I find it rather interesting that you define two classes of sexuality: heterosexuality and homosexuality. However, according to Kinsey and every relevant study conducted after him, there are *three times* as many bisexuals walking the planet as homosexuals.
So, how can bisexuality possibly be classed as a defect? After all, you're just as likely to, and as capable of, reproducing as any straight person. Being bisexual doesn't reduce the chance of passing on genes to the next generation, which is apparently your sole criteria for determing 'defect' status in sexuality.
By your own standards, bisexuality would be no more defective than heterosexuality.
Spoken like a true moralist. You're willing - nay, eager - to inflict treatable genetic illnesses upon future generations just to satisfy your own personal beliefs on how the world should be. How ethical of you.
But there's a solution: how about you butt out of the personal business of parents choosing to have children in whatever fashion they think is best, and we'll allow you to have children purely through the 'crapshoot' method. Then you can be content in the knowledge that at least you're doing your part to spur on creativity.
Yes, yes, but we all know that the pro-lifer fanatics are fucking idiots whose primary interest is in enforcing their smug religious beliefs on everyone else. No rational person gives a rats ass what they think on the matter.
Yes, I love Linux, but I don't think it's ready for the desktop. MS has it right with near-universal copy and paste and stability is no longer an issue. On a properly configured machine there is no reason that 2000 or XP should crash. Ever. My machines don't, yours can too.
I support a great many of these machines and every time I hear some yahoo going off on the idea that 'stability is no longer an issue' with Win2000 - or XP, which is less stable than 2000 - I can't help but think "what the fuck planet do they live on?"
And don't tell me I don't know what I'm doing, sonny. I do. No version of Windows is stable. Some are more stable than others but they still suck compared to Linux or BSD.
There's many, many good places for Linux, but the desktop just isn't there yet.
Every time one of you yahoos starts on about how 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' there'll be one of me saying, "no, it isn't ready for your desktop - which says nothing about anyone else".
Christ, do all you Microsofties get together and practice certain chants in the morning before breakfast? "Linux isn't ready for the desktop, ommmmmmm", or "Windows is now stable, genuflect to the Great Bill".
Praise the penguin and pass the ammunition. I've got some fanboys heads that need a'mountin' on my wall....
I use winxp on a daily basis, and I've _never_ had a stability problem with it.
This bit of anecdotal evidence and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
An OS thats perfectly stable (unless you mess with it of course), but is hard to configure and is lacking in quality applications (ie: not beta software written by a guy in his basement which is likely to be abandoned before 1.0),
blah blah blah. Win fanboys at work again. SuSe 7.3 is just as easy to configure as Windows, and it doesn't ask for driver disks or engage in endless reboots. Most folks don't have any problem getting Redhat or Mandrake set up either.
It's the last refuge of the Bill-worshippers to claim that Linux doesn't have quality apps. Anyone with a clue knows this isn't true. Anyone with a clue, that is.
Here's a quarter, kid.
I can honestly say that linux has a LONG way to go before it has a chance of beating windows on the non-nerds desktop.
More fan-boy breast-beating. You aren't in the least bit original; your claim has been refuted so many times it doesn't bear repeating here. Boring, you are. Very, very boring.
If it works like KDE - which it does - then the basic Windows user probably won't even notice any differences. I've set up KDE workstations before and have actually had people think it was just another version of Windows with a different theme.
So claiming that it looks like Windows but will work in a confusingly different fashion is just plain hogwash. It doesn't, and it won't.
As for the movies, so the fuck what? Yeah, I spend money on movies - lots of 'em, in fact, since I'm a movie buff. But no, I won't buy any copy-protected devices. I know this to be true because:
a) I'm an adult, and b) I goddamn well said so
Suck it up, kid. I can go to the movies twice a month and still refuse to buy copy-protected devices. These two things aren't incompatible no matter how much they fuck with your sense of how the world should be.
Well, you can't threaten to kill the president, even idly. But you could say this: "President Bush is in serious need of a post-natal abortion." It's not a threat, gets the point across, and doesn't implicate *you* in any criminal activity. But the discerning reader will be very well aware of what you think of monkey-boy, er, King George.
