Why would, or should, we be obligated to provide anything to another person? How is that different, than, say, someone being obligated to work in my field (for my profit)? It isn't.
We, as civilized people, are obligated to listen to our conscience. Part of what makes a conscience a conscience is the discretion to know when conscientious behavior is appropriate - socially, economically, and morally.
Is it moral to kill? No. Was it moral to kill a maniacal dictator who kills his own people and makes war on others? Yes. In the same vein, it is not a morally appropriate act to "provide necessities" to anyone. They've done nothing demonstrative of such beneficence. However, a moral actor will provide food to those in need, as he sees fit, according to his own means.
Once you start speaking of moral choices in terms of "requirement", you're no better than the witch burners or slavers of the past: you're forcing your views on others, to their peril.
If you make it a legal requirement for the many to provide for the needy, you end up with the list of needs growing: food, shelter, sanitation... then electricity, television, computers, the Internet. Eventually (as we do in today's society) we've got people who are on the lam who are living more corpulent lives than honest, hard working families. That seems somewhat more socially repugnant and morally negligent to me.
Today, I gave a homeless man a sandwich and put a quarter in someone else's parking meter. What "civil", honorable deed did you do?
Um so is this in the US? And if so, which state? That is an absurd law, absolutely absurd. While I can't state with certainty that it's not applicable nationwide, it would surprise me if that were the case.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.
Yet, at the same time, I'm going to have less sympathy for the idiot who leaves his house open all the time in a bad neighborhood than someone who locks their doors. Same for a slut being taken advantage of, vs. a chaste woman. If you willingly put yourself in a compromising situation, you should not only expect to get burned, but also have the realization that the amount of sympathy provided to you will be substantially less than if you were cautious.
Yeah, I think it depends on which camp you come from. Most people under, say, 30, who are not UNIX/Linux centric/are from the predominantly Windows camp/marketing-savvy, will say "sequel". Those who cut their teeth with Open Source/online sources of information for SQL refer to it as "SQL".
I've had interviews where I pronounced Microsoft's version "SQL server" and got a blank look from the (technical) interviewer. That's a bit embarassing, both for me (didn't call it the proper marketing name) and for him (no idea what i was talking about), I suppose.
I'm one of those done armchair, a-priori reasoning on global warming. Here are my reasons for believing it's "not true":
* Those behind the "global warming scare" (Gore and the others at the political forefront) are making money hand over fist for their efforts through things like carbon credits. That sounds like a profit scam moreso than someone(s) genuinely concerned. * The "man-caused climate change" argument has been made since my parents were in grade school, and now I've got kids that age. Yet, the arguments have been not only significantly, but drastically different. They are also emotional and alarmist arguments - what we typically call "propaganda" - not providing any actual facts or explanation with the presentation. * It is not because AWG "may come into conflict with one's own dogma, and thus psychologically one may be predisposed to oppose GW on that basis." It's because it will impact me, at my wallet, negatively. It will hurt everyone who falls under whatever "climate saving" tax that comes out of this, while helping (through our pain) countries like China (which have/enforce no such regulations). * There is enough of the data supporting "global warming" being found fraudulent, inaccurate, or intentionally misleading (with fairly regular basis, it seems) to call suspect to the rest of it. * If there is a dissenting voice supported by evidence of any type, they are usually ridiculed by the AGW establishment (publicly, on the news and what not) once or twice, and then promptly ignored. * Politicians have decided to politicize global warming by pushing a solution before we are certain - dead certain - that a) we are, indeed, responsible for the 'warming' and b) there is anything we can do about it, and c) what the actual causes are, and d) that anything we might do about it would actually be productive - ie, not result in more harm than good. * By that last point, I mean: don't destroy the economy outright, or make it less productive. Why? Because poor economies, and poor peoples, tend to not be environmentally conscientious. It won't do a hell of a lot of good if we're all driving EVs in 10 years if everyone is dumping or burning their motor oil to save money, or discarding their spent battery cores in the dump.
Basically, I'm repulsed by the reactionary, emotional, and illogical approach the AGW supporters take, and the deceptive, immoral political means they will go to reach their ends. It's disgusting and not befitting of an intellectual mind. Furthermore, they're pushing for things which I know (as someone who has read at least a little about history) are ultimately more destructive than instructive.
Well, you see... we scientists have accomplished our masters and doctorate degrees, unlike you normals - er, bachelor graduates. We do science-y things and co-mingle amongst ourselves, fermenting our ideas in the colander of academia.
(They use this elitist exclusion to explain why we can't understand it, and - demurely - we're supposed to just accept their egghead commands.)
