I'd considered that interpretation, but I dismissed the possibility that you'd be short sighted enough to cite a single journal as the end all and be all for all scientific fields. You clearly have a very narrow view. There is plenty that wouldn't be accepted by any journal you can name that is still important. Not all breakthroughs are immediately recognised either.
Shall I start listing all the breakthroughs that have not appeared in that one journal? I mean really what you are saying is ridiculous.
I am saying that the fact the modern world exists in all it's technological glory directly contradicts your opinion.
I'm struggling not to dismiss you as a complete nutter. What you're suggesting is that people are incapable of struggling through with a bad system and still producing good work and applying it. That's just completely ridiculous. For a start, many breakthroughs have come from unexpected places by people working outside the system. Then there's the fact that I'm not the first to hold this opinion. Read some of Feynman's pop-science work.
In my opinon the idea of replacing peer-review with slashdot like moderation is stupid, but yeah I could have said it in another way, I could have said it was moronic, assanine, or even naive. Can you not see the difference between attacking an idea and a personal attack on the arsehole who holds said idea?
First of all that is not what I'm suggesting. What I said was even slashdot's moderation system would be preferable OVER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Take a comprehension class. Secondly peer review IS moderation - it's just more sophisticated in it's process. Third the only person who thinks your implied attack on me as an asshole is droll is yourself. You know what they say about people who find themselves amusing. In any case your thinking and comprehension are sloppy. I hope to fuck that 1) you're trolling and 2) you're not a scientist.
What do you suggest? For the most part they seem to be working, to me. How would you change them?
Sure, if by working you mean dysfunctional mess.
- Our institutions should be teaching scientists to use the SIMPLEST language possible to describe what they are doing. If technical terms are required fair enough. Large obscure words to express simple ideas should be much more heavily discouraged than they are. A layman's summary should appear in every paper, not far beneath the abstract.
- A complete description of everything that was done should be either included or trivially available so that the work can be repeated. There should be no secret methods in a published paper.
- The institutions themselves need to change so that they are no so focused on prestige and politics. There needs to be greater separation between politics and science. It's time to end funding that is tied directly to political agendas where the people's money is spent to warp the science they're funding.
- There should be stiff penalties for fabricating or manipulating data to meet a commercial end, and most importantly they should be enforced.
Well, no. You can't judge the the quality of something without understanding it. I'm not sure what you mean.
So how well do you understand every detail of the car you drive?
I mean that if I find out about a new album or book or game and I want to know what others think of it, it's trivial to find a reliable review site, with ratings. Scientific papers or anything technical have no such rating system and there are no review sites. The entire system is set up to be as closed and difficult for the layman to understand as possible without making the papers complete gibberish.
Journals have an academic rating system, the journal of Nature is #1.
Nature/reality is fantastic. Unfortunately most of us don't have the time or money to do every experiment for ourselves.
Publication via peer-review IS the rating system for individual papers.
Yes and I'm saying the peer-review system we have in place IS VERY POOR. I thought that was the point I was making all along. I don't know how to make it clearer for you.
Well yeah, it's saying something REALLY stupid, especially when you consider the fact that industrialised world around you came from science.
I swear these days it's like they require you to prove that you're an asshole before they'll activate your slashdot account. You really couldn't find any other way to say you disagree?? Fucking hell.
Well, yeah, if you are not qualified to judge the validity of a scientific work, you will not be able to judge it. What do you propose instead? That people not be allowed to publish studies and books?
No, just that there be a system of rating the quality of the work.
You've answered your own question there: the value of the publishing system is no longer the dissemination of publications (ie anyone can just dump their research on the internet now) but the review process and the reputation those journals have built
Is there any discipline where I can pick up a paper and immediately tell the quality of the work when I pick it up (or look it up somewhere without understanding the entire topic?
As imperfect as the peer review process is, I haven't really seen anyone propose anything better.
Slashdot moderation is probably better, and that's REALLY saying something!
