Because he cares about your freedom, not about the openness of the source.
Yeah. He also cares about my rights, about software ethics and the most important, the children.
Yeah right. Because every single political activist out there is just thinking about my own good. Not about their own political agendas with nothing to do with "good" or "evil", as they're just political agendas.
The best way to care about other people is by doing (meaning: not whining about what you people think should do) good to them and allowing them to choose if they're going to be affected by what you're doing. I think it's useless wanting to bring better "moral standards" (software-related ones, energy-related, nature-related, etc. etc.) to the world when you try to defend your cause with lies, half-truths and violence.
My point is: I don't want open source laws, forced open source government adoption, and I certainly don't want anyone caring about my "freedom" while making decisions about what's "best for me". So NO, Stallman's beliefs are not about freedom, the children, or anything like they. Stallman's belief's are just his beliefs. It's just his opinions about what he thinks how we all should act.
His software contributions are wonderfull and are a really good base for a lot of computer enthusiasts. However, thinking that they're the solution or the only real "moral" future to the world, is just political nonsense from the same people believing that he is fighting for our "freedom" and not just to force his ideas down our throats.
The problem with Linus's attitude is that once you start making it harder for companies to use the kernel's official name as the product name, people will start thinking about creating their own names, dilluting perception about Linux, on the long run.
Even worse: what if a big company like IBM starts to promote their own trademarked name to sell their line of Open Source Server Operating Systems? That won't stop anyone from using other distributions but it will sure give a lot of marketing advantage to whoever gets directly associated with (ex-)Linux.
I think Linus is (indirectly) giving a chance for someone else owning the new widespread name related to the OSS Operating System containing the Kernel, the GNU Tools, the KDE/GNOME GUIs and all other stuff. I mean, it's just a matter of spending a lot of marketing money.
It's not like Mozilla's name has faded away and everyone now only hears (and knows) about Firefox, right? Err...
BTW: names are so important that even RMS is always ranting about them. The whole GNU/Linux discussion is just a big proof that RMS does give a big shit about names.
I think calling people on fanatical cheerleading of companies that clearly don't deserve it (see: Apple, Microshaft) is probably something we need to call them on
Right, because things are that black-and-white in real world, right? Like, everything that Microsoft does is crap and Apple products are made for dumb people?
but I don't see a problem with cheerleading a company that produces good products, tends to be the "good guy" in relation to their major competitor (see: Intel v. AMD for list of anti-competitve abuses, try groklaw, I'm lazy), and generally has more advanced processors.
Companies are not people. They don't have "character" and they can't be good or bad guys. It's all about profits. The smaller you are, the smaller is the damage you can cause in the desperate seek for profit.
As long as something is not illegal, there isn't anything wrong with a company trying to make use of its potential market.
try groklaw
Like Groklaw, the anti-a-lot-of-stuff geek fanboy paralegal website? Talk about bias.
Personally, I'm *hoping* AMD wins, because right now AMD, I think, is the best option for myself and my systems, not to mention I'd like to reward competition and innovation.
I'm hoping I get good products. Period. I'm not giving my soul to any group.
It's not like humanity hasn't tried it with communism, religious fanaticism, G. W. Bush and all the other "I'll give you my soul because I think you're the answer" situations of mankind.
The real solution is free competition, with us, the people, promoting good results, and not "superior" groups, ideologies, and races.
That's why I don't use Linux on my home computer for development and personal use, I use Windows XP Pro and MS VS.NET 2003, with Visual Assist X with Internet Explorer 7. My webservers are Linux, Apache 2 and MySQL 4.1. I use AMD and ATi, a MS mouse, as well as other fairly dominant brands for most of my hardware, such as my Pioneer DVD drive.
Then I can't see why you "hope" that AMD succeeds or anything like that. You should "hope" that anyone invents good stuff, so you can buy it.
Cheerleading may be irrational, but it remains one of the ways to change the marketplace dynamics.
If irrational fans support niche players like AMD, Apple, Linux, non-Cisco routers and biodiesel fuels, then I know I'll benefit. So I don't complain.
That doesn't stop us from thinking they're weird, irrational people. I mean, I like monkeys, they're useful (they entertain me at the zoo), while they're dumb.
Parent modded insightful?? The iPod is the market share leader in portable digital music players by a hefty margin. How does the most popular of a type of device qualify as "different?"
You don't need to be truly unique to be "different" (or "special"). There are a lot of groups where being "special" just means being like everyone else in the said group.
In fact, you don't even need an official group to be "special". Using things perceived as "special" (like a stylish music player) is an important part of being "special".
Btw, ever heard of "Think different"? =]
Unix is a much more elegant operating system than anything MS has put out to date.
I don't think technology is so black-and-white as you people think it is. In fact, it's impossible for any complex thing (like an operating system) to be black-and-white.
Geeks typically have training that makes us appreciate this elegance.
