As far as Windows 7 is concerned, it was simply another drive.
You raise really good points. There is one unfortunate thing in the behavior of Windows' installation process when it comes to drives it doesn't understand. But first, an example:
Let's assume that you're installing Windows on a system with two hard disks. On the first disk exists Linux or BSD. You plan on using the bootloader to boot Windows (off the second disk). The second disk is blank. When you attempt to install Windows to the second disk, it will alert you that it needs to make changes (i.e. wipe the bootloader) on the first disk. It's possible a situation like that might result in unexpected changes, but it's not difficult to resolve--simply load a live CD and replace the bootloader. (At least, this prompt would occur with Windows XP--I have no idea with Windows 7 because of a habit I've acquired. Keep reading.)
However, I've never actually had windows make any unexpected alterations to anything other than the disk I was installing to. Perhaps it's partially thanks to a healthy dose of paranoia; whenever I install Windows to a dedicated disk--really, whenever I install any OS, I have a habit of unplugging all the drives I don't want to touch. As you alluded to, since the OP clearly didn't take such precautions, he sort of got what was coming to him.
Maybe my measures are a little excessive, but when I'm dealing with the prospect of having to reinstall several OSes just because of a stupid late-night mistake, a typo, or maybe a software bug, I'd rather take the time to make sure it can't happen. Not that this method isn't fraught with complications--it's possible to unplug the wrong drive. But, that's why you check it first to make sure it is the one you want to wipe!
So yes, you're exactly right. The OP really should have taken greater precautions with his data. It would've saved him a reinstall.
On the top of your browser, there's an address bar, after the http:/// [http] and before the next / does the word 'slashdot.org' appear?
I'm assuming yes, so seriously, what did you expect?
I actually chuckled at this. While you're jesting, I should confess an analogous story of a friend of mine.
For as long as I've known him, he's had the unusual capacity of being able to break nearly anything he comes in touch with. Ubuntu install? Lasted 10 minutes. Gentoo install? After about 15 tries just to install the thing, he borked it in less than 5. Windows XP? Maybe a day. Windows Vista? Same thing. His Mac? I think it lasted a week. Now, to be fair, he has a penchant to fiddle with things that needn't be fiddled with, but his prowess of breaking systems is truly unmatched by anyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if the OP talking about Windows 7 putting a partition on his other drive was this friend of mine--or maybe they're related! While I've suggested he should work in the QA department of a large software company, he's always politely declined.
Worse, this doesn't even begin to take into account the problems he's had with various software. Be it Office, games (he's broken Steam and WoW both), Safari, Outlook--you name it. I think the only thing spared from his wrath has been Firefox. Though, I'm not altogether certain whether it was for fear of screwing up the one browser he can resort to in a time of crisis.:)
I've simply come to the conclusion that some people are problem prone. It was like that when I did tech support years ago--weird problems follow certain people. Aside from the dread of having to troubleshoot something weirdly unusual when that same person calls every three days, it's actually rather comical. Then again, retrospect tends to take on a rosy hue.
For what it's worth, this friend of mine has gotten significantly better over the years at resolving his issues, and he almost never asks me for help unless he's encountered something really strange. So, there is a cure: Toss 'em in the water and let them learn to swim! Just watch for sharks. (N.B. it does help if they can sort of swim first.)
However, as far as close friends go, while difficult for me to quantify, the number would not be 3. Heck, I have 2 parents, 3 siblings and 1 husband and that right there doubles it. And yes, they are all "close" friends
That's really more of a linguistic difference in my mind. I don't classify family as friends--they're family. So yes, I could see how it's possible to surmise that one might have in excess of 15 "close friends" by default (including family), but not everyone does. It isn't to suggest that I don't consider family friends, but I place them in an entirely different category. As such, there is close family and regular family.:)
I know many INTP/Jers (married to one) who prefer the efficiency of Facebook because they can communicate what they need to and be less social while doing so.
It could be a regional thing and might make for a worthwhile study. My experience is quite the opposite; I know of many INTJs (while not social, we can be clannish) who don't use the likes of Facebook because of their perception of it as a waste of time. I do know of some who have even tried to use it but gave up.
Facebook has a great deal of utility to a lot of people (you included). Some of us think it's pointless. That alone was the essence of my point, and I would still wager that a majority of those who find it pointless are INT(P|J) types. Of course, it's pure speculation--until there's a study done, we have no proof either way. My intuition tells me I'm right.
Your math sort of makes it seem like 4-5% of a market isn't a lot to account for, yet that 4-5% means in terms of the OS market hundreds of millions of users.
I believe the OP said this:
For the 90% of consumers who would never run chkdsk, and who don't have more then one parition, this is a complete non-issue.
So really, it would be 10%. I sincerely doubt, however, that this chkdsk issue would affect more than an incredibly small number of systems. In other words, the grandparent is right. It's a non-issue.
Hmm. I'm very much INTP and I agree with your personality reading - but the opposite is true for me.To me Facebook is a godsend BECAUSE I have difficulty otherwise keeping in touch with my friends - if I don't make conscious effort, they just drift out of my life because I'm not constantly going places and doing things, so I need an automated system to be a social prosthetic.
