I think what he is saying is people who buy pc/windows, but it isn't their main computer, they actually are sane Mac/Linux/BSD folk.
My main computer, for example, is a Mac, but I bought XPpro for business and gaming reasons. XPpro isn't my main operating system, or even a prefered one, but something to tool around on, and such.
This is line with the switch vs. bought a mac to complement argument, but converse with the Windows folk. The same goes for downloading Linux though, I downloaded Linux, but have not switched, since it goes nice as a dual boot on my XP box, but in reality I spend 90% of my computing time on my Mac, I'm typing this right now from it.
Buying windows doesn't mean you are a eternal windows user. People switch back all the time (when XPpro came out I switched from Linux, so I was a windows switcher, in Apples newthink vocabulary)
ID/Creationism doesn't actually explain anything, since God doesn't exist. Its amazing the so-called explationary powers that it looses once one acknowledges that there is a growing number of athiests in the world. Sure, we don't know what happened before life to cause life (there was no time before the big bang, so...) but this does not mean GOD exists.
END RANT
Fine, teach christian mythology in school, but don't take time out of a science class for it, teach it just as you phrased it "some people beleive in this, they are called christians, it is a religious point of view". Putting it in a science class, discredits everything science stands for, and some children might mistake it as real science, instead of pure religion.
In every profession or area you will find unoriginal wankers reusing antiquated ideas. We probably could pick on much of the OSS community for reusing clunky outdated codes, instead of comeing up with a better (original) method.
Have you downloaded the 3DO port of SCII? It makes me feel young again, sadly it doesn't have the huge honking map of hyperspace/space.
Don't want to enter this debate, but I feel that I must.
Schools are based on rational entities. We don't teach religion in schools, it is not the schools job, unless you send your kids to a religious school. I will furnish my kids religiosity, it is not your, or anyone elses right or responsibility. If your christian do you want your children indoctrinated to be a muslim or hindu? No? Good.
Creationism and ID are both purely religious views. They presupose someone infinitely better than us, capable of creating the world/universe/life meaning a god. In this country this supposes the Christian God. Thus when you force these ideologies (not theories in the same sense as evolution, hence not using the word) upon my children, you are forcing your (Christian) religion upon my children.
Evolution is different since it is a scientific theory (not an ideology), meaning based on empirical evidence (not faith), is peer reviewed, and fact checked with new evidence (Evolution evolves). I want my children to get a heaping dose of science from schools, and all resultant methodologies. Rationality is what school is for.
If you want to give your children religiosity, do so at home and at church, where the rest of us can opt our children out.
I mostly agree with you, so no flame here, perhaps its just how you originally put it.
I have used templates before, but going with the OS model, I HEAVILY modify them for my own ends, until they are pretty much nothing like what they started as. And actually that is how I cut my teeth on HTML/design is finding the design I wanted, looking at the source, and ripping it apart until it does what I want. Only after that did I develop an aesthetic and style for myself.
Its like art classes, first you study art learn about it, only then can you create it. Same thing with lit, first you must read, and the more you read, the better you can write. (ditto with my area, philosophy).
Right now I'm working on a new personal/porfolio page, and wouldn't mind grabbing a template for it, if only as the spark of inspiration from which I can shape it, and modify it, or even throw it out because I can do better.
To claim that templates are worthless is a bit flame-baity in that sense, being that plenty of people can get use from them, without being creatively bankrupt, but only if they don't let it sit as is.
Usually when I want to maintain control of something, I actively develop and/or manage it. I'm sure Aaron[?] would be okay with the site just going back up, since it seems he was happy doing all the work with none of the material pay-off before.
I agree with the parent, Frank seems to just be being rather lazy and negligent, being that he refuses to fork over the (OS) project to Aaron but also refuses to do any work on his own. He should give a catagorical "NO!", and then DO SOMETHING, or cede all costs and reponsibilities to Aaron while keeping his for profit project for himself. By doing nothing we can draw no conclusions, but it also impedes a decent resource from everyone for no reason, when it could be up, albeit under someone else.
My question is why doesn't he just fork it to his new host, if he has been maintaining it he should have some form of backup or previous version stored locally (if not, shame on him!), and for the code itself, he shouldn't have much of a problem securing from other sources again, and/or asking for donations. And if Frank brings the original site up, then he will (from the sound of it) be in a bad place being that he does no actual work.
