But why should MS be concerned? Taiwan was famous for nothing more than piracy - the theft of MS's software. Remind me why they would care about what Taiwan says?
Re:What ??? Impopular, me ???? No way.... linux ro
on
Why Nerds Are Unpopular
·
· Score: 1, Informative
But that's part of the problem. It's not us nerds who have the problem - we use Linux because it's better. Someone uses Windows and we tell them it's not as good, they laugh in our faces.
I was bullied pretty badly at school for exactly this sort of thing, but I realised that it's not my fault, it's their fault for not being as smart as me - in a way I felt sorry for them; I may not have been popular with the girls in school, but I've since had a girlfriend from my LUG (yes, they do exist) and although we've broken up now, I think it proves that the bullies at school didn't even have that above me.
Nerds think they are superior. They think that their abilities with code and electronics elevate them above language students, artists, sportsmen. They think that the fact they use Linux makes them better than the "lusers who use Windoze".
And yet they are often socially awkward, irritating, and with little ability to talk on subjects other than computers. Their behavior towards women is much like that of a dog; they lust after them, publicly voicing their desire, and if a woman makes herself know to them on the web, they are surrounded by them like puppies taking turns on a mother's teat.
But remember, nerds are better because they can code.
They cannot see how the world works past their own needs; all the supposed freedom infringements of the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, STFU, all boil down to "ME WANT IT FREE! ME WANT IT NOW!" like they are more important than everyone else in the world.
But that's OK, because they can code.
In the workplace they demand casual dress. They demand completely relaxed environments, with full control over operating systems, hardware (remind me why a sysadmin needs a GeForce?), software - and they don't see the hypocrisy when whinging about a "mere user" trying to do something their way rather than "the right way".
But that's OK, because they can code. In fact, that's all they can do. And that's why they are universally diliked, bullied, lonely.
And how exactly is this a measure of how it would affect EMI/Sony etc who don't have a problem with running out of cds? For whom writing a CDR is considered more expensive than pressing 1000 too many?
Oh and maybe then there maybe some Sony competition
Err...This is the Gameboy we're talking about - that's made by Sony, who are hardly going to compete with themselves. Perhaps you meant Sega, just perhaps?
Sir, your maths-fu is weak. While in this case the logic is still there, one cannot take that which is to be proved as a premise, then work towards a known-true conslucion. Remember; a false premise can prove just about anything.
Prove 1=2
1=2
=>2=1
(adding (1) and (2)) => 3=3
???
QED!
Not a very convincing proof is it? Yet it's exactly what you've done.
The volume at which the engineers mix sound. I don't know about music, but certainly film sound engineers tend to mix at 85dB as standard. Because of the auditary response curve, this means that if the home user plays it more quietly, the bass will be lacking. Too loud, the bass will drown out the mid-high range.
It's a tricky problem, and really a compromise must be reached taking into consideration stereo frequency response, room dynamics, volume...
Yes, people will appreciate the extra clarity etc, but before you dismiss my comment, I suggest you read these user reviews for a Winamp plugin. On the face of it, you may say that Winamp plugins have nothing to do with monitor speakers. However, the point is that these people are talking about how amazing a DSP module is that is as likely as not an 8 channel compressor. My favorite comment is from someone who praises the "realistic sound" it creates.
FYI, this was just something I've found now to prove the point. However, I have heard similar "enhancers" before so know what to expect.
Going back to your statement, if you gave people that setup for their own home, and it had a bass boost button, I reckon that there's a pretty good chance that after a week it'd be permanently on. This excludes people who listen only to jazz, classical, choral music etc of course, where the bass isn't such a major feature.
Adjust your soundcard so that its master volume is at maximum. Turn on your amp to a reasonable volume. Drag windows around, copy files, scroll text files etc. Hear that? That's what you don't get in an expensive dedicated system. And that's just interference, there's all sorts of distortions that happen in the electronics too that expensive equiptment tries to eradicate.
Can you hear the difference? Well, the only way to tell is a side-by-side comparison. Sure you can't hear anything wrong with the current system, but when you hear a really good system next to it, you'll know. If you can't tell the difference then you need to take some antibiotics for your ear infec...nah, you'll be able to tell.
Incidentally, when you've got this good system, connect it up to your PC and compare your 128kbit MP3s or whatever with CD. You'll appreciate the difference there too.
True, yet bad advice. The truth is that most people wouldn't like monitor speakers, precisely because they are too "good". The goal of a monitor speaker is to produce a flat as possible frequency response curve. People aren't used to that.
If you doubt this, just look at the majority of popular stereos with a "bass boost" button, which may as well be labeled as "ignore the equalisation performed by a professional engineer and producer, I want thumping".
Of course in theory, graphic EQs on stereos should be used to tweak the signal to counteract the frequency attenuation of the speakers and electronics - but instead they are used to add bass etc.
I reiterate: most people don't want accurate sound reproduction.
