The reason is, if someone deliberately ignores data about the real world in favor of a story they believe their religion demands, they may apply that "methodology" to medicine as well.
You didn't actually read my post, did you? Oh well...
Haven't you ever seen Robot Jox. Yeah, yeah, it's not the Mech Warrior universe, but it's a bunch of big robots fighting each other. It also has my vote for one of the worst movies ever made. When I thought about it, I started laughing to myself imagining my brother constantly repeating one of the worst delivered lines of all time:
We're Robot Jox!.... We're already dead!
Please, see this movie if you haven't already. It's so bad, it's fun.
Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?
I appreciate the discussion. I don't think either of us are zealots, and it makes having a conversation much easier.
And for the record, I am a developer. And I have recently had more experience developing in a UNIX environment and I must say, I kind of liked having to build my own make file for GCC, rather than just having a Visual C++ project file that I know nothing about. That's actually the reason I'll be installing Linux at home soon.
Anyway, I do appreciate it. I think some of my perceptions regarding Linux may not be true anymore with the latest distro's. I'll give it a try as soon as I can get a spare box.
You are the first to mention Microsoft in a negative light in a thread that has nothing to do with Microsoft! You will soon be awarded with massive amounts of karma! Enjoy!
As an added note: the complete text of your message is 49 characters, while your sig is 92 characters. You have almost hit the mystical 2 to 1 ratio of sig to message content that would have gotten you an additional reward. Try to include less content next time. Thanks!
A very valid point. Of course, since the issue of this thread is that you can't get the really popular stuff, I think Blockbuster is a good alternative for people who would find this to be an issue.
I'll give up my C compiler when they pry off the platters of my cold dead hard drive.
Were you intentionally trying to sound like Charlton Heston? Perhaps you should form the NCA, National C Association, to protect the rights of C coders in America. You could be the president!:-)
I'm not sure if this is a nationwide thing, but I know where I live Blockbuster has the same sort of program as Netflix. It's something like $20 a month and you can have up to 2 rentals out at a time (I think). Not only can you get a lot more movies because you don't have to deal with the mail, but you don't have to worry about these kind of schemes done by NetFlix.
We usually sign up for a one month pass every few months and play catch up on some of the movies we missed. We don't rent enough movies on a normal monthly basis to sign up for the regularly charged version which is a couple of bucks less a month I believe.
Anyone else seen this offer? Does it still exist? Last time we did it was in December of last year.
I'm glad you summarized because I'm rather busy IRL and don't have a lot of time to respond.
Linux distros offer a lot more value for what you pay compared to Windows.
I very much disagree with this. While Linux distros may include a lot of third party utilities that will help get work done, that doesn't mean that they offer a lot more value. This is your opinion. My opinion is that I get a lot of value out of Windows. Let me repeat, I will be running Linux soon so I can get some experience with it, but from what I hear from people I know who run Linux and from what I see in conversations around here, it's just not as easy to use as Windows. Again, your opinion may differ, and mine may change when I actually run Linux, but from the limited experience I have with it (and UNIX), Windows is a lot easier to use. There is a HUGE value for me in not having to do anything to get Windows to work. At home, I rarely have to futz, play with, or configure anything. It just works.
Linux distros offer a huge number of custmoizations to their version, as well as up to 400 pages of documentation, 6 CDs with software, all for only 30 - 50 USD.
So? I don't need huge amounts of customization of my OS. I realize that many people around here like that, but I really don't care. And again, I can't remember I've the last time I had to look up something in documentation to get something in Windows (the OS, not programs in it) to work.
Tech support offered for Linux distros is amazing compared to what Microsoft offers (again, this is from real-life experience)
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. I don't know what kind of support you get when you just individually purchase a copy of the OS, with Windows or Linux. However, I can tell you at work, with our support agreement, I've had no problems with Micrsoft support. They've always been pretty helpful with problems that I've had to deal with. IBM is a completely different matter...
I certainly don't mind IE being integrated into the OS. All I'm saying is web standards are hurt, and other browsers (which may be far superior in a way) are never given a chance.
Never given a chance? Because someone may actually have to get the browser somehow and then install it? At least that kind of stuff is fairly simple in Windows...;-)
The full version price for Windows XP is ridiculous compared to Linux distros, for instance, where you have next to everything configured and ready to use.
And who has really had to guy the full version in the last 10 years? Yes, it is rather expensive to buy a full version of WinXP pro, but most people who want or need WinXP pro qualify for the upgrade.
One of the main reasons for XP being popular is its interface
Again, so? Why is that a bad thing? Windows XP is extremely stable (as was Win2000), the interface is consistent. It's very easy to use. I never have to worry about compiling, or library dependencies, or anything like that to get programs to work (unless I'm coding of course).