Oh, I agree. I'm tired of the spam and porn mail and the endless need to alter my filters to keep the sobs out. No doubt about it.
I'm also tired of the religious freaks who seem to think it their personal mission to convert me to whatever brand of religion they happen to be selling. It's bad enough that those fools in suits keep dropping by on Sunday mornings (well, until I told them I worship Satan, anyway), but do they really have to keep dumping the 'word of lord xyz' in my mailbox?
At least with the porn I sometimes get interesting pictures....
Censorship isn't the problem. In countries where censorship is real the citizens of those nations are quite aware of what is being censored and why. Only the most clueless insist, in a censored country, that censorship doesn't exist.
The more insidious tactic, taken by governments in the First World, is to divert attention from a view that the government doesn't favor. One way is to create a larger crisis that overshadows the first (e.g., terrorism!), another is to drown the offending message in noise, and still another is to make the annoyance appear to be part of a tiny minority or even in need of professional help.
And it isn't government that has an exclusive on these tactics. Other groups are willing and eager to play the same game if it destroys or renders powerless an opposing viewpoint. If you own the local paper but don't want to be accused of censorship, go ahead and print that damned story...on page 47 of section C.
This isn't censorship. Censorship is too obvious. By comparison this more evolved kind of suppression goes completely unnoticed by the majority of would-be listeners because they can't find the message in the noise, or assume the message comes from highly questionable, minority sources.
Censorship would be nearly impossible to accomplish on the internet without someone noticing and making a fuss - x-file conspiracy freak theories notwithstanding. But suppression...suppression is a piece of cake. Suppression using one of the above methods becomes economical, even. Drown the target in noise and negative opinions (e.g., MS hiring folks to misrepresent themselves as average 'linux sux, dood' losers here on/.), establish the perception that the target is a tiny minority, and further the claim by suggesting that the reason it's such a tiny minority is that only unstable folks in need of medication would say such things in the first place.
Who needs ham-handed censorship when suppression through misdirection and lies is so much more effective?
Or we can mouth off here and annoy folks like you who bitch about the folks who are bitching. Doesn't that just make you and them bitches of the same stripe?
Deliberately obscuring information to make it difficult for the average user to find isn't suppression? My former employers in the U.S. government will be glad to hear that as this tactic was used regularly to keep citizens from effectively fighting government practices and policies.
But hey, since it ain't *censorship* I guess there's no cause for alarm....
Making things look like things that they are not is not a worthy goal.
Hey, it's good to see that you're comfortable with making that declaration for all and sundry - and turning it into an ethical argument while you're at it.
making something look like something whose functionality it poorly copies is a worse sin than making it look completely alien
Ooooh, making Licoris look like Windows is a sin! Roll out the Linux High Priests, boys, it's time to burn some slackers at the stake!
it's a foolhardy path down which we travel if this becomes the custom.
Get over yourself, son, because you aren't going anywhere. The only people on the journey are those that try out the distribution, and I sincerely doubt they'd care a whit about your arguments if this 'sinful' look and feel make the machine easier for them to adjust to.
I agree. I work with computers for a living; I don't want to go home and deal with some pain-in-the-ass configuration during my free time. I sure as hell don't want to spend my off-duty hours at a friends house helping them sort out a Redhat quirk.
This distribution just might be the answer to getting the friends and family set up without having to sign a chunk of my life away as evening tech support. I'm definitely going to have to check this out.
Not linux geeks, linux fanatics. I'm a geek, I use Linux; but I really don't care what anyone else is using (well, unless I have to support the blasted thing). You want Windows - you go right ahead and spread those asscheeks.
The fanatics - usually not very tech-savvy folks, from what I've seen - seem to think that there's some sort of holy war going on between Windows and Linux and that they are one of the 'chosen few' entrusted with the mission to spread the word. I despise these folks just like I despise the BillG-tools and every other stripe of fanatic out there. Pain in the goddamned ass, they are.