That use of Facebook I can understand--and it really does make sense. I do wonder if it has anything at all to do with your INTP nature. I know of one INTP who just took his bar exam; you wouldn't know he's an INTP because he does have some social leanings, so it's important to consider that the MBTI is fairly generic and not apt to explain how everyone works.
Since I'm an INTJ, I think that's something of a hurdle. Maybe this isn't necessarily true for all INTJs, but a majority of the ones I know tend to find social networking and small talk to be a complete waste of time (for us). That isn't to say small talk is wrong nor that we're particularly brain damaged (some types might think so!); we just don't get it.
Events where your friends are saying "Where is better unix than unix?" and the response is "Oh, Better is not on Facebook."
I don't really think betterunixthanunix would care; I can't speak for him, but I can speak for myself. I don't use Facebook because it's largely a waste of my time. I have a blog, a small message board, and keep in touch with most of my friends via IM, e-mail, or telephone. I think many of the original points betterunixthanunix raised are correct. Most people probably don't bother keeping in touch with various people they have known over the years. I certainly know I'm one of them. Your particular situation is probably more of an exception than a rule.
The other issue is that most Slashdotters are of an MBTI (personality type) called INTJ. I suspect we're alien to you, and here's why:
[I]f I had to call 350 of my closest friends...
I don't understand that. I'm an INTJ, and "closest friends" to me are limited to about three people. It is honestly impossible for me to understand how someone can have 30 close friends much less 350 of them. Likewise, I imagine it is impossible for you to understand the case of the INTJ; how can he possible have only 3 close friends? It's easy when you're of one particular personality type to assume anyone else can be exactly like you (I've certainly fallen into that trap before!). The MBTI exists for a reason, and I think it's an excellent means of quantifying differences and similarities among the various type traits people exhibit.
Back to Slashdot, it is no surprise then that a significant number of posters agree that Facebook is a waste of time. According to Eric Raymond, a majority of "hacker" types tend toward the INTJ and INTP MBTI types. That means we tend to be antisocial (that's not a bad thing, no matter how the media portrays it) and we prefer our own company over that of others. It doesn't mean we're weird. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us. We'd rather curl up with a good book or sit in front of a screen writing code than goplacesdothingskeepbusy.
Then again, social networking wasn't written for people like us, and that's fine. We don't really care whether someone uses it--most of us won't--but when pressed for an opinion, we'll be more than happy to share. I think that was betterunixthanunix's point. Then there's the obvious point that a majority of people may simply contact old friends and acquaintances for the novelty alone. Once the novelty has evaporated, it's back to the vacuum of normal life. There's nothing wrong with that, either. Most socialites tend to enjoy novelty. It's just that the novelty of rediscovering old friendships seldom lasts. This doesn't mirror your case, of course, but it is a pretty good parallel to what I think is the norm.
If you can't articulate without resorting to words that have been deemed impolite by a society that existed even before IRC (yes, some things did =) then you're not going to go far in life.
By the same token, if you are too emotional to articulate without swearing you're probably not going to take enough notice of the advice you're given in a help channel.
I understand your point; I assume it wasn't intended for me, specifically. (You'll notice I generally don't use swear words in my posts--in fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any.) I do have to take issue with a few things in particular...
Having a bunch of lame kids in who cannot communicate without swearing...
Well, here's the thing: It isn't just kids who swear. Kids swear because they think it's cool and pushes the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by society. It's part of the socialization process to learn what they can and cannot get away with. Likewise, there are plenty of adults who swear but for a completely different reason (in general). Sometimes it's the only way to get the point across. Really, if someone is so easily offended by swear words, they're probably more apt to support strong censorship of movies, media, and various forms of communication. Really, it's a two-way street. There are people who swear too much, and there are people who are so thin-skinned they can't handle even a border-line swear word.
As an aside, there is some research that suggests swearing might be a form of pain relief. Like it or not, stubbing one's toe and letting loose with a cascade of violent insults directed toward no one in particular really does feel good.
Rules are there to be arbitrary, that is their function
No it's not. Rules exist to enforce strict order and to set boundaries. An arbitrary rule would mean simply that it can be applied to any situation to mean anything. Arbitrary rules don't work. Contrast the following:
Exhibit A: Clear, concise rule. Please don't swear in this channel. Thank you.
Exhibit B: Arbitrary rule. Please don't do anything that might upset the OPs. Thank you.
How do you know where the boundaries are in exhibit B? You don't. That's why rules are not arbitrary. I'm sure you remember something from school; can you recall a list of things the teacher didn't want you to do? They were usually quite specific for a reason.
Any form of censorship is always worse than the censored item. (to paraphrase a/. sig I particularly like).
Slightly ironic. You allude to individuals who cannot communicate without swearing and support OPs' decisions to enforce what is effectively a form of censorship (swearing is a form of expression) and yet a.sig you like stresses that censorship is a rather bad thing.
Perhaps you're being ironic; I see a strong disconnect here. Maybe you can clarify.
