*Some people* find asking someone else to handle their problem far easier than looking it up online. By some people I mean the majority of people.
That's called "being lazy" and "not wanting to learn." Can you not understand how tiring that sort of person can be to those who aren't lazy and do try to learn?
I know why I switched back to Windows - I couldn't figure out into what directory I should install new programs.
Linux doesn't tell you what you should do. You tell Linux what it should do.
Then other angry Linux nerds will yell at you about what you *should* have done.
Who're these angry Linux nerds of whom you speak? Well, maybe on/. that's apropos.
My first question would be, why aren't you using the supplied tools to install your program? If it's in the repo, the system will install the correct version for you in he right place. If it's some source code you want to fiddle with, put it under your HOME directory somewhere.
I'd also suggest (politely) where to find answers to similar questions. Obviously, he didn't look in the right places.
IFF you know what you're doing, and it's source code you want to build for everyone on the system to be able to use, Linux standardized on/usr/local last century.
Every system comes with somewhat of a learning curve. The beauty of the *nix way is supposed to be that everything you learn makes all the rest of what you need to learn easier; the learning curve flattens out the more you learn.
It's Linux geeks, btw. Nerds are the guys wearing pocket protectors, and tape holding their glasses together.
... to Apple? Because that's what people want - something that works, not something you have to make a hobby of just to keep running between distro-hops.
All you're doing is displaying your own ignorance. Fine, you don't know how to install Linux and configure it so it works the way you want it to. I know.
When my friends ask me about it, I install it for them with them watching over my shoulder, tweak a few things for their environment, test it to ensure everything works as it should, and teach them how to use it. They generally have very few troubles with it from then on. If you *don't* know how to do all that, yeah, you're going to be lost if you can't be arsed to do some research.
!@#$%ing about it on/. from a position of ignorance helps nobody, not even you. I've been running Debian since the late '90s and Linux since '93. Seldom do I need to reinstall, usually only because I didn't make a partition big enough, but newbs don't even need to worry about that. Dump the whole thing into one honking big ptn and call it a day.
Yes, I have played around with a lot of the others just to test them out and see what they're like. It's great to have the option.
As many in here have said, if you're a newb, go for *buntu. I prefer Xubuntu for them. The Ubuntu forums are very civilized if you need support.
Just stop calling it a dog just because you couldn't get it to work a decade ago.
It was nice knowing the internet. Now the wicked people have figured out how to pervert it we can kiss it goodbye.
Internet: "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated."
Think "whack-a-mole", and maybe you ought to read Fahrenheit 451. All the MafiAA are succeeding in doing is driving the pirates further out of their reach. Even unsophisticated users know they can get onto web forums and search engines to find answers to boneheaded moves like this.
Politicians get campaign financing, artists learn to publish and promote their own works independent of the labels, the law gets even more screwed up than it already is, and fans learn that doing things the MafiAA's way is frustrating and not worth paying for. Way to go, MafiAA.:-P
What's that sound? Ah yes, the sound of stampeding fanbois.
You'd have to dig pretty deep into my posting history to find anything that I've written lauding Apple. I guess that'd be a bit more work than spitting vitriolic contentless one liners, though.
Perhaps, though I think the larger and more obvious astroturfing effort here is the anti-union sentiment. Damn those corrupt unions wanting things like running water. Next you know, they'll be asking for bathrooms.
I thought that was just typical Murricanism. North American based business is pretty labour hostile from what I've seen.
If all unions did was lobby for better conditions, they wouldn't be despised quite so much. Instead, they let Jimmy Hoffa take them over, skim the top off retirement funds, union leaders set themselves up as little fiefdoms taking kickbacks from all over, and charge union dues. WTF does a union need to charge union dues for?!? Hookers and blow, of course.
Frankly, that sounds like democracy as currently practised. The rank and file can't even keep union leaders in check, much less Congress.
"Apple, and Dell, and Samsung, and Amazon, and Tosiba, and.... (insert [every] other company producing consumer electronics here)...partner Foxconn"
None of those other companies really grab headlines these days.
Samsung and Amazon sure do. I'm no Apple fanboi but even I think there's a concerted astroturfing effort going on to tar Apple anytime a Foxconn story is released, or when anything comes out that can be spun as anti-Apple.
And I worked for a company that thought they could move the South East Asian data centre to the UK based on your assumption. Guess what, that extra 200-300ms latency caused job queues to blow out by a good 1-2 hours during peak times since the system wasn't able to get and process the jobs in a reasonable manner since all the timings were based on a LAN environment.
