He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content
And as a taxpayer, one of the folks who supposedly gets to decide the mission of his government bodies (including the FBI), I really don't give a fuck what TV show the guy was illegally hosting on his site. I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.
Copyright infringement is a case for civil, not criminal courts. Anything else is a waste of my tax dollars.
And what is terrorism, exactly? If I kill a boatload of people over political or religious reasons, rather than economic or psychological ones (e.g., I'm fucking insane), how does this qualify the mass murderers as 'something special'?
We had adequate laws before the Patriot Act to deal with criminal elements, including the psychotically criminal like religious fanatics. There's no reason to brand these thugs with a special name like 'terrorist', nor to attribute to them superpowers they don't possess (unless you think 'produce boxcutters' is a superpower), nor to think that the people that others kill are any less dead than those murderers by the wackos we call terrorists. They're just thugs, when all is said and done; the only difference between them and the guy who goes postal at work is body count.
In any event, how many of these terrorists have been apprehended because of the Patriot Act? Oh, that's right, NONE. Doesn't seem very effective, does it? Although it does appear useful to the MPAA and RIAA.
Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people.
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt, either. So naysaysers can simply shut the fuck up and move along, because there's nothing to see and certainly nothing to waste their precious time on.
As far as out of the box useability, I have yet to see a distro that hands down beats Windows.
I have. It's called Suse 9.0. It installed far faster and easier than my Windows 2000 did, and required no additional drivers beyond what came with the software. My Windows couldn't make the same claim.
It detected and configured all of my hardware. My Windows couldn't make the same claim.
It automatically set up my broadband account and connected me while I sat back and twiddled my thumbs. My Windows couldn't do the same thing. Windows, poor thing, had trouble trying to decide which built-in ethernet card on the motherboard it was supposed to use.
My Suse came with all the apps an average user would need - and no matter what the Billy G. worshippers say, the apps for email, text editing, picture viewing, porn-movie watching, etc. are perfectly adequate and often much more than adequate. I didn't have to pay a dime extra for any of these apps and they all worked right out of the box, without any need for yet more drivers or patches or tweaks.
Windows, obviously, couldn't make the same claim.
Suse installed in just over an hour. Windows took about three, throwing in all the patches, driver downloads, and reboots.
So, if you haven't seen a distro that can kick Windows ass on the install, you haven't been looking. It's been around for awhile. But it appears that folks like yourself, so very fond of repeating the "Windows rulez on the desktop, d00d" mantra, refuse to admit the possibility that such a thing exists.
But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.
It would be pretty damned stupid to assume that with all the planets of all the stars of all the galaxies in our enormous universe, we're the only sentient species.
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
Yet more laws is not a solution. Conglomerates and monopolies usually form *because* of legislation, not *in spite* of it. Large corporations are able to hire legal teams which allow them to operate as they please either by identifying and exploiting loopholes or staving off legal challenges, or by using the law to enforce contract restrictions in favor of monopoly practices (e.g., Microsoft licensing). The government is used to support the formation of monopolies or oligopolies, whether that was the original intention or not.
It's a common misconception, especially among the Naderites, that *more* laws and *more* government will somehow lead to *more* freedom, specifically freedom of choice and freedom from bad product design. What they fail to recognize is that power is a zero-sum game: give more power to the government, you have less power yourself. The people best able to utilize government power are those with money. The more powerful the government, the less likely it is that it'll work to benefit the common citizen who can't hire hordes of lawyers or buy off politicians.
Government works *for* established power bases, not *against* them, except in rare cases (usually as a PR ploy to keep the proles happy - like sacrificing a virgin every once in awhile to appease the bloodlust of the masses). What you want do to, in order to reintroduce competition, is to eliminate the laws that these corporations use to maintain a stranglehold on their position.
The Bells were broken up in large part because the parent company wanted to divest itself of losing divisions. Those divisions, once independent, had to raise prices in order to keep from going out of business.
the large media companies own plenty of Internet news sources as well.
Turner fails to realize that there are plenty of "news sources" which are nothing more than individuals at the right place, at the right time, with a web site and time to kill. Some of these sources are at least as accurate as, say, Fox News currently is.
The conglomerates will never dominate the internet, although I'm certain they'll try their damndest.