Hey, just because you voted republican doesn't mean you can expect a black man to come over and sort out your mess for free!
Ironically, that statement represents what's wrong with race relations in this country. Instead of being the President of the United States, Obama is a black man first?
I understand you were probably joking, but seriously, can we please put some effort into making a good example for the future and not bring up the color of someone's skin. It shouldn't matter if we agree or disagree or whether he ran on a platform of being the first black president.
I just went to the vmware site to look into running Vmware on FreeBSD. They have a thread from 2005 where users wanted to migrate vmware hosts from Linux to FreeBSD for stability reasons.
That doesn't really surprise me. On the whole, my experience with FreeBSD has been that it is much more stable than most varieties of Linux. The only reason I'm running Gentoo on my file server at home is due to the fact that my printer was poorly behaved with CUPS + FreeBSD. That was back in 2004, so I'd imagine things have probably changed since then, but I haven't had the motivation to change OSes again. (However, I did have FreeBSD on my home router/file server for many years prior to that.)
But, I admit my attempt to defuse the parents' rotten analogy regarding Linux v. Windows was poor and largely wrong. I've never personally had much trouble except in one edge case with FreeBSD's driver support (and that was with a relatively recent onboard NIC back in 2003--nothing a little change of code couldn't fix along with a makeworld, though!).
It does seem like it was a standard settlement boilerplate, and the family misinterpreted it. Mind you, companies are happy to barf legalese at us when we can misunderstand it in their favour, so I'm happy to see someone misunderstand that legalese in a way that harms a company's PR.
I didn't get that from the article. While it's most certainly possible the family misinterpreted Apple's response, there is some indication that this same thing has happened in other cases. Assume the story has been reported correctly and the father did in fact ask for a refund, then Apple should not be absolved of guilt in this case. If he threatened to take legal action against Apple, then I could understand that the company felt the need to send out legal paperwork.
I'm inclined to believe litigation wasn't something he was thinking of. It seems to me that he 1) asked Apple for a refund, 2) they sent back a notice that he could have a refund if he signed an agreement not to disclose the details of the refund or the existence of such an agreement, and 3) the father was so dumbfounded by this act that he felt it was more appropriate to take it to the press than to file suit.
Sometimes public embarrassment can do a whole lot more good than litigation. Given Apple's recent behavior, I think a little corporate embarrassment might be a healthy thing.
I hate this kind of thing, but I do believe that this is a standard practice for settlements outside of court for ANY company not just Apple. The father is now reacting hysterically to this statement and the reporter has picked up on it in order to get some press.
I certainly hope signing legal papers isn't standard practice in asking for a refund!
"We're sorry sir, but before we can refund those rotten tomatoes, we'll need you to sign here." Yeah, that'd go over real well in the grocer sector...
For what it's worth, a settlement implies there was some sort of litigation threatened against Apple. I read the article, and I can't seem to find where litigation was mentioned. Were you, perhaps, reading it from another source?
But sensationalist headlines and bogus stories against companies like Apple who favor the democratic party are typical for "news" organizations like the Times and Fox who are both owned by News Corporation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
-1, Offtopic. I'm not sure what that has to do with an exploding iPod or the fact that the father stated he simply asked for a refund. I wonder where the mods with some sense are today? +3 informative on a post that equates refunds with legal settlements? Yikes.
Effectively, yes. In the context I used it, it meant exactly what it meant and nothing more. I apologize if my choice of words was confusing. Whenever I sacrifice clarity for brevity there are always casualties. Or was that... causalities? Hmm!;)
The "rationale" for it is that everyone has to pay the recording industry when buying recordable media in case they use it for copyright infringement, and to offset the losses from the people who actually do it. No more innocent until proven guilty!
I did not know that. Thank you for educating me! I daresay that I was rather hoping you'd tell me that such taxes went to the government instead. Since that's not the case, it's clear then that an international precedent has already been set--and that means it's just a matter of time until countries outside of Europe have to pay their dues, too! What I find most fascinating is that it's the same rationale used to attach *AA taxes to DVDs and CDRs.
This is just outrageous and disgusting. You're absolutely right, though. Guilt is automatically presumed. Then again, the recording industry has the money--and the lobbyists--to effectively get what they want. How can we do anything to stop them except stop buying their goods?
What has happened to people! Is there no sense of adventure? Must everything have a cost benefit analysis done? The USA wouldn't have landed a man on the moon with you people in charge. Not everything we do must have an immediate and direct benefit to society. Not everything must make a buck.
Look at it this way.
Putting money in to the space program employs people, keeps them employed, or causes contractors to hire new employees for the initial duration of a mission (such as technicians during the construction of a new probe or rocket). That's a direct benefit. You could also argue that working for the government is more stable during these economic climes--though working for a government contractor is much less so.
Then there's the somewhat distant benefit that you alluded to with regards to science, discoveries, and even new materials or construction techniques that might find their way into aerospace or the automotive industry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I could therefore argue that programs like these have an immediate benefit as well.
