I see what you're saying, but the difference between 10% and 50% is a lot. I think we could easily reduce emissions by 50% if newer technologies were adopted. The plus is we wouldn't need to change our driving habits.
You seem to think that people can cut out driving. What I'm saying is that's not really true. Are there people that could make more economical choices (like not using an SUV when they dont need to?) yep. Not arguing that. But I don't think even a 10% drop in emissions would happen in that case.
(I doubt we'll agree with each other, wanna just agree to disagree? I'm not trying to fight with ya or anything.)
I think what'll kick people in the seat of the pants is a sharp increase in oil prices. I bought a new car a couple of weeks ago. (Honda Civic, gets about 35 mpg) I thought seriously hard about getting a hybrid that gets better mileage, but it drove up the price roughly $5,000. I didn't see myself saving that much money. The truth is I'm mostly a pedestrian (I moved to where I could walk to work) so it's not that big of deal.
I did the math and figured that gas would have to increase about 3x before a hybrid became worth the extra money. I have a 5 year loan on the car, I'm not sure that gas will go up 3x in that time. If it does, then I'll just have to eat it for a while.
But.. you know, there's murmurs that USA's going to invade Iraq. I personally hope it doesn't, but if it does it'll probably play hell with gas prices. If it does, we may see a lot of people take the initiative and get more efficient cars. But what I don't see happening is a drastic reduction in emissions over it.
I am curious if anybody correlated the data of gas emission with the gas shortage in the late 70's. I have a feeling that'll tell us that the difference wasn't that significant.
Though I agree with you, there is one small point I want to nitpick:
"How is this ANY different to the linux user who doesn't know which command line tool to use?"
The difference is similar to the difference between driving a car with a manual transmission, and driving a commercial airliner. Both are vehicles. Both require at least some education to run. The airplane, though more sophisticated, has to go through a hell of a lot more steps in order to get moving anywhere.
That's the problem with Linux. It's not just a matter of knowing what command line tool to use, they have to know how each one works (and they're all different.). And they also have to know some basic things about the how the Linux file system works.
'Copy and Paste' is pretty much universal these days. Learn it once and you're good to go.
I'm not 100% disagreeing with your post, Im just going at that one little detail.:)
If you wanted to be really bad, place your cat on a scanner and grab an image of it. Then, print that image so that it's life size on a laser printer. (color might be detectable..) Then, fax that through. If it works, you might be able to convince somebody you tried to fax your cat to them.;)
Yeah, you're right, I think that made the difference.
Funny, I kinda thought the release of OSX would shift developers in a new direction. It runs on BSD, but the average user never needs to know the root password. That's pretty damn cool if you ask me. Most Mac users probably have no idea that they're running Unix. Heh.
One attitude I've noticed didn't get any attention, though: People are quick to dismiss any flavor of Windows because of 'stability issues' (that really don't relate to 2K or XP, but out of hatred for MS they bundle it all up anyway) and they act like MS pointed a gun at people's heads to make them buy it. They don't realize that what Windows does do right is what makes it successful, and it doesn't appear that Linux is heading in that direction.
The Windows interface, despite it's problems, is easy to use and presents you with little to no hasle. You don't have to memorize any commands to use Windows on a day to day basis, you just have to have a basic undertstanding of where to look. For that reason alone, MS has gained quite a bit of perference. (Thanks in no small part to Apple.)
Somebody made a comment in an earlier article that said "Linux should win on it's technical superiority alone." Time has proven over and over again that's not true. People buy stuff with certain things in mind. That's why the Palm Pilot kicked Newton's butt. It was inferior in many ways, but it did what people wanted and didn't try to be more than that. That's even why PocketPC is having a terrible time keeping up with it.
