Seriously, I've just thought of a great new Firefox extension: An extension that changes any it.slashdot.org address into a normal slashdot.org address, meaning no-one would ever have to see the IT colour scheme ever again. Think of how many people would be saved from going blind.
No big deal, no, unless it's on a site that you can't refresh, or on a large page (like slashdot) that takes ages to redownload. Not everyone's on a T3 you know.
Personally I think it would be a good idea to have a 'rerender' command next to 'reload' in the menu that just rerenders the page without downloading it.
>>They expire. Relatively quickly. As in, within my lifetime >I don't want to wait a lifetimefor new technology.
What has new technology got to do with existing patents? Surely new technology means inventing new things rather than using things that have already been invented?
In 7 years anyone can make an iPod I don't want to wait 7 years for innovation in the handheld mp3 player (iPod dominated) market..
Since when does 'innovation' in a market involve using other people's patented technology? I thought innovation meant inventing new things?
"Is there a better substitute to capitalism?" F*£@ yeah. there sure f****** is.
The nutrition paper from my PE course last year was most enlightening on rubbish like this. If you already have a balanced diet, extra vitamins will do nothing to help you fight off nasties.
I think that's the point. How many people in college have a balanced diet? I'd say none of them. When you're still trying to work out how to cook for yourself, pizza is easy.
I think you underestimate how huge the black market of non-taxed goods will become when buying things becomes the main source of taxes.
Also, it's pretty pretentious to call your particular favoured tax-system 'Fair Tax'. That would be like me writing an operating system and calling it 'Greatest OS', whether or not it was actually the greatest. 'Fair' is a subjective term.
Have you ever thought woman like men who are providers and do things for them. The drink test really is a subconcious test to see what kind of provider you are for them.
Yes, women like men who provide things for them. The same is true the other way round. I'd like it if an ugly woman bought me things. But would I be sexually interested in her? No. Buying things for a woman demonstrates one thing: that you're undesirable and have to try to buy favour, you have to supplicate because you have the lower part of the relationship. Women don't want a man who's below them, they want a man who's above her, and doesn't actually need her.
I am a gentleman and women like men who go out of their way to please them. Trust me on this.
It all depends on whether your world-view is based on reality or cosy fantasy.
Ah, fastseduction.com! Completely forgot about those dorks. I figured they abandoned their tripe and got into the 'penis enlargement' game, where the REAL money is made.
Yeah, so much money in there that it's a FREE, non-commercial site. Even the webmaster (a nerd who can now get laid thanks to the material on that site) has to beg for donations to keep the site running. People donate because it's a useful service, there's no deception to get you to pay for things, people help each other on there.
That site's a bit like open source software, in a way. Anyone can get the material for free, anyone can alter it to their needs, anyone can contribute. If your contributions are good, they're accepted by the community. If they're bad, they're rejected by the community. It's a true democracy, you're judged on how good you are, how much you try, and how much you help others.
Anyone can make some material and sell it themselves if they want, no-one bitches at them for selling out. In fact if the material's good people will be willing to pay for it.
A thing that makes people not like this site it's the brutality of it. It's reality exposed, no edges smoothed off, no dumbing down, no political correctness. It teaches men that their women who they thought didn't put out because they wanted it to be special, are actually having sex with other men. It teaches men that they've been lied to by society.
Men are brought up on sitcoms telling them that women are special and have to be worshipped before they'll like you, and that if you even THINK about having sex with them before you've been plying them with gifts and a relationship for years then you're an evil mysogynistic loser who doesn't deserve any sex ever. They're brought up to think that women are pure and don't have sex with anyone unless it's in a solid long-term relationship or marriage, and that if your girlfriend won't give you sex, it's tough, you're a shallow loser unless you say 'yes dear' and go home and jerk yourself off.
This site shatters all these illusions. It shows them that women craze sex constantly, and that if your girlfriend isn't having sex with you, she's probably having it with someone else. It shows them that women are going to have sex with someone, so it may as well be you.
then maybe I'd be the kind of chick this stuff would work on. But I'm not, I'm here instead;)
If you're a human, then you have a brain. This brain works in predictable ways. Everyone is like that. That's why psychology exists. If everyone behaved completely differently there would be no psychiatrists because they wouldn't know what to do.
