"Nice troll. Who cares how long... the fact that it happened is what is germane to this conversation, not when. Take a course in critical thinking before speaking."
I have no problem with critical thinking, and you have nothing on which to base your conclusion. You have no idea how much or how little of your post I understood. You, however, seem to enjoy inserting useless words into your writing, which makes me think you should take a course on effective communication techniques.
"Here's a little hint for you, what do you think would happen to the US if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away? ICBMs and aircraft carriers are so 20th century. The real big red button these days is in Beijing and is labelled SELL (err... in chinese)."
Once the point is reached where nobody will continue to fund U.S. deficits, they'll do what other countries have done before them.
They'll default.
And if you think, "No they won't!", remember Stein's Law. If something can't go on forever, it'll stop on it's own.
The USA can't afford half of his promises. If you want the US government to lend you a dollar for a coffee, they'll have to print it or borrow it. And if you want to find out just how much of his campaign rhetoric will be paid any kind of lip service, just watch how fast he gets on doing nothing about NAFTA.
He knows NAFTA is a net gain to the country. It was just politically expedient to badmouth it in towns with failed manufacturing industries.
"Your entire complaint basically boils down to, "I don't know Linux, and I don't want to, but now I know it's not Windows." Good fucking job! I just always figured Linux and Windows were exactly the same, but now, thanks to your incredible insight, I'm aware that Linux and Windows are in fact different! Wow!"
There's nothing insightful about your comment. In fact, as near as I can tell, it's completely wrong.
Allow me to summarize the original post.
1. Attempted foreign language install. Never worked.
2. Installed Blackberry charging drivers - never worked.
3. Found out customizing shell involved editing text config files.
4. Got VPN working - turned out to be unstable.
5. Old issue - installing Ubuntu on 2GB flash dive. Failed with indetermine problems.
And so, here you come with your "insightful" reply, and claim that his whole post is that linux isn't Windows, and that apparently he doesn't want to know linux.
The only way your post makes any sense is if you think he's an idiot because he wants linux to work, and that just isn't "linux".
"Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it."
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate Edition, and I'll speak for myself, thanks
It works fine. What can I say? I'm stuck with Windows or Mac because I've got a whole lot of pro audio hardware and software, and linux has always blown (and still blows, no matter what the ALSA folks tell you) in that arena. The great tools are just not there.
It's stable, runs well, and after I tweaked the settings a bit the latency on my Tascam FW-1082 is awesomely, consistently low. Can't remember the last time I had to fiddle with anything. I was dual-booting to XP for audio work until the last Vista x64 drivers for my gear came out, and I'll be removing the XP partition soon.
Much of the software I have is also available for the Mac. In the end I decided to go with Windows because of the Home Use Program from Microsoft.
I'll be the first to admit that Vista is an incredibly inefficient resource hog. Thankfully, hardware resources are getting pretty darned cheap. I wouldn't put Vista on older hardware.
I have exactly one complaint. After many patches the time it takes to shut down and restart the system is absurd.
"Full disclosure, I work for Citrix. Check out XenServer, which can remotely provision server workloads to virtual and bare metal machines - based on load, you can remotely power up resources as needed. I have seen the future, and it is awesome. And green."
I'd be more trusting of your employer's ability to code something like that if you could provide me with something simpler - like a Citrix client that can handle two monitors with different resolutions correctly, and that doesn't get confused from time to time about where my cursor is.
"It also should be kept in mind that Harper's 37.63% of the popular vote comes from a mere 59% of the population who voted... which means that a mere 22% of the population actually WANTS him in power."
Actually, it means that number of people that want Harper in power is 22% + the portion of the 41% that didn't vote but is happy with the conservative leadership.
People who don't vote are: (a) uninterested and don't care (b) disillusioned and aren't happy with any party (c) happy with the status quo and doubt it'll change
I'm willing to bet that a much larger part of that unknown 41% supported the conservatives than supported any other party.
Somebody who is "a"-typical is not typical. Somebody who is "a"-theistic is not theistic. Theistic people believe in the existence of one or more gods.
"What has this to with this story? Really. This is about a lawyer being harassed by other lawyers on behalf a international media cartel for daring to defend on innocent woman. What does this have to do with your own personal take on the relative merits of the arguments on piracy and copyright? Nothing is what. You are just looking to bitch about how nobody agrees with you."
Yes, my response was not really applicable to the story. However, it WAS applicable to the response I replied to.
"Is there a reason you want an album and then won't pay for it? Just GO BUY THE CD or BUY THE MP3'S. If the artist intended for you to have th emusic for free, they would put it up on their myspace account for download. Since they DON'T, PAY FOR IT!!! "
I've tried saying that here before, but you run into a brick wall of nitpicking denial. Somehow the idea that it's not physical media makes it impossible to steal. Or it's the record companies that lose out, the artist gets shafted anyway. Or real artists should just want their music listened to. Like there are no costs involved in creating music.
I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market.
"19.99 + 29.99 + 29.99 = 79.97 so that gets you WoW, WoW:BC, WoW:WOTLK November 23, 2004 - November 23, 2008 @14.99 per mon = 719.52 for 4 years $799.49 grand total. Yeah, I mean that's a totally reasonable price for 1 game and 2 expansions.... or not."
Or you could look at it this way. The add-on will cost you about what... 3.9% of what you've paid so far?
I said that if you play WoW the add-on is a good deal, and it is. You're arguing that WoW itself isn't a good deal. You might believe that, but that's not what I said.
That "fixed that for you" thing is getting really, really old. I know the best you can do is ape other people's wit, but at least let the old guard die.
"LOL, loser."
Anybody who uses LOL in a forum that doesn't limit responses to the length of a cellular text message is most certainly a loser.
Burning Crusade was a great add-on, and I expect that this new one will be just as good. Sure, some people will complain that they have to buy content AND pay a monthly fee, but I only have to buy it once. If they skimped on the content I'd be upset too, but they don't. I'll get far more playing time out of this add-on than I have gotten out of any other recent game purchase.
"The fact that you had to do a search means you're incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. Anybody with (rounding up) at least one clue and an IQ above room temperature has heard of their tendency towards pacifism. Seriously. I gently beseech thee brother, in the name of all that is holy, to shut the fuck up."
No... it doesn't mean that I'm incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. It means that I don't know everything. You mentioned a religion that qualified, and I looked it up and agreed with you.
What makes you think I haven't heard of their tendency towards pacifism? I know about Quakers, just like I know about the Amish. But I know about Buddhists, too, and although their pacifism is certainly well known, as a group they have blood on THEIR hands.
It's a good day. Not only have I learned that there are no obvious internal Quaker murder scandals, but I have also learned that YOU are a pinhead.
"I'm pretty sure that the Quakers have a distinct lack of blood in their history."
After a quick search, I'm certainly willing to concede that they are definitely a seriously peaceful bunch. Your point is made.
I'm unwilling, however, to assert that this is normal for religions. I still maintain that all significant religions have had blood on their hands at some point.
"If the early believers had taken it, would they have been willing to die for what they knew was a lie? "
Good heavens, yes. Besides, it only takes one to steal a body. The rest might legitimately believe the story.
"The Bible, which stands up textual criticism at least with its many corroborating MS, claims that hundreds saw Jesus alive after his execution and while no secular sources confirm this, at least none give evidence to deny it."
Using the Bible to validate its claims is a logical absurdity, and having a few facts in it doesn't turn fiction into non-fiction. Not to mention the fact that you can't possibly give evidence to prove that somebody didn't see something. I could tell you I just looked out the window and saw a unicorn humping a dodo bird, and you might think I'm a liar... but you can't prove it.
Have you always worshipped murderers?
Good heavens. If you're pointing at one case and declaring the organization to be murderers, I'm assuming you couldn't possibly be part of any church. Show me a church that has spilled no blood in its history, and I'll show you empty pews.
I fail to see why the story of Scientology is any more or less credible than that of other religions.
Xenu and alien souls... Joseph Smith and the disappearing gold tablets... the resurrection of Christ... they're all dodgy, silly stories. The catholics just had a couple thousand years head start. The thing is, baloney stored for 2000 years is still baloney. It's just really old baloney.
I can find fault with their profit-oriented outlook, their penchant for litigation, and their militant us-against-everybody attitude, but to my understanding they're less than amateurs when it comes violence, slaughter, oppression, and heartless wealth accumulation. If they can pull off three centuries of tyranny they might rise up the ladder a bit, but I doubt they'll even start down that path. Even by the standards of today they are a well-mannered bunch. Scientologists don't suicide-bomb people - they generally attack them using the same system that is abused by countless non-Scientologists.
In the meantime they take money from the gullible, and that just makes them a tiny portion of a vast number of opportunists.
The only way to deal with this problem is to bankrupt our economies in a rush to implement untested solutions that, even if successful, only put a tiny dent in the problem. If you are suggesting further study of the problem, and deep analysis of any proposed solution, you're clearly in the pocket of big oil.
Instead of being a traitor (see a certain Kennedy for details), get with the rest of us and call for irresponsible actions, and an end to the scientific method.
"That's what management thinks. Your superiority complex lends much about your personality. You don't want unions because they would bring you down to earth like most professionals. You probably work in a place where you keep your job by seeming mythical to your managers. I'm not doubting that you're highly skilled, but you rely on obfuscation and parlor tricks to feel irreplaceable. You think management can hate so long as they fear. We all know someone like you. You guard your shop jealously and you do everything in your power to make sure all would-be peers fail. That's not professional behavior. Unions would force you to behave like a professional. That's not something you're willing to accept."
Your overreach in trying to psychoanalyze me from a short list reveals a lot about you.
I'm not mythical or godlike to my management team. I am, however, very competent, and I have earned their respect. There are people in my IT organization that are better than me in every single thing that I do, but nobody around me has quite the breadth of skills that I do. So my best areas are in troubleshooting and problem analysis across technologies.
I wear a tie to work, even though it's not required (we're business casual). I don't need a union to ask me to behave like a professional, and the idea that one is required to "keep me in line" is just stupid. Only a union supporter would make such an audacious claim.
I don't guard my job, and I don't obfuscate or use parlor tricks. Everything we do day to day is well-documented. In fact, I've trained two new team members over the past two years specifically so that we don't suffer from "the man in the room". We had that problem because we're a Gensym G2 group, and those people are hard to come by.
- Your skills are sub-par, and you want to be endlessly employed without improving them
- You believe seniority alone should be the basis for promotion
- Your secret wish is to slowly destroy your employer
- You think there is no legal path to conflict resolution without bringing back the teamsters
- You've got Alzheimer's and you think you're loading sixteen tons of coal a day, and you owe the company store too much to quit
Slashdot Mirror
"Nice troll. Who cares how long... the fact that it happened is what is germane to this conversation, not when. Take a course in critical thinking before speaking."
I have no problem with critical thinking, and you have nothing on which to base your conclusion. You have no idea how much or how little of your post I understood. You, however, seem to enjoy inserting useless words into your writing, which makes me think you should take a course on effective communication techniques.
"A number of years ago in Canada"
A thousand years? Was it after Rome fell? Zero is a number, too. Did it happen this morning?
I'm not a grammar nazi by habit, but "a number of" is a useless expression.
"Here's a little hint for you, what do you think would happen to the US if the chinese flooded the market with all the US IOUs they've been stashing away? ICBMs and aircraft carriers are so 20th century. The real big red button these days is in Beijing and is labelled SELL (err... in chinese)."
Once the point is reached where nobody will continue to fund U.S. deficits, they'll do what other countries have done before them.
They'll default.
And if you think, "No they won't!", remember Stein's Law. If something can't go on forever, it'll stop on it's own.
The USA can't afford half of his promises. If you want the US government to lend you a dollar for a coffee, they'll have to print it or borrow it. And if you want to find out just how much of his campaign rhetoric will be paid any kind of lip service, just watch how fast he gets on doing nothing about NAFTA.
He knows NAFTA is a net gain to the country. It was just politically expedient to badmouth it in towns with failed manufacturing industries.
He's a politician, through and through.
"Your entire complaint basically boils down to, "I don't know Linux, and I don't want to, but now I know it's not Windows." Good fucking job! I just always figured Linux and Windows were exactly the same, but now, thanks to your incredible insight, I'm aware that Linux and Windows are in fact different! Wow!"
There's nothing insightful about your comment. In fact, as near as I can tell, it's completely wrong.
Allow me to summarize the original post.
1. Attempted foreign language install. Never worked.
2. Installed Blackberry charging drivers - never worked.
3. Found out customizing shell involved editing text config files.
4. Got VPN working - turned out to be unstable.
5. Old issue - installing Ubuntu on 2GB flash dive. Failed with indetermine problems.
And so, here you come with your "insightful" reply, and claim that his whole post is that linux isn't Windows, and that apparently he doesn't want to know linux.
The only way your post makes any sense is if you think he's an idiot because he wants linux to work, and that just isn't "linux".
Moderators: Please don't drink and moderate.
"Sure, if your only exposure to Vista is from slashdot. In the real world, most new computers are sold with Vista and people are perfectly happy with it."
I'm running Vista x64 Ultimate Edition, and I'll speak for myself, thanks
It works fine. What can I say? I'm stuck with Windows or Mac because I've got a whole lot of pro audio hardware and software, and linux has always blown (and still blows, no matter what the ALSA folks tell you) in that arena. The great tools are just not there.
