From what I hear (father of someone I know is a big guy at AMD), many folks there are edgy about supporting it, but they're in it because they don't want to "miss the boat."
They're called morals. You might want to consider looking into them.
Money != Reason to Abuse Everyone For More Money
Any trolls in the process of hitting the reply button, please take your time to do some more research on Microsoft before you insert your foot in your mouth.
If facts prove the Bible wrong, then the religious person changes the FACTS to match the Bible.
Often, this is the case. I do not care for these people, but to sum them all up under this one roof is stupid. I hope you aren't implying that.
--- How often does the Bible get updated with new information? It doesn't.
Correct. However, interpretations change. In the past, certain religious folks claimed that the Bible proved blacks were inferrior (See: Documentary on the Discovery channel, I forget the name). Of course, they also claimed that because God created us in his image, etc. etc., we're the only intelligent creatures in the universe, and furthermore, we're the center of the universe.
The first and last views have changed.
--- The Bible is a constant. It does not change.
So are physics, at least we hope. The laws governing the universe are thought to be constant, even if we are wrong or unclear about some/all of them.
---
Study of the Bible is the interpretation of stories to what we "know" today.
Science is the interpretation of what we see in experiments on the physical world through the lens of what we "know" today.
---
If religious scholars with open minds hear contradictory facts to their interpretations, they often change their interpretations.
If responsible scientists hear contradictory facts, they change their interpretations (modify theories, discount certain results, etc.).
---
The fact is, although they go about things in a different manner, both religion and science interpret what they see around them into a way that makes sense. Religion is not proof of anything (by the strict definition), and science is not proof of anything either. They're interpretations, and to discount the Bible on the basis that it's not scientific is wrong. To discount it on it's content and what you know is OK, if that is your belief. The problem with seemingly many slashdotters is that they don't do the research, but blow it off in ignorance.
For the most part, it seems like we can both agree with each other's arguments (maybe I'm reading this incorrectly?)
Here are some points I thought were worth discussing:
--- "A better argument for science (or to a degree, religion), might be based on what works."
The Bible is not fact, but rehashing the same dead horse: just because it's a story doesn't make it insignificant. That's my main point, although not directed at you.
--- It's a conceit of mine that scientists don't have to prove or disprove whether god(s) exist. If the god(s) care, they'll make their presence known without our help.
I think this is something many folks should look at. Assume, for a moment, that we're here by the will of God. Assume this is a way of testing, teaching and helping us learn to grow. Do you think this is implausible? If so, can you give a reason besides "it's too far out there?"
I think one of the reasons we're here is to seek out God, to have an active interest. And I don't think it's implausible simply because I don't buy into the explaination that chemicals and nerve impluses are the total sum of my consciousness. God, in my mind, exists, and I go from there.
--- All I know is that if I develop, say, the symptoms of appendicitis, I'd prefer to go to a hospital than a faith healer.;)
Likewise. But I wouldn't rule out faith healing, for one reason: I don't know enough about it. I consider myself a very skeptical person. I know people who personally believe in some super-natural things, and for the most part, I dismiss them. However, a few stand out. Still, even without these fantastic stories, I wouldn't discount it just because it's "too weird." People who do that have often been proven wrong.
--- > Interestingly enough, some religious folks > I know say that, too.
Imagine someone like that as a TV preacher! I know I'd watch...
Me too. Like you, I assume, I cannot stand religious shows as they are, although I will admit I have only taken a minor sample, albeit from multiple shows.
--- I come from the deep southern part of the USA, where you can't travel half a mile down the road without driving past one or two cheurches. These areas tend to fall more on the "distort the facts, but don't reinterpret your religion" side of the fence. There's probably a little bit of geographical bias in my views showing through here.
I live in Texas.
I am sure I would have more bias if I actually spent time with more of the "common church folk." I make it a habit to talk with the religious people I know, but I also make it a habit to avoid those I see as overly ignorant.
--- Sure, both religion and science apply their ideas to facts to see what their ideas explain. I wouldn't dispute that. Religion and science both attempt to explain the world around us in terms we can understand. But they take different roads to get where they're going...
Agreed. It is amazing, however, the ignorance common on both sides.
I am not perfect by any stretch of imagination, but in my opinion, this is just typical society.
