Re:WINE is also not a properly licensed MS OS.
on
Catching up with Wine
·
· Score: 1
Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like
Sure I can. What are they going to do about it? What are *you* going to do about it? Whine? It won't change anything on my end. Well, I'll get a laugh out of the idea that some individual, or group of individuals, or corporation thinks it can scare me with a completely unenforceable contract or piece of legislation, but other than that nothing will come of it....
I downloaded this 14MB file and was excited to see it. I opened it up and began thinking about how miserable it looked and performed. I fully understand this is a.1 release however, in the commercial world.1 releases are usually internal developer only builds. This is what the majority of the world is used to. Even developers grumble when they see tubby and slow applications even at.1 releases.
Well, this ain't the commercial world. If that's what you want then dump Linux, load up Win2000, and stop yer whining. If it pains you to see a 0.1 release, *then don't download it*. But implying that it shouldn't be released, or that it shouldn't be available to those who do want to check it out is something you don't have any business saying. It's rather apparent by your statements that you've missed the entire point of open source software altogether.
Like I said, if it isn't for you don't use it. Period.
OS X took all of these problems and simply focused on providing one distribution, that had one window manager and no requirement for compiling code to get functionality. Open source OS's need to do the same.
No, they don't. If that's what you want then Linux isn't for you. Keep on using Windows, or OS X, or whatever makes your little heart quiver with joy. But in terms of OSS it's clear you don't have the first fucking clue.
You, a programmer, create some wonderful technology. It's so wonderful, in fact, that it spreads all over the world and is used by nearly everyone on a daily basis. Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours?
You may want to exercise 'control' (read: gain some measure of profit, as well as power over others) but whether or not you deserve it is another kettle of fish altogether.
And that's the basic premise that no one seems to question: what universal right exists that says that anyone has any business at all patenting this sort of intellectual endeavor? By what reasoning can one logically conclude that a person can assert control over a method of communication, or worse, over something they didn't even invent in the first place - like a gene in a specific plant or animal?
There is no rational basis for allowing intellectual 'property' of this nature to be patented. It is simply a method for a single person, or some small group of people, to exert control and dominance over others - sometimes for the profit, sometimes for the power, sometimes for both. In all situations a tiny minority (sometimes a minority of one) benefits, and everyone else loses.
There's a huge difference between inventing a specific physical object with exact specifications, and being able to limit production of that object for a very short and well-defined period of time, and being able to patent something like a method or a protocol or a naturally-occurring or naturally-invented object. The first may or may not spur invention - we don't really know if this is true or not - the second stifles technological advancement.
The argument used in favor of patents by lawyers and the clueless is that without such 'protections' no one would 'invent' anything. History has taught us that this line of reasoning is complete and utter bullshit, but people will buy the worst smelling load of sewage if you package it properly. And clearly, the lawyers and those people heavily invested in the status quo have mastered the art of screwing folks over and making them like it so well that these folks are off to the races defending the rapists and passing laws to allow them to rape on any pretext they desire....
Yet another call to hand off the net to some mythical central authority which'll be able to monitor everything we say and do, then use it against us should we ever complain about what the powers that be are up to.
I'll take a pass on this 'solution', thanks. I'd rather deal with spam than make it any easier for anyone to track every single thing I do on the net. Hell, it's too easy as it is, hence the development of things like Freenet....
Well, just take a look at the ratio of biologically based psychotic illnesses in both sexes. Men account for more than 90% of all such cases.
Now this is scientific fact, based upon biology (one Y chromosome means no backups if there's damage). In terms of antidepressents, you could easily explain this by saying that the mostly male medical profession is highly likely to prescribe antidepressants to women over men, even when they aren't needed.
But this isn't evidence, just supposition. Hence the need for an peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited journal. Anything less is just bullshit.
...he's going to tell me what OS I can run *my* software on? EULA be damned, I didn't pay to 'license' a piece of software based on some fuckwit's demand that I only use *their* products in conjunction with my purchase.