Forgive my ignorance, but since you brought up Birthers (had to look that one up) and the Obama birth certificate thing: was a birth Certificate finally produced? The only thing I'd managed to find info about was some sort of quasi-birth certificate, which did not indicate actual birth location, just that he had been born.
I think a large part of the whole "Birther" argument is that Obama simply hasn't provided his own birth certificate (or any other certificate, for that matter) for validation. (Of course, this overt dismissal just makes the Birthers look crazier, which I think is the point.)
But that's also the point of the Birthers, from what I'm seeing. McCain, Kerry, Gore, Bush - they all had extensive dossiers saying "this is who I am, this is what I did". Obama just has PR, and that's the issue. There has been nothing irrefutable, in the form of paper documentation, backing up any of the man's claims: just words of friends, friends of friends, and people within the same social/political sphere. That doesn't convince me of anything other than cronyism.
Am I saying he wasn't born here? No. But I am saying that someone isn't playing above the boards on this one. Not dishonest, but secretive - and that at least suggests something to hide. Where's the era of open politics he promised us?
Except, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics. It is on those who wish to prove the exception to the rule is, indeed, the rule. If you want people to believe in global warming's existence, you've got to prove it, irrefutably.
Considering the history of climate prediction (lies, 180 degree inaccuracy, etc.), anyone trying to do that has a hard job ahead of them. We've been hearing "we're 10 years from total annihilation due to our abuse of the planet" since my parents were in grade school, and I've got kids of grade school age now, myself. Climatic temperatures were supposed to be 20 degrees hotter now than they are and agriculture will shortly become unsustainable for the population's feeding, according to what I remember being 'taught' when I was in grade school.
That's a lot to fight against. Generations of people are tired of the propagandized rhetoric and general bullshit.
If you want people to believe you - intelligent, discerning, capable people - the first thing you have to do is not treat them like idiots. That's something the climate change community (if there is one) needs to get right. The second thing they should concentrate on is not appealing to emotion (alarmist dramatization and unqualified exaggeration) but to intellect. (Look how far it's gotten the theory of evolution.)
Another big issue which is getting in the way of people "believing" in climate change/global warming/global cooling/global atmospheric sequestering/whatever is that they're concerned about the political and economic implications of anything pushed down from governments, on account of the climate change fear mongering. Anyone who (here in the US) has had to deal extensively with the EPA knows what I'm talking about. The government doesn't tend to fix the problem at hand, they just make business-as-usual more expensive. Trade embargoes on Chinese tires? Great, tires just got more expensive. Tax fuel so people drive less? Great, you just made maintaining one's lifestyle more expensive. (And, in many, many cases, just ruined the livelihood of many others - never mind lifestyle.)
What I am personally concerned about is the reactionary uh anacrophytes - people who seem terrified of old things. They're trying to push new, (scientifically) untried, short-term, ecologically destructive, and largely infeasible technologies such as ethanol, battery-powered automobiles, wind turbines, et cetera. Yes, there is value in expanding these technologies, increasing their efficiency, and so on. But these anachrophytes are vicious in their pursuits, and want regulations, new laws, and the like which will drastically and destructively change the economic landscape. These are the kinds of people who blather on about the "smog" that diesel engines put out, how they maintain our energy dependence - why they aren't a viable alternative to gas - yet they push things like lithium based batteries as "green". Which planet are they on?
And now we've got this environmental summit which, optimistically, will push forth changes that will cut down on emissions/etc. Realistically, it will be another splint on the otherwise healthy leg of the US and Western countries, allowing for China and the rest of Greater India, and the third world to push closer to us - economically and militarily.
In the best of times, such "optimistic" regulations are mildly disruptive and inconvenient to a society - at best. But these aren't the best of times; these are pretty tough times for everyone, globally. So even in a best-case scenario, we're looking at what might be generally termed, a bad idea. Struggling economies aren't terribly good at ecological preservation: they'll burn waste oil for heat, dump shit in streams, and so on. Damaging an economy for the pursuit of reducing CO2 output is ass-backwards if one has any perspective on how economies work.
So yeah, prove me wrong. The ball is in your court, but you're a long way behind in the game due to decades of slacking/misbehavior.
There are warts in Linux that do not get fixed, such as the flickering screen in Ubuntu boot and shut down, despite attention from distro's (others, such as suspending a computer, are only on a minority of chip sets and can be fixed when working with a Manufacturer)
This is nothing new, for anyone. XP, Vista, Windows 7? Yeah, they've all got issues with proper suspend - largely due to ATI and/or Nvidia drivers/hardware (as well as misc. wireless cards), it would seem.