It'd be interesting if a company that was making a distro of Linux would also make the interface for it (or collaborate really intimately with KDE/Gnome...) and make a "Windows desktop killer". MS has already answered a bunch of their design questions for them, so this part'd be easy. Make it as much like Windows as possible to start with. (I just know that comment's going to come back to haunt me) The interface should be clean and dirt simple. "You can visit the web, get email, write a document, or play a game." Then, to the more advanced users, expose the more technically interesting features. The advantage to this approach is that you can easily get new users initiated into the Linux world, and as they evolve they'll have plenty to explore. Having a list of badly spelt commands to memorize isn't going to attract the uninitiated.
In any case, the summary of my point is: Despite popular belief, both MS and Apple did do some things right. The Linux community should sit up and focus on that instead of trying to fix bugs. The market has proven bugs are okay as long as generally it's easy to use.
I honestly want to see Linux succeed. OSX has given me hope that it really could be a kick ass desktop OS. We all just need to remove ourselves from the shackles of "Everything MS does == bad".
"Superman would kick Batman's ass. Up. Down. Around the block. Back around the block."...which is exactly why Batman will win. Hollywood thinks that'd surprise us.
"ASk yourself this: How come you're spending SO MUCH time making SO MANY posts to SO MANY people who don't agree with you. Could it, perhaps, be, that you're WRONG?"
Nope. If I were wrong, people wouldn't have gotten so hostile with me right away. Instead they would have responded to me in a way that'd make me say "oh, you're right." I've done that before, it's not in my character to try to keep from losing face.
Your attempts to insult me here (and unwillingness to tell me where you're from, which makes me think you really are in the USA) are a reflection of all the silly responses that people have made. And your comment about the KKK was detestable. The "Your whole country is bad because it had the KKK" attitude is far worse than being 'self centered'. Not only is that oversimplification, but it's distracting from the real point. Which lends me to believe that you have no argument to my point, rather you're trying to win by making me get pissed of. Aint happenin. I aint that emotionally involved.
As for why I keep replying:
You all assume I want my phone to ring audibly in theater. I never said nor implied that.
You all assume I want to talk on the phone during a movie. I never said nor implied that.
You all assume that my desire to keep my phone available is petty. I never said that. As a matter of fact my original reason for not wanting it jammed is very understandable. Personally I think that my mentioning that I had a GF to keep an eye on rubbed a few people the wrong way. (Before you take personal offense at that, let me explain: right after I made that comment somebody mod-bombed me, costing me 5 karma points. That one comment got somebody so mad that they used all their mod points to 'teach me a lesson'. They went back to convos that hadn't been active for several days and modded me down. I also got a bunch of responses that were attacks on my gf, one referring to her as a 'cow'. I'm supposed to conceed because somebody thinks my gf is a cow? O_o oooookay)
So the real reason that I'm continuing to respond is bcause none of you are even close to understanding what I said, even though you touched on my point yourself... TWICE. I'll quote you again:
"There's no need to jam cell phones WHEN PEOPLE TURN THEM OFF VOLUNTARILY"
You said earlier that they are. Then, you conveniently take that back so you can argue with me. Which is a startling clue that cell phones really aren't that big of nuisance. (Let's face it, if they were, there'd already be strong attempts to stop it.)
So what's the point in being so extremist? It's incredibly selfish to say "I'm overly sensitive to this, therefore we should physically prevent that from happening no matter what the reasons are." Sorry, but I'm not the one being self centered here. The reason you think I am is because you think I want to annoy people at theaters. Let me explain this now: No I do not. Even though I almost never get calls, every time I go to a theater I set my phone to silent. That won't change because I do have respect for other people in the theater. Don't try to use that against me again. It's not worth it. The main reason I keep saying 'you dont understand what Im saying' is because you continue to apply stereotypes to me that aren't true. If you were to understand that I take every precaution I can to not disturb people, then you understand why I don't want to be punished for something that happens occasionally at best. If you still think I'm 100% wrong for feeling that, then there's no hope we'll ever come to some sort of agreement.
If you're going to write me a heated reply, then I would encourage you to read this one more time first. I have no desire to keep this stupid debate going. You are perfectly free to disagree with me, all I ask is that you understand why I feel the way I do. If it's because 'im a self centered American', then you are 100% missing the point of everything I have said, and you are a bigot to boot. If you can say "I see his reasoning now, but I don't agree with it." then it's settled, and we can move on.
