Absolutely not. Open source is characterized by bad user interface design, and this is the trump card that Apple has held on to since the first generation iPod.
Not true at all. In fact, I see the inverse at work in society. How many television shows have you seen depicting the man with lesser intelligence, whilst the female makes cutting yet witty remarks about the man? Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Family Guy immediately come to my mind. Now, how many shows depict a man in a marriage relationship in the more traditional, head of the household, always knows whats best manner? All I can think of is shows long ago, such as Leave It to Beaver, Full House, etc etc. I would say that if anything, society is trying to feminize America by saying that men are idiots.
Let me start this comment by first stating that I am a staunch Microsoft disliker, and that I have enough Linux experience to validate my following comments.
Honestly, this article left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The main points it attacked Microsoft on were based on ONE combination of hardware. For example, I have installed XP on a number of machines and have never had networking setup, nor have I much installation trouble.
This reviewer based his review off his installation of XP on ONE machine. How many Linux distribution reviews have I seen with multiple PCs involved?
Let's talk about Linux networking setup. For the average Windows desktop user, what is "eth0" and "eth1" supposed to mean? For folks with multiple built in ethernet ports and only one connected, this is a hassle trying to figure out which port has the cable hooked to it.
I won't even touch installing software not already included with a distribution. (And yes, I'm quite aware of yum, apt-get, and emerge.)
My guess is that for those who have serious trouble keeping spyware off their own personal computer, Linux is out of the question.
I've tried just about every 'desktop' Linux there is and the only that seems to hit the closest to the mark is Xandros, and that ain't free. When I used Xandros back at 2.0, it was much too difficult to install programs other than what Xandros provided; even with apt-get, it was far too easy to break the system.
Linux is just not ready for the desktop yet, but its close.
What is your basis of morality? If it is not founded on a constant, i.e., God, then you have nothing. Humans are hardly constant. We are deteriorating and if left to our own devices, will destroy each other.
Any inner sense of morality we may contain, to be honest, I believe, comes from God.
If there is no God, morality becomes whatever is popular at the time. 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers would be absolutely appauled by the degree of deterioration we have managed to achieve.
Do you honestly think we are better off today? Does anyone really think the accepted morals of today's society are more advanced than that of 200 years ago? I'm afraid many do.
The fact is, there is nothing new. Nations will crumble, and the foundation of their collapse is lack of a strong moral foundation, which we are increasingly straying from.
And you may not see any evidence unless you find it yourself. The "scientists" of today won't find it, because they are not looking for it, and if they found some, they would quickly discount it and add another 10 billion years to the timeline.
Too much in society today depends on this "theory" being true. Too many jobs, too many lifestyles, and so much immorality (a word which means nothing these days, because if evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality, nor is there a meaning to life.)
A tear comes to my eye when I think about what they did to that network. In my mind, TechTV was a very fine balance of tech shows. You had Call For Help, TSS, Fresh Gear, XPlay (love it or hate it,) etc etc.
Now there's games, games, games, games, games, Screen Savers, games, games, games, games, Unscrewed with Martin Sargent, games games, ad infinitum.
Those two girls on G4 Live are seriously the dumbest women alive.
Back in the day, people had a greater degree of respect for those in authority. Though certain people may not have agreed with the viewpoints of those in authority, they respected those as figures of authority.
Back in the day, people understood the responsibility that came with freedom of speech. People understood what freedom of speech *really* meant.
Back in the day, people understood the values that made America great. People seem to think morality is based on the popular concensus of such... but this thinking is dangerous. If humans themselves make their own law, their own viewpoint of what is right and what is wrong, society is doomed to collapse. Humans themselves are in no way capable of deciding for themselves what is moral.
Its astonishing how much thinking has changed since.
The viewpoint shown here seems not to be the popular one here with most of the posters...
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely not. Open source is characterized by bad user interface design, and this is the trump card that Apple has held on to since the first generation iPod.
