Umm... that's not the
POTD that we are talking about, but rather another that he has posted. The pictures are not even close. Did you make it past the first sentence?
Hi back. It has been a long time since I've read a programming thread that really shows the human side of the equation. I've enjoyed your posts today even though I may not agree with all of your assertions. It is rare to see inside the big projects for those that don't delve into the mailing lists. There was had a little X insight a while back, but not as , well, dramatic
Anyways, Kudos for the help to samba, and for some good reading today.
I hate that too. It's like using "ain't" or "yinz" (if you're from pittsburgh). It's not proper.
If using 'he' as the gender-indeterminate pronoun offends you, come up with a new one, perhaps borrowed from a language that has a true gender-indeterminate pronoun. But using she is just as bad as using he and I don't understand why people do it.
I agree. Maybe if Vavle put more trouble into the actual HL2 and made a great multi-player component, you'd be interested. But no, they went and sunk a boatload of money in Steam. I am also terribly disappointed in CS-Source. You'd think you'd get vehicles or like 20 new maps. But they had to work on Steam.
There's nothing I could say here that really hasn't been rehashed elsewhere, though I'm sure it will somewhere in this thread. Anyway, here's another vote for I-won't-buy-another-steampowered-game.
And for all you linux zealots that are going to attack me on the using Windows statement - piss off. I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.
While running windows is perfectly valid, sane, and simple choice, there is no reason to have run any version of Microsoft Office. There are several high quality commercial variants like Word Perfect and free versions like OpenOffice.org. However I'd bet that the next version of the OS from Microsoft will incorporate *activation* very deeply given the success that Valve has had. What will you do then?
It's not a be-all-end-all tracking device. Say that they have enough evidence through traditional methods to obtain a search warrant. They test your printer and *bang* it's a match. They from having little evidence to having strong evidence that the illicit came from your premises.
Um... what planet are you from? Troll. No game in the history of computer games has *ever* garunteed that it would work on *your* machine with *your* internet connection. If it doesn't or you're not satisfied you can get a refund.
Exactly where are they immoral and evil? If you had contacted them with help to try and get working, they probably would have. There is no scam, just a misguided and misimplemented approach to try and protect their revenue stream. For that I am angry at them, but it doesn't justify piracy. I think you just like the attention that your first post got. Troll.
And sorry to break it to you, your free time, like everybody else's, is worthless to everybody but you (and perhaps your friends).
But no, just because you disagree with the whole concept of Steam, you've built a moral highground with a straw base. Have they treated their customers great? No, like I said, I don't like steam as much as you do. But your misguided notions of compensation and Valve's "duty" to you are idiotic. Who do you think you are convincing?
Your original post and replies are filled with superlatives (~150 dollars an hour!... worked for 10 hours...you who owes me!), and that is the hallmark of trolls. Maybe that was incidental because you were angry at Valve as I was. But you are stuck in the software pirates justification. Face it, it never held water, and you're still in the wrong today.
Like you I had major problems with day 1 activation. 4 hours from disk 1 to play time. Yes, they should've had a dedicated stack of servers/bandwidth specifically for registration and if they had that they should've rented more. As a professional I like to limit the average burst to around 70% of available bandwidth. Yes I was angry. Yes I posted a polite post to their forums saying how their installation process is hurting their credibility.
To think that I am owed time/money for time trying to get it to work however, is obsurd. They make no such garuntee. Don't give me "expense of my time" crap. $150 bucks an hour? please. Not to play games it's not. Your leasure time is worth shit. Don't like it? Return the game and never buy from them again.
You have absolutely no moral high ground resorting to a pirated version if you returned the game. If you had not you could've made a point about fair use. They still deserved to be compensated for their work and you misspent time is of no consequence. They owe you nothing.
You're just angry they underestimated first-day activity. So you just try and hop on your high horse and say you deserved to be compensated. Sue them? You have no basis. You have no right to play their game unless you've bought it.
They make no garuntee that the game works. It is you who are the criminal. I hope they catch you with one of those trojaned cracked versions. Am I defending steam? NO, I abhor it. It's not ready for prime time, and this episode clearly shows its flaws. However, you are clearly misguided and have no ground to stand on.
Well that's kind of an odd thing to say because the reason that crazy markup exists is because it works in IE. Of the possible set of crazy markup, you'll find on the internet only that subset which works in IE, because if it didn't, it would be changed to where it did. The slashdot bug I believe is an actual bug in firefox, not slashdot's code.
I totally agree. The mess that is a lot of html is from IE leniant behavior. This has been a topic for years. Strict Java or whatever-you-want perl or c, blah, blah. Still, there should be *no* html that will crash a browser, as has been shown recently. Failing gracefully is what I want in a browser and I have every expectation that this will be fixed in the 1.0 series of Firefox.
As for the slashdot/firefox bug, it's a case of rendering spacing graphics, (a table-layout based outdated cludge), without including height/width information. Firefox renders first then "forgets" to re-render when the actual image size is know. It's also not terribly clean code. Slashdot and slashcode are notoriously ugly and bandwidth intensive. I tried to help on the effort to convert slashdot/slashcode to xhtml+css layout, but there was a mountain of work and not a particularly organized core of developers. If you guys are still out there, I'd still help if you got a website, a working CVS repo and some help from an article in/.
Firefox is also believed to be faster, maybe not upon loadup in windows because of the OS integration with IE (even with the mozilla startup thingy). Faster (well, less bloated) than Mozilla also because they've been really trying to slim it down.
It's more standards compliant, which allows me, as a developer to write more standards based code, *then* use workarounds for stuff which IE doesn't like. That said, IE still handles crazy markup without crashing or other artifacts (see firefox/slashdot rendering bug). Security wise, it's supposedly a lot better becuase it doesn't have deep ties into the OS.