Besides, we're talking about ARM systems not x86 systems, with a concerted vendor support. Those bugs are quite likely to be fixed, due to the diverse/capable suspend + power management functionality present in all ARM cores.
It seems that Linux needs a business to focus on it and ensure that the customer experience is fully taken into account (with deference paid to hackers and community organisations such as Gnome, Kde etc).
IBM? Redhat? Canonical? Novell? Nokia? Dell? HP? Or the (hundreds? thousand?) of others. They're all throwing their hats in, to one degree or another. Linux software development is hardly a "volunteer only" effort anymore.
One thing to ask your self is would Apple (or other unnamed companies operating in the OS space) allow such a case of the above screen flickering, or would it be dealt with even if the X server had to be replaced (if that is the problem)
I have not seen/noticed this "flickering" you speak of on any of the systems I've got/maintain. Are you talking about the graphical "loading with logo" boot/shutdown screens? And if so, why is this even a problem? (While I did reboot "recently", that "recently" was a couple weeks ago, so I do not have a solid memory of the event and can't say it doesn't happen with any certainty.)
If a non-quantifiable "flickering" and suspend issues (still endemic to many OSes/hardware platforms) are your biggest problems with Linux, it would seem you've not got all that much to complain about. (Are you sure you've done much more than install Linux? It doesn't much seem like you know what you're talking about, either.)
Probably because 13,628 packages is a drop in the bucket compared to the slew of applications available even on Windows 7 (which, arguably, is going to have fewer than, say, XP).
Granted, not all those applications are good or useful. But the perception is that more = better, and that the option, or use, of a variety of applications is a necessarily good thing. Personally, I'd rather have a dozen applications which do one thing well, than a hundred which don't scratch even one of those itches satisfied by the 12.
Chrome OS runs on a Linux kernel, but it offers exactly one app: a Web browser. If an inexpensive device that does nothing except access the Web is attractive to people, they will buy them. I don't really see how that will "shake up the Intel and Microsoft consumer PC/laptop monopoly in its boots," (sic) though. A Chrome OS device is not competitive with consumer PCs or laptops.
Yet, there's at least half a dozen ARM centric distros out there which are more than just a browser. At the very least, you've got Ubuntu, Debian, OpenEmbedded, and Angstrom distributions. You've also got a handful of special-taylored distributions.
And then you've got the graphical 'frameworks' for handhelds/embedded ARM systems: Opie, GPE (seemingly dead/merged elsewhere, I think), Qtopia/QTembedded, Maemo (based on matchbox window manager, I think), and a handful of other environments. A couple of them (well, Opie and QTembedded, at least) are more featureful and useful than both the iPhone (which some are supplanting for computers) and Windows Mobile/WinCE. There are a lot of 'base' applications there, too.
With QTembedded, you should have access to applications like koffice, which is at least on par with Pocket Word. Aside from web browsing, that'd meet 90% of most people's use. Throw in a half-decent but bare bones image editor, and you're set.
And if Linux fails you in any above combination, there's always BSD. There are a lot of applications available for ARM, many of which have already replaced Office, IE, etc. on people's desks. Sometimes, the users don't even notice the change.
Finally, you've got things like TinyCore, a minimalistic Linux distro which has a different approach to package management and the like, and also boots incredibly quickly (it's the progeny of DSL).
Honestly, I think the first person to come up with a general purpose "computer" in the form factor of a cell phone (complete with cell radio for actual use as a phone), capable of connecting to a desktop monitor and keyboard/mouse will make a killing. Make them in high enough numbers, and you could still sell them for under $400 with a decent display - and they'd still fly off the shelves.
Then you work in an exceptional location. From what I've seen, IT (unlike every other professional and non-professional field I've come in contact with) gives their employees "spin up" time. Nursing? Several months, at least, before you're expected to be comfortable in the position. Engineering? Think a significant portion of a career. Shit, even food service gives employees a couple weeks to become comfortable in the role before letting the employees be autonomous.
Every IT job I've had has been "here's your desk, now get to work". Not only have these positions expected me to intrinsically know how their specific market segment worked (and work the IT systems around them) but no time was given for familiarity with the specific role (which, in IT, is going to be substantially different from job to job, unlike the previously mentioned fields).
Granted, I've had a high amount of employer ass-hattery to contend with, but I have not found my experience to be all that exceptional in this area. IT sucks for being a cog in a wheel; we're largely seen as akin to building maintenance (at best) or janitorial (at worst) when in supportive roles, or as nicely dressed factory workers when working in a larger organization.
