I'm getting sick and tired of these veiled threats of potential patent-lawsuits. Let's cut to the chase. Microsoft in one corner, Red Hat, IBM, Sun (maybe) and few others in the other corner. Let MS attack Linux, and let's see IBM and others counterattack, and demand injunction to shipments of Vista and few additional pieces of software. Let's watch the participant rip each other to shreds. I bet that Microsoft would end up hurting more, and maybe, just maybe the powers-at-be will see the damage software-patens can cause to companies, individuals and economy.
"I also understand that a good number of Microsofties make millions or billions with their closed-source software. I rarely hear about opensource champions becoming rich. Linus and most of the people who contributed to opensource don't really see much monetary returns for their work."
Well, where do the "Microsofties" get their money from? From the customers. Open sources don't see such huge profits becuse the software is free (they can get their money through other means). And I think it's a safe to say that Thai government would be a user of software, rather than seller of software.
So what are they saying here really? That they WANT to pay for the software, instead of getting the software for free? Well, I think that Canonical or some other Linux-entity would happily "sell" them Linux.
And if they intent to develop software... Well, they could start from scratch and write closed software. Or they could take existing free software and work in it instead. Which of those two scenarios would end up benefitting them more? Of course we can't say for certain, but to flat out claim that closed software is the way to go, is di-ingenious at best. The minister in question seems to think that closed software is better since it can be "sold". Does the Thai Government have plans to become a seller of software? No? Then why should the concern themselves with how much software could be sold. Since they are USERS, they should concern themselves at what price the software could be obtained and used.
In short: open source is designed to benefit the users. Closed source is designed to benefit the sellers. Is the Thai-government user or a seller?
Didn't we get a report just few weeks ago which basically said that if nothing is done to the global warming, it will end up causing humungous financial losses? So there has been reports that global warming is going to harm us. We are talking here about the inconvenience of battling global warming, vs. the huge disaster if we don't do anything.
This point you are propably going to say "but we are not 100% sure what is going to happen, therefore we should do nothing!", right? No matter how many reports we get about this, you could always say "we are not 100% sure". I guess it's just a lot easier to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing.
"But what if you want to PLAY GAMES and WATCH MOVIES?!?!?! Then what will you do? Will you buy a movie player and buy a gaming console."
Yes!11!!!1 DVD-players are cheap. And a proper remote is a lot nicer to use than a console-controller for movie-watching. How many people are there who are going to be buying a Wii, but do not own a DVD-player? Not many. And since just about everyone already has a DVD-player, the fact that Wii does not play back DVD's is more or less irrelevant. And if someone does not have a DVD-player, why not buy a Wii for $250 and a DVD-player for ~$100? It would still end up being cheaper than PS3, and watching movies on that setup would be a lot nicer than watching them on a frigging game-console.
"What is NOT apparent (and which Kyotovocates, as I call them, seem to keep avoiding) is:..."...And therefore we should do nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Is that your argument? that's what it looks like to me.
"I want each core to be able to access its own memory so it is not blocked by the other core's if it is accessing memory."
Say hello to AMD, HyperTransport and integrated memory-controllers. Each CPU has it's own bank of RAM, and Each CPU is directly (well, 8-socket system needs one intermediate jump) connected to the other CPU's, and they can access the RAM connected to the other CPU's as well. So if you have dual-socket system, each socket has it's own RAM-bank, with 128bit bus between the CPU and the RAM, and the CPU can access the RAM attached to the other CPU as well. So as the number of CPU's goes up, the memory-bandwidth goes up as well.
This tech has been used since 2003 in the AMD's x86-64 CPU's. In the future AMD will have systems where you can plug co-processors and vid-cards to HyperTransport-sockets, alloweing them to directly communicate with the CPU's.
the FSB's have been getting faster, the expansion-buses (PCI, PCI-E etc.) have been getting faster, memory has been getting faster, and they reside on wider buses.
If you complaint is the FSB; the AMD has something better for you. So what are you looking for here really?
I'm not saying either of those things - but I don't have the warm and fuzzies over this. Why? Because there is no immediate answer to the most obvious question; What does Microsoft believe they are getting for their 348 million dollars?
That has been my main question as well. Sure, some of that money was for SUSE-licenses. But that does not cove all of it. What exactly did Microsoft get for it's money? They got something, but we still have no idea what that is. And even though MS might have zillion dollars in the bank, they will NOT just give one of their competitors 348 for shit and giggles. They did it because they expect to benefit from it.
And knowing Microsoft, and "benefit" they seek to gain froim this, will ultimately hurt us and Linux. But what we need to find out is that what exactly did MS get for that money.
