No, the point we're trying to make is that technically-minded people see the shortcomings in Apple products compared to others.
The problem is that people pay attention to their hip friends, not to the nerd with the broken glasses sitting at the front of the class. That nerd feels put-down because nobody listens to him.......and is it any wonder? Tell the nerd you're considering an iPad and ask his opinion and he'll spend 30 minutes ranting and raving about DRM, proprietary lockdown, etc. Ask the trendy hip guy and he'll show you all the neat stuff you can do with it. Try developing some social skills and drop those haughty, arrogant delusions of grandeur, and I bet the world will be a lot more inclined to listen to your viewpoint.
"- if you or any relative ever used opiates (e.g., as painkillers for a cancer), then you're at least partially responsible for funding the taliban in Afghanistan. (There is no opium poppy grown in the USA to the best of my knowledge, you know.)"
pharmaceuticals in the US use pretty much all synthetic opiates these days. the opium that Afghanistan produces largely goes into producing heroin.
What is strange is the expectation that software will always be bug free coupled with the implied opinion that Microsoft's offerings are in some way superior (after they have gone through countless bug fixes).
You didn't get what he said.
His point was at least Microsoft's offerings, bug ridden though they may begin, do often end up being nice, pleasant, stable platforms after a few rounds of bug fixes. XP SP2 was in existence for what, 5-6 years before support dropped?
6 months is WAY too fast of a release cycle considering the number of changes made between releases and the available manpower to fix bugs.
Does 10.04 work flawlessly on my dual monitor setup out of the box? Does the sound system work perfectly, first time and every time, without randomly freezing up and requiring command line hackery to resolve? Don't tell me it's the drivers--this is a Dell Ubuntu laptop that worked perfectly on Ubuntu 6.04. Furthermore has a sound system FINALLY been standardized, for better or worse, and the vast majority of apps ported to this new standard? (A wise man once said: sometimes any decision is better than none at all.)
If Canonical can answer "YES" to the above questions, as well as give me some real convincing reasons--only THEN will I return to using Linux as my desktop OS, as I had previously done for over a decade. The Linux developer community seriously needs to pull collective heads out of asses and take a serious look around, if they'd like for Linux to approach even Windows 95 in everyday usability, let alone XP or 7. Until then I'm running a hacked version of Windows 7, with Linux in a VM if needed, and couldn't be happier.
The invention of the electric starter wasn't innovative? Being able to fire up your engine from inside the cab with the turn of a key in a world when everybody else had to crank theirs by hand isn't "innovative"?
Using electronics to control a fuel injection system isn't innovative when nobody had done it before, let alone put it on a production car?
I could go on. And on, and on, but surely the absurdity of your statements are now becoming clear.
I think his intention was more along the lines of directing well-earned ridicule at those who freak out at the idea of there being "chemicals" (that is, "OMG@chemicals THOSE R DANGERUS!%!!") in the air.
Unless he pulls a miracle from his ass, he's not going to get re-election. As of now, he and every congresscritter is in damage control mode saving themselves, their legacy, and the party.....and yet his approval rating is still 50/50, pretty much exactly where its been holding steady since july of last year, and only 15 percentage points lower than when he was elected.
Despite disagreement over his policies it is widely known that he enjoys a lot of respect from both sides.
Oh, AND the economy is already showing signs of improvement.
My prediction: he'll be re-elected in a landslide.
Sorry, you are almost completely wrong. The vast majority of those technologies I listed (and a huge number of other smaller area of automotive innovation) were first introduced by GM in general, often Cadillac in particular.
For example, in the case of fuel injection--I'm not referring to the antiquated, primitive Bosch Jetronic system which was barely superior (and arguably not) to carbs of the day. I'm referring to electronic fuel injection, which was pioneered by Bendix (an American company) and first introduced on Cadillacs in 1975. Likewise, who cares about what NASA did with airbags? We're talking about cars here, not spaceships. GM introduced the first airbag restraint systems in 1973.
And 40-50 years ago, people would have made the same statement about a motherboard being a rare piece of equipment that must be treated as a long-term investment.
Bad analogy, because a computer motherboard is NOTHING like a CNC machine. Not even close to being comparable, sorry.