I can't comment in your analogies journal as it's been archived, so I'll put it here.
Firstly, a quick agreement - I've thought this for a long time, even before I got into such arguments on the web. It pisses me off in real life when people come up with analogies and then take them to extremes that no longer bear any relevance.
The main point of my comment however is that I am planning to write an article for K5 on this exact subject, and just thought it polite to ask if I could borrow some of your points/examples from your journal (credited of course).
IIRC, the TCP stack in Linux is what is known as a "trusting stack" rather than the widely used BSD stack which is a "hostile stack". Now, this is what makes Linux so fast at packet handling, but is also why the Linux stack is so tied to iptables/ipchains/$firewall.
In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on an IP videophone running on Linux, you'd have to have such a stateful firewall running on the phone - wouldn't this be a little heavyweight for a phone? Or have they modified Linux to use the BSD TCP-stack?
No, you misunderstand. OSS can compete when it costs nothing and MS software costs far too much. On a level playing field, MS software is just so much more complete, polished and consistent than OSS that it would win every time hands down.
However, now that MS have lowered their costs, OSS are on a more level playing field and so cannot compete. But by providing this competition, they have forced MS' costs down in the first place, so that's a big win for us, OSS and GNU.
I seriously doubt Sony was really happy when M$ dropped their prices to match the PS2, and were jumping up and down saying their goals were met.
No, of course not. Nor were Microsoft happy that they had to drop prices. The winners are the consumers - us! With competition like that provided by GNU/OSS, the price of proprietary software will necessarily fall to the price that it is worth and not a penny more.
Forcing software to be sold at the price it should be sold, rather than artificially inflated by monopolistic practices/lack of choice, is exactly what GNU mean by freedom. This is why it is such a success for GNU and OSS - freedom is being achieved by them lowering their price..
It's about time we had this news. Really, OSS has no chance of competing with software backed by a large company, at least not when the price of the proprietary software are not unreasonable.
By forcing Microsoft to release polished and well documented code at a reasonable price, OSS has pretty much achieved its goal.
I managed to shock a few people with that - those who think that kiddie porn is hidden in these secret groups which tak eyears to penetrate (no pun intended...).
If you go to DALnet, and presumably other networks, and get a list of channels matching the string "!!" or any large number of exclamation marks, you see a frankly shockingly overt display of paedophilia. Try it, it's fun!
Of course, back in his glory days, Mr Townshend undoubtedly did more than just look at pictures, given that half the 12 year old girls in the country would kill to give him head.
Yes, I bit my lip when I posted the original comment, because I wanted to snidely point out NORAID, but wasn't 100% sure he was American.
However, shortly after 11th Sept, I did post here mentioning NORAID and double standards. Somewhat surprisingly (and hearteningly) I wasn't modded into oblivion. And IIRC some people were genuinely alarmed when I pointed out that they (as a nation of wannabe Irishmen) had been funding terrorism for all those years.
How many cities in the UKL do you think have an underground?!? Not many. And I must say, when I'm travelling on the London Tube on my own at night, I am very glad that there are CCTV cameras prominently placed.
Am I worried about being tracked? No, am I fuck. I've gained my safety, but I've not given up essential liberties. Now if they mandated us all to wear an RFID chip at all times so that our positions can be monitored, then yeah, I'd have a problem with it; there is no good reason why they should be doing that - except to track us. With CCTV however there is a perfectly legitimate reason, and remember that in England (esp. London) terrorists were discovered some time before 11th Sept. No honestly, they did exist back then, and we've been dealing with them for decades. CCTV in some of the choicest bomb locations is a fine idea by me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that was gay then, this is gay now.
Could it be because the brits are gullible, despite thinking they are better than us Americans? Maybe they should lose theire superiority complex.
But why should MS be concerned? Taiwan was famous for nothing more than piracy - the theft of MS's software. Remind me why they would care about what Taiwan says?
I was bullied pretty badly at school for exactly this sort of thing, but I realised that it's not my fault, it's their fault for not being as smart as me - in a way I felt sorry for them; I may not have been popular with the girls in school, but I've since had a girlfriend from my LUG (yes, they do exist) and although we've broken up now, I think it proves that the bullies at school didn't even have that above me.
And yet they are often socially awkward, irritating, and with little ability to talk on subjects other than computers. Their behavior towards women is much like that of a dog; they lust after them, publicly voicing their desire, and if a woman makes herself know to them on the web, they are surrounded by them like puppies taking turns on a mother's teat.
But remember, nerds are better because they can code.
They cannot see how the world works past their own needs; all the supposed freedom infringements of the DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, STFU, all boil down to "ME WANT IT FREE! ME WANT IT NOW!" like they are more important than everyone else in the world.
But that's OK, because they can code.
In the workplace they demand casual dress. They demand completely relaxed environments, with full control over operating systems, hardware (remind me why a sysadmin needs a GeForce?), software - and they don't see the hypocrisy when whinging about a "mere user" trying to do something their way rather than "the right way".