The fact that it was a screensaver instead of a text document or an actual program (screensavers are not executable in Linux, as they are in Windows) is a mere coincidence. The fact is it installed a program into the system, providing root privilege, which allows this to happen. PEBKAC, and to some degree, gnome-look.
Yet, still, the software did not rely on any inherent software flaw (unless you consider lack of a virus scanner a flaw, in which case you might have an argument - but over a decade of IT consensus would probably disagree). It's relying on the same thing which has gotten people in trouble since the beginning of time: gullibility, stupidity, or similar.
Would you hold the lock responsible if someone forgot to lock their doors and got robbed? What if they let the thief in themselves? That's a human fault, and what we're talking about here. The usual Windows scenario is more akin to the lock not keeping the thief out.
This was not an 'infection' unless the user typed in their sudoer password for the program to be installed. A system 'infection' requires that the system has a resident program running, from boot. A process running as a user would only be able to be launched once that user logs in.
Yes, it's true that Linux malware problems are marginal to non-existent compared to Windows, quite probably in large part due to market share. But that is not the primary reason, by any stretch of the imagination. When you consider how many servers run Linux, you'd think there'd be substantially more "linux" variant malware packages which would infect servers, so as to get to clients (Windows, Mac, or otherwise). While they exist, they are not common compared to the slew of Windows malware programs available in one click from any search engine.
Better get your resume ready fast, too. Seems companies are fond of doing layoffs directly before or after the holidays, in my experience. HR really is a bunch of sadistic fucks.
Could you direct me towards the cheap, powerful computers please? The big ones.
Yeah, those don't exist. Unfortunately, you've got an entry bar of around $500 if you want "powerful" computers. Companies do a pretty good job of keeping prices for useful computers above $200; don't expect to see small computers of any utility under $150 anytime soon.
That's interesting, because the most recent Netbooks I've seen (an HP and Gateway for $150, of all things) at a Verizon kiosk were running Windows 7. II think they were both 10" models, but I'm uncertain.
First you have to use Aristotelean logic (dripping with sarcasm, of course) to punch a hole in his wet dream: So getting a portable malware disseminator is a much better idea?
Follow that through with insulting his intellect and emotional maturity (on account of his clingy fears as expressed by his poor explanation). When you're done there, slap him in the face, pick up the netbook, and go to checkout. Be sure to mention what a troll the sales clerk was to the manager, but not before wiping the spittle and dried food specks from your beard.
(Note, I actually think W7 is pretty swell and recommend it to everyone I know as an upgrade from XP (which I recommended over Vista) and Vista, but I don't use it personally for anything other than games.)
Probably not. If someone has a traumatic brain injury, they're likely in no sort of condition to pull out a syringe and inject it into themselves.
Also, while I've no evidence to back it up, I -suspect- that TBI was pretty common in previous wars. The difference today is that the soldiers are surviving all the other things with higher numbers, resulting in the TBI being a significantly higher proportion. Whereas they would've probably died from the other wounds accompanying TBI in the past, today they survive (see: double amputation, shrapnel, etc.).
I recall reading an article recently of someone in ORD (ordinance response and disposal, or something like that) - the guys who dress up in bear suits and go out to play with IEDs. The article was accompanied by a picture. He'd gotten blown up. His pants were singed and he had some shrapnel in his ass, but otherwise he was OK. Had that happened even 15 years ago he'd probably be dead.
It was never widely accepted by society that women were "inferior" to men, not in a general fashion, except for a very short period of time prior to women's suffrage. Throughout most of experience, the general gender strengths women hold have been acknowledged: emotional intelligence which leads to their general ability to be more compassionate than men, to be good mothers/parents (the "go to" when dad's being an ass), and yes, so they can be better catty bitches and politicians.
This image speaks for itself: http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/tools-women-female-screwdriver-hammer-tool-demotivational-poster-1244297721.jpg
I recall my grandfather having farting competitions with his friends one Christmas.
However, I'd certainly consider the man "smart" or even a "genius". Not too great at book smarts (well, mathematics, at least). But the man was a genius in his own right: an incredible artist (oils on Masonite, having paintings sell for millions), an Expert marksman when he shot for the Army Rifle Team (they asked him to go to the Olympics), a phenomenal outdoorsman (if it exists, he probably knew its name, scientific name, what it ate or ate it, etc.), and a poet/singer who knew thousands of lengthy songs and poems by heart (including Horatius and many of his own).
But yeah, he liked lewd jokes and fart competitions. That, alone, doesn't make someone dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would, or should, we be obligated to provide anything to another person? How is that different, than, say, someone being obligated to work in my field (for my profit)? It isn't.
We, as civilized people, are obligated to listen to our conscience. Part of what makes a conscience a conscience is the discretion to know when conscientious behavior is appropriate - socially, economically, and morally.