Not true at all. In fact, I see the inverse at work in society. How many television shows have you seen depicting the man with lesser intelligence, whilst the female makes cutting yet witty remarks about the man? Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond, and Family Guy immediately come to my mind. Now, how many shows depict a man in a marriage relationship in the more traditional, head of the household, always knows whats best manner? All I can think of is shows long ago, such as Leave It to Beaver, Full House, etc etc. I would say that if anything, society is trying to feminize America by saying that men are idiots.
Let me start this comment by first stating that I am a staunch Microsoft disliker, and that I have enough Linux experience to validate my following comments. Honestly, this article left me with a bad taste in my mouth. The main points it attacked Microsoft on were based on ONE combination of hardware. For example, I have installed XP on a number of machines and have never had networking setup, nor have I much installation trouble. This reviewer based his review off his installation of XP on ONE machine. How many Linux distribution reviews have I seen with multiple PCs involved? Let's talk about Linux networking setup. For the average Windows desktop user, what is "eth0" and "eth1" supposed to mean? For folks with multiple built in ethernet ports and only one connected, this is a hassle trying to figure out which port has the cable hooked to it. I won't even touch installing software not already included with a distribution. (And yes, I'm quite aware of yum, apt-get, and emerge.)
My guess is that for those who have serious trouble keeping spyware off their own personal computer, Linux is out of the question.
I've tried just about every 'desktop' Linux there is and the only that seems to hit the closest to the mark is Xandros, and that ain't free. When I used Xandros back at 2.0, it was much too difficult to install programs other than what Xandros provided; even with apt-get, it was far too easy to break the system.
Linux is just not ready for the desktop yet, but its close.
What is your basis of morality? If it is not founded on a constant, i.e., God, then you have nothing. Humans are hardly constant. We are deteriorating and if left to our own devices, will destroy each other. Any inner sense of morality we may contain, to be honest, I believe, comes from God. If there is no God, morality becomes whatever is popular at the time. 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers would be absolutely appauled by the degree of deterioration we have managed to achieve. Do you honestly think we are better off today? Does anyone really think the accepted morals of today's society are more advanced than that of 200 years ago? I'm afraid many do. The fact is, there is nothing new. Nations will crumble, and the foundation of their collapse is lack of a strong moral foundation, which we are increasingly straying from.
And you may not see any evidence unless you find it yourself. The "scientists" of today won't find it, because they are not looking for it, and if they found some, they would quickly discount it and add another 10 billion years to the timeline. Too much in society today depends on this "theory" being true. Too many jobs, too many lifestyles, and so much immorality (a word which means nothing these days, because if evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality, nor is there a meaning to life.)
Are you not the same way about your beloved theory?
The problem with your idea is, Bibles aren't in state education cirriculums. Students are required to read it.
Evolutionists accuse Creationists as being hive-minded and thickheaded... but I don't see Mr. Evolutionist as any better off.
Where'd critical thinking go, folks?
A tear comes to my eye when I think about what they did to that network. In my mind, TechTV was a very fine balance of tech shows. You had Call For Help, TSS, Fresh Gear, XPlay (love it or hate it,) etc etc. Now there's games, games, games, games, games, Screen Savers, games, games, games, games, Unscrewed with Martin Sargent, games games, ad infinitum. Those two girls on G4 Live are seriously the dumbest women alive.
Back in the day, people had a greater degree of respect for those in authority. Though certain people may not have agreed with the viewpoints of those in authority, they respected those as figures of authority.
Back in the day, people understood the responsibility that came with freedom of speech. People understood what freedom of speech *really* meant.
Back in the day, people understood the values that made America great. People seem to think morality is based on the popular concensus of such... but this thinking is dangerous. If humans themselves make their own law, their own viewpoint of what is right and what is wrong, society is doomed to collapse. Humans themselves are in no way capable of deciding for themselves what is moral.
Its astonishing how much thinking has changed since.
The viewpoint shown here seems not to be the popular one here with most of the posters...