This is circular reasoning. And everybody knows it.
The reason that the market share is so low, is that companies didn’t support it in the first place. Because they did not look at the long-term profits, or were just too greedy. It’s got nothing to do with market share. That is just a straw-man.
But hey, I have yet to see hardware that I couldn’t use under Linux. So the whole driver problem is’t even there anymore.
It’s big companies like Adobe, and game creators, with their short-term greed, that are really the ones responsible.
What I've seen on the kernel mailing list is more a conflict of commercial developer's desire for compatibility (across kernel versions) with the core kernel developer's more diverse (and not always logical) desire to push pet projects and make frequent cosmetic changes that creates a hellish torrent of code churn. The lack of well defined kernel driver interfaces means a lot of time spent chasing the latest changes instead of adding features or fixing bugs.
If you ever used Gentoo, you’ll know that this is true for all of Linux, and the main thing to really really hate about it. (I love Linux in general, but this is destroying most of that love.) Your distribution maintainers just usually shield you from it.
Stallman had good intentions, but it seems he never was at a bazaar himself, since otherwise he would have known that every bazaar is a totally chaotic mess. ^^ Interfaces, just like standards, are a good thing. Maybe we should do it like the Germans would do a “bazaar”. With clear rules. You know. “Zucht und Ordnung”;))
I think your definition of “real nerds” is way off. My dictionary says: iPad users — faggy hipsters who are easily influenced by viral marketing, and usually play with shiny colorful clickable UIs on locked-down appliances. real nerds — people who use text-based UIs and solder their own hardware, have great logic skills at the expense of social skills and are actually really using computers (=automating things).
As someone once said: Laws are meaningless. Good people know what’s wrong and right themselves. And bad people don’t care about them anyway.
But of course “good” and “bad” is entirely defined by how much you profit from them (or how much they hurt you). So it’s a completely egocentric concept, and must be applied relative to someone.
The problem is, that views always differ on something for a big set of people. And why you will never ever get people to want the same on everything in a country. Ever. So laws are created, so that everyone adheres to the reality and rules of those in power. To give them the illusion that we’re not still living under the law of the jungle, and that there’s not just some monopoly in that jungle, that is all-powerful.
It’s still deeply wrong though, to force hundreds of millions people to adhere to the same thousands of laws. No matter what those laws are.
I’d prefer smaller communities of people who at least agree on close to everything. And only alliances for things where both communities really agree upon.
Question: Who of you even remembers, that a week after 9/11, about 15,000 people died in a massive landslide caused by heavy rain? (Don’t dare to say that they are worth less.) And who knows how many Americans were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now tell me how many it were, also counting non-Americans. (Ditto.)
Nope, that does not make the terrorist attacks good. But it puts priorities in perspective. When you consider what caused those attacks in the first place (religious fundamentalism induced by evil leaders using poor and badly educated people), then we should focus on stopping the exact same thing from happening in America with Christian fundamentalists, shouldn’t we? Seriously. Mass murder got nothing on mass social engineering when in comes to evilness. The only reason nobody goes to jail, is because it’s so sneaky, and fits the human mind so well, that it (the schizophrenic disease called “religion”) even infected the law makers and most rational people.
I "want" everyone involved with the *IAA to be gelded so their genetics are not passed on to further generations.
Doesn’t matter. There is a second way of reproduction. Because we are really life-forms of two realms. The realm of matter and the realm of ideas. Ideas can just as much reproduce, even when the humans that created them are long dead. What you want, is to kill of the ideas.
With professional social engineering, rhethorics and mass psychology (or in one term: mind hacking) you actually got a pretty good chance at that. Wanna join us? We’re already doing it.
Do you understand the difference between wanting something, buying something, and stealing something?
wanting = you don’t have it, the other person does stealing = you have it, the other person doesn’t, there is no contract about it buying = you have it, the other person doesn’t, there is a contract about it
Your example is stealing. Not buying. And it does not matter if the price is good. It’s not the price but the contract that makes it buying.
Sometimes the position of the pirate party looks more and more sensible.
Sometimes? You speak as if it were not sensible in the first place. Sounds like you live too much inside the MAFIAA delusion. Get out while you still can!:)
The whole definition of “task” has no meaning to a system like a brain. See it like this: It is the number of parallel I/O streams that is limited. An I/O stream being a constant flow of input and resulting output. If you got two of those at the same time, they will mess each other up wherever they cross the same neurons in the brain. (You will start associating things that you shouldn’t.)