If your environment is moving large amounts of data around in tiny slices, of course that wouldn't work. You need the data close to the crunchers or you'll suffer from network fragmentation. It sounds like that company got suckered by a smart talker who didn't bother to understand what the company was doing.
In IT, there is no one size fits all. You've got to understand what's being done and what's wanted to be done.
These should have been rated as entirely high risk (being a collection of mortgages that, due to the first CDO, were almost guaranteed to fail) but gullible ratings agencies still gave the top tranche a top rating. So investors worldwide were buying crap believing it to be a low risk investment.
The ratings agencies weren't gullible. They were in on it too. They were paid for their ratings by the people asking for the ratings. If they'd done their jobs and rated them poor, those buying the ratings would go elsewhere for them.
The ratings agencies ought to be sort of like Consumer Reports. Instead, they are just another business out to make a quick buck like everyone else. Investors should have seen this coming, but no-one thinks long-term investing anymore. Fundamentals? What are those?
I agree with those above who say it hasn't finished yet. The bailouts just bought the Too Big To Fails some time. They should have been allowed to fail, but politicians couldn't accept that when their cushy jobs were on the line.
TSA employees took payments of up to $2,400 to provide drug couriers unfettered access at LAX over a six-month period
Holy crap. Uh, let me do the math. Six (months) times ca. 30 days per month, times oh, I don't know, a hundred or so people standing around,... Hmm, "echo '6 * 30 * 100' | bc"
That looks like one !@#$ of a lot of innocent bystanders/friendly casualties.
Since they [were] caught, and are being tried, apparently someone is watching them.
Caught by the drug runner's stupidity. Dude went down the wrong line, that's how they got snagged. I wouldn't say the TSA "caught" them by their elite skills.
Considering all that we've been hearing about the TSA's investigative skills, I don't understand why anyone's surprised by the way this story's playing out. It just looks like more of the same that we should expect of them. Incompetent bunglers tripping over themselves and *wonder of wonders* an idiot falls into their laps. Woohoo! Got one. The surprise is they actually noticed.
What a waste of money "security theatre" is. It's not even all that entertaining.
OT, sorry. Can you please point me at something that's a bit more understandable than Wikipedia, because that's really making my head hurt. Or, I suppose I could just bang my head on a table for the same effect. Thanks in advance.
I suppose I could $google it myself. Will do, but insights are welcome.
Just sayin'. It ought to be against the law for.sigs to get that deep.
It's not hard to understand [how] it works, it's hard to understand how it's an improvement.
Fiat money, or its value, can be manipulated. End of story. It's been going on for all of recorded history.
For physical currency, taxes to the government prevent counterfeiting.
What?!?
For [bitcoins], money is spent on GPU cycles to [prevent] both. If you can prove that it's actually cheaper, and just just a cost shift, be my guest.
"Just a cost shift"?!? I really don't understand what you're saying. "Money" is just markers. Paper dollars, silver dollars, Japanese Yen, bitcoins, whatever. They're all just markers.
Can politicians or Wall St. manipulate the value of any or all of them? That's the question. The bitcoin people believe all the others can be manipulated but that bitcoins can't. Is that true? That's what I want to know.
What's a dollar? If you're on/., you may understand computer programming code. A dollar is analogous to a variable. The variable's not worth anything, but it can contain a value. Really, what's a silver (or paper) dollar worth? Whatever it can buy, right? What else can you do with a dollar? Nothing, right? Well, okay, you could use it to wipe your butt, but other than that? Even lit on fire, it won't keep you warm for long.
[No, I'm not into bitcoin mining, but I do consider its implications intriguing.]
"buttcoins" again. That's not really as funny as you think it is.
If a viable market can be built around bitcoins, there is one hell of a lot riding on this. Every government that relies on fiat money and taxation to fund its operations has one !@#$ of a lot riding on this. If bitcoins can take the place of the gold standard, Keynsian financed government will implode ("poof"). There's a lot riding on this. There's likely a lot of government flacks doing everything they can possibly imagine to undercut its potential. If bitcoin gets anywhere, fiat money's soon going to be worth less than used toilet paper.
No, I don't believe that money should be treated that way.
I was simply saying that many people (myself included) have given this some thought and think that the status quo is far from desirable, but far better than what is proposed by goldbugs.