Top seller for me? I can put it on my USB drive and transfer it to the harddrive and it'll work, even on machines when I don't have admin rights (and aren't insanely tied down). I also can't live without tabbed browsing, and mouse gestures (an extension).
What differentiates it from the stock mozilla browser? Well, Firefox is now the flagship browser from Mozilla.org and I wouldn't be suprised if they don't end-of-life the stock mozilla (technically called seamonkey IIRC?), so Firefox is the one with the future. I've been testing Firefox since their very early betas (.3 0.4?) and it replaced seamonkey on my desktop around.7. There's that automagic plugin finder (which has only worked for flash for me), new download manager. But other than that, there's not a whole lot of features that set it apart from seamonkey, i guess, but mozilla.org, rather the mozilla foundation sees it as the future. Seeing as how it 1.0 now, I don't see any reason not to switch. In a few weeks, of course, when all of your favorite extentions get updated.
I called you on it from the start. But I don't like not having the last word. Also, I got *you* to say that you're a social enginer, and thereby invalidated your arguments. Waste of my time? Heh, you wasted just as much of yours.
Less filling no content. Again with the empty retorts. When you are going to challange the status quo, you might want to give something to back up what you're saying.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
Do you know what secular means? Yes there *was* secular art by Europeans at the time, by the vast majority was sacred. Idiot.
but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
I was born and raised Catholic. I can only assume you called me anti-Catholic because you are and think that if I disagree with you, I must be anti-Catholic. Correct me if I'm wrong. Hmm... Mammons and neuraltypicals? You sound like wacko Christian fundamentalist. See isn't making brash statements fun?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
I never said I was a WASP, in fact far from it. I said I shared America's heritage, and I'm proud of it. This country was made great on the shoulders of immigrants. You just look like a fat, white, midwesterner with ancestry from eastern-europe. Pure bred native american? I still call bullshit. I'd believe maybe 1/16th. Oh and I forgot about your family which has both Islamic and Zionists in it. Right.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
So I can't make assertions on history unless my ancestors were there? I've never heard a more rediculous argument.
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
Nativism is one of the core wrongs. It's the basis of racism and territorial disputes. Good luck with that, I heard the Nativist party in Germany thrived in the 20's and 30's. Idiot.
By the way, hire a site designer. I've never seen a more amaturish website than informationr.us. Not to mention the ugliness and dead links. You expect people to buy services from you? You call yourself a computer professional?
If you still think you're right, I be happy to schedule an IRC debate on #politics or #slashdot.
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
And the fact you actually bought the lie that the dark ages existed
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist? More Zionist Propaganda? And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades? Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time. As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Uhg. Check it out. Yes it gets hot, often to 120, but that is nowhere near the average. 104 in the summer, 50 in the winter. Average? 75. But ever notice how cool it is in your basement, even in the summertime? Same concept. The average temperature ten feet down at that latitude in summer is a sweltering 65. Look it up dick cheese. The sun really doesn't have a chance to warm up the soil more than a couple feet down before it cools down to nighttime again. And I guess you've never heard about the story during the first iraq war, a stranded special ops force had serveral members freeze to death when they were caught unprepared for the climate. No, Iraq isn't as mountainous as Afganistan, but it's deserts get just as hot. Buried weapons last a long time.
my heritage is Cherokee, Kwakiutal, and Nes Pierce.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
your lying white ancestors
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
...nuke Israel- those Zionists are just as much potential terrorists now...
You must be great at parties.
Nation of Islam theology or Zionist Jewish theology (you know, the two that say the only way to build a just world is under a theocracy)
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
But only if we're willing to truly close them off to anybody who would invade here.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell. You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy? Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
Under 2000? I think you're forgetting our losses on 9-11- the 5000 who died then.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
You *really* don't know very much about firearms, do you? Or about the climate of Iraq?
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place? Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq. One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Good luck- better men than you have tried to pin me down and failed miserably.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well. You are a troll, I don't even believe you believe what you say. In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
China, North Korea, and Russia, upon seeing the defiant actions of the United States unilaterally killing millions, and indescriminant use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, shoots their wad of nukes at us. The young missle defense shield takes out about 1/3 of the incoming warheads. Every loses. Every dies.
I suggest you research the nation-state balance of Europe in through the second milenia. Any nation-state that got too powerful was leveled by the conglomeration of it's less powerful neighbors. You simply can not create peace through indescriminate violence. It violates every principle the United States was founded on.
Just on the simple supposition that everybody in the middle east is a potential terrorist, people will see you are a nut job. 2000 years of dirt and violence in the middle east? Nope. During the dark and middle ages where did technology and art come from? Arabia. They used to be far more-enlightened then any of our ancestors. Violence isn't heretitary. It's taught.
You would throw away tens of millions of lives? 100 million in the military? Who will support them? That's more than one out of three, far more than the able bodies population. But the US is only ~1/27 of the world population. And after you forsake all of our allies in the name of misguided liberty, it's the united states that will be reduced to radio-active glass.
You forget that it wasn't that long ago that the US was a theocracy in reality. Run almost entirely by WASPs and not terribly tolerant of outsiders. Native Americans, Black, Irish, Jews, you name it. Have you forgoten your own heritage?
Don't even get me started on your rediculous supposition that every war is
Troll. Ok so let me clear this up. In your fscked up, racist dream world,*You* believe that:
Every person in Iraq is a potential terrorist.
If all Iraqis don't voluntarily give up their wepons, they should be shot
Problematic spots should be nuked
To cover for a shoulder-to-shoulder weapons sweep of the entire country a draft should be instantiated.
You'd rather have thousands more dead Americans than have even small groups of armed insurgents.
You believe it is possible to obtain *every* wepon in the hands of people in the *entire* country of Iraq
You can't reliably bury wepons (um, put them in a crate dumbass)
Any house you can't search fully should be razed to the ground.
