the right-wing fringe in the US, rasing the banner of "freedom", hates the idea of any sort of regulation...
Why does it have to be right-wing this, right-wing that? I consider myself right-wing in most cases. You say "right-wing" while stereotyping all of us right-wingers with the extreme right-wing. Thanks a lot. So, let me tell you about me and my "right-wing" (and as you would imply, extreme deregulationist, advertisment-loving, bible-thumping, gay-bashing school lunch taker) friends:
Some of us on the "right" don't support total deregulation. Regulation is necessary. Microsoft is a key example of something that should be regulated... why? Because it's a "utility." You basically need Windows to use a computer if you aren't a geek. There are, of course, alternatives, like there are to city water, but overall, if the average Joe buys a computer, he needs Windows to do anything with it.
On to the point: Me and my "right-wing" (you would imply extremist Jesus freaks who bomb abortion clinics) friends hate advertising. Most of us don't watch mainstream TV because of it. I hate billboards, skywriting, and TV commercials. I hate banner ads. I am not an uncommon "right-winger" in this regard.
And, furthermore, I can tell you that some of the most obnoxious ads come from the "left-wing"... and I mean "stop smoking" ads and billboards. Half the commercials on TV here in Oregon are taxpayer-funded "stop smoking" commercials, along with several billboards as you enter the city limits. They are more annoying than any other. They are the biggest, most colorful, and most prominently displayed billboards around. I hate them, too.
So, think twice the next time you want to say "the right-wing" in a sentence and then proceed to tell what all of us "right-wingers" do. And you "left wingers" want us to quit stereotyping. Practice what you preach.
Brought to you by a Second Amendment-supporting, Independent Protestant who votes Republican at every election. I may not agree with all "right-wing" philosophies, but I've looked at both sides, and I think "right-wing" is better than "left-wing." At least our "right-wing" presidents have the decency, and the balls to resign when they shame the office.
What you want is a 4Dtv satellite system. Check it out here.
The 4Dtv IRD (integrated receiver-decoder) can receive analog and digital C- and Ku-band signals, and is compatible with HDTV. It has an interactive program guide, a modem for Pay-per view purchasing, and a videocipher II module is available. It also has satellite internet capability.
This is the system we are using at home, and it works great. You can get a decent channel packages for about $15/month, and there are also hundreds of free channels, and tons of satellite radio stations.
Do yourself a favor. Don't go with a mini dish like DSS or DirectTV. Go with a big dish and get a 4Dtv receiver. You won't be sorry.
Cyber-Burger-King!
This is the last thing I ever expected... BK franchises with internet access. It might actually make me start going there again if they do it in my town.
Anyone else think the new fries kinda suck? The best fast food would have BK sandwiches, McD fries, and DQ drinks, and BR31F desserts.
I'll start off by putting on my asbestos underwear.
I support intellectual property that is truly new and unique. I DO NOT support ideas that are not new or just spinoffs, or really stupid patents.
If I write some damn awesome software, or invent something really unique and new, why should I not profit from it? Without intellectual propery laws, it would be an interesting world, where secret societies and guilds of tradesmen kept their secrets quiet to protect their intellectual property. Where they would kill to keep it safe. Sound familiar? Just remember, those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. We need intellectual property laws. We also need a responisble patent office, too. We don't have one yet.
So, on to the infective aspect of the GPL:
Say I am writing SuperProgram2000, and I need a blinkenLights() function for it. I want my software to be propriety, because I want to make money off of it.
I notice that someone else has a GPLed program out there with a damn nice blinkenLights() that is perfect for my application. I have a few choices here:
1. I can write my own blinkenLights(), but it's big and complex, and could add months to my development time, and it's already been done anyway.
2. I can steal the other guy's blinkenLights() and face possible legal issues were it discovered.
3. I can use the other guy's blinkenLights() and give him credit, and be forced to place my entire program under the GPL, and lose my profit. THIS IS INFECTIVE.
4. I can ask him to license blinkenLights() to me under a different license, either for free, for royalty, or for flat-fee. But what could happen?