Nobody - let me repeat, NOBODY - who knows anything about science will say that it is infallible. The whole POINT of the scientific method is that humands *do* make mistakes. If all our observations and conjectures were perfect, we wouldn't need the scentific method at all.
The reason I bring this up is because I'm hearing multiple arguments on Slashdot today that say something along the lines of, "Science is fact, religion is heresay." It's the typical "Pot, kettle, black" statement that I'm trying to run into the ground.
(Does it surprise anyone that *religions* have claimed "infallibility"?:) )
Nope. Many of the religious folks I know are absolute retards.
The difference between science now and science then is that we have a *lot* more observations under our belts and new tools for observations. The scientific method is the same.
Aye, but new, more advanced theories require new, more advanced tools. Just because a CPU is faster doesn't mean that the average speed of computing goes up. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I thought that was worth pointing out.
> Saying that "scientific studies prove atoms > exist but the Bible doesn't prove squat" is a > fallacy, plain and simple.
What, exactly, does the Bible prove? This is a pretty reasonable question to ask, I think.
Nothing. And that's my whole point. Neither side can prove anything.
That's a little strong, but it does tend to give fundamentalists the shivers. After all, the argument goes, why is an infallible, perfect, omniscient god's word so darned hard to read? For that matter, why are his products (us) so defective?
Orthodox religious folks scare me. They often contradict each other. Which is why logical folks need to step up to the plate a bit more often.
> The same goes for science. Theories arise to > explain things that we're not sure about. > They're not always right. > Pot. Kettle. Black.
Not quite. Scientists *know* that most new hypothesis are, if not flat-out wrong, in need of improvement. That's what the scientific method is all about.
"Pot. Kettle. Black." refers to the folks here on Slashdot who claim that science is vastly superior to religion. The scientists I know take a much more... intelligent point of view, that is, "I might be right, I might be wrong." Interestingly enough, some religious folks I know say that, too.
The more "fundamentalist" religions work a different way: An explanation is presupposed. The "facts" are manipulated so they fit the explanation - or the explanation is so vague that any "fact" would fit. (Okay, that's a bit uncharitable - some religions DO change their dogma - but it's not far off from fundamentalist Christianity.)
Again, fundamentalist religions scare me, in orthodox. As far as facts being manipulated - I see where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently. Religions try and take their scriptures and apply it to the life they know in a way that makes sense to them. That's interpretation. They take what is given them (or what they "find") and apply it to what they know in ways they think are correct. I see the same in science.
Math is perfect, by it's definition. The same with English. They're both languages used to express things by their own rules. But it's how they're used that determines whether the application is correct. I can write an equation, but if I don't plug in valid input, it's worthless.
Scientists justify their theories with studies and findings. Christians justify their beliefs with the Bible. The problem in both cases is that people on both sides are just that: people. They interpret things incorrectly and call them fact. At one time, every observation thought of proved that the world was flat. To state that science today is infallable is absolutely retarded.
Saying that "scientific studies prove atoms exist but the Bible doesn't prove squat" is a fallacy, plain and simple. Theologists study the Bible, trying to find coheasion. When they find something that doesn't make sense, they try and come up with an explaination for it. Many "scientists" call this proof that God does not exist. "Why, if Soandso did this, could Soandso do this, and God still do this?"
The same goes for science. Theories arise to explain things that we're not sure about. They're not always right.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
There are more similarities between science and religion than you realize.
While I respect your opinion, I have to flatly disagree and ask what it is you're smoking.
Patents on hyperlinks? Patents the parent poster mentioned? Patents on chat bots. Come on -- all it would take is one guy with a BS in comp. sci. and 5 minutes with Google to evaluate any of those.
This is the government we're talking about here. If any 24 year old comp. sci. major can figure that out, shouldn't we expect the same of a government body which regulates patents that result in high dollar lawsuits?
Virii, spyware, programs that put 10 icons in 3 places each on your computer will all come to Linux.
But considering file permissions, and how devices, configs and other such things are held strictly to these permissions, I think it's safe to say that although one user might get messed up on a Linux box, unless he's running as root (stupid, of course), only his portion of the system will be messed up.
Unless, of course, virii start exploiting local root hacks, but that's an issue of keeping your system up to date. up2date and Red Carpet are very handy here.
Yes, and this would be because Aironet writes Microsoft device drivers Note somehow my quote of your "Aironet card is supported under Windows" part got lost.