You believe that 1.5 million of armed MPs should gaurd our coastlines at the same time, hell let's draft the entire able bodied population
So then after you raise the armed forces number to like 3 million, and therby having to switch to a wartime economy, the economy will get better. Sure, it worked after mechanising the country after the most debilitating depression in history, it'll *have* to work again! Look how well it also worked for Britian and Frace after WWII! And Russia during the cold war!.
Also after forcability beating down the entire county of Iraq and calling them all terrorists, and murdering hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians (along with 50,000 GI's) simply because they wouldn't give up their guns, and nuking "problematic" spots, we unite the ENTIRE Arab world against us (they're all just potential terrorists anyway)! Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan, Eygpt, Libia, Iran, and Turkey declare war on the US, which is OK because we have a draft now! Nato votes to disband the treaty with the US. The UN leaves New york! Irsael is invaded by the above "coalition" and we have to back them! Hundreds of thousands of US and Israelis die! Instead of under 2000, like under the current president.
Seriously, troll. What is your end picture like? You're 33 and you think your steps would put us in a *better* situation?
When I said "had more to do with the holocaust" I ment they were more involved in a strict sence. I didn't mean to imply culpability. I guess I should have elaborated more, but very long post don't get read:). However, from a great article
In his 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews, the diplomat Pinchas Lapide (who served as Israeli consul in Milan and interviewed Italian Holocaust survivors) declared Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands."
This is not to say that Eugenio Pacelli--the powerful churchman who served as nuncio in Bavaria and Germany from 1917 to 1929, then as Vatican secretary of state from 1930 to 1939, before becoming Pope Pius XII six months before World War II began--was as much a friend to the Jews as John Paul II has been. Nor is it to say that Pius was ultimately successful as a defender of Jews. Despite his desperate efforts to maintain peace, the war came, and, despite his protests against German atrocities, the slaughter of the Holocaust occurred. Even without benefit of hindsight, a careful study reveals that the Catholic Church missed opportunities to influence events, failed to credit fully the Nazis' intentions, and was infected in some of its members with a casual anti-Semitism that would countenance--and, in a few horrifying instances, affirm--the Nazi ideology.
Have enough troops to search every building in the country.
Like that is conceivable with 3/4 mil troops. Right. See the americans coming? Just move to a place they've already searched before. Bury wepons. Hide them in walls and under subfloors. How do you garuntee that the populace has been disarmed?? What happens to people that don't want to give up their guns? You think this would *lessen* the civilian casualties in Iraq? You're like what, 12?
there ain't no such thing as civilians in Iraq.
Bullshit. Not every Iraqi wants to take up arms. What a rediculous stereotype. They want what Americans with guns want. To defend their families. Given the current state of Iraq is that a too much to give them? Would you also have America disarmed? I suggest you Mike Moore's first flick. The root of the problem isn't guns.
I've seen estimates around 740,000 troops needed for this- BEFORE you invade
With 740000 troops you think there would be *less* than the current number of American dead? After systematically disarming an unwilling populace. Right. If you try and do that you lose all of you allies, and *then* you are an occupying force. The moderate iraqis now fight *you*. Disarm the populace? Look how well it worked for the Russians in Afganistan. How many Russians died? You seriously think blindly sending in more troops is an unequivolenty good idea? Idiot.
Would've, would've, would've. Hindsight is 20/20. John Kerry as weall as Kucinich do a lot of talk.
Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA
Um, what?? How many troops are you talking here? 2 million? Do you have any idea of the cost? You think that GWB didn't disarm the populace because of his feelings on gun control??? It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Street fighting is where Americans die fastest, and they were right to stay mostly out of town.
Besides, the *whole* strategy of the invasion was to get into Bagdad is quickly as possible, much like the wildly-successful island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII. And again, the invasion was wildly succesfull. The problem comes in at post-war planning, and the much touted "exit-strategy". Did GWB screw the pooch on that on? Yep. Would've Kerry or any other Dem done differently? I don't think so. It's just talk.
The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft
You say this as a good thing. A draft? Are you serious? Are you a cloaked republican? You must be dreaming if you think kucinich would've considered a draft.
even if it meant confirming every detail
Give me a break. I lot of Democrats voted *for* the war after seeing the same intellegence as the president. You can't confirm every detail. You are living in a dream world if you think that any of this would've happened. I'm not a Republican, I'm not voting for Bush, but you're scenario is utterly inconcievable and pure conjecture.
I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
+4 insighful?!? You want more friendly fire incidents??? Troll.
The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps
It was a tactical desicion. Do you know how many flights it took to take out *one* location in WWII? An average of ten missions with multiple aircraft. Also bombs were wildly inaccurate. There are multiple accounts of bombs missing targets by upto a mile.
The concentration camp were, one a *burden* of money and manpower to the germans, two, you couldn't target individual buildings (ie crematoriums) without risking hitting prisioner barracks, three the force required to take out such targets outweighed their strategic advantage, and four few people knew the whole extent of what was going on there. Yes it's a cold calculated descision but one that was militarily and morally sound.
SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape
I'm guessing you're refering to the immigration limits of the 30's and early 40's. The US was in a drepression at the time (I think they called it the GREAT depression) and the influx was further destablizing the economy. Furthermore no one in the US knew (at that time) of the resultant outcome of those policies. Cold? Yes. Immoral? They certainly didn't think so.
So no, there's no such thing as a "good" war, but WWII was a "just" war. IBM, Ford and the Catholic Church had more to do with the Holocaust than the US government did. I could offer a refute of your analysis of the civil war also, but no one wants to read a novel on/.
No president has ever been democratically elected. If you meant "didn't have the majority of the popular vote" you'd be correct. I may not agree with it but we're stuck with that whole electorial college thing. However, I hate it when far-lefters claim that GWB was illegit. elected. There was due process. There were terrific miscues by the Dem's and some dubious actions by the Reb's. Along with debatable court decissions. However as the man that came out on top, he's entitled to the same respect you'd give any president. Get over it.