Yeah, right. Because Geeks know what's really good, right? They have "the power", "the knowledge", they are special, they're not like everyone else, right?
There is something "different" in Geeks, they're surely "special". Certainly not influenced by groupthink, emotional problems like the need to BELONG or anything like that. =]
Your ridiculous blanket statement might apply to pseudogeeks, but a real geek prefers Unix because it is technically superior to Windows.
A real (Put-Label-Here) always prefers something because it is superior. Goths like (stuff) and hate (other stuff) because of superiority and inferiority. Punks, Anarquists, Communists, etc. always have superior reasons, motivations and cultures.
Rational people prefer what's best for their needs. No labels, no black-and-white opinions and no fanboy attitudes, they just think about the results, not about the labels ("It's Unix! It must be better!", "He is a geek! He must know what he is saying. He is telling the technical reality, not his personal opinions.", etc. etc.).
I've always personally favoured AMD chips, simply because they're damn good value, and efficient.
Or maybe because you're the typical geek who hates everything that's big and dominant. Geeks need to love "different" things, made for "special" people or not. Geeks need iPods and Unix computers, because other players and Windows computers are not for special people like you guys.
If someday AMD beats the crap out of Intel and start to be the big guy, you might as well start talking about the superiority of Intel products and how it is so unfair that AMD dominates the market. =]
And my point is...? Well, it's not really smart to be such a big fan of a company/group/etc. I think that we should give our respect to good products, actions and attitudes. Cheerleading for a commercial entity is just pure nonsense. I'm a consumer, I want good products, good actions and good attitudes. The world is about results. It's naive to expect that just because you "like" a group all of their actions are going to fit your views and needs. It's up to their shareholders if AMD is going to succeed in the long term, have giant profits or giant marketshare.
I'm giving my soul to good results, not for companies, groups or whatever. That's why my current PC holds an AMD processor. Next time I'm buying a computer, I'll just buy whatever is best for me, AMD or not. I'm not "hoping" AMD wins, I'm just hoping the market is filled with good products and plenty of choice.
Nobody is going to fall for your forced and falacious authority empiricism, forget about it. The article is very clear about specific devices and their drivers.
And if you really knew anything about development you would have noticed that the specific drivers are the ones responsible for data manipulation (therefore allow buffer overflows), while the USB subsystem is mainly a high-level management system. If this guy were talking about a bug in the whole subsystem, we would not have needed to be specific about device impersonation (meaning: you need to fake a specific device, with its specific device driver).
Where the fuck is [...] where did my Favourites go or everything else go?
They're all configurable: from the menu bar position, to the buttons on your toolbar.
Just because Firefox does not allow you to change simple things like a toolbar position, you should not think that all browsers are "Oh geez, the developer likes the toolbar that way, I'm stuck with his decision".
And, about the looks: RTFA. Your screenshot is from a PC not running a XP theme. RTFA and you'll see how MS want IE7 to look like.
I suspect you mistakenly thought the article was talking about the individual usb device drivers (for things like gamepads, cameras, printers, etc).
No, you are wrong. Specific USB device drivers is what the article is all about.
They even mention this:
For example, an attacker who knows of a vulnerability in a USB device driver can program one USB device--say a portable memory stick--to pose as the kind of device that uses the vulnerable driver, then plug the device into the host system and trigger the exploit when the host system loads the flawed driver, said Darrin Barrall, another SPI researcher.
For a lot of us we can and do have sex simply because it's fun. No more, no less.
It's not about what you think of sex. It's about the repercussions of doing sex. If you think that sex affects you only at banging-time, then you're living inside a reality distortion field. Your life is going to get affected from the way you propose (or accept, or a mix of the two) sex to the way you act after sex. It's not just about your performance during banging-time.
Pretending that sex is just about banging is the same as thinking that punching someone in the face is only going to hurt your hand and that your action it not going to affect you in other aspects of life. When your actions are taken in a social context, meaning that it involves other people, things are not just about what you think and what you like.
Bullshit. You don't like the world as it is so you decide anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar.
It's not about liking the world. It's about something obvious: people care for their own feelings. Except for a few drug-addicted/mentally ill people with absolute no self-respect, most people do care about things.
You're clearly confusing me as some neo-conservative bashing people who like free sex. Well, you're wrong. All I am saying is that even someone who is just looking for some fun is going to care at least a little bit about respect and trust. It's like "Hey, I just want to have some fun, but I'm not a piece of trash".
The same thing goes for people who are "different" and "don't care of what people think". Actually, they care. They want to be seen as people "who don't care about what people think". Call them a "spoiled rich loser seeking for attention" and most of them are going to get pretty mad at you. Being "different" is a part of what they want from life, and they really do care about that.
All I'm saying is that even people who apparently doesn't give s fsck abut stuff, actually do. And even for them sex is something special, not just banging.
