We've been hypnotized into believing that we absolutely must have a television
That would explain why the number of people who watch television at all has been *declining*, and the hours spent in front of the tube by people who do watch has been falling. This trend started in 2000 and doesn't show any signs of slowing down.
What are those people doing instead? Spending that time in front of the computer, of course. The conclusion is that at least some subset of folks will choose conformable interactive media over one-size-fits-all non-interactive media.
To all you people that spend your spare time in front of your computer or watching that 60" Hi-Def... I say switch that little bastard off
Is there really anything worth watching on TV anymore? I probably watch one or two hours a month tops. They put out boring crap that doesn't even interest me in the slightest.
And this would matter to the rest of us how? Why should we care how much TV *you* watch? Your viewing habits don't define our viewing habits, nor should they.
I think that all the interesting new stuff is being put out by small independent bands.
And I think most of the small bands are shit, and there's a reason why they're small bands. Opinions are like assholes, eh?
She will. She won't be in the first five eps (apart from vidphone) but after that she'll be back full-time. And looking hot, now that the pregnancy has put some meat back on her bones!
It used to be that I'd often see the message "your browser sucks, you need to be running IE or this site won't work for you." So in Opera I'd have to go to Quick Preferences, check "identify as IE", then reload the site to use it. As any Opera user knows, most of these 'IE-only' sites are completely full of shit and work just fine if they think the browser knocking on the door is IE.
Lately though, I've seen a different sort of message, which amounts to: "you're using IE, which sucks. Here's a link to FireFox and Opera. Both are free." So now I go into Quick Preferences to swap back to "identify as Opera".
For the first time since I started using Opera, it's actually been more beneficial to me to identify as Opera as the default rather than to identify as IE. It makes me wonder about the 'reception' that IE7 will get if IE once again tries to break standards.
Utter bullshit. Check out the nice straight lines here: http://www.pegasus3d.com/osshare2.gif (original source, Google). In 18 months XP had the Windows marketshare lead.
Which still left around 40% of the market in the hands of win98 and win2000, assuming you trust the figures here. While approximately 60% may be a "marketshare lead", it sure as hell isn't enough of a lead to dictate much of anything.
In any event, take a look at the graph and this time look closely. Almost all of XP's gains came from Win95/98 users, who decided not to switch to win2000. It's extremely unlikely that these folks will be looking to throw away all their software again simply to upgrade to what (from Joe User's perspective) appears to be another version of XP. And from the graph it appears that the win2000 users probably won't bother with Longhorn at all (they blew XP off completely).
I'd say it's probably fair to assume that Longhorn is going to have the lowest adoption rate of all MS OS's, with the possible exception of WinME. At least for a couple of years.
Bingo. Tell a user you don't support him/her, and they'll go elsewhere to someone who does.
Provide a link to Opera. Takes all of a minute to download and 30 seconds to install. Not exactly rocket science.
Imagine you said "You're using a PC- go out and buy a Mac and then come back"- who would do it?
You're comparing the inconvenience of a couple of minutes spent downloading and installing a new browser to going out and buying an entirely new computer using a different OS? Bet your high school voted you "Class Drama Queen".
are rejecting the labor and property regimes imposed upon them by the ruling classes
Riiiight. Because we can all live the good life without lifting a finger, and everyone but the "ruling classes" hates the very idea of property. I assume you won't mind if I drop by and take your stereo, then?
religious extremism is a mere superstructural stand-in for a more direct oppostion to the capitalist-imperialist system, their true downpressor.
Religious extremism is like any other form of extremism; it isn't special. Extremism is just an excuse for one group of human beings to get their jollies by oppressing another group of human beings. All extremists are evil, and they all have the same goal.
This also applies to political extremists who think that private property is the work of the devil and that the woes of the world are a direct result of "the capitalist-imperialist system".
Thus the global proletariat will eventually unite in opposition to the dehumanizing system of oligarchichal imperalist capital that today crushes so many spirits.
Okay, up until this point you had me. Good troll, up until the above sentence. It's just a bit too far out in whacko-land to take seriously.
If it's rape then they should recieve a trial by due process.
You're talking about screwing someone who hasn't even hit puberty yet - you do know that, don't you? How can someone who's say, 8 or 9 years old, consent to having sex?