Though, I do question the point of visiting the Lagrange points. Exploiting them isn't new to us, and I kinda get the idea that either the poster of this story or the author of the Times article didn't do their homework. First, the article doesn't mention any specific Lagrange point; whether I can blame them directly for ignorance is uncertain. Wisebabo (the submitter), however, is evidently not aware that we already have twoprobes at the Earth-Sun L2 point and we're planning on sending three more.
Seriously, the L2 point isn't something we've never visited. We have probes there.
I was hoping that most people got my intent when reading my post.
I know I did, because each of the posts you've written in this thread are completely spot-on. I'd like to add some points of agreement, too. But first, a little bit about myself: I'm a child of the 80s-90s, which means that I wasn't born prior to the over-commercialization of produce. However, I do have some recollection of how marvelous fresh produce is because of the local markets that used to exist in this part of the country. That, and my mum used to grow her own tomatoes and the likes. There's absolutely no comparison.
First, the tomatoes and subsequently the growers. I haven't anything against commercialization; without it, we'd have a hard time feeding the population we do. That's perfectly fine. But anyone who would argue that commercial produce like tomatoes are just fine hasn't ever been exposed to fresh stuff. Store bought tomatoes give me awful heartburn and taste like cardboard; contrasted with my mum's (and some locally grown ones), it's amazing. There's a wonderful flavor, and they don't bother me in the slightest. I can only guess that the added fructose must offset the acids. I have no idea.
Second, the chiles. I admit that living in New Mexico means there's a lot of local growers for both those and jalapenos. So, I'm fortunate in that regard.
And thirdly, the beef. The black angus stuff you mentioned is most definitely a joke. It's horrible. I'd rather buy stuff from the local butcher which, while it's also commercially grown, still tastes better than the crap that is marketed as the "best" beef. But again, I'm not old enough to have ever experienced what meat was like prior to the various changes in how beef is raised. There are some local ranchers around here, too, but as far as I'm aware, I've never actually had any of the meats they've raised. It's a shame, too, because the cattle here free range. But then, the meat is largely sold to restaurants and out of state. So much for the local economy. =/
You'll see this in all types of communities. It has nothing to do with those folks being technically oriented or not, but has everything to do with base human nature.
I'm not so sure that justifies ruling a discussion channel with an iron fist, though. For the *BSD crowd it certainly wasn't the case.
I run a (fairly small) community myself; in some cases, you can get away with one that is fairly self-policing and requires very little "hands on" administration. Of course, that depends largely on the people who participate, and maybe the Linux crowds have had more trouble with problematic individuals than the *BSD folks. Although, that could be argued as culture: Linux tends to be more attractive to certain groups than does BSD.
Even still, I believe that it is possible to get away with a fairly friendly discussion channel without ruling it with an iron fist. Obviously, this won't work in all circumstances, but I believe it can in some.
At first, I thought this was an OT rambling post... (hey, I didn't sleep well last night!)
But then I read your post more carefully and realized this sums up marvelously the problem with stupid anti-swearing rules.
But ops want to impose their private world on the rest of the users, and because they can't persuade ppl with words, they kick and ban.
Wouldn't you say this could apply to society as a whole, too? Except, instead of kick and ban, it's sue. Ironically, this comes after we here in the US are banning certain words from use in textbooks because they're sexist (caveman comes to mind).
I'm friend'ing you, because this is almost exactly what I was thinking this morning. I've noticed that many comments are growing increasingly more abrasive and generally angry; even over relatively petty things (like you mentioned)!
Though, I've observed that the real obnoxious comments fall into two (very general) groups:
1) The person who feels the need to point out the painfully obvious but does so with a condescending tone. This person typically either repeats what you said--almost verbatim--or argues a point you've already addressed. Both circumstances are indicative of poor reading comprehension skills (more accurately: laziness). There's also an inkling of what I can only describe as the "I'm writing this in the hopes I make you look stupid since I'm so very, very smart." 2) Just plain asshatery.
Posters in camp #1 tend to get modded up and in worse circumstances, your comments get modded down, even if they raise a good point. Subsequently, anyone else who comes in to defend you is either modded down or has a repeat of the same tactic performed against them. Posters in camp #2 tend to get modded Flamebait or Troll. Though, there's also a great deal of vacillation between these two for most posters.
Now, I will confess that on days I've been especially grumpy, I've said things in a manner that was most definitely not objective. But... I think that's true for most of us.
Oh, and there's a slight corollary to #1. There's a distinctive subset of that group which brings up a point that's not completely related to the post they're replying to, but they feel the need to argue it in the hopes of somehow disproving the original poster. Typically, this has little impact on their karma (positive or negative), although there is some tendency to be modded up.
And this is quite different from any Windows vs. Linux arguments, since Windows isn't open-source.
No, it's not. The spirit of the argument is that--at the time--Linux had limited support. It's true. Developers were focusing on Windows.
Now, while that may not have changed all that much, developers for the enterprise cannot help but pay attention to Linux. So really, the poster you're taking issue with has a point; to a certain extent the idea of FreeBSD v. Linux is analogous to Linux v. Windows.