What problems do you have with X? I'm doing fine -- I can't remember the last time X or Linux locked up on me, and I use a laptop with Linux around 8-12 hours every weekday. My panel has crashed a couple times in the last few weeks, but it restarts itself with no problems.
You know what? ALL software has holes. The "l33t haX0r" OS'es have their fair share as well, but you fucking zealots like to try to just sweep that under the carpet.
True. Folks do need to back off of MS's case just a bit. However, Microsoft hatred has been well earned over the years.
Yes, and this would be because Aironet writes Microsoft device drivers for the hardware they make. Very few companies actually do this for Linux, yet Linux supports a vast array of hardware as well, all by it's little self. Hardly worth discrediting Linux developers for. It's a status quo problem.
And [XP] doesn't crash, ever.... X-windows is a buggy piece of shit.
I'll admit that XP isn't bad in the stability dept., but for all intents and purposes, it seems like an updated 2K with a bloated interface. You want to argue with me on the bloated issue? Then explain why the XP start menu takes up most of the screen on small resolutions. =\ Not to mention the colors and "3D-ish" look.
Why don't you guys fix the problems with the damn operating system instead of wasting all of your time bitching about FIXED security holes?
True. Again, people should settle down. Microsoft is doing better. In the past, I would have said, "Yes, finally, Microsoft is paying attention to security." It looks like their "security initiative" back in January has taken affect. However, Microsoft has dissapointed, lied and plain abused us (crappy, insecure products for too much $$ is abuse in my book) long enough to deserve my indifference at this point.
And don't anyone give me that libertarian crap about free choice. True free markets do not exist, and there is such as thing as compatibility. When Jack Doe goes to work, often he's forced into using Windows, likewise at home, to view certain files and run certain programs.
Average Joe will not go to Linux or OS/X because of this dog shit. It will keep them from it.
I love this argument! The average Joe and Jane, namely my parents, use Linux on their home box. They are far from what anyone would call "computer literate." Try Ximian before you make stupid, uninformed comments.
Face it, you will never have the GUI responsiveness with XFree86 (in particular, not attacking OS/X for this one) that Windows has always had.
Obviously you haven't tried the latest in BloatWare from Microsoft, namely Windows XP, and compared it to Linux.
I don't know what kind of config you have, but I've run a Linux/Win98 dual boot on the following systems:
Pentium 266, 64MB RAM The programs menu in Windows was slightly faster (and only in the beginning). All other window operations in Linux were equal or faster.
Pentium 333, 190MB RAM (laptop) Same story (on this system now).
Duron 750, 256MB RAM Linux: Faster
Thunderbird 1.3gig, 512MB DDR RAM Linux: Faster
I can take an Athlon XP2000+, with a GeForce 4 and 1.5 gigs of ram and have slower "snappiness" and performance than with a 200mhz, 4mb video card and 64M of ram with even Windows 98.
With even Windows 98? You obviously don't know much about Microsoft software progression. You see, over time, they add more "features" to the OS, such as bloated, fruity, 3d-ish interfaces (Read: XP) that drag down the system. "Even Windows 98" is hardly a correct thing to say. Using 98 would be a better solution for speed than using anything newer. Try Windows XP on that 200mhz machine, it'll be slow as a dog. Glad I could help.
In fact, my parent's box, which used to run 98, was unbelievably slow due to the normal system degradation common with Windows. Even after a default install (which I had done at least two times previously due to system problems), 98 wasn't very quick to respond. Linux, on the other hand, while the menus are slower (at the beginning only), handles windows (max, min, etc), virtual desktops, etc., with the same perkiness of Windows 98.
Hey guy, install Windows XP on a Celeron 300 and Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, or about anything else on the same box. Tell me which one runs faster.
Then go find an old 486 and find a version of Windows that's still supported that you can use on it. Oh, can't find one? Now go try Linux.
Take your uninformed/unbalanced opinion to www.linuxsucks.com, some of the folks there might understand you.
I'm up for e-voting, actually. Stupid or not, the ability to wake up in the morning and surf to vote.gov and vote on your 5 favorite issues would be great.
A pure democracy hasn't really been possible until now -- only now do we have the communications abilities requried.
Because most people are asleep and think of the government as a commercial entity they must fight with, not something that they are supposed to control. Most people think that laws are something to contend with, not something to change.
While both of these are true to any normal jack fighting the system today, if more people stood up and spoke their minds and kept bad government out of office, things would change.
