Why on God's green Earth should Microsoft have to demonstrate that the programs are funded differently from the OS? Nothing personal, but that's just silly. Should KDE have to demonstrate that Konqueror or Kedit or any other app was created differently or separately from the rest of the environment?
The problem with the Linux community, and a main reason why I cannot or will not switch to Linux yet, is this sort of idea that everything must be separate, that somehow it is better not to have a GUI and a bunch of apps integrated closely with the OS. Bullshit. End users want ease of use, and ease of use means integration--my file browser works like my Internet browser which is integrated with all the possible multimedia capabilities I might need to view embedded content and which intuitively uses the same layout or widgets as this app or that app or the other app.
You say "bundling" and that things are being added which have nothing to do with the operating system. I say that it is progress and integration and that it is good for the *average* user and anyone who doesn't want to spend time mixing and matching and compiling. I mean, I'm sure there were people decades ago who said, "An 'operating system'? Why would you want that? It just gets in the way of programs' abilities to access the computer, and degrades performance." Obviously, anyone who thought that waaay back then was wrong. And people who think this integration is a bad thing, are wrong. If you don't want to buy it (or burn an ISO), fine. But do not try to take away the choice of people who want EASE OF USE.
The thing Microsoft did about IE vs. Netscape was not adding and integrating it with the operating system, but *threatening OEMs not to include Netscape* and other such abuses of their market power. There is nothing inherently wrong about integrating a file and internet browser functionally into the OS. In fact, most end users want it that way.
The key word here isn't bundling; it's evolution. Average people burn CDs now, so why shouldn't burning software be integrated into their PCs instead of them having to go buy it? Are y'all jumping down Apple's throat for doing the same bloody thing? No? hen I question the motives you're really using. Ditto chat--who cares if AOL/Time Warner, a huge corp, is upset that another huge corporation is going to fuck over their own closed, incompatible piece of shit chat program that they've been kicking clones off of since time immemorial? The average user will like it because he'll have integrated chat without having to download and compare any apps. It will just work. I don't even use chat, but I see the advantages here for people who do.
And, isn't having a firewall ship with the OS better than not having one, or having clueless consumers wondering what a firewall is and why they should use one and how to set it up? And the DVD player business--MediaPlayer has played DVDs for ages now, and though not well, and wouldn't Linux distributions love to have a DVD player ship on their discs?
The article's blather bout stifling competition is just blather. Windows will be jack of all trades and master of none. Meaning, there will be plenty of people who go out and buy better apps for things they do often. I don't think I'm dumping Nero for some MS coaster-maker, for instance, and someone really into chat will get a client that allows more features and use of more servers; people who know anything about viruses will get Eudora or something else instead of Outlook Express, and people who want better security will get a real firewall; and despite built-in imaging capabilities, anyone who handles a lot of images gets and will continue to get products like ACDSee, VuePrint, IrfanView, and any other alternatives that have advanced fatures.
Meanwhile, Windows XP will be an advance for consumers who wouldn't know what to get anyway. The included apps will be a boon to people who just want their damned computers to work, without having to find, install, and configure all these little apps which are so commonly used these days. It's a step ahead towards a future where computers will just make people's jobs easier without causing so many headaches. And that's what most want--something that just makes life easier, and including more functionality does that.
And sadly enough, I say all this as someone who dislikes Microsoft, and many other big companies. I say this as someone who sympathizes with a lot of what the FSF and Stallman say. But I say this as someone who still uses Windows products because Linux isn't producing anything yet that's as easy for me to use and configure--I was hoping Nautilus would be a big part of it, but...
Until I can get a unified distribution where most of the widgets look the same, the shortcuts are all the same, the Internet browser plays almost all content without needing to be coddled and added to, and there's an integrated media application that just works with multimedia without prodding or looking very out of place--I'm going to stick with Windows. I may have to Ctrl-Alt-Del Explorer once a day due to the web browser integration, but at least almost all pages and content work right. See, ease of use trumps my philosophical instincts. I use my computer to do stuff; my computer shouldn't keep requiring me to do stuff for it.