Which is why you can think about math, while walking at the same time. (Truly parallel.) Because walking happens somewhere else.
But if they happen in the same area... Well, imagine trying to say two different letters in parallel. It’s physically impossible, and can at best result in a third sound that is a modulation of the two. Now imagine trying to speak like that to two or even more people in parallel. Humans obviously don’t do that. Because it’s impossible. They switch very fast. And switching is itself work that takes up resources, and slows everything down.
So there is a limit, when you can’t do anything anymore, because task switching takes more time than you actually still use for doing the tasks themselves. Or much earlier, when it’s simply not worth it anymore, because you became too slow.
So you can do 50 tasks “at the same time”. If your measuring resolution is so low, that you don’t see yourself switching between the tasks every X minutes or so. But I wouldn’t call that “parallel” anymore. But sequential with breaks.
For my work I have a strict no-multitasking policy. If I work, I work. If I don’t I don’t. That means that I have a minimum for how long I wait before switching to a different task. (Exception: Life-threatening emergencies where I just drop everything and run.) That minimum depends on how long the switching takes.and how much those tasks can be done parallel.
For programming that means, that I will never ever switch projects in the middle of a day. Ever. If I started the morning on one project, that’t what this day is for. No discussion, no compromises, no exceptions. Accept it or GTFO. Because otherwise, I can’t work or hold my quality. And that is a no-go for me, because quality is a selling point of mine.
Ah great. I TOLD you not to kill the messenger! Stupid idiots! Modding me flamebait won’t make it go away. In general, your ignorance won’t make it go away!
I hate that what nowadays is called “social” and “PC”, is actually hurting humanity as a whole, making it into a mutant cripple, barely able to survive! Hell, most people already have trouble reproducing. With the current trend, there will be no reproduction without massive medication and therapy anymore in about two generations. And one or two later, we will start becoming extinct. Yay.
Also it somehow is OK to give special treatment to failures (mentally as well as genetically), and thereby punish every healthy and successful human on the planet. But oh no, don’t treat them just like everyone else (fair!), or you are somehow “asocial”.
How fucked up of a newspeak social conditioning is that? To be called a “nice, social, good person” you have to destroy humanity as a whole, punish everyone who is successful and let others leech from you! If that is our concept of what is good, I don’t want to be your kind of “good”!
I want humanity to be SUCCESSFUL. And I want to be FAIR. And I will be. Because in the end, when you all can’t get children anymore with your idiotic philosophy, my line with be the only one still thriving. And you will beg for me to save you, the same way you “saved” others.
And I will tell you, that I’ll let natural selection sort that (=you) out.
Because I have yet to see a Theora video site. I say that the price of the additional data traffic costs to get the same quality as H.264 is still more than the license. I”m all for an open codec. But everybody knows that unless it”s also a *better* codec, we won”t see it being used. Companies have no interest in paying more and don—t care as much about open source as they should for their own good. File sharers don’t care about licenses anyway. So we”re left with the tiny subset of private people and very small companies who don”t use it for file sharing.
And then there’s the point of one actually caring about licensing. Honestly I don’t thing the MPEG will ever sue. Because that would kill off H.264 pretty quickly on the web. They have other interests that are more important than a bit of license money. So I will use H.264 even without a license, just as I did with GIF, JPEG, etc, etc, etc. Because I think we are stronger, and the can”t ever hurt us. Instead of backing down like a submissive beta-human loser.
Also, the whole discussion is retarded anyway, because it's utterly idiotic of the Firefox team, to not just link to ffmpeg/DirectShow/CoreVideo, and be done with it. No legal issues for them whatsoever. It’s been said a thousand times already. But they want to ram their thing down our throats no matter what. To me, that is no better than if the MPEG group would force us to pay for a license. Except that they don’t (yet).
Protip: If fighting has made you into what you fought against in the first place, then maybe you should stop, and take a deep breath...
How about them asking IBM? They are doing very well with open source. Red Hat too. Oracle, are you really saying that your arch-rival can do it, but you can’t?
It’s not Open Source’s failure if you can’t make money with it. It’s your fault. In particular your outdated concepts of software as a good and as a product.
