YOu don't even know the difference between accessing a system that may or not be comprimised and taking the "machine and burn it and then take a baseball bat to the person's knee caps". Hyperbole much? A better analogy would be me running naked across my neighbor's lawn and expecting my "right to privacy" while doing so.
If you said "I'm going to swing this wrecking ball at the wall you're standing in front of in 2 weeks." then you should reasonably expect me not to be standing in front of said wall when that time comes.
I was able to eliminate any problems like those of the OP by simply sending an email out that reminded everyone of my foreign contacts of the change.
So the argument is that "poor" people have it pretty good for being "poor" and when someone points out that the only way they maintain the standard of living they do is by borrowing all you can say is they're "managing their money improperly". You're about as obtuse as the guy who says "everyone has the same opportunity." Sure you have the same opportunity (if you have the same ability and environment.) The fact is not everyone has the same ability. Someone with an IQ of 90 from a poor single parent family DOES NOT have the same opportunity as someone with an IQ of 180 born into the Walton or Gates family.
There is one area in which the disadvantaged do have the same ability, that's at the ballot box. It won't be long before they figure out that they simply have to vote to get a bigger piece of the pie and I for one am scared to death of that day. I would rather those in control recognize the problem before there's a revolt, unfortunately that's not going to happen.
"Bottom line, in this country there's no limit except those we impose on ourselves."
In your ideal world everyone has the same natural ability. Unfortunately that's not true. 49% of the population has a below average IQ. Your friend from HS is the exception to the rule. She was where she was because of bad choices, not because she was stupid.
Lastly, I'd doubt very much that a single mother working a part time job received no government assistance while getting her education.
That's what the gov't did. Poverty income for a family of 4 in Oklahoma is something like 18k. I'm sorry, but if you're a family of 4 living on 30k in Oklahoma you're poor and Oklahoma has one of the lowest costs of living in the states.
I can't seem to reproduce your problem. Copying a 10MB file is instant, extracting a 10MB zip across drives takes about 4 seconds. This is on a machine that scores a 1 on the "Windows Experience Index".
I'm running on a Dell latitude 640m which is about 4 months old (the line is about a year old I think.) I wouldn't think that it would be too new/old/rare.
What about the daily releases? Would they be safe enough to try you think?
I left my laptop at the house. I'm going to do a fresh install and try again sometime over the next few days (hopefully feisty fawn will be out of alpha by then) documenting everything I do using my digital camera along the way.
yeah, because vista using UNUSED RAM for caching to speed up applications you actually use is clearly going to slow you down./sarcasm
BTW, linux tries to do something like this already with the disk caching. Idle RAM is NEVER doing you any good. Oh, and when you try to open an app that's not cached it takes longer to copy it from the hard disk to memory than it does for the OS to release the memory it needs from cache.
I have a 4 year old desktop that's running it fine (1.4GHz and 1GB of RAM with the video card it came with.) Must be my leet 'doze skills...
While I'm sure you're quite happy with your shiny new OS, millions of people have installed and started using Vista since it came out. The desktop install base probably already dwarfs linux. It's amazing to me that somehow millions of semi computer literate people can somehow muddle through the upgrade/install process and end up with something that meets all of their needs, yet people who clearly aren't idiots when it comes to computers can't seem to get it working...
So does this mean the linux that is installed on my laptop isn't a real OS? I'm confused, the person I replied to said
Real operating systems have virtual desktops so you don't have to layer everything 3 windows deep. Vista doesn't even have a power tool [microsoft.com] to do it.
Somehow I get modded flamebait and he gets modded insightful. Oh well, I guess considering the forum it should be expected. I look forward to another insightful article on why you can't even give linux away...
Vista uses all of your RAM all of the time. It lets go what it needs to for applications but uses the RAM that normally goes "unused" for caching. Every OS should do this.
The live CD gives me the same problem. Selecting the safe graphic mode gets me to an x error and drops me to a command prompt. i downloaded 5, but i read somewhere that the "beta" was coming out on the 22nd.
Been there, done that. Even let the "gurus" on the Ubuntu forums give it a go, but none of their "fixes" worked. I spent much more time trying to get it working than I would have if it was Vista, but there simply doesn't seem to be a solution at the moment. I'll try again when feisty fawn is released next month.
Slashdot Mirror
YOu don't even know the difference between accessing a system that may or not be comprimised and taking the "machine and burn it and then take a baseball bat to the person's knee caps". Hyperbole much? A better analogy would be me running naked across my neighbor's lawn and expecting my "right to privacy" while doing so.