No problemo.:-)
I just want you to appreciate that some of us have heard your arguments and disagree.
Honest, I really have no sticks in this fire. I'm just trying to inform. And I'll be dead soon, so what does it matter? Have a lovely afternoon.:-)
Still, if you were in 1920s Germany out to buy a loaf of bread with your wheelbarrow full of paper script, I think you might pause to wonder wtf was going on.
Until I can no longer use it to pay taxes and other debts it's as much a 'real' currency as anything else.
Yes, so far. As long as enough of you continue to fall for the joke, the scheme can continue and nobody's the wiser. That's all I'm really saying here. Have you heard of Bernie Madoff? It's not really all that different a situation, once you come to think of it.
Is there any gold still in Fort Knox? Brad Meltzor's (Metzlers? sp?) "Decoded" isn't sure, and nobody's being let in to check, so wtf is going on, really? "Shhh..."
Let's start over. On the one hand, you've got gold. On the other, paper money. People can do stuff with gold. It's inherently valuable. You can actually make things with it. Valuable things. Paper money is... whatever people believe it is.
So, back in the '70s, I bought a Krugerrand for about C$460.00. That ounce of gold is selling for about (?) two grand today. What changed? Did the Krugerrand appreciate, or did the paper money depreciate?
Hint: yes! It's an equation.:-)
Take your time. Sorry if I come across as insulting. I can sure be a jerk at times.
Slashdot Mirror
*Some people* find asking someone else to handle their problem far easier than looking it up online. By some people I mean the majority of people.
That's called "being lazy" and "not wanting to learn." Can you not understand how tiring that sort of person can be to those who aren't lazy and do try to learn?
I can't even watch Netflix on my Linux install without a Windows VM.
On the other hand, Windows refuses to play DVDs that my European friends send to me as gifts. Linux will.
I know why I switched back to Windows - I couldn't figure out into what directory I should install new programs.
Linux doesn't tell you what you should do. You tell Linux what it should do.
Then other angry Linux nerds will yell at you about what you *should* have done.
Who're these angry Linux nerds of whom you speak? Well, maybe on /. that's apropos.
My first question would be, why aren't you using the supplied tools to install your program? If it's in the repo, the system will install the correct version for you in he right place. If it's some source code you want to fiddle with, put it under your HOME directory somewhere.
I'd also suggest (politely) where to find answers to similar questions. Obviously, he didn't look in the right places.
IFF you know what you're doing, and it's source code you want to build for everyone on the system to be able to use, Linux standardized on /usr/local last century.
Every system comes with somewhat of a learning curve. The beauty of the *nix way is supposed to be that everything you learn makes all the rest of what you need to learn easier; the learning curve flattens out the more you learn.
It's Linux geeks, btw. Nerds are the guys wearing pocket protectors, and tape holding their glasses together.
... to Apple? Because that's what people want - something that works, not something you have to make a hobby of just to keep running between distro-hops.
All you're doing is displaying your own ignorance. Fine, you don't know how to install Linux and configure it so it works the way you want it to. I know.
When my friends ask me about it, I install it for them with them watching over my shoulder, tweak a few things for their environment, test it to ensure everything works as it should, and teach them how to use it. They generally have very few troubles with it from then on. If you *don't* know how to do all that, yeah, you're going to be lost if you can't be arsed to do some research.
!@#$%ing about it on /. from a position of ignorance helps nobody, not even you. I've been running Debian since the late '90s and Linux since '93. Seldom do I need to reinstall, usually only because I didn't make a partition big enough, but newbs don't even need to worry about that. Dump the whole thing into one honking big ptn and call it a day.
Yes, I have played around with a lot of the others just to test them out and see what they're like. It's great to have the option.
As many in here have said, if you're a newb, go for *buntu. I prefer Xubuntu for them. The Ubuntu forums are very civilized if you need support.
Just stop calling it a dog just because you couldn't get it to work a decade ago.
It was nice knowing the internet. Now the wicked people have figured out how to pervert it we can kiss it goodbye.
Internet: "Rumors of my demise have been greatly exagerated."
Think "whack-a-mole", and maybe you ought to read Fahrenheit 451. All the MafiAA are succeeding in doing is driving the pirates further out of their reach. Even unsophisticated users know they can get onto web forums and search engines to find answers to boneheaded moves like this.