Lightwave is down to $1,600 right now. I bought it for $1,000 early in the year because they were promoting Video Toaster 2. If you watched a VT2 demonstration, they'd sell you LW 7.5 for $1,000.
I'd recommend keeping an eye on Newtek's site, they're always running deals like that.
May I ask why you wanted open source in particular? Just curious because there really isn't a whole lot out there. Lightwave's probably the best deal you're going to get. (unless you want to purchase Maya and Renderman...)
"even newer midsized sedans really aren't that much more fuel efficient today than they were several years ago..." -- There is only so much energy petroleum can put out. I think we're close to it's limit really.
"and in my neighborhood it would seem that at least 25% of the traffic are vehicles like pickups, SUVs, jeeps, other large, inefficient vehicles, about 80% of which are carrying a single occupant."
This really isn't indicative of anything. Pickups aren't about passengers, they're about cargo. SUVs, well frankly I don't have a high opinion of them and won't defend them. I know one (1) guy that has an SUV that I approve of him having. He only drives it when he needs it. As a matter of fact, he helped me move with it heh.
Here's the thing, SUV's get like half the mileage of a mid-sized sedan. SUV's are popular, but at most I'd estimate that they account for no more than 25% of traffic on the road. If you cut them out completely and replaced them with sedans, the amount of emmissions wouldn't go down more than a few percent.
You're forgetting that there are lots of vehicles all over the country that NEED to run. Semis, Ambulances, Airplanes, etc. Lots of stuff that is related to public service or for shipping stuff like food and medical supplies.
Could people be more fuel effective? I think that'll always be true. The true solution is something like hydrogen based fuel-cell technology. Think about it, when that's done, your only concern will be how much money you spend. Emissions aren't a worry anymore at that point.
Personally, I think the oil will run out before we destroy the environment with it. Heh.
"Every movie theatre I've been to in the last few years has displayed a full-screen request before each movie asking you to switch off your cell phone - and most people in the theatre are polite enough and considerate enough to do so. These theatres don't need to "jam" phones..."
Oops, you just walked into my argument there buddy. I've been saying ALL ALONG that there is no need to jam cell phones. You conceded on that. End of story. I win. Thank you.
"because their clientele are not as rude and self-centred as you. But that's hardly surprising, since you're an American..."
Ooooo that's FUNNY!! I argued in the beginning that I was concerned about the welfare of my family, and the response I got from you was "I want cell phones jammed in theaters because they bug me, even though I just said that people are polite enough to turn them off."
I am the self centered one? I'm not the one crying because I'm worried about my precious movie. Heh. I think the proper phrase here is "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." Wow, I can't believe you self destructed your own argument just so you could take a dig at my being American. That is humorously petty.
So let me ask you something: Where are you from, anyway? Is it a common trait over there to make extremist assumptions about somebody you don't even know, or are you unusual over there? I'll tell ya something: stereotyping people is far worse than being 'self-centered'. That's gotta sting alot since you get so amped up over a silly movie.
Heh this is definitely one of the strangest posts I've seen in a long time, but it put a smile on my face. Thanks man.:) Have a good day.
The problem is that the USA is HUGE. If people cut out recreational driving all together, we'd still have emissions problems and we'd still be vulnerable to economic problems caused by ridiculously high demand for oil.
That's why you're recieving negative responses here. The 'cut your driving' solution won't do much, if any good. (The gas shortage in the 70's showed us that) What they need to do is come up with a more fuel efficient car. That's really the only practical solution.
I have a feeling that the parent post here got modded down because he didn't sing the praises of Linux. Never mind that the focus of this guy's post was about the faked Dual GPU picture that was mentioned in this article. No no, he said RedHat was 'masochistic'.
So what? If he found it hard to use, he's to get modded down for it? Yah, clever way to respond. Too bad whoever modded 'em down didn't have the balls to tell him why. Boy you really taught him a lesson: "Linux zealots are easy to tweak."