Sure, money can be wasted. People can be injured. Reputations can be trashed. But in the end if it's real and important someone else will look into it and either confirm or deny it. It may take years or decades, but it will happen.
It shouldn't take years or decades. We should have a better system....and while it's not a perfect world, people sit there and assume the messed up system we have is the best we can do. That just isn't true.
But you are being an ass. Telling people to go fuck themselves just re-enforces that perception./I>
Ah so you didn't like what I said, and as a result called me an ass, then you used my response (go fuck yourself) to re-enforce your pre-conception. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm an asshole because I didn't let you call me an asshole without retaliating. You'd much prefer I was a doormat, but I guess life doesn't always give you what you want. You are a complete and total idiot. Have a nice life.
Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.
I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive. Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard. Some are better, some are worse. Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective. The institutions and traditions are outdated. We can do better!
Well yes and no. One item on a checklist of pros and cons should be "Is it FOSS", since it is a known fact that given the exact same source code it is preferential and beneficial that said source code be open rather than proprietary. So in that one respect, yes, FOSS should be given preference.
By your logic...
Does it meet my needs? No. Is it FOSS? Yes.
Well it meets 50% of my criteria. I should choose it.
How about if 2 pieces meet all of your criteria or are closely matched and one is FOSS it should be a tie breaker? In other words preference should be slight.
I see your posts all of the time, and it baffles me that more people don't respond to you and tell you to go fsck yourself the way the parent poster did! You are constantly posting ridiculous diatribes that often contradict each other. You are the scourge of Slashdot, and I really hope they cancel your account!
That's a pretty strong claim to make. Care to back it? Find me a handful of examples of where I contradict myself. You say I constantly do it so it should be easy to find say 5 examples? Clear examples mind you, not some bogus misinterpretted set of statements taken out of context. 5 clear contradictions. Bet you don't do it though.
I'm constantly amazed and the ridiculously anti-social reaction some slashdotters have to a point of view they don't like or agree with. What childish stupidity could have you post such a vile rant is beyond me. Do you REALLY hae nothing better to do? PATHETIC!!!
The truth is the way that scientific institutions are set up isn't very scientific. There is definitely an attempt at oversight and impartiality but it's very easily corrupted by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests and ulterior motives. There aren't nearly enough checks and balances.
There are many things wrong with the system. Some include:
- Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc. and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work. Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is. For example Wolfram's "New Science" has been largely debunked as mostly a rehash of old ideas (minus accreditation) but it took some time for this to become clear and in the meantime it was popularized in the press as a breakthrough work.
- The only real form of moderation is whether or not work has made it into a respected journal. Other scientists are then expected to publish corroborating work etc. However, until this is done, it is very difficult to judge the validity of the work, and papers get published that are later discredited. (Cold fusion anyone?) Likewise, work that should be published is often initially rejected. The primary motivation of a lot of the scientific journals is financial gain. In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an Internet connected world, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.
- Speaking of antiquated the institutions, committees and governing bodies of science are about as scientific as a mother's group - it's all professional bitching and posturing for status. Real monkey hierarchy stuff. A lot of decisions get made on the basis of status. It's particularly bad for applied science professions like the medical profession where you hear stories about doctors who should have been prevented from practicing continuing for many years before being disciplined or quietly removed. At the senior level, scientists are often more politician than anything else as then need to secure funding and approval from political bodies. Then you see students who have to work their way up in status being treated like crap "paying their dues" as noted in a story posted a few days ago about a student who died in a chemical fire.
- Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large. Some scientific ideas require complex specialized language and university post graduate mathematics to understand, and so require such specialized language. However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication. This is absolutely backward. We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document. Instead, reading a scientific paper if you're not a specialist in the field is an art that you learn when you do post graduate work. If you assess a published article for readability you'll find the statistics you generate tell you that it's dense and difficult to understand. There are journals and subjects that allow simpler and informal language but they are the exception rather than the rule and usually apply as addendum publications for applied fields. (Again I'm thinking of medicine. My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise). Any real simplified content seems to get presented in slide form at conferences and presentations are often a better way of getting an overview.