Eat shit, MS. Really now, unless you can get a green light from Congress allowing you to crack my computer to see what I'm using, you can just - go - fuck - yourselves. Not a goddamned thing you can do about it.
And even if you do get that green light, good luck breaking into my home network - running Linux top to bottom, of course. With your programming track record I think there's a likelier chance of hell freezing over....
That if those few of us left who actually believed in rights, along with the basic principle "so long as I'm not harming you and yours, shut the fuck up and mind your own goddamned business", were to move to British Columbia and become Canadian citizens, we might actually have enough voting power to pass a referendum seceding from Canada and establishing our own nation.
Why British Columbia? Well, although it rains 10 months out of the year it's very, very pretty. B'sides, global warming should make the climate a bit more hospitable over the next couple of decades. It also has a couple of nice large port cities with lots of ex-Hong Kong money floating about, as well as quite a few high-tech operations.
And the population is pretty tiny. Even if there are only a couple million of us left who believe in the Bill of Rights that should be enough to push for secession.
The downside is that the moment we secede King George will declare our new nation a 'safe harbor for terrorism', then invade and conquer us and cut down all of our trees for his friends in the timber industry....
Unfortunately most of the 'new masters' can't hold a candle to the old ones. I keep hunting for folks who can do the job, but they're few and far between with miles of dreck to trudge through from one distant shining light to another.
Remember, this is the age where excruciatingly bad D&D novels are popular and are considered to be 'fantasy' instead of 'product placement ads'. With a few exceptions (George R. R. Martin comes to mind) the 'oldies but goodies' are pretty much still the best the market has to offer.
Men tend to have a stabler personality during PMS, women tend to be more emotional during PMS.
Prove it. Provide an accredited, peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal backing your claim.
And don't forget: you must also prove that women, during PMS, are actually less stable than men (however you define 'stable'). It may just be that a woman, during PMS, is as unstable as a man is during his entire waking life, while outside of PMS she is far, far more mentaly stable.
Christ, yet another 'greater good' argument. I have an idea: how about if we schedule a hunting season three months out of the year for anyone who uses either of these two phrases in the course of a conversation:
And there is no evidence whatsoever that women are any less capable when it comes to the 'technical skills' that you mention.
If you think otherwise, please provide a cite from an accredited, scientific, peer-reviewed journal to support your claim.
Face up to it, boy. The women are just plain smarter than us, in all the ways that count. And this is a *good* thing, given that we'll probably need all the smarts we can get to make it through this century.
This would be because functionality there's no difference in the maturity level of the 5-year-old boy and the 96-year-old man. Women, you see, continue to mature throughout childhood - and get this! - even through puberty. Most men, on the other hand, arrest at about the age that farts seem insanely funny.
Bullshit. Our rights have been under assault for quite some time. All of the rights enumerated in the Constitution have been curtailed in some fashion, and others are on the way to being completely ignored altogether. I could give you numerous examples of this, but such examples are so easy to find on the internet why bother? Take a look for yourself, it's not like you have to search extensively to see how little of your rights actually survive.
The real problem is that the majority of Americans no longer believe in the Constitution or the rights enshrined in it. The majority *want* these rights curtailed or revoked. They want this because a) they don't trust their neighbors with freedom, and are willing to give up their own so long as their neighbor has to give it up too, and b) it gives them the illusion of power - i.e., they think by denying their neighbor the ability to do something their neighbor wants them to do, they 'prove' in some strange way that they actually have a certain measure of control over life (in this case, they've made their neighbor miserable and it shows).
People talk about revolution in the streets if 'things go too far'. I say "bullshit". The farther things go, the happier the majority of the sheeple will be. If Constitutional rights are abrogated altogether most Americans would see that as a cause for celebration.
Very few people believe in rights anymore. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with these rights. Americans are hankering for a dictatorship, a Big Daddy who'll protect them all from their evil-minded neighbors. And it looks very much like they're going to get exactly what they want.
If you had a choice between someone with an MD and a PhD in oncology and some kid from the ghetto treating your cancer, which would you choose?