Here is where I think the ideology vs realism is the problem. I think its hard enough for 'grown-ups' to deal with sex because their parents/community/church/school didn't educate on it to begin with. Instead of discussing it, exploring, forming a value system, the main message is 'dont do it, dont ask about it, its dirty, feel guilty if you think about it, don't touch yourself', etc.
No, it's not that simple and I wasn't talking aboult guilt. I'm talking about human interaction. Sex is not just about banging-time. The most difficult part of sex is how you managed to get it, and how things are going to be before it happens.
It's not about feeling guilty of touching yourself. It's about relationship complexity, even between single people. It's about feelings. Most single urban-modern people are going to tell you that they don't care about feelings and such while doing occasional sex. Well, they're lying. They DO care if the other person wanted sex because they're a slut or because the other person thinks they're hot/interesting/nice.
So it's not just about raising kids to handle penetration and such. It's about raising kids to live in a world with human interaction.
You see, other people have feelings too, and most of the time you're not going to be able to tell what the hell they're thinking. A person with a fscked-up notion of sex is also going to be a fscked social human being. This is one of the reasons why a lot of highschool jocks and cheerleaders end up stuck in bad marriages: they grew up in some kind of stupid parallel universe with values and notions that are completely unrelated to the real world. And for most of the time, they thought everyone else didn't have feelings or opinions, because everybody ust seemed to agree with them all the time.
This is find so interesting. What about other countries/cultures where boobies are shown without the stigma? The very fact that we Americans treat boobies as such sexual objects creates the notion that they are only sexual objects. All this sexual repression is a self fulfilling prophecy! In addition, your concern is like 40 years too late. You have to raise your kids in the environment they are surrounded by. If you choose to cocoon them they are not going to have the coping skills when they are confronted by it later
You people like to talk about these cultures but never mention them. In wich country boobies are OK to be shown on TV? India? Iran (The hell no =]...)? Where? Even here in Brazil this kind of thing is morally forbidden and widely discussed as something bad for the children.
This might not be popular to say about our military, but just wait until they return. You will see a lot of violence, drug use, psychological problems etc.
Agreed. But that's not going to happen because of confusion related to violence. That's going to happen because blowing someone's head up can really fsck-up your mind.
I guess we will just have to disagree on the violence in the maintstream being perceived as something wrong. Our whole movie culture glorifies violence and created hero characters who use violence as their main tool.
Hero violence is not violence. It's "justice". The violent ones are the bad guys. Violence is not about fair reaction but about doing something unwanted to a person. And it's not just about guns, kicks and punching. It's also about forcing someone to do sttuf they don't want to.
Remember those movies about nice school boys getting revenge on the bigger kids who used to beat them up? With the nice background music and stuff? Justice is more than the California Gov beating the crap out of some terrorist.
Remember USA Independence Wars? Was that "violence"?
I disagree with your main premise and I think it highlights some of the issues.
First, Sex != Love. There is a lot more to a loving relationship that you don't get just from sex.
Yet Sex is still a part of of a love relationship. It means that sex, for people in love, is worth something more than sweating and feeling good. There is nothing wrong with sex w/o love, yet that doesn't mean that single people should be gettin' out on the streets, banging each other. What I mean that even single people having sex with no feelings attribute some kind of value (even if that's just "I trust you") to it.
If it's already hard enough for "grown-ups" to deal with sex, I can't even start to imagine how hard is it going to be for kids growing up in a world full of boobies, people having hardcore sex on the TV and games where the main character asks for a BJ and... gets it.
Parents, particulary conservative ones, seems to want to live in a world of ideology versus the real world--ignorance it bliss. Out of sight, out of mind, etc. These are all issue that need to be addressed, discussed, and countered. If it is mainstream then they need to be able to cope with it. Its an opportunity to teach that because its mainstream doesn't make it right and individuality is important in developing their values.
If we can avoid something becoming mainstream, why shouldn't we?
Why should we let children get confused about sex, because some people want to see boobies at the TV?
Why should we infect the TV with innapropriate content (for most of the parents) when we already have dedicated channels for that? If you want to give your kid different education, just buy him a Playboy subscription. Sex content today is an opt-in system. Why do you people want it to be opt-out?
I'm sorry, but I don't want a fscked-up world just to have the "opportunity" to teach different values to my kids.
As far as your comment that 'Kids know that violence is just wrong and should always be avoided' is wrong on so many levels. First, our culture celebrates violence. To use your words-'its mainstream'. Second, our schools where many children learn their social skills do not have a zero tolerence policy on 'fighting' - its written off as 'boys will be boys'. Third, if you believe we lead by example, we have been at war killing people for the past few years, its mainstream. Kids see that on the news and its 'normal' and 'accepted'.
You're forgetting the fact that it is pretty easy to draw limits on violence. It's not like the U.S. soldiers at Iraq are going to pick-up a gun and sell drugs on the street just because they were engaged in violence actions during war.