Can I get that last percent?
you ain't tryin...
If you said "I'm going to swing this wrecking ball at the wall you're standing in front of in 2 weeks." then you should reasonably expect me not to be standing in front of said wall when that time comes.
I was able to eliminate any problems like those of the OP by simply sending an email out that reminded everyone of my foreign contacts of the change.
So the argument is that "poor" people have it pretty good for being "poor" and when someone points out that the only way they maintain the standard of living they do is by borrowing all you can say is they're "managing their money improperly". You're about as obtuse as the guy who says "everyone has the same opportunity." Sure you have the same opportunity (if you have the same ability and environment.) The fact is not everyone has the same ability. Someone with an IQ of 90 from a poor single parent family DOES NOT have the same opportunity as someone with an IQ of 180 born into the Walton or Gates family.
There is one area in which the disadvantaged do have the same ability, that's at the ballot box. It won't be long before they figure out that they simply have to vote to get a bigger piece of the pie and I for one am scared to death of that day. I would rather those in control recognize the problem before there's a revolt, unfortunately that's not going to happen.
An example of why the government definition is flawed is enough to render your previous argument based on their numbers invalid.
"Bottom line, in this country there's no limit except those we impose on ourselves."
In your ideal world everyone has the same natural ability. Unfortunately that's not true. 49% of the population has a below average IQ. Your friend from HS is the exception to the rule. She was where she was because of bad choices, not because she was stupid.
Lastly, I'd doubt very much that a single mother working a part time job received no government assistance while getting her education.
That's what the gov't did. Poverty income for a family of 4 in Oklahoma is something like 18k. I'm sorry, but if you're a family of 4 living on 30k in Oklahoma you're poor and Oklahoma has one of the lowest costs of living in the states.
The bottom 90% in the US is "maintaining" a lifestyle by borrowing, that will eventually collapse.
I'm curious, what do you call accumulating debt while others accumulate wealth?
I suggest you do a little research.
http://a-76.nih.gov/a76_rev2003.pdf
The bottom 90% is losing ground. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.h tml?ei=5065&en=f30aed8087a73065&ex=1175745600&part ner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
I can't seem to reproduce your problem. Copying a 10MB file is instant, extracting a 10MB zip across drives takes about 4 seconds. This is on a machine that scores a 1 on the "Windows Experience Index".
I'm running on a Dell latitude 640m which is about 4 months old (the line is about a year old I think.) I wouldn't think that it would be too new/old/rare.
What about the daily releases? Would they be safe enough to try you think?
I was going by the schedule here.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeistyReleaseSchedule
I worked at wal-mart in HS and even they gave 2 paid 15 min breaks.
I left my laptop at the house. I'm going to do a fresh install and try again sometime over the next few days (hopefully feisty fawn will be out of alpha by then) documenting everything I do using my digital camera along the way.
yeah, because vista using UNUSED RAM for caching to speed up applications you actually use is clearly going to slow you down. /sarcasm
BTW, linux tries to do something like this already with the disk caching. Idle RAM is NEVER doing you any good. Oh, and when you try to open an app that's not cached it takes longer to copy it from the hard disk to memory than it does for the OS to release the memory it needs from cache.
I have a 4 year old desktop that's running it fine (1.4GHz and 1GB of RAM with the video card it came with.) Must be my leet 'doze skills...
While I'm sure you're quite happy with your shiny new OS, millions of people have installed and started using Vista since it came out. The desktop install base probably already dwarfs linux. It's amazing to me that somehow millions of semi computer literate people can somehow muddle through the upgrade/install process and end up with something that meets all of their needs, yet people who clearly aren't idiots when it comes to computers can't seem to get it working...
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.h tml
Vista uses all of your RAM all of the time. It lets go what it needs to for applications but uses the RAM that normally goes "unused" for caching. Every OS should do this.
The live CD gives me the same problem. Selecting the safe graphic mode gets me to an x error and drops me to a command prompt. i downloaded 5, but i read somewhere that the "beta" was coming out on the 22nd.
Lucky you. I can't even get x to work on mine (I know, "I are a luser nub").
Vista runs without a hitch though...
So you're saying that your OS wastes you RAM and that's a good thing?
Been there, done that. Even let the "gurus" on the Ubuntu forums give it a go, but none of their "fixes" worked. I spent much more time trying to get it working than I would have if it was Vista, but there simply doesn't seem to be a solution at the moment. I'll try again when feisty fawn is released next month.
"There has been no such judgement passed about Apple."
Yet