Suppose someone notices that the blinkenLights() in my code look a lot like the blinkenLights() in a nifty GPL program. He tells the FSF. The FSF sues me. Suppose they don't accept the fact that I licensed blinkenLights() from the original author, because the code exists as GPL in the rest of the world. I'd have to fight a legal battle and it would cost me time. I'd probably win, but it would still cost me time.
So, I am not sure if the GPL and the FSF can be trusted. And the GPL is definitely against intellectual property, which is a big part of capitalism nowadays.
For the record, RMS is probably anti capitalist for that reason, and maybe leans socialist, but he's no communist like the article said. RMS is doing good work, but is the motivation out of altruism, or is it to further a political view?
He may say it's altruism, and makes software free in a "free speech" sense, but I could also say the Sun is blue, and you would really have no way of knowing what color I see the sun as.
Guess that's all my $.02.
Linux is worse than Microsoft stuff. Take off your biasing blinders once is while.
The only things M$ stuff has that Linux doesn't have is: Ease of installation, and huge commercial application support.
The things Linux has that M$ stuff doesnt: Stability, speed, free source code, security, and rapid bug fixing.
But that's not why I say Linux is better. I used Linux for the first time back when it was kernel .99. I downloaded a disk off of the internet called "The Discus- Linux on a single disk" and played with it. It was interesting, but I never thought much more on it.
That is, until someone gave me a l/p on their dial-in Linux box. That was when the 1.0 kernels were out. I thought it was ultra cool that it could run DOS stuff, and display it all over my modem. Remote computing is neat.
But I still used MS-DOS at home. I didn't like Windows 3.1, not because I hated Microsoft, but because my HDD was small, and I was a mere high-school student. My old 386sx-25 with a 40 MB hard disk couldn't handle it.
So, I graduated high school, and went into the Army. I got a real computer with my new steady income and installed Win95. I thought Win95 was cool, a lot better interface than the Mac, and much better than Windows 3.1. But a friend of mine was running Linux.
I got a slackware 3.0 CD, kernel 1.2.x, and tried it out. I learned a lot about Linux, and got it set up nicely, and it wasn't as hard as the horror stories. After about a year of having Linux on my machine, something happened: When I first installed Linux, I booted it maybe 1% of the time... after a year, I was booting it constantly, only loading Win95 when I wanted to play games.
So, what was it about Linux that made me keep coming back to it instead of using Win95 all the time? For one thing, it was FUN. I could tweak the system in all sorts of ways. It was educational. I learned about C and Perl and networking. It was also FAST. It made my P100 fly compared to Win95, even with X. I could also DIAL-IN and USE my LINUX box from other places. That was cool. I even got an X server for Win95 and put it on one of our laptops so I could use my stuff from elsewhere. That was way cool.
So, that's what I think makes Linux better. You get all this stuff for free, totally customizable, and not all that hard to use if you are willing to learn. All that stuff you pay extra for with Microsoft-based products.I still use Win98, and am even a beta tester for it, but basically I only use it when I want to play games.
So, what I am trying to say is, I am not biased, nor do I feel that Linux should be restricted to the "genius/geek/nerd" class, nor do I hate Microsoft. I may hate their business practices, but I don't hate their products. In fact, I like MS Office. But I do think that Linux is better, not because it's a Microsoft alternative, but because it is truly better, if you give it a chance.
My $.031415926536
Of course you are correct. Although saying Linux is worse than M$ stuff is going a little too far. I think he loses his god status for that. :)
I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft, a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very successful in the long run. I've looked at the source and there are pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies drastically.
My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If you're using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long way to go.
Linux is more unreliable than M$ crap? Come on. That looks like a to-hell with Linux to me. He's calling it dead-end, without even giving it a chance. Did he write all his software in a day?
You say, "I am right, the hell with you." And, of course the person who has been "to helled with" wants to prove his point, and so he goes off and does it. That's ultimately the way you prove a point. So that is the way most of the arguments are done simply by trying them.