But that's OK, because they can code. In fact, that's all they can do. And that's why they are universally diliked, bullied, lonely.
And how exactly is this a measure of how it would affect EMI/Sony etc who don't have a problem with running out of cds? For whom writing a CDR is considered more expensive than pressing 1000 too many?
Err...This is the Gameboy we're talking about - that's made by Sony, who are hardly going to compete with themselves. Perhaps you meant Sega, just perhaps?
Prove 1=2
=> 3=3
Not a very convincing proof is it? Yet it's exactly what you've done.
1. Let's all put our email addresses on a list that spammers can download, so they'll know not to spam us.
2. ???
3. Profit!
It's a tricky problem, and really a compromise must be reached taking into consideration stereo frequency response, room dynamics, volume...
FYI, this was just something I've found now to prove the point. However, I have heard similar "enhancers" before so know what to expect.
Going back to your statement, if you gave people that setup for their own home, and it had a bass boost button, I reckon that there's a pretty good chance that after a week it'd be permanently on. This excludes people who listen only to jazz, classical, choral music etc of course, where the bass isn't such a major feature.
Adjust your soundcard so that its master volume is at maximum. Turn on your amp to a reasonable volume. Drag windows around, copy files, scroll text files etc. Hear that? That's what you don't get in an expensive dedicated system. And that's just interference, there's all sorts of distortions that happen in the electronics too that expensive equiptment tries to eradicate.
Can you hear the difference? Well, the only way to tell is a side-by-side comparison. Sure you can't hear anything wrong with the current system, but when you hear a really good system next to it, you'll know. If you can't tell the difference then you need to take some antibiotics for your ear infec...nah, you'll be able to tell.
Incidentally, when you've got this good system, connect it up to your PC and compare your 128kbit MP3s or whatever with CD. You'll appreciate the difference there too.
If you doubt this, just look at the majority of popular stereos with a "bass boost" button, which may as well be labeled as "ignore the equalisation performed by a professional engineer and producer, I want thumping".
Of course in theory, graphic EQs on stereos should be used to tweak the signal to counteract the frequency attenuation of the speakers and electronics - but instead they are used to add bass etc.
I reiterate: most people don't want accurate sound reproduction.
Firstly, a quick agreement - I've thought this for a long time, even before I got into such arguments on the web. It pisses me off in real life when people come up with analogies and then take them to extremes that no longer bear any relevance.
The main point of my comment however is that I am planning to write an article for K5 on this exact subject, and just thought it polite to ask if I could borrow some of your points/examples from your journal (credited of course).
How is this a book review? Saying that there is a series of books available doth not a review make.
In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on an IP videophone running on Linux, you'd have to have such a stateful firewall running on the phone - wouldn't this be a little heavyweight for a phone? Or have they modified Linux to use the BSD TCP-stack?
I am an adult; this is a cartoon. Type mismatch on line 17.
Strange, I didn't think MS offered Linux certification.
However, now that MS have lowered their costs, OSS are on a more level playing field and so cannot compete. But by providing this competition, they have forced MS' costs down in the first place, so that's a big win for us, OSS and GNU.
No, of course not. Nor were Microsoft happy that they had to drop prices. The winners are the consumers - us! With competition like that provided by GNU/OSS, the price of proprietary software will necessarily fall to the price that it is worth and not a penny more.
Forcing software to be sold at the price it should be sold, rather than artificially inflated by monopolistic practices/lack of choice, is exactly what GNU mean by freedom. This is why it is such a success for GNU and OSS - freedom is being achieved by them lowering their price..
By forcing Microsoft to release polished and well documented code at a reasonable price, OSS has pretty much achieved its goal.
If you go to DALnet, and presumably other networks, and get a list of channels matching the string "!!" or any large number of exclamation marks, you see a frankly shockingly overt display of paedophilia. Try it, it's fun!
Of course, back in his glory days, Mr Townshend undoubtedly did more than just look at pictures, given that half the 12 year old girls in the country would kill to give him head.
We all know that DALnet is for kiddie porn and nothing more.
However, shortly after 11th Sept, I did post here mentioning NORAID and double standards. Somewhat surprisingly (and hearteningly) I wasn't modded into oblivion. And IIRC some people were genuinely alarmed when I pointed out that they (as a nation of wannabe Irishmen) had been funding terrorism for all those years.
Am I worried about being tracked? No, am I fuck. I've gained my safety, but I've not given up essential liberties. Now if they mandated us all to wear an RFID chip at all times so that our positions can be monitored, then yeah, I'd have a problem with it; there is no good reason why they should be doing that - except to track us. With CCTV however there is a perfectly legitimate reason, and remember that in England (esp. London) terrorists were discovered some time before 11th Sept. No honestly, they did exist back then, and we've been dealing with them for decades. CCTV in some of the choicest bomb locations is a fine idea by me.