This is an idiot's argument. There is no degree, no regimen of training, which enables any one person to claim a better ability to rule over others than the average Joe. A college education certainly doesn't qualify one as a superior human being when it comes to making decisions for others.
The best solution, in my opinion, is to establish certain inalienable rights and then live by the motto 'that government which governs least is best'. Unfortunately America's founding fathers tried this and had the entire experiment subverted almost right from the beginning, from the Whiskey Rebellion on.
Fact is, there is no test or credential which guarrantees, or even predisposes, one particular individual to be better suited to rule than any other. The only real option is to agree on a series of absolutes and then do your best to curtail power in all of its forms in order to castrate the egomaniacal among us who get a kick out of making other people do things they don't want to do, or telling others they can't do things that they do want to do.
The article is about gaming. This doesn't have a fucking thing to do with banging the hot chick you see in the mall (and that you can never have, given that you're a gaming geek).
Sex is healthy. Acting like a goddamn frat boy is not. We have more than enough frat boys and misogynistic gaming geeks in the world; we could use a bit more maturity, and perhaps a forced sterilization program for the more obnoxious twits as well.
Making games that actually feature strong female characters without absurdly out-of-proportion attributes, low-cut shirts, and tight little shorts might actually attract more women to their computers. And for some of us men, we could sit back and enjoy the game without thinking 'yet another stereotype fit only for frustrated teenage boys'.
So far, the only games that come to mind that've done this (and they were both excellent, some of the best ever made) are The Longest Journey and Syberia. As compared to the plethora of games designed for snot-nosed brats who have yet to lose their virginity because no girl in her right mind would allow these losers anywhere near her.
Any yet, anecdotal evidence is all you provide, later on in your own post.
Well no shit, Sherlock. Apparently reading comprehension is something you failed in school. Note that I said my own anecdotal evidence was entirely useless. Try wrapping your tiny brain around that fact, and everything that follows is noted as purest speculation based on personal observation - completely irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.
Moron.
Although after reading the study it seems I'm rather on-target. Kids are by far and away the largest user group, so completely saturated that further growth is impractical.
I excluded college women because they aren't nearly the self-worshipping arrogant egotists that college men tend to be. Really, their mamas should've bitch-slapped them more when they were growing up. Especially the frat-boy variety.
As for gen-x, note that the study is about internet usage, and not computer usage at work. These are two entirely different things.
Concerning the Boomers, one does not have to understand a thing, or use a thing, to invest in it. I doubt many of the people who own MS stock know anything more about computers than how to find the 'on' button. And I'm certain that most of the Genentech investors couldn't tell you the difference between a cell wall and a cell membrane.
Boomers have always been about money as a measure of power. I said 'if they could', but they can't now, can they? So lacking the ability to actually enforce a rigid status quo, the next best thing is to make sure that you invest in it, and therefore control it.
And finally, it appears that the elderly (over 65) actually *do* tinker with the internet more than the Boomers do. At least according to the study. Did you actually read the thing?
Anecdotal 'evidence' isn't worth the toilet paper you wiped your ass with to collect it in the first place.
I'd like to see some real statistics here, defined by age. After working with the local school district and university for several years my own anecdotal (and therefore entirely useless) observations were as follows:
kids: computer use is in their DNA. Near 100% assimilation.
college punks: what better tool for dick-measuring and acting like immature assholes could possibly exist? Near-total assimilation, with certain exempted segments.
gen-x: iffy. Have to use the blasted thing for work. Still think there's a division between 'real life' and 'virtual life', so the computer isn't nearly as enthralling to them. Silly gits think that real-world sex is better than getting online and downloading porn.
boomers: heavily invested in the status quo. Hate change of any kind. Think the computer is a tool of the devil, primarily because the young 'get it' intuitively and they hate the young with a passion. The computer is just another sign that they're getting old and that immortality drugs won't be invented before they're all dead (thank the gods for that one). Would ban the damned thing if they could, if just to punish everyone under the age of 30.
the elderly: hell, they're already on death's door. Why not experiment with something new? Usage much higher in this group than with the boomers.
"Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com [yahoo.com].
Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups.... "
The beauty of having a karma score far beyond anything you could ever actually need is that you can take a post that's been marked as a 'troll' by some ignorant right-wing looney Bush boot-licker and repost it - with a score of '2'.
Sometimes, enraging the conservative pricks who prowl Slashdot is enough to put a big ol' grin on your face....
Check out the article, though. The 'popular' Iraqi demonstration was actually staged by the Bush government, apparently because the Iraqis themselves are in no way celebrating the fact that they've been conquered. Imagine that!
And this is the government we entrust to watch over our privacy? Lying sacks of shit, scum of the Earth fuckwits who pull crap like this? And then appoint a Doubleclick lackey to 'watch over' our privacy? Wake up, shitheads - our privacy is *already guarranteed* by the Constitution. The only thing an ad company executive can do is find ways to circumvent protections that are more than 200 years old.
Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com.
Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups....
Oh yes, that's the ticket. Governments are ever so much more responsible when it comes to the uses of dangerous research than, say, open bodies of private citizens are. Certainly, such a point isn't even up for discussion!
In any event, *anything* which has the possibility of upsetting the status quo or dethroning the people currently in charge, whether they be in government or corporate America, will be classified. Imagine if someone were to come up with a way to indefinitely expand human lifespan: how long do you think it would be before this research was 'classified', and everyone involved with it met with an untimely accident?
The only 'safety' anyone has is for the knowledge to be completely open and available to everyone who wants it. As has been demonstrated time and time again, no one can make you safe - but you. Anyone who makes claims to the contrary is either a complete idiot or has motivations other than concern for your personal welfare.
People are too focussed (sp?) on size as a measure of a company.
And that surprises you? How many contests, business or otherwise, boil down to size? How many are just complex ways for little boys to whip out their willies and measure them against one another?
Hell, dick-measuring seems to be genetically encoded for most men, especially when the actual equipment is substandard. Just take a gander here at Slashdot to see techno-geeks engaged in the same stupid games as men in other walks of life. They may *seem* to be arguing about some completely unrelated topic, but in actuality all they're trying to do is prove that yes, indeed, they have a monstrous penis.
Must be inspired by all the jumbo dicks they see in their porn downloads....
Why are people concerned over First Amendment violations when it comes to anti-spamming legislation? Right now our government is handily ignoring the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, imprisoning folks indefinitely without recourse to the law for merely being 'material witnesses' to unspecified crimes.
Really now, if we can throw people in jail on a whim in direct violation of the basic laws of this land, then what on Earth does it matter if anti-spamming laws violate the First Amendment? Indeed, why can't we simply accuse spammers of having 'terrorist connections' or being 'witnesses' to various crimes and toss them in jail as well?
Now that I think about it, doesn't the annoyance of spam, the server load caused by spam, seem like a terrorist act in and of itself? Perhaps those spammers should be arrested and investigated, after spending months in dog kennels at Guantanamo....
Luckily I haven't managed to buy a "copy protected" CD yet, but then I don't listen to Britney, N^Sync, Pink or any of that nonsense. The day Voivod start using Cactus or something will be a dark day indeed. DVDs suck. CSS sucks. I don't pirate films or music or software. Treat me like a responsible adult. Treat me fairly. I demand my Fair Use rights! I act responsibly. Give me the credit I deserve.
Perhaps I'll treat you like a responsible adult when you stop referring to music that you, personally, don't like as 'nonsense'. This is the mark of the pseudo-intellectual; the only thing you need to do now to send me into gales of laughter is go on and on about how all those 'alternative' bands are sooooo much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you have paid for a license to use some software doesn't mean you can use it any way you like
Sure I can. What are they going to do about it? What are *you* going to do about it? Whine? It won't change anything on my end. Well, I'll get a laugh out of the idea that some individual, or group of individuals, or corporation thinks it can scare me with a completely unenforceable contract or piece of legislation, but other than that nothing will come of it....
