What's really funny is that paying a compliment to the women of Sweden by commenting on their beauty was marked by some idiot as 'flamebait'. Fortunately for me my karma has been maxed out for years, which means I can do this with impunity:
The women of Sweden are FINE. They're GORGEOUS. Some of the MOST BEAUTIFUL in the world. Absolutely STUNNING. I bow down before the radiantly RAVISHING women of frozen Scandinavia!:-)
Yada yada. Guess you're one of the twats I was talking about. Cue Billy G-worshipper rant on just how 'unready' Linux is. Not that we haven't heard this bullshit argument a THOUSAND TIMES already, but hey - when does that deter a zealot?
If you're going to sit there and tell me Slashdot is some balanced place of 50/50 Windows versus Linux zealots, you're completely lying.
Hey there Homer, try 'Reading Comprehension 101' and 'How to Present a Strawman Without Looking Like An Amateur 103'. Which one will be most helpful depends on whether you're just plain stupid or making a pathetic attempt at being deceptive.
Where did I lump Linux into the mix? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
Oh, that's right - you did. Linux zealots is what your whole post was about. You aren't related to the late President Reagan, are you?
But you felt that your religion
If Linux were my religion I'd never admit that there are plenty of assholes and zealots on both sides of the fence. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself a clue.
Oh, and my penis is bigger than yours no matter what I post on Slashdot. Zealots, as a rule, have tiny peckers. It explains a lot, when you think about it.
Hey, if you want to get the Mozilla blowhards out in force, just claim that browswer X is better than the software they love more than their own mothers.
I do think Opera is better than Mozilla, for a variety of reasons. I could care less that it isn't open, because the folks who produce Opera are about as likely to lock in market share as Mozilla is (which means: probably never).
And in any event, any bunch of geeks willing to name their product 'FireFox' deserve to be laughed at. Jesus, where'd you get that? A comic book? Oh, excuse me - a 'graphic novel'?
I know it's l33t to be a raving Linux zealot, but a lot of people are really getting tired of it
As compared to the raving Windows fuckwits who've been claiming for years that Linux will never be able to compete with an MS OS, that it'll never 'be ready for the desktop', that MS software is somehow superior because, well, it's produced by MS? Have you forgotten about these stupid little shits?
There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the spectrum. It's rather clear you'd prefer to pretend that the vast majority of loser fanatics come from the Linux zealot camp, but anyone with half a brain and even the slightest bit of impartiality knows that MS has more than it's share of borg-like twats willing to run to its rescue.
Try getting real. Zealots are assholes BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSHOLES. It doesn't matter what they peddling. Lumping Linux into the mix because that happens to be the bandwagon for one subset of zealots is not only ignorant, it's pathetic.
He meant that all the tests are passed, not that all bugs are found. (He did explain this, btw.) This is not double-speak
Then he should say that all the tests have been passed, rather than the product has 'zero defects'. The first is easily understandable and readily admits that bugs (DEFECTS) could and probably do exist; the second is nothing more than a marketing term designed to lull people into thinking that there are no bugs, but allowing the 'engineers' to backpedal while spouting about their 'specialized definition of words' when bugs actually crop up.
It's not only double-speak, it's ass-covering, deceptive double-speak.
All they can do is raise the level of difficulty so high that the average individual won't be able to do it.
No, all they can do is raise the bar so high you have to be willing to die in order to accomplish your goal. I would point out, in case you've missed it, that dying doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to your average fanatic.
I guess it's very difficult for you to believe that somebody may actually believe Iraq was a threat to the world. This, after all, was what the stated purpose for the war was. Sure, Saddam may not have personally bank-rolled the terrorists, but he didn't exactly try to stop any terrorists in his country either.
So we're going after the dictatorships now, are we? Oky-doky, that's one down, at least 150 more to go. Who's next? North Korea? China? Libya? Syria? Iran? C'mon, if we stop *now* we'll look like a bunch of lying hypocrites!
Screw Mozilla - Opera beats it hands down. It beats them all hands down. Junk those second-rate losers and go for the one product actually worth using: Opera!
It isn't open, but who other than the pole-up-their-asses zealots gives a shit?
although I disagree with a lot of Microsoft's business tactics
Is that what we call breaking the law these days, if your corporation is rich enough to buy off the government? "Business tactics"?