Is it moral to kill? No. Was it moral to kill a maniacal dictator who kills his own people and makes war on others? Yes. In the same vein, it is not a morally appropriate act to "provide necessities" to anyone. They've done nothing demonstrative of such beneficence. However, a moral actor will provide food to those in need, as he sees fit, according to his own means.
Once you start speaking of moral choices in terms of "requirement", you're no better than the witch burners or slavers of the past: you're forcing your views on others, to their peril.
If you make it a legal requirement for the many to provide for the needy, you end up with the list of needs growing: food, shelter, sanitation... then electricity, television, computers, the Internet. Eventually (as we do in today's society) we've got people who are on the lam who are living more corpulent lives than honest, hard working families. That seems somewhat more socially repugnant and morally negligent to me.
Today, I gave a homeless man a sandwich and put a quarter in someone else's parking meter. What "civil", honorable deed did you do?
Um so is this in the US? And if so, which state? That is an absurd law, absolutely absurd. While I can't state with certainty that it's not applicable nationwide, it would surprise me if that were the case.
Bullshit. Pure bullshit. I should be ABLE to leave my house unlocked, its MY fucking house, not yours, and you know that, and if you steal my shit it's all YOUR fault.
Yet, at the same time, I'm going to have less sympathy for the idiot who leaves his house open all the time in a bad neighborhood than someone who locks their doors. Same for a slut being taken advantage of, vs. a chaste woman. If you willingly put yourself in a compromising situation, you should not only expect to get burned, but also have the realization that the amount of sympathy provided to you will be substantially less than if you were cautious.
Yeah, I think it depends on which camp you come from. Most people under, say, 30, who are not UNIX/Linux centric/are from the predominantly Windows camp/marketing-savvy, will say "sequel". Those who cut their teeth with Open Source/online sources of information for SQL refer to it as "SQL".
I've had interviews where I pronounced Microsoft's version "SQL server" and got a blank look from the (technical) interviewer. That's a bit embarassing, both for me (didn't call it the proper marketing name) and for him (no idea what i was talking about), I suppose.
I'm one of those done armchair, a-priori reasoning on global warming. Here are my reasons for believing it's "not true":
* Those behind the "global warming scare" (Gore and the others at the political forefront) are making money hand over fist for their efforts through things like carbon credits. That sounds like a profit scam moreso than someone(s) genuinely concerned.
* The "man-caused climate change" argument has been made since my parents were in grade school, and now I've got kids that age. Yet, the arguments have been not only significantly, but drastically different. They are also emotional and alarmist arguments - what we typically call "propaganda" - not providing any actual facts or explanation with the presentation.
* It is not because AWG "may come into conflict with one's own dogma, and thus psychologically one may be predisposed to oppose GW on that basis." It's because it will impact me, at my wallet, negatively. It will hurt everyone who falls under whatever "climate saving" tax that comes out of this, while helping (through our pain) countries like China (which have/enforce no such regulations).
* There is enough of the data supporting "global warming" being found fraudulent, inaccurate, or intentionally misleading (with fairly regular basis, it seems) to call suspect to the rest of it.
* If there is a dissenting voice supported by evidence of any type, they are usually ridiculed by the AGW establishment (publicly, on the news and what not) once or twice, and then promptly ignored.
* Politicians have decided to politicize global warming by pushing a solution before we are certain - dead certain - that a) we are, indeed, responsible for the 'warming' and b) there is anything we can do about it, and c) what the actual causes are, and d) that anything we might do about it would actually be productive - ie, not result in more harm than good.
* By that last point, I mean: don't destroy the economy outright, or make it less productive. Why? Because poor economies, and poor peoples, tend to not be environmentally conscientious. It won't do a hell of a lot of good if we're all driving EVs in 10 years if everyone is dumping or burning their motor oil to save money, or discarding their spent battery cores in the dump.
Basically, I'm repulsed by the reactionary, emotional, and illogical approach the AGW supporters take, and the deceptive, immoral political means they will go to reach their ends. It's disgusting and not befitting of an intellectual mind. Furthermore, they're pushing for things which I know (as someone who has read at least a little about history) are ultimately more destructive than instructive.
Well, you see... we scientists have accomplished our masters and doctorate degrees, unlike you normals - er, bachelor graduates. We do science-y things and co-mingle amongst ourselves, fermenting our ideas in the colander of academia.
(They use this elitist exclusion to explain why we can't understand it, and - demurely - we're supposed to just accept their egghead commands.)