Inexperienced users had better not have to install an operating system period. It should be already set up for them
This has never been true of Windows. While Windows has come installed on machines since 95, any long-time user is quite familiar with reinstalling the OS. This was a practical necessity for Win95/98 on most machines every six months or so.
They were "Windows junkies"?
Most kids nowadays know how to use computers long before they hit middle school. In case you haven't been paying attention.
Out of curiosity, where did you find these kids?
In a public middle school. I do think I mentioned that I taught middle school students; I guess you missed 'reading comprehension' while you were cruising through the educational system.
If it was the latter, most non-geeks in this world do not have time to take formal classes for every new technology they use
Oh, poor babies! Woe is them! Okay, since you apparently have more than enough time to go to inane work-sponsored 'conferences' and 'workshops' (not to mention endless rounds of 'sensitivity training'), as well as to spend endless hours watching mindless 'reality TV' while you drool on yourself - but you have no time whatsoever to learn Linux *even though you'll certainly make the time to learn whatever new version of Windows MS pimps to you* - let's just teach Linux to the kids. Make it part of the computer curriculum for all the high schools and middle schools, if they have any, and make every computer in the labs a Linux machine.
Funny, I bet the desktop usage of Linux would go through the roof once these kids graduated. They still might be using Windows at work, but they wouldn't be using it at home.
Really, I love linux (well, unix in general actually), but there's too much to chose from
Linux isn't for people who want others to decide things for them. I suggest you stick with Windows, along with anyone else who has a problem making a choice for themselves.
So what? If the gun kills someone trying to rape, rob, or murder me, then this is a damned good thing. It does exactly what it's designed to do: protect me from the assholes who don't obey the law.
If this is a problem for you, why don't you run off to some second-rate, pansy-ass socialist backwater where the state *demands* that you go unarmed, so that you're always a victim and always a target?
Its this kind of elitism that makes people wonder why theres so much shitty sci-fi out there
As compared to your obnoxious arrogance?
Sci-fi is popular and everywhere.
You're delusional. In terms of movie and book sales, scifi/fantasy comprise a very small portion of the total amount. Reason? *Most people don't care for scifi or fantasy*.
But once again you think your personal opinion is actual fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
In other words, glass housing is relative and you're setting yourself up for a fall defending some show, especially when TV entertainment is so very subjective.
And yet you have no problem screaming "Firefly sucks!" every chance you get. So which is it? Moron or hypocrite? Or both?
No, *you* think it's terrible, and like most self-important types you extend your personal opinion to include "many people", as if you were elected to speak on the behalf of anti-fans everywhere.
Time to stop smoking the crack and get over yourself.
It isn't any more ridiculous than faster-than-light travel. If I can suspend disbelief for that nonsense I can certainly do so for the other elements of "Firefly".
First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as ?The Big Bang Theory.? Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.
Clearly you know nothing at all about the Big Bang Theory. No 'first mover' is needed to in order to supply the Big Bang. Please, google yourself some cluefulness before discussing something you're obviously ignorant about.
Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been ?finely tuned? to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be.
You have a sample size of ONE life-bearing planet. We call this evidence 'anecdotal'. And even if it were true that Earth is unique in its ability to support life, all this tells us is that among the BILLIONS of stars in our galaxy, and among the BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe, it's rather likely that this unusual occurrence would've happened at least once - by chance alone.
But as you have no evidence whatsoever that there ISN'T life on other planets in other solar systems, you can't even begin to comment on what conditions are needed to promote life. No one can, at this point.
Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial ?soup.? For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.
What crap. Just because we can't do it NOW means nothing. A century ago it was thought that flight itself was impossible, and yet we now have aircraft of all sorts zipping about the globe on a daily basis. Sixty years ago it was thought that no rocket could be designed which would be able to escape the Earth's gravity, and yet we've walked on the moon. Your reasoning is specious.
Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.
There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design in the genetic code of any animal or plant we've examined. If you think otherwise, offer up the proof with a link to an article with empirical research published in an accredited scientific journal.
Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin?s Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.
