Well I don't think you sound like and overly elitist fucktard, but I would like to remind you that t.v is just another source of information, and can be used as a tool to help form your own opinion. It can be a powerful medium as well as there's motion and sound, which at times is much more affective than print. Of course you don't believe it just because it's on TV, but you don't disbelieve it because it is either. People who are brainwased by TV will probably be brainwased by lots of things.
I have a 100 watt amp that I used to have plugged into the 1/4 inch on a Soundblaster Live card and it fried the jack, so you might want to be careful.
I still don't really see how the two situations are similar. At least not in any significant way. If we had invaded Afghanistan or Iraq or North Korea without being provoked then you might have something to be concerned about. As it stands:
Afghanistan - Terrorist event coupled with the uncooperative Tabliban. A quick defeat leading to the establishment of an internationally approved government with a peace keeping force to maintain precense. This is necesary until the Afghanistan army and police can keep order as they are currently being trained by the US and France.
Iraq - Invades Kuwait, a UN resolution allows a US led coalition of many nations to defeat Iraq. In the following year Iraq continues violationg UN resolutions, they shoot at US and British planes flying UN mandated patrol paths, just today the IAEA finds weapons violating UN resolutions
North Korea - US takes hard line in negotiations, but attempts to resolve the problem through diplomacy instead of through force. But if North Korea were to continue their current path, I bet you'd see more than diplomacy coming from Washington. You call this anomalous treatment but I don't think it is. Saddam had every opportunity to resolve his problems through diplomacy and chose not to.
I bet you don't see these situations the same way, but that's how I see things. I don't think there's any discrepancy between what Bush is saying and doing. I don't believe there's an economic motive driving his actions. I realize many would scoff at that.
Also, I don't believe that that the type of evil you describe will come from America. Even if we go to war, there will be plenty of people like yourself with watchful eyes, and if the actions of Bush go against what Americans want then Bush will be removed. The only way it could happen is with the support of the American people.
You sound like a fucking crackhead comparing what I said to Hitler.
Let me take you through this:
1. Osama kills roughly 3000 people in America in the worst terrorist act in our country's history
2. We ask the nations of the world for their help. Pretty much everybody says "okay, we'll help"
3. The Taliban say "screw you - we've got him but you can't have him"
4. We say "No really, give him to use or we'll defeat you"
5. Repeat 3, 4
6. We defeat the Taliban
Had this been any other cooperative country we would have worked with their officials to extract the criminals. But no - they wanted to throw it in our face and defy our right to justice. What the hell do you think we were supposed to do - just forgive Osama? To compare that to Hitler invading Europe or Saddam is just stupid.
Now - about planning war prior 9/11. Maybe we did - but that in no way even hints at the fact that the reason we attacked was for oil. I bet if you pick any country in the world they probably have many military contingency plans. It would be foolish not to. If you believe those reports then there were other countries on board as well - Russia, India, and others. The Taliban were pretty horrible rulers and other people agreed - do you really want to argue that life in Afghanistan was better under the rule of the Taliban?
But having said that - THAT IS NOT WHY WE ATTACKED. WE ATTACKED AFTER THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER A TERRORIST.
Anyone that suggests Iraq has Islamic terrorist links is lying to you.
Well then what would you consider Iraq paying the families of suicide bombers? That's an action that they've taken in public - what makes you think they don't do similar things under the table. And how do you know our intelligence agencies don't have that information - Tony Blair said the same thing, maybe it's a big conspiracy.
And your rant on Afghanistan - an economic take over? WTF? You really believe that we attacked Afghanistan because of oil? Do you not remember the terrorist act that was committed by Osama, who at that time was given refuge by the Taliban? Do you not remember us giving them several chances to turn him over, and them giving us the the middle finger?
I'm no major Bush supporter by any means - but to assume that he is willing to send our soldiers to death simply for oil is a bit of a leap to me. I think to make that assertion you have to also say the Bush is nothing but Evil, straight up unchecked evil. I don't believe that, I think he, right or wrong, believes that the world would be a better place without Saddam.
My advice? Do not watch TV news! It's only designed to keep you watching until the commercials. So they show things that people like watching. Death. Violence. Dispair. Tragedy. Sport.
It's not a true reflection of the world, and if you watch it every day, you're probably one of those people who worry about being attacked/killed on your way to work, and you live behind closed/locked doors.