But, back to your earlier comment, I think you pretty well inadvertently displayed your bias against BSD for whatever reason by suggesting 3D video cards weren't supported. That may be true for ATI, but NVIDIA releases drivers specifically for FreeBSD. I also know of a gentleman who managed to get WoW working under Wine in FreeBSD, too, on (at the time) very new hardware.
Again, my experience is merely anecdotal and not necessarily something that would be reflected by everyone else. (For what it's worth, I used Gentoo as my primary desktop OS for about 1.5 years, but I seldom participated in IRC much except for the mere curiosity.)
One thing I find most interesting is, again, the swearing rule. It seems to apply to most Linux distros, yet most BSD-centric channels don't seem to enforce those same sorts of requirements. I'm not sure why. Again, maybe it's culture.
There's quite a bit of code-sharing between the BSDs. I wouldn't be surprised if you found Theo's name stamped all over parts of FreeBSD. Then again, maybe they dislike him intensely enough that they would rather roll their own than import his code.
I sincerely doubt that they'd be so silly as to let the abrasiveness of someone's personality dictate whether they include code or not. For other OpenBSD spin-off projects (OpenSSH), they seem to be included most everywhere.
But again, as I pointed out to someone who replied to me (below), my statements were explicitly about project management, not the actual product. Hence why I wanted to indicate that Theo is not representative of all the BSDs as he is the head of OpenBSD. Whether FreeBSD or NetBSD shares code with them is incidental; the management is entirely different.
Slashdot Mirror
You raise really good points. There is one unfortunate thing in the behavior of Windows' installation process when it comes to drives it doesn't understand. But first, an example:
Let's assume that you're installing Windows on a system with two hard disks. On the first disk exists Linux or BSD. You plan on using the bootloader to boot Windows (off the second disk). The second disk is blank. When you attempt to install Windows to the second disk, it will alert you that it needs to make changes (i.e. wipe the bootloader) on the first disk. It's possible a situation like that might result in unexpected changes, but it's not difficult to resolve--simply load a live CD and replace the bootloader. (At least, this prompt would occur with Windows XP--I have no idea with Windows 7 because of a habit I've acquired. Keep reading.)
However, I've never actually had windows make any unexpected alterations to anything other than the disk I was installing to. Perhaps it's partially thanks to a healthy dose of paranoia; whenever I install Windows to a dedicated disk--really, whenever I install any OS, I have a habit of unplugging all the drives I don't want to touch. As you alluded to, since the OP clearly didn't take such precautions, he sort of got what was coming to him.
Maybe my measures are a little excessive, but when I'm dealing with the prospect of having to reinstall several OSes just because of a stupid late-night mistake, a typo, or maybe a software bug, I'd rather take the time to make sure it can't happen. Not that this method isn't fraught with complications--it's possible to unplug the wrong drive. But, that's why you check it first to make sure it is the one you want to wipe!
So yes, you're exactly right. The OP really should have taken greater precautions with his data. It would've saved him a reinstall.
I actually chuckled at this. While you're jesting, I should confess an analogous story of a friend of mine.
For as long as I've known him, he's had the unusual capacity of being able to break nearly anything he comes in touch with. Ubuntu install? Lasted 10 minutes. Gentoo install? After about 15 tries just to install the thing, he borked it in less than 5. Windows XP? Maybe a day. Windows Vista? Same thing. His Mac? I think it lasted a week. Now, to be fair, he has a penchant to fiddle with things that needn't be fiddled with, but his prowess of breaking systems is truly unmatched by anyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if the OP talking about Windows 7 putting a partition on his other drive was this friend of mine--or maybe they're related! While I've suggested he should work in the QA department of a large software company, he's always politely declined.
Worse, this doesn't even begin to take into account the problems he's had with various software. Be it Office, games (he's broken Steam and WoW both), Safari, Outlook--you name it. I think the only thing spared from his wrath has been Firefox. Though, I'm not altogether certain whether it was for fear of screwing up the one browser he can resort to in a time of crisis. :)
I've simply come to the conclusion that some people are problem prone. It was like that when I did tech support years ago--weird problems follow certain people. Aside from the dread of having to troubleshoot something weirdly unusual when that same person calls every three days, it's actually rather comical. Then again, retrospect tends to take on a rosy hue.
For what it's worth, this friend of mine has gotten significantly better over the years at resolving his issues, and he almost never asks me for help unless he's encountered something really strange. So, there is a cure: Toss 'em in the water and let them learn to swim! Just watch for sharks. (N.B. it does help if they can sort of swim first.)
That's really more of a linguistic difference in my mind. I don't classify family as friends--they're family. So yes, I could see how it's possible to surmise that one might have in excess of 15 "close friends" by default (including family), but not everyone does. It isn't to suggest that I don't consider family friends, but I place them in an entirely different category. As such, there is close family and regular family. :)
It could be a regional thing and might make for a worthwhile study. My experience is quite the opposite; I know of many INTJs (while not social, we can be clannish) who don't use the likes of Facebook because of their perception of it as a waste of time. I do know of some who have even tried to use it but gave up.