Most Linux folks aren't like this. They don't give a shit about *your* OS. The fanatics are a vocal minority, but still a minority.
Microsoft, a portrait of coordinated software development, doesn't have to choose between unstable bell-and-whistled programs and stable less-featured programs, because it produces stable bell-and-whistled programs.
Been smoking a bit too much crack, I see. Windows still doesn't come close to approaching the stability of Linux, even with Win2000 (XP isn't as stable as 2000 no matter what Bill and his fanboys claim).
Microsoft is indeed known for its bells and whistles, but unless you've been living on Rigel VI for the last ten years no one but the most clueless of sods would claim their products are stable.
Underclocking a chip isn't something an ordinary user is going to do. They aren't going to say to themselves "hey, I could suck up (marginally) less power and perhaps even remove a fan or two if I cut the speed of my righteous 2 ghz processor to 1 ghz!"
Uh uh. Not the way the average "speed is cool" user thinks. Intel has been telling people for more than ten years that speed is good. And they believe it.
Shit, you won't see my slowing down my 1.4 ghz AMD chips any time in the near future, despite the fact that they rarely operate at peak performance....
I agree the HPs from the 540 on suck big green donkey dick - I've maintained enough of these bastards. But that doesn't address the lack of decent HP drivers in Linux, an OS that prides itself on providing drivers for some of the worst trash out there.
The printing for the HP 600 series on is so bad I switch to my gaming Windows partition to print. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for printer support.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it rather interesting that you define two classes of sexuality: heterosexuality and homosexuality. However, according to Kinsey and every relevant study conducted after him, there are *three times* as many bisexuals walking the planet as homosexuals.
So, how can bisexuality possibly be classed as a defect? After all, you're just as likely to, and as capable of, reproducing as any straight person. Being bisexual doesn't reduce the chance of passing on genes to the next generation, which is apparently your sole criteria for determing 'defect' status in sexuality.
By your own standards, bisexuality would be no more defective than heterosexuality.
Max
Spoken like a true moralist. You're willing - nay, eager - to inflict treatable genetic illnesses upon future generations just to satisfy your own personal beliefs on how the world should be. How ethical of you.
But there's a solution: how about you butt out of the personal business of parents choosing to have children in whatever fashion they think is best, and we'll allow you to have children purely through the 'crapshoot' method. Then you can be content in the knowledge that at least you're doing your part to spur on creativity.
Max
Yes, yes, but we all know that the pro-lifer fanatics are fucking idiots whose primary interest is in enforcing their smug religious beliefs on everyone else. No rational person gives a rats ass what they think on the matter.
Max
Yes, I love Linux, but I don't think it's ready for the desktop. MS has it right with near-universal copy and paste and stability is no longer an issue. On a properly configured machine there is no reason that 2000 or XP should crash. Ever. My machines don't, yours can too.
I support a great many of these machines and every time I hear some yahoo going off on the idea that 'stability is no longer an issue' with Win2000 - or XP, which is less stable than 2000 - I can't help but think "what the fuck planet do they live on?"
And don't tell me I don't know what I'm doing, sonny. I do. No version of Windows is stable. Some are more stable than others but they still suck compared to Linux or BSD.
There's many, many good places for Linux, but the desktop just isn't there yet.
Every time one of you yahoos starts on about how 'Linux isn't ready for the desktop' there'll be one of me saying, "no, it isn't ready for your desktop - which says nothing about anyone else".
Christ, do all you Microsofties get together and practice certain chants in the morning before breakfast? "Linux isn't ready for the desktop, ommmmmmm", or "Windows is now stable, genuflect to the Great Bill".
Praise the penguin and pass the ammunition. I've got some fanboys heads that need a'mountin' on my wall....
Max
you mean like "have MCSE"?
Max
I use winxp on a daily basis, and I've _never_ had a stability problem with it.