So... that's all you have to do in this tech market today? Claim that you can solve all problems by waggling your fingers?
Microsoft: Yeah, we know we're known for making products with holes big enough to drive a truck through, and we're becoming infamous for spyware --- but Palladium will solve all of your security and privacy issues!
This CD smart card crap sounds quite similar to me.
Is this a new business model that they're teaching in school? The Pseudo-Solution Model?
Yeah, amazing how we keep stealing from all these wonderful artists, hmm?
It's the recording labels that steal from the artists, not us -- just do a little research on how much (little) of that $15-$20 goes to the artist.
I'm against piracy, but I also agree with many of the folks out there: Napster was the best thing that ever happened to the recording industry. I like to listen to something before I buy it. However, I won't buy another CD until the recording industry straightens up.
Only in Quake TF (the ONLY TF - TFC didn't cut the cake) could I shoot a guy in the back (as a sniper), laugh my ass of at the thought of the look on the puny little kid's face as he realizes the futility of getting away from me, and still go to work the next day and cringe at roadkill as I drive past.
Games are not reality. We get to express out most carnal wishes to dominate and utterly destroy someone, have our fun gloating outloud (frightening our family in the process), and then continue with life.
Games let you make someone your bitch in virtual reality. As long as you can draw the line between the game and life, you're fine, IMO.
They're probably smart as hell, but I don't want someone who has any less than 5-10 years real life experience coming up with my curriculum. I got a job as a computer programmer over a year before I started college, and although my SAT score wasn't a 1500, I wouldn't claim to have known what material should be taught at the college level.
Slashdot Mirror
From what I hear (father of someone I know is a big guy at AMD), many folks there are edgy about supporting it, but they're in it because they don't want to "miss the boat."
Me.
They're called morals. You might want to consider looking into them.
Money != Reason to Abuse Everyone For More Money
Any trolls in the process of hitting the reply button, please take your time to do some more research on Microsoft before you insert your foot in your mouth.
If facts prove the Bible wrong, then the religious person changes the FACTS to match the Bible.
Often, this is the case. I do not care for these people, but to sum them all up under this one roof is stupid. I hope you aren't implying that.
---
How often does the Bible get updated with new information? It doesn't.
Correct. However, interpretations change. In the past, certain religious folks claimed that the Bible proved blacks were inferrior (See: Documentary on the Discovery channel, I forget the name). Of course, they also claimed that because God created us in his image, etc. etc., we're the only intelligent creatures in the universe, and furthermore, we're the center of the universe.
The first and last views have changed.
---
The Bible is a constant. It does not change.
So are physics, at least we hope. The laws governing the universe are thought to be constant, even if we are wrong or unclear about some/all of them.
---
Study of the Bible is the interpretation of stories to what we "know" today.
Science is the interpretation of what we see in experiments on the physical world through the lens of what we "know" today.
---
If religious scholars with open minds hear contradictory facts to their interpretations, they often change their interpretations.
If responsible scientists hear contradictory facts, they change their interpretations (modify theories, discount certain results, etc.).
---
The fact is, although they go about things in a different manner, both religion and science interpret what they see around them into a way that makes sense. Religion is not proof of anything (by the strict definition), and science is not proof of anything either. They're interpretations, and to discount the Bible on the basis that it's not scientific is wrong. To discount it on it's content and what you know is OK, if that is your belief. The problem with seemingly many slashdotters is that they don't do the research, but blow it off in ignorance.
For the most part, it seems like we can both agree with each other's arguments (maybe I'm reading this incorrectly?)
;)
...
Here are some points I thought were worth discussing:
---
"A better argument for science (or to a degree, religion), might be based on what works."
The Bible is not fact, but rehashing the same dead horse: just because it's a story doesn't make it insignificant. That's my main point, although not directed at you.
---
It's a conceit of mine that scientists don't have to prove or disprove whether god(s) exist. If the god(s) care, they'll make their presence known without our help.
I think this is something many folks should look at. Assume, for a moment, that we're here by the will of God. Assume this is a way of testing, teaching and helping us learn to grow. Do you think this is implausible? If so, can you give a reason besides "it's too far out there?"
I think one of the reasons we're here is to seek out God, to have an active interest. And I don't think it's implausible simply because I don't buy into the explaination that chemicals and nerve impluses are the total sum of my consciousness. God, in my mind, exists, and I go from there.