Software is the result of a service. If you always remember that single little truth, then you business models will work. (As long as your service is worth the money.)
The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children,' used embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization treatment.
No it doesn’t. Since it’s not their child. They are just the breeding machine. Not very cool, if you ask me. But if you want to lie to yourself... it should “work” for people who can stand being superstitious/religious/schizophrenic.
Also, why do I have to be the one who states the obvious: Maybe there is a reason, that people with genetic disorders can’t have children? Maybe it’s not cruel, but just the normal way of life and natural selection? Maybe it’s just like someone not getting a GF, because he’s got some problem... Yes, it’s hard, if you are born with a genetic disorder or get a disease that makes is impossible for you to reproduce. I can definitely emphasize with that situation. You’re basically “the bad seed” to nature. But I’m not saying we should just kill people who are like that off. We’re not the Nazis. We’re not in Gattaca. But what we can do, is fix those disorders and diseases. BUT, only if the one having them wants it so. Because in nature, a mutation has no “good” or “bad” label. Some mutations are GOOD. Some diseases turn out to be an advantage. So we should concentrate on offering custom gene therapies to everyone equally, and letting people choose if they consider it a disadvantage. This would even allow us to accelerate natural selection without actually “selecting” any people out (to die). Which, I think, would be a pinnacle of human medicine.
You haven’t seen the “girls” in Manchester, have you? If it were Germany, or maybe Brazil, I’d say “give it a chance”. But Manchester? Fat, ugly, dumb... it’s a 90% chance that you have to choose two... at least... ^^
It’s well-known that preparing for sports gives you a high, as a prevention to cope with the upcoming pain, when done regularly. You can get addicted to that, just like you can get addicted to everything else on this planet. The thing is, that it needs another influence, for it to become an addiction. (It’s an addiction, as soon as it becomes irrational in terms of logic and in terms of what you expect as an emotional reaction.) Something else in your life that you miss, or that is not right. Maybe a lost partner. I think deprivation from love* is the single most common cause.
Also, sports boost the libido, give you better chances at reproducing, and make your sex better as a side-effect. This is obviously not a bad thing, as long as it’s not an addiction.
So if it’s an addiction, she should look at what she is missing. The elephant in the room that is just outside your perception the whole time. The last place where she would want to look. If it’s not, I recommend getting a boyfriend, and enjoying it. I know that in this society, there’s a false social conditioning that... well, South Park said it best: The wizard alien caused it! But it’s just as true for women. They just can hide it better. But they want it just as much.
(* Sorry for the probably bad English. It’s not my native language.)
Wanna know how you can recognize someone who thinks he is an expert, but isn’t? If he considers water or oxygen essential for life, that’s someone like that. Remember that life on earth also started out with neither. We’re basically built of, consuming and endlessly recycling the poop of earlier organisms... and luckily our own poop feeds them again. (This only does sound nasty to us humans.)
... for those extended versions of the Lord of The Rings that will finally be coming on BluRay next year.
What? Another two hours on top of the 30 minutes straight of blurry goodbye scenes? I fuckin HATE LOTR. Am I really the only one who prefers Sci-Fi over retarded “magic”, monkey dwarves and faggy elves shit?
Also, congratulations on having the forsight to not allow these new media to be played on clearly obsolete Blu-Ray players while still selling them as Blu-Ray discs.
Are you working for FOX? Is your name Glenn Beck? Because it’s even mentioned in the fucking summary, that the disks are backwards-compatible, and that that was a crucial point!!
I could have told you that before. There was a really well done test of all CD-R/RWs on the market in a magazine around 2000. The used modern climate chambers to simulate years of laying around. The conclusions were more than clear: All. I repeat: ALL CD-Rs die at an average age of 2-3 years. Because the write layer is an organic material. (There were non-organic [gold-based] ones, but you couldn’t get them anymore in 2003, as far as I know.) CD-RWs on the other hand lasted an average of 10 years.
That’s why I chose DVD-RAMs. Specified to last 30 years, and the specs to back it up: A non-organic gold-based writing layer, hard-disk-like sectors and error correction, all-around better. The only sad thing is, that they are too small for serious backup solutions.
Nowadays I don’t even trust a HDD to survive even the first write. GIT-like versioned storage on ZFS triple-mirroring with constant scrubbing, or nothing. Period. Fuck RAIDs, fuck “backup solutions”. fuck tapes, discs, everything. Nothing did save me, except the above.