When I first heard it, I laughed my ass off. And I heard it from a non-smoker asking someone no to smoke in a public place. I'm sorry if my funny generalization of a repressive group of people willing to go to extremes to press their view on people offends you. Wait. I'm not. I find it kind of sad. Since it isn't offensive, or flammable in the slightest, it was a jest.
I just hope someone else finds it as funny as everyone else I know.
And thank you for adding me as a foe, I feel a sense of pride from it. Sad thing is that I refuse to attach any +'s or -'s to relationships out of the spirit of free speach and intelligent discourse. I did, though, add you as a freind.
I guess that the niconazis have one critical mindshare, since one isn't even allowed to defend against them ruling their lives, peoples businesses, and other peoples free actions.
Sometimes I wish the mods were forced to account for their actions, or at least explain why.
And thats when its time to leave. The liberals won, and now we all can be drones. Hopefully it's just the liberals, because if the cons are playing, then I can't leave, but at least I'll be a well documented drone.
Either that or time to start growing my own tabacco, and distilling my own bourbon.
Nothing like drinking good bourbon, smoking a nice pipe, after dinner. People should try it before banning it.
We could argue the weed thing for awhile. I think the law is completely arbitrary for that. i don't smoke, and haven't for quite some time, but I still think that people should be able to do so freely, both cigarettes and marijuana.
These statistics are erroneous. If you smoked/or smoke, and die of lung cancer it will be recorded as smoking related. It ignores the fact that lung cancer still can happen without smoking as the cause.
Just like a MADD flyer I found the other day, with statistics of drunk driving fatalities which included PEDESTRIANS. Silly statistics! They can be used for ANY cause you want, even against each other.
So... ban people driving with cellphones? Or driving, for the most part, completely? Both of these actions cause a threat to your health, a threat imposed by others.
Damnit, throwing away mod points to reply to a niconazi.
My reasoning, is smoking bans are against the spirit of democracy, AND capitalism. The tyranny of the masses is telling individuals and establisments what they are, and are not allowed to do. If an establisment want to be non-smoking there is nothing to stop them.
I think it is purely aesthetic too, and one of those silly dogmatic liberal bandwagons.
I don't like women wearing perfume. BAN IT! I don't like fat people! BAN THEM FROM PUBLIC PLACES! Cellphones... BAN THEM, or to be fair execute people who have them in theaters and resturants, or while driving.
I don't care if you like smoking or not, or are a smoker or not, it is your individual choice, and I have no right to judge you by it. And if smoking does not cause undo harm to others, then you are just being an ass by telling them what to do, and a hypocrite for not worrying about more dangerous, obnoxious things.
No one is forcing you to use Gmail. No one is forcing you to use Desktop. No one is even forcing you to search with them. OR accept their cookies.
So, for the paranoid, don't use google, natch.
Perhaps what Google does need, though, is assurance that they have a sunset on data personal data retention, and merely keep the anonymous tracking data, stripped of any identifying information. Something like: "We at Google will keep your information for a time period of under ONE year[month, whatnot]", and an ability to ask them what information exactly they have retained, and a perhaps a possiblity to clear your data from their servers. The former, and easy, assurance is the most probable, though.
Now, go write Google with your concerns, you do no good posting them to/., put them where they count.
What monopoly? On search technology? About once a month there is another item on/. about a new search service, presumably using a new technology.
I don't see a monopoly here. AND as has been posted here several times, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly per se, only with aggressive monopolies, as in shutting out your competition, or artificially limiting the market to your product. Google, as of yet, has not exibited these tendencies. Unless there is something forcing you to use Google over A9, or whatnot.
I think their monopoly is benign, like Apple's "iTunes" monopoly, it is a natural one, in that they have a superior product, and the market share reports this fact. It's not like all services are created equal. MS's monopoly is[was] NOT benign, in that they don't have the superior product, they got their share from being dirty birds.
There IS a risk of Google (or more so Apple) misusing their position, and we SHOULD be vigilant, but we should also be optimistic in the fact that both of these companies have displayed a degree of ethical standards in the past.