---
All I know is that if I develop, say, the symptoms of appendicitis, I'd prefer to go to a hospital than a faith healer.
Likewise. But I wouldn't rule out faith healing, for one reason: I don't know enough about it. I consider myself a very skeptical person. I know people who personally believe in some super-natural things, and for the most part, I dismiss them. However, a few stand out. Still, even without these fantastic stories, I wouldn't discount it just because it's "too weird." People who do that have often been proven wrong.
---
> Interestingly enough, some religious folks
> I know say that, too.
Imagine someone like that as a TV preacher! I know I'd watch
Me too. Like you, I assume, I cannot stand religious shows as they are, although I will admit I have only taken a minor sample, albeit from multiple shows.
---
I come from the deep southern part of the USA, where you can't travel half a mile down the road without driving past one or two cheurches. These areas tend to fall more on the "distort the facts, but don't reinterpret your religion" side of the fence. There's probably a little bit of geographical bias in my views showing through here.
I live in Texas.
I am sure I would have more bias if I actually spent time with more of the "common church folk." I make it a habit to talk with the religious people I know, but I also make it a habit to avoid those I see as overly ignorant.
---
Sure, both religion and science apply their ideas to facts to see what their ideas explain. I wouldn't dispute that. Religion and science both attempt to explain the world around us in terms we can understand. But they take different roads to get where they're going...
Agreed. It is amazing, however, the ignorance common on both sides.
I am not perfect by any stretch of imagination, but in my opinion, this is just typical society.
Nobody - let me repeat, NOBODY - who knows anything about science will say that it is infallible. The whole POINT of the scientific method is that humands *do* make mistakes. If all our observations and conjectures were perfect, we wouldn't need the scentific method at all.
:) )
The reason I bring this up is because I'm hearing multiple arguments on Slashdot today that say something along the lines of, "Science is fact, religion is heresay." It's the typical "Pot, kettle, black" statement that I'm trying to run into the ground.
(Does it surprise anyone that *religions* have claimed "infallibility"?
Nope. Many of the religious folks I know are absolute retards.
The difference between science now and science then is that we have a *lot* more observations under our belts and new tools for observations. The scientific method is the same.
Aye, but new, more advanced theories require new, more advanced tools. Just because a CPU is faster doesn't mean that the average speed of computing goes up. Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I thought that was worth pointing out.
> Saying that "scientific studies prove atoms
> exist but the Bible doesn't prove squat" is a
> fallacy, plain and simple.
What, exactly, does the Bible prove? This is a pretty reasonable question to ask, I think.
Nothing. And that's my whole point. Neither side can prove anything.
That's a little strong, but it does tend to give fundamentalists the shivers. After all, the argument goes, why is an infallible, perfect, omniscient god's word so darned hard to read? For that matter, why are his products (us) so defective?
Orthodox religious folks scare me. They often contradict each other. Which is why logical folks need to step up to the plate a bit more often.
> The same goes for science. Theories arise to
> explain things that we're not sure about.
> They're not always right.
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
Not quite. Scientists *know* that most new hypothesis are, if not flat-out wrong, in need of improvement. That's what the scientific method is all about.
"Pot. Kettle. Black." refers to the folks here on Slashdot who claim that science is vastly superior to religion. The scientists I know take a much more... intelligent point of view, that is, "I might be right, I might be wrong." Interestingly enough, some religious folks I know say that, too.
The more "fundamentalist" religions work a different way: An explanation is presupposed. The "facts" are manipulated so they fit the explanation - or the explanation is so vague that any "fact" would fit. (Okay, that's a bit uncharitable - some religions DO change their dogma - but it's not far off from fundamentalist Christianity.)
Again, fundamentalist religions scare me, in orthodox. As far as facts being manipulated - I see where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently. Religions try and take their scriptures and apply it to the life they know in a way that makes sense to them. That's interpretation. They take what is given them (or what they "find") and apply it to what they know in ways they think are correct. I see the same in science.
And regarding logic in religion: Read this.
Of the little work I've done in PHP (~two weeks worth), I personally don't care for it, but everyone has their own style. No bashing from me.
What I will say: Mason, baby, Mason.
Math is perfect, by it's definition. The same with English. They're both languages used to express things by their own rules. But it's how they're used that determines whether the application is correct. I can write an equation, but if I don't plug in valid input, it's worthless.