I could go on about the shortcomings of various scientific institutions but I won't.
My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.
you're resorting to telling an awful lot of people to go fuck themselves over this article, and the guy from the OP is the one who needs better people skills?
I started off saying the guy in the article should be more articulate. For my trouble I got called an ass and got modded into oblivion. So yeah, I'm telling an awful lot of wankers to go fuck themselves and that does not in any way conflict with my message that these people need to get some people skills. I wasn't the one who started throwing around insults.
is that the best you can come up with? you don't know how else to express yourself? i'd expect someone who's not claiming any geek skills to have MUCH MUCH better people skills than that.
Says the fucker that posts as a/c. What the fuck are you saying here that you require anonymity??? Listening to you lecture me about people skills is like trying to listen to a monkey give a lecutre on nuclear physics.
Here's an idea, maybe you wouldn't get modded down so often if you didn't act like an ass?
Well maybe you wouldn't be told to go fuck yourself so often if you didn't go around calling people an ass?
Go look up hypocrisy in the dictionary. All I originally said was that the guy should be more articulate. You're the one who goes around telling people they're being an ass then wondering why they tell you to go fuck yourself and accusing them of being antisocial. Fucking idiot.
When you are time poor and share financial responsibility for a family, and you're the bread-winner, decisions like that are joint decisions. I know that's a difficult concept for some to grasp and you think that just means I'm under the thumb, but you know what, I couldn't do what she does for our child. We only have one child he's still an infant and he doesn't sleep much. She's had it very rough, gets very little sleep etc. So, yes, she's entitled to have some input into how I spend my time and our money. And yes, it is a virtue that she'll let me spend that time and money doing something she doesn't agree with or sees as pointless.
So you know what, if you want to belittle a guy for not being a selfish piece of fuck when he's got a family, go fuck yourself.
To have fun is not a good enough reason to do something?
He didn't say he did it to have fun. He just said it was a lot of fun. Not that he set out to do it.
I guess you would be happier if he was just another fat slob who "has fun" by watching American Idol?
No I'd be happier if his people skills came close to matching his geek skills.
This is quite possibly the most asinine comment I have seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Like I said: People skills and geeks.
By the way do you routinely reply to the most asinine comments you see???
This place gives me the shits lately. Things get modded up and down like a yoyo. If you want to be modded up you have to say something popular with the crowd. Kinda like being on American Idol. (Fuck knows that show isn't about singing ability).
"Why did I do all this?" he says. "I don't know. But it has been a lot of fun."
If he'd said almost anything else, I'd have been more impressed. To learn perhaps? To see if I could? Nup. Dunno.
Well in that case according to the article you just spent $1000 and 18 months for nothing? Come on, if you can do this, you can do better at explaining than that!!!
I can just imagine what my wife would think if I launched into doing something like this and couldn't even express why I wanted to do it. (She'd let me, she's great that way but there'd be lots of eye rolling and poking fun at me).
First of all USB can be flakey, but that's not the only issue.
If you want to see how bad Windows is with small files, go download the current FreeDB archive and try and unzip it. I think the archive contains a couple of million files. No problem unzipping on Linux. On Windows your machine will most certainly not get through the archive. You'll see errors followed by a freeze or crash. You need special software to deal with transforming the archive into a windows format. (Basically the software just unarchives a bunch of on average a few thousand of the smaller files into a single file for on the Windows filesystem).
Just for laughs, try and mount a single USB drive as read only. You need 3rd party software to do it. (There is a mechanism in the registry to mount ALL USB drives as readonly, but no way to do it for a single drive). Why would I want to do this? Well if I write to SDHC cards - for example move instead of copy my files - I find I get corruption on the SDHC card. It seems to be something to do with the file system created my camera vs the one Windows creates.
