Great, more moderation abuse on Slashdot. You know, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean it has to be censored. Funny how this is on the same day with a discussion criticising Microsoft for censoring things in China.
I actually agree with it, mouse and keyboard are horrible. You need about thirty fingers to manage to play it. With consoles you can concentrate on playing the game rather than obsessing over the controls. Also you get to play with normal people rather than obessesive gamers who spend 30 hours a day practicing, and the other 5 configuring the keyboard/mouse to give them optimal speed/accuracy. It just a game people!
Also in online play the keyboard is used more often than not to spout racist/sexist abuse to other players.
Without Minix, no Linux. Does that mean that Minux still has a use? I can't really think of any situation that warrants using Debian.
For the latest and greatest, you're probably better off with a distro based on RPMs, most Linux software seems to be released with RPMs,.debs are a more rare.
I can't say anything about Suse as I haven't used it.
Well, if that website's anything to go by, it's probably not a very good GUI. It makes you download the image TWICE. Not only does it make you download a slightly-scaled version of the first screenshot rather than a thumbnail (like every sensible web designer would do), when you click on the thumbnail it downloads a slightly-scaled-down version of the picture, and you have to click on that to get the real picture.
And then there's a lovely horizontal frame. My favourite...
I wonder if they've fixed the install program which makes you have to reboot and go right back to the start every time you change your mind about something. Debian was the first Linux distro I installed, and when installing, if you made a mistake or wanted to change something, there was no way to go back in the installer, you had to start all over again.
Unless that site prides in portraying itself as anti-censorship.
When does slashdot portray itself as a site against censorship on private sites? Articles about censorship on here are generally about government censorship. Your point is invalid.
How can you sell software at a loss? The costs for each copy are low, just the costs of printing the CD and distributing it. All the money's already been put in before it hits the shelves, it's not like the developers get a bonus for every copy sold. They could sell each copy for $5 and still it wouldn't be at a loss as long as they sold a lot of them.
Why does no-one complain about Adobe having a monopoly in their field? How can you criticise Microsoft for having a monopoly when you can just download Linux or get a Mac?
Not really, the average woman looks better.. Also only one of them is a woman, the other two are men. The woman is definitely obese, worse looking than average. Why settle for a poor average? Aim higher, then perhaps women might start to look after themselves better, start eating better and exercising.
"Actual live women do not look like porn stars"
So porn is made using CGI? Oh no wait, they use real women. Attractive women, who actually look after themselves. There are decent-looking women out there, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to settle for medeocrity.
You wouldn't criticise someone for wanting properly-cooked fresh food rather than McDonalds, so how can you criticise someone for wanting nice women rather than obese ones?
and society doesn't seem to be collapsing with pregnant kids.
I assume this is a joke?
I'm not a parent, and I'm curious. Why do parents feel the need to hide pornography?
Yeah, you're not a parent, so your opinion doesn't really count for too much. If you were a parent, I'm sure you wouldn't like the thought of your 5 year old child going to school to be shown images of men with giant penises anally raping and ejaculating over women. Of course the children would end up thinking that such behaviour was normal and acceptable, and would imitate it. You'd be the first to complain when some boys who've spent years at school seeing pictures of hardcore pornography decided to emulate it on your 6 year old daughter, capturing her at lunchtime, dragging her behind some trees and raping her in every hole they can find.
The whole point of Star Wars is to sell merchandising to 7 year olds. That's the target audience. Why else do you think the plot was so simple and clichéd, the dialogue so unintelligent and embarassingly cheesy, the special effects vulgar and over-done, and the acting wooden? That's the sort of thing which appeals to 7 year olds, who then beg their parents for a Darth Vader toy for Christmas.
That's funny, I could have sworn that humans are omnivorous. A herbivore doesn't eat meat, humans eat meat, therefore humans are not herbivores. QED. Also it wouldn't be much fun being a herbivore with a digestive system that cannot digest cellulose, which forms the staple of most herbivorous diets. If humans were herbivorous most of our food would end up being shat out undigested.
Vegeterians generally eat things like grain and sugar which are unavailable without modern artificial processing methods, meaning it's hardly a natural diet. Most of the food available to a vegetarian in the wild (with no flour mill or sugar refinery) are low energy sources, such as greens and root vegetables. That is why herbivores spend most of their time foraging for food. Not really suitable for a human with high energy requirements and other things to do than find food.
