Even if Windows 7 had huge memory problems, "Who cares if the PCs are maxing out their memory if the user experience is equal to XP in terms of perception of speed?"
I don't think anyone really cares what the abstract metrics say if the practical metrics are unaffected, and the verdict on Windows 7 has been overwhelmingly good.
Considering the death toll from terrorism in the United States has been 0 for just under a decade, and the death toll from foreigners being tazed to death for being dazed and confused is at least 1[1], it's not that hard. That's not even counting the times the US government, in the name of airline security; kidnapped and tortured people.[2][3][4][5][6][7]
I'd argue that more people have died as a result of airline security (increased stress, covered up unneccessary tazing, etc...) than die from terrorist attacks on airlines.
Seriously. I don't know what Microsoft does when it tries to install drivers through Windows update, but it does it wrong. No single thing has caused more unexpected problems than "Oh, Windows update upgraded my driver and now my hardware stopped working!"
I want to sincerely congratulate the nation of Italy. It's great to see that you're continuing that time-honoured tradition of evil governments stomping on the face of free speech. Mussolini would be proud.
Yeah, sorry. I'm just frustrated at the folks in this story pulling numbers out of their ass, you're not to blame.
Anyway, I'm not knocking the CDC's results, just the criticism that because the source is unreliable the info is automatically wrong -- This story was covered at CBC and in the globe and mail, both reputable sources. It's true that the study has different results than others, so my wording should have been different. It's possible, but not by any means confirmed, that the seasonal vaccine could increase your chance of getting H1N1.
Anyway, unfortunately you don't win if they don't provide references. They win, because they get away with telling a lie without being told straight-up that they're lying.
You see this constantly in politics: People will make shit up on the spot to support their point and when called on it, unless the person calling them on it actually backs it up with "You're lying and here's the source proving it", it's just 'he said vs. she said' and the two unsourced statements cancel themselves out and the statement to win is based on the political affiliation of the viewer rather than the facts.
Well, it's national news here in Canada, and has been in all the mainstream news sources. Plus, the first paragraph of the story was correct. Frankly, considering I've had to research not just my own claims, but dozen of unsubstantiated cavalier falsehoods for this story, I don't have the time or the will to do more than check to see if the rest of the story is totally awesome. The basic facts are there, and in fact the story referenced the original story which was a reliable source. Such a quack site being the #1 hit is undoubtedly caused by a search engine optimization company gaming Google.
If you want to bitch, go bitch at the people who aren't telling the truth and didn't provide any citations when requested. If they bothered to do their own homework, then I wouldn't be so overburdened by being forced to do it for them alongside my own.
As opposed to most slashdot morons, who will make statements of fact without any reference to where they might come from (usually because they're made up on the spot like a CNN interview)
My proof is this: In this thread, the user geekoid(who has helpfully attacked my citations in this thread) has thrown out a massive number of facts with 0 citations in this whole story. However, I've linked to 7 different articles to support various statements.
See what's happening? I'm researching this user's unfounded claims, and I'm researching my own claims, so I'm doing all the research for everyone.
Oh, that's right. I've got to research your claims as well as mine. Well, since you're getting my research services for free, how about you shut the hell up, you lazy bastard?
You know, I've got a lot of research to do: I've got to research YOUR claims because you refuse to cite anything, then I've got to research MY claims because I don't want to be full of shit like you.
So until you start showing some rigor (for example, giving some citations for your previous statistics that you still haven't provided), shut the fuck up.
If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up with evidence. It is not my job to make your argument for you.
Thing is, that's a load of shit. I'm one of the ONLY people to back their argument up with facts that can be cited, and frankly, it's a huge waste of time and a rhetorical liability.
Look at this discussion(not necessarily this specific exchange between me and you, but as a whole). People are making unverified claim after unverified claim after unverified claim, and using their unverified, uncited, uncitable claims to support their arguments. Suddenly I've got to research THEIR claims, then I'm finding citations for MY claims, and basically I'm stuck doing everyone's research. How is that fair? Pick one and go with it. Either people google in the first place to back up their claims, or people google after the fact to figure out if something said is true. Right now, I'm doing both because everyone's discussion lacks the slightest rigour.
So the #2 link when you google is from CBC(and cited in the link I gave you)[2]. Blame SEO companies for the poor #1 link.
Do we really need 24 hr. coverage on all networks to tell you that if you're in a group at risk of dying a horrible gasping death you should probably take some precautions?
I know, it's irresponsible to be wasting vaccine when I'm not in any group at risk of dying.
Even though the teevee keeps telling me I should be scared anyway because they can't think of anything else to put on, I'm willing to make that non-sacrifice, and put my self at extremely minimal risk of getting a very mild flu.
Slashdot Mirror
Office XP had sex with Monica Lewinski!
Even if Windows 7 had huge memory problems, "Who cares if the PCs are maxing out their memory if the user experience is equal to XP in terms of perception of speed?"
I don't think anyone really cares what the abstract metrics say if the practical metrics are unaffected, and the verdict on Windows 7 has been overwhelmingly good.
Who cares if the PCs are maxing out their memory if the user experience is equal to XP in terms of perception of speed?