Not only is this ignorant personal opinion, but the simple fact of the matter is that the fossil record continues to support the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory becomes stronger every year. Now you're flat-out ignoring the evidence altogether, a sure sign of blind fanaticism.
take your point about rate of heat production, jogging over running for example. But I suggest that is NOT dependant on 2 legs or 4, your wolves example, reinforces this.
No, the point was that you *have to have the proper gait* in order to run down prey over long distances. Humans have this gait; so do wolves. Very few other animals do.
So long as copyright law exists, you are a pirate because you choose to steal
And apparently you have no grasp of the term 'steal'. Copyright violation IS NOT THEFT. How many times does this have to be pounded into the heads of the ignorant before they get a clue?
Linux users need to decide what their operating system is all about. Is it about freedom and doing it your way, or is it all about sales and making money?
It's about whatever the hell I say it is. My computer, my operating system (for real!), my decision.
On your computer, it's whatever the hell *you* say it is.
Linux isn't some nebulous force that binds it's users into borg-like geekdom, nor is it a company composed of private individuals who all need to 'vote' to see what everyone 'should' do. Linux users, each and every one of them, make their own decisions, and fuck what anyone else has to say about the matter.
That's one of the beauties of Linux. No one can tell me what to do with it, and nobody has any business even trying.
How does this take into account all of us non-IE users who spoof our browsers/operating systems in order to bypass annoying website checks that would otherwise lock us out?
How can Google possibly detect our 'true' operating system using the tools at its disposal? Unless they're polling the computer through some Java applet (which I don't see) and sending the raw data back to the server the only info they're going to get is what the browser sends them.
My browser is lying. I'm sure a lot of others (Opera, Mozilla, etc.) are as well. That's got to screw up the stats.
And all of that doesn't even count the PCs that ship with Windows and have Linux installed on them right away.
And let's not forget the boxes that are bought with Windows and retain Windows for games, but have Linux installed as a dual boot for everything else.
Most of the Linux users I know have exactly this setup. The Windows partition is for games and came with the box; Linux is for everything else (including work) and was installed after the box was purchased.
Then there are folks like me who build our own systems, yet still purchase a copy of Windows - again for games.
I'm willing to bet that if the hottest games all came out with a Linux version at the same time a Windows version was released (gamers being an impatient bunch) a good many machines would lose their Windows partitions altogether.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Linux is not currently an operating system for inexperienced computer users.
That would be what we call 'bullshit'. Two points to refute you:
- Suse 9.0 installs easier and cleaner than Win2000 or WinXP; anyone who can install Windows can install Suse Linux.
- I taught a bunch of 11-year-old kids how to install and use Linux two years running, despite the fact that they didn't know what a 'Linux' was when they started and were thorough Windows junkies up until that point. Not the nice Suse 9.0 version of Linux, mind you, but a much older version which required tweaking config files to get things working properly. They had absolutely no problem at all adapting to Linux, and the vast majority of them preferred it to Windows once they figured out how things worked.
Linux is perfectly acceptable for inexperienced computer users, and I have several hundred former students that I can point to as proof. What is isn't suitable for is people who're set in their ways and whine, bitch and moan whenever they think they might have to learn something new. For these folks Windows will always be the OS of choice - not for ease of use, but simply because they refuse to try anything different.
people have a hard enough time running Windows, much less a sometimes finicky Linux flavor.
Finicky? My Suse Linux 9.0 installed far faster than Windows 2000, autodetected all of my hardware, and set up my broadband connection without any intervention on my part - without needing a reboot once. In addition, I got a boatload of apps I'd otherwise have to pay for; and no matter what the Microsofties say for most people (text editing, spreadsheet, browsing, email) these apps are more than up to the job.
Linux hasn't been 'finicky' in some time. This is nothing more than a myth propagated by people who don't have the first damned clue what they're talking about - or, perhaps, own some MS stock.
After all look at the God that designed the monkey with the ability to adapt in such a manner to this illness.
No can do, since there's no evidence that any god exists, including yours.
Evolution could only be given a point if this trait was passed down to offspring in such a manner that it improved their survivability and ability to breed themselves.
You've hit the nail on the head. *All* monkeys of this species, and many others, can walk on two legs or four. Four is more efficient for travel for the monkey except when you have to, say, cross a stream. Occasionally walking on two legs is also useful for spotting approaching predators.