Instead of making the building entirely from concrete, how about using some different material for the interior walls, and maybe but some kind of insulation-stuff between the interior and exterior-walls?
No-one is claiming that Iraq had WMD's. That fact is clearly demonstrated. But just before the time of the invasion (which was NOT during Clinton administration), they did not have them anymore. And everyone except US Administration agreed on that (and I bet that even they knew the truth, they just needed an excuse for the war). Or are you saying that it was OK to invade Iraq because because at one point in history they did have WMD's?
What else was there... Well, I remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished" (hah!) speech, I remember him saying that "We have taken out a major supported of Al Qaida". Well, fact was (and is) that Saddam hated Bin Laden, there were no ties between the two and everyone knew it. And still, US Citizens were being fed the lie that Saddam was connected to Al Qaida and that he was also connected to 9/11. Neither of which were true.
Fact is that the Iraq War is a house built on lies. We were told that Iraq needs to be invaded because they have WMD's. They didn't have them, and everyone tried to tell USA that fact. We were told that Iraq needs to be invaded because they supported Al Qaida. And that was not true. We needed to invade Iraq because they were connected to 9/11. Not true either. Lies, lies and more lies.
"Please read this link"
Freerepublic? isn't that that ultra right-wing website that puts Fox News to shame with it's bias?
"Saddam killed significantly more people than even the highest estimates of the casualties of the invasion"
Few points:
- Are you talking about the number of people killed through Saddam-related war (Iraq-Iran), or people killed through persecution (kurds, political opponents)?
- Are you talking about just the people who died during the invasion, or are you talking about the people who have been killed during the occupation as well?
One Finnish newspaper did an article about Iraq few weeks ago. What they did was that they called random phone-numbers in Baghdad and interviewed people. One of the Iraqis said it best: "Few years ago we were ruled over by a dictator, but we could still live out our everyday lives in peace. Today, we are a "democracy", and we fear for our lives every time we step outside our homes."
"You do realize that the first two issues are completely unrelated to the OS on it, right?"
Yes they are. Linux does not suffer from that crap. OS X does not suffer from that crap. Every single computer I have been asked to "fix" has been a Windows-machine that has been filled with adware and other assorted crap. And I DO know people who use Linux (some of those Linux-users could be described as "joe Sixpack") and OS X. They don't seem to suffer from these issues. These problems are 100% focused on Windows.
"(As for the 3rd issue, yeah that's just odd, although I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause of that was also user initiated)"
What happened was that I unplugged the computer, swapped the RAM, plugged the machine back in, and the PNA-adapter was gone. Just like that. sure, you could say that I screwed something up, but that's unlikely. I have installed RAM maybe 100+ times without any issues, and I didn't go anywhere near the PNA-adapter. And even if the adapter was somehow damaged, it should still be visible in Windows (even though it didn't work anymore). But it's not. It just vanished. It's like it never existed.
"The reason why it's filled with crap and multiple virus scanners on it, is likely due your novice neighbor's actions and decisions."
Why does Windows require the user to make those decision, if it's so "simple"? Most user are utterly incapable of making those decisions (as my neighbour demonstrated), yet they are basically required in Windows. Fact is that people who use Linux or OS X, simply do not have to worry about virus-scanners or spyware, whereas Windows-users do.
"The big question is that if your neighbor was on Linux, trying to do the same thing, what would have happened?"
Nothing, since I have yet to see a Linux-install that has been infested with viruses and/or spyware.
"I don't care what platform you are on, someone is going to run into some inexplicable combination of hardware, software, and "user errors" (as well as plain old bugs) that causes bizarre things to happen."
The difference is that Windows can spontanously combust. It can change drive-letters around (I have seen that happen on our servers, twice), it can mysteriously lose working components (like what happened yesterday). Those things happen even though the user does not do anything. Sure, user could screw up Linux as well, but the damage he can do there is harder to do, and more limited by default. The user can delete his personal data, but it would take real effort for him to screw up the system. And I have never seen Linux just lose components. One minute that network-adapter is there, then it just suddenly vanishes, taking the network with it. I honestly haven't seen that happen in Linux.
"Without a doubt, the Linux issues are going to be far harder to troubleshoot and debug for your average computer user, simply because the vast majority of them have no idea what a "command line" is, much less knowing what the hell "re-compiling" means."
Why would they have to compile anything? Yes, they might have more problems with Linux. But that's not due to compiling or CLI, it's due to the fact that most users know Windows, whereas most users don't know Linux. make someone who has only used Windows in the past use Linux without any training and they will have problems, period. Same applies to other OS'es. My wife has problems using OS X, because she is used to Linux/GNOME-combo.