Count me in as scratching my head. I've checked out a good number of the popular "blogs" (stupid fucking word - you'd think geeks could come up with something better than that) and fail to see the attraction. Most of them devolve to nothing more than intellectual masturbation, along with a liberal dose verbal vomit on why the blogger's opinion is so much more important than anyone elses concerning the topic at hand. They're very much like Slashdot posts, eternally modded to 5 because you don't get the chance to slam them into oblivion.
Hmmm...y'know, that isn't a bad analogy. Bloggers as former Slashdot posters who got tired of being modded down.
People like you who desend into moral hysteria about peoples thoughts should be shot.
That would be "descend".
And any way you slice it, people who fantasize about banging prepubescents are seriously fucked up. That isn't normal, natural, or even rational.
There are far more "sick" things than thinking about underage sex
Sure. Actually *having* sex with prepubescents. Here, I'll edit my original statement like so:
"we should THINK about putting people who fantasize about having sex with children up against a wall and shooting them"
and
"anyone who has sex with a prepubescent should be put up against a wall and shot"
That make you feel better?
though you seem to think that a thought crime is worse than all these
No, I think fantasizing about having sex with children makes you a sick motherfucker, and not someone I want to associate with in any way, shape or form.
Strange the way the "moral" people are far more likely to advocate death.
Never claimed to be "moral", though you seem fine with the misquote. Guess my "hysteria" was infectious.
The moment something better and cheaper* appears we'll jump in with both feet.
Perhaps, but I think it's equally likely that the corporations threatened by this new development will instead try to buy laws that prevent its actual use in order to maintain their outdated business model (along with their profits and their position at the top of the heap). Not that we can think of any current examples of this sort of thing happening, of course....
I nominate Grace Park, aka "Boomer" on the new BSG. Regardless of what you may think of the show, Grace is HOT! And unlike Natalie, she actually has the curves of a woman.
Um, yeah. Definitely a good argument for hitting the 'preview' button before posting.
Seriously though, my wife and I saw the movie because we were impressed by Dakota's acting in other movies she's been in. If it'd been some other little girl we'd never heard of we'd never have bothered seeing the movie - even via BitTorrent. For the same reason we don't see Travolta movies anymore, even though I thought Travolta was a decent actor right up to "Broken Arrow". Because neither of these guys can just *shut the fuck up* when it comes to their crazy-assed cult.
The same thing applies to Ashley Judd too. Cute, personable, a great actress - but lately every other sentence out of her mouth is one telling us just how great her god is, and how that god is absolutely responsible for everything that is good in the world. It just spoils her movies for us, because it's difficult to forget this annoying behavior when you see her on screen.
I don't care what insanity these folks believe in. I just wish they'd stop using their fame to proselytize to the rest of us. If I wanted to hear about your bloody god or your bloody cult I'd ask, dammit!
No, we don't have to "agree to disagree". If you can't face up to the simple reality that soldiers commit what you think of as "war crimes" on a regular basis and are never reported, tried, or imprisoned, then go ahead - live in your little delusional world. To a soldier two things are more important in the field than everything else combined: getting through the day alive, and doing the job. If a "war crime" has to be committed to accomplish either goal *then it will be committed*. You just won't hear about it.
There's nothing "morally corrupt" about this situation. It's the insanity you engage in to survive what's inherently an insane environment. Expecting 'civilized behavior' in a war zone is one of the big, steaming piles of horseshit dished up to convince the naive civilians back home that your soldiers are 'the good guys', and therefore the war should be supported.
you can't keep everyone off of your property with impunity.
And I didn't say that. I said I could tell YOU to fuck off - and you wouldn't have a choice in the matter one way or another. Refuse to leave and the cops come and drag your sorry ass away for trespassing.
I also said that I could set the rules for YOU, and that if you don't like them you could leave. But you don't get the choice to ignore my rules and remain on my property. You have only two choices here: obey them or leave, either under your own power or assisted by the boys in blue.
This isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp, unless of course you're some sort of socialist who doesn't believe in private property, or one of those pseudo-liberal fucks who thinks that HIS rules apply wherever he happens to stand.