About kids fighting: I was not saying that violence does not exists. It does. But in mainstream it is perceived as something wrong.
Yes, it's true that some things about violence are just wrong in our society. Yet two wrongs don't make a right. The reaction to violence should not be giving sex less value.
I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.
Agreed.
I can't see how sex is more evil than violence.
It's not "more evil". It's just something that's a part of a normal life and a part of children's curiosity. Kids know that violence is just wrong and should always be avoided, but for sex things doesn't work the same way.
You see, parent's don't want to raise their kids in a world where sex has no real value and no moral boundaries. That would mean pregnant 14 year olds and a lot of teenagers confused and frustrated about sex. And the problem it's not just about kids, but also about "grown ups", because sex is something with real emotional value. If you start acting like sex is something as normal as a handshake, by showing it all the time in the media, you're destroying an important part of human relationships. It's just a matter of preserving a part of our monogamic and love-bound culture.
People (well, I do and everyone I know does) have their values, with some kind of a list of things that are important and sweet and yadda yadda yadda. We must respect that.
And don't get started with all the talk about "real parenting" and "staying close to your kids" because if something is mainstream, even the best parent in the world is not going to be able to stop their kids from doing wrong things. If everybody is banging each other in parties and after school, because the TV depicts that as "normal", you will never be able to control your kids without being an asshole and locking them up.
In fact, the difference between sex and violence is very simple: violence is stupid and avoidable, thefore we can abuse it. Sex is important and has real value (and real uses).
Stupid and uninformed for you, a "PuNK" loser needing to defend your pathetic nonsense lifestyle. For stupid people needing to defend non-ideologies, most non-punk things are stupid anyway.
just to get a reaction out of people. Which is pretty much what you did.
Not my intention.
And that's fine, the internet would be a boring place without trolls stirring the pot once in a while. But at least admit it.
The same about funny "PuNK" losers trying to show off as "different" just because they didn't get enough attention and friends while preteens.
No offense to anyone intended by the analogy: the point is that obvious differences are honest -- they don't fool you into thinking you're not using an extension. Slight differences are pernicious, not because they're necessarily bad, but because it makes it hard to recognize when an extension is being used.
While your analogy it's pretty funny, I don't think you can extend the discussion to the grounds of such thing as "honesty". I don't believe that there is any intention to fool the user by adding extensions that follow the same machanisms (way of thinking) that ANSI wrote on paper. While I agree that it makes things hard for people who want to know what is an extension and what is not, I must say that MSC++ is also a heavy user of the "__name" extension style, except that the extension behaves in the same manner as a "native" feature. Also, it is much better to learn a single syntax and behavior style than learning weird-bizarro-world stuff along with the common language constructs.
While GCC extensions are "flashy", meaning that you can easily spot them, they make use of some really messed up and inconsistent constructs. Add that with the usual "you need to work around this bug to make things happen", and you've got your gcc nightmare.
I mean, have you ever looked at how Microsoft's C++ compilers, um, pioneered their own standard, entirely different
Hummm, like GCC is not doing the same since... the beginning? Even worse: MSC++ exclusive features are only slightly different from the ANSI standard, while GCC ones are so absurdly different that you need to learn a whole new way of thinking just to understand the bizarro-world sintax/flags/workarounds that some crazy people embedded into GCC.
No, this is pretty much a troll. It wasn't while you were criticizing his poorly written, condescending "protest email", but once you decided to spew your venom towards an entire subculture which you apparently know nothing about it really became a troll. That wouldn't be so bad if you'd at least admit it.
Do you really know what "Trolling" means? It's not about saying something you don't agree with, but saying anything with the sole reason of creating confusion.
Ok, I was agressive and offensive regarding "PuNK"s, but it is really my opinion and I didn't had the intention to just create confusion, I was expressing myself.
If you don't like what I said: too bad, I don't care. Just don't think that "people I don't agree with" = "Troll".
Also, when calling people 'retarded', it helps to spell it correctly.
Hey, I'm not a member of any special "minority" (like people can be a part of a REAL minority because of their CHOICES... tsc. tsc.), I'm not special at all. Never claimed to be any kind of superior "PuNK", you know.
If you're such a SUPERIOR person, better than everyone else, a real member of the "educated minority", then learn how to use WINE instead of bitching about how hard it really is to use it.
A lot of people here posted directions on how to do that. I bet you and all your PuNK art can manage to learn something new.
I sure do. Actually, the first thing I could think of when I read your naive (and misspelled) comment about the "educated minority of the internet" was "wow, boy, whan an idiot".
Now that I've also read your signature about IP laws and your saw your "PuNK art", with all the political messages in stickers and stuff... I'm sorry to say that, but: sometimes people really need to get beaten up real hard in High-School, maybe that gives them a strong incentive to stop acting like retarted monkeys.
And no, this is not a Troll. The article submitter is the Troll here, with his non-news and stupid high-school Punk-Culture protests about some made-up "educated minority".