Also herbivores have eyes on the sides of their heads to see predators who want to eat them. Omnivores and carnivores have eyes on the front of their heads for chasing prey. Guess where humans have their eyes?
For a website that makes such noise about being anti-censorship these are pretty funny actions.
There's nothing wrong with censorship on a private site. Complaints about censorship apply to governments and other authorities stopping people exchanging certain information, i.e. passing laws banning obscene material. That's completely different from say a shop refusing to sell porn magazines. Slashdot has no obligation to post anyone's comments at all, but that doesn't mean that government censorship is acceptable.
This discussion also begs the question of the value of dissidents using anonymous Slashdot postings to get their message out. Is anything really changed by some Chinaman bitching about being opressed? If he posts it anonymously, no-one will read it because no-one is reading Anonymous Coward comments because they're 99% crapfloods. The irony of this is, if you want dissidents to be able to provide information anonymously, there needs to be a system to filter out the crapfloods and trolls. Maybe if the lameness-filter and moderation systems were less broken and corrupt, no IPs would need to be banned. But that would require both better programming from the site administrators, and more maturity and intelligence from the moderators. Are either likely?
I'd have thought the same reason people steal cars: they can be gutted for the parts. All those electronics can probably fetch a nice sum for some broke student, and when you're carrying a bin around no-one suspects you of being a thief. You could probably return the bin afterwards as well so no-one would notice it was missing.
Sounds like any time there's any criticism of user-interfaces, some poor-programmer apologist comes out saying that no interfaces are completely intuitive. Maybe not, but that doesn't mean there isn't a scale of user-friendliness. It's not all or nothing, people who say things like you either program or use poorly-designed software and don't want to admit that the interface is poor.
In that case, surely open source software, with no management, and no set deadlines, and no corners to cut, why isn't open source software significantly superior to commercially-produced software? Why do open source programs have all the same problems?
I would. The sort of humour in the Simpsons gets old pretty fast. It's largely based on clichés and stereotypes, which is OK if used briefly but eventually you get sick of it. It becomes predictable, you can see the jokes a mile away so they're not funny. You know when Lionel Hutz comes on it's going to be a joke about him being an corrupt lawyer, when Chief Wiggum comes on it's going to be a joke about the police being incompetent, with Fat Tony it's endless mafia jokes.
If you want something funny watch Family Guy, the jokes are more original and they're unexpected, so they're actually funny. Not funny in a Simpsons-esque 'raises a brief smirk' sort of funny, but laugh out loud funny. For example in real life if someone sits on a chair and it collapses, it's hilarious. If you know beforehand that the chair is going to collapse, it's nowhere near as funny. That's the problem with basing your jokes on satire and stereotypes, it's predictable. Also Family Guy doesn't have the endless sentimentality and morality-plays that Groening is obsessed with.
There's a reason it's still around.
Probably the same reason Friends was around so long, and a lot of other programs which continued long after their expiry date. People watch it out of habit and because they like the characters, rather because it's well-written. It's more like a soap in a way. As Troy McLure said, it'll continue as long as it remains profitable. There's too much money in the Simpsons to cancel it, even if they have long since run out of ideas.
No, the divisions are done in order. Therefore km/s/s means taking the km, dividing by the first s, then dividing by the second s. The original poster is techically correct, although not using a very common notation.
because this is where the series is grounded - it's where rose comes from, and it's where the viewer comes from. this isn't about pure escapism, it's about relating these outlandish situations to things people can understand.
Or probably to do with the lack of imagination of the scriptwriter. The old Doctor Whos might have all been filmed in the same quarry, but they at least pretended it was some distant planet. All the new episodes seem to be set in 21st century London or Cardiff. No imagination at all. Either that or the London-centric bias of the BBC. Like the way the new TV weather system was aimed entirely at people who live in London. The BBC is a very insular organisation, run by the London dinner-party set. Much like the rest of the UK media, they don't think anything exists out of the M25.
A bit funny that a machine which can travel through the whole of space and time it stuck in a couple of cities within a few decades. Why even bother with a tardis, surely the Tube would suffice?
The problem with that is, how do you remember all those phrases? Are you sure you're going to:
a. Remember what the phrases are for every single place you have a password for. b. Remember what the exact wording of the phrases are. c. Remember the case sensitivity?