And, in many ways, CLI can actually be easier to use (even though using the CLI is not really a requirement in Linux). Why? Copy/Paste. Many times I do my tasks in CLI, due to the fact that when someone writes instructions to do something in CLI, you can just C/P the instructions to the terminal and hit Enter. With a GUI, you need to go through the instructions one step at a time as it tells you to "then click on the "Advanced"-tab, make sure these checkboxes are checked...."
"Linux is not simpler than Windows. You don't simply push a button and suddenly everything works. I just installed Ubuntu on my laptop and had to fight a small war to get accelerated graphics working. I had to change the wireless network stuff so it used ndiswrapper instead of whatever it was the installer wanted to use to prevent it from constantly dropping connections."
I spent my entire yesterday-evening fixing my neighbours computer. She complained that it was "running very slowly". It's a XP-machine, and it had antivirus installed (in fact, several of them). I removed the multitude of antivirus-software (which had expired anyway), installed new antivirus, scanned the machine, scanned it for adware and spyware, the usual stuff. And it did make it a bit better. I also noticed that she only had 256MB of RAM, which is quite little these days. Luckily I had two 512MB sticks of RAM lying around, so I installed those in her computer.
As I booted the machine, her net-connection did not work anymore. Just like that. No matter how hard I tried, it just wont go online. I even tried to put the old RAM back, just in case, but no help. It seems like the machine has mysteriously lost the HomePNA-adapter that is in the machine. I'm not really sure what to do next, maybe I should move the adapter to another slot, and hope that XP rediscovers it. Or maybe I should just erase everything, and reinstall the whole crap from scratch.
End result is that before I touched the machine, she had a computer that was so cluttered with crap that it was un-usable. What she got was a machine that is usable but wont get online. Linux might have it's problem but at least it
a) does not get filled with crap b) does not slow down because it has three virus-scanners running in the background c) does not mysteriously lose components that were working fine 5 minutes ago.
How about our Windows-server at work? It has a HD that is partitioned in to C and D-drives. One day it had switched the drive-letters around. Just like that. What used to be C, was now D, and vice versa. We rebooted the machine, no help. We rebooted again, no help. We rebooted to safe-mode, no help. we rebooted to recovery-console and checked few things (but didn't change anything). Then we rebooted for a fifth time, and this time everything worked. We didn't change anything, we just repeatedly rebooted the machine, and suddenly it started to work again. Where is the logic in this? And why does Windows suddenly decide to switch drive-letters around? Seriously? What the hell is going on here?
I had owned Canon Digital Ixus 500 for few years, and while it was (and is) a good point 'n shoot camera, I felt that it was time to move on. So I went and bought a Canon Eos 400D with the kit-lens. I have now used the Eos for few weeks, and the difference between the two cameras is huge. Few things I have noticed:
- The act of taking a picture is A LOT nicer on the Eos. With the Ixus, I held the camera with my fingers in front of my face. And it made no sound when taking the picture. With the Eos I need to really aim the camera, and the grip is way superior when compared to the Ixus. And it makes a proper sound! I just love the sound the camera makes when I take the picture. You would think that the sound does not matter, but it does.
- Speed. with the Ixus I could take one picture every 2-3 seconds or so. With the Eos I can take several pictures in a row. If I see something interesting, I can take half a dozen pictures of it in a time of few seconds. I can then pick and choose the best picture. With the Ixus I could take only 1-2 pictures in that timeframe, so I had a lot less to choose from. If one of the pictures failed for some reason, I would have only one picture left.
- Quality. Pictures I take with the Eos simply look better, even on full-auto settings. It's as simple as that.
- Control. I had no way to directly adjust the aperture or shutter in the Ixus. I could just tell the camera that I want to take certain type of picture, and all I could do is to hope that the camera adjusts the settings accordingly. I a way, I could only make suggestions to the camera. On the Eos I can tell the camera EXACTLY what I want, and the camera does it, even though it might not make any sense.
- Pixels. The lowest resolution available on the Eos is about the same size as the biggest resolution on the Ixus:).
Yes, the Eos was more expensive that compact-digitals. And it took a huge chunk from my "laptop-fund". But I still feel that it has been the best purchase I have made in a long time. If you are thinking about moving from compact to DSLR, I have nothing but positive comments to say about the switch.
"raq used WMD and violated the Iraq War I truce agreement. The time was ripe to finish the job."
Yes, they had them in the past. But at the time of the invasion, they did not, even though US administration claimed that they did. And fact remains that Bush lied before the invasion. He claimed that Iraq had WMD's. They did not. He claimed that Iraq supported Al-Qaida. They did not. He claimed that Iraq was connected to 9/11. They were not. So what were the reasons for the invasion? That Saddam was a bad man? Funny, that was not mentioned in the list of reasons to invade.