I find it really amusing that you would question anyone else's view on reality.
That's actually the reason they're only allowing 6 different companies to sell Media Center PC's. They don't want the brand name to get tarnished by cheap PC's.
I run XP and it has never crashed - apps have crashed but that's it. Since this is a streamlined version of XP that is to run on a certain set of hardware, I'd be pretty confident that it won't crash. Yea I know what most people here will say about that.
This anti-MS chick at work told me I was a fool with blind faith for buying an XBOX - said it would crash all the time. It's been fine.
I'd go so far as to say that the average person should be suspicious of any pro-MSFT article or viewpoint posted in a public forum
That's crazy. The average person doesn't give a shit about what a lot of people here do. They really don't.
I'd probably be considered pro-micorsoft, but that's just because I'm a developer and MS is the subject I know. Some things they do as a business I don't like, but it's not really that big of a deal to me. They went to court and got their penalty, unfair as you may think it is, that's the process here.
I have absolutely no moral problem using MS software, neither do most people.
Her boss would be pretty pissed if he wanted a tool to perform a business task and it wasn't available.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has huge chunk of the market and therefore will have a much greater range of software available.
Sure in some situations if all they need is email, Word processor, blah then go with Linux if you want to. But the second you need to do more than that Windows has an advantage. Most businesses don't mind spending cash if it makes something easier and can be done quickly.
You might be interested in checking out System Restore on Windows XP. It creates periodic system restore points, or you can create one any time you anticipate problems, but it doesn't affect user files.
XP & 2000 have full text indexing. You can either run a service that contantly indexes your files to search quickly, or it will just search through your files but it takes a while.
Those features are very beneficial to the platform. Yes they've had some problems with viruses, but they just need to fix those and keep the features. I've personally automated Outlook, Word, Access, and Excel for various tasks.
Each program exposes it's features as a COM object, and usually.exe/user interface just makes calls ot that COM object. Therefore you can use the COM object in your own.exe, or write VB scripts that use the features. Add Winodws Script Host to it and you can do some pretty powerful things.
Here's some examples of things I did - note these were all projects requested by people to meet a specific need.
--Used VBA to cycle through an Access database and generate the system documentation in the Word format automatically
--Used Outlook for contact management sytsem including custom built forms and scripts
--Wrote an application that listened for emails with a particular format and would process them
--Used Access to query several Excel spreadsheets and email the result from Outlook
I've done a lot more too, and I'm just one developer.
Reminds me of the musical of Ronny Dobbs from Mr. Show where the wife is singing the song about being beaten.
British Director Guy: "Well we wanted to capture all of our smoldering hate for Microsoft and our total disgust for the erosion of our freedoms in a Jolly Jingle!"
You sound exactly like a spammer they interviewed on our local news. This guy actually thought that everyone else was being unreasonable, because "all they had to do was click the delete button."
What he and you don't mention is that if it's physical mail, he pays, if it's email, I pay for the bandwidth.
I couldn't believe his attitude, made me want to hurt him.
Now, wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity for one of the big distros (Hi, Redhat!) to stand up and volunteer *free* tech support for this worthy charity? Free publicity and all that.... *hint, hint!*
So their OS is free, now you want their services to be free as well? How will they make money, sell their shoes?
Business Model: 1. Develop Free Product with Free support 2. ??????? 3. Fail to Profit
That's also the same reason why Macs cost much more than PC's. In fact, if you're a low end shopper, twice as much. Check out a low end Dell vs. a low end Mac.
I don't think it's right to say all software should include the source. For example, if I write something like PKZip, or component software, or for that matter most off the shelf software, then no way I'm going to include the source code with it. What's to stop anyone from borrowing ideas, or portions off code, packaging it and selling it? Sure you could put some license in it, but I would just not trust the entire world to adhere to that license, and people will think of ways where it would be very hard to prove that they stole your product. These types of products sell for a fraction of the cost to develop and market them, but sell in volume for profit. And from the consumer's perspective, if I buy a product from a vendor and it totally sucks and doesn't do what they say, then I'll never buy from them again. But most software I've dealt with was supported by the company.
Now on the other hand most companies I have worked for wrote custom business applications, where the needs are specific to a client. We always give the source as part of the project. This is just smart business from the buyer's perspective. If they have the source, then they're not tied to me (of course if we do a good job it only makes sense that they'll come back to us), but it just gives them a valid sense of security.