This doesn't really solve any problems, I think it just causes more to replace them. I keep my passwords written down on a piece of paper.
CLIs aren't a glamorous, exciting field. No-one wants to spend their time developing some obscure part of the system that not many people really think about, especially when there are more interesting things to work on like GUI programs and browser extensions. As a result, the CLI world is largely stagnant.
I'm not so sure about that. What company has done nothing but evil? I think you're exagerating.
Innovation? I don't really know where you're coming from with that. As far as I'm aware, Google makes the lion's share of its profit from advertising and selling shares. They sell adverts using a search engine. They didn't invent that, it's an existing system with a few alterations. Context-based adverts were invented elsewhere. They just managed to get enough eye-balls to sell a lot of advert space. It's not like the results are much good either. Most sites on ALL search engines are crap, mainly because most of the Internet itself is crap. Short of AI, we're never going to hav a really good search engine. Sorting links based on popularity just gives you bland mainstream sites and fluff sites rather than solid information.
People here criticise Microsoft for being a purely marketing-based company, but is being a purely advertising-based company much better? Should we worship a company whose entire raison d'être is to get us to look at their adverts? The services they are currently developing (gmail etc.) don't seem to have a business model yet, but I'm sure it will revolve around advertising.
I think most of this fawning over Google is because for once we have a large successful IT-based company which seems to have good intentions, rather than because of their tangible achievements.
I think what he means is, it might not be a good idea for all these clever people to be rounded up like cattle, and, rather than advancing technology, being used to tweak the interfaces on web services and other insignificant things.
Most companies don't die from direct competition (i.e. OS vs OS) but from asymmetric competition (i.e. OS vs cool thing that makes OS less relevant).
What cool things are these? Is google releasing some web service that allocates memory for my programs and organised the files on my hard disk? I hear a lot about Google's 'innovations' but I've not seen much in solid inventions yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, more moderation abuse on Slashdot. You know, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean it has to be censored. Funny how this is on the same day with a discussion criticising Microsoft for censoring things in China.
I actually agree with it, mouse and keyboard are horrible. You need about thirty fingers to manage to play it. With consoles you can concentrate on playing the game rather than obsessing over the controls. Also you get to play with normal people rather than obessesive gamers who spend 30 hours a day practicing, and the other 5 configuring the keyboard/mouse to give them optimal speed/accuracy. It just a game people!
Also in online play the keyboard is used more often than not to spout racist/sexist abuse to other players.
1) Without Debian, no Ubutnu.
.debs are a more rare.
Without Minix, no Linux. Does that mean that Minux still has a use? I can't really think of any situation that warrants using Debian.
For the latest and greatest, you're probably better off with a distro based on RPMs, most Linux software seems to be released with RPMs,
I can't say anything about Suse as I haven't used it.
Well, if that website's anything to go by, it's probably not a very good GUI. It makes you download the image TWICE. Not only does it make you download a slightly-scaled version of the first screenshot rather than a thumbnail (like every sensible web designer would do), when you click on the thumbnail it downloads a slightly-scaled-down version of the picture, and you have to click on that to get the real picture.
And then there's a lovely horizontal frame. My favourite...
I wonder if they've fixed the install program which makes you have to reboot and go right back to the start every time you change your mind about something. Debian was the first Linux distro I installed, and when installing, if you made a mistake or wanted to change something, there was no way to go back in the installer, you had to start all over again.
Well, it doesn't appear to be working. Burger King is still in business.
What is the straight edge crowd?
Well, tough. No private site is obliged to store and transmit your information. The sense of entitlement around here astounds me.
Unless that site prides in portraying itself as anti-censorship.
When does slashdot portray itself as a site against censorship on private sites? Articles about censorship on here are generally about government censorship. Your point is invalid.
"Some Chinaman"? Enough said.
I'm sorry I don't follow.
How can you sell software at a loss? The costs for each copy are low, just the costs of printing the CD and distributing it. All the money's already been put in before it hits the shelves, it's not like the developers get a bonus for every copy sold. They could sell each copy for $5 and still it wouldn't be at a loss as long as they sold a lot of them.
Why does no-one complain about Adobe having a monopoly in their field? How can you criticise Microsoft for having a monopoly when you can just download Linux or get a Mac?
Those look like perfectly average women to me.