The worse collateral effect of being a rejected teenager is that these idiots start thinking that they're better than everyone else. That they get rejected for being "special" and not for acting like stinky weirdos with a bad sense of social interaction and self-image.
Start dressing up better, learn how to interact with people and cut the "PuNK" crap. Being different is not about being pathetic. It's about having your own ideas, and copying some stupid ideologically-bankrupt movement (that was actually about spoiled english teenagers wanting to use illicit drugsm drink booze and act like attention whores, "please, please, I'm so different, look at me!") from years ago is not going to help you with that, Mr. Stupid "PuNK" Loonie.
If you need more than a PDA, but not everything a tablet or notebook offers, then there ya go. Don't get so hung up on how things have been before.
You're forgetting the fact that if you make people carry something that won't fit in their pockets, they'll probably want a full-featured notebook instead of an expensive tablet rip-off that's also a pain in the ass to carry everywhere you go.
That's why computing is broken into these "arbitrary" boundaries.
I disagree. Having the password prompt gives the user the power to decide when elevated privileges are required. If a user disregards this power, then that is their fault.
It is not about the power to elevate priviledges, but about avoing the transformation of critical stuff into routine.
On OSX, I get prompted about once a month for the admin password, and it's usually when I run Software Update.
Well, that's your kind of user activity.
If I were simply browsing the web and a trojan sheet came down, asking for the administrator password to continue, it would obviously be a phishing attack. I've trained my users to not check the "remember my password" in email/web applications -- people aren't stupid. People don't "always want to be in charge of their computer", including myself.
If Joe user were simply browsing the web, looking for a nice and fun bunny card game, he is obviously going to type the password when OS X asks him if he wants to install "funny game 2.0 (with spyware)". Why? "The computer guy told me to type this password when I want to change sumthin'". A sane code-signing list with pre-approved companies would be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right. Because every single political activist out there is just thinking about my own good. Not about their own political agendas with nothing to do with "good" or "evil", as they're just political agendas.
The best way to care about other people is by doing (meaning: not whining about what you people think should do) good to them and allowing them to choose if they're going to be affected by what you're doing. I think it's useless wanting to bring better "moral standards" (software-related ones, energy-related, nature-related, etc. etc.) to the world when you try to defend your cause with lies, half-truths and violence.
My point is: I don't want open source laws, forced open source government adoption, and I certainly don't want anyone caring about my "freedom" while making decisions about what's "best for me". So NO, Stallman's beliefs are not about freedom, the children, or anything like they. Stallman's belief's are just his beliefs. It's just his opinions about what he thinks how we all should act.
His software contributions are wonderfull and are a really good base for a lot of computer enthusiasts. However, thinking that they're the solution or the only real "moral" future to the world, is just political nonsense from the same people believing that he is fighting for our "freedom" and not just to force his ideas down our throats.
So enough with the "think of the children" talk.
...and Stallman is Wrong: names DO matter.
The problem with Linus's attitude is that once you start making it harder for companies to use the kernel's official name as the product name, people will start thinking about creating their own names, dilluting perception about Linux, on the long run.
Even worse: what if a big company like IBM starts to promote their own trademarked name to sell their line of Open Source Server Operating Systems? That won't stop anyone from using other distributions but it will sure give a lot of marketing advantage to whoever gets directly associated with (ex-)Linux.
I think Linus is (indirectly) giving a chance for someone else owning the new widespread name related to the OSS Operating System containing the Kernel, the GNU Tools, the KDE/GNOME GUIs and all other stuff. I mean, it's just a matter of spending a lot of marketing money.
It's not like Mozilla's name has faded away and everyone now only hears (and knows) about Firefox, right? Err...
BTW: names are so important that even RMS is always ranting about them. The whole GNU/Linux discussion is just a big proof that RMS does give a big shit about names.
I think calling people on fanatical cheerleading of companies that clearly don't deserve it (see: Apple, Microshaft) is probably something we need to call them on
Right, because things are that black-and-white in real world, right? Like, everything that Microsoft does is crap and Apple products are made for dumb people?
but I don't see a problem with cheerleading a company that produces good products, tends to be the "good guy" in relation to their major competitor (see: Intel v. AMD for list of anti-competitve abuses, try groklaw, I'm lazy), and generally has more advanced processors.
Companies are not people. They don't have "character" and they can't be good or bad guys. It's all about profits. The smaller you are, the smaller is the damage you can cause in the desperate seek for profit.
As long as something is not illegal, there isn't anything wrong with a company trying to make use of its potential market.
try groklaw
Like Groklaw, the anti-a-lot-of-stuff geek fanboy paralegal website? Talk about bias.
Personally, I'm *hoping* AMD wins, because right now AMD, I think, is the best option for myself and my systems, not to mention I'd like to reward competition and innovation.
I'm hoping I get good products. Period. I'm not giving my soul to any group.