I really wish there was a (-1 NotFunny) moderation available. S
ometimes I can't tell if I got modded down because my joke wasn't funny or if it was because they didn't get my joke. It's kinda like trying to comb your hair without a mirror.
I'd normally dismiss this post as 'trolling' or flamebait, but sadly I think you believe what you're saying.
Let me explain something to you: Remember back in the late 70's when there was that gas shortage? That didn't result in a generation of 'pedestrians'. It's not because Americans love their cars too much, it's because believe it or not, we are dependent on them.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people go about their business on foot. I know you have this image in your head that people drive everywhere they can, but I really think your attitude would change if you were to visit Portland, Oregon. Nearly everybody I know in Portland walks where they can or has moved close to where they work, yet we still have a high volume of traffic. The simple fact of the matter is that places are too far away.
It's easy to say 'drive less'. However, you have to consider that in high traffic areas (or, in other words, the most polluted areas...) its not pleasant to drive. Nobody wants to be stuck in traffic. Nobody wants to drive bumper to bumper. And nobody wants to deal with stoplights. (as a matter of fact, Portlanders are taking the attitude that Stoplights are merely suggested driving.)
Trust me when I say that if we could get out of driving everywhere, most of us would. I know LOTS of people that were pissed about Webvan falling.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying, but the difference between 10% and 50% is a lot. I think we could easily reduce emissions by 50% if newer technologies were adopted. The plus is we wouldn't need to change our driving habits.
You seem to think that people can cut out driving. What I'm saying is that's not really true. Are there people that could make more economical choices (like not using an SUV when they dont need to?) yep. Not arguing that. But I don't think even a 10% drop in emissions would happen in that case.
(I doubt we'll agree with each other, wanna just agree to disagree? I'm not trying to fight with ya or anything.)
I think what'll kick people in the seat of the pants is a sharp increase in oil prices. I bought a new car a couple of weeks ago. (Honda Civic, gets about 35 mpg) I thought seriously hard about getting a hybrid that gets better mileage, but it drove up the price roughly $5,000. I didn't see myself saving that much money. The truth is I'm mostly a pedestrian (I moved to where I could walk to work) so it's not that big of deal.
I did the math and figured that gas would have to increase about 3x before a hybrid became worth the extra money. I have a 5 year loan on the car, I'm not sure that gas will go up 3x in that time. If it does, then I'll just have to eat it for a while.
But.. you know, there's murmurs that USA's going to invade Iraq. I personally hope it doesn't, but if it does it'll probably play hell with gas prices. If it does, we may see a lot of people take the initiative and get more efficient cars. But what I don't see happening is a drastic reduction in emissions over it.
I am curious if anybody correlated the data of gas emission with the gas shortage in the late 70's. I have a feeling that'll tell us that the difference wasn't that significant.
Though I agree with you, there is one small point I want to nitpick:
:)
"How is this ANY different to the linux user who doesn't know which command line tool to use?"
The difference is similar to the difference between driving a car with a manual transmission, and driving a commercial airliner. Both are vehicles. Both require at least some education to run. The airplane, though more sophisticated, has to go through a hell of a lot more steps in order to get moving anywhere.
That's the problem with Linux. It's not just a matter of knowing what command line tool to use, they have to know how each one works (and they're all different.). And they also have to know some basic things about the how the Linux file system works.
'Copy and Paste' is pretty much universal these days. Learn it once and you're good to go.
I'm not 100% disagreeing with your post, Im just going at that one little detail.
Hmmm. That's strange. When I did that, it returned FALSE.
Heh geek jokes
I did hear that the license plate on the Hummer read: "ALNPRSN"
Heh.
heh "I know you are but what am I?"
Yah, you're really taking your defeat gracefully. lol
... I keep having problems with people tailgating me.
Heh. "I couldn't win the argument, so I'll fling insults at you instead."