Let me say it again. The US is NOT a democracy. GWB was elected. Now if I have anything to say about it, it won't happen twice, but quit spinning your leftist bull crap.
They can't use common sense. They must evalute every sentance with "the president" preceeded by "kill". If you ask god to do it, then you could concievably have a person with whom you communicate under the moniker "god".
It's simply illegal to make such statments even if they are non-sensical. Can you imagine something happening after such a threat was discarded. "Oops sorry, we didn't think she was serious".
Come on now, I don't feel for her one bit. I don't much like the man as president but I'm sure he's a good person. I do not wish anything upon him except long life. Now if I were invesitgated for using the words "president" and "kill" and "wish" in the same post then that would be overboard.
mint.us.gov just didn't have a ring to it I guess. On that note why is it that it's army.mil and not army.mil.us or army.us.mil? What if other countries want a military home page?
I'm proud to be an American, but at 2:00 in the morning surrounded by 20 Croatians half of which don't speak english and are getting quite roudy, you'd be surprised what you say. Really man, I like a bar fight like the next guy but when you're vastly outnumbered in a foreign country (what's the number for 911 here? is there a 911?) you'd better stick to lying and diplomacy.
You're right, if you keep mostly to yourself and are tring to be friendly 99 times out of 100 people are nicer than you'd find here. A lot of people I've met seem fasinated by Americans, (albeit in countries we don't go to in droves;)), and will talk your ears off. Sometimes though even if you are a nice intelligent person, that doesn't stop trouble from looking for you.
Ah, a *much* more believable story (than GP);). I love stupid turist stories. Anyway, in my travels its always Americans who are the stupid turists. I've hung with Aussies in Norway that would out drunk everybody (an expensive task when a pint will run you like $8) then still be curtious enough on the way home. Asians, well mostly Japanese in my experience, plan well, are quiet and know what to ask for, and almost as fun to drink with. Americans, are, well, loud. Here's some tips.
1. Like I said, Americans are loud. If you don't want to stick out, shut up.
2. Don't wear jewelery, especially in countries where it would be an obnoxious display of wealth, not to mention it automatically makes you a target.
3. If you still want to blend in, don't wear shorts, plaid, flannel, sneakers, or baseball caps. In some countries jeans too, but especially in Europe bluejeans are a fashion statement so your cut up old Levi's won't cut it;). You'll still stick out, but not as much. Really. In some countries you can pick out Americans from a hundred yards away.
4. Say you're from Canada if you get into a sticky situation. Most anti-Americanism is directed at the government, but alot is not. It may sound funny, but seriously, and especially if you drink (alcohol+antiAmericanism=not good), you can diffuse a potentially explosive situation if you say you're from Canada. Eh?
5. Ask a travel agent. I know they're quickly becoming a thing of the past (with on-line booking), but they know what they're talking about. They'll have a lot better tips then I'll ever have.
6. Learn metric. You automatically sound much smarter. If you frequent pubs as much as I like to do (ok I'm a lush), people will ask you were you are from and then how far it is away from a major city. Pittsburgh? Oh maybe 500km west of Philadelphia. Don't know philly? 200km southwest on NYC. Just ballpark it. And when getting directions be prepared to hear meters.
7. Be careful of colloquialisms, people won't understand you. Use plain language.
When you are visiting a foreign country, the *least* you can do is be polite and reserved when asking for help. Being ostentatious, etc, does nothing to help you. Those people, on their way to work, owe exactly nothing to loudmouthed tourists. I've been to Europe a few times and the travel guides *always* tell us, if you want to blend in more don't be as loud. And don't expect people to help you or assume they speak english as if they are there to serve you. When asking for help you can at least be curitious. That said, I agree with the other posters in that the story seems made up.
The "worst" American tourist, is the oil rich, no brain texan with the loud hat, louder belly, and even louder mouth.
Come on. You couldn't pick a more generic stereotype. I've been to texas a few times and I've never met anybody like that. Furthermore, I've been to Venice, quite possibly the most turisty place I've ever been to be *far* where I've seen every national tourist stereotype, except for the Texan in question. Oil Rich? Do they give out patches and uniforms for that now? I don't believe a word of it.
Then somebody call hims on it on he posts a story about how the guy was rasist too? Come on, comic book character are better drawn. If you're going to make something up at least make it believable.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm... that's not the POTD that we are talking about, but rather another that he has posted. The pictures are not even close. Did you make it past the first sentence?
Troll or karma-whore? You decide.
Hi back. It has been a long time since I've read a programming thread that really shows the human side of the equation. I've enjoyed your posts today even though I may not agree with all of your assertions. It is rare to see inside the big projects for those that don't delve into the mailing lists. There was had a little X insight a while back, but not as , well, dramatic
Anyways, Kudos for the help to samba, and for some good reading today.
I hate that too. It's like using "ain't" or "yinz" (if you're from pittsburgh). It's not proper.
If using 'he' as the gender-indeterminate pronoun offends you, come up with a new one, perhaps borrowed from a language that has a true gender-indeterminate pronoun. But using she is just as bad as using he and I don't understand why people do it.
I agree. Maybe if Vavle put more trouble into the actual HL2 and made a great multi-player component, you'd be interested. But no, they went and sunk a boatload of money in Steam. I am also terribly disappointed in CS-Source. You'd think you'd get vehicles or like 20 new maps. But they had to work on Steam.
There's nothing I could say here that really hasn't been rehashed elsewhere, though I'm sure it will somewhere in this thread. Anyway, here's another vote for I-won't-buy-another-steampowered-game.
And for all you linux zealots that are going to attack me on the using Windows statement - piss off. I develop software for the predominant platform so I can feed my kids.
While running windows is perfectly valid, sane, and simple choice, there is no reason to have run any version of Microsoft Office. There are several high quality commercial variants like Word Perfect and free versions like OpenOffice.org. However I'd bet that the next version of the OS from Microsoft will incorporate *activation* very deeply given the success that Valve has had. What will you do then?
