The problem with athiests these days is that they personally attack people that have a religion. Most people that believe in God don't go trying to convert everyone
This is sarcasm right? Poe's law and all that. Or did I just wake up in topsy-turvey Universe today?
(Most atheists don't try to convert people either. Probably more so, I'd say, given that I've never had atheists trying to convert me in the street, or come to my door. And the problem with what some religious people do go far beyond personal criticisms and trying to convince you of something. Here in the UK, it's a legal requirement to try to convert small children, and force them to worship, in all schools. Yet the fact that I merely criticise this probably makes me an evil atheists who's now making "personal attacks"...)
Being "open" about it shouldn't mean having to answer questions about it in the interview process. If I went to a fellow employee and started asking them questions about their sex life, I'd be up for sexual harrassment, and rightly so - it's got nothing to do with whether they're "open" about it or not.
as well as several validation measures to try and prevent faking your responses. (At my company, I've heard of one guy getting called for an interview because he was "too normal" and another guy geting called because he was "too honest".)
So it's great that they have ways to weed out some dishonest people - but then you risk turning down genuinely "normal" or "honest" people. Either way, the criticisms being made here are reasonable.
And your response leaves me completely confused as to how I should answer - I shouldn't lie on these tests, but also, I shouldn't be completely truthful because that might mark me out too? Which is it?
Well sure, a single answer might not be sufficient to lose you the job, but overall these questions have an effect, so his point is still valid. Given that there are many questions that are dubious, it's a reasonable criticism, and together they will have some kind of effect.
I draw the line at the point where the use of said device *will* kill someone outside of your property in its current placement.
Do you mean as in guns are okay on private property, but not carried in public where they can be used to kill? Or do you mean guns are always okay, because they only kill someone if aimed at someone?
Note that this definition would mean that someone with sufficient land (e.g., a farm) could legally own large amounts of explosives, rocket lauchers and maybe biological weapons. I don't know if that was intended with your distinction?
I don't care if games are restricted to be for adults only. But I note there is an unfair double standard where only the unpopular things in society are restricted in this manner (and sometimes this argument can lead to an all out ban "in case a child might see it"). There is just as much argument that religion for example is "addictive", influences people (especially children), and there are countless examples of murderers who not only happened to be religious (the same level of "link" that exists for video games) but even claimed to murder in the name of God, or because "God told me too". Yet far from being age restricted, in many countries such as the UK, it's a legal requirement for children to be forced to participate in religious worship. And even atheists such as Dawkins do not call for religion to be banned for children - yet they still attract the wrath of the religious for merely criticising it, whilst those who call for video games to be banned are praised.
But more than any other modern democracy, we have been very successful here in digesting the less laudable chapters of our history in a sane way, and build a progressive, free society in the process. I think many other countries can learn from us in this regard.
I don't disagree. But I don't think people are saying "Ha ha, look what Germany is turning into", rather we're worried because we see the same kind of calls for censorship in our own countries (it's easy for politicians to claim that they're just bringing laws "in line with the international consensus"; and a problem for other European countries is the risk of EU-wide laws that favour censorship rather than freedom of speech, which is more likely the more member states such as Germany and the UK implement their own censorship laws).
I don't see any evidence that stories about Germany censorship are any more common here than those of other countries such as the UK or US.
I elaborate more in my other comment, but basically, I don't see people claiming that environment or nurture has no effect on people's upbringing. But you can't leap from that argument, to saying "One particular thing caused someone to commit murder". Where is your evidence to show that it's that thing, out of all other possibilities?
And a crucial point you miss is that even if people discuss someone's upbringing, I don't see any calls to ban or criminalise that. No, the person is still to blame, and we still criminalise their actions. Looking at what influences people's motives isn't the same thing as saying that they were caused to do it.
Lastly, "most people say" are not Slashdot readers. "Most people say" that violent games cause murder, but people on Slashdot are not making either of these claims, so there is no inconsistency. But have fun with your straw man - there's nothing like making up an argument, so you can accuse it of inconsistency.
Honest question - which weapons do you think should be legal to own? Any, or if not, on what basis do you decide where the line is drawn?
I mean, if you play the "if we ban guns, we'll have to ban knives, then pointy forks" argument, you've also got to counter the "If we allow guns, why not rocket launchers and bombs" argument.