Well, then, I guess we're pretty much on the same page in that regard, because I don't agree with the "business tactics" of quite a few entities. Like Colombian drug cartels, for instance.
Hey! That's the American way! And it's superior to anything else in the world.
So long as said corporation obeys the law. But we know for a fact that Microsoft doesn't do that; and I do mean 'fact', given that they've been tried and convicted of illegal acts.
Making money is a beautiful thing...unless you're doing it through patently illegal activities. At which point you're no better than the local crack dealer.
In a free society you censor neither. The only time you intervene is when the *speech infringes on the rights of others*. And in this case you aren't engaged in censorship, but protecting the rights of those being infringed on.
In your example, it isn't the speech that's the problem, but the fact that some drunken asshole is standing on a street corner at 3 a.m. shouting obscenities when other people are trying to sleep, or simply want some peace and quiet on their own property. The same law would apply if this asshole were shouting chapters of the bible, singing a Johhny Cash song, or simply screaming. The content of the speech itself is irrelevant.
Don't get so stressed out at the economic censure of public speech. Get stressed out when they start trying to censor PRIVATE speech.
Exactly how do you think it starts? The road to censoring private speech begins with the censoring of public speech. The best way to corrupt a free society is to start small and work your way up, a la the old 'boiling the frog' analogy.
You've got it wrong. It is an advantage, and it has no downside in a society where you can get regular access to a lot of food.
But for nearly the entire history of the human race, and for much of the world today, starvation has been common. Prior to the advent of agriculture humans starved about one out of every three years. Under those conditions, the demands of big muscles which apparently don't easily convert to food will get you killed.
For the kid in Germany who won't have a problem getting enough food to eat, this is one big bonus with no downside.
I don't know of any major company that can go without some level of support, and that's not going to be free folks...
And that's an absolutely irrelevant argument. You're going to have support costs no matter what OS you're using; the OS itself has nothing to do with those costs. The only way to rid yourself of those costs is to stop using computers altogether, and I would guess the long-term cost of *that* move would far exceed any budgeted support.
Assuming that the support costs for OS A or OS B or OS C are roughly equivalent (which means we need to discount MS FUD about the issue), and you aren't going to get rid of your computers any time soon, the only issue at hand is what ADDITIONAL costs each of those OS's adds to the budget.
Aside from retraining - which will occur with MS anyway, the next time you 'upgrade' your version of Windows - the actual cost of Linux is $0. It is, in fact, free.
But none of these remedies require intruding on First amendment rights.
None of this has anything to do with the First Amendment right to free SPEECH. Installing software on my computer can't even come close to being considered 'speech', unless you're a judge for sale in Utah.
The Bill of Rights would be more than adequate if every asshole with an agenda to push didn't reinterpret it to support whatever he happens to be selling. Saying that the installation of software is equivalent to 'free speech' is so far beyond any reasonable definition of 'speech' it'd be laughable if it weren't so obviously pathetic.
They have a clearly delineated right to free speech.
They can speak all they want. What isn't covered is secretly installing software on my computer without my permission. That isn't a form of 'free speech' no matter how you slice it.
As if an organization called "Center for Moral Defense of Capitalism" can be independent...
At least they weren't stupid enough to call themselves "The Center for the Moral Defense of Socialism", an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Max
Re:Concerns: government wasting money on open sour
on
When Think Tanks Attack
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The real benificiaries, the middle classes who administer all this crap.
And yet, as a percentage of the population the middle class is smaller than at any other time in the last century, and getting smaller by the year. So if us greedy bastards in the middle are the ones making out like bandits, how come record numbers of us are dropping out of the middle class and into the ranks of the poor?
Slashdot Mirror
we don't have widespread support among the global superpowers.
There's only one global superpower, and we're it.
Max
Blowjobs.
If you need some experience in this area prior to graduating from college, join a frat.
Max
What's really funny is that paying a compliment to the women of Sweden by commenting on their beauty was marked by some idiot as 'flamebait'. Fortunately for me my karma has been maxed out for years, which means I can do this with impunity:
:-)
The women of Sweden are FINE. They're GORGEOUS. Some of the MOST BEAUTIFUL in the world. Absolutely STUNNING. I bow down before the radiantly RAVISHING women of frozen Scandinavia!