Don't get me wrong. I think all our current operating systems are problematic, but Windows certainly has it's fair share.
Microsoft is on top of their game right now. You do your own platform no favors by ignoring Microsoft's innovations and deluding yourself into thinking your platform is superior. Desktop Linux is failing because of people like you, who fail to see its shortcomings. It's quite the paradox.
Moron! I use Windows for most things. That is why I'm disgruntled. Your condescending post, based on the assumption that I'm some Linux fanboi isn't cute, it's asinine. Grow the fuck up.
Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35% improvement in read performance and up to a 23% boost in write performance
About as much after as Vista was slower than XP. Perhaps a very marginal improvement. At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.
Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.
Nope. Same old reason to hate them. They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.
When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?
Yep, you have to stay at the airport for several years and Tom Hanks stars in a really boring film about your time there. Please, comply with the searches so we don't have to sit through another movie like this!
Slashdot Mirror
Now your just trolling me, either that or you really are as stupid as your ideas.
When you run out of counter points do you always resort to calling your opposition a stupid troll? How fucking old are you?
Scientists will try to reconstruct a long-lost instrument called a turntable based on the lyrics from an ancient artist named Lady Gaga.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Whoosh
I'd considered that interpretation, but I dismissed the possibility that you'd be short sighted enough to cite a single journal as the end all and be all for all scientific fields. You clearly have a very narrow view. There is plenty that wouldn't be accepted by any journal you can name that is still important. Not all breakthroughs are immediately recognised either.
Shall I start listing all the breakthroughs that have not appeared in that one journal? I mean really what you are saying is ridiculous.
I am saying that the fact the modern world exists in all it's technological glory directly contradicts your opinion.
I'm struggling not to dismiss you as a complete nutter. What you're suggesting is that people are incapable of struggling through with a bad system and still producing good work and applying it. That's just completely ridiculous. For a start, many breakthroughs have come from unexpected places by people working outside the system. Then there's the fact that I'm not the first to hold this opinion. Read some of Feynman's pop-science work.
In my opinon the idea of replacing peer-review with slashdot like moderation is stupid, but yeah I could have said it in another way, I could have said it was moronic, assanine, or even naive. Can you not see the difference between attacking an idea and a personal attack on the arsehole who holds said idea?
First of all that is not what I'm suggesting. What I said was even slashdot's moderation system would be preferable OVER THE CURRENT SYSTEM. Take a comprehension class. Secondly peer review IS moderation - it's just more sophisticated in it's process. Third the only person who thinks your implied attack on me as an asshole is droll is yourself. You know what they say about people who find themselves amusing. In any case your thinking and comprehension are sloppy. I hope to fuck that 1) you're trolling and 2) you're not a scientist.
What do you suggest? For the most part they seem to be working, to me. How would you change them?
Sure, if by working you mean dysfunctional mess.
- Our institutions should be teaching scientists to use the SIMPLEST language possible to describe what they are doing. If technical terms are required fair enough. Large obscure words to express simple ideas should be much more heavily discouraged than they are. A layman's summary should appear in every paper, not far beneath the abstract.
- A complete description of everything that was done should be either included or trivially available so that the work can be repeated. There should be no secret methods in a published paper.
- The institutions themselves need to change so that they are no so focused on prestige and politics. There needs to be greater separation between politics and science. It's time to end funding that is tied directly to political agendas where the people's money is spent to warp the science they're funding.
- There should be stiff penalties for fabricating or manipulating data to meet a commercial end, and most importantly they should be enforced.
Fifthl
Well, no. You can't judge the the quality of something without understanding it. I'm not sure what you mean.
So how well do you understand every detail of the car you drive?
I mean that if I find out about a new album or book or game and I want to know what others think of it, it's trivial to find a reliable review site, with ratings. Scientific papers or anything technical have no such rating system and there are no review sites. The entire system is set up to be as closed and difficult for the layman to understand as possible without making the papers complete gibberish.