Not really, the average woman looks better.. Also only one of them is a woman, the other two are men. The woman is definitely obese, worse looking than average. Why settle for a poor average? Aim higher, then perhaps women might start to look after themselves better, start eating better and exercising.
"Actual live women do not look like porn stars"
So porn is made using CGI? Oh no wait, they use real women. Attractive women, who actually look after themselves. There are decent-looking women out there, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to settle for medeocrity.
You wouldn't criticise someone for wanting properly-cooked fresh food rather than McDonalds, so how can you criticise someone for wanting nice women rather than obese ones?
and society doesn't seem to be collapsing with pregnant kids.
I assume this is a joke?
I'm not a parent, and I'm curious. Why do parents feel the need to hide pornography?
Yeah, you're not a parent, so your opinion doesn't really count for too much. If you were a parent, I'm sure you wouldn't like the thought of your 5 year old child going to school to be shown images of men with giant penises anally raping and ejaculating over women. Of course the children would end up thinking that such behaviour was normal and acceptable, and would imitate it. You'd be the first to complain when some boys who've spent years at school seeing pictures of hardcore pornography decided to emulate it on your 6 year old daughter, capturing her at lunchtime, dragging her behind some trees and raping her in every hole they can find.
The whole point of Star Wars is to sell merchandising to 7 year olds. That's the target audience. Why else do you think the plot was so simple and clichéd, the dialogue so unintelligent and embarassingly cheesy, the special effects vulgar and over-done, and the acting wooden? That's the sort of thing which appeals to 7 year olds, who then beg their parents for a Darth Vader toy for Christmas.
That's funny, I could have sworn that humans are omnivorous. A herbivore doesn't eat meat, humans eat meat, therefore humans are not herbivores. QED. Also it wouldn't be much fun being a herbivore with a digestive system that cannot digest cellulose, which forms the staple of most herbivorous diets. If humans were herbivorous most of our food would end up being shat out undigested.
Vegeterians generally eat things like grain and sugar which are unavailable without modern artificial processing methods, meaning it's hardly a natural diet. Most of the food available to a vegetarian in the wild (with no flour mill or sugar refinery) are low energy sources, such as greens and root vegetables. That is why herbivores spend most of their time foraging for food. Not really suitable for a human with high energy requirements and other things to do than find food.
Also herbivores have eyes on the sides of their heads to see predators who want to eat them. Omnivores and carnivores have eyes on the front of their heads for chasing prey. Guess where humans have their eyes?
For a website that makes such noise about being anti-censorship these are pretty funny actions.
There's nothing wrong with censorship on a private site. Complaints about censorship apply to governments and other authorities stopping people exchanging certain information, i.e. passing laws banning obscene material. That's completely different from say a shop refusing to sell porn magazines. Slashdot has no obligation to post anyone's comments at all, but that doesn't mean that government censorship is acceptable.
This discussion also begs the question of the value of dissidents using anonymous Slashdot postings to get their message out. Is anything really changed by some Chinaman bitching about being opressed? If he posts it anonymously, no-one will read it because no-one is reading Anonymous Coward comments because they're 99% crapfloods. The irony of this is, if you want dissidents to be able to provide information anonymously, there needs to be a system to filter out the crapfloods and trolls. Maybe if the lameness-filter and moderation systems were less broken and corrupt, no IPs would need to be banned. But that would require both better programming from the site administrators, and more maturity and intelligence from the moderators. Are either likely?
I'd have thought the same reason people steal cars: they can be gutted for the parts. All those electronics can probably fetch a nice sum for some broke student, and when you're carrying a bin around no-one suspects you of being a thief. You could probably return the bin afterwards as well so no-one would notice it was missing.
Sounds like any time there's any criticism of user-interfaces, some poor-programmer apologist comes out saying that no interfaces are completely intuitive. Maybe not, but that doesn't mean there isn't a scale of user-friendliness. It's not all or nothing, people who say things like you either program or use poorly-designed software and don't want to admit that the interface is poor.
In that case, surely open source software, with no management, and no set deadlines, and no corners to cut, why isn't open source software significantly superior to commercially-produced software? Why do open source programs have all the same problems?
but I wouldn't say it's stopped being funny.
I would. The sort of humour in the Simpsons gets old pretty fast. It's largely based on clichés and stereotypes, which is OK if used briefly but eventually you get sick of it. It becomes predictable, you can see the jokes a mile away so they're not funny. You know when Lionel Hutz comes on it's going to be a joke about him being an corrupt lawyer, when Chief Wiggum comes on it's going to be a joke about the police being incompetent, with Fat Tony it's endless mafia jokes.