In the wild monkeys will often walk on two legs for short distances, usually when they're looking for something (predators, other monkeys, food). The fact that this monkey is doing it exclusively doesn't mean anything at all.
Instead, our ancestors developed bipedalism because it was a hunting advantage...
Actually, that's probably not true. Bipedalism most likely developed to a) be able to see oncoming predators easier, and b) to free the hands so that food could be carried from place to place (a *huge* advantage in survival, if you can take food with you while on the move, especially if the area you're moving through is a poor harvest ground).
While it's quaint and somewhat heroic to believe our ancestors were 'mighty hunters', in point of fact they pretty much sucked at it. Prior to Cro-Magnon it's estimated that our ancestors gained about 95% of their calories through fruits and vegetables, supplemented mostly by insects. After Cro-Magnon and continuing right up to the Agricultural Revolution for Homo Sapiens this percentage was stable at around 80%-85%, depending on where you lived.
Humans weren't terribly efficient hunters. They were very good gatherers, but as hunters they were the least effective predator on Earth, until recently.
There is one hominid off-shoot that was *very* good at hunting: Neanderthal. In opposition to human beings and others of our direct line, most Neanderthal calories came from meat, approximately 85% in fact. They did very little gathering because they were consummate hunters and didn't need to do much to supplement their diet. Neanderthals were the only hominid that could be considered 'good' hunters; the rest, including us, were just plain lousy at it most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
He was unabashedly and blatantly hosting copyrighted content
And as a taxpayer, one of the folks who supposedly gets to decide the mission of his government bodies (including the FBI), I really don't give a fuck what TV show the guy was illegally hosting on his site. I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.
Copyright infringement is a case for civil, not criminal courts. Anything else is a waste of my tax dollars.
Max
except for clear-cut cases of terrorism.
And what is terrorism, exactly? If I kill a boatload of people over political or religious reasons, rather than economic or psychological ones (e.g., I'm fucking insane), how does this qualify the mass murderers as 'something special'?
We had adequate laws before the Patriot Act to deal with criminal elements, including the psychotically criminal like religious fanatics. There's no reason to brand these thugs with a special name like 'terrorist', nor to attribute to them superpowers they don't possess (unless you think 'produce boxcutters' is a superpower), nor to think that the people that others kill are any less dead than those murderers by the wackos we call terrorists. They're just thugs, when all is said and done; the only difference between them and the guy who goes postal at work is body count.
In any event, how many of these terrorists have been apprehended because of the Patriot Act? Oh, that's right, NONE. Doesn't seem very effective, does it? Although it does appear useful to the MPAA and RIAA.
Max
Posting rants on Slashdot about how the FBI/RIAA/MPAA/etc is evil is not going to do anything to help us reach this "critical mass" of people.
On the other hand, it doesn't hurt, either. So naysaysers can simply shut the fuck up and move along, because there's nothing to see and certainly nothing to waste their precious time on.
Max
As far as out of the box useability, I have yet to see a distro that hands down beats Windows.
I have. It's called Suse 9.0. It installed far faster and easier than my Windows 2000 did, and required no additional drivers beyond what came with the software. My Windows couldn't make the same claim.
It detected and configured all of my hardware. My Windows couldn't make the same claim.
It automatically set up my broadband account and connected me while I sat back and twiddled my thumbs. My Windows couldn't do the same thing. Windows, poor thing, had trouble trying to decide which built-in ethernet card on the motherboard it was supposed to use.
My Suse came with all the apps an average user would need - and no matter what the Billy G. worshippers say, the apps for email, text editing, picture viewing, porn-movie watching, etc. are perfectly adequate and often much more than adequate. I didn't have to pay a dime extra for any of these apps and they all worked right out of the box, without any need for yet more drivers or patches or tweaks.
Windows, obviously, couldn't make the same claim.
Suse installed in just over an hour. Windows took about three, throwing in all the patches, driver downloads, and reboots.
So, if you haven't seen a distro that can kick Windows ass on the install, you haven't been looking. It's been around for awhile. But it appears that folks like yourself, so very fond of repeating the "Windows rulez on the desktop, d00d" mantra, refuse to admit the possibility that such a thing exists.