Max
Linux is NOT ready for the desktop
Yada yada. Guess you're one of the twats I was talking about. Cue Billy G-worshipper rant on just how 'unready' Linux is. Not that we haven't heard this bullshit argument a THOUSAND TIMES already, but hey - when does that deter a zealot?
If you're going to sit there and tell me Slashdot is some balanced place of 50/50 Windows versus Linux zealots, you're completely lying.
Hey there Homer, try 'Reading Comprehension 101' and 'How to Present a Strawman Without Looking Like An Amateur 103'. Which one will be most helpful depends on whether you're just plain stupid or making a pathetic attempt at being deceptive.
Where did I lump Linux into the mix? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
Oh, that's right - you did. Linux zealots is what your whole post was about. You aren't related to the late President Reagan, are you?
But you felt that your religion
If Linux were my religion I'd never admit that there are plenty of assholes and zealots on both sides of the fence. Here's a quarter, go buy yourself a clue.
Oh, and my penis is bigger than yours no matter what I post on Slashdot. Zealots, as a rule, have tiny peckers. It explains a lot, when you think about it.
Max
Hey, if you want to get the Mozilla blowhards out in force, just claim that browswer X is better than the software they love more than their own mothers.
I do think Opera is better than Mozilla, for a variety of reasons. I could care less that it isn't open, because the folks who produce Opera are about as likely to lock in market share as Mozilla is (which means: probably never).
And in any event, any bunch of geeks willing to name their product 'FireFox' deserve to be laughed at. Jesus, where'd you get that? A comic book? Oh, excuse me - a 'graphic novel'?
Max
I know it's l33t to be a raving Linux zealot, but a lot of people are really getting tired of it
As compared to the raving Windows fuckwits who've been claiming for years that Linux will never be able to compete with an MS OS, that it'll never 'be ready for the desktop', that MS software is somehow superior because, well, it's produced by MS? Have you forgotten about these stupid little shits?
There are plenty of assholes on both sides of the spectrum. It's rather clear you'd prefer to pretend that the vast majority of loser fanatics come from the Linux zealot camp, but anyone with half a brain and even the slightest bit of impartiality knows that MS has more than it's share of borg-like twats willing to run to its rescue.
Try getting real. Zealots are assholes BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSHOLES. It doesn't matter what they peddling. Lumping Linux into the mix because that happens to be the bandwagon for one subset of zealots is not only ignorant, it's pathetic.
Max
He meant that all the tests are passed, not that all bugs are found. (He did explain this, btw.) This is not double-speak
Then he should say that all the tests have been passed, rather than the product has 'zero defects'. The first is easily understandable and readily admits that bugs (DEFECTS) could and probably do exist; the second is nothing more than a marketing term designed to lull people into thinking that there are no bugs, but allowing the 'engineers' to backpedal while spouting about their 'specialized definition of words' when bugs actually crop up.
It's not only double-speak, it's ass-covering, deceptive double-speak.
Max
"Bug: (4b) a defect in the code or routine of a program." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, page 249.
So which is it? Are you right, or is Webster full of shit? Who do you think I'm going to put my faith in when it comes to the definition of a word?
Sounds to me like your brand of 'engineer' excels most at covering his ass with management.
Max
Damn, but you've got the double-speak down pat. You should apply for a job with the MS PR department; they could use someone like you.
Max
All they can do is raise the level of difficulty so high that the average individual won't be able to do it.
No, all they can do is raise the bar so high you have to be willing to die in order to accomplish your goal. I would point out, in case you've missed it, that dying doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to your average fanatic.
This is why we call them 'fanatics'.
Max
I guess it's very difficult for you to believe that somebody may actually believe Iraq was a threat to the world. This, after all, was what the stated purpose for the war was. Sure, Saddam may not have personally bank-rolled the terrorists, but he didn't exactly try to stop any terrorists in his country either.
So we're going after the dictatorships now, are we? Oky-doky, that's one down, at least 150 more to go. Who's next? North Korea? China? Libya? Syria? Iran? C'mon, if we stop *now* we'll look like a bunch of lying hypocrites!
Max
Damn, but Sweden makes some mighty fine women. Must be something in the water....
Max
Because Scaled Composites might actually succeed at a space mission, especially with Mike Melville at the helm? Dunno, it's just a thought.