It's late/early, so I'll be short, and hopefully coherent. Though the latter is doubtful.
Being that your replying to someone who is complaining of MS fanboys, I find this encouraging for the/. crowd. I think that there is a mix, though the MS kids are "slightly" outnumbered by the Linux/Google geeks, and might come close to the number of Apple geeks, though are over shadowed in zealotry. Nice to know they exist though, good to have a mix.
As for Google vs. Doubleclick. Doubleclick is JUST ads, large flashy ones that track your movements. Google is little inobtrusive targeted ones, that DON'T track your movement. Doubleclick sells their information, Google doesn't (and I'm guessing won't).
I LIKE Google, and don't see how this service can make them suddenly evil? Look, we made a desktop search app, and a bunch of other really neat gagdets! And all we ask of you is to look at an ad that might actually be interested from time to time! That sounds pretty vile, much more vile than Microsoft.
I guess, though, unlike most/monkeys I need an actual reason to hate a company, not just the fact that they are big, and most people use them. MS does nasty things, Google hasn't yet, and that is enough for me.
I wish I hadn't already posted and still had mod points.
To often both proponents and opponents of corporate actions will use the pure greed rule, the pro for how corporations and the profit motive is amoral (just process), while the opponents will say it is immoral.
Greed is not moral or not, but how one fulfills this greed is where ethics come to play. just like, to steal someone elses examples, neither Hitler or Mother Theresa were in themselves good or evil, but their decisions dictated their ethical weights.
Running with this thread, even if MS is out for genuine good right now, it in itself is a good choice, but does not change the history of MS being nongood. They have a lot of ground to cover if they ever want to be on the same ethical ground as... almost anyone.
While I do recognize the blindness of your average/.er as a problem (I even wanted to defend Bliz and the Warden because I like them!), this isn't the case, so much, here.
Sure there is gonna be the MS (pardon me M$! *hic*) = evil sentiment here, but on some level we have the right to look at MS as being evil, they have reaffirmed evil as their buisness strategy several times over. Whereas Google has pretty much lived up to their "do good" model. So when Google does something good it is characteristic. "Oh look, Google is doing something good again!" But when MS does it, we must too evaluate that within the context of their history.
Perhaps this IS good! That would be wonderful, and I would be the happiest geek here. BUT looking at past judgements of theirs, I wouldn't bet on it.
I'm winning, I managed to even get the profanity blacklist on my freaks list. I'm impressed, I didn't think I cussed that much... I guess I let a naughty word slip.
But then again (besides the blacklist) I see each freak as a sign that I'm getting closer to something right.
Perhaps I will give FF a try again, checking Activity Monitor tells me that with/. open in two tabs I'm using 52MB... And, just firing up the new FF install it says 42, for two tabs. How do extentions scale into RAM in FF, since right now this is complete vanilla?
I guess now I worry about the aethetics, I hope they speed it up since 1.1 (which is pretty much where the performance tanked)
If you were Apple, you wouldn't have to try yourself, first.
Also that goes against Apples interests, since they are known as the Just Works guys, so people expect them to Just Work. If you buy OS X for an unsupported platform it won't Just Work, thus coloring your experience with the OS. Also if your co-workers/family/freinds heard you complaining, it would be bad PR for apple.
Also no one tries software, free, inwhich to later buy. Especially if they are doing so illegally. If you are the type of person to pirate things, it is doubtful you have the moral standing to buy them if quality. (not so much a rant to you, just notice a pro-piracy theme of late)
As one of the 1.77% using Safari, is it even worth while to switch over to FF again? I've been with the project from the very start, laughed through the name changes, wrote my bugzillas, and got my share of people to switch.
Then I bought a Mac. And FF got sluggish, it takes for ever to open. It's a memory whore (about as bad a pre 10.4.3 Safari). The only thing I miss is extentions, ad-block (dang 4.3 breaking pithhelmet), and mouse gestures.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he is saying is people who buy pc/windows, but it isn't their main computer, they actually are sane Mac/Linux/BSD folk.
My main computer, for example, is a Mac, but I bought XPpro for business and gaming reasons. XPpro isn't my main operating system, or even a prefered one, but something to tool around on, and such.