If you wanted to be really bad, place your cat on a scanner and grab an image of it. Then, print that image so that it's life size on a laser printer. (color might be detectable..) Then, fax that through. If it works, you might be able to convince somebody you tried to fax your cat to them. ;)
(yes, I was inspired by Gary Larson.)
Yeah, you're right, I think that made the difference.
Funny, I kinda thought the release of OSX would shift developers in a new direction. It runs on BSD, but the average user never needs to know the root password. That's pretty damn cool if you ask me. Most Mac users probably have no idea that they're running Unix. Heh.
One attitude I've noticed didn't get any attention, though: People are quick to dismiss any flavor of Windows because of 'stability issues' (that really don't relate to 2K or XP, but out of hatred for MS they bundle it all up anyway) and they act like MS pointed a gun at people's heads to make them buy it. They don't realize that what Windows does do right is what makes it successful, and it doesn't appear that Linux is heading in that direction.
The Windows interface, despite it's problems, is easy to use and presents you with little to no hasle. You don't have to memorize any commands to use Windows on a day to day basis, you just have to have a basic undertstanding of where to look. For that reason alone, MS has gained quite a bit of perference. (Thanks in no small part to Apple.)
Somebody made a comment in an earlier article that said "Linux should win on it's technical superiority alone." Time has proven over and over again that's not true. People buy stuff with certain things in mind. That's why the Palm Pilot kicked Newton's butt. It was inferior in many ways, but it did what people wanted and didn't try to be more than that. That's even why PocketPC is having a terrible time keeping up with it.
It'd be interesting if a company that was making a distro of Linux would also make the interface for it (or collaborate really intimately with KDE/Gnome...) and make a "Windows desktop killer". MS has already answered a bunch of their design questions for them, so this part'd be easy. Make it as much like Windows as possible to start with. (I just know that comment's going to come back to haunt me) The interface should be clean and dirt simple. "You can visit the web, get email, write a document, or play a game." Then, to the more advanced users, expose the more technically interesting features. The advantage to this approach is that you can easily get new users initiated into the Linux world, and as they evolve they'll have plenty to explore. Having a list of badly spelt commands to memorize isn't going to attract the uninitiated.
In any case, the summary of my point is: Despite popular belief, both MS and Apple did do some things right. The Linux community should sit up and focus on that instead of trying to fix bugs. The market has proven bugs are okay as long as generally it's easy to use.
I honestly want to see Linux succeed. OSX has given me hope that it really could be a kick ass desktop OS. We all just need to remove ourselves from the shackles of "Everything MS does == bad".
"Superman would kick Batman's ass. Up. Down. Around the block. Back around the block." ...which is exactly why Batman will win. Hollywood thinks that'd surprise us.
"ASk yourself this: How come you're spending SO MUCH time making SO MANY posts to SO MANY people who don't agree with you. Could it, perhaps, be, that you're WRONG?"
Nope. If I were wrong, people wouldn't have gotten so hostile with me right away. Instead they would have responded to me in a way that'd make me say "oh, you're right." I've done that before, it's not in my character to try to keep from losing face.
Your attempts to insult me here (and unwillingness to tell me where you're from, which makes me think you really are in the USA) are a reflection of all the silly responses that people have made. And your comment about the KKK was detestable. The "Your whole country is bad because it had the KKK" attitude is far worse than being 'self centered'. Not only is that oversimplification, but it's distracting from the real point. Which lends me to believe that you have no argument to my point, rather you're trying to win by making me get pissed of. Aint happenin. I aint that emotionally involved.
As for why I keep replying:
You all assume I want my phone to ring audibly in theater. I never said nor implied that.
You all assume I want to talk on the phone during a movie. I never said nor implied that.