The truth is, everyone is predictable, everyone's minds behave in predictable ways, no-one is above it. Saying 'I'm not like those other people' is a fallacy. All women, when it comes to interaction with men, have a general observable pattern of behaviours which is generally consistent across all of them. To deny this is to deny the entire field of psychology.
That's why fastseduction works. It's based on experimentation and observation. After enough interaction with women (not just the 'sluts' as some people put it, but even the 'quality' women who don't put out (they say)), you begin to learn how they work, and it's very consistent.
Women deny it because it destroys the fantasy that they're valuable and special, that they don't constantly think about and crave sex, but instead want a nice stable relationship with a 'nice guy' who buys her flowers every day.
Wow, you're a sexist bastard, calling every single semi-attractive women in the world 'shallow'. I'm surprised the feminist moderators haven't slaughtered you for that.
So shallow, in fact, that a static guidebook can demonstrate exactly how they'll behave in a wide variety of situations.
Ever heard of psychology books? They seem to pretty well demonstrate the behaviour of humans in general. I suppose that makes everyone in the world shallow.
I find the techniques described in it to be incredibly useful for pointing out the girls that I don't need to waste time on.
Yeah, men like to have this illusion that there are two types of women: one sort who are shallow sluts who sleep with anyone who uses dirty 'techniques', and another who are valuable and special, don't have sex until marriage etc, and can only be conquered by an honest nice guy who treats her like a princess. It's an illusion that works well until you realise it's exactly the same women. The boyfriend who's spending all his money on her thinks the latter, the bloke who's porking her at the weekends thinks the former. As far as they're both concerned they're both right.
>Overrated, a matter of taste and preference, and in any case there are products that are IE-based >that will give you that.
Yeah, a matter of preference in Firefox, in IE you have no preference, you get what you're given. Also, why should I need to hunt down, download and install 'products' just to get simple functionality which is in Firefox by default? Isn't it always the MS types criticising open source software for making the user jump through hoops to achieve simple tasks?
First of all, that's only an option for people running Windows XP with a massive connection or lots of time. Even then, what's the comparison between downloading SP2 and downloading Firefox? One solves the problem permanently, one just until the next crop of problems come up.
On another note, why do you have to download entire OS service pack just to fix the fundamental flaws in the browser? If I fix a hole in Firefox I don't need to download a new Linux kernel and upgrade gnome, so why do I have to do a similar thing for IE? I've been burnt using IE too many times, and Firefox is ten times the browser it will ever be, so why go back? Just so I can support MS's vice-like grip on the desktop, keeping Bill Gates in a gold house?
What about orcs, or trolls? Without them, who on earth are the people playing the men, elves, dwarves and hobbits going to fight against? Mobs? I can see that getting old after, what, 4 minutes.
Yeah, a fanboy site speculating, but they're still right. There's so much money to be made for episodes seven to nine NOT to be made.
Re:More IT Myths
on
IT Myths
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's why relationships are a bad idea. It's best to stick to temporary partners, that way you get all of the sex (and a greater variety of it) without the pointless hassle of a relationship. The women prefer it as well (even if they don't admit it).
Good. The last thing people want is to pay insurance costs to cover the damages caused by people breaking the law on the road. Perhaps people might driver somewhat better if they knew that if they crashed their car whilst doing 50 in a residential area they wouldn't get anything from the insurance.
Yeah, imagine that, expecting you to pay for the damages you've caused! How absurd! Making people responsible for their actions is just the start of a slippery slope...
Of course, you'll be the first one complaining on Slashdot when you end up being managed by someone who is far less skilled than you, but actually bothered to learn how to interact with people. I suppose you'll be able to content yourself by putting up Dilbert cartoons on the walls and reminding yourself how intelligent and great you are.
When you say that women should "put up with the insults and the criticism that men receive" you assume that men and women receive equal amounts of insults. They don't. How many jokes do you hear insulting men? Compare that to the number of jokes you hear insulting women. That alone makes women feel inferior.
You must be joking. I'm not just talking about jokes, I'm talking about general piss-taking. Have you never spent any time in an all-male environment? All they do is insult each other. If women can't take any of this then how can they have any pretenses to be held as equals? Do we really want computer science taken over by people who aren't even thick-skinned enough to partake in any banter without running home crying?