Forgive my ignorance, but since you brought up Birthers (had to look that one up) and the Obama birth certificate thing: was a birth Certificate finally produced? The only thing I'd managed to find info about was some sort of quasi-birth certificate, which did not indicate actual birth location, just that he had been born.
I think a large part of the whole "Birther" argument is that Obama simply hasn't provided his own birth certificate (or any other certificate, for that matter) for validation. (Of course, this overt dismissal just makes the Birthers look crazier, which I think is the point.)
But that's also the point of the Birthers, from what I'm seeing. McCain, Kerry, Gore, Bush - they all had extensive dossiers saying "this is who I am, this is what I did". Obama just has PR, and that's the issue. There has been nothing irrefutable, in the form of paper documentation, backing up any of the man's claims: just words of friends, friends of friends, and people within the same social/political sphere. That doesn't convince me of anything other than cronyism.
Am I saying he wasn't born here? No. But I am saying that someone isn't playing above the boards on this one. Not dishonest, but secretive - and that at least suggests something to hide. Where's the era of open politics he promised us?
Except, the burden of proof is not on the skeptics. It is on those who wish to prove the exception to the rule is, indeed, the rule. If you want people to believe in global warming's existence, you've got to prove it, irrefutably.
Considering the history of climate prediction (lies, 180 degree inaccuracy, etc.), anyone trying to do that has a hard job ahead of them. We've been hearing "we're 10 years from total annihilation due to our abuse of the planet" since my parents were in grade school, and I've got kids of grade school age now, myself. Climatic temperatures were supposed to be 20 degrees hotter now than they are and agriculture will shortly become unsustainable for the population's feeding, according to what I remember being 'taught' when I was in grade school.
That's a lot to fight against. Generations of people are tired of the propagandized rhetoric and general bullshit.
If you want people to believe you - intelligent, discerning, capable people - the first thing you have to do is not treat them like idiots. That's something the climate change community (if there is one) needs to get right. The second thing they should concentrate on is not appealing to emotion (alarmist dramatization and unqualified exaggeration) but to intellect. (Look how far it's gotten the theory of evolution.)
Another big issue which is getting in the way of people "believing" in climate change/global warming/global cooling/global atmospheric sequestering/whatever is that they're concerned about the political and economic implications of anything pushed down from governments, on account of the climate change fear mongering. Anyone who (here in the US) has had to deal extensively with the EPA knows what I'm talking about. The government doesn't tend to fix the problem at hand, they just make business-as-usual more expensive. Trade embargoes on Chinese tires? Great, tires just got more expensive. Tax fuel so people drive less? Great, you just made maintaining one's lifestyle more expensive. (And, in many, many cases, just ruined the livelihood of many others - never mind lifestyle.)
What I am personally concerned about is the reactionary uh anacrophytes - people who seem terrified of old things. They're trying to push new, (scientifically) untried, short-term, ecologically destructive, and largely infeasible technologies such as ethanol, battery-powered automobiles, wind turbines, et cetera. Yes, there is value in expanding these technologies, increasing their efficiency, and so on. But these anachrophytes are vicious in their pursuits, and want regulations, new laws, and the like which will drastically and destructively change the economic landscape. These are the kinds of people who blather on about the "smog" that diesel engines put out, how they maintain our energy dependence - why they aren't a viable alternative to gas - yet they push things like lithium based batteries as "green". Which planet are they on?
And now we've got this environmental summit which, optimistically, will push forth changes that will cut down on emissions/etc. Realistically, it will be another splint on the otherwise healthy leg of the US and Western countries, allowing for China and the rest of Greater India, and the third world to push closer to us - economically and militarily.
In the best of times, such "optimistic" regulations are mildly disruptive and inconvenient to a society - at best. But these aren't the best of times; these are pretty tough times for everyone, globally. So even in a best-case scenario, we're looking at what might be generally termed, a bad idea. Struggling economies aren't terribly good at ecological preservation: they'll burn waste oil for heat, dump shit in streams, and so on. Damaging an economy for the pursuit of reducing CO2 output is ass-backwards if one has any perspective on how economies work.
So yeah, prove me wrong. The ball is in your court, but you're a long way behind in the game due to decades of slacking/misbehavior.
Troll? I'll bite.
There are warts in Linux that do not get fixed, such as the flickering screen in Ubuntu boot and shut down, despite attention from distro's (others, such as suspending a computer, are only on a minority of chip sets and can be fixed when working with a Manufacturer)
This is nothing new, for anyone. XP, Vista, Windows 7? Yeah, they've all got issues with proper suspend - largely due to ATI and/or Nvidia drivers/hardware (as well as misc. wireless cards), it would seem.
