Even though that joke was fairly predictable, it isn't fair that the poster should suffer a net karma loss for it despite the +5 funny total score. Shame on whoever gave that post an overrated moderation, may remorse be yours forever.
I'm not quite sure what kool-aid is, but I know for a fact that most juices contain far more sugars than most sodas. There have been many erroneous connections in parents minds between something that is natural and something that is healthy but juice is both natural and sweet, so the sweetness can only be cause by one thing: sugar.
Recent studies (such as this one I found on google) have shown that fruit juice is one of the main causes of childhood obesity.
Giving children such an unhealthy drink like fruit juice is just plain irresponsible in the light of recent issues in children's health in developed nations. This has nothing about being thin "get the boys", this is about the health of children during their development and possibly for the rest of their lives. I agree, children need plenty of fluids, but there are far more healthy fluids out there, such as water and to a lesser extent, milk. If children refuse to drink such things because of their bland flavour that is symptomatic of a much larger problem with children's diets and not a reason to give them things in quantities that may harm them in the long term.
Juice isn't some kind of inalienable human right, it's simply a liquid that is sweet and taste's nice, but unfortunately doesn't do anyone's health any good to drink it. If there is a problem with children's diets, it's a great place to start cutting back.
Leaving a valuable secret out in the open and it is no longer a secret. This was no article, this was simply the information about whether someone had been accepted or not. That is a DUMB analogy and one of the many real world metaphors that obscure people's understandings of how the Internet really works.
Secondly, these students had not set out to cheat the system, rather to find out something early. I remember what it was like when I was waiting to find out what university I was accepted into. My skin tingled with anticipation, fear and hope for a whole month while my family was trying to have it's last holiday together. After my experience (and the experiences of most students after high school) I think early resolution would be a temptation so strong for most students that it could not reflect poorly on their moral character to reach out and take it. Connecting this behavior to bad scholastic attitudes fits into the category of being a "self serving rationalization".
It is sad that most decision makers don't understand what "hacking" actually is. A security breech that allows information to be extracted is simply a process of asking for information in the right way. Whether they like it or not, their own computer told these applicants what they wanted to know because of a simple trick of asking the right question. Their computers were not told to protect the information and so it blabbed to these students as soon as it was cued. This particular hack is analogous to walking to a front desk and asking the receptionist the hypothetical question: "imagine for a second that today was the Sunday two weeks from now, now in that situation, what would you tell me about my Stanford acceptance?" and getting a reply. In that situation the result would be the receptionist that was fired, not the questioner getting punished, I don't see why it should be any different for its electronic analogue.
Of cause no institution should be forced to accept students it doesn't want to, but morally speaking, these students have done nothing wrong. There are many immoral things one can do on a computer: sabotaging other people's systems, destroying other people's data among others. But finding out personal information by asking a gullible computer the right question is perfectly understandable. If Stanford want this data safe, they should fix their computers so it protects the data. Computers are remote controlled and pretty much do what their asked to do. One wouldn't leave a priceless Monet strapped to a remote control truck that every kid with a toy car can control, so why do people complain about their loose lipped computer squealing numbers to some kid who knows how to use a URL bar? The sooner people see computers for what they are: devices that are told what to do by more people than they should and forget about the whole trespass on private land metaphors, the sooner people might take some responsibility about dumb machines being given too much information. They probably will end up a lot safer in the long term. It really makes me mad when people blame others for exploiting their own gullibility.
Way to miss the point dude. The grandparent was talking about the evolution of the language accelerating not just progressing. There quite obviously has to be a rate at which if language change becomes any faster, communication will become harder and harder. Human languages are very similar to computer standards in many ways. HTML for example has changed a fair bit, yet cannot change too fast otherwise browsers will become incompatible. Computers have an upgrade cycle of usually less than 4 years, humans have one of around 80 thus, languages spoken by people must change far slower. I often feel that it is hard to communicate with many older people since the language has changed so much between when I learned it and when they did. Also, people as little as a year younger than me use the word "random" in so many contexts that I don't know what the hell they are saying.