This is line with the switch vs. bought a mac to complement argument, but converse with the Windows folk. The same goes for downloading Linux though, I downloaded Linux, but have not switched, since it goes nice as a dual boot on my XP box, but in reality I spend 90% of my computing time on my Mac, I'm typing this right now from it.
Buying windows doesn't mean you are a eternal windows user. People switch back all the time (when XPpro came out I switched from Linux, so I was a windows switcher, in Apples newthink vocabulary)
MY PERSONAL OPINION FOLLOWS (don't flame)
ID/Creationism doesn't actually explain anything, since God doesn't exist. Its amazing the so-called explationary powers that it looses once one acknowledges that there is a growing number of athiests in the world. Sure, we don't know what happened before life to cause life (there was no time before the big bang, so...) but this does not mean GOD exists.
END RANT
Fine, teach christian mythology in school, but don't take time out of a science class for it, teach it just as you phrased it "some people beleive in this, they are called christians, it is a religious point of view". Putting it in a science class, discredits everything science stands for, and some children might mistake it as real science, instead of pure religion.
In every profession or area you will find unoriginal wankers reusing antiquated ideas. We probably could pick on much of the OSS community for reusing clunky outdated codes, instead of comeing up with a better (original) method.
Have you downloaded the 3DO port of SCII? It makes me feel young again, sadly it doesn't have the huge honking map of hyperspace/space.
Don't want to enter this debate, but I feel that I must.
Schools are based on rational entities. We don't teach religion in schools, it is not the schools job, unless you send your kids to a religious school. I will furnish my kids religiosity, it is not your, or anyone elses right or responsibility. If your christian do you want your children indoctrinated to be a muslim or hindu? No? Good.
Creationism and ID are both purely religious views. They presupose someone infinitely better than us, capable of creating the world/universe/life meaning a god. In this country this supposes the Christian God. Thus when you force these ideologies (not theories in the same sense as evolution, hence not using the word) upon my children, you are forcing your (Christian) religion upon my children.
Evolution is different since it is a scientific theory (not an ideology), meaning based on empirical evidence (not faith), is peer reviewed, and fact checked with new evidence (Evolution evolves). I want my children to get a heaping dose of science from schools, and all resultant methodologies. Rationality is what school is for.
If you want to give your children religiosity, do so at home and at church, where the rest of us can opt our children out.
I mostly agree with you, so no flame here, perhaps its just how you originally put it.
I have used templates before, but going with the OS model, I HEAVILY modify them for my own ends, until they are pretty much nothing like what they started as. And actually that is how I cut my teeth on HTML/design is finding the design I wanted, looking at the source, and ripping it apart until it does what I want. Only after that did I develop an aesthetic and style for myself.
Its like art classes, first you study art learn about it, only then can you create it. Same thing with lit, first you must read, and the more you read, the better you can write. (ditto with my area, philosophy).
Right now I'm working on a new personal/porfolio page, and wouldn't mind grabbing a template for it, if only as the spark of inspiration from which I can shape it, and modify it, or even throw it out because I can do better.
To claim that templates are worthless is a bit flame-baity in that sense, being that plenty of people can get use from them, without being creatively bankrupt, but only if they don't let it sit as is.
Usually when I want to maintain control of something, I actively develop and/or manage it. I'm sure Aaron[?] would be okay with the site just going back up, since it seems he was happy doing all the work with none of the material pay-off before.
I agree with the parent, Frank seems to just be being rather lazy and negligent, being that he refuses to fork over the (OS) project to Aaron but also refuses to do any work on his own. He should give a catagorical "NO!", and then DO SOMETHING, or cede all costs and reponsibilities to Aaron while keeping his for profit project for himself. By doing nothing we can draw no conclusions, but it also impedes a decent resource from everyone for no reason, when it could be up, albeit under someone else.
My question is why doesn't he just fork it to his new host, if he has been maintaining it he should have some form of backup or previous version stored locally (if not, shame on him!), and for the code itself, he shouldn't have much of a problem securing from other sources again, and/or asking for donations. And if Frank brings the original site up, then he will (from the sound of it) be in a bad place being that he does no actual work.