Politicians get campaign financing, artists learn to publish and promote their own works independent of the labels, the law gets even more screwed up than it already is, and fans learn that doing things the MafiAA's way is frustrating and not worth paying for. Way to go, MafiAA. :-P
What's that sound? Ah yes, the sound of stampeding fanbois.
You'd have to dig pretty deep into my posting history to find anything that I've written lauding Apple. I guess that'd be a bit more work than spitting vitriolic contentless one liners, though.
Perhaps, though I think the larger and more obvious astroturfing effort here is the anti-union sentiment. Damn those corrupt unions wanting things like running water. Next you know, they'll be asking for bathrooms.
I thought that was just typical Murricanism. North American based business is pretty labour hostile from what I've seen.
If all unions did was lobby for better conditions, they wouldn't be despised quite so much. Instead, they let Jimmy Hoffa take them over, skim the top off retirement funds, union leaders set themselves up as little fiefdoms taking kickbacks from all over, and charge union dues. WTF does a union need to charge union dues for?!? Hookers and blow, of course.
Frankly, that sounds like democracy as currently practised. The rank and file can't even keep union leaders in check, much less Congress.
TFA states the workers threatening to strike are at the the Jundiaà factory. Isn't that where the xbox is made?
Astroturfing, much?
Pot, meet kettle.
"Apple, and Dell, and Samsung, and Amazon, and Tosiba, and .... (insert [every] other company producing consumer electronics here) ...partner Foxconn"
None of those other companies really grab headlines these days.
Samsung and Amazon sure do. I'm no Apple fanboi but even I think there's a concerted astroturfing effort going on to tar Apple anytime a Foxconn story is released, or when anything comes out that can be spun as anti-Apple.
Anonymous reader, you're not fooling anyone.
And I worked for a company that thought they could move the South East Asian data centre to the UK based on your assumption. Guess what, that extra 200-300ms latency caused job queues to blow out by a good 1-2 hours during peak times since the system wasn't able to get and process the jobs in a reasonable manner since all the timings were based on a LAN environment.
If your environment is moving large amounts of data around in tiny slices, of course that wouldn't work. You need the data close to the crunchers or you'll suffer from network fragmentation. It sounds like that company got suckered by a smart talker who didn't bother to understand what the company was doing.
In IT, there is no one size fits all. You've got to understand what's being done and what's wanted to be done.
You're quibbling with details, nothing more:
This is more about latency than anything else.
Damned straight. I'm not even a gamer, and I get this. Some manager decided latency from AU to $wherever wouldn't work, the dork.
Outdated, and over paid managers.
It's a worldwide phenomenon. No need to blame any Australians on that account.
These should have been rated as entirely high risk (being a collection of mortgages that, due to the first CDO, were almost guaranteed to fail) but gullible ratings agencies still gave the top tranche a top rating. So investors worldwide were buying crap believing it to be a low risk investment.
The ratings agencies weren't gullible. They were in on it too. They were paid for their ratings by the people asking for the ratings. If they'd done their jobs and rated them poor, those buying the ratings would go elsewhere for them.
The ratings agencies ought to be sort of like Consumer Reports. Instead, they are just another business out to make a quick buck like everyone else. Investors should have seen this coming, but no-one thinks long-term investing anymore. Fundamentals? What are those?
I agree with those above who say it hasn't finished yet. The bailouts just bought the Too Big To Fails some time. They should have been allowed to fail, but politicians couldn't accept that when their cushy jobs were on the line.
Umm ...
TSA employees took payments of up to $2,400 to provide drug couriers unfettered access at LAX over a six-month period
Holy crap. Uh, let me do the math. Six (months) times ca. 30 days per month, times oh, I don't know, a hundred or so people standing around, ... Hmm, "echo '6 * 30 * 100' | bc"
That looks like one !@#$ of a lot of innocent bystanders/friendly casualties.
Hey thanks, TSA! :-P You !@#$%^& IDIOTS.
You can just walk from terminal 5 to 6 normally, it's not hard ...
TSA can't count up to six? Plausible.
This begs the question of whether we really need the TSA
No. I'd say it answers the question quite succinctly.
Yeah, and anyone "begging the question" on /. is seriously out of it. Damn, I'm glad I don't need to fly these days.
Since they [were] caught, and are being tried, apparently someone is watching them.
Caught by the drug runner's stupidity. Dude went down the wrong line, that's how they got snagged. I wouldn't say the TSA "caught" them by their elite skills.