He's right about this. We are the to-helled people here, and we need to go ahead and prove that Linux can do all it can, and more.
(P.S.) It's annoying that the HTML tags are lost when you preview your comments
I view Linux as something that's not Microsoft, a backlash against Microsoft, no more and no less. I don't think it will be very successful in the long run. I've looked at the source and there are pieces that are good and pieces that are not. A whole bunch of random people have contributed to this source, and the quality varies drastically. My experience and some of my friends' experience is that Linux is quite unreliable. Microsoft is really unreliable but Linux is worse. In a non-PC environment, it just won't hold up. If you're using it on a single box, that's one thing. But if you want to use Linux in firewalls, gateways, embedded systems, and so on, it has a long way to go. Linux is more unreliable than M$ crap? Come on. That looks like a to-hell with Linux to me. He's calling it dead-end, without even giving it a chance. Did he write all his software in a day? You say, "I am right, the hell with you." And, of course the person who has been "to helled with" wants to prove his point, and so he goes off and does it. That's ultimately the way you prove a point. So that is the way most of the arguments are done simply by trying them. He's right about this. We are the to-helled people here, and we need to go ahead and prove that Linux can do all it can, and more.
Hehehe I tried to register fuck.com... wish I still had a copy of their refusal letter. I do remember they felt it was inappropriate.
But with all those domains out there matching *teen*sex*, they sure are hypocritical. I thiink that those domains are inappropriate.
Apparently, under windoze, the TNT2 drivers will work on a TNT (and be faster than the TNT drivers)... if they release TNT2 drivers for Linux, maybe it will be true as well.
But in all the years I have been using the Internet, I have never clicked on a banner ad, and I personally find them very annoying.
One of the thinks I liked about the 'net before Clinton and Gore got ahold of it was that it wasn't loaded up with ads like television is. Now it's worse.
Now, my mailbox is loaded with spam, mostly from porn sites, most other sites have 2 or more banner ads on them, and every time I make a record update to my domain name, I get more spam from people who want me to pay them to host my site. (I host my own site, damnit, and several others)
I commend Slashdot for keeping the ads down. It's still the first thing I see on the page, but at least ads aren't the first 2 or 3 things I see.
Another annoying thing about ads is this: I use a modem from home, and the damn ads, especially animated ones, take forever to load.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, banner ads piss me off. I don't click on them, and try not to pay attention to them. I don't mind a banner ad, but I don't want to be blitzed with advertising.
And you don't want to know what I think of telemarketers...
I'm beginning to think that you saw my post as an attempt to justify or excuse the killings in some way. If so, please allow me to apologize. That was not at all my intent. I was rambling about the politics swirling around the whole thing, not about the event itself.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Apology accepted, and please accept mine for thinking that.
Now that I think about it, that's pretty depressing, isn't it?
Yeah, it's pretty depressing that it happened, but I think we'll see more of it.
So what did your last 3 paragraphs have to do with the rest of your argument?
At any rate, from what I've been seeing on the news, the conclusion was that the "pipe bombs used as grenades" were responsible for most of the deaths and injuries.
But this doesn't really matter. The simple fact is, those two kids were obviously insane, and criminal.
I could find it reasonable that a person could have one specific place to direct revenge toward, if driven to a certain point, like killing one person in a fit of rage. But, nobody in their right minds just goes on a killing spree because they feel hated.
Come on, do you really think that ALL the jocks in that school teased them? All the popular people? I seriously doubt it.
Those two were simply messed up in the head. Crazy. Insane. Loco. Whatevery you want to call it, that's what they were.
I think it was a *very* good thing that the kids had guns available to them. They were *already* using explosives -- do you *really* think that they would have just not bothered if they hadn't had guns?
I very seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that had they lacked guns, *none* of the people in the school would have survived -- because they would have simply blown the entire place up. You can run and hide from someone with a gun. You can't hide from an explosion. Especially if you don't know it's coming.
Were I a moderator, this comment would have been bumped up.
A damn good point.