Scientists justify their theories with studies and findings. Christians justify their beliefs with the Bible. The problem in both cases is that people on both sides are just that: people. They interpret things incorrectly and call them fact. At one time, every observation thought of proved that the world was flat. To state that science today is infallable is absolutely retarded.
Saying that "scientific studies prove atoms exist but the Bible doesn't prove squat" is a fallacy, plain and simple. Theologists study the Bible, trying to find coheasion. When they find something that doesn't make sense, they try and come up with an explaination for it. Many "scientists" call this proof that God does not exist. "Why, if Soandso did this, could Soandso do this, and God still do this?"
The same goes for science. Theories arise to explain things that we're not sure about. They're not always right.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
There are more similarities between science and religion than you realize.
Better to be a minion than a caged slave.
Eep! ROFL
I need some more sleep =P
Thanks for pointing out my oversight.
Don't you just love network spyware for corporations? It's fitting for Network Solutions, though:
Network Solutions: The Dot Commie People
While I respect your opinion, I have to flatly disagree and ask what it is you're smoking.
Patents on hyperlinks? Patents the parent poster mentioned? Patents on chat bots. Come on -- all it would take is one guy with a BS in comp. sci. and 5 minutes with Google to evaluate any of those.
This is the government we're talking about here. If any 24 year old comp. sci. major can figure that out, shouldn't we expect the same of a government body which regulates patents that result in high dollar lawsuits?
Virii, spyware, programs that put 10 icons in 3 places each on your computer will all come to Linux.
But considering file permissions, and how devices, configs and other such things are held strictly to these permissions, I think it's safe to say that although one user might get messed up on a Linux box, unless he's running as root (stupid, of course), only his portion of the system will be messed up.
Unless, of course, virii start exploiting local root hacks, but that's an issue of keeping your system up to date. up2date and Red Carpet are very handy here.
Doh -- should have previewed.
Yes, and this would be because Aironet writes Microsoft device drivers
Note somehow my quote of your "Aironet card is supported under Windows" part got lost.
What problems do you have with X? I'm doing fine -- I can't remember the last time X or Linux locked up on me, and I use a laptop with Linux around 8-12 hours every weekday. My panel has crashed a couple times in the last few weeks, but it restarts itself with no problems.
You know what? ALL software has holes. The "l33t haX0r" OS'es have their fair share as well, but you fucking zealots like to try to just sweep that under the carpet.
... X-windows is a buggy piece of shit.
True. Folks do need to back off of MS's case just a bit. However, Microsoft hatred has been well earned over the years.
Yes, and this would be because Aironet writes Microsoft device drivers for the hardware they make. Very few companies actually do this for Linux, yet Linux supports a vast array of hardware as well, all by it's little self. Hardly worth discrediting Linux developers for. It's a status quo problem.
And [XP] doesn't crash, ever.
I'll admit that XP isn't bad in the stability dept., but for all intents and purposes, it seems like an updated 2K with a bloated interface. You want to argue with me on the bloated issue? Then explain why the XP start menu takes up most of the screen on small resolutions. =\ Not to mention the colors and "3D-ish" look.
Why don't you guys fix the problems with the damn operating system instead of wasting all of your time bitching about FIXED security holes?
True. Again, people should settle down. Microsoft is doing better. In the past, I would have said, "Yes, finally, Microsoft is paying attention to security." It looks like their "security initiative" back in January has taken affect. However, Microsoft has dissapointed, lied and plain abused us (crappy, insecure products for too much $$ is abuse in my book) long enough to deserve my indifference at this point.
And don't anyone give me that libertarian crap about free choice. True free markets do not exist, and there is such as thing as compatibility. When Jack Doe goes to work, often he's forced into using Windows, likewise at home, to view certain files and run certain programs.
Shut the fuck up.
Don't feed the trolls, I know, I know...
Average Joe will not go to Linux or OS/X because of this dog shit. It will keep them from it.
I love this argument! The average Joe and Jane, namely my parents, use Linux on their home box. They are far from what anyone would call "computer literate." Try Ximian before you make stupid, uninformed comments.
Face it, you will never have the GUI responsiveness with XFree86 (in particular, not attacking OS/X for this one) that Windows has always had.
Obviously you haven't tried the latest in BloatWare from Microsoft, namely Windows XP, and compared it to Linux.