You need to keep in mind, something like fuel injection existed during the 50s and 60s but wasn't widely introduced into vehicles until the government mandated better economy.
LOL
fuel injection systems of the 50s and 60s were extremely primitive MECHANICAL injection systems that were really not any better than carburetors of the era, certainly not for emissions or economy.
and yes, most of the cool new automotive technology HAS come from American companies. who invented the electric starter, power windows, power seats, power brakes, power steering, fuel injection, airbags, antilock brakes......... etc? ALL were first introduced by American companies. back in the 1960s and 1970s Cadillac was the standard of the world, nothing even came close to a Cadillac in terms of quality, sophistication, and luxury. European and Japanese automakers are only now entering into the same league as American cars have been for decades. and if it weren't for the U.S. pouring millions of dollars into rebuilding Japan, they'd probably be building rice wagons today instead of Camrys!
When I first got into computing, I learned more from stuff I had to fiddle with. Now I'm older and I want stuff that just works. That's why after 10 years I switched from Linux to Windows 7, so that I could plug a monitor into my laptop and have it Just Work(TM) (instead of REQUIRING me to edit xorg.conf), or play a video or music and have it Just Work(TM) (instead of the sound system to just randomly decide to stop working), etc. I like computers, but I don't want or need my entire life to center around them. If my daily driver required me to be under the hood twice a week taking it apart and putting it back together to get it to work right, I'm pretty sure I'd get rid of that POS too.
What do you mean "they dont make anything any more"? Shows that you know NOTHING about America. Mills are one of the cornerstone tools of our *very large* manufacturing industry here in the U.S.
I guarantee you that Haas and Bridgeport are not showing off Facebook. They do show off their machines to people who actually have the money to buy them, they dont give a shit about the Youtube crowd. But most of them don't have to show off a damn thing, because anyone who is thinking of starting a machine shop in the U.S. is already familiar with most of the options out there.
The U.S. *IS* leading in this area. Japan is not the only country that manufacturers CNC machines. Bridgeport has been *THE* name in milling machines for decades. Haas is another big name based out of California.
This isn't a computer, it doesn't work like that. A good mill, especially a loaded 5 axis CNC model, is not some cheap ass Taiwanese motherboard, it's an extremely expensive TOOL that one purchases (i.e. invests in) with the intent of keeping and putting to work for many years.
5 axis CNC milling is old news. You can pick up a good used 5 year old machine for 20-40k depending on size and capabilities. Don't forget the cost of tooling as well.
I've never smoked in my life but I detest smug arseholes who think they have the right to dictate how other people should run their lives. Humans are capable of and have every right to make choices to do things which are bad for them.
Let me stop you right there.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Who the hell is dictating anything to anyone?
The original statement, before you somehow managed to drag it off into Neverland with your trollish foolishness, was "you can't fix stupid." And that is 100% correct. Smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, despite knowing the well known risks and side effects, is stupid. Any smoker will say the same himself.
In the same breath he might tell you that he's "tried" to quit but "couldn't." Bullshit. You don't "try" to quit, you either quit or you don't, and the difference between the two is how closely you listen to your conscious mind (telling you to quit) vs your baser instincts (telling you to smoke.) Talking to some of these people is truly a fascinating study into the human mind's power of self rationalization. As you said, it's their choice, but that doesn't change the fact that it is obviously (and scientifically proven to be) a stupid one.
BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I even still smoke a cigar or a pipe once in a blue moon, but I made the choice to not let any chemical control me.
Even the "full spectrum" bulbs aren't really. Look at the light spectrum for it, it's nothing like sunlight. You can grow plants with flourescents. Many do, but then try a real HID lamp and the plants will grow twice as fast--not just because of extra lumens, but the spectrum is better. They'll grow faster still out in real sunlight. No artificial lighting source can match sunlight for either spectrum or lumens. Keep in mind the spectrum does include infrared (heat) and UV, both of which are very important for comfort. At least in my case they are. I know for a fact I would have been twice as motivated in school if I could have worked and studied out in warm sunlight and fresh air instead of being cooped up in a flourescent lit, refrigerated dungeon.