As for Microsoft going to XML formats for Office. I would advise you to take a look at an XML document saved from the newest version of Office and compare it to a document saved from OpenOffice as XML. Honestly, when I've compared the two, Microsoft's document structure looks a lot "easier" to work with than OpenOffice.
I don't mean to say it's easy to reverse engineer a file format, file system or network protocol. And like I said, I do agree with you that it is obviously in Microsoft's interest to keep those formats closed. I'm trying to rememeber how we got on to that subject...:-)
You must agree with me, that the differences between these two operating systems are not very great. Some people would not agree with me because to them it LOOKS entirely different. But hey, other than that, are there a lot more differences? According to me at least, no.
I could come up with a list that shows how different the two really are. Many of them are "under the hood" so to speak but realize that they had to take Windows 2000 and make sure it ran most Windows ME/9X programs without messing everything up. They did that pretty darn well in my opinion. As for the price, if you want the professional version, then yes, the upgrade was $199, but for the home version the upgrade was $99. That's not really much more than say purchasing a commercial Linux distro, and for the most part, they didn't have to do nearly the work to come up with the Linux product as Microsoft had to to develop Windows XP.
Also, you will notice that the full price and upgrade price for Windows as new versions come out doesn't really change from year to year. That's why I took you to task on the "triple" the price. I don't really see Microsoft raising their prices in the last 10 years. In fact, when you account for inflation, many of their products probably cost less than they use to.
As for the diversion into IE, I don't have problem with you bringing it up. First off, the inclusion of IE into the OS, along with it being the default is to the benefit of the consumer in my opinion. Not only do they not have to worry about downloading a browser, or purchasing one, but the componentized (new word?) setup of IE makes it very easy for programmers to develop applications that use parts of IE and not have to worry about them not being their. I think incorporating the Web browser into the operating system is the next logical step for the OS. And as for crash statistics, I can't remember the last time IE crashed on me in Win2000 at work or WinXP at home. Honestly. If you really need to go back to Windows 95 to make your point about IE, I don't think it's a very strong one.
As I said earlier, and I repeat myself, Internet Explorer (which was originally Spyglass' browser), the Windows GUI, why even DOS itself.
Here is your original quote:
Most uers fall for it when Microsoft takes a product, polishes it, then resells it at triple the price.
That's the kind of example I'm asking for. Personally, I don't feel "gouged" too often by Microsoft, except maybe if I had to purchase Office. But even then, the ugprades aren't that expensive. Of course, the amount of new features in newer versions of Office is obviously not worth the money.
As for proprietary formats, I would like to see more open formats used by Microsoft, but it's not as if it is impossible to write something that can open and create Office documents. But you are correct in saying that Office is one of the main reasons that Microsoft is still on top. It's a huge cash cow that makes them a ton of money.
Windows XP Home is the newest consumer level OS introduced by Microsoft. For the consumer, this means it is the "upgrade" from Windows ME. Yes, it was based Windows 2000, but it is quite a departure from it.
Most users fall for Microsoft's marketing gimmicks
What marketing gimmicks exactly? I love Windows XP. It works perfectly for me. It has quite a bit of the software I use built in. I love the interface, and if I didn't, I could go back to the Win2000 interface, which I also love. I've used UNIX and I hate it. I will say, I'm going to give Linux a try soon though.
Most uers fall for it when Microsoft takes a product, polishes it, then resells it at triple the price.
Name a Microsoft product that this ever happened to.
Most users think that every computer comes built-in with a nice windozey interface that has an explorer where you can see some cute drive icons: A:, C:, D:
Um, I hate to break it to you, but most do. Now I realize what you are trying to say is that most don't understand the OS is actually seperate from the computer, but still, most new computers do come with Windows, so I think what you said is kind of true, no?
Microsoft has money. It has the money, and the strength to push its might on to hardware manufacturers. It also has its own advertising machine, as said before. And lastly, it has the ability to bulldoze the competition quite easily.
This is true.:-)
Seriously, when is the last time Microsoft has made a drastic change to its system?
Um, Windows XP was a drastic change to the OS over WinMe/98/95. At least in my opinion.
Are you quite sure that "bricriu" is a lawyer? Are you quite sure he has actually read the law? Did he provide a citation or proof of his statement? Here, maybe I should try something to change your mind:
Without the Patriot Act, 45% of people in the U.S. will die by 2010.
There, did you believe that? Have I changed your mind by making a completely unsubstantiated statement?
McDLT. I don't remember what the D stood for. This was the burger that came in a double-sized styrofoam box. On one side was the bottom of the bun with the burger and cheese. The other side had the top of the bun with mayo, lettuce & tomato. YOU get to put them together for "maximum freshness".
Yeah, I remember the burger. It's funny too because nobody I talk to ever remembers this burger either and the seemingly market flop it was.
It's funny, whenever I sing this song (and I can only get to the chicken salad oriental), nobody recognizes it all. I wonder if it's the age group of people I work with...
I usually sing it McDLT. Although I don't remember if they had a McDLT.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't actually read my post, did you? Oh well...
Haven't you ever seen Robot Jox. Yeah, yeah, it's not the Mech Warrior universe, but it's a bunch of big robots fighting each other. It also has my vote for one of the worst movies ever made. When I thought about it, I started laughing to myself imagining my brother constantly repeating one of the worst delivered lines of all time:
Please, see this movie if you haven't already. It's so bad, it's fun.
Many people I know who don't believe in biological macro-evolution still believe in an old earth, and they don't deny that the fossil record shows an increase in complexity in life over time. However, they simply don't believe random genetic mutation combined with natural selection is enough to drive the evolution of life to what we have today. How is that being unscientific? How is that person going to be a "dangerous" doctor?
From the article:
I couldn't see in the article, but does anyone know what actual codec they use? Is it the same DV codec that my Sony Digital 8 Camcorder uses?
I appreciate the discussion. I don't think either of us are zealots, and it makes having a conversation much easier.
And for the record, I am a developer. And I have recently had more experience developing in a UNIX environment and I must say, I kind of liked having to build my own make file for GCC, rather than just having a Visual C++ project file that I know nothing about. That's actually the reason I'll be installing Linux at home soon.
Anyway, I do appreciate it. I think some of my perceptions regarding Linux may not be true anymore with the latest distro's. I'll give it a try as soon as I can get a spare box.
You are the first to mention Microsoft in a negative light in a thread that has nothing to do with Microsoft! You will soon be awarded with massive amounts of karma! Enjoy!
As an added note: the complete text of your message is 49 characters, while your sig is 92 characters. You have almost hit the mystical 2 to 1 ratio of sig to message content that would have gotten you an additional reward. Try to include less content next time. Thanks!
I never have mod points at the right time.
Yes, it's much easier to come up with a dumb idea without having to think the whole thing through first.
A very valid point. Of course, since the issue of this thread is that you can't get the really popular stuff, I think Blockbuster is a good alternative for people who would find this to be an issue.
Were you intentionally trying to sound like Charlton Heston? Perhaps you should form the NCA, National C Association, to protect the rights of C coders in America. You could be the president! :-)
I'm not sure if this is a nationwide thing, but I know where I live Blockbuster has the same sort of program as Netflix. It's something like $20 a month and you can have up to 2 rentals out at a time (I think). Not only can you get a lot more movies because you don't have to deal with the mail, but you don't have to worry about these kind of schemes done by NetFlix.
We usually sign up for a one month pass every few months and play catch up on some of the movies we missed. We don't rent enough movies on a normal monthly basis to sign up for the regularly charged version which is a couple of bucks less a month I believe.
Anyone else seen this offer? Does it still exist? Last time we did it was in December of last year.
I'm glad you summarized because I'm rather busy IRL and don't have a lot of time to respond.
I very much disagree with this. While Linux distros may include a lot of third party utilities that will help get work done, that doesn't mean that they offer a lot more value. This is your opinion. My opinion is that I get a lot of value out of Windows. Let me repeat, I will be running Linux soon so I can get some experience with it, but from what I hear from people I know who run Linux and from what I see in conversations around here, it's just not as easy to use as Windows. Again, your opinion may differ, and mine may change when I actually run Linux, but from the limited experience I have with it (and UNIX), Windows is a lot easier to use. There is a HUGE value for me in not having to do anything to get Windows to work. At home, I rarely have to futz, play with, or configure anything. It just works.
So? I don't need huge amounts of customization of my OS. I realize that many people around here like that, but I really don't care. And again, I can't remember I've the last time I had to look up something in documentation to get something in Windows (the OS, not programs in it) to work.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. I don't know what kind of support you get when you just individually purchase a copy of the OS, with Windows or Linux. However, I can tell you at work, with our support agreement, I've had no problems with Micrsoft support. They've always been pretty helpful with problems that I've had to deal with. IBM is a completely different matter...
Never given a chance? Because someone may actually have to get the browser somehow and then install it? At least that kind of stuff is fairly simple in Windows... ;-)
And who has really had to guy the full version in the last 10 years? Yes, it is rather expensive to buy a full version of WinXP pro, but most people who want or need WinXP pro qualify for the upgrade.