Even if that might have prevented this tragedy, you also have to factor in the consequences of it being routine for schoolkids to walk around with guns everyday - I bet the number of deaths from accidents and shootings would far outnumber these cases, even if in each case the original killer could be quickly shot (not to mention the risk where everyone ends up shooting each other, because everyones got guns and you don't know who started it).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for a knee jerk ban on guns, but you have to weigh up all the factors. Even in the US, I thought it wasn't legal for kids to walk around school with guns (or at all?), so are you really suggesting that's a good idea?
IOW, you don't care about anything, since it's unlikely they'll ever be as bad as Nazi Germany and the Holocaust?
Why not say this to any Slashdot story "Why should I care, it's not as bad as Nazi Germany. Just an opinion"? Or is it only Germany that is allowed to have bad things happen (which is confusing logic - things were once very very bad in Germany, therefore you don't care if things are just bad in Germany, just so long as they don't get very very bad again?)
Who claimed this was worse than Nazi Germany? Or are you just going for a Godwin with your first post?
You are right that what we see can affect us (after all, I'm driven to reply to your post after having read it), but it is misleading to sum this up as "probably-small destructive effect" - changing people's perception of men and women is an entirely different claim to saying that it causes people to commit murder. Your argument is a straw man - the OP didn't claim that people's perception can't be changed by what they see, he said that porn doesn't cause rape. The logic of "X causes Y, therefore maybe A causes B" is not valid.
Secondly, just because you can cite one mild negative effect doesn't mean that overall the effect is negative. What about positive effects, from people who enjoy making and viewing it (perhaps as part of a healthy relationship), to the possibility that media reduces violent crime by providing an outlet (this hypothesis is just as plausible as the claim that it increases violent crime)?
Thirdly, there is nothing special about the things that people want banned such as porn or games - the criticism you make of porn is something done just as much as mainstream marketing, soap operas, romantic comedies (as you yourself note) and all sorts of things that show stereotypical gender roles - indeed, in porn, at least you sometimes get men in the submissive or objectified roles (yes, if women want to be in the dominant role, I think you'll find that there's actually quite a large market for such actors, so claims about lack of choice here are unfounded).
So if you really answer yes to "the probably-small destructive effect of porn and video games warrant a rather large censoring", then you had better also censor all games, films, advertising, books, and why not religion too, due to the equally probably-small "destructive" effects that I could claim for them.
Saying that you need an extra core to run a small background program, makes about as much sense as saying CPUs need to get another 2GHz faster in order to run it.
32 tabs open in Firefox (come on, 1 thread per tab!!).
Does Firefox multithread each tab? ISTR that this was something that Chrome did, but I wasn't aware of other browsers doing it yet.
I'm glad that the megahertz myth appears to have passed, but it seems that some people have swallowed the "multicore myth", believing that multiple slower cores are better than single faster cores.
While you're playing a game more programs are running in the background - anti-virus, defrag, email, google desktop, etc.
Why does this matter? Computers have been capable of multitasking on a single core for decades. Are you really saying that this consumes more than 1GHz worth of time?
If you mean the problem where one process can hog 100%, that's a software issue. Theoretically you could have an OS that limited the CPU time allowed to each thread to a maximum of 50%, and then it would behave like your dual core. But I think most people would prefer no such artifial limit.
Also, any proper, modern game splits it's tasks, e.g. game AI, physics, etc.
And? All this means is that it will take advantage of multiple cores. But this can never mean it runs faster. The best case scenario is that your dual core 2GHz will equal a single core 4GHz, but in practice, it will be less than that even. I want to know what sort of computer you have where running things on two processors makes it more than twice as fast!
I'm also not sure what you mean by "responsive". My Amiga 500 was responsive, but being responsive is often not simply a CPU issue.
Indeed - and in the UK, it's illegal even if that's a 17 year old girl. Yes, even though the age of consent is 16.
Soon, it will be illegal for that 17 year old to make a sexual drawing of herself... (See http://www.comicbookalliance.org.uk/ for details on opposing this law)
I think you're confused - child porn was made illegal over 30 years ago. The image hasn't been prosecuted in that time, and is available for sale. That's what he's talking about when he says "openly on sale for many years".
The censoring in the UK is at the level of the home user's ISP anyway, so there's no need to "route around" anything. It's inaccurate to say Great Britain (well, the UK) censors Internet traffic. The government has asked ISPs providing connections to home users to filter DNS requests for some websites. This is nothing like the Chinese Firewall, for instance.