Besides, we're talking about ARM systems not x86 systems, with a concerted vendor support. Those bugs are quite likely to be fixed, due to the diverse/capable suspend + power management functionality present in all ARM cores.
It seems that Linux needs a business to focus on it and ensure that the customer experience is fully taken into account (with deference paid to hackers and community organisations such as Gnome, Kde etc).
IBM? Redhat? Canonical? Novell? Nokia? Dell? HP? Or the (hundreds? thousand?) of others. They're all throwing their hats in, to one degree or another. Linux software development is hardly a "volunteer only" effort anymore.
One thing to ask your self is would Apple (or other unnamed companies operating in the OS space) allow such a case of the above screen flickering, or would it be dealt with even if the X server had to be replaced (if that is the problem)
I have not seen/noticed this "flickering" you speak of on any of the systems I've got/maintain. Are you talking about the graphical "loading with logo" boot/shutdown screens? And if so, why is this even a problem? (While I did reboot "recently", that "recently" was a couple weeks ago, so I do not have a solid memory of the event and can't say it doesn't happen with any certainty.)
If a non-quantifiable "flickering" and suspend issues (still endemic to many OSes/hardware platforms) are your biggest problems with Linux, it would seem you've not got all that much to complain about. (Are you sure you've done much more than install Linux? It doesn't much seem like you know what you're talking about, either.)
Probably because 13,628 packages is a drop in the bucket compared to the slew of applications available even on Windows 7 (which, arguably, is going to have fewer than, say, XP).
Granted, not all those applications are good or useful. But the perception is that more = better, and that the option, or use, of a variety of applications is a necessarily good thing. Personally, I'd rather have a dozen applications which do one thing well, than a hundred which don't scratch even one of those itches satisfied by the 12.
Chrome OS runs on a Linux kernel, but it offers exactly one app: a Web browser. If an inexpensive device that does nothing except access the Web is attractive to people, they will buy them. I don't really see how that will "shake up the Intel and Microsoft consumer PC/laptop monopoly in its boots," (sic) though. A Chrome OS device is not competitive with consumer PCs or laptops.
Yet, there's at least half a dozen ARM centric distros out there which are more than just a browser. At the very least, you've got Ubuntu, Debian, OpenEmbedded, and Angstrom distributions. You've also got a handful of special-taylored distributions.
And then you've got the graphical 'frameworks' for handhelds/embedded ARM systems: Opie, GPE (seemingly dead/merged elsewhere, I think), Qtopia/QTembedded, Maemo (based on matchbox window manager, I think), and a handful of other environments. A couple of them (well, Opie and QTembedded, at least) are more featureful and useful than both the iPhone (which some are supplanting for computers) and Windows Mobile/WinCE. There are a lot of 'base' applications there, too.
With QTembedded, you should have access to applications like koffice, which is at least on par with Pocket Word. Aside from web browsing, that'd meet 90% of most people's use. Throw in a half-decent but bare bones image editor, and you're set.
And if Linux fails you in any above combination, there's always BSD. There are a lot of applications available for ARM, many of which have already replaced Office, IE, etc. on people's desks. Sometimes, the users don't even notice the change.
Finally, you've got things like TinyCore, a minimalistic Linux distro which has a different approach to package management and the like, and also boots incredibly quickly (it's the progeny of DSL).
Honestly, I think the first person to come up with a general purpose "computer" in the form factor of a cell phone (complete with cell radio for actual use as a phone), capable of connecting to a desktop monitor and keyboard/mouse will make a killing. Make them in high enough numbers, and you could still sell them for under $400 with a decent display - and they'd still fly off the shelves.
Then you work in an exceptional location. From what I've seen, IT (unlike every other professional and non-professional field I've come in contact with) gives their employees "spin up" time. Nursing? Several months, at least, before you're expected to be comfortable in the position. Engineering? Think a significant portion of a career. Shit, even food service gives employees a couple weeks to become comfortable in the role before letting the employees be autonomous.
Every IT job I've had has been "here's your desk, now get to work". Not only have these positions expected me to intrinsically know how their specific market segment worked (and work the IT systems around them) but no time was given for familiarity with the specific role (which, in IT, is going to be substantially different from job to job, unlike the previously mentioned fields).
Granted, I've had a high amount of employer ass-hattery to contend with, but I have not found my experience to be all that exceptional in this area. IT sucks for being a cog in a wheel; we're largely seen as akin to building maintenance (at best) or janitorial (at worst) when in supportive roles, or as nicely dressed factory workers when working in a larger organization.
The basement -of- a computer history museum? I thought all such museums were basements.