So IHMO as with most things, you can't make a blanket statement one way or another.
Here's an example I worked on that sort of helped me see the light for one use of XML.
I did contract work for the state for a while and they wanted to do some credit card processing but didn't want to deal with the liability so we contacted a large company to handle that. They provided an XML interface where we sent them descirptions of the items we wanted charged, along with some other goodies including a return address to our site so we could handle their response XML.
So we accepted some HTML form input, built a server side XML document and sent it to them, they processed it, and then sent us an XML result.
While there are a lot of ways this could be accomplished, this was pretty easy and platform independent since XML is really just string data. It's going to be used for backend processing mostly, and then for the UI you render it with XSL, or custom server side code in our case.
So as the battle weary sys admins from UltraDNS finally get back home from fighting a DDOS attack....
Phone rings.
"Bob, the web server is under attack again, and this one's coming from all around the globe. Game over man, game over."
Slashdot's a bitch.
Re:What Paul Thurott has to say about this leak
on
"Longhorn" Alpha Preview
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Off-topic, but I think it's pretty neat that Yukon will include support for the.NET CLR, allowing people to right stored procedure and user-defined functions in any.NET language, as well as TSQL.
TSQL gets the job done, but it's not always the most elegant solution. Also having a full featured language should allow for more powerful and flexible code.
And be sure to ask them if it was XP, and what version of a Mac OS. My roomate has an imac running OS 8.6, which is obviously dated, but crashes like people claim Windows does. It often goes back to that Set up you Mac screen with the crappy music playing. And he's had to use his system restore CD once already.
And try this. Do the same test you used, but instead ask the questions "How many of you have not been able to accomplish a task with software the way you wanted to."
There will be hands on both sides, but I guarantee you there will be more on Mac users.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I don't think you sound like and overly elitist fucktard, but I would like to remind you that t.v is just another source of information, and can be used as a tool to help form your own opinion. It can be a powerful medium as well as there's motion and sound, which at times is much more affective than print. Of course you don't believe it just because it's on TV, but you don't disbelieve it because it is either. People who are brainwased by TV will probably be brainwased by lots of things.
I have a 100 watt amp that I used to have plugged into the 1/4 inch on a Soundblaster Live card and it fried the jack, so you might want to be careful.
I still don't really see how the two situations are similar. At least not in any significant way. If we had invaded Afghanistan or Iraq or North Korea without being provoked then you might have something to be concerned about. As it stands:
Afghanistan - Terrorist event coupled with the uncooperative Tabliban. A quick defeat leading to the establishment of an internationally approved government with a peace keeping force to maintain precense. This is necesary until the Afghanistan army and police can keep order as they are currently being trained by the US and France.
Iraq - Invades Kuwait, a UN resolution allows a US led coalition of many nations to defeat Iraq. In the following year Iraq continues violationg UN resolutions, they shoot at US and British planes flying UN mandated patrol paths, just today the IAEA finds weapons violating UN resolutions
North Korea - US takes hard line in negotiations, but attempts to resolve the problem through diplomacy instead of through force. But if North Korea were to continue their current path, I bet you'd see more than diplomacy coming from Washington. You call this anomalous treatment but I don't think it is. Saddam had every opportunity to resolve his problems through diplomacy and chose not to.
I bet you don't see these situations the same way, but that's how I see things. I don't think there's any discrepancy between what Bush is saying and doing. I don't believe there's an economic motive driving his actions. I realize many would scoff at that.
Also, I don't believe that that the type of evil you describe will come from America. Even if we go to war, there will be plenty of people like yourself with watchful eyes, and if the actions of Bush go against what Americans want then Bush will be removed. The only way it could happen is with the support of the American people.
If you get a bad score it just puts this image on the screen.
Check you guys later, I'm going to work out.
because of all the beer and cheetos I spit on the screen from laughing so hard.
Reminds me of the time I played Dance Dance Revolution - I was sore for a week.
But yea, I'm sure they'll do great in the market.
You sound like a fucking crackhead comparing what I said to Hitler.