It's not a be-all-end-all tracking device. Say that they have enough evidence through traditional methods to obtain a search warrant. They test your printer and *bang* it's a match. They from having little evidence to having strong evidence that the illicit came from your premises.
Hardly hilarious.
Um... what planet are you from? Troll. No game in the history of computer games has *ever* garunteed that it would work on *your* machine with *your* internet connection. If it doesn't or you're not satisfied you can get a refund.
... worked for 10 hours...you who owes me!), and that is the hallmark of trolls. Maybe that was incidental because you were angry at Valve as I was. But you are stuck in the software pirates justification. Face it, it never held water, and you're still in the wrong today.
Exactly where are they immoral and evil? If you had contacted them with help to try and get working, they probably would have. There is no scam, just a misguided and misimplemented approach to try and protect their revenue stream. For that I am angry at them, but it doesn't justify piracy. I think you just like the attention that your first post got. Troll.
And sorry to break it to you, your free time, like everybody else's, is worthless to everybody but you (and perhaps your friends).
But no, just because you disagree with the whole concept of Steam, you've built a moral highground with a straw base. Have they treated their customers great? No, like I said, I don't like steam as much as you do. But your misguided notions of compensation and Valve's "duty" to you are idiotic. Who do you think you are convincing?
Your original post and replies are filled with superlatives (~150 dollars an hour!
Like you I had major problems with day 1 activation. 4 hours from disk 1 to play time. Yes, they should've had a dedicated stack of servers/bandwidth specifically for registration and if they had that they should've rented more. As a professional I like to limit the average burst to around 70% of available bandwidth. Yes I was angry. Yes I posted a polite post to their forums saying how their installation process is hurting their credibility.
To think that I am owed time/money for time trying to get it to work however, is obsurd. They make no such garuntee. Don't give me "expense of my time" crap. $150 bucks an hour? please. Not to play games it's not. Your leasure time is worth shit. Don't like it? Return the game and never buy from them again.
You have absolutely no moral high ground resorting to a pirated version if you returned the game. If you had not you could've made a point about fair use. They still deserved to be compensated for their work and you misspent time is of no consequence. They owe you nothing.
You're just angry they underestimated first-day activity. So you just try and hop on your high horse and say you deserved to be compensated. Sue them? You have no basis. You have no right to play their game unless you've bought it.
They make no garuntee that the game works. It is you who are the criminal. I hope they catch you with one of those trojaned cracked versions. Am I defending steam? NO, I abhor it. It's not ready for prime time, and this episode clearly shows its flaws. However, you are clearly misguided and have no ground to stand on.
Well that's kind of an odd thing to say because the reason that crazy markup exists is because it works in IE. Of the possible set of crazy markup, you'll find on the internet only that subset which works in IE, because if it didn't, it would be changed to where it did. The slashdot bug I believe is an actual bug in firefox, not slashdot's code.
/.
I totally agree. The mess that is a lot of html is from IE leniant behavior. This has been a topic for years. Strict Java or whatever-you-want perl or c, blah, blah. Still, there should be *no* html that will crash a browser, as has been shown recently. Failing gracefully is what I want in a browser and I have every expectation that this will be fixed in the 1.0 series of Firefox.
As for the slashdot/firefox bug, it's a case of rendering spacing graphics, (a table-layout based outdated cludge), without including height/width information. Firefox renders first then "forgets" to re-render when the actual image size is know. It's also not terribly clean code. Slashdot and slashcode are notoriously ugly and bandwidth intensive. I tried to help on the effort to convert slashdot/slashcode to xhtml+css layout, but there was a mountain of work and not a particularly organized core of developers. If you guys are still out there, I'd still help if you got a website, a working CVS repo and some help from an article in
Firefox is also believed to be faster, maybe not upon loadup in windows because of the OS integration with IE (even with the mozilla startup thingy). Faster (well, less bloated) than Mozilla also because they've been really trying to slim it down.
.7. There's that automagic plugin finder (which has only worked for flash for me), new download manager. But other than that, there's not a whole lot of features that set it apart from seamonkey, i guess, but mozilla.org, rather the mozilla foundation sees it as the future. Seeing as how it 1.0 now, I don't see any reason not to switch. In a few weeks, of course, when all of your favorite extentions get updated.
It's more standards compliant, which allows me, as a developer to write more standards based code, *then* use workarounds for stuff which IE doesn't like. That said, IE still handles crazy markup without crashing or other artifacts (see firefox/slashdot rendering bug). Security wise, it's supposedly a lot better becuase it doesn't have deep ties into the OS.
Top seller for me? I can put it on my USB drive and transfer it to the harddrive and it'll work, even on machines when I don't have admin rights (and aren't insanely tied down). I also can't live without tabbed browsing, and mouse gestures (an extension).
What differentiates it from the stock mozilla browser? Well, Firefox is now the flagship browser from Mozilla.org and I wouldn't be suprised if they don't end-of-life the stock mozilla (technically called seamonkey IIRC?), so Firefox is the one with the future. I've been testing Firefox since their very early betas (.3 0.4?) and it replaced seamonkey on my desktop around
I called you on it from the start. But I don't like not having the last word. Also, I got *you* to say that you're a social enginer, and thereby invalidated your arguments. Waste of my time? Heh, you wasted just as much of yours.
And social engineer? Fancy word for troll, eh?
Less filling no content. Again with the empty retorts. When you are going to challange the status quo, you might want to give something to back up what you're saying.
As can be seen in the Churches and Monasteries from that time.
Do you know what secular means? Yes there *was* secular art by Europeans at the time, by the vast majority was sacred. Idiot.
but it's equal to your bigoted anti-Catholic viewpoint.