It's not like humanity hasn't tried it with communism, religious fanaticism, G. W. Bush and all the other "I'll give you my soul because I think you're the answer" situations of mankind.
The real solution is free competition, with us, the people, promoting good results, and not "superior" groups, ideologies, and races.
=]
In fact, you don't even need an official group to be "special". Using things perceived as "special" (like a stylish music player) is an important part of being "special".
Btw, ever heard of "Think different"? =] I don't think technology is so black-and-white as you people think it is. In fact, it's impossible for any complex thing (like an operating system) to be black-and-white. Yeah, right. Because Geeks know what's really good, right? They have "the power", "the knowledge", they are special, they're not like everyone else, right?
There is something "different" in Geeks, they're surely "special". Certainly not influenced by groupthink, emotional problems like the need to BELONG or anything like that. =] A real (Put-Label-Here) always prefers something because it is superior. Goths like (stuff) and hate (other stuff) because of superiority and inferiority. Punks, Anarquists, Communists, etc. always have superior reasons, motivations and cultures.
Rational people prefer what's best for their needs. No labels, no black-and-white opinions and no fanboy attitudes, they just think about the results, not about the labels ("It's Unix! It must be better!", "He is a geek! He must know what he is saying. He is telling the technical reality, not his personal opinions.", etc. etc.).
Does anyone remember that? Does Google remembers that? Why not 'nofollow' instead of annyoing distorted text confirmation procedures?
I've always personally favoured AMD chips, simply because they're damn good value, and efficient.
Or maybe because you're the typical geek who hates everything that's big and dominant. Geeks need to love "different" things, made for "special" people or not. Geeks need iPods and Unix computers, because other players and Windows computers are not for special people like you guys.
If someday AMD beats the crap out of Intel and start to be the big guy, you might as well start talking about the superiority of Intel products and how it is so unfair that AMD dominates the market. =]
And my point is...? Well, it's not really smart to be such a big fan of a company/group/etc. I think that we should give our respect to good products, actions and attitudes. Cheerleading for a commercial entity is just pure nonsense. I'm a consumer, I want good products, good actions and good attitudes. The world is about results. It's naive to expect that just because you "like" a group all of their actions are going to fit your views and needs. It's up to their shareholders if AMD is going to succeed in the long term, have giant profits or giant marketshare.
I'm giving my soul to good results, not for companies, groups or whatever. That's why my current PC holds an AMD processor. Next time I'm buying a computer, I'll just buy whatever is best for me, AMD or not. I'm not "hoping" AMD wins, I'm just hoping the market is filled with good products and plenty of choice.
Nobody is going to fall for your forced and falacious authority empiricism, forget about it. The article is very clear about specific devices and their drivers.
And if you really knew anything about development you would have noticed that the specific drivers are the ones responsible for data manipulation (therefore allow buffer overflows), while the USB subsystem is mainly a high-level management system. If this guy were talking about a bug in the whole subsystem, we would not have needed to be specific about device impersonation (meaning: you need to fake a specific device, with its specific device driver).
Where the fuck is [...] where did my Favourites go or everything else go?
They're all configurable: from the menu bar position, to the buttons on your toolbar.
Just because Firefox does not allow you to change simple things like a toolbar position, you should not think that all browsers are "Oh geez, the developer likes the toolbar that way, I'm stuck with his decision".
And, about the looks: RTFA. Your screenshot is from a PC not running a XP theme. RTFA and you'll see how MS want IE7 to look like.
No, you are wrong. Specific USB device drivers is what the article is all about.
They even mention this:
For a lot of us we can and do have sex simply because it's fun. No more, no less.
It's not about what you think of sex. It's about the repercussions of doing sex. If you think that sex affects you only at banging-time, then you're living inside a reality distortion field. Your life is going to get affected from the way you propose (or accept, or a mix of the two) sex to the way you act after sex. It's not just about your performance during banging-time.
Pretending that sex is just about banging is the same as thinking that punching someone in the face is only going to hurt your hand and that your action it not going to affect you in other aspects of life. When your actions are taken in a social context, meaning that it involves other people, things are not just about what you think and what you like.
Bullshit. You don't like the world as it is so you decide anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liar.
It's not about liking the world. It's about something obvious: people care for their own feelings. Except for a few drug-addicted/mentally ill people with absolute no self-respect, most people do care about things.
You're clearly confusing me as some neo-conservative bashing people who like free sex. Well, you're wrong. All I am saying is that even someone who is just looking for some fun is going to care at least a little bit about respect and trust. It's like "Hey, I just want to have some fun, but I'm not a piece of trash".
The same thing goes for people who are "different" and "don't care of what people think". Actually, they care. They want to be seen as people "who don't care about what people think". Call them a "spoiled rich loser seeking for attention" and most of them are going to get pretty mad at you. Being "different" is a part of what they want from life, and they really do care about that.