Journals have an academic rating system, the journal of Nature is #1.
Nature/reality is fantastic. Unfortunately most of us don't have the time or money to do every experiment for ourselves.
Publication via peer-review IS the rating system for individual papers.
Yes and I'm saying the peer-review system we have in place IS VERY POOR. I thought that was the point I was making all along. I don't know how to make it clearer for you.
Well yeah, it's saying something REALLY stupid, especially when you consider the fact that industrialised world around you came from science.
I swear these days it's like they require you to prove that you're an asshole before they'll activate your slashdot account. You really couldn't find any other way to say you disagree?? Fucking hell.
Well, yeah, if you are not qualified to judge the validity of a scientific work, you will not be able to judge it. What do you propose instead? That people not be allowed to publish studies and books?
No, just that there be a system of rating the quality of the work.
You've answered your own question there: the value of the publishing system is no longer the dissemination of publications (ie anyone can just dump their research on the internet now) but the review process and the reputation those journals have built
Is there any discipline where I can pick up a paper and immediately tell the quality of the work when I pick it up (or look it up somewhere without understanding the entire topic?
As imperfect as the peer review process is, I haven't really seen anyone propose anything better.
Slashdot moderation is probably better, and that's REALLY saying something!
Sure, money can be wasted. People can be injured. Reputations can be trashed. But in the end if it's real and important someone else will look into it and either confirm or deny it. It may take years or decades, but it will happen.
It shouldn't take years or decades. We should have a better system....and while it's not a perfect world, people sit there and assume the messed up system we have is the best we can do. That just isn't true.
But you are being an ass. Telling people to go fuck themselves just re-enforces that perception./I>
Ah so you didn't like what I said, and as a result called me an ass, then you used my response (go fuck yourself) to re-enforce your pre-conception. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm an asshole because I didn't let you call me an asshole without retaliating. You'd much prefer I was a doormat, but I guess life doesn't always give you what you want. You are a complete and total idiot. Have a nice life.
If you were replying to a/c, I apologise. I've been getting some shit lately here.
Have a good one.
Scientists are humans too and a job won't change some humans from being cheats.
I see about half a dozen comments along those lines, but giving up and saying "c'est la vie" isn't constructive. Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard. Some are better, some are worse. Regardless, the checks and balances on scientists exist but are antiquated an ineffective. The institutions and traditions are outdated. We can do better!
Well yes and no. One item on a checklist of pros and cons should be "Is it FOSS", since it is a known fact that given the exact same source code it is preferential and beneficial that said source code be open rather than proprietary. So in that one respect, yes, FOSS should be given preference.
By your logic...
Does it meet my needs? No.
Is it FOSS? Yes.
Well it meets 50% of my criteria. I should choose it.
How about if 2 pieces meet all of your criteria or are closely matched and one is FOSS it should be a tie breaker? In other words preference should be slight.
I see your posts all of the time, and it baffles me that more people don't respond to you and tell you to go fsck yourself the way the parent poster did! You are constantly posting ridiculous diatribes that often contradict each other. You are the scourge of Slashdot, and I really hope they cancel your account!
That's a pretty strong claim to make. Care to back it? Find me a handful of examples of where I contradict myself. You say I constantly do it so it should be easy to find say 5 examples? Clear examples mind you, not some bogus misinterpretted set of statements taken out of context. 5 clear contradictions. Bet you don't do it though.
I'm constantly amazed and the ridiculously anti-social reaction some slashdotters have to a point of view they don't like or agree with. What childish stupidity could have you post such a vile rant is beyond me. Do you REALLY hae nothing better to do? PATHETIC!!!
And how exactly are we supposed to believe her study?
You're not. You're suppose to apply the scientific method and remain skeptical unless you are presented with corroborating evidence.
(I know you're likely aiming for funny, but you actually make a good point).