Let me take you through this:
1. Osama kills roughly 3000 people in America in the worst terrorist act in our country's history
2. We ask the nations of the world for their help. Pretty much everybody says "okay, we'll help"
3. The Taliban say "screw you - we've got him but you can't have him"
4. We say "No really, give him to use or we'll defeat you"
5. Repeat 3, 4
6. We defeat the Taliban
Had this been any other cooperative country we would have worked with their officials to extract the criminals. But no - they wanted to throw it in our face and defy our right to justice. What the hell do you think we were supposed to do - just forgive Osama? To compare that to Hitler invading Europe or Saddam is just stupid.
Now - about planning war prior 9/11. Maybe we did - but that in no way even hints at the fact that the reason we attacked was for oil. I bet if you pick any country in the world they probably have many military contingency plans. It would be foolish not to. If you believe those reports then there were other countries on board as well - Russia, India, and others. The Taliban were pretty horrible rulers and other people agreed - do you really want to argue that life in Afghanistan was better under the rule of the Taliban?
But having said that - THAT IS NOT WHY WE ATTACKED. WE ATTACKED AFTER THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER A TERRORIST.
Anyone that suggests Iraq has Islamic terrorist links is lying to you.
Well then what would you consider Iraq paying the families of suicide bombers? That's an action that they've taken in public - what makes you think they don't do similar things under the table. And how do you know our intelligence agencies don't have that information - Tony Blair said the same thing, maybe it's a big conspiracy.
And your rant on Afghanistan - an economic take over? WTF? You really believe that we attacked Afghanistan because of oil? Do you not remember the terrorist act that was committed by Osama, who at that time was given refuge by the Taliban? Do you not remember us giving them several chances to turn him over, and them giving us the the middle finger?
I'm no major Bush supporter by any means - but to assume that he is willing to send our soldiers to death simply for oil is a bit of a leap to me. I think to make that assertion you have to also say the Bush is nothing but Evil, straight up unchecked evil. I don't believe that, I think he, right or wrong, believes that the world would be a better place without Saddam.
My advice? Do not watch TV news! It's only designed to keep you watching until the commercials. So they show things that people like watching. Death. Violence. Dispair. Tragedy. Sport.
It's not a true reflection of the world, and if you watch it every day, you're probably one of those people who worry about being attacked/killed on your way to work, and you live behind closed/locked doors.
I find it really amusing that you would question anyone else's view on reality.
Especially if it is unstable out of the box.
That's actually the reason they're only allowing 6 different companies to sell Media Center PC's. They don't want the brand name to get tarnished by cheap PC's.
I run XP and it has never crashed - apps have crashed but that's it. Since this is a streamlined version of XP that is to run on a certain set of hardware, I'd be pretty confident that it won't crash. Yea I know what most people here will say about that.
This anti-MS chick at work told me I was a fool with blind faith for buying an XBOX - said it would crash all the time. It's been fine.
I'd go so far as to say that the average person should be suspicious of any pro-MSFT article or viewpoint posted in a public forum
That's crazy. The average person doesn't give a shit about what a lot of people here do. They really don't.
I'd probably be considered pro-micorsoft, but that's just because I'm a developer and MS is the subject I know. Some things they do as a business I don't like, but it's not really that big of a deal to me. They went to court and got their penalty, unfair as you may think it is, that's the process here.
I have absolutely no moral problem using MS software, neither do most people.
Her boss would be pretty pissed if he wanted a tool to perform a business task and it wasn't available.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has huge chunk of the market and therefore will have a much greater range of software available.
Sure in some situations if all they need is email, Word processor, blah then go with Linux if you want to. But the second you need to do more than that Windows has an advantage. Most businesses don't mind spending cash if it makes something easier and can be done quickly.
You can use the search to look for Pictures and Photos with a total of 4 clicks.
Or search by file type, or date modified.
I fail to see how this is really difficult.
You might be interested in checking out System Restore on Windows XP. It creates periodic system restore points, or you can create one any time you anticipate problems, but it doesn't affect user files.
XP & 2000 have full text indexing. You can either run a service that contantly indexes your files to search quickly, or it will just search through your files but it takes a while.
Those features are very beneficial to the platform. Yes they've had some problems with viruses, but they just need to fix those and keep the features. I've personally automated Outlook, Word, Access, and Excel for various tasks.
.exe/user interface just makes calls ot that COM object. Therefore you can use the COM object in your own .exe, or write VB scripts that use the features. Add Winodws Script Host to it and you can do some pretty powerful things.