I doubt that anyone advocates freezing the English language in its current state, but I think it is irresponsible for a dictionary publisher to give validity to new words before they have been used for long enough to prove that they are a valuable addition to the language. Encouraging the language to change without due consideration will lead to problems in English similar to "HTML 5.0" (sic.) this may cause problems conveying meaning between people and lead to a new era of misunderstanding between people because of a fractured vernacular and possibly more friction between generations.
I have more than one application mixing multiple program's sound outputs and I've never heard of dmix before or even have it installed. Something tells me your argument is a little deceptive.
Disagree with me and prove my point better than if you had of agreed with me. It is a claim that gives no way to refute the rest of the argument with no supporting facts in the claim for people to pick apart. Totally bulletproof. Beautiful isn't it?
But seriously, I mainly used that tricky little rhetorical maneuver not as an argument fatality move (although I'm pretty proud of it because of that fact) but for two reasons. Firstly, to illustrate that everyone is influenced by their national perspective and even if it isn't as nuts as praying to a dictator, it still will shape beliefs. Secondly, as a way of making the reader think a little about whether they really are influenced by national propaganda and why they really do hate the Cuban nation (if they hate it at all). I could argue instances of exaggeration, deception and propaganda, but I posed that assertion as more of something to question and think about rather than a bulletproof barrier for response and thought lengthy argument for it would actually detract from this function.
I think the main difference is that American investors actually bought a fair slab of Cuba to have stuff farmed on it and had a lot influence over the Cuban government, American investors don't own that much of the Indian infrastructure and little government influence so it isn't the same level of domination. Also, if Indian programmers refused to work for American companies it wouldn't really be a big deal since America wouldn't loose much in the process and neither would India. When the Cubans decided not to farm for the Americans, it was a lot more complex since they needed to take the land back before they could farm for themselves. This is in contrast to the Indians who can already program using their own resources. The Indians are in a position where they can maintain dignity and independence while either continuing to do what they do now for big foreign firms or possibly choose to work for themselves for the benefit of their own country. The Cubans were never given that choice because they had what they needed for independence sold by their corrupt leader Batista. If Indian programmers refused to outsource, I don't think there would be the same amount of hassle almost half a century later.
I imagine you are right about US farmers being upset. They damn well would have had the right to be annoyed. The agricultural climate would have been VERY balanced against them during those years. Later on American farmers (especially sugar and sweet corn farmers) have done VERY well out of the Cuban revolution since they not only don't have to compete with American oppressed Cuban sugar growers, they don't have to compete with Castro oppressed Cuban sugar growers either. Ironically they are likely to be just as pissed off as most other country rednecks about the Commies in Cuba. Probably with US programmers it isn't as bad since the US government isn't putting their tax dollars to work securing outsourced labour in India which would be analogous to 1950's Cuba.
It's not just the Cubans that are brainwashed.
on
Cuba Switching to Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Cuba does have some pretty screwed up ideology, there is no doubting that, however your post reflects far more poorly on the United States. The US government has NEVER had a problem with Cuba being Communist. The US government is still angry because Cuba overthrew American imperialism and returned the island to the people who live there. Before Castro, Cuba was an American chattel, everything of worth (such as the sugar plantations) was owned by American investors and the Cuban people were forced into a life of near slavery by American "investment". The only reason that the United States has any problem with Cuba is because the Cubans took back what was rightfully theirs and hurt America financially.
Of cause you will deny all that I have said, saying that I have a warped view of history, am an anti-american zealot or that I have my head full of conspiricy theories. But why do you say this? Because you too have been brainwashed by your government. But condemn the Cubans for it. You somehow have been convinced that your government is conducting a rightious crusade against the ideology of the corrupt ledership and liberating the people from tyranny, when really all it is doing is robbing medicine and food from the people when the corrupt ledership can still get whatever they want. Your told that America is the country of freedom and honesty while Cuba is the country of propaganda and lies when in reality it is your government that calls Cubans to defect yet turns them back in the water. America is in an indefensable position here, Castro may be a brutal dictator and a warped propagandist but whatever harm Castro has done to Cuba, America has easily done triple.
Cuba is not evil, Cuba is just another country with it's own stupid ideas that will get it nowhere. The Cuban government does not deserve placation either. However what Cuba needs is a little bit of compassion for the innocent people who are being hurt by America's oppression of them. America is not evil either, but what America is doing to Cuba is far more evil than placating Pol Pot or Edi Amin or any evil person who has ever walked.
Blindly patriotic Americans may mod me down all they like, but for every -1 I get, that's another demostration of how widespread this brainwashing is.
Firstly, there is a race of Jews from Ethiopia and you could bet your arse that they would refuse to eat food that is not kosher, not everyone in Ethiopia is starving you know.
Secondly, open source is better than closed source since you can get rid of things you don't like (like ads) easier with open software. Although something being closed source may not be enough reason not to use it, it's definantly enough to weigh a comparison in favour of an open product.
Well, to be fair, the modern (liquid fuled) rocket engine was invented by Robert Goddard (an American) and perfected by Werner Von Braun (later naturalised as an American). The English didn't actually invent the solid fuled rocket either, that was done by the Chineese and later the Arabs. The English however have earned the distinction of being the first people to make rockets that were effective at killing people with the Convgreve Rocket in 1804.
I'm not an American or an American appologist or anything, I just think you're cheating them a little on that one.
Oh, and the early French republics were hardly free and very short lived. I'd be almost tempted to give that one to the English since they have had some sort of democracy for hundreds of years (and unlike in France it lasted) as well as having abolished slavery 200 years ago.
Who the hell is this guy, what has he done and why should I give a shit about what he says? If you are committed to open source software, don't reply to this, just open up Emacs, Vim or whatever you use and start hacking some code, don't even read the rest of this comment. Pompous self-rightious and inflamitory bloggers really are worthless to listen to, so ignore this John C. Dvorak, Maureen O'Gara and for that matter anyone else who'd rather be blasting you with their opinion than coding. Open up your console and start hacking, you heard me.
That stuff about criminals is total ignorant bullshit. Australia did have many deported criminals in it's early history (America had a few too), but by and large Australia was primarily founded by willing immigrants escaping poverty and class oppression and maybe looking to make a new and more prosperous life, sort of like America.
However, the post is close to the money on claiming that this attitude being partially about Australia's founding. However, this is not due to the manner of the founding, but to the time. Australia's founding as a nation is a recent one, as late as 1900 Australia was still multiple colonies of great Britain, after federation, it never really considered itself as a nation apart from Britain until World War II, when it started considering itself somewhat as part of America. Both of those attachments were by and large wise, since Australia never had the economic or military power to survive independently. Legally, Australia was never totally independent from the United kingdom until the Australia act was passed in 1986, removing the control of the British privy council over the Australian Judiciary and the British Parliament's control over the Australian states. Still today, the head of state of Australia resides within the UK and the Australian flag retains the flag of that country in it's canton. In many ways Australian independence is something that has never really occurred and thus dependence on other nations than Britain is seen as no more demeaning than what is the case now.
Although Australia may seem like a modestly formidable world economic political and maybe even military power today, this was never the case until recently since somehow it was able to avoid many of the declines in certain areas that were suffered by other countries since the early 80's. The US has been very powerful for at least a hundred and fifty years but only found out in 1943, Western Europe has been powerful for 1000 but only found out in the fifteenth century with the advent of colonization. Australia is still not as powerful as either of those two and has only been able to have pride, confidence and Independence for twenty yet doesn't know this yet, it makes sense that the Australian government still doesn't have the courage to throw its weight around against a huge corporation with links to the American government. I don't know what other Australians and foreigners that have studied Australian society think of this conclusion, but to me, it explains fairly well the culture of timid subservience that permeates the Australian conscience from John Howard sending troops to Iraq, to the Education system fearing to piss off MS, down to relationships in workplaces, schools and even families.
Maybe not, but give yourself a little credit, you're close. You already have a big mouth of cause, but don't we all when we get onto a forum. Your ability and willingness to disguise opinions as facts is also showing great promise, with a little work it could be up to professional standards. I also see in you the ability to make it seem that your personal opinions about different things is actually well thought out and objectively reasoned design rules, this is always an important talent to have. Where you fall short is of cause that you don't even attempt to mention is the ever elusive "end user" that cannot comprehend a save dialogue unless it has just three buttons but somehow has the desire to use even the most esoteric of technical applications. Your greatest and most obvious flaw is of cause your modesty, acknowledging that you don't know anything about usability is a poor way to start a usability rant, even the greatest usability experts know no more about their field than you do, but they have the skills to make sure this never gets in the way of effective user interface design. I would suggest that you use one of the following introductions in future: "Nobody understands the average user but me" or "Interfaces designed my me are intrinsically better than anything else" or even "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair".
Follow this simple rule and you'll be a usability expert in mere weeks: If someone asks you if you know X, reply that you invented X, or that you are God's gift to the field of X, or that due to complex philosophical principles that X is simply a manifestation of your own greatness. Sure, you may say that about the wrong thing and find yourself performing emergency open heat surgery but how hard can it be? You should be able to figure out how to work a heart and if you can't, just post an insightful critique of the heart's maintenance interface on the Internet, link it to kde.org and hopefully whoever designed the human body will read it and make the necessary changes before next time you need to operate.
As a matter of fact, how about you hang around on the gnome forums for a few days, you'll see how it's done.
Wow, GNOME really is messy when you open up 9 programs, arrange them deliberately so that their toolbars waste the maximum amount of space and cover their panels with every icon that they can find. Clearly this is incontrovertible evidence that GNOME is utterly worthless.
I first used computers in Kindergarten, back in '89 when I was 5. Computers wern't prevalant in schools in Australia at that time either, we were part of an experimental class that had to go to the nearby University of Sydney and were taught LOGO by grad students over the course of about a month. That class was pretty fun too, we played with this robotic turtle that followed our logo instructions that were beamed to it via infra red from the computer at the wall. We also had more independant learning in the lab next door, each with our own computer, a LOGO interpreter and a maze for the turtle on a celuloid sheet taped in front of the screen (high tech solution).
Apart from that, I had my fathers amstrad XT 512k at home and an obsolete apple 2 in class, so I've basically been using computers in class all my life and still use them since I am doing a computer science degree in University at the moment. I find that having been taught LOGO when I was five (and basic when I was 8) gives me a noticable adantage in problem solving to people who were introduced to computers and programming later in life.
Is our school's education all related to money? do we just want to make it cheaper?
Of cause it comes down to money. Schools have a finite budget, whatever the education system saves on software, it can spend on more teachers, more facilites and possibly even give Jamie Oliver a couple of pence more to spend on healthy food for the kids. I don't know of a single public education system in the world that is in a situation where they can spend 24% more than they have to in any area with little actual gain. That 24% would have to buy a LOT to make it a good usage of money compared to hiring extra teachers for smaller classes. Frankly there are more important things than state of the art computers for a school anyway, it wouldn't matter if they run GEM or something if they had computer teachers that could teach good skills to the students.
Suggesting that there is a reason to spend the extra money works on a very overt assumption that microsoft actually makes a product that is better. I'm not even sure if you stated that you agree with that assumption, I am sure that I don't agree with that assumption and I doubt that many people on slashdot agree with it either. One can't justify extra expense with "maybe there are situations where their software is best", I would retort that I am certain that there are situations where I know open source software is best. I give cirtainty because I know from experience (albeit maybe a with little bias), you give an unknown hyperthetical situation and the word maybe. By your logic it would be fitting allow more money for open source software since it is not about the money and the best product is needed for the students. This is however hardly relivant since as I stated before that the quality of software isn't that important as long as it is stable and responsive enough to get the job done.
I doubt it whether the United Kingdom's education burocracy is made up of RMS and a bunch of zealot cronies who use Debian, Gentoo or BSD. I don't even think that they even think that Microsoft is evil, let alone 100% evil (I don't even think that). I just think that they know that by dumping Microsoft they will free up a swag of cash that can be used in better places.
Sometimes I think that most Microsoft appologists on Slashdot are just ordinary people apathetic about MS that are looking for easy "zealot guilt karma" without actually having to come to a logical point.
Oh, yes, and of cause the other thing that inevidably comes up is George Orwell. This is nothing like 1984, in 1984 they have thoughtcrime, this is a law about how fast you can drive. In 1984 they have two-way telescreens in private dwellings, this is about cameras in public places.
Goodwins law is essential for internet debate because it prevents people from using the same dodgy rhetorical techniques time and time again. Every half-educated psudo-intelectual that knows fairly little about history still knows that Nazism is bad and that nobody is willing to defend any element of it. Thus, by forming an ever so tenuous link to the practice, ideology or history of the third reich, one could make somewhat of a point without ever actually having to argue the case in point.
Speed cameras are not simply the next step in a gradual progression to totalitarianism. Speed cameras in public places simply are mechanical devices designed to do what police officers have done since the advent of roads. Wireless microphones in public places simply do what police have done ever since the advent of loud music. Street cameras in public places simply do what police officers have been doing since the advent of assult, theivery and rape. If allowed to go unchecked this trend will not have you on the next train to Dachau, the worst that will happen is possibly you might get fined next time you do something a little nauty.
There's gotta be a new version of goodwins law that says that as a thread gets longer, the probibility of something being compared to Nazi Germany OR Republican America reaches one, and that's a good time to end the thread.
Come on, I'm just talking about being fined for driving too fast, not being imprisoned for saying the wrong things.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though that joke was fairly predictable, it isn't fair that the poster should suffer a net karma loss for it despite the +5 funny total score. Shame on whoever gave that post an overrated moderation, may remorse be yours forever.
I guess the grandparent just forgot that slashdot was targeted towards investors.
Blade servers are notorious for poor heat distribution.
It works for me. I use java quite a bit on my amd64 system (not by choice) and it works quite nicely. What are you trying to run?
I do hate java too, but in their defence, it does work quite well on my linux x86-64 system (native 64 bit).
Recent studies (such as this one I found on google) have shown that fruit juice is one of the main causes of childhood obesity.
Giving children such an unhealthy drink like fruit juice is just plain irresponsible in the light of recent issues in children's health in developed nations. This has nothing about being thin "get the boys", this is about the health of children during their development and possibly for the rest of their lives. I agree, children need plenty of fluids, but there are far more healthy fluids out there, such as water and to a lesser extent, milk. If children refuse to drink such things because of their bland flavour that is symptomatic of a much larger problem with children's diets and not a reason to give them things in quantities that may harm them in the long term.
Juice isn't some kind of inalienable human right, it's simply a liquid that is sweet and taste's nice, but unfortunately doesn't do anyone's health any good to drink it. If there is a problem with children's diets, it's a great place to start cutting back.
Secondly, these students had not set out to cheat the system, rather to find out something early. I remember what it was like when I was waiting to find out what university I was accepted into. My skin tingled with anticipation, fear and hope for a whole month while my family was trying to have it's last holiday together. After my experience (and the experiences of most students after high school) I think early resolution would be a temptation so strong for most students that it could not reflect poorly on their moral character to reach out and take it. Connecting this behavior to bad scholastic attitudes fits into the category of being a "self serving rationalization".
Of cause no institution should be forced to accept students it doesn't want to, but morally speaking, these students have done nothing wrong. There are many immoral things one can do on a computer: sabotaging other people's systems, destroying other people's data among others. But finding out personal information by asking a gullible computer the right question is perfectly understandable. If Stanford want this data safe, they should fix their computers so it protects the data. Computers are remote controlled and pretty much do what their asked to do. One wouldn't leave a priceless Monet strapped to a remote control truck that every kid with a toy car can control, so why do people complain about their loose lipped computer squealing numbers to some kid who knows how to use a URL bar? The sooner people see computers for what they are: devices that are told what to do by more people than they should and forget about the whole trespass on private land metaphors, the sooner people might take some responsibility about dumb machines being given too much information. They probably will end up a lot safer in the long term. It really makes me mad when people blame others for exploiting their own gullibility.
I doubt that anyone advocates freezing the English language in its current state, but I think it is irresponsible for a dictionary publisher to give validity to new words before they have been used for long enough to prove that they are a valuable addition to the language. Encouraging the language to change without due consideration will lead to problems in English similar to "HTML 5.0" (sic.) this may cause problems conveying meaning between people and lead to a new era of misunderstanding between people because of a fractured vernacular and possibly more friction between generations.
I have more than one application mixing multiple program's sound outputs and I've never heard of dmix before or even have it installed. Something tells me your argument is a little deceptive.
But seriously, I mainly used that tricky little rhetorical maneuver not as an argument fatality move (although I'm pretty proud of it because of that fact) but for two reasons. Firstly, to illustrate that everyone is influenced by their national perspective and even if it isn't as nuts as praying to a dictator, it still will shape beliefs. Secondly, as a way of making the reader think a little about whether they really are influenced by national propaganda and why they really do hate the Cuban nation (if they hate it at all). I could argue instances of exaggeration, deception and propaganda, but I posed that assertion as more of something to question and think about rather than a bulletproof barrier for response and thought lengthy argument for it would actually detract from this function.
I imagine you are right about US farmers being upset. They damn well would have had the right to be annoyed. The agricultural climate would have been VERY balanced against them during those years. Later on American farmers (especially sugar and sweet corn farmers) have done VERY well out of the Cuban revolution since they not only don't have to compete with American oppressed Cuban sugar growers, they don't have to compete with Castro oppressed Cuban sugar growers either. Ironically they are likely to be just as pissed off as most other country rednecks about the Commies in Cuba. Probably with US programmers it isn't as bad since the US government isn't putting their tax dollars to work securing outsourced labour in India which would be analogous to 1950's Cuba.
Of cause you will deny all that I have said, saying that I have a warped view of history, am an anti-american zealot or that I have my head full of conspiricy theories. But why do you say this? Because you too have been brainwashed by your government. But condemn the Cubans for it. You somehow have been convinced that your government is conducting a rightious crusade against the ideology of the corrupt ledership and liberating the people from tyranny, when really all it is doing is robbing medicine and food from the people when the corrupt ledership can still get whatever they want. Your told that America is the country of freedom and honesty while Cuba is the country of propaganda and lies when in reality it is your government that calls Cubans to defect yet turns them back in the water. America is in an indefensable position here, Castro may be a brutal dictator and a warped propagandist but whatever harm Castro has done to Cuba, America has easily done triple.
Cuba is not evil, Cuba is just another country with it's own stupid ideas that will get it nowhere. The Cuban government does not deserve placation either. However what Cuba needs is a little bit of compassion for the innocent people who are being hurt by America's oppression of them. America is not evil either, but what America is doing to Cuba is far more evil than placating Pol Pot or Edi Amin or any evil person who has ever walked.
Blindly patriotic Americans may mod me down all they like, but for every -1 I get, that's another demostration of how widespread this brainwashing is.
Secondly, open source is better than closed source since you can get rid of things you don't like (like ads) easier with open software. Although something being closed source may not be enough reason not to use it, it's definantly enough to weigh a comparison in favour of an open product.
I'm not an American or an American appologist or anything, I just think you're cheating them a little on that one.
Oh, and the early French republics were hardly free and very short lived. I'd be almost tempted to give that one to the English since they have had some sort of democracy for hundreds of years (and unlike in France it lasted) as well as having abolished slavery 200 years ago.
Are you still reading this? You better not be.
I suppose it would have canards. That's the sort of flying snake Burt Rutan would design.
However, the post is close to the money on claiming that this attitude being partially about Australia's founding. However, this is not due to the manner of the founding, but to the time. Australia's founding as a nation is a recent one, as late as 1900 Australia was still multiple colonies of great Britain, after federation, it never really considered itself as a nation apart from Britain until World War II, when it started considering itself somewhat as part of America. Both of those attachments were by and large wise, since Australia never had the economic or military power to survive independently. Legally, Australia was never totally independent from the United kingdom until the Australia act was passed in 1986, removing the control of the British privy council over the Australian Judiciary and the British Parliament's control over the Australian states. Still today, the head of state of Australia resides within the UK and the Australian flag retains the flag of that country in it's canton. In many ways Australian independence is something that has never really occurred and thus dependence on other nations than Britain is seen as no more demeaning than what is the case now.
Although Australia may seem like a modestly formidable world economic political and maybe even military power today, this was never the case until recently since somehow it was able to avoid many of the declines in certain areas that were suffered by other countries since the early 80's. The US has been very powerful for at least a hundred and fifty years but only found out in 1943, Western Europe has been powerful for 1000 but only found out in the fifteenth century with the advent of colonization. Australia is still not as powerful as either of those two and has only been able to have pride, confidence and Independence for twenty yet doesn't know this yet, it makes sense that the Australian government still doesn't have the courage to throw its weight around against a huge corporation with links to the American government. I don't know what other Australians and foreigners that have studied Australian society think of this conclusion, but to me, it explains fairly well the culture of timid subservience that permeates the Australian conscience from John Howard sending troops to Iraq, to the Education system fearing to piss off MS, down to relationships in workplaces, schools and even families.
Follow this simple rule and you'll be a usability expert in mere weeks: If someone asks you if you know X, reply that you invented X, or that you are God's gift to the field of X, or that due to complex philosophical principles that X is simply a manifestation of your own greatness. Sure, you may say that about the wrong thing and find yourself performing emergency open heat surgery but how hard can it be? You should be able to figure out how to work a heart and if you can't, just post an insightful critique of the heart's maintenance interface on the Internet, link it to kde.org and hopefully whoever designed the human body will read it and make the necessary changes before next time you need to operate.
As a matter of fact, how about you hang around on the gnome forums for a few days, you'll see how it's done.
Wow, GNOME really is messy when you open up 9 programs, arrange them deliberately so that their toolbars waste the maximum amount of space and cover their panels with every icon that they can find. Clearly this is incontrovertible evidence that GNOME is utterly worthless.
Apart from that, I had my fathers amstrad XT 512k at home and an obsolete apple 2 in class, so I've basically been using computers in class all my life and still use them since I am doing a computer science degree in University at the moment. I find that having been taught LOGO when I was five (and basic when I was 8) gives me a noticable adantage in problem solving to people who were introduced to computers and programming later in life.
Suggesting that there is a reason to spend the extra money works on a very overt assumption that microsoft actually makes a product that is better. I'm not even sure if you stated that you agree with that assumption, I am sure that I don't agree with that assumption and I doubt that many people on slashdot agree with it either. One can't justify extra expense with "maybe there are situations where their software is best", I would retort that I am certain that there are situations where I know open source software is best. I give cirtainty because I know from experience (albeit maybe a with little bias), you give an unknown hyperthetical situation and the word maybe. By your logic it would be fitting allow more money for open source software since it is not about the money and the best product is needed for the students. This is however hardly relivant since as I stated before that the quality of software isn't that important as long as it is stable and responsive enough to get the job done.
I doubt it whether the United Kingdom's education burocracy is made up of RMS and a bunch of zealot cronies who use Debian, Gentoo or BSD. I don't even think that they even think that Microsoft is evil, let alone 100% evil (I don't even think that). I just think that they know that by dumping Microsoft they will free up a swag of cash that can be used in better places.
Sometimes I think that most Microsoft appologists on Slashdot are just ordinary people apathetic about MS that are looking for easy "zealot guilt karma" without actually having to come to a logical point.
Goodwins law is essential for internet debate because it prevents people from using the same dodgy rhetorical techniques time and time again. Every half-educated psudo-intelectual that knows fairly little about history still knows that Nazism is bad and that nobody is willing to defend any element of it. Thus, by forming an ever so tenuous link to the practice, ideology or history of the third reich, one could make somewhat of a point without ever actually having to argue the case in point.
Speed cameras are not simply the next step in a gradual progression to totalitarianism. Speed cameras in public places simply are mechanical devices designed to do what police officers have done since the advent of roads. Wireless microphones in public places simply do what police have done ever since the advent of loud music. Street cameras in public places simply do what police officers have been doing since the advent of assult, theivery and rape. If allowed to go unchecked this trend will not have you on the next train to Dachau, the worst that will happen is possibly you might get fined next time you do something a little nauty.
Come on, I'm just talking about being fined for driving too fast, not being imprisoned for saying the wrong things.