I think this entire discussion begs the question of whether we actually want to attract women into computer science. I mean, just look at this from the HOWTO:
3.1. Don't tell sexist jokes 3.2. Do protest sexist jokes
It seems that having women in computer science means turning into a dull, politically-correct drone who whines when anyone ever says anything that might offend someone. Is this really what we want?
3.3. Don't call people bitches 3.15. Don't criticize too much 3.21. Don't make your meetings hard to attend
It seems that his HOWTO in one breath says that women are just as capable as men, then in the next breath starts telling us not to be too hard on them, not to insult them, not to criticise them and to go out of our way to make things easy for them.
As far as I'm concerned, if they want to play on an even playing field with men, then they can put up with the insults and the criticism that men receive. If they don't like it, then I don't think we have any obligation to accomodate them.
If you said "transmuting lead into gold? That sounds kind of retarded!" The alchemist would say "oh you silly little man you don't have the same mathematical talents I do, now just go away!"
I now laugh at all high and mighty alchemists who belittled doubters.
Why? Because their theories weren't true? I didn't realise that we were supposed to laugh every time a scientist researched something but didn't get anywhere. In fact I thought that's how it worked: someone comes up with a hypothesis, investigates it and sees whether it's true or not. If it's true great, if not then try something different.
The alchemists MIGHT have found that they could turn lead into gold. In those days not much was known about chemistry so it was logical to think that it might have been possible. Of course it's difficult and hard work to conduct scientific research, and very easy to sit on your arse criticising people.
That's great, for Debian. I'm sure the newbies who are not very computer literate are going to love using command line utilities that work some of the time, and a distribution that is nowhere near aimed for newbies. You can't just pick and choose the features from each distro you want when you're showing yhow great Linux is. The conversation often goes like this:
"I don't like command lines" "Then use Mandrake" "OK, now the software is a bitch to install" "Then use Debian" "OK, how the hardware is a bitch to install" "Then use Mandrake"...and so on.
Also OT: can someone at slashdot please fix the bug where the post editing window is wider than the screen on firefox? Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, I've just thought of a great new Firefox extension: An extension that changes any it.slashdot.org address into a normal slashdot.org address, meaning no-one would ever have to see the IT colour scheme ever again. Think of how many people would be saved from going blind.
No big deal, no, unless it's on a site that you can't refresh, or on a large page (like slashdot) that takes ages to redownload. Not everyone's on a T3 you know.
Personally I think it would be a good idea to have a 'rerender' command next to 'reload' in the menu that just rerenders the page without downloading it.
>>They expire. Relatively quickly. As in, within my lifetime
>I don't want to wait a lifetimefor new technology.
What has new technology got to do with existing patents? Surely new technology means inventing new things rather than using things that have already been invented?
In 7 years anyone can make an iPod
I don't want to wait 7 years for innovation in the handheld mp3 player (iPod dominated) market..
Since when does 'innovation' in a market involve using other people's patented technology? I thought innovation meant inventing new things?
"Is there a better substitute to capitalism?" F*£@ yeah. there sure f****** is.
Cool, let's hear it.
The nutrition paper from my PE course last year was most enlightening on rubbish like this. If you already have a balanced diet, extra vitamins will do nothing to help you fight off nasties.
I think that's the point. How many people in college have a balanced diet? I'd say none of them. When you're still trying to work out how to cook for yourself, pizza is easy.
He wouldn't have felt it then...
I think you underestimate how huge the black market of non-taxed goods will become when buying things becomes the main source of taxes.
Also, it's pretty pretentious to call your particular favoured tax-system 'Fair Tax'. That would be like me writing an operating system and calling it 'Greatest OS', whether or not it was actually the greatest. 'Fair' is a subjective term.
And from the other side, if I've worked hard and earned something, why shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it, including give it to my kids.
Have they earned it?
What has that got to do with anything? I thought that taxes were a means of raising revenue, not a means of 'fair' money distribution.
Have you ever thought woman like men who are providers and do things for them. The drink test really is a subconcious test to see what kind of provider you are for them.
Yes, women like men who provide things for them. The same is true the other way round. I'd like it if an ugly woman bought me things. But would I be sexually interested in her? No. Buying things for a woman demonstrates one thing: that you're undesirable and have to try to buy favour, you have to supplicate because you have the lower part of the relationship. Women don't want a man who's below them, they want a man who's above her, and doesn't actually need her.
