Me, for example - I tend to struggle with Microsoft's 'You Must Double-Click A Lot To Get Your File Structure Sorted' hierarchy, and all those damn toolbars just eat space on my not-so-high resolution screen. To each their own, I suppose.
So set Explorer to single-click folders, and remove toolbars or size their graphics to Small.
How insecure might Mozilla be revealed as if it had the 98% or so usage that Internet Explorer has?
In fact, Bill Gates the other day was speaking at a keynote address and stated that because Windows and its related technologies are subjected to so much more security stress over the years with such a massive market share, they are actually the most secure out there. One might quibble with this, but even Slashdot once reported on the now infamous study showing Linux was actually the most-breached OS on the net.
VA Software is/was one of the dot-com Linux companies of the late 90s. I don't know how that affects their employment of Slashdot's editors, but clearly the editors are biased whether or not it's a result of VA Software.
It's not even a matter of being pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft. Sometimes facts are completely deluded for story hits.
Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.
Criminals will still have guns. They'll have them illegally.
England has a higher crime rate for muggings, rapes, and burglary, and their rate of successful prosecution for crimes is lower. Our murder rate is higher, but ours has steadily declined for the past 10 years, while theirs has risen.
After the ridiculous "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" article, in which Microsoft is blamed for bad people using their software even though China has its own custom Linux distribution (!), and KDE removed the Taiwan flag so they could sell in China, there isn't much for standards around here, not that there ever was.
Here's the part where people chime in about how this is just a "hobby site" for the editors and that they post what they like, because it's not some journalistic site. Here's a clue--it doesn't matter, because the readers treat it journalistically. This site is where a lot of people get their news and treat the articles as fact. And the fact that people ignore that this place is corporate-owned, with a bias against Microsoft, is silly.
And every year since 1998, I've been hearing about "Linux going mainstream" and "Linux is going to take over the desktop." No mention of just the server niche.
I've seen a lot of biased headlines since I started visiting Slashdot in the 90s. But seeing "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" because bad people might be using their software takes the cake.
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.
Your entire post was a bunch of whining about how it was different from the book. You illustrated my point beautifully. Thank you. Christ, you even quibble about them "getting the horns of the Rohirrim right." Frightening.
Last point, i'm sick of people who fail to understand the book story whining at me because they are Jackson fanboys. There was meaning in the battle scene that was completely lost by his hollywoodizing of the script. He fucked it up, deal with it.
Which translates to:
It's different from the books, and *I* can't deal with it. So now I'm calling you a "Jackson fanboy" because my ego is fragile!
You don't think it's possible that one can not think the movies are crap? Think again. Unlike many I don't go into fainting spells because Hollywood deigns to make a movie of my favorite book/genre/whatever. I hold the derivative to the same standards I hold the original. (Makes me unusual nowadays I know, to actually have standards.)
In other words, you're saying people only like it because they're undergoing fainting spells, and they don't have standards. Nice, stable counterargument you've got there.
Nope. Saw the first, once, and have been actively avoiding them ever since.
Again, it simply proves how uptight you are. Yes, they were excellent movies, and you are different and strange if you, as opposed to simply disliking a movie, take steps to "actively avoid" it. You sure showed Hollywood--even though the movies were made in New Zealand.
An off-topic post defending NPR--often accused of being biased toward the left for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded up as "Insightful" as of this post.
Meanwhile, a post I wrote this morning defending FoxNews--often accused of being biased toward the right for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded down as "Off-topic."
Difference in ideologies?
I feel that their news is the best and least biased around because they are non-profit, they don't have to worry about keeping one side or the other happy.
That doesn't even make sense. If a private station must worry about not offending sides, that would give it even more incentive to be non-biased.
NPR gets major contributions from left-leaning entrepeneurs. They recently received several million dollars, which is more than they receive in taxpayer dollars yearly, which makes one wonder why we still have to pay for them to be on the air when they don't need us to keep them afloat.
After all, it couldn't just be shoddy Windows programming. It HAS to be evil Microsoft, even though thousands upon thousands of competing products run just fine under Windows, even better than many Microsoft products themselves.
I guess it's just easier to make vague implications without actually accusing--the major tool of baseless propaganda, which we all lovingly refer to as Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt...
Slashdot Mirror
How did he "look at the patch file" and determine it "patches the kernel?" You're just trolling.
Me, for example - I tend to struggle with Microsoft's 'You Must Double-Click A Lot To Get Your File Structure Sorted' hierarchy, and all those damn toolbars just eat space on my not-so-high resolution screen. To each their own, I suppose.
So set Explorer to single-click folders, and remove toolbars or size their graphics to Small.
How insecure might Mozilla be revealed as if it had the 98% or so usage that Internet Explorer has?
In fact, Bill Gates the other day was speaking at a keynote address and stated that because Windows and its related technologies are subjected to so much more security stress over the years with such a massive market share, they are actually the most secure out there. One might quibble with this, but even Slashdot once reported on the now infamous study showing Linux was actually the most-breached OS on the net.
Even so--I don't touch IE with a ten-foot pole.
VA Software is/was one of the dot-com Linux companies of the late 90s. I don't know how that affects their employment of Slashdot's editors, but clearly the editors are biased whether or not it's a result of VA Software.