When I first heard it, I laughed my ass off. And I heard it from a non-smoker asking someone no to smoke in a public place. I'm sorry if my funny generalization of a repressive group of people willing to go to extremes to press their view on people offends you. Wait. I'm not. I find it kind of sad. Since it isn't offensive, or flammable in the slightest, it was a jest.
I just hope someone else finds it as funny as everyone else I know.
And thank you for adding me as a foe, I feel a sense of pride from it. Sad thing is that I refuse to attach any +'s or -'s to relationships out of the spirit of free speach and intelligent discourse. I did, though, add you as a freind.
I'm really glad that was considered flamebait.
I guess that the niconazis have one critical mindshare, since one isn't even allowed to defend against them ruling their lives, peoples businesses, and other peoples free actions.
Sometimes I wish the mods were forced to account for their actions, or at least explain why.
And thats when its time to leave. The liberals won, and now we all can be drones.
Hopefully it's just the liberals, because if the cons are playing, then I can't leave, but at least I'll be a well documented drone.
Either that or time to start growing my own tabacco, and distilling my own bourbon.
Nothing like drinking good bourbon, smoking a nice pipe, after dinner. People should try it before banning it.
We could argue the weed thing for awhile. I think the law is completely arbitrary for that. i don't smoke, and haven't for quite some time, but I still think that people should be able to do so freely, both cigarettes and marijuana.
So yes, Coffee and Alcohol should be banned too?
Good luck on that one.
They did a full smoking ban in Mesa, Az, outdoor and in public.
Everytime my smoker friends have to venture into that hole, they dump their ashtrays on the street. Sometimes they save up for months.
I applaud this sort of action.
These statistics are erroneous. If you smoked/or smoke, and die of lung cancer it will be recorded as smoking related. It ignores the fact that lung cancer still can happen without smoking as the cause.
Just like a MADD flyer I found the other day, with statistics of drunk driving fatalities which included PEDESTRIANS. Silly statistics! They can be used for ANY cause you want, even against each other.
So... ban people driving with cellphones?
Or driving, for the most part, completely?
Both of these actions cause a threat to your health, a threat imposed by others.
Damnit, throwing away mod points to reply to a niconazi.
My reasoning, is smoking bans are against the spirit of democracy, AND capitalism. The tyranny of the masses is telling individuals and establisments what they are, and are not allowed to do. If an establisment want to be non-smoking there is nothing to stop them.
I think it is purely aesthetic too, and one of those silly dogmatic liberal bandwagons.
I don't like women wearing perfume. BAN IT!
I don't like fat people! BAN THEM FROM PUBLIC PLACES!
Cellphones... BAN THEM, or to be fair execute people who have them in theaters and resturants, or while driving.
I don't care if you like smoking or not, or are a smoker or not, it is your individual choice, and I have no right to judge you by it. And if smoking does not cause undo harm to others, then you are just being an ass by telling them what to do, and a hypocrite for not worrying about more dangerous, obnoxious things.
No one is forcing you to use Gmail.
/., put them where they count.
No one is forcing you to use Desktop.
No one is even forcing you to search with them.
OR accept their cookies.
So, for the paranoid, don't use google, natch.
Perhaps what Google does need, though, is assurance that they have a sunset on data personal data retention, and merely keep the anonymous tracking data, stripped of any identifying information. Something like: "We at Google will keep your information for a time period of under ONE year[month, whatnot]", and an ability to ask them what information exactly they have retained, and a perhaps a possiblity to clear your data from their servers. The former, and easy, assurance is the most probable, though.
Now, go write Google with your concerns, you do no good posting them to
Clarify?
/. about a new search service, presumably using a new technology.
What monopoly? On search technology? About once a month there is another item on
I don't see a monopoly here. AND as has been posted here several times, there is nothing wrong with a monopoly per se, only with aggressive monopolies, as in shutting out your competition, or artificially limiting the market to your product. Google, as of yet, has not exibited these tendencies. Unless there is something forcing you to use Google over A9, or whatnot.
I think their monopoly is benign, like Apple's "iTunes" monopoly, it is a natural one, in that they have a superior product, and the market share reports this fact. It's not like all services are created equal. MS's monopoly is[was] NOT benign, in that they don't have the superior product, they got their share from being dirty birds.