"Regrettable, but consider the ongoing carnage of Saddam's thugs and it doesn't seem much."
I bet that most Iraqis would prefer the pre-war "carnage" of Saddam, instead of their current situation. Had USA not ivaded, they would not be in their current situation.
"Would it make sense to reinstall the Baathists to their regular posts. An absurd suggestion."
I was talking about the American civil-administration that was run by Americans, so your comment about Baathists misses the point (again). They could have chosen the people (the Americans) based on qualifications. But no, they chose bunch of Bush Yes-men instead, regardless that did they have the skills for the job.
"I prefer the term "aggressive interogation"
It's still torture, no matter what the euphenism of the day happens to be.
"Nations at war must keep prisoners somewhere. The Geneva Conventions say so."
USA is not at war. And is a concentration-camp where people are bieng held without being charged of a crime the ideal solution?
"Yes, he does. He supports eavesdropping *international* phone calls of US citizens chatting with their Al-Qaida buddies in Pakistan."
How do you know that that's the only thing it will be used for?
"He was deposed in the process of being sued by Paula Jones, and lied about Monica Lewinski"
And what about the lies of GWB? His lies have resulted in deaths of thousands.
"A city lying below sea level gets hit by a category 4 hurricane and you expect the President to stop it?"
Thanks for missing the point entirely. You DO know how to read? Bush told that he was not informed of the risk Katrina posed to New Orleans. Then video-footage was shown where he was explicitly told of the risks and that the levee's might not hold, before the storm. So when Bush said that he was not informed, he was in fact LYING.
"I feel sorry for you in Europe who are mired in discredited, feckless, socialist thinking."
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I wondered why you guys treat GWB with kid-gloves, and you start whining about Europe being "socialist".
"Whether you like or hate America"
What makes you think I "hate America"? I hate current US Administration, but that does not mean I "Hate America".
So we have Clinton and GWB. Clinton had a blowjob, and didn't want to admit it to anyone.
Then, on the other hand we have GWB. So far he has repeatedly lied about Iraq (that they were connected to 9/11, that they supported Al-Qaida, that they had WMD's) in order to have his little war with them. That war has killed thousands of American soldiers, while injuring a lot more. It has killed tens of thousands or Iraqis, while injuring a lot more. His vice-presindet is directly connected to a company that makes huge profits off the war. The selection of US post-war civil-administrators was made based on their support for Bush, instead of their qualifications, so the end-result was a disaster. Bush has defended the US use of torture, Bush is responsible for Guantanamo Bay, Bush has called the US Constitution "Just a piece of paper", Bush is responsible for the illegal phone-tapping of US Citizens. Hell, during 9/11-attacks he was informed of them, and he did NOTHING. He just sat on his ass. He was informed of the threat Katrina posed, yet he afterwards claimed that he was not informed. The list goes on.
The president who had the blowjob was dragged to courts and humiliated. Millions of tax-payer money was wasted on it. The other president hasn't been dragged to court. In fact, nothing has happened to him.
Only in America? Americans: On the one hand I feel sorry for you. On the other hand I'm wondering what the hell happened to you. Why are you letting this go on? Why was Clinton dragged to court because of a blowjob, whereas GWB is being handled with kid-gloves?
"The in-laws can type an address into the GPS unit I bought them"
What that has to do with making phone-calls is beyond me. So they can type an address there? Whoop-de-fucking-do! Can they make phone-calls with it? Last time I checked, making a phone-call is different thing that typing an address.
"This can be done without paying Verizon or whatever the $50 extra or so per month for GPS service."
Isn't GPS free to use? What makes you think that you would have to pay for GPS-service?
"It's a problem looking for a solution."
It's a phone. It's also an GPS-device. Is either of those "a problem looking for a solution"? No? Then why would a device that combines the two be such a problem? Instead of having two devices, you could have just one.
I have seen quite a few people using their phones as GPS-clients (they use a GPS-receiver through a Bluetooth-connection). This device lets them ditch that awkward receiver, since it already has a GPS-receiver. And who is to say that phone/GPS-combo wouldn't offer some cool possibilities? Because we haven't had anything cool happen on that front? Could it be because we haven't had GPS-phones yet?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm getting sick and tired of these veiled threats of potential patent-lawsuits. Let's cut to the chase. Microsoft in one corner, Red Hat, IBM, Sun (maybe) and few others in the other corner. Let MS attack Linux, and let's see IBM and others counterattack, and demand injunction to shipments of Vista and few additional pieces of software. Let's watch the participant rip each other to shreds. I bet that Microsoft would end up hurting more, and maybe, just maybe the powers-at-be will see the damage software-patens can cause to companies, individuals and economy.