It's stable, runs well, and after I tweaked the settings a bit the latency on my Tascam FW-1082 is awesomely, consistently low. Can't remember the last time I had to fiddle with anything. I was dual-booting to XP for audio work until the last Vista x64 drivers for my gear came out, and I'll be removing the XP partition soon.
Much of the software I have is also available for the Mac. In the end I decided to go with Windows because of the Home Use Program from Microsoft.
I'll be the first to admit that Vista is an incredibly inefficient resource hog. Thankfully, hardware resources are getting pretty darned cheap. I wouldn't put Vista on older hardware.
I have exactly one complaint. After many patches the time it takes to shut down and restart the system is absurd.
"Full disclosure, I work for Citrix. Check out XenServer, which can remotely provision server workloads to virtual and bare metal machines - based on load, you can remotely power up resources as needed. I have seen the future, and it is awesome. And green."
I'd be more trusting of your employer's ability to code something like that if you could provide me with something simpler - like a Citrix client that can handle two monitors with different resolutions correctly, and that doesn't get confused from time to time about where my cursor is.
"It also should be kept in mind that Harper's 37.63% of the popular vote comes from a mere 59% of the population who voted... which means that a mere 22% of the population actually WANTS him in power."
Actually, it means that number of people that want Harper in power is 22% + the portion of the 41% that didn't vote but is happy with the conservative leadership.
People who don't vote are: (a) uninterested and don't care (b) disillusioned and aren't happy with any party (c) happy with the status quo and doubt it'll change
I'm willing to bet that a much larger part of that unknown 41% supported the conservatives than supported any other party.
Somebody who is "a"-typical is not typical. Somebody who is "a"-theistic is not theistic. Theistic people believe in the existence of one or more gods.
"What has this to with this story? Really. This is about a lawyer being harassed by other lawyers on behalf a international media cartel for daring to defend on innocent woman. What does this have to do with your own personal take on the relative merits of the arguments on piracy and copyright? Nothing is what. You are just looking to bitch about how nobody agrees with you."
Yes, my response was not really applicable to the story. However, it WAS applicable to the response I replied to.
"Is there a reason you want an album and then won't pay for it? Just GO BUY THE CD or BUY THE MP3'S. If the artist intended for you to have th emusic for free, they would put it up on their myspace account for download. Since they DON'T, PAY FOR IT!!! "
I've tried saying that here before, but you run into a brick wall of nitpicking denial. Somehow the idea that it's not physical media makes it impossible to steal. Or it's the record companies that lose out, the artist gets shafted anyway. Or real artists should just want their music listened to. Like there are no costs involved in creating music.
I've long since reconciled myself to the fact that while I believe in intellectual property rights, most people around me don't. Of course the vast majority of those people have never tried to make a living by producing something for the mass market.
"19.99 + 29.99 + 29.99 = 79.97 so that gets you WoW, WoW:BC, WoW:WOTLK November 23, 2004 - November 23, 2008 @14.99 per mon = 719.52 for 4 years $799.49 grand total. Yeah, I mean that's a totally reasonable price for 1 game and 2 expansions.... or not."
Or you could look at it this way. The add-on will cost you about what... 3.9% of what you've paid so far?
I said that if you play WoW the add-on is a good deal, and it is. You're arguing that WoW itself isn't a good deal. You might believe that, but that's not what I said.
For further reference: Straw Man
"On that note, I'm a total fucking loser."
Fixed that for you.
That "fixed that for you" thing is getting really, really old. I know the best you can do is ape other people's wit, but at least let the old guard die.
"LOL, loser."
Anybody who uses LOL in a forum that doesn't limit responses to the length of a cellular text message is most certainly a loser.
Burning Crusade was a great add-on, and I expect that this new one will be just as good. Sure, some people will complain that they have to buy content AND pay a monthly fee, but I only have to buy it once. If they skimped on the content I'd be upset too, but they don't. I'll get far more playing time out of this add-on than I have gotten out of any other recent game purchase.
"a movement penalty for carrying all that gear and gold on your person as you quest online ..."
That'd be just swell, because moving at a glacial pace because you found one decent item too many would add tons of fun to the gaming experience.
"The fact that you had to do a search means you're incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. Anybody with (rounding up) at least one clue and an IQ above room temperature has heard of their tendency towards pacifism. Seriously. I gently beseech thee brother, in the name of all that is holy, to shut the fuck up."
No... it doesn't mean that I'm incredibly badly informed about the matter at hand. It means that I don't know everything. You mentioned a religion that qualified, and I looked it up and agreed with you.