Facebook has a great deal of utility to a lot of people (you included). Some of us think it's pointless. That alone was the essence of my point, and I would still wager that a majority of those who find it pointless are INT(P|J) types. Of course, it's pure speculation--until there's a study done, we have no proof either way. My intuition tells me I'm right.
I believe the OP said this:
So really, it would be 10%. I sincerely doubt, however, that this chkdsk issue would affect more than an incredibly small number of systems. In other words, the grandparent is right. It's a non-issue.
That use of Facebook I can understand--and it really does make sense. I do wonder if it has anything at all to do with your INTP nature. I know of one INTP who just took his bar exam; you wouldn't know he's an INTP because he does have some social leanings, so it's important to consider that the MBTI is fairly generic and not apt to explain how everyone works.
Since I'm an INTJ, I think that's something of a hurdle. Maybe this isn't necessarily true for all INTJs, but a majority of the ones I know tend to find social networking and small talk to be a complete waste of time (for us). That isn't to say small talk is wrong nor that we're particularly brain damaged (some types might think so!); we just don't get it.
I don't really think betterunixthanunix would care; I can't speak for him, but I can speak for myself. I don't use Facebook because it's largely a waste of my time. I have a blog, a small message board, and keep in touch with most of my friends via IM, e-mail, or telephone. I think many of the original points betterunixthanunix raised are correct. Most people probably don't bother keeping in touch with various people they have known over the years. I certainly know I'm one of them. Your particular situation is probably more of an exception than a rule.
The other issue is that most Slashdotters are of an MBTI (personality type) called INTJ. I suspect we're alien to you, and here's why:
I don't understand that. I'm an INTJ, and "closest friends" to me are limited to about three people. It is honestly impossible for me to understand how someone can have 30 close friends much less 350 of them. Likewise, I imagine it is impossible for you to understand the case of the INTJ; how can he possible have only 3 close friends? It's easy when you're of one particular personality type to assume anyone else can be exactly like you (I've certainly fallen into that trap before!). The MBTI exists for a reason, and I think it's an excellent means of quantifying differences and similarities among the various type traits people exhibit.
Back to Slashdot, it is no surprise then that a significant number of posters agree that Facebook is a waste of time. According to Eric Raymond, a majority of "hacker" types tend toward the INTJ and INTP MBTI types. That means we tend to be antisocial (that's not a bad thing, no matter how the media portrays it) and we prefer our own company over that of others. It doesn't mean we're weird. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us. We'd rather curl up with a good book or sit in front of a screen writing code than goplacesdothingskeepbusy.
Then again, social networking wasn't written for people like us, and that's fine. We don't really care whether someone uses it--most of us won't--but when pressed for an opinion, we'll be more than happy to share. I think that was betterunixthanunix's point. Then there's the obvious point that a majority of people may simply contact old friends and acquaintances for the novelty alone. Once the novelty has evaporated, it's back to the vacuum of normal life. There's nothing wrong with that, either. Most socialites tend to enjoy novelty. It's just that the novelty of rediscovering old friendships seldom lasts. This doesn't mirror your case, of course, but it is a pretty good parallel to what I think is the norm.
I understand your point; I assume it wasn't intended for me, specifically. (You'll notice I generally don't use swear words in my posts--in fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any.) I do have to take issue with a few things in particular...
Well, here's the thing: It isn't just kids who swear. Kids swear because they think it's cool and pushes the boundaries of what is deemed acceptable by society. It's part of the socialization process to learn what they can and cannot get away with. Likewise, there are plenty of adults who swear but for a completely different reason (in general). Sometimes it's the only way to get the point across. Really, if someone is so easily offended by swear words, they're probably more apt to support strong censorship of movies, media, and various forms of communication. Really, it's a two-way street. There are people who swear too much, and there are people who are so thin-skinned they can't handle even a border-line swear word.
As an aside, there is some research that suggests swearing might be a form of pain relief. Like it or not, stubbing one's toe and letting loose with a cascade of violent insults directed toward no one in particular really does feel good.
No it's not. Rules exist to enforce strict order and to set boundaries. An arbitrary rule would mean simply that it can be applied to any situation to mean anything. Arbitrary rules don't work. Contrast the following:
Exhibit A: Clear, concise rule. Please don't swear in this channel. Thank you.
Exhibit B: Arbitrary rule. Please don't do anything that might upset the OPs. Thank you.
How do you know where the boundaries are in exhibit B? You don't. That's why rules are not arbitrary. I'm sure you remember something from school; can you recall a list of things the teacher didn't want you to do? They were usually quite specific for a reason.
Slightly ironic. You allude to individuals who cannot communicate without swearing and support OPs' decisions to enforce what is effectively a form of censorship (swearing is a form of expression) and yet a .sig you like stresses that censorship is a rather bad thing.
Perhaps you're being ironic; I see a strong disconnect here. Maybe you can clarify.
Ironically, that statement represents what's wrong with race relations in this country. Instead of being the President of the United States, Obama is a black man first?