I don't know what kind of config you have, but I've run a Linux/Win98 dual boot on the following systems:
Pentium 266, 64MB RAM
The programs menu in Windows was slightly faster (and only in the beginning). All other window operations in Linux were equal or faster.
Pentium 333, 190MB RAM (laptop)
Same story (on this system now).
Duron 750, 256MB RAM
Linux: Faster
Thunderbird 1.3gig, 512MB DDR RAM
Linux: Faster
I can take an Athlon XP2000+, with a GeForce 4 and 1.5 gigs of ram and have slower "snappiness" and performance than with a 200mhz, 4mb video card and 64M of ram with even Windows 98.
With even Windows 98? You obviously don't know much about Microsoft software progression. You see, over time, they add more "features" to the OS, such as bloated, fruity, 3d-ish interfaces (Read: XP) that drag down the system. "Even Windows 98" is hardly a correct thing to say. Using 98 would be a better solution for speed than using anything newer. Try Windows XP on that 200mhz machine, it'll be slow as a dog. Glad I could help.
In fact, my parent's box, which used to run 98, was unbelievably slow due to the normal system degradation common with Windows. Even after a default install (which I had done at least two times previously due to system problems), 98 wasn't very quick to respond. Linux, on the other hand, while the menus are slower (at the beginning only), handles windows (max, min, etc), virtual desktops, etc., with the same perkiness of Windows 98.
Hey guy, install Windows XP on a Celeron 300 and Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, or about anything else on the same box. Tell me which one runs faster.
Then go find an old 486 and find a version of Windows that's still supported that you can use on it. Oh, can't find one? Now go try Linux.
Take your uninformed/unbalanced opinion to www.linuxsucks.com, some of the folks there might understand you.
I'm up for e-voting, actually. Stupid or not, the ability to wake up in the morning and surf to vote.gov and vote on your 5 favorite issues would be great.
A pure democracy hasn't really been possible until now -- only now do we have the communications abilities requried.
Because most people are asleep and think of the government as a commercial entity they must fight with, not something that they are supposed to control. Most people think that laws are something to contend with, not something to change.
While both of these are true to any normal jack fighting the system today, if more people stood up and spoke their minds and kept bad government out of office, things would change.
Easier said than done.
Now wouldn't that be a fun virus...
1) Spin CD at highest speed
2) Brute force
3) Eject an exploding cd at 40,000 RPM =D
So... that's all you have to do in this tech market today? Claim that you can solve all problems by waggling your fingers?
Microsoft: Yeah, we know we're known for making products with holes big enough to drive a truck through, and we're becoming infamous for spyware --- but Palladium will solve all of your security and privacy issues!
This CD smart card crap sounds quite similar to me.
Is this a new business model that they're teaching in school? The Pseudo-Solution Model?
It is impracticable to crack since it is hardware based
Didn't we already teach these techno-weenies that there is no such thing as client side security, in hardware or software?
Yeah, amazing how we keep stealing from all these wonderful artists, hmm?
It's the recording labels that steal from the artists, not us -- just do a little research on how much (little) of that $15-$20 goes to the artist.
I'm against piracy, but I also agree with many of the folks out there: Napster was the best thing that ever happened to the recording industry. I like to listen to something before I buy it. However, I won't buy another CD until the recording industry straightens up.
Seconded.
Only in Quake TF (the ONLY TF - TFC didn't cut the cake) could I shoot a guy in the back (as a sniper), laugh my ass of at the thought of the look on the puny little kid's face as he realizes the futility of getting away from me, and still go to work the next day and cringe at roadkill as I drive past.
Games are not reality. We get to express out most carnal wishes to dominate and utterly destroy someone, have our fun gloating outloud (frightening our family in the process), and then continue with life.
Games let you make someone your bitch in virtual reality. As long as you can draw the line between the game and life, you're fine, IMO.
They're probably smart as hell, but I don't want someone who has any less than 5-10 years real life experience coming up with my curriculum. I got a job as a computer programmer over a year before I started college, and although my SAT score wasn't a 1500, I wouldn't claim to have known what material should be taught at the college level.
Just my $.02
I wonder how well modem noise (forgot the term...) would go through that...
Well, from what I understand, this WAS the standard. Anyone care to correct me with a link?
.com meaning company was a standard, too.
Then again,