Not quite. The sun's color spectrum is fixed, but the spectrum that reaches the Earth's surface at various points of the day (and at various times of the year) is variable.
I've been there. I've seen and heard the exact same attitude you can hear in that aircrew's voices more times than I can count. I've met a number of common everyday Afghans and while they have their quirks, overall they are good people. Yet I've met plenty of soldiers who despise them and treat them like dirt, for no reason whatsoever. IMO it's yet another manifestation of how fucked the Army is from the top all the way down. Don't believe me, go ask anyone who's been in.
At least nowadays you can actually count on getting paid like you're supposed to, instead of them screwing up and giving you a $20 paycheck, and being told "oh well, sorry, you're just fucked" when you needed that money to pay bills. But consider that a lot of these guys have been deployed 5 or 6 times over the course of this war, for over a year at a time in many cases, with one PALTRY two week vacation thrown in--and the lower in rank you are, the more likely you are to go on vacation in January instead of July like you wanted.
Oh, and you can't even drink a beer in the evening to wind down, since alcohol is prohibited to ONLY Americans. That's right--every other person in Afghanistan, all our allies, and even Afghans themselves can drink a beer or two and it's no big deal, but U.S. forces and contractors are absolutely prohibited. Our soldiers are kept so sheltered and coddled that it is no surprise when, after managing to sneak in some alcohol (and it's easy to do), some genius gets wasted out of his mind and is found passed out in a guard tower or out on the back road or something. He could be allowed to let out all that wildness gradually and in a controlled manner with one beer or two per evening, but since he's prohibited, he figures he might as well get the most value out of his limited supply and get blasted off it.
Then there's the fact that females are in short supply, and unless you're a stud you ain't gettin any while you're deployed, sorry. If you're not sure if she likes you then I wouldn't take a chance there buddy, since all it takes is for the bitch to file a harassment complaint and you're automatically guilty. Oh, and if you're married, I guarantee your wife back home is fucking someone else while you're gone (or even waiting til you're gone to file for divorce--happens all the time) and you can't do anything about it.
If you're in the National Guard, I hope your employer back home is more understanding than most. While called to federal duty your job is supposedly safe and it's illegal for your employer to do anything but give you back your same position at the same salary when you return. Doesn't stop them from firing your inconvenient ass anyways.
In light of the above facts, is it any wonder that our soldiers hate themselves, hate their lives, and hate everybody else too? Is it any wonder that suicide is becoming a big concern in the military and that we have crazy asses snapping and shooting up their fellow soldiers?
WP is more considered a chemical weapon, plus, if you're close enough to use WP, you're close enough to use other weapons, generally speaking, thus the unnecessary suffering part comes into play.
Not sure what you are saying here, but I wanted to point out that I have witnessed the U.S. Army using WP against enemy combatants in Afghanistan. I remember some Taliban firing shots and a rocket or two at FOB Naray (now Bostick) from a nearby mountainside. You should have seen how hard they hit that area back with artillery and 50 cals. Then it turned out to be a distraction while a second group attacked again from the other mountain. Once again that area got blasted all to hell, and in the midst of it, you couldn't mistake the bright white, thick smoke of WP. The sun set not long afterwards, and in the pitch black of dark I watched the forest up there burn for hours on end. It is an effective weapon, but I don't see how it's any cleaner or better than napalm. Such weapons should not be used against personnel IMO.
For instance, this gizmo might even work, but is going to have far less effect on your greenhouse gas emissions than living near where you work or commuting by public transit.
Except this isn't about "greenhouse gas" at all, it's about saving power. If you can light a 2,500 sq. ft. space with this gizmo, that's 4000W worth of HID lighting you don't have to run 12 hours a day. Plus, you gain the benefits of sunlight, which has a much broader and brighter spectrum than any HID or flourescent lamp.
...so that automatically makes Bob Saget's wise saying to be null and void, because he later did something bad? I mean, as if the truth of his statements have anything to do with his alleged moral turpitude.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the point we're trying to make is that technically-minded people see the shortcomings in Apple products compared to others.