I understand you were probably joking, but seriously, can we please put some effort into making a good example for the future and not bring up the color of someone's skin. It shouldn't matter if we agree or disagree or whether he ran on a platform of being the first black president.
That doesn't really surprise me. On the whole, my experience with FreeBSD has been that it is much more stable than most varieties of Linux. The only reason I'm running Gentoo on my file server at home is due to the fact that my printer was poorly behaved with CUPS + FreeBSD. That was back in 2004, so I'd imagine things have probably changed since then, but I haven't had the motivation to change OSes again. (However, I did have FreeBSD on my home router/file server for many years prior to that.)
But, I admit my attempt to defuse the parents' rotten analogy regarding Linux v. Windows was poor and largely wrong. I've never personally had much trouble except in one edge case with FreeBSD's driver support (and that was with a relatively recent onboard NIC back in 2003--nothing a little change of code couldn't fix along with a makeworld, though!).
I didn't get that from the article. While it's most certainly possible the family misinterpreted Apple's response, there is some indication that this same thing has happened in other cases. Assume the story has been reported correctly and the father did in fact ask for a refund, then Apple should not be absolved of guilt in this case. If he threatened to take legal action against Apple, then I could understand that the company felt the need to send out legal paperwork.
I'm inclined to believe litigation wasn't something he was thinking of. It seems to me that he 1) asked Apple for a refund, 2) they sent back a notice that he could have a refund if he signed an agreement not to disclose the details of the refund or the existence of such an agreement, and 3) the father was so dumbfounded by this act that he felt it was more appropriate to take it to the press than to file suit.
Sometimes public embarrassment can do a whole lot more good than litigation. Given Apple's recent behavior, I think a little corporate embarrassment might be a healthy thing.
I certainly hope signing legal papers isn't standard practice in asking for a refund!
"We're sorry sir, but before we can refund those rotten tomatoes, we'll need you to sign here." Yeah, that'd go over real well in the grocer sector...
For what it's worth, a settlement implies there was some sort of litigation threatened against Apple. I read the article, and I can't seem to find where litigation was mentioned. Were you, perhaps, reading it from another source?
-1, Offtopic. I'm not sure what that has to do with an exploding iPod or the fact that the father stated he simply asked for a refund. I wonder where the mods with some sense are today? +3 informative on a post that equates refunds with legal settlements? Yikes.
Effectively, yes. In the context I used it, it meant exactly what it meant and nothing more. I apologize if my choice of words was confusing. Whenever I sacrifice clarity for brevity there are always casualties. Or was that... causalities? Hmm! ;)
I did not know that. Thank you for educating me! I daresay that I was rather hoping you'd tell me that such taxes went to the government instead. Since that's not the case, it's clear then that an international precedent has already been set--and that means it's just a matter of time until countries outside of Europe have to pay their dues, too! What I find most fascinating is that it's the same rationale used to attach *AA taxes to DVDs and CDRs.
This is just outrageous and disgusting. You're absolutely right, though. Guilt is automatically presumed. Then again, the recording industry has the money--and the lobbyists--to effectively get what they want. How can we do anything to stop them except stop buying their goods?
Ugh, it's depressing.
Do those taxes go into the coffers of the government or into the recording industry? I'm curious.
I take it you haven't been reading any of the articles about their extortion. Seems to me that their activities are completely legal.
Look at it this way.
Putting money in to the space program employs people, keeps them employed, or causes contractors to hire new employees for the initial duration of a mission (such as technicians during the construction of a new probe or rocket). That's a direct benefit. You could also argue that working for the government is more stable during these economic climes--though working for a government contractor is much less so.
Then there's the somewhat distant benefit that you alluded to with regards to science, discoveries, and even new materials or construction techniques that might find their way into aerospace or the automotive industry. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I could therefore argue that programs like these have an immediate benefit as well.
Though, I do question the point of visiting the Lagrange points. Exploiting them isn't new to us, and I kinda get the idea that either the poster of this story or the author of the Times article didn't do their homework. First, the article doesn't mention any specific Lagrange point; whether I can blame them directly for ignorance is uncertain. Wisebabo (the submitter), however, is evidently not aware that we already have two probes at the Earth-Sun L2 point and we're planning on sending three more.
Seriously, the L2 point isn't something we've never visited. We have probes there.
I know I did, because each of the posts you've written in this thread are completely spot-on. I'd like to add some points of agreement, too. But first, a little bit about myself: I'm a child of the 80s-90s, which means that I wasn't born prior to the over-commercialization of produce. However, I do have some recollection of how marvelous fresh produce is because of the local markets that used to exist in this part of the country. That, and my mum used to grow her own tomatoes and the likes. There's absolutely no comparison.
First, the tomatoes and subsequently the growers. I haven't anything against commercialization; without it, we'd have a hard time feeding the population we do. That's perfectly fine. But anyone who would argue that commercial produce like tomatoes are just fine hasn't ever been exposed to fresh stuff. Store bought tomatoes give me awful heartburn and taste like cardboard; contrasted with my mum's (and some locally grown ones), it's amazing. There's a wonderful flavor, and they don't bother me in the slightest. I can only guess that the added fructose must offset the acids. I have no idea.