Although a number of folks on slashdot pride themselves on being superior to the herd, they're just as prone to erecting sacred cows as any Britney worshipper. Only in their case instead of fawning over beautiful women (a perfectly understandable activity, so far as I'm concerned) they bow down before certain corporate entities (Apple, Google), select pieces of software (FireFox), and a passle of aging geeks (Linus, RMS).
Like any set of fans, you point out that the gold on the idol appears to be just plating and they'll go batshit trying to 'prove' that it's pure all the way through.
That you refuse to acknowledge the laws doesn't make them go poof.
Yes, it does. Any soldier knows that "war crimes" occur on a regular basis in the field. No soldier gives a fuck about "war crimes" when it comes to getting the job done, or keeping himself and his buddies alive. That's the way things are, whether you happen to like it or not.
It just means you are more likely to become a war criminal.
I would love to have the time in my life to satisfy those that say "if you don't like one version of linux, pick another" but there are other things to do than install distros all day.
And in this case you're better served by sticking with Windows than switching to Linux. Look, only the fanatics who view the "Linux vs Windows" thing as some sort of religious crusade actually care about converting you; the rest of us don't give a damn what OS you use.
Choose what's best for you, stick with it, and ignore the zealots on both sides of this non-issue.
Perhaps, but as long as they exist we have to waste our time resolving them over and over and over again.
The people actually doing the programming don't see this as a waste of time, and in the end the only opinion that counts is theirs. They aren't reponsible to anyone but themselves, and no one can reasonably claim otherwise.
It isn't *you* who's 'wasting time'. You can't make the claim, nor can you insist that others conform to your view on How Things Should Be In The Linux World(TM). If you don't get this perhaps you'd be better served by using Windows.
Right. Computer nerds are some more 'humanitarian' than some other random stereotypical subset of people. Good call.
You can be a humanitarian and still be in favor of using whatever force you can bring to bear in a war. The humanitarian in this case will do everything reasonable to avoid the war in the first place, but once the situation devolves to open conflict he'll choose logic over emotion and try to end the conflict as quickly as possible - in HIS favor.
Unless your definition of 'humanitarian' translates to 'self-destructively pacifistic'.
There are no innocents in war. The other guy is your enemy - period. And it's up to you to destroy his will to engage in war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties to *your own* citizens as possible.
There are no laws in war. Which is something naive little liberals will never, ever understand. War is not, and can never be, a 'civilized' activity. It's horrible, it's brutal, it's insane; it can't be anything other than what it is. To try to impose some bullshit 'rulebook' on war is astoundingly stupid - or a sop to civilians who just don't and will never get it.
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for so many people.
These are the same people whose sheltered existence has somehow led them to believe that war can in some bizarre way be a 'civilized' activity, and that certain classes of people (e.g., civilians) should never be targeted or that certain types of weapons (in this case, nukes) should never be used. To them war is an abstract, a game of Warcraft gone bad.
War is about winning. It's about destroying the other guy's ability to continue the conflict. You do this not only by killing as many of his soldiers as you possibly can, but also by killing the civilians involved in the production of war materials. There are no 'non-combatants' in a war zone, and to insist otherwise is liberal naivete.
The bomb, in this case, was an attempt to convince the Japanese government that the only alternative to surrender was horrible death from the skies. The fact that they'd already come to that conclusion (re the massive U.S. conventional bombardment of Japan) wasn't entirely apparent to the U.S. leadership. Right or wrong, they saw the bomb as ultimately saving American lives, and in war the only lives that count are those of your own citizens.
The armchair generals who think that kicking ass in a game of "Hearts of Iron" somehow makes them qualified to discuss the topic and to vomit up obnoxious 20-20 hindsight criticisms of the people who dropped the bomb will never understand the reality of war, nor even the reality of that particular war. They just won't get it until they find themselves in some nasty little shithole trying to breathe through their mouth to keep out the smell of intestines rotting in the noon sun.
Slashdot Mirror
We've been hypnotized into believing that we absolutely must have a television
... I say switch that little bastard off
That would explain why the number of people who watch television at all has been *declining*, and the hours spent in front of the tube by people who do watch has been falling. This trend started in 2000 and doesn't show any signs of slowing down.