The truth is the way that scientific institutions are set up isn't very scientific. There is definitely an attempt at oversight and impartiality but it's very easily corrupted by a wide variety of people with a wide variety of interests and ulterior motives. There aren't nearly enough checks and balances.
There are many things wrong with the system. Some include:
- Almost anyone can commission a study, write a book etc. and it's left to the scientific community to place value on that work. Viewed on it's own, without knowledge of the scientific community's opinion it can be difficult to tell how valid the work is. For example Wolfram's "New Science" has been largely debunked as mostly a rehash of old ideas (minus accreditation) but it took some time for this to become clear and in the meantime it was popularized in the press as a breakthrough work.
- The only real form of moderation is whether or not work has made it into a respected journal. Other scientists are then expected to publish corroborating work etc. However, until this is done, it is very difficult to judge the validity of the work, and papers get published that are later discredited. (Cold fusion anyone?) Likewise, work that should be published is often initially rejected. The primary motivation of a lot of the scientific journals is financial gain. In fact the entire publishing system is an antiquated remnant of the last 2 centuries and doesn't belong in an Internet connected world, yet publication is still the primary tool by which a scientist's work gets recognized.
- Speaking of antiquated the institutions, committees and governing bodies of science are about as scientific as a mother's group - it's all professional bitching and posturing for status. Real monkey hierarchy stuff. A lot of decisions get made on the basis of status. It's particularly bad for applied science professions like the medical profession where you hear stories about doctors who should have been prevented from practicing continuing for many years before being disciplined or quietly removed. At the senior level, scientists are often more politician than anything else as then need to secure funding and approval from political bodies. Then you see students who have to work their way up in status being treated like crap "paying their dues" as noted in a story posted a few days ago about a student who died in a chemical fire.
- Speaking of status, there is an emphasis on using scientific jargon to exclude the community at large. Some scientific ideas require complex specialized language and university post graduate mathematics to understand, and so require such specialized language. However even simple concepts must be described in overly complex specialized language to be accepted for journal publication. This is absolutely backward. We should have a system that requires simplified language where possible and a layman's overview attached early in the document. Instead, reading a scientific paper if you're not a specialist in the field is an art that you learn when you do post graduate work. If you assess a published article for readability you'll find the statistics you generate tell you that it's dense and difficult to understand. There are journals and subjects that allow simpler and informal
language but they are the exception rather than the rule and usually apply as addendum publications for applied fields. (Again I'm thinking of medicine. My own post grad work is in astronomy so I'm very much a lay reader when it comes to medicine, and when I've tried to read medical papers it's usually been an interesting excercise). Any real simplified content seems to get presented in slide form at conferences and presentations are often a better way of getting an overview.
I could go on about the shortcomings of various scientific institutions but I won't.
My point is that when you have a system that is so open to corruption, with so few checks and balances, and so much baggage inherited from institutions that began in the dark ages, it's no surprise that you end up with science that's much less than perfect.
you're resorting to telling an awful lot of people to go fuck themselves over this article, and the guy from the OP is the one who needs better people skills?
I started off saying the guy in the article should be more articulate. For my trouble I got called an ass and got modded into oblivion. So yeah, I'm telling an awful lot of wankers to go fuck themselves and that does not in any way conflict with my message that these people need to get some people skills. I wasn't the one who started throwing around insults.
is that the best you can come up with? you don't know how else to express yourself? i'd expect someone who's not claiming any geek skills to have MUCH MUCH better people skills than that.
Says the fucker that posts as a/c. What the fuck are you saying here that you require anonymity??? Listening to you lecture me about people skills is like trying to listen to a monkey give a lecutre on nuclear physics.
Here's an idea, maybe you wouldn't get modded down so often if you didn't act like an ass?
Well maybe you wouldn't be told to go fuck yourself so often if you didn't go around calling people an ass?
Go look up hypocrisy in the dictionary. All I originally said was that the guy should be more articulate. You're the one who goes around telling people they're being an ass then wondering why they tell you to go fuck yourself and accusing them of being antisocial. Fucking idiot.