It might be done differently on a technical difference, but how is this different when the user can't access such websites? I mean, the Chinese system only blocks access to "some websites", but how does that stop it being censorship?
If anything, this is even worse - it's still non-voluntary (by "ask", it's no secret that the Government has been threatening to make it compulsory, if the ISPs don't do it first), but also, it's done by an private body that are completely unaccountable.
Go visit the hermit kingdom (N Korea) if you wish to see a tyranny. Or talk to the folks that lived under the thumb of the Stasi just a couple decades ago.
Oh, it's the "not as bad as N Korea" argument. What a ringing endorsement that is!
The sad thing is, that sort of hate filled anti-US troll
Um, how is disagreeing with the Government "hate filled anti-US"? That's the sort of emotive logic that tyrannies love to use.
And even for posters such as me that are not in the US, we equally oppose similar measures being done in our countries (in my case, the UK). It's not a competition (even though it sometimes seems the Governments treat it that way), so you can drop that straw man.
As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored, and whilst I don't mind it being censored due to what it is, it does spark the question "Where will it stop?"
It's "potentially illegal" child images that they allegedly cover.
However, we already know this to be false - with Wikipedia, even leaving aside the issue of whether that 30 year old album cover counts as child porn (there's no evidence of a child being abused, so I'd say no), they censored legal text (and didn't censor the image at all!).
The other problem is that they don't censor everything else that's illegal - so should they continue to censor child porn and nothing else, or censor everything illegal?
Indeed, despite the fact that images of consenting adults can now be illegal to possess, the IWF do not appear to want to block these (perhaps partly because the law is so vague they wouldn't have a clue what it covers, and if they blocked everything which "potentially" came under the law, last year's Wikipedia fiasco would be nothing compared to trying to blanketly enforce the so-called "extreme" porn law).
Indeed. I find it sad that on a site where open systems such as Linux are loved over Microsoft, Apple seem to be loved fanatically over Linux, despite them doing much the same as Microsoft (albeit far less successfully).
It would be great if falconwolf supported Linux, but it's just funny the way he gets on his high horse about not using Windows, and then we find out he's paying even more money to Apple.
Actually a backup capability which really works...
So does Windows.
You are not even forced to upgrade to a higher version of the same operating system for a half working restore...
Nor are you on Windows - what do you mean?
Unix tools out of the box,
So does Linux.
No file locking, which makes it important if you do some serious development!
Ouch, how is this a good thing?
No registry which is the root of many evils in windows.
Nor does Linux, or AmigaOS.
A system administration frontend which does not try to make you insane by distributing its functionality over 15.000 ui dialogs.
I've found Apple's UI worse than most other UIs (just look at Quicktime).
User Access Control which actually works as expected!
Same here on Windows.
A filesystem which does not fragment as hell in serious development tasks.
Never had a problem here on Windows, that was only an issue under 9x.
A real working distributed component framework all the infrastructure is built upon which actually is usable!
The file sharing capabilities and printer sharing capabilities are superior thanks to Rendevouz!
Dashboard actually is usable instead if trying to pointlessly shove the widgets into the working area of many people!
Let's have examples and evidence, not assertions. These are just "OS X is better" written with more buzzwords. How is it better? On Windows, I click print, and it just works. I click "Share", and it just works. I don't need a special thing like whatever "Rendevouz" is.
It does not thrash my harddisk for minutes after bootup with tasks hidden by the process explorer (happend to me in vista)!
It does not lock my ui half a minute after showing it because it needs to load other things, und just tries to give the impression of being usable while it clearly isnÂt.
Never happened with me on any Windows systems.
It comes with SSH and VNC and Xwindows out of the box.
So does Linux.
It has a browser which follows web standards which are newer than 2003!
So does Windows and Linux.
It has users who do not insist of using a 10 year old browser despite being numerously the victims of worms and virii induced by the shortcoming of this browser!
So it has users who can use 10 year old computers, without being forced to upgrade. So much for people saying it's Macs that last for longer. And how does what other people use affect people using more modern systems?
And the correct word is viruses (of which, I've never had one under Windows).
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with athiests these days is that they personally attack people that have a religion. Most people that believe in God don't go trying to convert everyone
This is sarcasm right? Poe's law and all that. Or did I just wake up in topsy-turvey Universe today?
(Most atheists don't try to convert people either. Probably more so, I'd say, given that I've never had atheists trying to convert me in the street, or come to my door. And the problem with what some religious people do go far beyond personal criticisms and trying to convince you of something. Here in the UK, it's a legal requirement to try to convert small children, and force them to worship, in all schools. Yet the fact that I merely criticise this probably makes me an evil atheists who's now making "personal attacks"...)
TL;DR personal attacks make you look like an ass.
But a short personal attack on atheists is okay?
Being "open" about it shouldn't mean having to answer questions about it in the interview process. If I went to a fellow employee and started asking them questions about their sex life, I'd be up for sexual harrassment, and rightly so - it's got nothing to do with whether they're "open" about it or not.
as well as several validation measures to try and prevent faking your responses. (At my company, I've heard of one guy getting called for an interview because he was "too normal" and another guy geting called because he was "too honest".)
So it's great that they have ways to weed out some dishonest people - but then you risk turning down genuinely "normal" or "honest" people. Either way, the criticisms being made here are reasonable.
And your response leaves me completely confused as to how I should answer - I shouldn't lie on these tests, but also, I shouldn't be completely truthful because that might mark me out too? Which is it?
Well sure, a single answer might not be sufficient to lose you the job, but overall these questions have an effect, so his point is still valid. Given that there are many questions that are dubious, it's a reasonable criticism, and together they will have some kind of effect.
I draw the line at the point where the use of said device *will* kill someone outside of your property in its current placement.
Do you mean as in guns are okay on private property, but not carried in public where they can be used to kill? Or do you mean guns are always okay, because they only kill someone if aimed at someone?
Note that this definition would mean that someone with sufficient land (e.g., a farm) could legally own large amounts of explosives, rocket lauchers and maybe biological weapons. I don't know if that was intended with your distinction?
Thanks for the link. What about computer games though?
It seems a double standard if a film set in WW2 is "art" but a game set in WW2 isn't - or is it that they are both okay, and the OP was incorrect?
I don't care if games are restricted to be for adults only. But I note there is an unfair double standard where only the unpopular things in society are restricted in this manner (and sometimes this argument can lead to an all out ban "in case a child might see it"). There is just as much argument that religion for example is "addictive", influences people (especially children), and there are countless examples of murderers who not only happened to be religious (the same level of "link" that exists for video games) but even claimed to murder in the name of God, or because "God told me too". Yet far from being age restricted, in many countries such as the UK, it's a legal requirement for children to be forced to participate in religious worship. And even atheists such as Dawkins do not call for religion to be banned for children - yet they still attract the wrath of the religious for merely criticising it, whilst those who call for video games to be banned are praised.
But more than any other modern democracy, we have been very successful here in digesting the less laudable chapters of our history in a sane way, and build a progressive, free society in the process. I think many other countries can learn from us in this regard.
I don't disagree. But I don't think people are saying "Ha ha, look what Germany is turning into", rather we're worried because we see the same kind of calls for censorship in our own countries (it's easy for politicians to claim that they're just bringing laws "in line with the international consensus"; and a problem for other European countries is the risk of EU-wide laws that favour censorship rather than freedom of speech, which is more likely the more member states such as Germany and the UK implement their own censorship laws).
I don't see any evidence that stories about Germany censorship are any more common here than those of other countries such as the UK or US.
I elaborate more in my other comment, but basically, I don't see people claiming that environment or nurture has no effect on people's upbringing. But you can't leap from that argument, to saying "One particular thing caused someone to commit murder". Where is your evidence to show that it's that thing, out of all other possibilities?
And a crucial point you miss is that even if people discuss someone's upbringing, I don't see any calls to ban or criminalise that. No, the person is still to blame, and we still criminalise their actions. Looking at what influences people's motives isn't the same thing as saying that they were caused to do it.
Lastly, "most people say" are not Slashdot readers. "Most people say" that violent games cause murder, but people on Slashdot are not making either of these claims, so there is no inconsistency. But have fun with your straw man - there's nothing like making up an argument, so you can accuse it of inconsistency.
Honest question - which weapons do you think should be legal to own? Any, or if not, on what basis do you decide where the line is drawn?
I mean, if you play the "if we ban guns, we'll have to ban knives, then pointy forks" argument, you've also got to counter the "If we allow guns, why not rocket launchers and bombs" argument.
Even if that might have prevented this tragedy, you also have to factor in the consequences of it being routine for schoolkids to walk around with guns everyday - I bet the number of deaths from accidents and shootings would far outnumber these cases, even if in each case the original killer could be quickly shot (not to mention the risk where everyone ends up shooting each other, because everyones got guns and you don't know who started it).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for a knee jerk ban on guns, but you have to weigh up all the factors. Even in the US, I thought it wasn't legal for kids to walk around school with guns (or at all?), so are you really suggesting that's a good idea?
I'm curious how does that law work for WW2 films, or documentaries come to that?
IOW, you don't care about anything, since it's unlikely they'll ever be as bad as Nazi Germany and the Holocaust?
Why not say this to any Slashdot story "Why should I care, it's not as bad as Nazi Germany. Just an opinion"? Or is it only Germany that is allowed to have bad things happen (which is confusing logic - things were once very very bad in Germany, therefore you don't care if things are just bad in Germany, just so long as they don't get very very bad again?)
Who claimed this was worse than Nazi Germany? Or are you just going for a Godwin with your first post?
You are right that what we see can affect us (after all, I'm driven to reply to your post after having read it), but it is misleading to sum this up as "probably-small destructive effect" - changing people's perception of men and women is an entirely different claim to saying that it causes people to commit murder. Your argument is a straw man - the OP didn't claim that people's perception can't be changed by what they see, he said that porn doesn't cause rape. The logic of "X causes Y, therefore maybe A causes B" is not valid.
Secondly, just because you can cite one mild negative effect doesn't mean that overall the effect is negative. What about positive effects, from people who enjoy making and viewing it (perhaps as part of a healthy relationship), to the possibility that media reduces violent crime by providing an outlet (this hypothesis is just as plausible as the claim that it increases violent crime)?
Thirdly, there is nothing special about the things that people want banned such as porn or games - the criticism you make of porn is something done just as much as mainstream marketing, soap operas, romantic comedies (as you yourself note) and all sorts of things that show stereotypical gender roles - indeed, in porn, at least you sometimes get men in the submissive or objectified roles (yes, if women want to be in the dominant role, I think you'll find that there's actually quite a large market for such actors, so claims about lack of choice here are unfounded).
So if you really answer yes to "the probably-small destructive effect of porn and video games warrant a rather large censoring", then you had better also censor all games, films, advertising, books, and why not religion too, due to the equally probably-small "destructive" effects that I could claim for them.
Saying that you need an extra core to run a small background program, makes about as much sense as saying CPUs need to get another 2GHz faster in order to run it.
32 tabs open in Firefox (come on, 1 thread per tab!!).
Does Firefox multithread each tab? ISTR that this was something that Chrome did, but I wasn't aware of other browsers doing it yet.
I'm glad that the megahertz myth appears to have passed, but it seems that some people have swallowed the "multicore myth", believing that multiple slower cores are better than single faster cores.
While you're playing a game more programs are running in the background - anti-virus, defrag, email, google desktop, etc.
Why does this matter? Computers have been capable of multitasking on a single core for decades. Are you really saying that this consumes more than 1GHz worth of time?
If you mean the problem where one process can hog 100%, that's a software issue. Theoretically you could have an OS that limited the CPU time allowed to each thread to a maximum of 50%, and then it would behave like your dual core. But I think most people would prefer no such artifial limit.
Also, any proper, modern game splits it's tasks, e.g. game AI, physics, etc.
And? All this means is that it will take advantage of multiple cores. But this can never mean it runs faster. The best case scenario is that your dual core 2GHz will equal a single core 4GHz, but in practice, it will be less than that even. I want to know what sort of computer you have where running things on two processors makes it more than twice as fast!
I'm also not sure what you mean by "responsive". My Amiga 500 was responsive, but being responsive is often not simply a CPU issue.
Indeed - and in the UK, it's illegal even if that's a 17 year old girl. Yes, even though the age of consent is 16.
Soon, it will be illegal for that 17 year old to make a sexual drawing of herself... (See http://www.comicbookalliance.org.uk/ for details on opposing this law)
I think you're confused - child porn was made illegal over 30 years ago. The image hasn't been prosecuted in that time, and is available for sale. That's what he's talking about when he says "openly on sale for many years".
The censoring in the UK is at the level of the home user's ISP anyway, so there's no need to "route around" anything. It's inaccurate to say Great Britain (well, the UK) censors Internet traffic. The government has asked ISPs providing connections to home users to filter DNS requests for some websites. This is nothing like the Chinese Firewall, for instance.
It might be done differently on a technical difference, but how is this different when the user can't access such websites? I mean, the Chinese system only blocks access to "some websites", but how does that stop it being censorship?