I am a gentleman and women like men who go out of their way to please them. Trust me on this.
It all depends on whether your world-view is based on reality or cosy fantasy.
Ah, fastseduction.com! Completely forgot about those dorks. I figured they abandoned their tripe and got into the 'penis enlargement' game, where the REAL money is made.
Yeah, so much money in there that it's a FREE, non-commercial site. Even the webmaster (a nerd who can now get laid thanks to the material on that site) has to beg for donations to keep the site running. People donate because it's a useful service, there's no deception to get you to pay for things, people help each other on there.
That site's a bit like open source software, in a way. Anyone can get the material for free, anyone can alter it to their needs, anyone can contribute. If your contributions are good, they're accepted by the community. If they're bad, they're rejected by the community. It's a true democracy, you're judged on how good you are, how much you try, and how much you help others.
Anyone can make some material and sell it themselves if they want, no-one bitches at them for selling out. In fact if the material's good people will be willing to pay for it.
A thing that makes people not like this site it's the brutality of it. It's reality exposed, no edges smoothed off, no dumbing down, no political correctness. It teaches men that their women who they thought didn't put out because they wanted it to be special, are actually having sex with other men. It teaches men that they've been lied to by society.
Men are brought up on sitcoms telling them that women are special and have to be worshipped before they'll like you, and that if you even THINK about having sex with them before you've been plying them with gifts and a relationship for years then you're an evil mysogynistic loser who doesn't deserve any sex ever. They're brought up to think that women are pure and don't have sex with anyone unless it's in a solid long-term relationship or marriage, and that if your girlfriend won't give you sex, it's tough, you're a shallow loser unless you say 'yes dear' and go home and jerk yourself off.
This site shatters all these illusions. It shows them that women craze sex constantly, and that if your girlfriend isn't having sex with you, she's probably having it with someone else. It shows them that women are going to have sex with someone, so it may as well be you.
then maybe I'd be the kind of chick this stuff would work on. But I'm not, I'm here instead ;)
If you're a human, then you have a brain. This brain works in predictable ways. Everyone is like that. That's why psychology exists. If everyone behaved completely differently there would be no psychiatrists because they wouldn't know what to do.
The truth is, everyone is predictable, everyone's minds behave in predictable ways, no-one is above it. Saying 'I'm not like those other people' is a fallacy. All women, when it comes to interaction with men, have a general observable pattern of behaviours which is generally consistent across all of them. To deny this is to deny the entire field of psychology.
That's why fastseduction works. It's based on experimentation and observation. After enough interaction with women (not just the 'sluts' as some people put it, but even the 'quality' women who don't put out (they say)), you begin to learn how they work, and it's very consistent.
Women deny it because it destroys the fantasy that they're valuable and special, that they don't constantly think about and crave sex, but instead want a nice stable relationship with a 'nice guy' who buys her flowers every day.
Wow, you're a sexist bastard, calling every single semi-attractive women in the world 'shallow'. I'm surprised the feminist moderators haven't slaughtered you for that.
So shallow, in fact, that a static guidebook can demonstrate exactly how they'll behave in a wide variety of situations.
Ever heard of psychology books? They seem to pretty well demonstrate the behaviour of humans in general. I suppose that makes everyone in the world shallow.
I find the techniques described in it to be incredibly useful for pointing out the girls that I don't need to waste time on.
Yeah, men like to have this illusion that there are two types of women: one sort who are shallow sluts who sleep with anyone who uses dirty 'techniques', and another who are valuable and special, don't have sex until marriage etc, and can only be conquered by an honest nice guy who treats her like a princess. It's an illusion that works well until you realise it's exactly the same women. The boyfriend who's spending all his money on her thinks the latter, the bloke who's porking her at the weekends thinks the former. As far as they're both concerned they're both right.
I posted this on my java web browser!
>>I can't live without tabbed browsing.
>Overrated, a matter of taste and preference, and in any case there are products that are IE-based >that will give you that.
Yeah, a matter of preference in Firefox, in IE you have no preference, you get what you're given. Also, why should I need to hunt down, download and install 'products' just to get simple functionality which is in Firefox by default? Isn't it always the MS types criticising open source software for making the user jump through hoops to achieve simple tasks?