Okay, you've hit a sore spot with me:
Issue #1: Guns
Guns are now harder than ever to get ahold of in the U.S. You can't just walk into a store and buy one without a wait period and a background check.
These kids got guns. More than likely illegally, by theft or black market. That makes them criminals.
They also made pipe bombs, which are highly illegal, which also killed the most people at the school. Not the guns.
Issue #2: Other influences.
I'm on the internet often. I own guns. I have, and wear, a trenchcoat. I play "violent" video games. I've watched Natural Born Killers and other violent movies. I watch a lot of TV. I came from a middle class family in rural America. I was an outcast. I was teased. I wasn't good at sports in high school. I got my ass kicked a few times just for being the only person to get an A in a class.
YOU DIDN'T SEE ME WANTING TO SHOOT UP MY SCHOOL!!!
By the time I was a junior in high school, I had turned all this around anyway... when I learned we can be what we make of ourselves, not what other people try to make us.
I joined the Army after high school. I am now a successful SysAdmin and marketing manager.
The problem with these kids is that they were seriously disturbed. They lacked the moral filter that most people are born with. They were insane. Plain and simple. No sane person would do what they did. They had guns. They made pipe-bombs. They were criminals.
Read that again: These two kids were criminals, and they were not sane.
So, now you, and those in the government are going to promote the solution to the wrong problems... the solution to what is really not a problem.
More gun restrictions. Make it harder for law-abiding citizens like me to buy guns for sporting purposes and self defense (self defense from criminals like those two kids) So, now criminals will still be able to steal guns or buy them on the black market. Solving the "gun problem" only puts guns into the wrong hands.
We'd better ban video games like Doom and Quake while we're at it. They are obviously a problem, and forcing the millions of people that play them toward violent tendencies.
Oh, and don't forget to treat violent movies like XXX movies. Make sure people feel ashamed when they are asked for their ID to rent or purchase one.
Oh, and no more trenchcoats. Obviously you are violent if you wear one.
That's where all this is leading. America has more violent crimes than ever before, at a time when we have less freedom than we ever had before.
It can also be noted that this kind of stuff happens on government property damn near every time. Whether it's a Post Office, a school, or the local DMV.
At any rate, before I start rambling on this subject, I'll restate why this happened:
This happened because those two INSANE high school kids illegally obtained guns, illegally manufactured explosive devices, and illegally brought them to school.
So, I can describe the problem these two kids had: Criminal insanity.
Nobody in their right mind does stuff like this. It wasn't any outside influence that made them this way. They were born with it. An outside influence may have triggered what was inside their minds, but it was already there.
But go ahead and blame it on guns, games, and movies. Take the easy way out while pursuing your agenda. Why should I care? Because when you take my guns away and criminals are still walking around with their illegal weapons, I'll be getting ready to die anyway, because with each step toward banning guns, you increase the chances of people like me getting killed in violent crime. Thanks
I must say that was a very well written article. It pointed out the M$ sponsoring of the "benchmark," which is a key thing to note about the testing: M$ paid for it all.
The fact that they showed how it is possible to find the information that Mindcraft claimed it was not able to get proves that Mindcraft really didn't try all that hard to do the optimizations.
I'm glad that ZD is exposing M$ and it's lackey companies like Mindcraft for who they really are!
Gates said, for example, that there were five different windowing systems that run on Linux.
In other words, Linux users have a choice on how they want their GUI to look. God forbid we have choices.
``People really do want something that's been tested against all the different applications, so that they know exactly what is out there,'' he said.
Does that sentence not make any sense?
``Today the browsers have gotten rich enough that it's not the kind of software that you can develop and test in a university-type of environment,'' he said.
Funny, I have a friend who is doing a web browser all by himself as a senior project... and it promises to be better than IE. I am trying to convince him to GPL it.
These changes definitely sound good. I think it'll work well keeping the average reader as the moderator, that way when someone comes across a comment and says to theirself "Wow, that's a good comment!" then the ones that are truly good comments will be upped.
Likewise, the ones where the moderator says "This is a really lame comment!" will be downed.
I approve :)