All I'm saying is that even people who apparently doesn't give s fsck abut stuff, actually do. And even for them sex is something special, not just banging.
Here is where I think the ideology vs realism is the problem. I think its hard enough for 'grown-ups' to deal with sex because their parents/community/church/school didn't educate on it to begin with. Instead of discussing it, exploring, forming a value system, the main message is 'dont do it, dont ask about it, its dirty, feel guilty if you think about it, don't touch yourself', etc.
...)? Where? Even here in Brazil this kind of thing is morally forbidden and widely discussed as something bad for the children.
No, it's not that simple and I wasn't talking aboult guilt. I'm talking about human interaction. Sex is not just about banging-time. The most difficult part of sex is how you managed to get it, and how things are going to be before it happens.
It's not about feeling guilty of touching yourself. It's about relationship complexity, even between single people. It's about feelings. Most single urban-modern people are going to tell you that they don't care about feelings and such while doing occasional sex. Well, they're lying. They DO care if the other person wanted sex because they're a slut or because the other person thinks they're hot/interesting/nice.
So it's not just about raising kids to handle penetration and such. It's about raising kids to live in a world with human interaction.
You see, other people have feelings too, and most of the time you're not going to be able to tell what the hell they're thinking. A person with a fscked-up notion of sex is also going to be a fscked social human being. This is one of the reasons why a lot of highschool jocks and cheerleaders end up stuck in bad marriages: they grew up in some kind of stupid parallel universe with values and notions that are completely unrelated to the real world. And for most of the time, they thought everyone else didn't have feelings or opinions, because everybody ust seemed to agree with them all the time.
This is find so interesting. What about other countries/cultures where boobies are shown without the stigma? The very fact that we Americans treat boobies as such sexual objects creates the notion that they are only sexual objects. All this sexual repression is a self fulfilling prophecy! In addition, your concern is like 40 years too late. You have to raise your kids in the environment they are surrounded by. If you choose to cocoon them they are not going to have the coping skills when they are confronted by it later
You people like to talk about these cultures but never mention them. In wich country boobies are OK to be shown on TV? India? Iran (The hell no =]
This might not be popular to say about our military, but just wait until they return. You will see a lot of violence, drug use, psychological problems etc.
Agreed. But that's not going to happen because of confusion related to violence. That's going to happen because blowing someone's head up can really fsck-up your mind.
I guess we will just have to disagree on the violence in the maintstream being perceived as something wrong. Our whole movie culture glorifies violence and created hero characters who use violence as their main tool.
Hero violence is not violence. It's "justice". The violent ones are the bad guys. Violence is not about fair reaction but about doing something unwanted to a person. And it's not just about guns, kicks and punching. It's also about forcing someone to do sttuf they don't want to.
Remember those movies about nice school boys getting revenge on the bigger kids who used to beat them up? With the nice background music and stuff? Justice is more than the California Gov beating the crap out of some terrorist.
Remember USA Independence Wars? Was that "violence"?
I disagree with your main premise and I think it highlights some of the issues.
First, Sex != Love. There is a lot more to a loving relationship that you don't get just from sex.
Yet Sex is still a part of of a love relationship. It means that sex, for people in love, is worth something more than sweating and feeling good. There is nothing wrong with sex w/o love, yet that doesn't mean that single people should be gettin' out on the streets, banging each other. What I mean that even single people having sex with no feelings attribute some kind of value (even if that's just "I trust you") to it.
If it's already hard enough for "grown-ups" to deal with sex, I can't even start to imagine how hard is it going to be for kids growing up in a world full of boobies, people having hardcore sex on the TV and games where the main character asks for a BJ and... gets it.
Parents, particulary conservative ones, seems to want to live in a world of ideology versus the real world--ignorance it bliss. Out of sight, out of mind, etc. These are all issue that need to be addressed, discussed, and countered. If it is mainstream then they need to be able to cope with it. Its an opportunity to teach that because its mainstream doesn't make it right and individuality is important in developing their values.
If we can avoid something becoming mainstream, why shouldn't we? Why should we let children get confused about sex, because some people want to see boobies at the TV?
Why should we infect the TV with innapropriate content (for most of the parents) when we already have dedicated channels for that? If you want to give your kid different education, just buy him a Playboy subscription. Sex content today is an opt-in system. Why do you people want it to be opt-out?
I'm sorry, but I don't want a fscked-up world just to have the "opportunity" to teach different values to my kids.
As far as your comment that 'Kids know that violence is just wrong and should always be avoided' is wrong on so many levels. First, our culture celebrates violence. To use your words-'its mainstream'. Second, our schools where many children learn their social skills do not have a zero tolerence policy on 'fighting' - its written off as 'boys will be boys'. Third, if you believe we lead by example, we have been at war killing people for the past few years, its mainstream. Kids see that on the news and its 'normal' and 'accepted'.