If anything, this is even worse - it's still non-voluntary (by "ask", it's no secret that the Government has been threatening to make it compulsory, if the ISPs don't do it first), but also, it's done by an private body that are completely unaccountable.
Go visit the hermit kingdom (N Korea) if you wish to see a tyranny. Or talk to the folks that lived under the thumb of the Stasi just a couple decades ago.
Oh, it's the "not as bad as N Korea" argument. What a ringing endorsement that is!
The sad thing is, that sort of hate filled anti-US troll
Um, how is disagreeing with the Government "hate filled anti-US"? That's the sort of emotive logic that tyrannies love to use.
And even for posters such as me that are not in the US, we equally oppose similar measures being done in our countries (in my case, the UK). It's not a competition (even though it sometimes seems the Governments treat it that way), so you can drop that straw man.
As far as I know, it's only child porn that is actively censored, and whilst I don't mind it being censored due to what it is, it does spark the question "Where will it stop?"
It's "potentially illegal" child images that they allegedly cover.
However, we already know this to be false - with Wikipedia, even leaving aside the issue of whether that 30 year old album cover counts as child porn (there's no evidence of a child being abused, so I'd say no), they censored legal text (and didn't censor the image at all!).
The other problem is that they don't censor everything else that's illegal - so should they continue to censor child porn and nothing else, or censor everything illegal?
Indeed, despite the fact that images of consenting adults can now be illegal to possess, the IWF do not appear to want to block these (perhaps partly because the law is so vague they wouldn't have a clue what it covers, and if they blocked everything which "potentially" came under the law, last year's Wikipedia fiasco would be nothing compared to trying to blanketly enforce the so-called "extreme" porn law).
So by that reasoning, a 16 year old Amiga 1200 is even better value? I'm not sure I follow your logic.
Indeed. I find it sad that on a site where open systems such as Linux are loved over Microsoft, Apple seem to be loved fanatically over Linux, despite them doing much the same as Microsoft (albeit far less successfully).
It would be great if falconwolf supported Linux, but it's just funny the way he gets on his high horse about not using Windows, and then we find out he's paying even more money to Apple.
I wouldn't take OS X if you gave it for free (in fact, you'd have to pay me to take it and use it), but I happily paid for Windows over Linux.
Also, by using Windows rather than OS X, I save $0.50 a day for a substantially better user experience.
(There look, I express opinions as fact - can I get modded up now?)
Actually a backup capability which really works...
So does Windows.
You are not even forced to upgrade to a higher version of the same operating system for a half working restore...
Nor are you on Windows - what do you mean?
Unix tools out of the box,
So does Linux.
No file locking, which makes it important if you do some serious development!
Ouch, how is this a good thing?
No registry which is the root of many evils in windows.
Nor does Linux, or AmigaOS.
A system administration frontend which does not try to make you insane by distributing its functionality over 15.000 ui dialogs.
I've found Apple's UI worse than most other UIs (just look at Quicktime).
User Access Control which actually works as expected!
Same here on Windows.
A filesystem which does not fragment as hell in serious development tasks.
Never had a problem here on Windows, that was only an issue under 9x.
A real working distributed component framework all the infrastructure is built upon which actually is usable!
The file sharing capabilities and printer sharing capabilities are superior thanks to Rendevouz!
Dashboard actually is usable instead if trying to pointlessly shove the widgets into the working area of many people!
Let's have examples and evidence, not assertions. These are just "OS X is better" written with more buzzwords. How is it better? On Windows, I click print, and it just works. I click "Share", and it just works. I don't need a special thing like whatever "Rendevouz" is.
It does not thrash my harddisk for minutes after bootup with tasks hidden by the process explorer (happend to me in vista)!
It does not lock my ui half a minute after showing it because it needs to load other things, und just tries to give the impression of being usable while it clearly isnÂt.
Never happened with me on any Windows systems.
It comes with SSH and VNC and Xwindows out of the box.
So does Linux.
It has a browser which follows web standards which are newer than 2003!
So does Windows and Linux.
It has users who do not insist of using a 10 year old browser despite being numerously the victims of worms and virii induced by the shortcoming of this browser!
So it has users who can use 10 year old computers, without being forced to upgrade. So much for people saying it's Macs that last for longer. And how does what other people use affect people using more modern systems?
And the correct word is viruses (of which, I've never had one under Windows).