Seriously, bring it on!
"I also understand that a good number of Microsofties make millions or billions with their closed-source software. I rarely hear about opensource champions becoming rich. Linus and most of the people who contributed to opensource don't really see much monetary returns for their work."
Well, where do the "Microsofties" get their money from? From the customers. Open sources don't see such huge profits becuse the software is free (they can get their money through other means). And I think it's a safe to say that Thai government would be a user of software, rather than seller of software.
So what are they saying here really? That they WANT to pay for the software, instead of getting the software for free? Well, I think that Canonical or some other Linux-entity would happily "sell" them Linux.
And if they intent to develop software... Well, they could start from scratch and write closed software. Or they could take existing free software and work in it instead. Which of those two scenarios would end up benefitting them more? Of course we can't say for certain, but to flat out claim that closed software is the way to go, is di-ingenious at best. The minister in question seems to think that closed software is better since it can be "sold". Does the Thai Government have plans to become a seller of software? No? Then why should the concern themselves with how much software could be sold. Since they are USERS, they should concern themselves at what price the software could be obtained and used.
In short: open source is designed to benefit the users. Closed source is designed to benefit the sellers. Is the Thai-government user or a seller?
Didn't we get a report just few weeks ago which basically said that if nothing is done to the global warming, it will end up causing humungous financial losses? So there has been reports that global warming is going to harm us. We are talking here about the inconvenience of battling global warming, vs. the huge disaster if we don't do anything.
This point you are propably going to say "but we are not 100% sure what is going to happen, therefore we should do nothing!", right? No matter how many reports we get about this, you could always say "we are not 100% sure". I guess it's just a lot easier to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing.
"Because they may upset some people."
I wonder what the reaction would be to "Airplane!"? Would the passengers and the cabi-crew appreciate the irony?
"But what if you want to PLAY GAMES and WATCH MOVIES?!?!?! Then what will you do? Will you buy a movie player and buy a gaming console."
Yes!11!!!1 DVD-players are cheap. And a proper remote is a lot nicer to use than a console-controller for movie-watching. How many people are there who are going to be buying a Wii, but do not own a DVD-player? Not many. And since just about everyone already has a DVD-player, the fact that Wii does not play back DVD's is more or less irrelevant. And if someone does not have a DVD-player, why not buy a Wii for $250 and a DVD-player for ~$100? It would still end up being cheaper than PS3, and watching movies on that setup would be a lot nicer than watching them on a frigging game-console.
"What is NOT apparent (and which Kyotovocates, as I call them, seem to keep avoiding) is:..." ...And therefore we should do nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Is that your argument? that's what it looks like to me.
Well, I DID say that 8-socket configuration need one additional hop...
"I want each core to be able to access its own memory so it is not blocked by the other core's if it is accessing memory."
Say hello to AMD, HyperTransport and integrated memory-controllers. Each CPU has it's own bank of RAM, and Each CPU is directly (well, 8-socket system needs one intermediate jump) connected to the other CPU's, and they can access the RAM connected to the other CPU's as well. So if you have dual-socket system, each socket has it's own RAM-bank, with 128bit bus between the CPU and the RAM, and the CPU can access the RAM attached to the other CPU as well. So as the number of CPU's goes up, the memory-bandwidth goes up as well.
This tech has been used since 2003 in the AMD's x86-64 CPU's. In the future AMD will have systems where you can plug co-processors and vid-cards to HyperTransport-sockets, alloweing them to directly communicate with the CPU's.
the FSB's have been getting faster, the expansion-buses (PCI, PCI-E etc.) have been getting faster, memory has been getting faster, and they reside on wider buses.
If you complaint is the FSB; the AMD has something better for you. So what are you looking for here really?
"I just got a fancy new AMD duel core CPU a few months ago..."
Two cores enter, one core leaves! Two cores enter, one core leaves!
That has been my main question as well. Sure, some of that money was for SUSE-licenses. But that does not cove all of it. What exactly did Microsoft get for it's money? They got something, but we still have no idea what that is. And even though MS might have zillion dollars in the bank, they will NOT just give one of their competitors 348 for shit and giggles. They did it because they expect to benefit from it.
And knowing Microsoft, and "benefit" they seek to gain froim this, will ultimately hurt us and Linux. But what we need to find out is that what exactly did MS get for that money.
Instead of making the building entirely from concrete, how about using some different material for the interior walls, and maybe but some kind of insulation-stuff between the interior and exterior-walls?
Just a thought....