What makes you think I haven't heard of their tendency towards pacifism? I know about Quakers, just like I know about the Amish. But I know about Buddhists, too, and although their pacifism is certainly well known, as a group they have blood on THEIR hands.
It's a good day. Not only have I learned that there are no obvious internal Quaker murder scandals, but I have also learned that YOU are a pinhead.
You managed a +5 insightful. I managed to head into "troll" territory for the first time in quite a while.
"I'm pretty sure that the Quakers have a distinct lack of blood in their history."
After a quick search, I'm certainly willing to concede that they are definitely a seriously peaceful bunch. Your point is made.
I'm unwilling, however, to assert that this is normal for religions. I still maintain that all significant religions have had blood on their hands at some point.
"If the early believers had taken it, would they have been willing to die for what they knew was a lie? "
Good heavens, yes. Besides, it only takes one to steal a body. The rest might legitimately believe the story.
"The Bible, which stands up textual criticism at least with its many corroborating MS, claims that hundreds saw Jesus alive after his execution and while no secular sources confirm this, at least none give evidence to deny it."
Using the Bible to validate its claims is a logical absurdity, and having a few facts in it doesn't turn fiction into non-fiction. Not to mention the fact that you can't possibly give evidence to prove that somebody didn't see something. I could tell you I just looked out the window and saw a unicorn humping a dodo bird, and you might think I'm a liar... but you can't prove it.
Have you always worshipped murderers?
Good heavens. If you're pointing at one case and declaring the organization to be murderers, I'm assuming you couldn't possibly be part of any church. Show me a church that has spilled no blood in its history, and I'll show you empty pews.
I fail to see why the story of Scientology is any more or less credible than that of other religions.
Xenu and alien souls... Joseph Smith and the disappearing gold tablets... the resurrection of Christ... they're all dodgy, silly stories. The catholics just had a couple thousand years head start. The thing is, baloney stored for 2000 years is still baloney. It's just really old baloney.
I can find fault with their profit-oriented outlook, their penchant for litigation, and their militant us-against-everybody attitude, but to my understanding they're less than amateurs when it comes violence, slaughter, oppression, and heartless wealth accumulation. If they can pull off three centuries of tyranny they might rise up the ladder a bit, but I doubt they'll even start down that path. Even by the standards of today they are a well-mannered bunch. Scientologists don't suicide-bomb people - they generally attack them using the same system that is abused by countless non-Scientologists.
In the meantime they take money from the gullible, and that just makes them a tiny portion of a vast number of opportunists.
The only way to deal with this problem is to bankrupt our economies in a rush to implement untested solutions that, even if successful, only put a tiny dent in the problem. If you are suggesting further study of the problem, and deep analysis of any proposed solution, you're clearly in the pocket of big oil.
Instead of being a traitor (see a certain Kennedy for details), get with the rest of us and call for irresponsible actions, and an end to the scientific method.
"Unions do not cause companies to leave the country."
Never said that.
"That's what management thinks. Your superiority complex lends much about your personality. You don't want unions because they would bring you down to earth like most professionals. You probably work in a place where you keep your job by seeming mythical to your managers. I'm not doubting that you're highly skilled, but you rely on obfuscation and parlor tricks to feel irreplaceable. You think management can hate so long as they fear. We all know someone like you. You guard your shop jealously and you do everything in your power to make sure all would-be peers fail. That's not professional behavior. Unions would force you to behave like a professional. That's not something you're willing to accept."
Your overreach in trying to psychoanalyze me from a short list reveals a lot about you.
I'm not mythical or godlike to my management team. I am, however, very competent, and I have earned their respect. There are people in my IT organization that are better than me in every single thing that I do, but nobody around me has quite the breadth of skills that I do. So my best areas are in troubleshooting and problem analysis across technologies.
I wear a tie to work, even though it's not required (we're business casual). I don't need a union to ask me to behave like a professional, and the idea that one is required to "keep me in line" is just stupid. Only a union supporter would make such an audacious claim.
I don't guard my job, and I don't obfuscate or use parlor tricks. Everything we do day to day is well-documented. In fact, I've trained two new team members over the past two years specifically so that we don't suffer from "the man in the room". We had that problem because we're a Gensym G2 group, and those people are hard to come by.
Support unionization if:
- Your skills are sub-par, and you want to be endlessly employed without improving them
- You believe seniority alone should be the basis for promotion
- Your secret wish is to slowly destroy your employer
- You think there is no legal path to conflict resolution without bringing back the teamsters
- You've got Alzheimer's and you think you're loading sixteen tons of coal a day, and you owe the company store too much to quit