Max
I downloaded this 14MB file and was excited to see it. I opened it up and began thinking about how miserable it looked and performed. I fully understand this is a .1 release however, in the commercial world .1 releases are usually internal developer only builds. This is what the majority of the world is used to. Even developers grumble when they see tubby and slow applications even at .1 releases.
Well, this ain't the commercial world. If that's what you want then dump Linux, load up Win2000, and stop yer whining. If it pains you to see a 0.1 release, *then don't download it*. But implying that it shouldn't be released, or that it shouldn't be available to those who do want to check it out is something you don't have any business saying. It's rather apparent by your statements that you've missed the entire point of open source software altogether.
Like I said, if it isn't for you don't use it. Period.
OS X took all of these problems and simply focused on providing one distribution, that had one window manager and no requirement for compiling code to get functionality. Open source OS's need to do the same.
No, they don't. If that's what you want then Linux isn't for you. Keep on using Windows, or OS X, or whatever makes your little heart quiver with joy. But in terms of OSS it's clear you don't have the first fucking clue.
It really isn't for you. At all.
Max
You, a programmer, create some wonderful technology. It's so wonderful, in fact, that it spreads all over the world and is used by nearly everyone on a daily basis. Would you not want some measure of control on this technology that you labored over for so many hours?
You may want to exercise 'control' (read: gain some measure of profit, as well as power over others) but whether or not you deserve it is another kettle of fish altogether.
And that's the basic premise that no one seems to question: what universal right exists that says that anyone has any business at all patenting this sort of intellectual endeavor? By what reasoning can one logically conclude that a person can assert control over a method of communication, or worse, over something they didn't even invent in the first place - like a gene in a specific plant or animal?
There is no rational basis for allowing intellectual 'property' of this nature to be patented. It is simply a method for a single person, or some small group of people, to exert control and dominance over others - sometimes for the profit, sometimes for the power, sometimes for both. In all situations a tiny minority (sometimes a minority of one) benefits, and everyone else loses.
There's a huge difference between inventing a specific physical object with exact specifications, and being able to limit production of that object for a very short and well-defined period of time, and being able to patent something like a method or a protocol or a naturally-occurring or naturally-invented object. The first may or may not spur invention - we don't really know if this is true or not - the second stifles technological advancement.
The argument used in favor of patents by lawyers and the clueless is that without such 'protections' no one would 'invent' anything. History has taught us that this line of reasoning is complete and utter bullshit, but people will buy the worst smelling load of sewage if you package it properly. And clearly, the lawyers and those people heavily invested in the status quo have mastered the art of screwing folks over and making them like it so well that these folks are off to the races defending the rapists and passing laws to allow them to rape on any pretext they desire....
Max
Yet another call to hand off the net to some mythical central authority which'll be able to monitor everything we say and do, then use it against us should we ever complain about what the powers that be are up to.
I'll take a pass on this 'solution', thanks. I'd rather deal with spam than make it any easier for anyone to track every single thing I do on the net. Hell, it's too easy as it is, hence the development of things like Freenet....
Max
Well, just take a look at the ratio of biologically based psychotic illnesses in both sexes. Men account for more than 90% of all such cases.
Now this is scientific fact, based upon biology (one Y chromosome means no backups if there's damage). In terms of antidepressents, you could easily explain this by saying that the mostly male medical profession is highly likely to prescribe antidepressants to women over men, even when they aren't needed.
But this isn't evidence, just supposition. Hence the need for an peer-reviewed scientific study published in an accredited journal. Anything less is just bullshit.
Max
Except that my generalizations are *true*. Any married man with half a brain knows this.
You too will become enlightened in time. A woman will make sure of that.
Max
...he's going to tell me what OS I can run *my* software on? EULA be damned, I didn't pay to 'license' a piece of software based on some fuckwit's demand that I only use *their* products in conjunction with my purchase.