Max
But they will refuse to give up wasting their time searching for the non-existent.
It would be pretty damned stupid to assume that with all the planets of all the stars of all the galaxies in our enormous universe, we're the only sentient species.
Max
Why not just change the law to make media companies to accommodate to customers needs?
Yet more laws is not a solution. Conglomerates and monopolies usually form *because* of legislation, not *in spite* of it. Large corporations are able to hire legal teams which allow them to operate as they please either by identifying and exploiting loopholes or staving off legal challenges, or by using the law to enforce contract restrictions in favor of monopoly practices (e.g., Microsoft licensing). The government is used to support the formation of monopolies or oligopolies, whether that was the original intention or not.
It's a common misconception, especially among the Naderites, that *more* laws and *more* government will somehow lead to *more* freedom, specifically freedom of choice and freedom from bad product design. What they fail to recognize is that power is a zero-sum game: give more power to the government, you have less power yourself. The people best able to utilize government power are those with money. The more powerful the government, the less likely it is that it'll work to benefit the common citizen who can't hire hordes of lawyers or buy off politicians.
Government works *for* established power bases, not *against* them, except in rare cases (usually as a PR ploy to keep the proles happy - like sacrificing a virgin every once in awhile to appease the bloodlust of the masses). What you want do to, in order to reintroduce competition, is to eliminate the laws that these corporations use to maintain a stranglehold on their position.
Max
What about the baby Bell's?
The Bells were broken up in large part because the parent company wanted to divest itself of losing divisions. Those divisions, once independent, had to raise prices in order to keep from going out of business.
The Bell breakup was not a win for the consumer.
Max
the large media companies own plenty of Internet news sources as well.
Turner fails to realize that there are plenty of "news sources" which are nothing more than individuals at the right place, at the right time, with a web site and time to kill. Some of these sources are at least as accurate as, say, Fox News currently is.
The conglomerates will never dominate the internet, although I'm certain they'll try their damndest.
Max
Inexperienced users had better not have to install an operating system period. It should be already set up for them
This has never been true of Windows. While Windows has come installed on machines since 95, any long-time user is quite familiar with reinstalling the OS. This was a practical necessity for Win95/98 on most machines every six months or so.
They were "Windows junkies"?
Most kids nowadays know how to use computers long before they hit middle school. In case you haven't been paying attention.
Out of curiosity, where did you find these kids?
In a public middle school. I do think I mentioned that I taught middle school students; I guess you missed 'reading comprehension' while you were cruising through the educational system.
If it was the latter, most non-geeks in this world do not have time to take formal classes for every new technology they use
Oh, poor babies! Woe is them! Okay, since you apparently have more than enough time to go to inane work-sponsored 'conferences' and 'workshops' (not to mention endless rounds of 'sensitivity training'), as well as to spend endless hours watching mindless 'reality TV' while you drool on yourself - but you have no time whatsoever to learn Linux *even though you'll certainly make the time to learn whatever new version of Windows MS pimps to you* - let's just teach Linux to the kids. Make it part of the computer curriculum for all the high schools and middle schools, if they have any, and make every computer in the labs a Linux machine.
Funny, I bet the desktop usage of Linux would go through the roof once these kids graduated. They still might be using Windows at work, but they wouldn't be using it at home.
Max
Really, I love linux (well, unix in general actually), but there's too much to chose from
Linux isn't for people who want others to decide things for them. I suggest you stick with Windows, along with anyone else who has a problem making a choice for themselves.
Max
Your experience is not representative
And you claim yours is based on what evidence?
Max
A gun only has that purpose - killing people.
So what? If the gun kills someone trying to rape, rob, or murder me, then this is a damned good thing. It does exactly what it's designed to do: protect me from the assholes who don't obey the law.
If this is a problem for you, why don't you run off to some second-rate, pansy-ass socialist backwater where the state *demands* that you go unarmed, so that you're always a victim and always a target?
Max
Its this kind of elitism that makes people wonder why theres so much shitty sci-fi out there
As compared to your obnoxious arrogance?
Sci-fi is popular and everywhere.
You're delusional. In terms of movie and book sales, scifi/fantasy comprise a very small portion of the total amount. Reason? *Most people don't care for scifi or fantasy*.