It's not even a matter of being pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft. Sometimes facts are completely deluded for story hits.
It doesn't. Just because someone reads the text of a EULA doesn't mean it magically slaps cuffs on them and restricts their actions.
VA Software employs Slashdot and all its editors. The company itself has been doing poorly for years yet manages to stay afloat.
Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.
Criminals will still have guns. They'll have them illegally.
England has a higher crime rate for muggings, rapes, and burglary, and their rate of successful prosecution for crimes is lower. Our murder rate is higher, but ours has steadily declined for the past 10 years, while theirs has risen.
Horribly off-topic, I know.
What exactly defines being "worthy of Slashdot?"
After the ridiculous "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" article, in which Microsoft is blamed for bad people using their software even though China has its own custom Linux distribution (!), and KDE removed the Taiwan flag so they could sell in China, there isn't much for standards around here, not that there ever was.
Here's the part where people chime in about how this is just a "hobby site" for the editors and that they post what they like, because it's not some journalistic site. Here's a clue--it doesn't matter, because the readers treat it journalistically. This site is where a lot of people get their news and treat the articles as fact. And the fact that people ignore that this place is corporate-owned, with a bias against Microsoft, is silly.
And what makes you think China would give their citizens the source code to Red Flag Linux?
YHBT
KDE removed the Taiwan flag so that they would sell in China. Where is the "KDE Violates Human Rights In China" headline on Slashdot?
Try reading yourself. It was a troll. It's even being linked to from anti-slash.org.
Moron. Look at you, defending an obvious troll. You're so quick to believe a completely anonymous post claiming something with no evidence.
So basically, if it's anti-Linux, it's clueless, and if it's pro-Linux, it's not?
And every year since 1998, I've been hearing about "Linux going mainstream" and "Linux is going to take over the desktop." No mention of just the server niche.
What about KDE removing the Taiwan flag so that they'll sell in China?
Is that a human rights violation? Will Slashdot report with a "KDE Violates Human Rights In China" headline? Doubt it.
I've seen a lot of biased headlines since I started visiting Slashdot in the 90s. But seeing "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" because bad people might be using their software takes the cake.
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.
Your entire post was a bunch of whining about how it was different from the book. You illustrated my point beautifully. Thank you. Christ, you even quibble about them "getting the horns of the Rohirrim right." Frightening.
Last point, i'm sick of people who fail to understand the book story whining at me because they are Jackson fanboys. There was meaning in the battle scene that was completely lost by his hollywoodizing of the script. He fucked it up, deal with it.
Which translates to:
It's different from the books, and *I* can't deal with it. So now I'm calling you a "Jackson fanboy" because my ego is fragile!
Thanks for playing.
You don't think it's possible that one can not think the movies are crap? Think again. Unlike many I don't go into fainting spells because Hollywood deigns to make a movie of my favorite book/genre/whatever. I hold the derivative to the same standards I hold the original. (Makes me unusual nowadays I know, to actually have standards.)
In other words, you're saying people only like it because they're undergoing fainting spells, and they don't have standards. Nice, stable counterargument you've got there.
Nope. Saw the first, once, and have been actively avoiding them ever since.
Again, it simply proves how uptight you are. Yes, they were excellent movies, and you are different and strange if you, as opposed to simply disliking a movie, take steps to "actively avoid" it. You sure showed Hollywood--even though the movies were made in New Zealand.
Thanks for playing. Next.
I'll help you out by translating it:
Nexis should give you quite a few hits, as this was openly reported in the trade press.
really means
I don't have any proof, so I'm laying the burden on you to search all of Nexis for me. You're a proverbial idiot if you don't do it!
Thanks for playing. Next.
Wow, I feel crushed. Thank you for the condescension--and the lack of proof. Yes, I know what Nexis is.
(yes, I know about the consortium fees... still gotta be better than dealing with MS)
:)
Why? Or is this another vague "MS is bad" statement without any actual explanation? Just get tired of them.
WMP works fine for me.
Microsoft may no tdo this now but once they have the market cornered they will switch to a pay for play model i'm guessing.
I could have sworn they already had the market cornered. Isn't Windows in the 98+ percentile now?
An off-topic post defending NPR--often accused of being biased toward the left for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded up as "Insightful" as of this post.
Meanwhile, a post I wrote this morning defending FoxNews--often accused of being biased toward the right for various valid and invalid reasons--is modded down as "Off-topic."
Difference in ideologies?
I feel that their news is the best and least biased around because they are non-profit, they don't have to worry about keeping one side or the other happy.
That doesn't even make sense. If a private station must worry about not offending sides, that would give it even more incentive to be non-biased.
NPR gets major contributions from left-leaning entrepeneurs. They recently received several million dollars, which is more than they receive in taxpayer dollars yearly, which makes one wonder why we still have to pay for them to be on the air when they don't need us to keep them afloat.
It was yellow text on a blue background in the upper right above the picture, that says "FREE RealPlayer."
After all, it couldn't just be shoddy Windows programming. It HAS to be evil Microsoft, even though thousands upon thousands of competing products run just fine under Windows, even better than many Microsoft products themselves.
I guess it's just easier to make vague implications without actually accusing--the major tool of baseless propaganda, which we all lovingly refer to as Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt...