Firstly, you assume that you have a better life that someone else because you make more money. There is more to life than money. Quite a lot more. I for one would rather have an enjoyable, exciting life, out playing football, getting into fights and taking drugs, than be rich and sat at a computer all day like a miserable little nerd. I bet those people are much more down to earth, more exciting and more sociable than people who spend all day staring at a screen.
Secondly, you assume you are superior because you are married. I notice you use the term 'still single'. That is an assumption that marriage is a goal everyone aims for, and is the be all and end all of relationships. That is an incorrect and rather narrow-minded assumption. You may be married, but how many relationships have you had? How many women have you laid? Being married at 24 is a terrible waste of a life. Think of all the hot, attractive women out there that you'll never get to sleep with. Think of all the women you'll never meet and be intimate with because you're married.
I suspect the reason you have this attitude is merely envy. The sports players you see working at the supermarket have probably laid dozens of birds, all attractive, with large breasts etc, whilst all you have is a single woman you've had to lock yourself to in order to avoid losing. Maybe you realise that while they're out having fun, shagging loads of fit women, you're stuck at home with your wife and kids.
There is more to life than being stuck in a bland, empty life with lots of money.
With Windows, I'd have to upgrade to a slower and more bloated version just for stability. Whereas with Linux I can just get bug fixes and carry on as normal, but Windows would require upgrading my hardware as well. Why can't MS just fix the bugs without the bloat? At 28MB of RAM and a 200Mhz processor, I doubt Windows XP or 2K would even install on my computer, whereas Linux flies by.
If Linux can be stable without the bloat, then why can't Windows? Are MS programmers incompetent, lazy, or just in bed with the hardware manufacturers? Also, upgrading Windows would cost around £100. Why should I have to pay just to have my OS fixed? If I bought a car and the engine didn't work, I wouldn't wait for a few years and then buy another one.
Unless MS give me bug fixes for Windows 98 for free, I refuse to do business with them ever again. In Linux, I can simple download the fixes over the Internet for free. I am not required to spend a hundred quid on a new OS. And even more if I want to disable the crippling restrictions such as a limited number of connections. Until Windows can be as cheap, easy, bloat-free and bull-shit free as Linux, Windows 98 will be the last copy of MS software I buy. If I can help it of course. MS have such a monopoly I'll probably end up forced into using it merely for compatability with everyone else.
No underlined links! There's a thing you can put in tags (which I can't remember off the top of my head), which turns off underlining of links. Underlined text is one of the most horrible things you can have on a page. Avoid it at all costs!
Links being in a different colour is sufficient, there is no reason to make the site look terrible with underlined parts.
But one thing you have to remember: Google is a very simple site. Very little on the screen at a time. On the main page, just a search box and a couple of links. And after that, just a few links a page. When you have realms and realms of content that you have to squeeze into a site, it becomes much more difficult.
You're right. Let's compare the methods of installation of programs on Windows and Linux:
Windows:
Open browser
Go to google.com
Search for name of program
Spend ten minutes navigating some shitty site to find the program you want
Click on "download"
Click "save"
Press "enter"
Open Explorer
Navigate to file
Double click on file
OK
Next
Next
Next
Next
Next
Accept
Next
Finish
Reboot
Linux:
Open xterm
Type 'su'
Type in root password
Type 'apt-get install programname'
As you can see, the Windows method is much more user friendly, and takes much less time. Linux will never succeed as long as it is so difficult to install programs.
Social interaction is NOT pleasant. It is one of the worst things in life. You fail to mention why it is important, and what is to rewarding about it. Are you implying by this ommision that there is nothing important nor rewarding about social interaction? In that case, I agree with you.
The way I see it, interaction with other people should be kept to an absolute minimum. I hate the company of other people. I dspise it. There's nothing more depressing or irritating than the company of other people. The good thing about the telly is that it allows you to pass the time without having to go through any social interaction.
No offence, but what women say has absolutely NO bearing on what they mean, so I will be completely ignoring your post.
Re:there's more to it than that
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: -1
Are you taking the piss? Do you realise how much RAM costs these days? It would cost around £100 just to upgrade to 256MB of RAM. And unless you're a complete nerd, there are the costs of paying someone to install it for you.
In response to your sig, that is not the least effective pickup line. The least effective pickup line (in the world) would have to be "Can I buy you a drink?" Not only does it a) mark you out as a desperate supplicative loser, b) make you look as if you're trying to buy your way into her knickers, c) show you have no spine whatsoever, it means in the end you're several quid worse off, whilst she gets free drinks before going home with a bloke who actually has a set of balls.
I think the line in your sig would actually be quite effective, if delivered correctly and followed up well.
Don't buy any at all. They're just a completely rip-off. Who in their right mind would pay money for a bunch of cells that will be dead in a few days anyway? What a fucking rip-off. The fact that you would go to all this trouble just to supplicate to your bitch suggests a serious case of oneitus.
No-one woman is out of anyone's range. This woman is not out of your range at all. Not after you've been to http://fastseduction.com to find out how to get her in bed.
I would watch channels like that. Unfortuanetly, it is almost impossible to watch it for 5 minutes without is stopping for a 10 minute advert break. It makes it literally unwatchable. The only solution is to hope there are some decent programs on the BBC, where there are no adverts.
I'm fucking sick of idiots using Outlook Express sending me Word documents and HTML mail and god-knows what other bollocks that means their e-mails are unreadable. Now it's time they got a taste of their own medicine.
...that it takes about 15 minutes to download an mp3 where you can't tell the difference between it and the CD. With a film, it would take AGES to download, and then you only get a shitty little window and crap sound.
I hope you don't mean the kernel.org mirror list. That has to be the most disgraceful mirror list ever. It takes about 6 years to download thanks to all the fucking flags at the side, that are completely useless and meaningless. Maybe slashdot could provide a SANE mirror list that we can use.
It works out appallingly. I don't have digital TV, nor do I listen to the radio. That means I pay £110 year for two channels. What a bargain. Never mind that the channels are just as crap, brainless and devoid of quality as ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5. Except that you don't have to pay £110 a year for those channels, and you don't get a massive fine even if you don't pay.
I don't know about you, but paying £110 a year to not have to watch adverts on two channels isn't my idea of an "excellent system". I would be even more infuriated if I didn't watch the BBC, and was paying an extortionate amount just to subsidise someone else's ad-free status.
Slashdot Mirror
You make several errors in your post.
Firstly, you assume that you have a better life that someone else because you make more money. There is more to life than money. Quite a lot more. I for one would rather have an enjoyable, exciting life, out playing football, getting into fights and taking drugs, than be rich and sat at a computer all day like a miserable little nerd. I bet those people are much more down to earth, more exciting and more sociable than people who spend all day staring at a screen.
Secondly, you assume you are superior because you are married. I notice you use the term 'still single'. That is an assumption that marriage is a goal everyone aims for, and is the be all and end all of relationships. That is an incorrect and rather narrow-minded assumption. You may be married, but how many relationships have you had? How many women have you laid? Being married at 24 is a terrible waste of a life. Think of all the hot, attractive women out there that you'll never get to sleep with. Think of all the women you'll never meet and be intimate with because you're married.
I suspect the reason you have this attitude is merely envy. The sports players you see working at the supermarket have probably laid dozens of birds, all attractive, with large breasts etc, whilst all you have is a single woman you've had to lock yourself to in order to avoid losing. Maybe you realise that while they're out having fun, shagging loads of fit women, you're stuck at home with your wife and kids.
There is more to life than being stuck in a bland, empty life with lots of money.
With Windows, I'd have to upgrade to a slower and more bloated version just for stability. Whereas with Linux I can just get bug fixes and carry on as normal, but Windows would require upgrading my hardware as well. Why can't MS just fix the bugs without the bloat? At 28MB of RAM and a 200Mhz processor, I doubt Windows XP or 2K would even install on my computer, whereas Linux flies by.
If Linux can be stable without the bloat, then why can't Windows? Are MS programmers incompetent, lazy, or just in bed with the hardware manufacturers? Also, upgrading Windows would cost around £100. Why should I have to pay just to have my OS fixed? If I bought a car and the engine didn't work, I wouldn't wait for a few years and then buy another one.
Unless MS give me bug fixes for Windows 98 for free, I refuse to do business with them ever again. In Linux, I can simple download the fixes over the Internet for free. I am not required to spend a hundred quid on a new OS. And even more if I want to disable the crippling restrictions such as a limited number of connections. Until Windows can be as cheap, easy, bloat-free and bull-shit free as Linux, Windows 98 will be the last copy of MS software I buy. If I can help it of course. MS have such a monopoly I'll probably end up forced into using it merely for compatability with everyone else.
No underlined links! There's a thing you can put in tags (which I can't remember off the top of my head), which turns off underlining of links. Underlined text is one of the most horrible things you can have on a page. Avoid it at all costs!
Links being in a different colour is sufficient, there is no reason to make the site look terrible with underlined parts.
But one thing you have to remember: Google is a very simple site. Very little on the screen at a time. On the main page, just a search box and a couple of links. And after that, just a few links a page. When you have realms and realms of content that you have to squeeze into a site, it becomes much more difficult.
Windows:
Linux:
As you can see, the Windows method is much more user friendly, and takes much less time. Linux will never succeed as long as it is so difficult to install programs.
Social interaction is NOT pleasant. It is one of the worst things in life. You fail to mention why it is important, and what is to rewarding about it. Are you implying by this ommision that there is nothing important nor rewarding about social interaction? In that case, I agree with you.
The way I see it, interaction with other people should be kept to an absolute minimum. I hate the company of other people. I dspise it. There's nothing more depressing or irritating than the company of other people. The good thing about the telly is that it allows you to pass the time without having to go through any social interaction.
"[work,friends,tv] - choose 2"
Erm, I don't have a job, and I don't have any friends. What do you expect me to do apart from watch the telly and read slashdot?
No offence, but what women say has absolutely NO bearing on what they mean, so I will be completely ignoring your post.
Are you taking the piss? Do you realise how much RAM costs these days? It would cost around £100 just to upgrade to 256MB of RAM. And unless you're a complete nerd, there are the costs of paying someone to install it for you.
Meanwhile, Linux flies on 28MB.
In response to your sig, that is not the least effective pickup line. The least effective pickup line (in the world) would have to be "Can I buy you a drink?" Not only does it a) mark you out as a desperate supplicative loser, b) make you look as if you're trying to buy your way into her knickers, c) show you have no spine whatsoever, it means in the end you're several quid worse off, whilst she gets free drinks before going home with a bloke who actually has a set of balls.
I think the line in your sig would actually be quite effective, if delivered correctly and followed up well.
Don't buy any at all. They're just a completely rip-off. Who in their right mind would pay money for a bunch of cells that will be dead in a few days anyway? What a fucking rip-off. The fact that you would go to all this trouble just to supplicate to your bitch suggests a serious case of oneitus.
No-one woman is out of anyone's range. This woman is not out of your range at all. Not after you've been to http://fastseduction.com to find out how to get her in bed.
No woman is unobtainable. No woman. Every woman is layable by anyone who knows how. Find out more at http://fastseduction.com
Until they stop charging a quid or more for 30 seconds of playing. What an absolute fucking rip-off. At prices like that, they deserve to die.
As opposed to what? Buying it and then -not- using it?
But then what would you put behind the ads, apart from blank space?
I would watch channels like that. Unfortuanetly, it is almost impossible to watch it for 5 minutes without is stopping for a 10 minute advert break. It makes it literally unwatchable. The only solution is to hope there are some decent programs on the BBC, where there are no adverts.
I'm fucking sick of idiots using Outlook Express sending me Word documents and HTML mail and god-knows what other bollocks that means their e-mails are unreadable. Now it's time they got a taste of their own medicine.
Does it bollocks.
Or perhaps something even more worthwhile, like a hundred pints!
...that it takes about 15 minutes to download an mp3 where you can't tell the difference between it and the CD. With a film, it would take AGES to download, and then you only get a shitty little window and crap sound.
That might be true during busy periods, but during the quiet periods, 1 person on a bus uses up more pollution than 1 person in a car.
Exactly. With Linux, you run your computer. With Windows, the computer's running you.
I hope you don't mean the kernel.org mirror list. That has to be the most disgraceful mirror list ever. It takes about 6 years to download thanks to all the fucking flags at the side, that are completely useless and meaningless. Maybe slashdot could provide a SANE mirror list that we can use.
It works out appallingly. I don't have digital TV, nor do I listen to the radio. That means I pay £110 year for two channels. What a bargain. Never mind that the channels are just as crap, brainless and devoid of quality as ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5. Except that you don't have to pay £110 a year for those channels, and you don't get a massive fine even if you don't pay.
I don't know about you, but paying £110 a year to not have to watch adverts on two channels isn't my idea of an "excellent system". I would be even more infuriated if I didn't watch the BBC, and was paying an extortionate amount just to subsidise someone else's ad-free status.