Everybody knows that Apple is a control freak. If you write an app for it, you accept the risk. If you buy a product, you want to live in a locked down world. I’m not judging anyone’s choices on this, but sorry... you can’t ignore it, and then complain later.
The only thing I don’t understand, is why Apple is doing this. I mean, it only hurts them. Maybe some pressure from media companies? (Who have close relations to Apple, because Apple products are used so much in professional media production.) If anyone has the reasoning at hand, please do explain...
Luckily, this is not very important to me, and I’m only curious. I, as a developer, made the choice that I will never support Apple or Microsoft phones. It’s not worth it. (You have to add the cost of supporting idiot customers that feel entitled to being idiots, in MS’s case.) Of course I will change that rule, if those companies get a sudden outbreak of common sense and lose their evilness. But as if that’s going to happen... ^^
Well, there always is additive-free tobacco. As a comparison: “Normal” cigarettes have 600+ additives. Amongst them about every highly toxic stuff you can think of. As long as it allows stronger nicotine intake (into the blood stream), it’s in there. As long as it raises addictiveness, it’s in there. Now a cigarette, despite having just as much nicotine, can be 100 times more of the bad stuff into you than just pure tobacco. Would you buy weed, if it was cut with 600 other things? No. You wouldn’t even buy it, if it was cut with one non-weed ingredient. Also, adding that much additives not really makes thing cheaper, which is the reason it’s done with illegal drugs. So I bet you even save money.
A friend of mine, who got an extensive experience with all kinds of drugs, told me, that in terms of pure addictiveness, pure tobacco is a bit above alcohol. But cigarettes are on par with heroine. (A study supports that statement.) Yes, it’s that hard to get rid of them. Not because of the tobacco. But because of the additives.
Slashdot Mirror
This is circular reasoning. And everybody knows it.
The reason that the market share is so low, is that companies didn’t support it in the first place. Because they did not look at the long-term profits, or were just too greedy. It’s got nothing to do with market share. That is just a straw-man.
But hey, I have yet to see hardware that I couldn’t use under Linux. So the whole driver problem is’t even there anymore.
It’s big companies like Adobe, and game creators, with their short-term greed, that are really the ones responsible.
What I've seen on the kernel mailing list is more a conflict of commercial developer's desire for compatibility (across kernel versions) with the core kernel developer's more diverse (and not always logical) desire to push pet projects and make frequent cosmetic changes that creates a hellish torrent of code churn. The lack of well defined kernel driver interfaces means a lot of time spent chasing the latest changes instead of adding features or fixing bugs.
If you ever used Gentoo, you’ll know that this is true for all of Linux, and the main thing to really really hate about it. (I love Linux in general, but this is destroying most of that love.) Your distribution maintainers just usually shield you from it.
Stallman had good intentions, but it seems he never was at a bazaar himself, since otherwise he would have known that every bazaar is a totally chaotic mess. ^^ ;))
Interfaces, just like standards, are a good thing.
Maybe we should do it like the Germans would do a “bazaar”. With clear rules. You know. “Zucht und Ordnung”
I think your definition of “real nerds” is way off.
My dictionary says:
iPad users — faggy hipsters who are easily influenced by viral marketing, and usually play with shiny colorful clickable UIs on locked-down appliances.
real nerds — people who use text-based UIs and solder their own hardware, have great logic skills at the expense of social skills and are actually really using computers (=automating things).
As someone once said: Laws are meaningless. Good people know what’s wrong and right themselves. And bad people don’t care about them anyway.
But of course “good” and “bad” is entirely defined by how much you profit from them (or how much they hurt you). So it’s a completely egocentric concept, and must be applied relative to someone.
The problem is, that views always differ on something for a big set of people. And why you will never ever get people to want the same on everything in a country. Ever.
So laws are created, so that everyone adheres to the reality and rules of those in power. To give them the illusion that we’re not still living under the law of the jungle, and that there’s not just some monopoly in that jungle, that is all-powerful.
It’s still deeply wrong though, to force hundreds of millions people to adhere to the same thousands of laws. No matter what those laws are.
I’d prefer smaller communities of people who at least agree on close to everything. And only alliances for things where both communities really agree upon.