I was born and raised Catholic. I can only assume you called me anti-Catholic because you are and think that if I disagree with you, I must be anti-Catholic. Correct me if I'm wrong. Hmm... Mammons and neuraltypicals? You sound like wacko Christian fundamentalist. See isn't making brash statements fun?
Pretty bigotted thinking you know everything about a person's heritage from the color of their skin, but that's just what I'd expect from a WASP like you.
I never said I was a WASP, in fact far from it. I said I shared America's heritage, and I'm proud of it. This country was made great on the shoulders of immigrants. You just look like a fat, white, midwesterner with ancestry from eastern-europe. Pure bred native american? I still call bullshit. I'd believe maybe 1/16th. Oh and I forgot about your family which has both Islamic and Zionists in it. Right.
Then you shouldn't be talking about it- since you have no ancestors who were here back then.
So I can't make assertions on history unless my ancestors were there? I've never heard a more rediculous argument.
No- which is why I'll be starting a new political party this coming Saturday- to stick up for the nativist point of view.
Nativism is one of the core wrongs. It's the basis of racism and territorial disputes. Good luck with that, I heard the Nativist party in Germany thrived in the 20's and 30's. Idiot.
By the way, hire a site designer. I've never seen a more amaturish website than informationr.us. Not to mention the ugliness and dead links. You expect people to buy services from you? You call yourself a computer professional?
If you still think you're right, I be happy to schedule an IRC debate on #politics or #slashdot.
The US is already in a depression, it's just hidden under the fake numbers placed in the stock market by the SEC.
So you are a conspiry theorist to eh? Purputrated by the evil Zionists no doubt. As usual no evidence to back anything up. If you'd like *me* to site sources on anything I say here I'd be delighted.
And the fact you actually bought the lie that the dark ages existed
Ok, I give up. Why didn't the dark ages exist? More Zionist Propaganda? And as to your supposition that Arabia was nothing but war-driven, who invaded them during the crusades? Oh and I forget about the massive European secular art movement at the time. As for their art, have you actually seen any of it. Have you ever been to school? You still sound like a high schooler.
Well, two out of three ain't bad. But somehow, 120 degree AVERAGE temperature- and 10 feet down, that's what you get, the average outside temperature, year around- is anything but cool.
Uhg. Check it out. Yes it gets hot, often to 120, but that is nowhere near the average. 104 in the summer, 50 in the winter. Average? 75. But ever notice how cool it is in your basement, even in the summertime? Same concept. The average temperature ten feet down at that latitude in summer is a sweltering 65. Look it up dick cheese. The sun really doesn't have a chance to warm up the soil more than a couple feet down before it cools down to nighttime again. And I guess you've never heard about the story during the first iraq war, a stranded special ops force had serveral members freeze to death when they were caught unprepared for the climate. No, Iraq isn't as mountainous as Afganistan, but it's deserts get just as hot. Buried weapons last a long time.
my heritage is Cherokee, Kwakiutal, and Nes Pierce.
If that's you at the informationr.us page, then I don't believe you for one second. Then again, why should I?
your lying white ancestors
Were still in Europe until the 1900's, and never went further west than the mississipi until the next generation. When I said about our heritage I mean as a whole nation.
Your xenophobic, racist, revisionist, ignorant, hawkish points of view holds no more interest to me. And if you really believe what you say, you should put our discussion on you family and business page and attribute it to yourself just in case any evil Zionists or Muslims want to do business with you. You think *any* US politian would've done what you said?
...nuke Israel- those Zionists are just as much potential terrorists now ...
You must be great at parties.
Nation of Islam theology or Zionist Jewish theology (you know, the two that say the only way to build a just world is under a theocracy)
That statement proves you know nothing about the fundamental tennant of either faith.
But only if we're willing to truly close them off to anybody who would invade here.
The United States didn't become a super power until *after* it came out of it's isolationist shell. You would totally close the borders? If not how would you know who was a bad guy? Not all terrorists look arab. If you do close the borders, there goes turism and shorty after, trade. The US plunges into recession. Face it, the US depends on the rest of the world for it's success, as the rest of the world depends on it.
Under 2000? I think you're forgetting our losses on 9-11- the 5000 who died then.
Iraq had no ties to the "war on terror" until we invaded it. Research shows Saddam wasn't a threat, and thumped his chest largely to scare Iran from attacking. And if you say, "we did it to protect he iraqies" that's invalid too, because you already said they're all terrorists.
You *really* don't know very much about firearms, do you? Or about the climate of Iraq?
In a descent container, with no risk of water damage, in a cool and dry place? Who is the one who doesn't know about weapons? I'd suggest watching one of the execellent documentaries on the discovery channel about patrols in Afganistan, a country with a climate curiously akin to Iraq. One of their major problems fighting weapons smuggling is buried weapons. Get a clue.
Good luck- better men than you have tried to pin me down and failed miserably.
Seeing as how you agreed with my short recap, I'd say I did pretty well. You are a troll, I don't even believe you believe what you say. In your world, you've just banished all of our allies. Europe, Israel, Japan, banashed off because "they haven't recently done anything for us". You've not given anybody reason to like us. In fact you've given most of the world reason to nuke *us*. Here another great scenario.
China, North Korea, and Russia, upon seeing the defiant actions of the United States unilaterally killing millions, and indescriminant use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, shoots their wad of nukes at us. The young missle defense shield takes out about 1/3 of the incoming warheads. Every loses. Every dies.
I suggest you research the nation-state balance of Europe in through the second milenia. Any nation-state that got too powerful was leveled by the conglomeration of it's less powerful neighbors. You simply can not create peace through indescriminate violence. It violates every principle the United States was founded on.
Just on the simple supposition that everybody in the middle east is a potential terrorist, people will see you are a nut job. 2000 years of dirt and violence in the middle east? Nope. During the dark and middle ages where did technology and art come from? Arabia. They used to be far more-enlightened then any of our ancestors. Violence isn't heretitary. It's taught.
You would throw away tens of millions of lives? 100 million in the military? Who will support them? That's more than one out of three, far more than the able bodies population. But the US is only ~1/27 of the world population. And after you forsake all of our allies in the name of misguided liberty, it's the united states that will be reduced to radio-active glass.
You forget that it wasn't that long ago that the US was a theocracy in reality. Run almost entirely by WASPs and not terribly tolerant of outsiders. Native Americans, Black, Irish, Jews, you name it. Have you forgoten your own heritage?
Don't even get me started on your rediculous supposition that every war is
- Every person in Iraq is a potential terrorist.
- If all Iraqis don't voluntarily give up their wepons, they should be shot
- Problematic spots should be nuked
- To cover for a shoulder-to-shoulder weapons sweep of the entire country a draft should be instantiated.
- You'd rather have thousands more dead Americans than have even small groups of armed insurgents.
- You believe it is possible to obtain *every* wepon in the hands of people in the *entire* country of Iraq
- You can't reliably bury wepons (um, put them in a crate dumbass)
- Any house you can't search fully should be razed to the ground.
- You believe that 1.5 million of armed MPs should gaurd our coastlines at the same time, hell let's draft the entire able bodied population
So then after you raise the armed forces number to like 3 million, and therby having to switch to a wartime economy, the economy will get better. Sure, it worked after mechanising the country after the most debilitating depression in history, it'll *have* to work again! Look how well it also worked for Britian and Frace after WWII! And Russia during the cold war!.Also after forcability beating down the entire county of Iraq and calling them all terrorists, and murdering hundreds and hundreds of thousands of civilians (along with 50,000 GI's) simply because they wouldn't give up their guns, and nuking "problematic" spots, we unite the ENTIRE Arab world against us (they're all just potential terrorists anyway)! Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, Pakistan, Eygpt, Libia, Iran, and Turkey declare war on the US, which is OK because we have a draft now! Nato votes to disband the treaty with the US. The UN leaves New york! Irsael is invaded by the above "coalition" and we have to back them! Hundreds of thousands of US and Israelis die! Instead of under 2000, like under the current president.
Seriously, troll. What is your end picture like? You're 33 and you think your steps would put us in a *better* situation?
When I said "had more to do with the holocaust" I ment they were more involved in a strict sence. I didn't mean to imply culpability. I guess I should have elaborated more, but very long post don't get read :). However, from a great article
In his 1967 book Three Popes and the Jews, the diplomat Pinchas Lapide (who served as Israeli consul in Milan and interviewed Italian Holocaust survivors) declared Pius XII "was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands."
This is not to say that Eugenio Pacelli--the powerful churchman who served as nuncio in Bavaria and Germany from 1917 to 1929, then as Vatican secretary of state from 1930 to 1939, before becoming Pope Pius XII six months before World War II began--was as much a friend to the Jews as John Paul II has been. Nor is it to say that Pius was ultimately successful as a defender of Jews. Despite his desperate efforts to maintain peace, the war came, and, despite his protests against German atrocities, the slaughter of the Holocaust occurred. Even without benefit of hindsight, a careful study reveals that the Catholic Church missed opportunities to influence events, failed to credit fully the Nazis' intentions, and was infected in some of its members with a casual anti-Semitism that would countenance--and, in a few horrifying instances, affirm--the Nazi ideology.
Have enough troops to search every building in the country.
Like that is conceivable with 3/4 mil troops. Right. See the americans coming? Just move to a place they've already searched before. Bury wepons. Hide them in walls and under subfloors. How do you garuntee that the populace has been disarmed?? What happens to people that don't want to give up their guns? You think this would *lessen* the civilian casualties in Iraq? You're like what, 12?
there ain't no such thing as civilians in Iraq.
Bullshit. Not every Iraqi wants to take up arms. What a rediculous stereotype. They want what Americans with guns want. To defend their families. Given the current state of Iraq is that a too much to give them? Would you also have America disarmed? I suggest you Mike Moore's first flick. The root of the problem isn't guns.
I've seen estimates around 740,000 troops needed for this- BEFORE you invade
With 740000 troops you think there would be *less* than the current number of American dead? After systematically disarming an unwilling populace. Right. If you try and do that you lose all of you allies, and *then* you are an occupying force. The moderate iraqis now fight *you*. Disarm the populace? Look how well it worked for the Russians in Afganistan. How many Russians died? You seriously think blindly sending in more troops is an unequivolenty good idea? Idiot.
Would've, would've, would've. Hindsight is 20/20. John Kerry as weall as Kucinich do a lot of talk.
Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA
Um, what?? How many troops are you talking here? 2 million? Do you have any idea of the cost? You think that GWB didn't disarm the populace because of his feelings on gun control ??? It would be next to impossible to do, and wouldn't leave the iraqis with much of a warm feeling for their "liberators". Street fighting is where Americans die fastest, and they were right to stay mostly out of town.
Besides, the *whole* strategy of the invasion was to get into Bagdad is quickly as possible, much like the wildly-successful island hopping campaign of the Pacific during WWII. And again, the invasion was wildly succesfull. The problem comes in at post-war planning, and the much touted "exit-strategy". Did GWB screw the pooch on that on? Yep. Would've Kerry or any other Dem done differently? I don't think so. It's just talk.
The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft
You say this as a good thing. A draft? Are you serious? Are you a cloaked republican? You must be dreaming if you think kucinich would've considered a draft.
even if it meant confirming every detail
Give me a break. I lot of Democrats voted *for* the war after seeing the same intellegence as the president. You can't confirm every detail. You are living in a dream world if you think that any of this would've happened. I'm not a Republican, I'm not voting for Bush, but you're scenario is utterly inconcievable and pure conjecture.
I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
+4 insighful?!? You want more friendly fire incidents??? Troll.
The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps
/.