Considering the death toll from terrorism in the United States has been 0 for just under a decade, and the death toll from foreigners being tazed to death for being dazed and confused is at least 1[1], it's not that hard. That's not even counting the times the US government, in the name of airline security; kidnapped and tortured people.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
God we're nice people.
I'd argue that more people have died as a result of airline security (increased stress, covered up unneccessary tazing, etc...) than die from terrorist attacks on airlines.
Just so I understand...
Microsoft takes responsibility for theft of code by blaming someone else?
Did I fail one too many English classes somewhere?
KEEP DRIVERS OUT OF WINDOWS UPDATE.
Seriously. I don't know what Microsoft does when it tries to install drivers through Windows update, but it does it wrong. No single thing has caused more unexpected problems than "Oh, Windows update upgraded my driver and now my hardware stopped working!"
I want to sincerely congratulate the nation of Italy. It's great to see that you're continuing that time-honoured tradition of evil governments stomping on the face of free speech. Mussolini would be proud.
The license for Linux is a distribution license, not a use license.
There are a lot of people with weird ideas about the law here...
Under that logic, isn't reading a book without an explicit license illegal? After all, you're making a copy in your brain.
Yeah, sorry. I'm just frustrated at the folks in this story pulling numbers out of their ass, you're not to blame.
Anyway, I'm not knocking the CDC's results, just the criticism that because the source is unreliable the info is automatically wrong -- This story was covered at CBC and in the globe and mail, both reputable sources. It's true that the study has different results than others, so my wording should have been different. It's possible, but not by any means confirmed, that the seasonal vaccine could increase your chance of getting H1N1.
Anyway, unfortunately you don't win if they don't provide references. They win, because they get away with telling a lie without being told straight-up that they're lying.
You see this constantly in politics: People will make shit up on the spot to support their point and when called on it, unless the person calling them on it actually backs it up with "You're lying and here's the source proving it", it's just 'he said vs. she said' and the two unsourced statements cancel themselves out and the statement to win is based on the political affiliation of the viewer rather than the facts.
Well, it's national news here in Canada, and has been in all the mainstream news sources. Plus, the first paragraph of the story was correct. Frankly, considering I've had to research not just my own claims, but dozen of unsubstantiated cavalier falsehoods for this story, I don't have the time or the will to do more than check to see if the rest of the story is totally awesome. The basic facts are there, and in fact the story referenced the original story which was a reliable source. Such a quack site being the #1 hit is undoubtedly caused by a search engine optimization company gaming Google.
If you want to bitch, go bitch at the people who aren't telling the truth and didn't provide any citations when requested. If they bothered to do their own homework, then I wouldn't be so overburdened by being forced to do it for them alongside my own.
As opposed to most slashdot morons, who will make statements of fact without any reference to where they might come from (usually because they're made up on the spot like a CNN interview)
My proof is this: In this thread, the user geekoid(who has helpfully attacked my citations in this thread) has thrown out a massive number of facts with 0 citations in this whole story. However, I've linked to 7 different articles to support various statements.
See what's happening? I'm researching this user's unfounded claims, and I'm researching my own claims, so I'm doing all the research for everyone.
I cited my source, where are yours?
Oh, that's right. I've got to research your claims as well as mine. Well, since you're getting my research services for free, how about you shut the hell up, you lazy bastard?
You know, I've got a lot of research to do: I've got to research YOUR claims because you refuse to cite anything, then I've got to research MY claims because I don't want to be full of shit like you.
So until you start showing some rigor (for example, giving some citations for your previous statistics that you still haven't provided), shut the fuck up.
If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up with evidence. It is not my job to make your argument for you.
Thing is, that's a load of shit. I'm one of the ONLY people to back their argument up with facts that can be cited, and frankly, it's a huge waste of time and a rhetorical liability.
Look at this discussion(not necessarily this specific exchange between me and you, but as a whole). People are making unverified claim after unverified claim after unverified claim, and using their unverified, uncited, uncitable claims to support their arguments. Suddenly I've got to research THEIR claims, then I'm finding citations for MY claims, and basically I'm stuck doing everyone's research. How is that fair? Pick one and go with it. Either people google in the first place to back up their claims, or people google after the fact to figure out if something said is true. Right now, I'm doing both because everyone's discussion lacks the slightest rigour.
So the #2 link when you google is from CBC(and cited in the link I gave you)[2]. Blame SEO companies for the poor #1 link.
grr... 2
Yeah, I just chose the first link, which was a bad idea. The CBC covered it first.2
To be honest, y'all were too lazy to google it yourselves, so don't complain when the search result is dodgy thanks to some SEO.
Yeah, I wish I'd posted the second link google gives, which was to the CBC article.2
On the other hand, don't complain when you couldn't be arsed to google 'seasonal flu vaccine increases chances of H1N1' yourself.
That goes for everything though, doesn't it?
Do we really need 24 hr. coverage on all networks to tell you that if you're in a group at risk of dying a horrible gasping death you should probably take some precautions?
You're welcome.
I know, it's irresponsible to be wasting vaccine when I'm not in any group at risk of dying.
Even though the teevee keeps telling me I should be scared anyway because they can't think of anything else to put on, I'm willing to make that non-sacrifice, and put my self at extremely minimal risk of getting a very mild flu.
False.
Frig.
It's a medical truism from way back.
> Are you aware that getting the seasonal flu vaccine increased your chances of getting H1N1?[1]