But once again you think your personal opinion is actual fact, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
In other words, glass housing is relative and you're setting yourself up for a fall defending some show, especially when TV entertainment is so very subjective.
And yet you have no problem screaming "Firefly sucks!" every chance you get. So which is it? Moron or hypocrite? Or both?
Max
In fact many people think its terrible.
No, *you* think it's terrible, and like most self-important types you extend your personal opinion to include "many people", as if you were elected to speak on the behalf of anti-fans everywhere.
Time to stop smoking the crack and get over yourself.
Max
It just doesn't work.
It isn't any more ridiculous than faster-than-light travel. If I can suspend disbelief for that nonsense I can certainly do so for the other elements of "Firefly".
Max
First, the scientific community is now almost unanimous in affirming that the universe had a beginning. This is usually referred to in scientific terms as ?The Big Bang Theory.? Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.
Clearly you know nothing at all about the Big Bang Theory. No 'first mover' is needed to in order to supply the Big Bang. Please, google yourself some cluefulness before discussing something you're obviously ignorant about.
Secondly, the universe bears all the marks of having been ?finely tuned? to make life possible. For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be.
You have a sample size of ONE life-bearing planet. We call this evidence 'anecdotal'. And even if it were true that Earth is unique in its ability to support life, all this tells us is that among the BILLIONS of stars in our galaxy, and among the BILLIONS of galaxies in the universe, it's rather likely that this unusual occurrence would've happened at least once - by chance alone.
But as you have no evidence whatsoever that there ISN'T life on other planets in other solar systems, you can't even begin to comment on what conditions are needed to promote life. No one can, at this point.
Thirdly, the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial ?soup.? For example, the experiments to prove that it could have happened are suspect because little progress has been made possible due to the ingenious designs on the part of experimenters.
What crap. Just because we can't do it NOW means nothing. A century ago it was thought that flight itself was impossible, and yet we now have aircraft of all sorts zipping about the globe on a daily basis. Sixty years ago it was thought that no rocket could be designed which would be able to escape the Earth's gravity, and yet we've walked on the moon. Your reasoning is specious.
Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.
There is absolutely no evidence of intelligent design in the genetic code of any animal or plant we've examined. If you think otherwise, offer up the proof with a link to an article with empirical research published in an accredited scientific journal.
Fifthly, the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced. This fact has forced evolutionists to modify Darwin?s Theory, often in absurd ways. In short, it is the theory of naturalistic evolution which is in serious trouble scientifically today, while the Biblical teaching of creation never looked better.
Not only is this ignorant personal opinion, but the simple fact of the matter is that the fossil record continues to support the theory of evolution. In fact, the theory becomes stronger every year. Now you're flat-out ignoring the evidence altogether, a sure sign of blind fanaticism.
Max
take your point about rate of heat production, jogging over running for example. But I suggest that is NOT dependant on 2 legs or 4, your wolves example, reinforces this.
No, the point was that you *have to have the proper gait* in order to run down prey over long distances. Humans have this gait; so do wolves. Very few other animals do.
Max
So long as copyright law exists, you are a pirate because you choose to steal
And apparently you have no grasp of the term 'steal'. Copyright violation IS NOT THEFT. How many times does this have to be pounded into the heads of the ignorant before they get a clue?
Max
Linux users need to decide what their operating system is all about. Is it about freedom and doing it your way, or is it all about sales and making money?
It's about whatever the hell I say it is. My computer, my operating system (for real!), my decision.
On your computer, it's whatever the hell *you* say it is.
Linux isn't some nebulous force that binds it's users into borg-like geekdom, nor is it a company composed of private individuals who all need to 'vote' to see what everyone 'should' do. Linux users, each and every one of them, make their own decisions, and fuck what anyone else has to say about the matter.
That's one of the beauties of Linux. No one can tell me what to do with it, and nobody has any business even trying.
Max
How does this take into account all of us non-IE users who spoof our browsers/operating systems in order to bypass annoying website checks that would otherwise lock us out?
How can Google possibly detect our 'true' operating system using the tools at its disposal? Unless they're polling the computer through some Java applet (which I don't see) and sending the raw data back to the server the only info they're going to get is what the browser sends them.