What are those people doing instead? Spending that time in front of the computer, of course. The conclusion is that at least some subset of folks will choose conformable interactive media over one-size-fits-all non-interactive media.
To all you people that spend your spare time in front of your computer or watching that 60" Hi-Def
and remember that Luddites are your friends!
Max
Is there really anything worth watching on TV anymore? I probably watch one or two hours a month tops. They put out boring crap that doesn't even interest me in the slightest.
And this would matter to the rest of us how? Why should we care how much TV *you* watch? Your viewing habits don't define our viewing habits, nor should they.
I think that all the interesting new stuff is being put out by small independent bands.
And I think most of the small bands are shit, and there's a reason why they're small bands. Opinions are like assholes, eh?
Max
She will. She won't be in the first five eps (apart from vidphone) but after that she'll be back full-time. And looking hot, now that the pregnancy has put some meat back on her bones!
Max
It used to be that I'd often see the message "your browser sucks, you need to be running IE or this site won't work for you." So in Opera I'd have to go to Quick Preferences, check "identify as IE", then reload the site to use it. As any Opera user knows, most of these 'IE-only' sites are completely full of shit and work just fine if they think the browser knocking on the door is IE.
Lately though, I've seen a different sort of message, which amounts to: "you're using IE, which sucks. Here's a link to FireFox and Opera. Both are free." So now I go into Quick Preferences to swap back to "identify as Opera".
For the first time since I started using Opera, it's actually been more beneficial to me to identify as Opera as the default rather than to identify as IE. It makes me wonder about the 'reception' that IE7 will get if IE once again tries to break standards.
Max
Utter bullshit. Check out the nice straight lines here: http://www.pegasus3d.com/osshare2.gif (original source, Google). In 18 months XP had the Windows marketshare lead.
Which still left around 40% of the market in the hands of win98 and win2000, assuming you trust the figures here. While approximately 60% may be a "marketshare lead", it sure as hell isn't enough of a lead to dictate much of anything.
In any event, take a look at the graph and this time look closely. Almost all of XP's gains came from Win95/98 users, who decided not to switch to win2000. It's extremely unlikely that these folks will be looking to throw away all their software again simply to upgrade to what (from Joe User's perspective) appears to be another version of XP. And from the graph it appears that the win2000 users probably won't bother with Longhorn at all (they blew XP off completely).
I'd say it's probably fair to assume that Longhorn is going to have the lowest adoption rate of all MS OS's, with the possible exception of WinME. At least for a couple of years.
Max
Bingo. Tell a user you don't support him/her, and they'll go elsewhere to someone who does.
Provide a link to Opera. Takes all of a minute to download and 30 seconds to install. Not exactly rocket science.
Imagine you said "You're using a PC- go out and buy a Mac and then come back"- who would do it?
You're comparing the inconvenience of a couple of minutes spent downloading and installing a new browser to going out and buying an entirely new computer using a different OS? Bet your high school voted you "Class Drama Queen".
Max
are rejecting the labor and property regimes imposed upon them by the ruling classes
Riiiight. Because we can all live the good life without lifting a finger, and everyone but the "ruling classes" hates the very idea of property. I assume you won't mind if I drop by and take your stereo, then?
religious extremism is a mere superstructural stand-in for a more direct oppostion to the capitalist-imperialist system, their true downpressor.
Religious extremism is like any other form of extremism; it isn't special. Extremism is just an excuse for one group of human beings to get their jollies by oppressing another group of human beings. All extremists are evil, and they all have the same goal.
This also applies to political extremists who think that private property is the work of the devil and that the woes of the world are a direct result of "the capitalist-imperialist system".
Thus the global proletariat will eventually unite in opposition to the dehumanizing system of oligarchichal imperalist capital that today crushes so many spirits.
Okay, up until this point you had me. Good troll, up until the above sentence. It's just a bit too far out in whacko-land to take seriously.
Max
If it's rape then they should recieve a trial by due process.
You're talking about screwing someone who hasn't even hit puberty yet - you do know that, don't you? How can someone who's say, 8 or 9 years old, consent to having sex?