If you want something funny watch Family Guy, the jokes are more original and they're unexpected, so they're actually funny. Not funny in a Simpsons-esque 'raises a brief smirk' sort of funny, but laugh out loud funny. For example in real life if someone sits on a chair and it collapses, it's hilarious. If you know beforehand that the chair is going to collapse, it's nowhere near as funny. That's the problem with basing your jokes on satire and stereotypes, it's predictable. Also Family Guy doesn't have the endless sentimentality and morality-plays that Groening is obsessed with.
There's a reason it's still around.
Probably the same reason Friends was around so long, and a lot of other programs which continued long after their expiry date. People watch it out of habit and because they like the characters, rather because it's well-written. It's more like a soap in a way. As Troy McLure said, it'll continue as long as it remains profitable. There's too much money in the Simpsons to cancel it, even if they have long since run out of ideas.
No, the divisions are done in order. Therefore km/s/s means taking the km, dividing by the first s, then dividing by the second s. The original poster is techically correct, although not using a very common notation.
So why go to early 21st century London so often?
because this is where the series is grounded - it's where rose comes from, and it's where the viewer comes from. this isn't about pure escapism, it's about relating these outlandish situations to things people can understand.
Or probably to do with the lack of imagination of the scriptwriter. The old Doctor Whos might have all been filmed in the same quarry, but they at least pretended it was some distant planet. All the new episodes seem to be set in 21st century London or Cardiff. No imagination at all. Either that or the London-centric bias of the BBC. Like the way the new TV weather system was aimed entirely at people who live in London. The BBC is a very insular organisation, run by the London dinner-party set. Much like the rest of the UK media, they don't think anything exists out of the M25.
A bit funny that a machine which can travel through the whole of space and time it stuck in a couple of cities within a few decades. Why even bother with a tardis, surely the Tube would suffice?
The problem with that is, how do you remember all those phrases? Are you sure you're going to:
a. Remember what the phrases are for every single place you have a password for.
b. Remember what the exact wording of the phrases are.
c. Remember the case sensitivity?
This doesn't really solve any problems, I think it just causes more to replace them. I keep my passwords written down on a piece of paper.
CLIs aren't a glamorous, exciting field. No-one wants to spend their time developing some obscure part of the system that not many people really think about, especially when there are more interesting things to work on like GUI programs and browser extensions. As a result, the CLI world is largely stagnant.
Tony Blair isn't an idiot, he's intelligent, he knows exactly what he's doing. He's just an egotistical cunt, that's all.
George Bush looks like a fish out of water, I don't really know what he stands for, and I don't think he does either.
If it were a bet, that would be odds of 3/2. You could probably make more money betting on horses.
I'm not so sure about that. What company has done nothing but evil? I think you're exagerating.
Innovation? I don't really know where you're coming from with that. As far as I'm aware, Google makes the lion's share of its profit from advertising and selling shares. They sell adverts using a search engine. They didn't invent that, it's an existing system with a few alterations. Context-based adverts were invented elsewhere. They just managed to get enough eye-balls to sell a lot of advert space. It's not like the results are much good either. Most sites on ALL search engines are crap, mainly because most of the Internet itself is crap. Short of AI, we're never going to hav a really good search engine. Sorting links based on popularity just gives you bland mainstream sites and fluff sites rather than solid information.
People here criticise Microsoft for being a purely marketing-based company, but is being a purely advertising-based company much better? Should we worship a company whose entire raison d'être is to get us to look at their adverts? The services they are currently developing (gmail etc.) don't seem to have a business model yet, but I'm sure it will revolve around advertising.
I think most of this fawning over Google is because for once we have a large successful IT-based company which seems to have good intentions, rather than because of their tangible achievements.
I think what he means is, it might not be a good idea for all these clever people to be rounded up like cattle, and, rather than advancing technology, being used to tweak the interfaces on web services and other insignificant things.
Most companies don't die from direct competition (i.e. OS vs OS) but from asymmetric competition (i.e. OS vs cool thing that makes OS less relevant).
What cool things are these? Is google releasing some web service that allocates memory for my programs and organised the files on my hard disk? I hear a lot about Google's 'innovations' but I've not seen much in solid inventions yet.