You're forgetting the fact that it is pretty easy to draw limits on violence. It's not like the U.S. soldiers at Iraq are going to pick-up a gun and sell drugs on the street just because they were engaged in violence actions during war.
About kids fighting: I was not saying that violence does not exists. It does. But in mainstream it is perceived as something wrong.
Yes, it's true that some things about violence are just wrong in our society. Yet two wrongs don't make a right. The reaction to violence should not be giving sex less value.
I wouldn't say America, more like those stuck up Holier-Than-Thou retards at the ratings board.
Agreed.
I can't see how sex is more evil than violence.
It's not "more evil". It's just something that's a part of a normal life and a part of children's curiosity. Kids know that violence is just wrong and should always be avoided, but for sex things doesn't work the same way.
You see, parent's don't want to raise their kids in a world where sex has no real value and no moral boundaries. That would mean pregnant 14 year olds and a lot of teenagers confused and frustrated about sex. And the problem it's not just about kids, but also about "grown ups", because sex is something with real emotional value. If you start acting like sex is something as normal as a handshake, by showing it all the time in the media, you're destroying an important part of human relationships. It's just a matter of preserving a part of our monogamic and love-bound culture.
People (well, I do and everyone I know does) have their values, with some kind of a list of things that are important and sweet and yadda yadda yadda. We must respect that.
And don't get started with all the talk about "real parenting" and "staying close to your kids" because if something is mainstream, even the best parent in the world is not going to be able to stop their kids from doing wrong things. If everybody is banging each other in parties and after school, because the TV depicts that as "normal", you will never be able to control your kids without being an asshole and locking them up.
In fact, the difference between sex and violence is very simple: violence is stupid and avoidable, thefore we can abuse it. Sex is important and has real value (and real uses).
No, trolling is saying uninformed or stupid shit
Stupid and uninformed for you, a "PuNK" loser needing to defend your pathetic nonsense lifestyle. For stupid people needing to defend non-ideologies, most non-punk things are stupid anyway.
just to get a reaction out of people. Which is pretty much what you did.
Not my intention.
And that's fine, the internet would be a boring place without trolls stirring the pot once in a while. But at least admit it.
The same about funny "PuNK" losers trying to show off as "different" just because they didn't get enough attention and friends while preteens.
While GCC extensions are "flashy", meaning that you can easily spot them, they make use of some really messed up and inconsistent constructs. Add that with the usual "you need to work around this bug to make things happen", and you've got your gcc nightmare.
Ok, I was agressive and offensive regarding "PuNK"s, but it is really my opinion and I didn't had the intention to just create confusion, I was expressing myself.
If you don't like what I said: too bad, I don't care. Just don't think that "people I don't agree with" = "Troll". Hey, I'm not a member of any special "minority" (like people can be a part of a REAL minority because of their CHOICES... tsc. tsc.), I'm not special at all. Never claimed to be any kind of superior "PuNK", you know.
The switch to turn it on is in a daft place.
It's turned on by default.
If you're such a SUPERIOR person, better than everyone else, a real member of the "educated minority", then learn how to use WINE instead of bitching about how hard it really is to use it.
A lot of people here posted directions on how to do that. I bet you and all your PuNK art can manage to learn something new.
Do you know how big an idiot I feel?
I sure do. Actually, the first thing I could think of when I read your naive (and misspelled) comment about the "educated minority of the internet" was "wow, boy, whan an idiot".
Now that I've also read your signature about IP laws and your saw your "PuNK art", with all the political messages in stickers and stuff... I'm sorry to say that, but: sometimes people really need to get beaten up real hard in High-School, maybe that gives them a strong incentive to stop acting like retarted monkeys.
And no, this is not a Troll. The article submitter is the Troll here, with his non-news and stupid high-school Punk-Culture protests about some made-up "educated minority".
The worse collateral effect of being a rejected teenager is that these idiots start thinking that they're better than everyone else. That they get rejected for being "special" and not for acting like stinky weirdos with a bad sense of social interaction and self-image.
Start dressing up better, learn how to interact with people and cut the "PuNK" crap. Being different is not about being pathetic. It's about having your own ideas, and copying some stupid ideologically-bankrupt movement (that was actually about spoiled english teenagers wanting to use illicit drugsm drink booze and act like attention whores, "please, please, I'm so different, look at me!") from years ago is not going to help you with that, Mr. Stupid "PuNK" Loonie.
If you need more than a PDA, but not everything a tablet or notebook offers, then there ya go. Don't get so hung up on how things have been before.
You're forgetting the fact that if you make people carry something that won't fit in their pockets, they'll probably want a full-featured notebook instead of an expensive tablet rip-off that's also a pain in the ass to carry everywhere you go.
That's why computing is broken into these "arbitrary" boundaries.
You don't need to install programs or change system settings so often on Linux.
That's because you don't have a large non-centralized software base. With non-geek users wanting to run every single kind of Funny Card Game.