This bit of anecdotal evidence and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
An OS thats perfectly stable (unless you mess with it of course), but is hard to configure and is lacking in quality applications (ie: not beta software written by a guy in his basement which is likely to be abandoned before 1.0),
blah blah blah. Win fanboys at work again. SuSe 7.3 is just as easy to configure as Windows, and it doesn't ask for driver disks or engage in endless reboots. Most folks don't have any problem getting Redhat or Mandrake set up either.
It's the last refuge of the Bill-worshippers to claim that Linux doesn't have quality apps. Anyone with a clue knows this isn't true. Anyone with a clue, that is.
Here's a quarter, kid.
I can honestly say that linux has a LONG way to go before it has a chance of beating windows on the non-nerds desktop.
More fan-boy breast-beating. You aren't in the least bit original; your claim has been refuted so many times it doesn't bear repeating here. Boring, you are. Very, very boring.
Max
har har! That's a good one! I've seen about a third of the old apps break on WinXP - but I guess 2/3 is "most" by the strict definition, eh?
Max
Linux (and their overly prideful users that must find every method to berate windows).
Don't forget the folks who claim that a particular stereotype perpetrated by a few zealots must obviously apply to an entire class of people....
Max
whose customers are using it 99.9% for illegal sharing
How about some empirical cites published in an accredited, peer-reviewed source for that number? Got any? I didn't think so.
Max
If it works like KDE - which it does - then the basic Windows user probably won't even notice any differences. I've set up KDE workstations before and have actually had people think it was just another version of Windows with a different theme.
So claiming that it looks like Windows but will work in a confusingly different fashion is just plain hogwash. It doesn't, and it won't.
Max
As for the movies, so the fuck what? Yeah, I spend money on movies - lots of 'em, in fact, since I'm a movie buff. But no, I won't buy any copy-protected devices. I know this to be true because:
a) I'm an adult, and
b) I goddamn well said so
Suck it up, kid. I can go to the movies twice a month and still refuse to buy copy-protected devices. These two things aren't incompatible no matter how much they fuck with your sense of how the world should be.
Max
Where exactly does this number come from? Cites? Sources? Valenti pulling things out of his ass rather than shoving them in there for a change?
Max
Simply because this guy now works at Microsoft does not mean he has an agenda for evil.
This is kinda like saying that just because you sold your sold to the Devil doesn't mean you're damned.
Max
Well, you can't threaten to kill the president, even idly. But you could say this: "President Bush is in serious need of a post-natal abortion." It's not a threat, gets the point across, and doesn't implicate *you* in any criminal activity. But the discerning reader will be very well aware of what you think of monkey-boy, er, King George.
Max
Oh, I agree. I'm tired of the spam and porn mail and the endless need to alter my filters to keep the sobs out. No doubt about it.
I'm also tired of the religious freaks who seem to think it their personal mission to convert me to whatever brand of religion they happen to be selling. It's bad enough that those fools in suits keep dropping by on Sunday mornings (well, until I told them I worship Satan, anyway), but do they really have to keep dumping the 'word of lord xyz' in my mailbox?
At least with the porn I sometimes get interesting pictures....
Max
Censorship isn't the problem. In countries where censorship is real the citizens of those nations are quite aware of what is being censored and why. Only the most clueless insist, in a censored country, that censorship doesn't exist.
/.), establish the perception that the target is a tiny minority, and further the claim by suggesting that the reason it's such a tiny minority is that only unstable folks in need of medication would say such things in the first place.
The more insidious tactic, taken by governments in the First World, is to divert attention from a view that the government doesn't favor. One way is to create a larger crisis that overshadows the first (e.g., terrorism!), another is to drown the offending message in noise, and still another is to make the annoyance appear to be part of a tiny minority or even in need of professional help.
And it isn't government that has an exclusive on these tactics. Other groups are willing and eager to play the same game if it destroys or renders powerless an opposing viewpoint. If you own the local paper but don't want to be accused of censorship, go ahead and print that damned story...on page 47 of section C.
This isn't censorship. Censorship is too obvious. By comparison this more evolved kind of suppression goes completely unnoticed by the majority of would-be listeners because they can't find the message in the noise, or assume the message comes from highly questionable, minority sources.