It was a tactical desicion. Do you know how many flights it took to take out *one* location in WWII? An average of ten missions with multiple aircraft. Also bombs were wildly inaccurate. There are multiple accounts of bombs missing targets by upto a mile.
The concentration camp were, one a *burden* of money and manpower to the germans, two, you couldn't target individual buildings (ie crematoriums) without risking hitting prisioner barracks, three the force required to take out such targets outweighed their strategic advantage, and four few people knew the whole extent of what was going on there. Yes it's a cold calculated descision but one that was militarily and morally sound.
SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape
I'm guessing you're refering to the immigration limits of the 30's and early 40's. The US was in a drepression at the time (I think they called it the GREAT depression) and the influx was further destablizing the economy. Furthermore no one in the US knew (at that time) of the resultant outcome of those policies. Cold? Yes. Immoral? They certainly didn't think so.
So no, there's no such thing as a "good" war, but WWII was a "just" war. IBM, Ford and the Catholic Church had more to do with the Holocaust than the US government did. I could offer a refute of your analysis of the civil war also, but no one wants to read a novel on
Bush wasn't democratically elected.
No president has ever been democratically elected. If you meant "didn't have the majority of the popular vote" you'd be correct. I may not agree with it but we're stuck with that whole electorial college thing. However, I hate it when far-lefters claim that GWB was illegit. elected. There was due process. There were terrific miscues by the Dem's and some dubious actions by the Reb's. Along with debatable court decissions. However as the man that came out on top, he's entitled to the same respect you'd give any president. Get over it.
Let me say it again. The US is NOT a democracy. GWB was elected. Now if I have anything to say about it, it won't happen twice, but quit spinning your leftist bull crap.
They can't use common sense. They must evalute every sentance with "the president" preceeded by "kill". If you ask god to do it, then you could concievably have a person with whom you communicate under the moniker "god".
It's simply illegal to make such statments even if they are non-sensical. Can you imagine something happening after such a threat was discarded. "Oops sorry, we didn't think she was serious".
Come on now, I don't feel for her one bit. I don't much like the man as president but I'm sure he's a good person. I do not wish anything upon him except long life. Now if I were invesitgated for using the words "president" and "kill" and "wish" in the same post then that would be overboard.
www.moneyfactory.com
mint.us.gov just didn't have a ring to it I guess. On that note why is it that it's army.mil and not army.mil.us or army.us.mil? What if other countries want a military home page?
If people are that bigoted...well...fuck 'em!
;)), and will talk your ears off. Sometimes though even if you are a nice intelligent person, that doesn't stop trouble from looking for you.
I'm proud to be an American, but at 2:00 in the morning surrounded by 20 Croatians half of which don't speak english and are getting quite roudy, you'd be surprised what you say. Really man, I like a bar fight like the next guy but when you're vastly outnumbered in a foreign country (what's the number for 911 here? is there a 911?) you'd better stick to lying and diplomacy.
You're right, if you keep mostly to yourself and are tring to be friendly 99 times out of 100 people are nicer than you'd find here. A lot of people I've met seem fasinated by Americans, (albeit in countries we don't go to in droves
Ah, a *much* more believable story (than GP) ;). I love stupid turist stories. Anyway, in my travels its always Americans who are the stupid turists. I've hung with Aussies in Norway that would out drunk everybody (an expensive task when a pint will run you like $8) then still be curtious enough on the way home. Asians, well mostly Japanese in my experience, plan well, are quiet and know what to ask for, and almost as fun to drink with. Americans, are, well, loud. Here's some tips.
;). You'll still stick out, but not as much. Really. In some countries you can pick out Americans from a hundred yards away.
1. Like I said, Americans are loud. If you don't want to stick out, shut up.
2. Don't wear jewelery, especially in countries where it would be an obnoxious display of wealth, not to mention it automatically makes you a target.
3. If you still want to blend in, don't wear shorts, plaid, flannel, sneakers, or baseball caps. In some countries jeans too, but especially in Europe bluejeans are a fashion statement so your cut up old Levi's won't cut it
4. Say you're from Canada if you get into a sticky situation. Most anti-Americanism is directed at the government, but alot is not. It may sound funny, but seriously, and especially if you drink (alcohol+antiAmericanism=not good), you can diffuse a potentially explosive situation if you say you're from Canada. Eh?
5. Ask a travel agent. I know they're quickly becoming a thing of the past (with on-line booking), but they know what they're talking about. They'll have a lot better tips then I'll ever have.
6. Learn metric. You automatically sound much smarter. If you frequent pubs as much as I like to do (ok I'm a lush), people will ask you were you are from and then how far it is away from a major city. Pittsburgh? Oh maybe 500km west of Philadelphia. Don't know philly? 200km southwest on NYC. Just ballpark it. And when getting directions be prepared to hear meters.
7. Be careful of colloquialisms, people won't understand you. Use plain language.
When you are visiting a foreign country, the *least* you can do is be polite and reserved when asking for help. Being ostentatious, etc, does nothing to help you. Those people, on their way to work, owe exactly nothing to loudmouthed tourists. I've been to Europe a few times and the travel guides *always* tell us, if you want to blend in more don't be as loud. And don't expect people to help you or assume they speak english as if they are there to serve you. When asking for help you can at least be curitious. That said, I agree with the other posters in that the story seems made up.
The "worst" American tourist, is the oil rich, no brain texan with the loud hat, louder belly, and even louder mouth.
Come on. You couldn't pick a more generic stereotype. I've been to texas a few times and I've never met anybody like that. Furthermore, I've been to Venice, quite possibly the most turisty place I've ever been to be *far* where I've seen every national tourist stereotype, except for the Texan in question. Oil Rich? Do they give out patches and uniforms for that now? I don't believe a word of it.
Then somebody call hims on it on he posts a story about how the guy was rasist too? Come on, comic book character are better drawn. If you're going to make something up at least make it believable.