Question: Who of you even remembers, that a week after 9/11, about 15,000 people died in a massive landslide caused by heavy rain? (Don’t dare to say that they are worth less.)
And who knows how many Americans were killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now tell me how many it were, also counting non-Americans. (Ditto.)
Nope, that does not make the terrorist attacks good. But it puts priorities in perspective.
When you consider what caused those attacks in the first place (religious fundamentalism induced by evil leaders using poor and badly educated people), then we should focus on stopping the exact same thing from happening in America with Christian fundamentalists, shouldn’t we? Seriously. Mass murder got nothing on mass social engineering when in comes to evilness. The only reason nobody goes to jail, is because it’s so sneaky, and fits the human mind so well, that it (the schizophrenic disease called “religion”) even infected the law makers and most rational people.
Your question makes no sense. When I look up “my government” or “multinational corporations” in my dictionary, in redirects me to “terrorist”.
I "want" everyone involved with the *IAA to be gelded so their genetics are not passed on to further generations.
Doesn’t matter. There is a second way of reproduction. Because we are really life-forms of two realms. The realm of matter and the realm of ideas. Ideas can just as much reproduce, even when the humans that created them are long dead.
What you want, is to kill of the ideas.
With professional social engineering, rhethorics and mass psychology (or in one term: mind hacking) you actually got a pretty good chance at that. Wanna join us? We’re already doing it.
Your Pirate Party supporters.
Do you understand the difference between wanting something, buying something, and stealing something?
wanting = you don’t have it, the other person does
stealing = you have it, the other person doesn’t, there is no contract about it
buying = you have it, the other person doesn’t, there is a contract about it
Your example is stealing. Not buying.
And it does not matter if the price is good. It’s not the price but the contract that makes it buying.
Sometimes the position of the pirate party looks more and more sensible.
Sometimes? You speak as if it were not sensible in the first place. Sounds like you live too much inside the MAFIAA delusion. Get out while you still can! :)
The whole definition of “task” has no meaning to a system like a brain.
See it like this: It is the number of parallel I/O streams that is limited.
An I/O stream being a constant flow of input and resulting output.
If you got two of those at the same time, they will mess each other up wherever they cross the same neurons in the brain. (You will start associating things that you shouldn’t.)
Which is why you can think about math, while walking at the same time. (Truly parallel.)
Because walking happens somewhere else.
But if they happen in the same area... Well, imagine trying to say two different letters in parallel. It’s physically impossible, and can at best result in a third sound that is a modulation of the two. Now imagine trying to speak like that to two or even more people in parallel.
Humans obviously don’t do that. Because it’s impossible. They switch very fast. And switching is itself work that takes up resources, and slows everything down.
So there is a limit, when you can’t do anything anymore, because task switching takes more time than you actually still use for doing the tasks themselves. Or much earlier, when it’s simply not worth it anymore, because you became too slow.
So you can do 50 tasks “at the same time”. If your measuring resolution is so low, that you don’t see yourself switching between the tasks every X minutes or so. But I wouldn’t call that “parallel” anymore. But sequential with breaks.
For my work I have a strict no-multitasking policy. If I work, I work. If I don’t I don’t.
That means that I have a minimum for how long I wait before switching to a different task. (Exception: Life-threatening emergencies where I just drop everything and run.)
That minimum depends on how long the switching takes.and how much those tasks can be done parallel.
For programming that means, that I will never ever switch projects in the middle of a day. Ever. If I started the morning on one project, that’t what this day is for. No discussion, no compromises, no exceptions. Accept it or GTFO.
Because otherwise, I can’t work or hold my quality. And that is a no-go for me, because quality is a selling point of mine.
Ah great. I TOLD you not to kill the messenger! Stupid idiots!
Modding me flamebait won’t make it go away. In general, your ignorance won’t make it go away!
I hate that what nowadays is called “social” and “PC”, is actually hurting humanity as a whole, making it into a mutant cripple, barely able to survive! Hell, most people already have trouble reproducing. With the current trend, there will be no reproduction without massive medication and therapy anymore in about two generations. And one or two later, we will start becoming extinct. Yay.
Also it somehow is OK to give special treatment to failures (mentally as well as genetically), and thereby punish every healthy and successful human on the planet. But oh no, don’t treat them just like everyone else (fair!), or you are somehow “asocial”.