Again, so? Why is that a bad thing? Windows XP is extremely stable (as was Win2000), the interface is consistent. It's very easy to use. I never have to worry about compiling, or library dependencies, or anything like that to get programs to work (unless I'm coding of course).
As for Microsoft going to XML formats for Office. I would advise you to take a look at an XML document saved from the newest version of Office and compare it to a document saved from OpenOffice as XML. Honestly, when I've compared the two, Microsoft's document structure looks a lot "easier" to work with than OpenOffice.
I don't mean to say it's easy to reverse engineer a file format, file system or network protocol. And like I said, I do agree with you that it is obviously in Microsoft's interest to keep those formats closed. I'm trying to rememeber how we got on to that subject... :-)
I could come up with a list that shows how different the two really are. Many of them are "under the hood" so to speak but realize that they had to take Windows 2000 and make sure it ran most Windows ME/9X programs without messing everything up. They did that pretty darn well in my opinion. As for the price, if you want the professional version, then yes, the upgrade was $199, but for the home version the upgrade was $99. That's not really much more than say purchasing a commercial Linux distro, and for the most part, they didn't have to do nearly the work to come up with the Linux product as Microsoft had to to develop Windows XP.
Also, you will notice that the full price and upgrade price for Windows as new versions come out doesn't really change from year to year. That's why I took you to task on the "triple" the price. I don't really see Microsoft raising their prices in the last 10 years. In fact, when you account for inflation, many of their products probably cost less than they use to.
As for the diversion into IE, I don't have problem with you bringing it up. First off, the inclusion of IE into the OS, along with it being the default is to the benefit of the consumer in my opinion. Not only do they not have to worry about downloading a browser, or purchasing one, but the componentized (new word?) setup of IE makes it very easy for programmers to develop applications that use parts of IE and not have to worry about them not being their. I think incorporating the Web browser into the operating system is the next logical step for the OS. And as for crash statistics, I can't remember the last time IE crashed on me in Win2000 at work or WinXP at home. Honestly. If you really need to go back to Windows 95 to make your point about IE, I don't think it's a very strong one.
Here is your original quote:
That's the kind of example I'm asking for. Personally, I don't feel "gouged" too often by Microsoft, except maybe if I had to purchase Office. But even then, the ugprades aren't that expensive. Of course, the amount of new features in newer versions of Office is obviously not worth the money.
As for proprietary formats, I would like to see more open formats used by Microsoft, but it's not as if it is impossible to write something that can open and create Office documents. But you are correct in saying that Office is one of the main reasons that Microsoft is still on top. It's a huge cash cow that makes them a ton of money.
Windows XP Home is the newest consumer level OS introduced by Microsoft. For the consumer, this means it is the "upgrade" from Windows ME. Yes, it was based Windows 2000, but it is quite a departure from it.
Hmm, ok, I'll bite:
Not true. I've heard of plenty.
What marketing gimmicks exactly? I love Windows XP. It works perfectly for me. It has quite a bit of the software I use built in. I love the interface, and if I didn't, I could go back to the Win2000 interface, which I also love. I've used UNIX and I hate it. I will say, I'm going to give Linux a try soon though.
Name a Microsoft product that this ever happened to.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but most do. Now I realize what you are trying to say is that most don't understand the OS is actually seperate from the computer, but still, most new computers do come with Windows, so I think what you said is kind of true, no?
This is true. :-)
Um, Windows XP was a drastic change to the OS over WinMe/98/95. At least in my opinion.
... As opposed to Slashdot, which gets all of the stories right.
No, that's WinXP. Windows 2000 still bluescreens, but I've never seen it happen.
Your favorite huh?
Are you quite sure that "bricriu" is a lawyer? Are you quite sure he has actually read the law? Did he provide a citation or proof of his statement? Here, maybe I should try something to change your mind:
Without the Patriot Act, 45% of people in the U.S. will die by 2010.
There, did you believe that? Have I changed your mind by making a completely unsubstantiated statement?
Oh, you mean the vulnerabilities that I've already patched?
Um... I was going to comment, but decided against it. ;-)
I'm hopefully... but doubtful also.
If only we had better garbage collection built in to our brains... :-)
Yeah, I remember the burger. It's funny too because nobody I talk to ever remembers this burger either and the seemingly market flop it was.
It's funny, whenever I sing this song (and I can only get to the chicken salad oriental), nobody recognizes it all. I wonder if it's the age group of people I work with...
I usually sing it McDLT. Although I don't remember if they had a McDLT.