No-one is claiming that Iraq had WMD's. That fact is clearly demonstrated. But just before the time of the invasion (which was NOT during Clinton administration), they did not have them anymore. And everyone except US Administration agreed on that (and I bet that even they knew the truth, they just needed an excuse for the war). Or are you saying that it was OK to invade Iraq because because at one point in history they did have WMD's?
What else was there... Well, I remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished" (hah!) speech, I remember him saying that "We have taken out a major supported of Al Qaida". Well, fact was (and is) that Saddam hated Bin Laden, there were no ties between the two and everyone knew it. And still, US Citizens were being fed the lie that Saddam was connected to Al Qaida and that he was also connected to 9/11. Neither of which were true.
Fact is that the Iraq War is a house built on lies. We were told that Iraq needs to be invaded because they have WMD's. They didn't have them, and everyone tried to tell USA that fact. We were told that Iraq needs to be invaded because they supported Al Qaida. And that was not true. We needed to invade Iraq because they were connected to 9/11. Not true either. Lies, lies and more lies.
"Please read this link"
Freerepublic? isn't that that ultra right-wing website that puts Fox News to shame with it's bias?
"Saddam killed significantly more people than even the highest estimates of the casualties of the invasion"
Few points:
- Are you talking about the number of people killed through Saddam-related war (Iraq-Iran), or people killed through persecution (kurds, political opponents)?
- Are you talking about just the people who died during the invasion, or are you talking about the people who have been killed during the occupation as well?
One Finnish newspaper did an article about Iraq few weeks ago. What they did was that they called random phone-numbers in Baghdad and interviewed people. One of the Iraqis said it best: "Few years ago we were ruled over by a dictator, but we could still live out our everyday lives in peace. Today, we are a "democracy", and we fear for our lives every time we step outside our homes."
"You do realize that the first two issues are completely unrelated to the OS on it, right?"
Yes they are. Linux does not suffer from that crap. OS X does not suffer from that crap. Every single computer I have been asked to "fix" has been a Windows-machine that has been filled with adware and other assorted crap. And I DO know people who use Linux (some of those Linux-users could be described as "joe Sixpack") and OS X. They don't seem to suffer from these issues. These problems are 100% focused on Windows.
"(As for the 3rd issue, yeah that's just odd, although I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause of that was also user initiated)"
What happened was that I unplugged the computer, swapped the RAM, plugged the machine back in, and the PNA-adapter was gone. Just like that. sure, you could say that I screwed something up, but that's unlikely. I have installed RAM maybe 100+ times without any issues, and I didn't go anywhere near the PNA-adapter. And even if the adapter was somehow damaged, it should still be visible in Windows (even though it didn't work anymore). But it's not. It just vanished. It's like it never existed.
"The reason why it's filled with crap and multiple virus scanners on it, is likely due your novice neighbor's actions and decisions."
Why does Windows require the user to make those decision, if it's so "simple"? Most user are utterly incapable of making those decisions (as my neighbour demonstrated), yet they are basically required in Windows. Fact is that people who use Linux or OS X, simply do not have to worry about virus-scanners or spyware, whereas Windows-users do.
"The big question is that if your neighbor was on Linux, trying to do the same thing, what would have happened?"
Nothing, since I have yet to see a Linux-install that has been infested with viruses and/or spyware.
"I don't care what platform you are on, someone is going to run into some inexplicable combination of hardware, software, and "user errors" (as well as plain old bugs) that causes bizarre things to happen."
The difference is that Windows can spontanously combust. It can change drive-letters around (I have seen that happen on our servers, twice), it can mysteriously lose working components (like what happened yesterday). Those things happen even though the user does not do anything. Sure, user could screw up Linux as well, but the damage he can do there is harder to do, and more limited by default. The user can delete his personal data, but it would take real effort for him to screw up the system. And I have never seen Linux just lose components. One minute that network-adapter is there, then it just suddenly vanishes, taking the network with it. I honestly haven't seen that happen in Linux.
"Without a doubt, the Linux issues are going to be far harder to troubleshoot and debug for your average computer user, simply because the vast majority of them have no idea what a "command line" is, much less knowing what the hell "re-compiling" means."
Why would they have to compile anything? Yes, they might have more problems with Linux. But that's not due to compiling or CLI, it's due to the fact that most users know Windows, whereas most users don't know Linux. make someone who has only used Windows in the past use Linux without any training and they will have problems, period. Same applies to other OS'es. My wife has problems using OS X, because she is used to Linux/GNOME-combo.