Each program exposes it's features as a COM object, and usually
Here's some examples of things I did - note these were all projects requested by people to meet a specific need.
--Used VBA to cycle through an Access database and generate the system documentation in the Word format automatically
--Used Outlook for contact management sytsem including custom built forms and scripts
--Wrote an application that listened for emails with a particular format and would process them
--Used Access to query several Excel spreadsheets and email the result from Outlook
I've done a lot more too, and I'm just one developer.
Reminds me of the musical of Ronny Dobbs from Mr. Show where the wife is singing the song about being beaten.
British Director Guy: "Well we wanted to capture all of our smoldering hate for Microsoft and our total disgust for the erosion of our freedoms in a Jolly Jingle!"
So in your scenario, the big bad neighborhood bully beats the nerd to a pulp, and then logs on for some kernel hacking or something?
You sound exactly like a spammer they interviewed on our local news. This guy actually thought that everyone else was being unreasonable, because "all they had to do was click the delete button."
What he and you don't mention is that if it's physical mail, he pays, if it's email, I pay for the bandwidth.
I couldn't believe his attitude, made me want to hurt him.
Now, wouldn't this be an ideal opportunity for one of the big distros (Hi, Redhat!) to stand up and volunteer *free* tech support for this worthy charity? Free publicity and all that.... *hint, hint!*
So their OS is free, now you want their services to be free as well? How will they make money, sell their shoes?
Business Model:
1. Develop Free Product with Free support
2. ???????
3. Fail to Profit
That's also the same reason why Macs cost much more than PC's. In fact, if you're a low end shopper, twice as much. Check out a low end Dell vs. a low end Mac.
I don't think it's right to say all software should include the source. For example, if I write something like PKZip, or component software, or for that matter most off the shelf software, then no way I'm going to include the source code with it. What's to stop anyone from borrowing ideas, or portions off code, packaging it and selling it? Sure you could put some license in it, but I would just not trust the entire world to adhere to that license, and people will think of ways where it would be very hard to prove that they stole your product. These types of products sell for a fraction of the cost to develop and market them, but sell in volume for profit. And from the consumer's perspective, if I buy a product from a vendor and it totally sucks and doesn't do what they say, then I'll never buy from them again. But most software I've dealt with was supported by the company.
Now on the other hand most companies I have worked for wrote custom business applications, where the needs are specific to a client. We always give the source as part of the project. This is just smart business from the buyer's perspective. If they have the source, then they're not tied to me (of course if we do a good job it only makes sense that they'll come back to us), but it just gives them a valid sense of security.
So IHMO as with most things, you can't make a blanket statement one way or another.
Well there's already plans to start putting people's remains and other little items on the moon.
Here's an example I worked on that sort of helped me see the light for one use of XML.
I did contract work for the state for a while and they wanted to do some credit card processing but didn't want to deal with the liability so we contacted a large company to handle that. They provided an XML interface where we sent them descirptions of the items we wanted charged, along with some other goodies including a return address to our site so we could handle their response XML.
So we accepted some HTML form input, built a server side XML document and sent it to them, they processed it, and then sent us an XML result.
While there are a lot of ways this could be accomplished, this was pretty easy and platform independent since XML is really just string data.
It's going to be used for backend processing mostly, and then for the UI you render it with XSL, or custom server side code in our case.
So as the battle weary sys admins from UltraDNS finally get back home from fighting a DDOS attack....
Phone rings.
"Bob, the web server is under attack again, and this one's coming from all around the globe. Game over man, game over."
Slashdot's a bitch.
Off-topic, but I think it's pretty neat that Yukon will include support for the .NET CLR, allowing people to right stored procedure and user-defined functions in any .NET language, as well as TSQL.
TSQL gets the job done, but it's not always the most elegant solution. Also having a full featured language should allow for more powerful and flexible code.
And be sure to ask them if it was XP, and what version of a Mac OS. My roomate has an imac running OS 8.6, which is obviously dated, but crashes like people claim Windows does. It often goes back to that Set up you Mac screen with the crappy music playing. And he's had to use his system restore CD once already.
And try this. Do the same test you used, but instead ask the questions "How many of you have not been able to accomplish a task with software the way you wanted to."
There will be hands on both sides, but I guarantee you there will be more on Mac users.