How fucked up of a newspeak social conditioning is that? To be called a “nice, social, good person” you have to destroy humanity as a whole, punish everyone who is successful and let others leech from you!
If that is our concept of what is good, I don’t want to be your kind of “good”!
I want humanity to be SUCCESSFUL. And I want to be FAIR. And I will be.
Because in the end, when you all can’t get children anymore with your idiotic philosophy, my line with be the only one still thriving. And you will beg for me to save you, the same way you “saved” others.
And I will tell you, that I’ll let natural selection sort that (=you) out.
Because I have yet to see a Theora video site. I say that the price of the additional data traffic costs to get the same quality as H.264 is still more than the license.
I”m all for an open codec. But everybody knows that unless it”s also a *better* codec, we won”t see it being used. Companies have no interest in paying more and don—t care as much about open source as they should for their own good.
File sharers don’t care about licenses anyway.
So we”re left with the tiny subset of private people and very small companies who don”t use it for file sharing.
And then there’s the point of one actually caring about licensing. Honestly I don’t thing the MPEG will ever sue. Because that would kill off H.264 pretty quickly on the web. They have other interests that are more important than a bit of license money.
So I will use H.264 even without a license, just as I did with GIF, JPEG, etc, etc, etc.
Because I think we are stronger, and the can”t ever hurt us. Instead of backing down like a submissive beta-human loser.
Also, the whole discussion is retarded anyway, because it's utterly idiotic of the Firefox team, to not just link to ffmpeg/DirectShow/CoreVideo, and be done with it. No legal issues for them whatsoever. It’s been said a thousand times already. But they want to ram their thing down our throats no matter what.
To me, that is no better than if the MPEG group would force us to pay for a license. Except that they don’t (yet).
Protip: If fighting has made you into what you fought against in the first place, then maybe you should stop, and take a deep breath...
How about them asking IBM? They are doing very well with open source. Red Hat too.
Oracle, are you really saying that your arch-rival can do it, but you can’t?
It’s not Open Source’s failure if you can’t make money with it. It’s your fault.
In particular your outdated concepts of software as a good and as a product.
Software is the result of a service.
If you always remember that single little truth, then you business models will work. (As long as your service is worth the money.)
The research, which may 'help mothers with rare genetic disorders have healthy children,' used embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization treatment.
No it doesn’t. Since it’s not their child. They are just the breeding machine. Not very cool, if you ask me. But if you want to lie to yourself... it should “work” for people who can stand being superstitious/religious/schizophrenic.
Also, why do I have to be the one who states the obvious: Maybe there is a reason, that people with genetic disorders can’t have children? Maybe it’s not cruel, but just the normal way of life and natural selection? Maybe it’s just like someone not getting a GF, because he’s got some problem...
Yes, it’s hard, if you are born with a genetic disorder or get a disease that makes is impossible for you to reproduce. I can definitely emphasize with that situation. You’re basically “the bad seed” to nature.
But I’m not saying we should just kill people who are like that off. We’re not the Nazis. We’re not in Gattaca.
But what we can do, is fix those disorders and diseases. BUT, only if the one having them wants it so. Because in nature, a mutation has no “good” or “bad” label. Some mutations are GOOD. Some diseases turn out to be an advantage.
So we should concentrate on offering custom gene therapies to everyone equally, and letting people choose if they consider it a disadvantage.
This would even allow us to accelerate natural selection without actually “selecting” any people out (to die). Which, I think, would be a pinnacle of human medicine.
You haven’t seen the “girls” in Manchester, have you?
If it were Germany, or maybe Brazil, I’d say “give it a chance”.
But Manchester? Fat, ugly, dumb... it’s a 90% chance that you have to choose two... at least... ^^
It’s well-known that preparing for sports gives you a high, as a prevention to cope with the upcoming pain, when done regularly.
You can get addicted to that, just like you can get addicted to everything else on this planet.
The thing is, that it needs another influence, for it to become an addiction. (It’s an addiction, as soon as it becomes irrational in terms of logic and in terms of what you expect as an emotional reaction.) Something else in your life that you miss, or that is not right.
Maybe a lost partner. I think deprivation from love* is the single most common cause.
Also, sports boost the libido, give you better chances at reproducing, and make your sex better as a side-effect.
This is obviously not a bad thing, as long as it’s not an addiction.
So if it’s an addiction, she should look at what she is missing. The elephant in the room that is just outside your perception the whole time. The last place where she would want to look.
If it’s not, I recommend getting a boyfriend, and enjoying it. I know that in this society, there’s a false social conditioning that... well, South Park said it best: The wizard alien caused it! But it’s just as true for women. They just can hide it better. But they want it just as much.
(* Sorry for the probably bad English. It’s not my native language.)
I’m sorry? Life did start out oxygen- and water-free. Where do you think all that stuff comes from? It’s processed poop. Nothing else.
Wanna know how you can recognize someone who thinks he is an expert, but isn’t?
If he considers water or oxygen essential for life, that’s someone like that.
Remember that life on earth also started out with neither. We’re basically built of, consuming and endlessly recycling the poop of earlier organisms... and luckily our own poop feeds them again. (This only does sound nasty to us humans.)
Pff, pussy! Real men used DVD-RAM! :D
... for those extended versions of the Lord of The Rings that will finally be coming on BluRay next year.
What? Another two hours on top of the 30 minutes straight of blurry goodbye scenes?
I fuckin HATE LOTR. Am I really the only one who prefers Sci-Fi over retarded “magic”, monkey dwarves and faggy elves shit?
Also, congratulations on having the forsight to not allow these new media to be played on clearly obsolete Blu-Ray players while still selling them as Blu-Ray discs.
Are you working for FOX? Is your name Glenn Beck?
Because it’s even mentioned in the fucking summary, that the disks are backwards-compatible, and that that was a crucial point!!
I could have told you that before. There was a really well done test of all CD-R/RWs on the market in a magazine around 2000. The used modern climate chambers to simulate years of laying around. The conclusions were more than clear: All. I repeat: ALL CD-Rs die at an average age of 2-3 years. Because the write layer is an organic material. (There were non-organic [gold-based] ones, but you couldn’t get them anymore in 2003, as far as I know.)
CD-RWs on the other hand lasted an average of 10 years.
That’s why I chose DVD-RAMs. Specified to last 30 years, and the specs to back it up: A non-organic gold-based writing layer, hard-disk-like sectors and error correction, all-around better.
The only sad thing is, that they are too small for serious backup solutions.
Nowadays I don’t even trust a HDD to survive even the first write. GIT-like versioned storage on ZFS triple-mirroring with constant scrubbing, or nothing. Period.
Fuck RAIDs, fuck “backup solutions”. fuck tapes, discs, everything. Nothing did save me, except the above.
Yup. I love those funky water-trains that bring you over the Atlantic. ^^
Everybody knows that Apple is a control freak. If you write an app for it, you accept the risk. If you buy a product, you want to live in a locked down world. I’m not judging anyone’s choices on this, but sorry... you can’t ignore it, and then complain later.
The only thing I don’t understand, is why Apple is doing this. I mean, it only hurts them.
Maybe some pressure from media companies? (Who have close relations to Apple, because Apple products are used so much in professional media production.)
If anyone has the reasoning at hand, please do explain...
Luckily, this is not very important to me, and I’m only curious. I, as a developer, made the choice that I will never support Apple or Microsoft phones. It’s not worth it. (You have to add the cost of supporting idiot customers that feel entitled to being idiots, in MS’s case.)
Of course I will change that rule, if those companies get a sudden outbreak of common sense and lose their evilness. But as if that’s going to happen... ^^
But: Application software: Not so much! ^^
Well, there always is additive-free tobacco.
As a comparison: “Normal” cigarettes have 600+ additives. Amongst them about every highly toxic stuff you can think of. As long as it allows stronger nicotine intake (into the blood stream), it’s in there. As long as it raises addictiveness, it’s in there. Now a cigarette, despite having just as much nicotine, can be 100 times more of the bad stuff into you than just pure tobacco.
Would you buy weed, if it was cut with 600 other things? No. You wouldn’t even buy it, if it was cut with one non-weed ingredient.
Also, adding that much additives not really makes thing cheaper, which is the reason it’s done with illegal drugs.
So I bet you even save money.
A friend of mine, who got an extensive experience with all kinds of drugs, told me, that in terms of pure addictiveness, pure tobacco is a bit above alcohol. But cigarettes are on par with heroine. (A study supports that statement.) Yes, it’s that hard to get rid of them. Not because of the tobacco. But because of the additives.