Second, the chiles. I admit that living in New Mexico means there's a lot of local growers for both those and jalapenos. So, I'm fortunate in that regard.
And thirdly, the beef. The black angus stuff you mentioned is most definitely a joke. It's horrible. I'd rather buy stuff from the local butcher which, while it's also commercially grown, still tastes better than the crap that is marketed as the "best" beef. But again, I'm not old enough to have ever experienced what meat was like prior to the various changes in how beef is raised. There are some local ranchers around here, too, but as far as I'm aware, I've never actually had any of the meats they've raised. It's a shame, too, because the cattle here free range. But then, the meat is largely sold to restaurants and out of state. So much for the local economy. =/
I'm not so sure that justifies ruling a discussion channel with an iron fist, though. For the *BSD crowd it certainly wasn't the case.
I run a (fairly small) community myself; in some cases, you can get away with one that is fairly self-policing and requires very little "hands on" administration. Of course, that depends largely on the people who participate, and maybe the Linux crowds have had more trouble with problematic individuals than the *BSD folks. Although, that could be argued as culture: Linux tends to be more attractive to certain groups than does BSD.
Even still, I believe that it is possible to get away with a fairly friendly discussion channel without ruling it with an iron fist. Obviously, this won't work in all circumstances, but I believe it can in some.
Thanks a lot. Now we're all going to have to pay a *AA tax on new hard disk purchases just like we already do with blank media (CDRs/DVDs).
So much for cheap!
You mean worse. The RIAA is legally sanctioned to pretty well do as they please.
At first, I thought this was an OT rambling post... (hey, I didn't sleep well last night!)
But then I read your post more carefully and realized this sums up marvelously the problem with stupid anti-swearing rules.
Wouldn't you say this could apply to society as a whole, too? Except, instead of kick and ban, it's sue. Ironically, this comes after we here in the US are banning certain words from use in textbooks because they're sexist (caveman comes to mind).
I don't suppose you'd run for office? ;)
I'm friend'ing you, because this is almost exactly what I was thinking this morning. I've noticed that many comments are growing increasingly more abrasive and generally angry; even over relatively petty things (like you mentioned)!
Though, I've observed that the real obnoxious comments fall into two (very general) groups:
1) The person who feels the need to point out the painfully obvious but does so with a condescending tone. This person typically either repeats what you said--almost verbatim--or argues a point you've already addressed. Both circumstances are indicative of poor reading comprehension skills (more accurately: laziness). There's also an inkling of what I can only describe as the "I'm writing this in the hopes I make you look stupid since I'm so very, very smart."
2) Just plain asshatery.
Posters in camp #1 tend to get modded up and in worse circumstances, your comments get modded down, even if they raise a good point. Subsequently, anyone else who comes in to defend you is either modded down or has a repeat of the same tactic performed against them. Posters in camp #2 tend to get modded Flamebait or Troll. Though, there's also a great deal of vacillation between these two for most posters.
Now, I will confess that on days I've been especially grumpy, I've said things in a manner that was most definitely not objective. But... I think that's true for most of us.
Oh, and there's a slight corollary to #1. There's a distinctive subset of that group which brings up a point that's not completely related to the post they're replying to, but they feel the need to argue it in the hopes of somehow disproving the original poster. Typically, this has little impact on their karma (positive or negative), although there is some tendency to be modded up.
No, it's not. The spirit of the argument is that--at the time--Linux had limited support. It's true. Developers were focusing on Windows.
Now, while that may not have changed all that much, developers for the enterprise cannot help but pay attention to Linux. So really, the poster you're taking issue with has a point; to a certain extent the idea of FreeBSD v. Linux is analogous to Linux v. Windows.
But, back to your earlier comment, I think you pretty well inadvertently displayed your bias against BSD for whatever reason by suggesting 3D video cards weren't supported. That may be true for ATI, but NVIDIA releases drivers specifically for FreeBSD. I also know of a gentleman who managed to get WoW working under Wine in FreeBSD, too, on (at the time) very new hardware.
Again, my experience is merely anecdotal and not necessarily something that would be reflected by everyone else. (For what it's worth, I used Gentoo as my primary desktop OS for about 1.5 years, but I seldom participated in IRC much except for the mere curiosity.)
One thing I find most interesting is, again, the swearing rule. It seems to apply to most Linux distros, yet most BSD-centric channels don't seem to enforce those same sorts of requirements. I'm not sure why. Again, maybe it's culture.
I sincerely doubt that they'd be so silly as to let the abrasiveness of someone's personality dictate whether they include code or not. For other OpenBSD spin-off projects (OpenSSH), they seem to be included most everywhere.
But again, as I pointed out to someone who replied to me (below), my statements were explicitly about project management, not the actual product. Hence why I wanted to indicate that Theo is not representative of all the BSDs as he is the head of OpenBSD. Whether FreeBSD or NetBSD shares code with them is incidental; the management is entirely different.