First of all, that's only an option for people running Windows XP with a massive connection or lots of time. Even then, what's the comparison between downloading SP2 and downloading Firefox? One solves the problem permanently, one just until the next crop of problems come up.
On another note, why do you have to download entire OS service pack just to fix the fundamental flaws in the browser? If I fix a hole in Firefox I don't need to download a new Linux kernel and upgrade gnome, so why do I have to do a similar thing for IE? I've been burnt using IE too many times, and Firefox is ten times the browser it will ever be, so why go back? Just so I can support MS's vice-like grip on the desktop, keeping Bill Gates in a gold house?
You can choose from Elf, Men, Dwarves and Hobbits
What about orcs, or trolls? Without them, who on earth are the people playing the men, elves, dwarves and hobbits going to fight against? Mobs? I can see that getting old after, what, 4 minutes.
Yeah, a fanboy site speculating, but they're still right. There's so much money to be made for episodes seven to nine NOT to be made.
That's why relationships are a bad idea. It's best to stick to temporary partners, that way you get all of the sex (and a greater variety of it) without the pointless hassle of a relationship. The women prefer it as well (even if they don't admit it).
Good. The last thing people want is to pay insurance costs to cover the damages caused by people breaking the law on the road. Perhaps people might driver somewhat better if they knew that if they crashed their car whilst doing 50 in a residential area they wouldn't get anything from the insurance.
Yeah, imagine that, expecting you to pay for the damages you've caused! How absurd! Making people responsible for their actions is just the start of a slippery slope...
Of course, you'll be the first one complaining on Slashdot when you end up being managed by someone who is far less skilled than you, but actually bothered to learn how to interact with people. I suppose you'll be able to content yourself by putting up Dilbert cartoons on the walls and reminding yourself how intelligent and great you are.
When you say that women should "put up with the insults and the criticism that men receive" you assume that men and women receive equal amounts of insults. They don't. How many jokes do you hear insulting men? Compare that to the number of jokes you hear insulting women. That alone makes women feel inferior.
You must be joking. I'm not just talking about jokes, I'm talking about general piss-taking. Have you never spent any time in an all-male environment? All they do is insult each other. If women can't take any of this then how can they have any pretenses to be held as equals? Do we really want computer science taken over by people who aren't even thick-skinned enough to partake in any banter without running home crying?
I think this entire discussion begs the question of whether we actually want to attract women into computer science. I mean, just look at this from the HOWTO:
3.1. Don't tell sexist jokes
3.2. Do protest sexist jokes
It seems that having women in computer science means turning into a dull, politically-correct drone who whines when anyone ever says anything that might offend someone. Is this really what we want?
3.3. Don't call people bitches
3.15. Don't criticize too much
3.21. Don't make your meetings hard to attend
It seems that his HOWTO in one breath says that women are just as capable as men, then in the next breath starts telling us not to be too hard on them, not to insult them, not to criticise them and to go out of our way to make things easy for them.
As far as I'm concerned, if they want to play on an even playing field with men, then they can put up with the insults and the criticism that men receive. If they don't like it, then I don't think we have any obligation to accomodate them.
If you said "transmuting lead into gold? That sounds kind of retarded!" The alchemist would say "oh you silly little man you don't have the same mathematical talents I do, now just go away!"
I now laugh at all high and mighty alchemists who belittled doubters.
Why? Because their theories weren't true? I didn't realise that we were supposed to laugh every time a scientist researched something but didn't get anywhere. In fact I thought that's how it worked: someone comes up with a hypothesis, investigates it and sees whether it's true or not. If it's true great, if not then try something different.
The alchemists MIGHT have found that they could turn lead into gold. In those days not much was known about chemistry so it was logical to think that it might have been possible. Of course it's difficult and hard work to conduct scientific research, and very easy to sit on your arse criticising people.
That's great, for Debian. I'm sure the newbies who are not very computer literate are going to love using command line utilities that work some of the time, and a distribution that is nowhere near aimed for newbies. You can't just pick and choose the features from each distro you want when you're showing yhow great Linux is. The conversation often goes like this:
...and so on.
"I don't like command lines"
"Then use Mandrake"
"OK, now the software is a bitch to install"
"Then use Debian"
"OK, how the hardware is a bitch to install"
"Then use Mandrake"
Also OT: can someone at slashdot please fix the bug where the post editing window is wider than the screen on firefox? Thanks.
Hi RMS!