Eat shit, MS. Really now, unless you can get a green light from Congress allowing you to crack my computer to see what I'm using, you can just - go - fuck - yourselves. Not a goddamned thing you can do about it.
And even if you do get that green light, good luck breaking into my home network - running Linux top to bottom, of course. With your programming track record I think there's a likelier chance of hell freezing over....
Max
That if those few of us left who actually believed in rights, along with the basic principle "so long as I'm not harming you and yours, shut the fuck up and mind your own goddamned business", were to move to British Columbia and become Canadian citizens, we might actually have enough voting power to pass a referendum seceding from Canada and establishing our own nation.
Why British Columbia? Well, although it rains 10 months out of the year it's very, very pretty. B'sides, global warming should make the climate a bit more hospitable over the next couple of decades. It also has a couple of nice large port cities with lots of ex-Hong Kong money floating about, as well as quite a few high-tech operations.
And the population is pretty tiny. Even if there are only a couple million of us left who believe in the Bill of Rights that should be enough to push for secession.
The downside is that the moment we secede King George will declare our new nation a 'safe harbor for terrorism', then invade and conquer us and cut down all of our trees for his friends in the timber industry....
Max
Unfortunately most of the 'new masters' can't hold a candle to the old ones. I keep hunting for folks who can do the job, but they're few and far between with miles of dreck to trudge through from one distant shining light to another.
Remember, this is the age where excruciatingly bad D&D novels are popular and are considered to be 'fantasy' instead of 'product placement ads'. With a few exceptions (George R. R. Martin comes to mind) the 'oldies but goodies' are pretty much still the best the market has to offer.
Max
Men tend to have a stabler personality during PMS, women tend to be more emotional during PMS.
Prove it. Provide an accredited, peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal backing your claim.
And don't forget: you must also prove that women, during PMS, are actually less stable than men (however you define 'stable'). It may just be that a woman, during PMS, is as unstable as a man is during his entire waking life, while outside of PMS she is far, far more mentaly stable.
Max
Christ, yet another 'greater good' argument. I have an idea: how about if we schedule a hunting season three months out of the year for anyone who uses either of these two phrases in the course of a conversation:
"for the greater good"
"for the chillllldddrreeennn!!!"
Max
And there is no evidence whatsoever that women are any less capable when it comes to the 'technical skills' that you mention.
If you think otherwise, please provide a cite from an accredited, scientific, peer-reviewed journal to support your claim.
Face up to it, boy. The women are just plain smarter than us, in all the ways that count. And this is a *good* thing, given that we'll probably need all the smarts we can get to make it through this century.
Max
Mmmmm....Nutella....
This would be because functionality there's no difference in the maturity level of the 5-year-old boy and the 96-year-old man. Women, you see, continue to mature throughout childhood - and get this! - even through puberty. Most men, on the other hand, arrest at about the age that farts seem insanely funny.
Hence the 'farting is always funny syndrome'.
Max
Bullshit. Our rights have been under assault for quite some time. All of the rights enumerated in the Constitution have been curtailed in some fashion, and others are on the way to being completely ignored altogether. I could give you numerous examples of this, but such examples are so easy to find on the internet why bother? Take a look for yourself, it's not like you have to search extensively to see how little of your rights actually survive.
The real problem is that the majority of Americans no longer believe in the Constitution or the rights enshrined in it. The majority *want* these rights curtailed or revoked. They want this because a) they don't trust their neighbors with freedom, and are willing to give up their own so long as their neighbor has to give it up too, and b) it gives them the illusion of power - i.e., they think by denying their neighbor the ability to do something their neighbor wants them to do, they 'prove' in some strange way that they actually have a certain measure of control over life (in this case, they've made their neighbor miserable and it shows).
People talk about revolution in the streets if 'things go too far'. I say "bullshit". The farther things go, the happier the majority of the sheeple will be. If Constitutional rights are abrogated altogether most Americans would see that as a cause for celebration.
Very few people believe in rights anymore. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with these rights. Americans are hankering for a dictatorship, a Big Daddy who'll protect them all from their evil-minded neighbors. And it looks very much like they're going to get exactly what they want.