While the best card I've got is a Rage 128 based card, I've seen the GF2 and its FSAA in action close-up. But...well... I prefer to just have the raw detail of higher resolutions, rather than FSAA. It's never really impressed me that much, and sometimes just makes details look less--detailed.
Now, maybe I'll change my mind when I actually have something like a GF2 or GF3. But I don't think so--I just prefer high resolution clear detail, and don't like the potential trade-off of having things look "smoother" but not really as "crisp."
Am I alone in this sentiment? Has the look of FSAA been improving, and is it less "un-sharp" as when I got to look at it? Opinions? I'm sure it's a feature that I'll find useful in later applications, but at the present, if I suddenly found myself owning a GF series card I think I'd just prefer to run at the highest res without FSAA's effects. Am I nuts or does someone else out there prefer a nice crispy image?
> And for the overclocking and "I've got a bigger cock"-factor... well, you get that with every new piece of hardware.
Well...I guess that doesn't speak well of my Virge video card...or of my cock. Damn, now I have to go out and buy a GeForce 3.;-)
But on a serious note, Carmack has been cumming in his jeans about the GeForce 3 and its new features for ages now in his.plan updates. And, in the extraordinarily early preview of Doom 3 that wowed everyone at the Mac convention, he opted to use the GeForce 3 even though the card and its drivers were very beta. That has to say something about the card's real power, that won't really be seen for a while. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but c'mon--if Carmack gushes over it, it's got to be as much as it's cracked up to be.
I am not talking about 70 year olds. Cancer rates are up in all age ranges. Check with the CDC stats if you don't think so.
And yes, of course we haver natural defenses against low-energy radiation, since it is present naturally. But is it present naturally to the extent it is today? NO! There are low energy EM radiation streaming through your body constantly from birth to death, from every single local radio and TV station and from shortwave radios, cellular phones, beeper signals, etc. I could not begin to estimate the number of particles/waves each day. It is millions, billions, or trillions? I don't know, but I do know that if I sat any television, radio, cell phone, etc., right where my body is now, I'd be able to pick up enough EM radiation at any given instant to transmist many channels of video data, many more of radio and shortwave radio and CB radio, cellular frequencies, etc. That's quite a lot if you think about it that way, my friend--and every instant of every day it pours through your body. Most of it doesn't interact with you at all. But clearly some of it does--simple physics dictates that there will be a percentage of interactions.
I never said I propose getting rid of it. It's useful. I'm not an extremist. I'm just pointing out that modern life does cause cancer, and probably other ailments. We need not look for exotic explanations for rising health problems like cancer, because the most probably explanation is the constant exposure to EM radiation in unprecedented amounts. And as for your assertion that the chances of health risks are so small, that's just stupid, since no studies have been done or could be done since the modern world is pervaded with these high levels of low-energy EM particles. Think before you write. No one knows what percentage of cancer and other such that EM causes, because there could be no control groups for studies. But as a betting man, I'd wager the incessant exposure to countless low-energy EM does in fact cause many cases of cancer.
Sure, gamma rays and x-rays aren't all that pervasive, but I have to wonder... Lower-energy forms of radiation are considered safer because they usually don't interact with matter in such potentially damaging ways. Notice the term *usually*--every once in a while, low-energy radiation can and does cause a reaction usually associated with high-energy particles.
Just think of how pervasive that radiation is, though. People are wondering about increased cases of cancer and other such health problems in modern industrialized society, and I have to think--isn't it just a very real possibility that the problem is this utterly pervasive low-energy radiation? I mean, think about it--you can get how many channels of radio and television broadcasts from any given point? Your cellphone is able to receive as well as send data in almost any open space and most closed ones? Your pager works no matter where you stand? Think of all that pervasive electromagnetic radiation and how it passes through your body *all day every day*. How many trillions of EM waves is this over time? And absolutely none of them ever interact in a negative way with any particle in your body, ever?
I find that hard to believe. Yes, the chances of any low-energy particle doing harm are infinitesimal. But mulitply that by the inconceivable number of EM waves penetrating through your body at any given moment, and--well, it is a very real possibility that they could be the cause of quite a bit of cancer, and possibly other health risks.