The problem is that people pay attention to their hip friends, not to the nerd with the broken glasses sitting at the front of the class. That nerd feels put-down because nobody listens to him. ......and is it any wonder? Tell the nerd you're considering an iPad and ask his opinion and he'll spend 30 minutes ranting and raving about DRM, proprietary lockdown, etc. Ask the trendy hip guy and he'll show you all the neat stuff you can do with it. Try developing some social skills and drop those haughty, arrogant delusions of grandeur, and I bet the world will be a lot more inclined to listen to your viewpoint.
well dont get your panties in a wad over it
Maybe a majority of Slashdot thinks it is ok not to download files, that doesn't mean that others don't find it morally wrong
Wait...so you're saying some people find it morally wrong to not download files?
your argument is well founded, I agree. but:
"- if you or any relative ever used opiates (e.g., as painkillers for a cancer), then you're at least partially responsible for funding the taliban in Afghanistan. (There is no opium poppy grown in the USA to the best of my knowledge, you know.)"
pharmaceuticals in the US use pretty much all synthetic opiates these days. the opium that Afghanistan produces largely goes into producing heroin.
What is strange is the expectation that software will always be bug free coupled with the implied opinion that Microsoft's offerings are in some way superior (after they have gone through countless bug fixes).
You didn't get what he said.
His point was at least Microsoft's offerings, bug ridden though they may begin, do often end up being nice, pleasant, stable platforms after a few rounds of bug fixes. XP SP2 was in existence for what, 5-6 years before support dropped?
6 months is WAY too fast of a release cycle considering the number of changes made between releases and the available manpower to fix bugs.
Does 10.04 work flawlessly on my dual monitor setup out of the box? Does the sound system work perfectly, first time and every time, without randomly freezing up and requiring command line hackery to resolve? Don't tell me it's the drivers--this is a Dell Ubuntu laptop that worked perfectly on Ubuntu 6.04. Furthermore has a sound system FINALLY been standardized, for better or worse, and the vast majority of apps ported to this new standard? (A wise man once said: sometimes any decision is better than none at all.)
If Canonical can answer "YES" to the above questions, as well as give me some real convincing reasons--only THEN will I return to using Linux as my desktop OS, as I had previously done for over a decade. The Linux developer community seriously needs to pull collective heads out of asses and take a serious look around, if they'd like for Linux to approach even Windows 95 in everyday usability, let alone XP or 7. Until then I'm running a hacked version of Windows 7, with Linux in a VM if needed, and couldn't be happier.
"Taking and adapting isn't innovative"
The invention of the electric starter wasn't innovative? Being able to fire up your engine from inside the cab with the turn of a key in a world when everybody else had to crank theirs by hand isn't "innovative"?
Using electronics to control a fuel injection system isn't innovative when nobody had done it before, let alone put it on a production car?
I could go on. And on, and on, but surely the absurdity of your statements are now becoming clear.
I think his intention was more along the lines of directing well-earned ridicule at those who freak out at the idea of there being "chemicals" (that is, "OMG@chemicals THOSE R DANGERUS!%!!") in the air.
Unless he pulls a miracle from his ass, he's not going to get re-election. As of now, he and every congresscritter is in damage control mode saving themselves, their legacy, and the party. ....and yet his approval rating is still 50/50, pretty much exactly where its been holding steady since july of last year, and only 15 percentage points lower than when he was elected.
Despite disagreement over his policies it is widely known that he enjoys a lot of respect from both sides.
Oh, AND the economy is already showing signs of improvement.
My prediction: he'll be re-elected in a landslide.
Sorry, you are almost completely wrong. The vast majority of those technologies I listed (and a huge number of other smaller area of automotive innovation) were first introduced by GM in general, often Cadillac in particular.
For example, in the case of fuel injection--I'm not referring to the antiquated, primitive Bosch Jetronic system which was barely superior (and arguably not) to carbs of the day. I'm referring to electronic fuel injection, which was pioneered by Bendix (an American company) and first introduced on Cadillacs in 1975. Likewise, who cares about what NASA did with airbags? We're talking about cars here, not spaceships. GM introduced the first airbag restraint systems in 1973.
And 40-50 years ago, people would have made the same statement about a motherboard being a rare piece of equipment that must be treated as a long-term investment.