And, in many ways, CLI can actually be easier to use (even though using the CLI is not really a requirement in Linux). Why? Copy/Paste. Many times I do my tasks in CLI, due to the fact that when someone writes instructions to do something in CLI, you can just C/P the instructions to the terminal and hit Enter. With a GUI, you need to go through the instructions one step at a time as it tells you to "then click on the "Advanced"-tab, make sure these checkboxes are checked...."
"Linux is not simpler than Windows. You don't simply push a button and suddenly everything works. I just installed Ubuntu on my laptop and had to fight a small war to get accelerated graphics working. I had to change the wireless network stuff so it used ndiswrapper instead of whatever it was the installer wanted to use to prevent it from constantly dropping connections."
I spent my entire yesterday-evening fixing my neighbours computer. She complained that it was "running very slowly". It's a XP-machine, and it had antivirus installed (in fact, several of them). I removed the multitude of antivirus-software (which had expired anyway), installed new antivirus, scanned the machine, scanned it for adware and spyware, the usual stuff. And it did make it a bit better. I also noticed that she only had 256MB of RAM, which is quite little these days. Luckily I had two 512MB sticks of RAM lying around, so I installed those in her computer.
As I booted the machine, her net-connection did not work anymore. Just like that. No matter how hard I tried, it just wont go online. I even tried to put the old RAM back, just in case, but no help. It seems like the machine has mysteriously lost the HomePNA-adapter that is in the machine. I'm not really sure what to do next, maybe I should move the adapter to another slot, and hope that XP rediscovers it. Or maybe I should just erase everything, and reinstall the whole crap from scratch.
End result is that before I touched the machine, she had a computer that was so cluttered with crap that it was un-usable. What she got was a machine that is usable but wont get online. Linux might have it's problem but at least it
a) does not get filled with crap
b) does not slow down because it has three virus-scanners running in the background
c) does not mysteriously lose components that were working fine 5 minutes ago.
How about our Windows-server at work? It has a HD that is partitioned in to C and D-drives. One day it had switched the drive-letters around. Just like that. What used to be C, was now D, and vice versa. We rebooted the machine, no help. We rebooted again, no help. We rebooted to safe-mode, no help. we rebooted to recovery-console and checked few things (but didn't change anything). Then we rebooted for a fifth time, and this time everything worked. We didn't change anything, we just repeatedly rebooted the machine, and suddenly it started to work again. Where is the logic in this? And why does Windows suddenly decide to switch drive-letters around? Seriously? What the hell is going on here?
And how exactly are ANY of these things "simple"?
I had owned Canon Digital Ixus 500 for few years, and while it was (and is) a good point 'n shoot camera, I felt that it was time to move on. So I went and bought a Canon Eos 400D with the kit-lens. I have now used the Eos for few weeks, and the difference between the two cameras is huge. Few things I have noticed:
:).
- The act of taking a picture is A LOT nicer on the Eos. With the Ixus, I held the camera with my fingers in front of my face. And it made no sound when taking the picture. With the Eos I need to really aim the camera, and the grip is way superior when compared to the Ixus. And it makes a proper sound! I just love the sound the camera makes when I take the picture. You would think that the sound does not matter, but it does.
- Speed. with the Ixus I could take one picture every 2-3 seconds or so. With the Eos I can take several pictures in a row. If I see something interesting, I can take half a dozen pictures of it in a time of few seconds. I can then pick and choose the best picture. With the Ixus I could take only 1-2 pictures in that timeframe, so I had a lot less to choose from. If one of the pictures failed for some reason, I would have only one picture left.
- Quality. Pictures I take with the Eos simply look better, even on full-auto settings. It's as simple as that.
- Control. I had no way to directly adjust the aperture or shutter in the Ixus. I could just tell the camera that I want to take certain type of picture, and all I could do is to hope that the camera adjusts the settings accordingly. I a way, I could only make suggestions to the camera. On the Eos I can tell the camera EXACTLY what I want, and the camera does it, even though it might not make any sense.
- Pixels. The lowest resolution available on the Eos is about the same size as the biggest resolution on the Ixus
Yes, the Eos was more expensive that compact-digitals. And it took a huge chunk from my "laptop-fund". But I still feel that it has been the best purchase I have made in a long time. If you are thinking about moving from compact to DSLR, I have nothing but positive comments to say about the switch.
...man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing...block it out!"
"raq used WMD and violated the Iraq War I truce agreement. The time was ripe to finish the job."
Yes, they had them in the past. But at the time of the invasion, they did not, even though US administration claimed that they did. And fact remains that Bush lied before the invasion. He claimed that Iraq had WMD's. They did not. He claimed that Iraq supported Al-Qaida. They did not. He claimed that Iraq was connected to 9/11. They were not. So what were the reasons for the invasion? That Saddam was a bad man? Funny, that was not mentioned in the list of reasons to invade.