Max
Count me in as scratching my head. I've checked out a good number of the popular "blogs" (stupid fucking word - you'd think geeks could come up with something better than that) and fail to see the attraction. Most of them devolve to nothing more than intellectual masturbation, along with a liberal dose verbal vomit on why the blogger's opinion is so much more important than anyone elses concerning the topic at hand. They're very much like Slashdot posts, eternally modded to 5 because you don't get the chance to slam them into oblivion.
Hmmm...y'know, that isn't a bad analogy. Bloggers as former Slashdot posters who got tired of being modded down.
Max
People like you who desend into moral hysteria about peoples thoughts should be shot.
That would be "descend".
And any way you slice it, people who fantasize about banging prepubescents are seriously fucked up. That isn't normal, natural, or even rational.
There are far more "sick" things than thinking about underage sex
Sure. Actually *having* sex with prepubescents. Here, I'll edit my original statement like so:
"we should THINK about putting people who fantasize about having sex with children up against a wall and shooting them"
and
"anyone who has sex with a prepubescent should be put up against a wall and shot"
That make you feel better?
though you seem to think that a thought crime is worse than all these
No, I think fantasizing about having sex with children makes you a sick motherfucker, and not someone I want to associate with in any way, shape or form.
Strange the way the "moral" people are far more likely to advocate death.
Never claimed to be "moral", though you seem fine with the misquote. Guess my "hysteria" was infectious.
Max
The moment something better and cheaper* appears we'll jump in with both feet.
Perhaps, but I think it's equally likely that the corporations threatened by this new development will instead try to buy laws that prevent its actual use in order to maintain their outdated business model (along with their profits and their position at the top of the heap). Not that we can think of any current examples of this sort of thing happening, of course....
Max
I nominate Grace Park, aka "Boomer" on the new BSG. Regardless of what you may think of the show, Grace is HOT! And unlike Natalie, she actually has the curves of a woman.
Max
Dakota Fanning is 11 years old, for chrissakes. Anyone thinking of "hitting that" should be put up against a wall and shot.
Max
Er, yes. Probably quite true.
Um, yeah. Definitely a good argument for hitting the 'preview' button before posting.
Seriously though, my wife and I saw the movie because we were impressed by Dakota's acting in other movies she's been in. If it'd been some other little girl we'd never heard of we'd never have bothered seeing the movie - even via BitTorrent. For the same reason we don't see Travolta movies anymore, even though I thought Travolta was a decent actor right up to "Broken Arrow". Because neither of these guys can just *shut the fuck up* when it comes to their crazy-assed cult.
The same thing applies to Ashley Judd too. Cute, personable, a great actress - but lately every other sentence out of her mouth is one telling us just how great her god is, and how that god is absolutely responsible for everything that is good in the world. It just spoils her movies for us, because it's difficult to forget this annoying behavior when you see her on screen.
I don't care what insanity these folks believe in. I just wish they'd stop using their fame to proselytize to the rest of us. If I wanted to hear about your bloody god or your bloody cult I'd ask, dammit!
Max
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Which is liberal-speak for "shut the fuck up".
No, we don't have to "agree to disagree". If you can't face up to the simple reality that soldiers commit what you think of as "war crimes" on a regular basis and are never reported, tried, or imprisoned, then go ahead - live in your little delusional world. To a soldier two things are more important in the field than everything else combined: getting through the day alive, and doing the job. If a "war crime" has to be committed to accomplish either goal *then it will be committed*. You just won't hear about it.
There's nothing "morally corrupt" about this situation. It's the insanity you engage in to survive what's inherently an insane environment. Expecting 'civilized behavior' in a war zone is one of the big, steaming piles of horseshit dished up to convince the naive civilians back home that your soldiers are 'the good guys', and therefore the war should be supported.
Max
you can't keep everyone off of your property with impunity.
And I didn't say that. I said I could tell YOU to fuck off - and you wouldn't have a choice in the matter one way or another. Refuse to leave and the cops come and drag your sorry ass away for trespassing.
I also said that I could set the rules for YOU, and that if you don't like them you could leave. But you don't get the choice to ignore my rules and remain on my property. You have only two choices here: obey them or leave, either under your own power or assisted by the boys in blue.
This isn't a terribly difficult concept to grasp, unless of course you're some sort of socialist who doesn't believe in private property, or one of those pseudo-liberal fucks who thinks that HIS rules apply wherever he happens to stand.