Max
Screw Mozilla - Opera beats it hands down. It beats them all hands down. Junk those second-rate losers and go for the one product actually worth using: Opera!
It isn't open, but who other than the pole-up-their-asses zealots gives a shit?
Max
although I disagree with a lot of Microsoft's business tactics
Is that what we call breaking the law these days, if your corporation is rich enough to buy off the government? "Business tactics"?
Well, then, I guess we're pretty much on the same page in that regard, because I don't agree with the "business tactics" of quite a few entities. Like Colombian drug cartels, for instance.
Max
Hey! That's the American way! And it's superior to anything else in the world.
So long as said corporation obeys the law. But we know for a fact that Microsoft doesn't do that; and I do mean 'fact', given that they've been tried and convicted of illegal acts.
Making money is a beautiful thing...unless you're doing it through patently illegal activities. At which point you're no better than the local crack dealer.
Max
In a free society you censor neither. The only time you intervene is when the *speech infringes on the rights of others*. And in this case you aren't engaged in censorship, but protecting the rights of those being infringed on.
In your example, it isn't the speech that's the problem, but the fact that some drunken asshole is standing on a street corner at 3 a.m. shouting obscenities when other people are trying to sleep, or simply want some peace and quiet on their own property. The same law would apply if this asshole were shouting chapters of the bible, singing a Johhny Cash song, or simply screaming. The content of the speech itself is irrelevant.
Max
Home schooling is no better either. What you get there are socially inept children who are coddled and shielded from the real world.
And I'm sure you have cites to credible, empirical evidence for this statement, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed journal? No?
Imagine my surprise.
Max
Don't get so stressed out at the economic censure of public speech. Get stressed out when they start trying to censor PRIVATE speech.
Exactly how do you think it starts? The road to censoring private speech begins with the censoring of public speech. The best way to corrupt a free society is to start small and work your way up, a la the old 'boiling the frog' analogy.
Max
You've got it wrong. It is an advantage, and it has no downside in a society where you can get regular access to a lot of food.
But for nearly the entire history of the human race, and for much of the world today, starvation has been common. Prior to the advent of agriculture humans starved about one out of every three years. Under those conditions, the demands of big muscles which apparently don't easily convert to food will get you killed.
For the kid in Germany who won't have a problem getting enough food to eat, this is one big bonus with no downside.
Max
I don't know of any major company that can go without some level of support, and that's not going to be free folks...
And that's an absolutely irrelevant argument. You're going to have support costs no matter what OS you're using; the OS itself has nothing to do with those costs. The only way to rid yourself of those costs is to stop using computers altogether, and I would guess the long-term cost of *that* move would far exceed any budgeted support.
Assuming that the support costs for OS A or OS B or OS C are roughly equivalent (which means we need to discount MS FUD about the issue), and you aren't going to get rid of your computers any time soon, the only issue at hand is what ADDITIONAL costs each of those OS's adds to the budget.
Aside from retraining - which will occur with MS anyway, the next time you 'upgrade' your version of Windows - the actual cost of Linux is $0. It is, in fact, free.
Max
But none of these remedies require intruding on First amendment rights.
None of this has anything to do with the First Amendment right to free SPEECH. Installing software on my computer can't even come close to being considered 'speech', unless you're a judge for sale in Utah.
The Bill of Rights would be more than adequate if every asshole with an agenda to push didn't reinterpret it to support whatever he happens to be selling. Saying that the installation of software is equivalent to 'free speech' is so far beyond any reasonable definition of 'speech' it'd be laughable if it weren't so obviously pathetic.
Max
They have a clearly delineated right to free speech.
They can speak all they want. What isn't covered is secretly installing software on my computer without my permission. That isn't a form of 'free speech' no matter how you slice it.
Max
As if an organization called "Center for Moral Defense of Capitalism" can be independent...
At least they weren't stupid enough to call themselves "The Center for the Moral Defense of Socialism", an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Max
The real benificiaries, the middle classes who administer all this crap.
And yet, as a percentage of the population the middle class is smaller than at any other time in the last century, and getting smaller by the year. So if us greedy bastards in the middle are the ones making out like bandits, how come record numbers of us are dropping out of the middle class and into the ranks of the poor?
Max