You all assume that my desire to keep my phone available is petty. I never said that. As a matter of fact my original reason for not wanting it jammed is very understandable. Personally I think that my mentioning that I had a GF to keep an eye on rubbed a few people the wrong way. (Before you take personal offense at that, let me explain: right after I made that comment somebody mod-bombed me, costing me 5 karma points. That one comment got somebody so mad that they used all their mod points to 'teach me a lesson'. They went back to convos that hadn't been active for several days and modded me down. I also got a bunch of responses that were attacks on my gf, one referring to her as a 'cow'. I'm supposed to conceed because somebody thinks my gf is a cow? O_o oooookay)
So the real reason that I'm continuing to respond is bcause none of you are even close to understanding what I said, even though you touched on my point yourself... TWICE. I'll quote you again:
"There's no need to jam cell phones WHEN PEOPLE TURN THEM OFF VOLUNTARILY"
You said earlier that they are. Then, you conveniently take that back so you can argue with me. Which is a startling clue that cell phones really aren't that big of nuisance. (Let's face it, if they were, there'd already be strong attempts to stop it.)
So what's the point in being so extremist? It's incredibly selfish to say "I'm overly sensitive to this, therefore we should physically prevent that from happening no matter what the reasons are." Sorry, but I'm not the one being self centered here. The reason you think I am is because you think I want to annoy people at theaters. Let me explain this now: No I do not. Even though I almost never get calls, every time I go to a theater I set my phone to silent. That won't change because I do have respect for other people in the theater. Don't try to use that against me again. It's not worth it. The main reason I keep saying 'you dont understand what Im saying' is because you continue to apply stereotypes to me that aren't true. If you were to understand that I take every precaution I can to not disturb people, then you understand why I don't want to be punished for something that happens occasionally at best. If you still think I'm 100% wrong for feeling that, then there's no hope we'll ever come to some sort of agreement.
If you're going to write me a heated reply, then I would encourage you to read this one more time first. I have no desire to keep this stupid debate going. You are perfectly free to disagree with me, all I ask is that you understand why I feel the way I do. If it's because 'im a self centered American', then you are 100% missing the point of everything I have said, and you are a bigot to boot. If you can say "I see his reasoning now, but I don't agree with it." then it's settled, and we can move on.
Okay?
"on the desktop" has come along way in recent years, yet could still stand much improvement."
Amusing. Every time I say this I get modded down.
Lightwave is down to $1,600 right now. I bought it for $1,000 early in the year because they were promoting Video Toaster 2. If you watched a VT2 demonstration, they'd sell you LW 7.5 for $1,000.
I'd recommend keeping an eye on Newtek's site, they're always running deals like that.
May I ask why you wanted open source in particular? Just curious because there really isn't a whole lot out there. Lightwave's probably the best deal you're going to get. (unless you want to purchase Maya and Renderman...)
Heh I actually rewrote that a couple of times because it sounded exactly like you're suggesting. Heh.
"even newer midsized sedans really aren't that much more fuel efficient today than they were several years ago..." -- There is only so much energy petroleum can put out. I think we're close to it's limit really.
"and in my neighborhood it would seem that at least 25% of the traffic are vehicles like pickups, SUVs, jeeps, other large, inefficient vehicles, about 80% of which are carrying a single occupant."
This really isn't indicative of anything. Pickups aren't about passengers, they're about cargo. SUVs, well frankly I don't have a high opinion of them and won't defend them. I know one (1) guy that has an SUV that I approve of him having. He only drives it when he needs it. As a matter of fact, he helped me move with it heh.
Here's the thing, SUV's get like half the mileage of a mid-sized sedan. SUV's are popular, but at most I'd estimate that they account for no more than 25% of traffic on the road. If you cut them out completely and replaced them with sedans, the amount of emmissions wouldn't go down more than a few percent.
You're forgetting that there are lots of vehicles all over the country that NEED to run. Semis, Ambulances, Airplanes, etc. Lots of stuff that is related to public service or for shipping stuff like food and medical supplies.
Could people be more fuel effective? I think that'll always be true. The true solution is something like hydrogen based fuel-cell technology. Think about it, when that's done, your only concern will be how much money you spend. Emissions aren't a worry anymore at that point.
Personally, I think the oil will run out before we destroy the environment with it. Heh.