Max
Although a number of folks on slashdot pride themselves on being superior to the herd, they're just as prone to erecting sacred cows as any Britney worshipper. Only in their case instead of fawning over beautiful women (a perfectly understandable activity, so far as I'm concerned) they bow down before certain corporate entities (Apple, Google), select pieces of software (FireFox), and a passle of aging geeks (Linus, RMS).
Like any set of fans, you point out that the gold on the idol appears to be just plating and they'll go batshit trying to 'prove' that it's pure all the way through.
Max
That you refuse to acknowledge the laws doesn't make them go poof.
Yes, it does. Any soldier knows that "war crimes" occur on a regular basis in the field. No soldier gives a fuck about "war crimes" when it comes to getting the job done, or keeping himself and his buddies alive. That's the way things are, whether you happen to like it or not.
It just means you are more likely to become a war criminal.
Only if you lose.
Max
I would love to have the time in my life to satisfy those that say "if you don't like one version of linux, pick another" but there are other things to do than install distros all day.
And in this case you're better served by sticking with Windows than switching to Linux. Look, only the fanatics who view the "Linux vs Windows" thing as some sort of religious crusade actually care about converting you; the rest of us don't give a damn what OS you use.
Choose what's best for you, stick with it, and ignore the zealots on both sides of this non-issue.
Max
Perhaps, but as long as they exist we have to waste our time resolving them over and over and over again.
The people actually doing the programming don't see this as a waste of time, and in the end the only opinion that counts is theirs. They aren't reponsible to anyone but themselves, and no one can reasonably claim otherwise.
It isn't *you* who's 'wasting time'. You can't make the claim, nor can you insist that others conform to your view on How Things Should Be In The Linux World(TM). If you don't get this perhaps you'd be better served by using Windows.
Max
computer nerds used to be humanitarians.
Right. Computer nerds are some more 'humanitarian' than some other random stereotypical subset of people. Good call.
You can be a humanitarian and still be in favor of using whatever force you can bring to bear in a war. The humanitarian in this case will do everything reasonable to avoid the war in the first place, but once the situation devolves to open conflict he'll choose logic over emotion and try to end the conflict as quickly as possible - in HIS favor.
Unless your definition of 'humanitarian' translates to 'self-destructively pacifistic'.
Max
No, massacring innocent people is wrong, period.
There are no innocents in war. The other guy is your enemy - period. And it's up to you to destroy his will to engage in war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties to *your own* citizens as possible.
What about this do you not understand?
Max
That is sort of the first law of war.
There are no laws in war. Which is something naive little liberals will never, ever understand.
War is not, and can never be, a 'civilized' activity. It's horrible, it's brutal, it's insane; it can't be anything other than what it is. To try to impose some bullshit 'rulebook' on war is astoundingly stupid - or a sop to civilians who just don't and will never get it.
Max
There are many times that obediance must take precendance over one's conscience.
Not in a free country.
Max
I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for so many people.
These are the same people whose sheltered existence has somehow led them to believe that war can in some bizarre way be a 'civilized' activity, and that certain classes of people (e.g., civilians) should never be targeted or that certain types of weapons (in this case, nukes) should never be used. To them war is an abstract, a game of Warcraft gone bad.
War is about winning. It's about destroying the other guy's ability to continue the conflict. You do this not only by killing as many of his soldiers as you possibly can, but also by killing the civilians involved in the production of war materials. There are no 'non-combatants' in a war zone, and to insist otherwise is liberal naivete.
The bomb, in this case, was an attempt to convince the Japanese government that the only alternative to surrender was horrible death from the skies. The fact that they'd already come to that conclusion (re the massive U.S. conventional bombardment of Japan) wasn't entirely apparent to the U.S. leadership. Right or wrong, they saw the bomb as ultimately saving American lives, and in war the only lives that count are those of your own citizens.
The armchair generals who think that kicking ass in a game of "Hearts of Iron" somehow makes them qualified to discuss the topic and to vomit up obnoxious 20-20 hindsight criticisms of the people who dropped the bomb will never understand the reality of war, nor even the reality of that particular war. They just won't get it until they find themselves in some nasty little shithole trying to breathe through their mouth to keep out the smell of intestines rotting in the noon sun.
Max