Max
If you had a choice between someone with an MD and a PhD in oncology and some kid from the ghetto treating your cancer, which would you choose?
This is an idiot's argument. There is no degree, no regimen of training, which enables any one person to claim a better ability to rule over others than the average Joe. A college education certainly doesn't qualify one as a superior human being when it comes to making decisions for others.
The best solution, in my opinion, is to establish certain inalienable rights and then live by the motto 'that government which governs least is best'. Unfortunately America's founding fathers tried this and had the entire experiment subverted almost right from the beginning, from the Whiskey Rebellion on.
Fact is, there is no test or credential which guarrantees, or even predisposes, one particular individual to be better suited to rule than any other. The only real option is to agree on a series of absolutes and then do your best to curtail power in all of its forms in order to castrate the egomaniacal among us who get a kick out of making other people do things they don't want to do, or telling others they can't do things that they do want to do.
Max
The article is about gaming. This doesn't have a fucking thing to do with banging the hot chick you see in the mall (and that you can never have, given that you're a gaming geek).
Sex is healthy. Acting like a goddamn frat boy is not. We have more than enough frat boys and misogynistic gaming geeks in the world; we could use a bit more maturity, and perhaps a forced sterilization program for the more obnoxious twits as well.
Making games that actually feature strong female characters without absurdly out-of-proportion attributes, low-cut shirts, and tight little shorts might actually attract more women to their computers. And for some of us men, we could sit back and enjoy the game without thinking 'yet another stereotype fit only for frustrated teenage boys'.
So far, the only games that come to mind that've done this (and they were both excellent, some of the best ever made) are The Longest Journey and Syberia. As compared to the plethora of games designed for snot-nosed brats who have yet to lose their virginity because no girl in her right mind would allow these losers anywhere near her.
Max
Any yet, anecdotal evidence is all you provide, later on in your own post.
Well no shit, Sherlock. Apparently reading comprehension is something you failed in school. Note that I said my own anecdotal evidence was entirely useless. Try wrapping your tiny brain around that fact, and everything that follows is noted as purest speculation based on personal observation - completely irrelevant from a scientific standpoint.
Moron.
Although after reading the study it seems I'm rather on-target. Kids are by far and away the largest user group, so completely saturated that further growth is impractical.
I excluded college women because they aren't nearly the self-worshipping arrogant egotists that college men tend to be. Really, their mamas should've bitch-slapped them more when they were growing up. Especially the frat-boy variety.
As for gen-x, note that the study is about internet usage, and not computer usage at work. These are two entirely different things.
Concerning the Boomers, one does not have to understand a thing, or use a thing, to invest in it. I doubt many of the people who own MS stock know anything more about computers than how to find the 'on' button. And I'm certain that most of the Genentech investors couldn't tell you the difference between a cell wall and a cell membrane.
Boomers have always been about money as a measure of power. I said 'if they could', but they can't now, can they? So lacking the ability to actually enforce a rigid status quo, the next best thing is to make sure that you invest in it, and therefore control it.
And finally, it appears that the elderly (over 65) actually *do* tinker with the internet more than the Boomers do. At least according to the study. Did you actually read the thing?
Oh wait, of course you didn't.
Max
Anecdotal 'evidence' isn't worth the toilet paper you wiped your ass with to collect it in the first place.
I'd like to see some real statistics here, defined by age. After working with the local school district and university for several years my own anecdotal (and therefore entirely useless) observations were as follows:
kids: computer use is in their DNA. Near 100% assimilation.
college punks: what better tool for dick-measuring and acting like immature assholes could possibly exist? Near-total assimilation, with certain exempted segments.
gen-x: iffy. Have to use the blasted thing for work. Still think there's a division between 'real life' and 'virtual life', so the computer isn't nearly as enthralling to them. Silly gits think that real-world sex is better than getting online and downloading porn.
boomers: heavily invested in the status quo. Hate change of any kind. Think the computer is a tool of the devil, primarily because the young 'get it' intuitively and they hate the young with a passion. The computer is just another sign that they're getting old and that immortality drugs won't be invented before they're all dead (thank the gods for that one). Would ban the damned thing if they could, if just to punish everyone under the age of 30.
the elderly: hell, they're already on death's door. Why not experiment with something new? Usage much higher in this group than with the boomers.