My browser is lying. I'm sure a lot of others (Opera, Mozilla, etc.) are as well. That's got to screw up the stats.
Max
And all of that doesn't even count the PCs that ship with Windows and have Linux installed on them right away.
And let's not forget the boxes that are bought with Windows and retain Windows for games, but have Linux installed as a dual boot for everything else.
Most of the Linux users I know have exactly this setup. The Windows partition is for games and came with the box; Linux is for everything else (including work) and was installed after the box was purchased.
Then there are folks like me who build our own systems, yet still purchase a copy of Windows - again for games.
I'm willing to bet that if the hottest games all came out with a Linux version at the same time a Windows version was released (gamers being an impatient bunch) a good many machines would lose their Windows partitions altogether.
Max
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Linux is not currently an operating system for inexperienced computer users.
That would be what we call 'bullshit'. Two points to refute you:
- Suse 9.0 installs easier and cleaner than Win2000 or WinXP; anyone who can install Windows can install Suse Linux.
- I taught a bunch of 11-year-old kids how to install and use Linux two years running, despite the fact that they didn't know what a 'Linux' was when they started and were thorough Windows junkies up until that point. Not the nice Suse 9.0 version of Linux, mind you, but a much older version which required tweaking config files to get things working properly. They had absolutely no problem at all adapting to Linux, and the vast majority of them preferred it to Windows once they figured out how things worked.
Linux is perfectly acceptable for inexperienced computer users, and I have several hundred former students that I can point to as proof. What is isn't suitable for is people who're set in their ways and whine, bitch and moan whenever they think they might have to learn something new. For these folks Windows will always be the OS of choice - not for ease of use, but simply because they refuse to try anything different.
Max
people have a hard enough time running Windows, much less a sometimes finicky Linux flavor.
Finicky? My Suse Linux 9.0 installed far faster than Windows 2000, autodetected all of my hardware, and set up my broadband connection without any intervention on my part - without needing a reboot once. In addition, I got a boatload of apps I'd otherwise have to pay for; and no matter what the Microsofties say for most people (text editing, spreadsheet, browsing, email) these apps are more than up to the job.
Linux hasn't been 'finicky' in some time. This is nothing more than a myth propagated by people who don't have the first damned clue what they're talking about - or, perhaps, own some MS stock.
Max
After all look at the God that designed the monkey with the ability to adapt in such a manner to this illness.
No can do, since there's no evidence that any god exists, including yours.
Evolution could only be given a point if this trait was passed down to offspring in such a manner that it improved their survivability and ability to breed themselves.
You've hit the nail on the head. *All* monkeys of this species, and many others, can walk on two legs or four. Four is more efficient for travel for the monkey except when you have to, say, cross a stream. Occasionally walking on two legs is also useful for spotting approaching predators.
In the wild monkeys will often walk on two legs for short distances, usually when they're looking for something (predators, other monkeys, food). The fact that this monkey is doing it exclusively doesn't mean anything at all.
Max
Instead, our ancestors developed bipedalism because it was a hunting advantage...
Actually, that's probably not true. Bipedalism most likely developed to a) be able to see oncoming predators easier, and b) to free the hands so that food could be carried from place to place (a *huge* advantage in survival, if you can take food with you while on the move, especially if the area you're moving through is a poor harvest ground).
While it's quaint and somewhat heroic to believe our ancestors were 'mighty hunters', in point of fact they pretty much sucked at it. Prior to Cro-Magnon it's estimated that our ancestors gained about 95% of their calories through fruits and vegetables, supplemented mostly by insects. After Cro-Magnon and continuing right up to the Agricultural Revolution for Homo Sapiens this percentage was stable at around 80%-85%, depending on where you lived.
Humans weren't terribly efficient hunters. They were very good gatherers, but as hunters they were the least effective predator on Earth, until recently.
There is one hominid off-shoot that was *very* good at hunting: Neanderthal. In opposition to human beings and others of our direct line, most Neanderthal calories came from meat, approximately 85% in fact. They did very little gathering because they were consummate hunters and didn't need to do much to supplement their diet. Neanderthals were the only hominid that could be considered 'good' hunters; the rest, including us, were just plain lousy at it most of the time.
Max