Considering all that we've been hearing about the TSA's investigative skills, I don't understand why anyone's surprised by the way this story's playing out. It just looks like more of the same that we should expect of them. Incompetent bunglers tripping over themselves and *wonder of wonders* an idiot falls into their laps. Woohoo! Got one. The surprise is they actually noticed.
What a waste of money "security theatre" is. It's not even all that entertaining.
OT, sorry. Can you please point me at something that's a bit more understandable than Wikipedia, because that's really making my head hurt. Or, I suppose I could just bang my head on a table for the same effect. Thanks in advance.
I suppose I could $google it myself. Will do, but insights are welcome.
Just sayin'. It ought to be against the law for .sigs to get that deep.
Governments are free to print extra money all they want, and devalue the currency ...
Finally, someone who gets it! I was beginning to think I was alone.
... and no one party is able to say, spend billions bailing out a particular company they're fond of.
Then, you just !@#$ing had to remind me of Goldman Sachs, you !@#$%^&. :-) # <-- Note the smiley.
It's not hard to understand [how] it works, it's hard to understand how it's an improvement.
Fiat money, or its value, can be manipulated. End of story. It's been going on for all of recorded history.
For physical currency, taxes to the government prevent counterfeiting.
What?!?
For [bitcoins], money is spent on GPU cycles to [prevent] both. If you can prove that it's actually cheaper, and just just a cost shift, be my guest.
"Just a cost shift"?!? I really don't understand what you're saying. "Money" is just markers. Paper dollars, silver dollars, Japanese Yen, bitcoins, whatever. They're all just markers.
Can politicians or Wall St. manipulate the value of any or all of them? That's the question. The bitcoin people believe all the others can be manipulated but that bitcoins can't. Is that true? That's what I want to know.
I never said that bitcoin mining creates value.
Except, to everyone who uses bitcoin, it does.
What's a dollar? If you're on /., you may understand computer programming code. A dollar is analogous to a variable. The variable's not worth anything, but it can contain a value. Really, what's a silver (or paper) dollar worth? Whatever it can buy, right? What else can you do with a dollar? Nothing, right? Well, okay, you could use it to wipe your butt, but other than that? Even lit on fire, it won't keep you warm for long.
[No, I'm not into bitcoin mining, but I do consider its implications intriguing.]
"buttcoins" again. That's not really as funny as you think it is.
If a viable market can be built around bitcoins, there is one hell of a lot riding on this. Every government that relies on fiat money and taxation to fund its operations has one !@#$ of a lot riding on this. If bitcoins can take the place of the gold standard, Keynsian financed government will implode ("poof"). There's a lot riding on this. There's likely a lot of government flacks doing everything they can possibly imagine to undercut its potential. If bitcoin gets anywhere, fiat money's soon going to be worth less than used toilet paper.
The only way your money buys more stuff is if the prices are lower.
Wrong. Symptom! You can buy more stuff if your money's worth more.
This isn't even math. It's just arithmetic.
No, I don't believe that money should be treated that way.
I was simply saying that many people (myself included) have given this some thought and think that the status quo is far from desirable, but far better than what is proposed by goldbugs.
No problemo. :-)
I just want you to appreciate that some of us have heard your arguments and disagree.
Honest, I really have no sticks in this fire. I'm just trying to inform. And I'll be dead soon, so what does it matter? Have a lovely afternoon. :-)
Still, if you were in 1920s Germany out to buy a loaf of bread with your wheelbarrow full of paper script, I think you might pause to wonder wtf was going on.
Until I can no longer use it to pay taxes and other debts it's as much a 'real' currency as anything else.
Yes, so far. As long as enough of you continue to fall for the joke, the scheme can continue and nobody's the wiser. That's all I'm really saying here. Have you heard of Bernie Madoff? It's not really all that different a situation, once you come to think of it.
Is there any gold still in Fort Knox? Brad Meltzor's (Metzlers? sp?) "Decoded" isn't sure, and nobody's being let in to check, so wtf is going on, really? "Shhh ..."
Let's start over. On the one hand, you've got gold. On the other, paper money. People can do stuff with gold. It's inherently valuable. You can actually make things with it. Valuable things. Paper money is ... whatever people believe it is.
So, back in the '70s, I bought a Krugerrand for about C$460.00. That ounce of gold is selling for about (?) two grand today. What changed? Did the Krugerrand appreciate, or did the paper money depreciate?
Hint: yes! It's an equation. :-)
Take your time. Sorry if I come across as insulting. I can sure be a jerk at times.