The fact that it was a screensaver instead of a text document or an actual program (screensavers are not executable in Linux, as they are in Windows) is a mere coincidence. The fact is it installed a program into the system, providing root privilege, which allows this to happen. PEBKAC, and to some degree, gnome-look.
Yet, still, the software did not rely on any inherent software flaw (unless you consider lack of a virus scanner a flaw, in which case you might have an argument - but over a decade of IT consensus would probably disagree). It's relying on the same thing which has gotten people in trouble since the beginning of time: gullibility, stupidity, or similar.
Would you hold the lock responsible if someone forgot to lock their doors and got robbed? What if they let the thief in themselves? That's a human fault, and what we're talking about here. The usual Windows scenario is more akin to the lock not keeping the thief out.
You're being intellectually insincere here.
This was not an 'infection' unless the user typed in their sudoer password for the program to be installed. A system 'infection' requires that the system has a resident program running, from boot. A process running as a user would only be able to be launched once that user logs in.
Yes, it's true that Linux malware problems are marginal to non-existent compared to Windows, quite probably in large part due to market share. But that is not the primary reason, by any stretch of the imagination. When you consider how many servers run Linux, you'd think there'd be substantially more "linux" variant malware packages which would infect servers, so as to get to clients (Windows, Mac, or otherwise). While they exist, they are not common compared to the slew of Windows malware programs available in one click from any search engine.
Better get your resume ready fast, too. Seems companies are fond of doing layoffs directly before or after the holidays, in my experience. HR really is a bunch of sadistic fucks.
My wife says: "Yeah, I'd probably shoot that person." I have to concur.
Could you direct me towards the cheap, powerful computers please? The big ones.
Yeah, those don't exist. Unfortunately, you've got an entry bar of around $500 if you want "powerful" computers. Companies do a pretty good job of keeping prices for useful computers above $200; don't expect to see small computers of any utility under $150 anytime soon.
That's interesting, because the most recent Netbooks I've seen (an HP and Gateway for $150, of all things) at a Verizon kiosk were running Windows 7. II think they were both 10" models, but I'm uncertain.
Head to the counter? No, no.
First you have to use Aristotelean logic (dripping with sarcasm, of course) to punch a hole in his wet dream: So getting a portable malware disseminator is a much better idea?
Follow that through with insulting his intellect and emotional maturity (on account of his clingy fears as expressed by his poor explanation). When you're done there, slap him in the face, pick up the netbook, and go to checkout. Be sure to mention what a troll the sales clerk was to the manager, but not before wiping the spittle and dried food specks from your beard.
(Note, I actually think W7 is pretty swell and recommend it to everyone I know as an upgrade from XP (which I recommended over Vista) and Vista, but I don't use it personally for anything other than games.)
Probably not. If someone has a traumatic brain injury, they're likely in no sort of condition to pull out a syringe and inject it into themselves.
Also, while I've no evidence to back it up, I -suspect- that TBI was pretty common in previous wars. The difference today is that the soldiers are surviving all the other things with higher numbers, resulting in the TBI being a significantly higher proportion. Whereas they would've probably died from the other wounds accompanying TBI in the past, today they survive (see: double amputation, shrapnel, etc.).
I recall reading an article recently of someone in ORD (ordinance response and disposal, or something like that) - the guys who dress up in bear suits and go out to play with IEDs. The article was accompanied by a picture. He'd gotten blown up. His pants were singed and he had some shrapnel in his ass, but otherwise he was OK. Had that happened even 15 years ago he'd probably be dead.
I'm sorry, what?
It was never widely accepted by society that women were "inferior" to men, not in a general fashion, except for a very short period of time prior to women's suffrage. Throughout most of experience, the general gender strengths women hold have been acknowledged: emotional intelligence which leads to their general ability to be more compassionate than men, to be good mothers/parents (the "go to" when dad's being an ass), and yes, so they can be better catty bitches and politicians.
This image speaks for itself: http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0906/tools-women-female-screwdriver-hammer-tool-demotivational-poster-1244297721.jpg
I recall my grandfather having farting competitions with his friends one Christmas.
However, I'd certainly consider the man "smart" or even a "genius". Not too great at book smarts (well, mathematics, at least). But the man was a genius in his own right: an incredible artist (oils on Masonite, having paintings sell for millions), an Expert marksman when he shot for the Army Rifle Team (they asked him to go to the Olympics), a phenomenal outdoorsman (if it exists, he probably knew its name, scientific name, what it ate or ate it, etc.), and a poet/singer who knew thousands of lengthy songs and poems by heart (including Horatius and many of his own).
But yeah, he liked lewd jokes and fart competitions. That, alone, doesn't make someone dumb.