"Regrettable, but consider the ongoing carnage of Saddam's thugs and it doesn't seem much."
I bet that most Iraqis would prefer the pre-war "carnage" of Saddam, instead of their current situation. Had USA not ivaded, they would not be in their current situation.
"Would it make sense to reinstall the Baathists to their regular posts. An absurd suggestion."
I was talking about the American civil-administration that was run by Americans, so your comment about Baathists misses the point (again). They could have chosen the people (the Americans) based on qualifications. But no, they chose bunch of Bush Yes-men instead, regardless that did they have the skills for the job.
"I prefer the term "aggressive interogation"
It's still torture, no matter what the euphenism of the day happens to be.
"Nations at war must keep prisoners somewhere. The Geneva Conventions say so."
USA is not at war. And is a concentration-camp where people are bieng held without being charged of a crime the ideal solution?
"Yes, he does. He supports eavesdropping *international* phone calls of US citizens chatting with their Al-Qaida buddies in Pakistan."
How do you know that that's the only thing it will be used for?
"He was deposed in the process of being sued by Paula Jones, and lied about Monica Lewinski"
And what about the lies of GWB? His lies have resulted in deaths of thousands.
"A city lying below sea level gets hit by a category 4 hurricane and you expect the President to stop it?"
Thanks for missing the point entirely. You DO know how to read? Bush told that he was not informed of the risk Katrina posed to New Orleans. Then video-footage was shown where he was explicitly told of the risks and that the levee's might not hold, before the storm. So when Bush said that he was not informed, he was in fact LYING.
"I feel sorry for you in Europe who are mired in discredited, feckless, socialist thinking."
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I wondered why you guys treat GWB with kid-gloves, and you start whining about Europe being "socialist".
"Whether you like or hate America"
What makes you think I "hate America"? I hate current US Administration, but that does not mean I "Hate America".
First of all: I'm not American.
So we have Clinton and GWB. Clinton had a blowjob, and didn't want to admit it to anyone.
Then, on the other hand we have GWB. So far he has repeatedly lied about Iraq (that they were connected to 9/11, that they supported Al-Qaida, that they had WMD's) in order to have his little war with them. That war has killed thousands of American soldiers, while injuring a lot more. It has killed tens of thousands or Iraqis, while injuring a lot more. His vice-presindet is directly connected to a company that makes huge profits off the war. The selection of US post-war civil-administrators was made based on their support for Bush, instead of their qualifications, so the end-result was a disaster. Bush has defended the US use of torture, Bush is responsible for Guantanamo Bay, Bush has called the US Constitution "Just a piece of paper", Bush is responsible for the illegal phone-tapping of US Citizens. Hell, during 9/11-attacks he was informed of them, and he did NOTHING. He just sat on his ass. He was informed of the threat Katrina posed, yet he afterwards claimed that he was not informed. The list goes on.
The president who had the blowjob was dragged to courts and humiliated. Millions of tax-payer money was wasted on it. The other president hasn't been dragged to court. In fact, nothing has happened to him.
Only in America? Americans: On the one hand I feel sorry for you. On the other hand I'm wondering what the hell happened to you. Why are you letting this go on? Why was Clinton dragged to court because of a blowjob, whereas GWB is being handled with kid-gloves?
*SWOOSH*
Well, Japan has always been different. GPS-enabled phones are not really available (yet) in the west.
"The in-laws can type an address into the GPS unit I bought them"
What that has to do with making phone-calls is beyond me. So they can type an address there? Whoop-de-fucking-do! Can they make phone-calls with it? Last time I checked, making a phone-call is different thing that typing an address.
"This can be done without paying Verizon or whatever the $50 extra or so per month for GPS service."
Isn't GPS free to use? What makes you think that you would have to pay for GPS-service?
"It's a problem looking for a solution."
It's a phone. It's also an GPS-device. Is either of those "a problem looking for a solution"? No? Then why would a device that combines the two be such a problem? Instead of having two devices, you could have just one.
I have seen quite a few people using their phones as GPS-clients (they use a GPS-receiver through a Bluetooth-connection). This device lets them ditch that awkward receiver, since it already has a GPS-receiver. And who is to say that phone/GPS-combo wouldn't offer some cool possibilities? Because we haven't had anything cool happen on that front? Could it be because we haven't had GPS-phones yet?
But that GPS-unit would not be able to send and receive phone-calls, now would it? You are comparing a in-car GPS-device to a portable GPS/GSM-hybrid.
"got my phone with the same features for free when I signed up for a 1 year plan."
If you think that your phone was "free", then you are deluding yourself.