Bad analogy, because a computer motherboard is NOTHING like a CNC machine. Not even close to being comparable, sorry.
You need to keep in mind, something like fuel injection existed during the 50s and 60s but wasn't widely introduced into vehicles until the government mandated better economy.
LOL
fuel injection systems of the 50s and 60s were extremely primitive MECHANICAL injection systems that were really not any better than carburetors of the era, certainly not for emissions or economy.
and yes, most of the cool new automotive technology HAS come from American companies. who invented the electric starter, power windows, power seats, power brakes, power steering, fuel injection, airbags, antilock brakes......... etc? ALL were first introduced by American companies. back in the 1960s and 1970s Cadillac was the standard of the world, nothing even came close to a Cadillac in terms of quality, sophistication, and luxury. European and Japanese automakers are only now entering into the same league as American cars have been for decades. and if it weren't for the U.S. pouring millions of dollars into rebuilding Japan, they'd probably be building rice wagons today instead of Camrys!
how quickly we forget the past.
When I first got into computing, I learned more from stuff I had to fiddle with. Now I'm older and I want stuff that just works. That's why after 10 years I switched from Linux to Windows 7, so that I could plug a monitor into my laptop and have it Just Work(TM) (instead of REQUIRING me to edit xorg.conf), or play a video or music and have it Just Work(TM) (instead of the sound system to just randomly decide to stop working), etc. I like computers, but I don't want or need my entire life to center around them. If my daily driver required me to be under the hood twice a week taking it apart and putting it back together to get it to work right, I'm pretty sure I'd get rid of that POS too.
What do you mean "they dont make anything any more"? Shows that you know NOTHING about America. Mills are one of the cornerstone tools of our *very large* manufacturing industry here in the U.S.
I guarantee you that Haas and Bridgeport are not showing off Facebook. They do show off their machines to people who actually have the money to buy them, they dont give a shit about the Youtube crowd. But most of them don't have to show off a damn thing, because anyone who is thinking of starting a machine shop in the U.S. is already familiar with most of the options out there.
The U.S. *IS* leading in this area. Japan is not the only country that manufacturers CNC machines. Bridgeport has been *THE* name in milling machines for decades. Haas is another big name based out of California.
This isn't a computer, it doesn't work like that. A good mill, especially a loaded 5 axis CNC model, is not some cheap ass Taiwanese motherboard, it's an extremely expensive TOOL that one purchases (i.e. invests in) with the intent of keeping and putting to work for many years.
5 axis CNC milling is old news. You can pick up a good used 5 year old machine for 20-40k depending on size and capabilities. Don't forget the cost of tooling as well.
I've never smoked in my life but I detest smug arseholes who think they have the right to dictate how other people should run their lives.
Humans are capable of and have every right to make choices to do things which are bad for them.
Let me stop you right there.
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Who the hell is dictating anything to anyone?
The original statement, before you somehow managed to drag it off into Neverland with your trollish foolishness, was "you can't fix stupid." And that is 100% correct. Smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, despite knowing the well known risks and side effects, is stupid. Any smoker will say the same himself.
In the same breath he might tell you that he's "tried" to quit but "couldn't." Bullshit. You don't "try" to quit, you either quit or you don't, and the difference between the two is how closely you listen to your conscious mind (telling you to quit) vs your baser instincts (telling you to smoke.) Talking to some of these people is truly a fascinating study into the human mind's power of self rationalization. As you said, it's their choice, but that doesn't change the fact that it is obviously (and scientifically proven to be) a stupid one.
BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I even still smoke a cigar or a pipe once in a blue moon, but I made the choice to not let any chemical control me.
Even the "full spectrum" bulbs aren't really. Look at the light spectrum for it, it's nothing like sunlight. You can grow plants with flourescents. Many do, but then try a real HID lamp and the plants will grow twice as fast--not just because of extra lumens, but the spectrum is better. They'll grow faster still out in real sunlight. No artificial lighting source can match sunlight for either spectrum or lumens. Keep in mind the spectrum does include infrared (heat) and UV, both of which are very important for comfort. At least in my case they are. I know for a fact I would have been twice as motivated in school if I could have worked and studied out in warm sunlight and fresh air instead of being cooped up in a flourescent lit, refrigerated dungeon.