She'd let you? And that's a virtue? Damn, man.
When you are time poor and share financial responsibility for a family, and you're the bread-winner, decisions like that are joint decisions. I know that's a difficult concept for some to grasp and you think that just means I'm under the thumb, but you know what, I couldn't do what she does for our child. We only have one child he's still an infant and he doesn't sleep much. She's had it very rough, gets very little sleep etc. So, yes, she's entitled to have some input into how I spend my time and our money. And yes, it is a virtue that she'll let me spend that time and money doing something she doesn't agree with or sees as pointless.
So you know what, if you want to belittle a guy for not being a selfish piece of fuck when he's got a family, go fuck yourself.
What? All he said was "I don't know". It's an honest answer. You are the one who's being an ass about it.
Go fuck yourself. That applies to all the morons who mod something down just because they don't like it.
To have fun is not a good enough reason to do something?
He didn't say he did it to have fun. He just said it was a lot of fun. Not that he set out to do it.
I guess you would be happier if he was just another fat slob who "has fun" by watching American Idol?
No I'd be happier if his people skills came close to matching his geek skills.
This is quite possibly the most asinine comment I have seen on Slashdot in a long time.
Like I said: People skills and geeks.
By the way do you routinely reply to the most asinine comments you see???
This place gives me the shits lately. Things get modded up and down like a yoyo. If you want to be modded up you have to say something popular with the crowd. Kinda like being on American Idol. (Fuck knows that show isn't about singing ability).
From the article:
"Why did I do all this?" he says. "I don't know. But it has been a lot of fun."
If he'd said almost anything else, I'd have been more impressed. To learn perhaps? To see if I could? Nup. Dunno.
Well in that case according to the article you just spent $1000 and 18 months for nothing? Come on, if you can do this, you can do better at explaining than that!!!
I can just imagine what my wife would think if I launched into doing something like this and couldn't even express why I wanted to do it. (She'd let me, she's great that way but there'd be lots of eye rolling and poking fun at me).
First of all USB can be flakey, but that's not the only issue.
If you want to see how bad Windows is with small files, go download the current FreeDB archive and try and unzip it. I think the archive contains a couple of million files. No problem unzipping on Linux. On Windows your machine will most certainly not get through the archive. You'll see errors followed by a freeze or crash. You need special software to deal with transforming the archive into a windows format. (Basically the software just unarchives a bunch of on average a few thousand of the smaller files into a single file for on the Windows filesystem).
Just for laughs, try and mount a single USB drive as read only. You need 3rd party software to do it. (There is a mechanism in the registry to mount ALL USB drives as readonly, but no way to do it for a single drive). Why would I want to do this? Well if I write to SDHC cards - for example move instead of copy my files - I find I get corruption on the SDHC card. It seems to be something to do with the file system created my camera vs the one Windows creates.
Don't get me wrong. I think all our current operating systems are problematic, but Windows certainly has it's fair share.
Disgruntled slashdotters are so cuuuute!
Microsoft is on top of their game right now. You do your own platform no favors by ignoring Microsoft's innovations and deluding yourself into thinking your platform is superior. Desktop Linux is failing because of people like you, who fail to see its shortcomings. It's quite the paradox.
Moron! I use Windows for most things. That is why I'm disgruntled. Your condescending post, based on the assumption that I'm some Linux fanboi isn't cute, it's asinine. Grow the fuck up.
Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35% improvement in read performance and up to a 23% boost in write performance
About as much after as Vista was slower than XP. Perhaps a very marginal improvement. At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.
Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.
Nope. Same old reason to hate them. They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.
We should be jeering not cheering.
When you come in to the US, they tell you that you don't have to comply with the checks, but that if you don't you can't enter. So what if you refuse to comply with that one? You can't leave?
Yep, you have to stay at the airport for several years and Tom Hanks stars in a really boring film about your time there. Please, comply with the searches so we don't have to sit through another movie like this!