Censorship would be nearly impossible to accomplish on the internet without someone noticing and making a fuss - x-file conspiracy freak theories notwithstanding. But suppression...suppression is a piece of cake. Suppression using one of the above methods becomes economical, even. Drown the target in noise and negative opinions (e.g., MS hiring folks to misrepresent themselves as average 'linux sux, dood' losers here on
Who needs ham-handed censorship when suppression through misdirection and lies is so much more effective?
Max
Or we can mouth off here and annoy folks like you who bitch about the folks who are bitching. Doesn't that just make you and them bitches of the same stripe?
Max
Deliberately obscuring information to make it difficult for the average user to find isn't suppression? My former employers in the U.S. government will be glad to hear that as this tactic was used regularly to keep citizens from effectively fighting government practices and policies.
But hey, since it ain't *censorship* I guess there's no cause for alarm....
Max
Making things look like things that they are not is not a worthy goal.
Hey, it's good to see that you're comfortable with making that declaration for all and sundry - and turning it into an ethical argument while you're at it.
making something look like something whose functionality it poorly copies is a worse sin than making it look completely alien
Ooooh, making Licoris look like Windows is a sin! Roll out the Linux High Priests, boys, it's time to burn some slackers at the stake!
it's a foolhardy path down which we travel if this becomes the custom.
Get over yourself, son, because you aren't going anywhere. The only people on the journey are those that try out the distribution, and I sincerely doubt they'd care a whit about your arguments if this 'sinful' look and feel make the machine easier for them to adjust to.
Max
I agree. I work with computers for a living; I don't want to go home and deal with some pain-in-the-ass configuration during my free time. I sure as hell don't want to spend my off-duty hours at a friends house helping them sort out a Redhat quirk.
This distribution just might be the answer to getting the friends and family set up without having to sign a chunk of my life away as evening tech support. I'm definitely going to have to check this out.
Max
Not linux geeks, linux fanatics. I'm a geek, I use Linux; but I really don't care what anyone else is using (well, unless I have to support the blasted thing). You want Windows - you go right ahead and spread those asscheeks.
The fanatics - usually not very tech-savvy folks, from what I've seen - seem to think that there's some sort of holy war going on between Windows and Linux and that they are one of the 'chosen few' entrusted with the mission to spread the word. I despise these folks just like I despise the BillG-tools and every other stripe of fanatic out there. Pain in the goddamned ass, they are.
Most Linux folks aren't like this. They don't give a shit about *your* OS. The fanatics are a vocal minority, but still a minority.
Max
Microsoft, a portrait of coordinated software development, doesn't have to choose between unstable bell-and-whistled programs and stable less-featured programs, because it produces stable bell-and-whistled programs.
Been smoking a bit too much crack, I see. Windows still doesn't come close to approaching the stability of Linux, even with Win2000 (XP isn't as stable as 2000 no matter what Bill and his fanboys claim).
Microsoft is indeed known for its bells and whistles, but unless you've been living on Rigel VI for the last ten years no one but the most clueless of sods would claim their products are stable.
Max
Underclocking a chip isn't something an ordinary user is going to do. They aren't going to say to themselves "hey, I could suck up (marginally) less power and perhaps even remove a fan or two if I cut the speed of my righteous 2 ghz processor to 1 ghz!"
Uh uh. Not the way the average "speed is cool" user thinks. Intel has been telling people for more than ten years that speed is good. And they believe it.
Shit, you won't see my slowing down my 1.4 ghz AMD chips any time in the near future, despite the fact that they rarely operate at peak performance....
Max
I agree the HPs from the 540 on suck big green donkey dick - I've maintained enough of these bastards. But that doesn't address the lack of decent HP drivers in Linux, an OS that prides itself on providing drivers for some of the worst trash out there.
The printing for the HP 600 series on is so bad I switch to my gaming Windows partition to print. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for printer support.
Max
You mean the fraud that is ICANN, or the fraud that is the alternative to ICANN. Frying pan and fire, eh?
Max