10.0 runs fine on my laptop (sony vaio FX101) but 10.1 was crap.
I couldn't install anything because all the X libraries seemed to be missing. I think the change from XFree to Xorg has f*cked everything up and I won't be upgrading until I'm sure Mandrake et al have had plenty of time to get it all sorted.
Sony is such non-standard hardware, I'm amazed any Distro runs on it (FC3 doesn't), but 10.0 is as you say "rock solid".
I downloaded, installed and started using OpenOffice without the slightest difficulty, I can't understand why anybody who can use Word would need training to use swriter. When you first start you might spend a few seconds here and there looking for a particular menu item but it's trivial and it takes no time to get accustomed to the minor difference. As far as I can see this BS about training costs is just that.
I'll bet he can pick from any number of actual independent favorable reviews and refute that claim
I doubt he can find many gunuinely independent favourable reviews - although I'm sure he can find hundreds of supposedly independent ones. Microsoft does seem to be remarkably inept at hiding it's hand when commissioning distorted reports from it's shills.
Theft also covers obtaining a money transfer by deception and dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit
Bzzzt . . . wrong. Obtaining money by deception is a separate offence. You may be getting confused because it is defined in the Theft Act 1968 (as amended).
Copyright infringement is a form of theft. You are just taking someone's ideas and hard work instead of physical property.
See, it's a waste of time trying to inform this fool - he's not capable of understanding the frame of reference and simply goes back to his circular argument that copyright infringement is theft because copyright infringement is theft. He can add nothing further to the argument because to him that's it in it's entirety - and cast iron at that.
In the UK for example, the act of theft does not have to be the removal of a physical object.
I appreciate the majority of Slashdotters come from the USA and therefore, for them, theft != copyright infringement but don't assume that holds for everywhere in the world
UK definition of theft:-
To take or remove property without the owner's consent with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.
theft != copyright infringement, not in the UK any more than in the US.
By the way, downloading copyright material is not copyright infringement (and referencing files which could reveal how to download copyright material isn't either)
I wouldn't consider a link in an article on the Holocaust that referenced a site denying the holocaust as inappropriate, subjective or biased. It's relevant and appropriate information which should be included whether you agree with it or not.
The same applies to allegations of rape at Abu Ghraib - making a reference to this on a page discussing the use of rape in interrogation is absolutely relevant whether the allegations are true or not.
Cite your source, and stick it on the Wiki page on rape, then
The wiki page on Abu Ghraib which is linked to from the rape page does contain links to sources. Repeating them again on the Rape page would be superfluous.
The linked page most certainly does contain allegations that male "MPs" raped female prisoners. Obviously it will always be difficult to establish for certain wether such accusations are true but that does not make them irrelevant.
I can't see that a link to a page on Abu Gharib, is out of place in an article which talks about the use of rape in interrogation and torture.
Your attempt to remove this relevant link is censorship and someone quite rightly refused to allow removal of appropriate content. A case which shows Wikipedia does work - not that it doesn't.
If you don't like people pointing out US human rights abuses I suggest that you lobby your representatives to stop it, rather than trying to censor it away.
Well I'm not sure about loose/lose being a mistake typical of native English speakers, but I thought this was probably someone for whom English isn't a first language for a number of reasons.
1. Conditionals are difficult for people learning English and the subjunctive is a pretty advanced topic.
2. "threats Microsoft" - is not a mistake a native speaker is likely to make (but it is irregular and therefore the sort of mistake someone learning is likely to make).
3. A native English speaker is not likely to write such bad English unless they are mentally subnormal or have some sort of impediment - is there such a thing as "oral dyslexia"? (And if there is - does this explain Dubya?).
Microsoft make a profit by selling shit software, trying to keep it secure and usable isn't something I can see them volunteering for. The don't like eating their own dogshit!
the Hollywood Mafia's (futile) attempts to shut down illegal distribution of movies.
That's the crucial point in all this - *FUTILE*. These people can't legislate, litigate or even think fast enough to control technology the way they want to. It's the geeks of the world who have the upper hand in this, who can control the technology.
For too long the Hollywood Mafia have had the protection of high entry barriers to producing and distributing "copyright content", and they've been able to make obscene profits by turning out pap.
They're frightened and they should be - stuff them, we've got video cameras, editing software, cheap distribution, if they can't adapt, we can do it ourselves. There's not enough lawyers in the world to stop us.
Slashdot Mirror
A word of warning about that:
10.0 runs fine on my laptop (sony vaio FX101) but 10.1 was crap.