Slashdot Mirror
Why on God's green Earth should Microsoft have to demonstrate that the programs are funded differently from the OS? Nothing personal, but that's just silly. Should KDE have to demonstrate that Konqueror or Kedit or any other app was created differently or separately from the rest of the environment?
The problem with the Linux community, and a main reason why I cannot or will not switch to Linux yet, is this sort of idea that everything must be separate, that somehow it is better not to have a GUI and a bunch of apps integrated closely with the OS. Bullshit. End users want ease of use, and ease of use means integration--my file browser works like my Internet browser which is integrated with all the possible multimedia capabilities I might need to view embedded content and which intuitively uses the same layout or widgets as this app or that app or the other app.
You say "bundling" and that things are being added which have nothing to do with the operating system. I say that it is progress and integration and that it is good for the *average* user and anyone who doesn't want to spend time mixing and matching and compiling. I mean, I'm sure there were people decades ago who said, "An 'operating system'? Why would you want that? It just gets in the way of programs' abilities to access the computer, and degrades performance." Obviously, anyone who thought that waaay back then was wrong. And people who think this integration is a bad thing, are wrong. If you don't want to buy it (or burn an ISO), fine. But do not try to take away the choice of people who want EASE OF USE.
The thing Microsoft did about IE vs. Netscape was not adding and integrating it with the operating system, but *threatening OEMs not to include Netscape* and other such abuses of their market power. There is nothing inherently wrong about integrating a file and internet browser functionally into the OS. In fact, most end users want it that way.
The key word here isn't bundling; it's evolution. Average people burn CDs now, so why shouldn't burning software be integrated into their PCs instead of them having to go buy it? Are y'all jumping down Apple's throat for doing the same bloody thing? No? hen I question the motives you're really using. Ditto chat--who cares if AOL/Time Warner, a huge corp, is upset that another huge corporation is going to fuck over their own closed, incompatible piece of shit chat program that they've been kicking clones off of since time immemorial? The average user will like it because he'll have integrated chat without having to download and compare any apps. It will just work. I don't even use chat, but I see the advantages here for people who do.
And, isn't having a firewall ship with the OS better than not having one, or having clueless consumers wondering what a firewall is and why they should use one and how to set it up? And the DVD player business--MediaPlayer has played DVDs for ages now, and though not well, and wouldn't Linux distributions love to have a DVD player ship on their discs?
The article's blather bout stifling competition is just blather. Windows will be jack of all trades and master of none. Meaning, there will be plenty of people who go out and buy better apps for things they do often. I don't think I'm dumping Nero for some MS coaster-maker, for instance, and someone really into chat will get a client that allows more features and use of more servers; people who know anything about viruses will get Eudora or something else instead of Outlook Express, and people who want better security will get a real firewall; and despite built-in imaging capabilities, anyone who handles a lot of images gets and will continue to get products like ACDSee, VuePrint, IrfanView, and any other alternatives that have advanced fatures.
Meanwhile, Windows XP will be an advance for consumers who wouldn't know what to get anyway. The included apps will be a boon to people who just want their damned computers to work, without having to find, install, and configure all these little apps which are so commonly used these days. It's a step ahead towards a future where computers will just make people's jobs easier without causing so many headaches. And that's what most want--something that just makes life easier, and including more functionality does that.
And sadly enough, I say all this as someone who dislikes Microsoft, and many other big companies. I say this as someone who sympathizes with a lot of what the FSF and Stallman say. But I say this as someone who still uses Windows products because Linux isn't producing anything yet that's as easy for me to use and configure--I was hoping Nautilus would be a big part of it, but...
Until I can get a unified distribution where most of the widgets look the same, the shortcuts are all the same, the Internet browser plays almost all content without needing to be coddled and added to, and there's an integrated media application that just works with multimedia without prodding or looking very out of place--I'm going to stick with Windows. I may have to Ctrl-Alt-Del Explorer once a day due to the web browser integration, but at least almost all pages and content work right. See, ease of use trumps my philosophical instincts. I use my computer to do stuff; my computer shouldn't keep requiring me to do stuff for it.