There IS a risk of Google (or more so Apple) misusing their position, and we SHOULD be vigilant, but we should also be optimistic in the fact that both of these companies have displayed a degree of ethical standards in the past.
It's late/early, so I'll be short, and hopefully coherent. Though the latter is doubtful.
/. crowd. I think that there is a mix, though the MS kids are "slightly" outnumbered by the Linux/Google geeks, and might come close to the number of Apple geeks, though are over shadowed in zealotry. Nice to know they exist though, good to have a mix.
Being that your replying to someone who is complaining of MS fanboys, I find this encouraging for the
As for Google vs. Doubleclick. Doubleclick is JUST ads, large flashy ones that track your movements. Google is little inobtrusive targeted ones, that DON'T track your movement. Doubleclick sells their information, Google doesn't (and I'm guessing won't).
What nasty thing has Google done, yet?
/monkeys I need an actual reason to hate a company, not just the fact that they are big, and most people use them. MS does nasty things, Google hasn't yet, and that is enough for me.
I LIKE Google, and don't see how this service can make them suddenly evil? Look, we made a desktop search app, and a bunch of other really neat gagdets! And all we ask of you is to look at an ad that might actually be interested from time to time! That sounds pretty vile, much more vile than Microsoft.
I guess, though, unlike most
I wish I hadn't already posted and still had mod points.
To often both proponents and opponents of corporate actions will use the pure greed rule, the pro for how corporations and the profit motive is amoral (just process), while the opponents will say it is immoral.
Greed is not moral or not, but how one fulfills this greed is where ethics come to play. just like, to steal someone elses examples, neither Hitler or Mother Theresa were in themselves good or evil, but their decisions dictated their ethical weights.
Running with this thread, even if MS is out for genuine good right now, it in itself is a good choice, but does not change the history of MS being nongood. They have a lot of ground to cover if they ever want to be on the same ethical ground as... almost anyone.
While I do recognize the blindness of your average /.er as a problem (I even wanted to defend Bliz and the Warden because I like them!), this isn't the case, so much, here.
Sure there is gonna be the MS (pardon me M$! *hic*) = evil sentiment here, but on some level we have the right to look at MS as being evil, they have reaffirmed evil as their buisness strategy several times over. Whereas Google has pretty much lived up to their "do good" model. So when Google does something good it is characteristic. "Oh look, Google is doing something good again!" But when MS does it, we must too evaluate that within the context of their history.
Perhaps this IS good! That would be wonderful, and I would be the happiest geek here. BUT looking at past judgements of theirs, I wouldn't bet on it.
I'm winning, I managed to even get the profanity blacklist on my freaks list. I'm impressed, I didn't think I cussed that much... I guess I let a naughty word slip.
But then again (besides the blacklist) I see each freak as a sign that I'm getting closer to something right.
Perhaps I will give FF a try again, checking Activity Monitor tells me that with /. open in two tabs I'm using 52MB... And, just firing up the new FF install it says 42, for two tabs. How do extentions scale into RAM in FF, since right now this is complete vanilla?
I guess now I worry about the aethetics, I hope they speed it up since 1.1 (which is pretty much where the performance tanked)
If you were Apple, you wouldn't have to try yourself, first.
Also that goes against Apples interests, since they are known as the Just Works guys, so people expect them to Just Work. If you buy OS X for an unsupported platform it won't Just Work, thus coloring your experience with the OS. Also if your co-workers/family/freinds heard you complaining, it would be bad PR for apple.
Also no one tries software, free, inwhich to later buy. Especially if they are doing so illegally. If you are the type of person to pirate things, it is doubtful you have the moral standing to buy them if quality. (not so much a rant to you, just notice a pro-piracy theme of late)
As one of the 1.77% using Safari, is it even worth while to switch over to FF again? I've been with the project from the very start, laughed through the name changes, wrote my bugzillas, and got my share of people to switch.
Then I bought a Mac. And FF got sluggish, it takes for ever to open. It's a memory whore (about as bad a pre 10.4.3 Safari). The only thing I miss is extentions, ad-block (dang 4.3 breaking pithhelmet), and mouse gestures.
Does the new FF make this worthwhile?