Max
"Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com [yahoo.com].
Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups.... "
The beauty of having a karma score far beyond anything you could ever actually need is that you can take a post that's been marked as a 'troll' by some ignorant right-wing looney Bush boot-licker and repost it - with a score of '2'.
Sometimes, enraging the conservative pricks who prowl Slashdot is enough to put a big ol' grin on your face....
Check out the article, though. The 'popular' Iraqi demonstration was actually staged by the Bush government, apparently because the Iraqis themselves are in no way celebrating the fact that they've been conquered. Imagine that!
And this is the government we entrust to watch over our privacy? Lying sacks of shit, scum of the Earth fuckwits who pull crap like this? And then appoint a Doubleclick lackey to 'watch over' our privacy? Wake up, shitheads - our privacy is *already guarranteed* by the Constitution. The only thing an ad company executive can do is find ways to circumvent protections that are more than 200 years old.
Max
Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com.
Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups....
Max
Oh yes, that's the ticket. Governments are ever so much more responsible when it comes to the uses of dangerous research than, say, open bodies of private citizens are. Certainly, such a point isn't even up for discussion!
In any event, *anything* which has the possibility of upsetting the status quo or dethroning the people currently in charge, whether they be in government or corporate America, will be classified. Imagine if someone were to come up with a way to indefinitely expand human lifespan: how long do you think it would be before this research was 'classified', and everyone involved with it met with an untimely accident?
The only 'safety' anyone has is for the knowledge to be completely open and available to everyone who wants it. As has been demonstrated time and time again, no one can make you safe - but you. Anyone who makes claims to the contrary is either a complete idiot or has motivations other than concern for your personal welfare.
Max
People are too focussed (sp?) on size as a measure of a company.
And that surprises you? How many contests, business or otherwise, boil down to size? How many are just complex ways for little boys to whip out their willies and measure them against one another?
Hell, dick-measuring seems to be genetically encoded for most men, especially when the actual equipment is substandard. Just take a gander here at Slashdot to see techno-geeks engaged in the same stupid games as men in other walks of life. They may *seem* to be arguing about some completely unrelated topic, but in actuality all they're trying to do is prove that yes, indeed, they have a monstrous penis.
Must be inspired by all the jumbo dicks they see in their porn downloads....
Max
Why are people concerned over First Amendment violations when it comes to anti-spamming legislation? Right now our government is handily ignoring the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, imprisoning folks indefinitely without recourse to the law for merely being 'material witnesses' to unspecified crimes.
Really now, if we can throw people in jail on a whim in direct violation of the basic laws of this land, then what on Earth does it matter if anti-spamming laws violate the First Amendment? Indeed, why can't we simply accuse spammers of having 'terrorist connections' or being 'witnesses' to various crimes and toss them in jail as well?
Now that I think about it, doesn't the annoyance of spam, the server load caused by spam, seem like a terrorist act in and of itself? Perhaps those spammers should be arrested and investigated, after spending months in dog kennels at Guantanamo....
Max
Luckily I haven't managed to buy a "copy protected" CD yet, but then I don't listen to Britney, N^Sync, Pink or any of that nonsense. The day Voivod start using Cactus or something will be a dark day indeed. DVDs suck. CSS sucks. I don't pirate films or music or software. Treat me like a responsible adult. Treat me fairly. I demand my Fair Use rights! I act responsibly. Give me the credit I deserve.
Perhaps I'll treat you like a responsible adult when you stop referring to music that you, personally, don't like as 'nonsense'. This is the mark of the pseudo-intellectual; the only thing you need to do now to send me into gales of laughter is go on and on about how all those 'alternative' bands are sooooo much better.
Max