While the best card I've got is a Rage 128 based card, I've seen the GF2 and its FSAA in action close-up. But...well... I prefer to just have the raw detail of higher resolutions, rather than FSAA. It's never really impressed me that much, and sometimes just makes details look less--detailed.
Now, maybe I'll change my mind when I actually have something like a GF2 or GF3. But I don't think so--I just prefer high resolution clear detail, and don't like the potential trade-off of having things look "smoother" but not really as "crisp."
Am I alone in this sentiment? Has the look of FSAA been improving, and is it less "un-sharp" as when I got to look at it? Opinions? I'm sure it's a feature that I'll find useful in later applications, but at the present, if I suddenly found myself owning a GF series card I think I'd just prefer to run at the highest res without FSAA's effects. Am I nuts or does someone else out there prefer a nice crispy image?
> And for the overclocking and "I've got a bigger cock"-factor ... well, you get that with every new piece of hardware.
;-)
.plan updates. And, in the extraordinarily early preview of Doom 3 that wowed everyone at the Mac convention, he opted to use the GeForce 3 even though the card and its drivers were very beta. That has to say something about the card's real power, that won't really be seen for a while. I hate to sound like a fanboy, but c'mon--if Carmack gushes over it, it's got to be as much as it's cracked up to be.
Well...I guess that doesn't speak well of my Virge video card...or of my cock. Damn, now I have to go out and buy a GeForce 3.
But on a serious note, Carmack has been cumming in his jeans about the GeForce 3 and its new features for ages now in his
I am not talking about 70 year olds. Cancer rates are up in all age ranges. Check with the CDC stats if you don't think so.
And yes, of course we haver natural defenses against low-energy radiation, since it is present naturally. But is it present naturally to the extent it is today? NO! There are low energy EM radiation streaming through your body constantly from birth to death, from every single local radio and TV station and from shortwave radios, cellular phones, beeper signals, etc. I could not begin to estimate the number of particles/waves each day. It is millions, billions, or trillions? I don't know, but I do know that if I sat any television, radio, cell phone, etc., right where my body is now, I'd be able to pick up enough EM radiation at any given instant to transmist many channels of video data, many more of radio and shortwave radio and CB radio, cellular frequencies, etc. That's quite a lot if you think about it that way, my friend--and every instant of every day it pours through your body. Most of it doesn't interact with you at all. But clearly some of it does--simple physics dictates that there will be a percentage of interactions.
I never said I propose getting rid of it. It's useful. I'm not an extremist. I'm just pointing out that modern life does cause cancer, and probably other ailments. We need not look for exotic explanations for rising health problems like cancer, because the most probably explanation is the constant exposure to EM radiation in unprecedented amounts. And as for your assertion that the chances of health risks are so small, that's just stupid, since no studies have been done or could be done since the modern world is pervaded with these high levels of low-energy EM particles. Think before you write. No one knows what percentage of cancer and other such that EM causes, because there could be no control groups for studies. But as a betting man, I'd wager the incessant exposure to countless low-energy EM does in fact cause many cases of cancer.
Sure, gamma rays and x-rays aren't all that pervasive, but I have to wonder... Lower-energy forms of radiation are considered safer because they usually don't interact with matter in such potentially damaging ways. Notice the term *usually*--every once in a while, low-energy radiation can and does cause a reaction usually associated with high-energy particles.
Just think of how pervasive that radiation is, though. People are wondering about increased cases of cancer and other such health problems in modern industrialized society, and I have to think--isn't it just a very real possibility that the problem is this utterly pervasive low-energy radiation? I mean, think about it--you can get how many channels of radio and television broadcasts from any given point? Your cellphone is able to receive as well as send data in almost any open space and most closed ones? Your pager works no matter where you stand? Think of all that pervasive electromagnetic radiation and how it passes through your body *all day every day*. How many trillions of EM waves is this over time? And absolutely none of them ever interact in a negative way with any particle in your body, ever?
I find that hard to believe. Yes, the chances of any low-energy particle doing harm are infinitesimal. But mulitply that by the inconceivable number of EM waves penetrating through your body at any given moment, and--well, it is a very real possibility that they could be the cause of quite a bit of cancer, and possibly other health risks.
Makes you think, eh?