I couldn't install anything because all the X libraries seemed to be missing. I think the change from XFree to Xorg has f*cked everything up and I won't be upgrading until I'm sure Mandrake et al have had plenty of time to get it all sorted.
Sony is such non-standard hardware, I'm amazed any Distro runs on it (FC3 doesn't), but 10.0 is as you say "rock solid".
Yeah - it's just like "crispy" (as in crispy pancakes or whatever).
Yeah . . . I've always liked "Outline" view in Word - it's not exactly indispensable though.
Word's "grammar checker" is appalling.
1. freshmeat.net/projects/antiword/ 2. PDF
I downloaded, installed and started using OpenOffice without the slightest difficulty, I can't understand why anybody who can use Word would need training to use swriter. When you first start you might spend a few seconds here and there looking for a particular menu item but it's trivial and it takes no time to get accustomed to the minor difference. As far as I can see this BS about training costs is just that.
I doubt he can find many gunuinely independent favourable reviews - although I'm sure he can find hundreds of supposedly independent ones. Microsoft does seem to be remarkably inept at hiding it's hand when commissioning distorted reports from it's shills.
No . . . Copyright is a short term exclusive right to distribute
I know everybody here is saying this is semantic hair splitting but these legal distinctions are important.
Bzzzt . . . wrong. Obtaining money by deception is a separate offence. You may be getting confused because it is defined in the Theft Act 1968 (as amended).
See, it's a waste of time trying to inform this fool - he's not capable of understanding the frame of reference and simply goes back to his circular argument that copyright infringement is theft because copyright infringement is theft. He can add nothing further to the argument because to him that's it in it's entirety - and cast iron at that.
UK definition of theft:-
To take or remove property without the owner's consent with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession.
theft != copyright infringement, not in the UK any more than in the US.
By the way, downloading copyright material is not copyright infringement (and referencing files which could reveal how to download copyright material isn't either)
I believe the original "Old Guard" was one of the sections of Napoleon's Imperial Guard - and since this topic is all about wikipedia here's a page.
They're going to ban Microsoft's SMB networking then are they?
I wouldn't consider a link in an article on the Holocaust that referenced a site denying the holocaust as inappropriate, subjective or biased. It's relevant and appropriate information which should be included whether you agree with it or not.
The same applies to allegations of rape at Abu Ghraib - making a reference to this on a page discussing the use of rape in interrogation is absolutely relevant whether the allegations are true or not.
The wiki page on Abu Ghraib which is linked to from the rape page does contain links to sources. Repeating them again on the Rape page would be superfluous.
It really looks like a screenshot from a porn flick (in very poor taste).
The linked page most certainly does contain allegations that male "MPs" raped female prisoners. Obviously it will always be difficult to establish for certain wether such accusations are true but that does not make them irrelevant.
I can't see that a link to a page on Abu Gharib, is out of place in an article which talks about the use of rape in interrogation and torture. Your attempt to remove this relevant link is censorship and someone quite rightly refused to allow removal of appropriate content. A case which shows Wikipedia does work - not that it doesn't. If you don't like people pointing out US human rights abuses I suggest that you lobby your representatives to stop it, rather than trying to censor it away.
Well I'm not sure about loose/lose being a mistake typical of native English speakers, but I thought this was probably someone for whom English isn't a first language for a number of reasons. 1. Conditionals are difficult for people learning English and the subjunctive is a pretty advanced topic. 2. "threats Microsoft" - is not a mistake a native speaker is likely to make (but it is irregular and therefore the sort of mistake someone learning is likely to make). 3. A native English speaker is not likely to write such bad English unless they are mentally subnormal or have some sort of impediment - is there such a thing as "oral dyslexia"? (And if there is - does this explain Dubya?).
IBM think there's a world market for, maybe five computers.
Microsoft make a profit by selling shit software, trying to keep it secure and usable isn't something I can see them volunteering for. The don't like eating their own dogshit!
Not everybody here speaks english as a mother tongue. Cut them a bit of slack and don't be such a twat.
You obviously see a distinction I don't.
That's the crucial point in all this - *FUTILE*. These people can't legislate, litigate or even think fast enough to control technology the way they want to. It's the geeks of the world who have the upper hand in this, who can control the technology.
For too long the Hollywood Mafia have had the protection of high entry barriers to producing and distributing "copyright content", and they've been able to make obscene profits by turning out pap.
They're frightened and they should be - stuff them, we've got video cameras, editing software, cheap distribution, if they can't adapt, we can do it ourselves. There's not enough lawyers in the world to stop us.
Whoa! Is this Fark or Slashdot?