"Every movie theatre I've been to in the last few years has displayed a full-screen request before each movie asking you to switch off your cell phone - and most people in the theatre are polite enough and considerate enough to do so. These theatres don't need to "jam" phones..."
:) Have a good day.
Oops, you just walked into my argument there buddy. I've been saying ALL ALONG that there is no need to jam cell phones. You conceded on that. End of story. I win. Thank you.
"because their clientele are not as rude and self-centred as you. But that's hardly surprising, since you're an American..."
Ooooo that's FUNNY!! I argued in the beginning that I was concerned about the welfare of my family, and the response I got from you was "I want cell phones jammed in theaters because they bug me, even though I just said that people are polite enough to turn them off."
I am the self centered one? I'm not the one crying because I'm worried about my precious movie. Heh. I think the proper phrase here is "That's like the pot calling the kettle black." Wow, I can't believe you self destructed your own argument just so you could take a dig at my being American. That is humorously petty.
So let me ask you something: Where are you from, anyway? Is it a common trait over there to make extremist assumptions about somebody you don't even know, or are you unusual over there? I'll tell ya something: stereotyping people is far worse than being 'self-centered'. That's gotta sting alot since you get so amped up over a silly movie.
Heh this is definitely one of the strangest posts I've seen in a long time, but it put a smile on my face. Thanks man.
The problem is that the USA is HUGE. If people cut out recreational driving all together, we'd still have emissions problems and we'd still be vulnerable to economic problems caused by ridiculously high demand for oil.
That's why you're recieving negative responses here. The 'cut your driving' solution won't do much, if any good. (The gas shortage in the 70's showed us that) What they need to do is come up with a more fuel efficient car. That's really the only practical solution.
We're willing to put our money behind that.
I have a feeling that the parent post here got modded down because he didn't sing the praises of Linux. Never mind that the focus of this guy's post was about the faked Dual GPU picture that was mentioned in this article. No no, he said RedHat was 'masochistic'.
So what? If he found it hard to use, he's to get modded down for it? Yah, clever way to respond. Too bad whoever modded 'em down didn't have the balls to tell him why. Boy you really taught him a lesson: "Linux zealots are easy to tweak."
All this over an opinion.
Geez dude, how'd you find those images? Heh.
:))
A little masochistic, dontcha think?
(Interesting read, though.
heh I can see that the recent article about video games slowing down brains has visible results. ;)
I really wish there was a (-1 NotFunny) moderation available. S
ometimes I can't tell if I got modded down because my joke wasn't funny or if it was because they didn't get my joke. It's kinda like trying to comb your hair without a mirror.
... at darwinawards.com.
"got crowded off the net by 3,000 nerds downloading pr0n..."
How could it get that crowded? Jpeg files are very small!
I'd normally dismiss this post as 'trolling' or flamebait, but sadly I think you believe what you're saying.
Let me explain something to you: Remember back in the late 70's when there was that gas shortage? That didn't result in a generation of 'pedestrians'. It's not because Americans love their cars too much, it's because believe it or not, we are dependent on them.
I think you'd be surprised at how many people go about their business on foot. I know you have this image in your head that people drive everywhere they can, but I really think your attitude would change if you were to visit Portland, Oregon. Nearly everybody I know in Portland walks where they can or has moved close to where they work, yet we still have a high volume of traffic. The simple fact of the matter is that places are too far away.
It's easy to say 'drive less'. However, you have to consider that in high traffic areas (or, in other words, the most polluted areas...) its not pleasant to drive. Nobody wants to be stuck in traffic. Nobody wants to drive bumper to bumper. And nobody wants to deal with stoplights. (as a matter of fact, Portlanders are taking the attitude that Stoplights are merely suggested driving.)
Trust me when I say that if we could get out of driving everywhere, most of us would. I know LOTS of people that were pissed about Webvan falling.
Unfortunately, the airbag would have to be manually inflated. Unless you're giving Monica Lewinski a ride, it has no chance of inflating at time.