Not quite. The sun's color spectrum is fixed, but the spectrum that reaches the Earth's surface at various points of the day (and at various times of the year) is variable.
I've been there. I've seen and heard the exact same attitude you can hear in that aircrew's voices more times than I can count. I've met a number of common everyday Afghans and while they have their quirks, overall they are good people. Yet I've met plenty of soldiers who despise them and treat them like dirt, for no reason whatsoever. IMO it's yet another manifestation of how fucked the Army is from the top all the way down. Don't believe me, go ask anyone who's been in.
At least nowadays you can actually count on getting paid like you're supposed to, instead of them screwing up and giving you a $20 paycheck, and being told "oh well, sorry, you're just fucked" when you needed that money to pay bills. But consider that a lot of these guys have been deployed 5 or 6 times over the course of this war, for over a year at a time in many cases, with one PALTRY two week vacation thrown in--and the lower in rank you are, the more likely you are to go on vacation in January instead of July like you wanted.
Oh, and you can't even drink a beer in the evening to wind down, since alcohol is prohibited to ONLY Americans. That's right--every other person in Afghanistan, all our allies, and even Afghans themselves can drink a beer or two and it's no big deal, but U.S. forces and contractors are absolutely prohibited. Our soldiers are kept so sheltered and coddled that it is no surprise when, after managing to sneak in some alcohol (and it's easy to do), some genius gets wasted out of his mind and is found passed out in a guard tower or out on the back road or something. He could be allowed to let out all that wildness gradually and in a controlled manner with one beer or two per evening, but since he's prohibited, he figures he might as well get the most value out of his limited supply and get blasted off it.
Then there's the fact that females are in short supply, and unless you're a stud you ain't gettin any while you're deployed, sorry. If you're not sure if she likes you then I wouldn't take a chance there buddy, since all it takes is for the bitch to file a harassment complaint and you're automatically guilty. Oh, and if you're married, I guarantee your wife back home is fucking someone else while you're gone (or even waiting til you're gone to file for divorce--happens all the time) and you can't do anything about it.
If you're in the National Guard, I hope your employer back home is more understanding than most. While called to federal duty your job is supposedly safe and it's illegal for your employer to do anything but give you back your same position at the same salary when you return. Doesn't stop them from firing your inconvenient ass anyways.
In light of the above facts, is it any wonder that our soldiers hate themselves, hate their lives, and hate everybody else too? Is it any wonder that suicide is becoming a big concern in the military and that we have crazy asses snapping and shooting up their fellow soldiers?
WP is more considered a chemical weapon, plus, if you're close enough to use WP, you're close enough to use other weapons, generally speaking, thus the unnecessary suffering part comes into play.
Not sure what you are saying here, but I wanted to point out that I have witnessed the U.S. Army using WP against enemy combatants in Afghanistan. I remember some Taliban firing shots and a rocket or two at FOB Naray (now Bostick) from a nearby mountainside. You should have seen how hard they hit that area back with artillery and 50 cals. Then it turned out to be a distraction while a second group attacked again from the other mountain. Once again that area got blasted all to hell, and in the midst of it, you couldn't mistake the bright white, thick smoke of WP. The sun set not long afterwards, and in the pitch black of dark I watched the forest up there burn for hours on end. It is an effective weapon, but I don't see how it's any cleaner or better than napalm. Such weapons should not be used against personnel IMO.
For instance, this gizmo might even work, but is going to have far less effect on your greenhouse gas emissions than living near where you work or commuting by public transit.
Except this isn't about "greenhouse gas" at all, it's about saving power. If you can light a 2,500 sq. ft. space with this gizmo, that's 4000W worth of HID lighting you don't have to run 12 hours a day. Plus, you gain the benefits of sunlight, which has a much broader and brighter spectrum than any HID or flourescent lamp.
Or you could just use common everyday metal halide HID bulbs, which do have a more natural blue spectrum...
...so that automatically makes Bob Saget's wise saying to be null and void, because he later did something bad? I mean, as if the truth of his statements have anything to do with his alleged moral turpitude.