Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
And while we're at it, let's make sure that only mechanics are allowed to get a driving licence in order to make sure you won't leave your car on the road when it breaks down. Oh, and let's make sure only hookers can have sex. Do you see where this is leading? If we only allowed experts to participate, the world would be a lonely place.
Tell me, were you an expert when you first connected to the internet? Most of us weren't, we learned as we went along and made many stupid mistakes we could learn from.
Most people get their operating system with their computer, most systems are equipped with personal firewalls and virus scanners. What else do you expect them to do? Don't put the blame merely on users, put it on software companies, too. And drop your rather boring elitist attitude. You're helping no one.
"Walking the web standards walk" sounds nice at first, but Microsoft has a history of creating rather varying definitions of standard compliance that often didn't relate to web designers' own experiences. I skimmed the article, but didn't see a comparison of how well the code is supported in non-IE browsers.
Okay, what a relief! For a second, I thought I was actually reading a story dedicated to a startup sound in an operating system, on a major news site. You nearly got me there, CowboyNeal!
If you cannot read, write, or speak, what good will PowerPoint do for you?
Well, that's the whole point now, isn't it? Most PowerPoint presentations that I saw led me to believe PowerPoint was made for those who cannot read. Or write. Or speak.
You may find this disturbing, but I actually read the interview and I find this tidbit quite revealing:
Q. There are a lot of misconceptions about free software. What kind of an economic model does an entrepreneur look at when he starts out with free software ?
RMS: I want to ask you why that question is worth asking. First of all there are many people who don't have to make money. Importantly even if a person has to make a living, he doesn't have to make a living from everything he does. [snip]
To me it seems like RMS totally dodged the question. What is "...there are many people who don't have to make money" supposed to mean in this context? I'm sure there are people that don't have to make money, but most people do have to make money, and I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance. It seems that he believes F/OSS's noble goals will be corrupted if Linux gains momentum in the corporate world, but don't we have the GPL to prevent just that? Ultimately, corporate support will help secure the foundation of F/OSS -- I'm thinking of IBM and Sun, and the corporate support behind OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
Also, this eliminates the problem of cross-pollination with non-GM crops.
Yes, that's what GE companies have always promised. However, read this:
Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution. Monsanto reports that it pursues approximately 500 cases of suspected infringement annually.
GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans.
What a bold an unfounded statement.
They are tested extensivly before release.
So are drugs, and yet we have huge scandals every few years because someone made a mistake.
So, while GE foods could pose health risks (both to humans and the enviroment), they usually don't.
They usually don't? How do you know? How long has GE food been around, and to what extent has it been produced? We don't have enough empirical data as of yet to come to the conclusion that they are "never harmful to humans".
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
Nothing's wrong with that.
What people fear are unforeseen long-term consequences of messing with genetics and releasing the results of that into the wild. Once it's out, it's extremely difficult to undo any damage.
No, but he later suggested that the unusually high ratio of distance to time in his mandible sample could be explained by the beer and Jack Daniels shots he had the night before.
In case you're still not aware, Rockbox enables my nano to seamlessly play ogg, flac, mp3, and several other formats. Not only that, but the playback is gapless, has beautiful cross-fading, and quite a few additional features.
Yeah, Rockbox is a fantastic project and I would just love to try it out -- if it weren't for a major problem: the code hasn't been optimised for low power consumption. From the web site: Battery life is significantly less than the Apple firmware.
I wouldn't mind the other known flaws/bugs, but a high battery life is a must for me. I'll install Rockbox as soon as that has been ironed out.
Re:Blog First, Then Scientific Journals.
on
Dark Matter Exists
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Funny, I always figured the announcement of experimental confirmation of dark matter would first be published in a scientific journal or announced at a news conference...not on a blog shared by Mark, Claire, and Sean, whoever they may be.
I'm outraged -- are you really implying that we should take this proof of dark matter with a grain of salt, while there's this well-known Irish company that's using dark matter to produce free, clean and constant energy right now?
I'd be more interested in genuine scientific proof of the link between HIV and AIDS. There isn't one you know.
I've never unterstood this scientific war. People readily believe that a virus causes the common cold, but for some people, there's doubt that HIV causes AIDS?
Could someone with more insight please explain why there are scientists who deny there's a link?
We know that HIV is the virus which mutates into AIDS. Proof enough?
No, because, well, you know, viruses cause diseases, they don't mutate into diseases. Even if we're laymen and not scientists, we should choose our words more carefully so as to not spread bullshit and misconceptions.
If 802.11b/g works for me, why would I upgrade? Don't be a consumer whore just because some shiny new wireless protocol comes out... stick with what you have unless it sucks.
Most comments seem to indicate upgrading is useless because speed improvements don't matter as long as the slowest wifi protocol is still faster than your internet connection, but speed is not the only concern. Future protocols are said to offer better/easier security and more reliabality, which if true is a good enough reason to me to upgrade.
I wasn't trying to defend Sun, I find their actions quite ugly too. I just think it isn't IBM's place to point their finger at others and whine about their competitors while their own offerings suck such as bad or even worse.
I couldn't find a single example of Scott's "vow to compete" with Linux in the article. All he did was express his hopes of feature parity within a year or so. The "vow to compete" is a useless and sensationalist addition by the author, so let's keep it civil and avoid flame wars.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
And while we're at it, let's make sure that only mechanics are allowed to get a driving licence in order to make sure you won't leave your car on the road when it breaks down. Oh, and let's make sure only hookers can have sex. Do you see where this is leading? If we only allowed experts to participate, the world would be a lonely place.
Tell me, were you an expert when you first connected to the internet? Most of us weren't, we learned as we went along and made many stupid mistakes we could learn from.
Most people get their operating system with their computer, most systems are equipped with personal firewalls and virus scanners. What else do you expect them to do? Don't put the blame merely on users, put it on software companies, too. And drop your rather boring elitist attitude. You're helping no one.
"Walking the web standards walk" sounds nice at first, but Microsoft has a history of creating rather varying definitions of standard compliance that often didn't relate to web designers' own experiences. I skimmed the article, but didn't see a comparison of how well the code is supported in non-IE browsers.
Okay, what a relief! For a second, I thought I was actually reading a story dedicated to a startup sound in an operating system, on a major news site. You nearly got me there, CowboyNeal!
If you cannot read, write, or speak, what good will PowerPoint do for you?
Well, that's the whole point now, isn't it? Most PowerPoint presentations that I saw led me to believe PowerPoint was made for those who cannot read. Or write. Or speak.
So now he's prepared to show his friends a 15 minute slideshow about why girls have cooties?
Fascinating idea, but please make it 30 minutes and forward it to me, thanks.
To me it seems like RMS totally dodged the question. What is "...there are many people who don't have to make money" supposed to mean in this context? I'm sure there are people that don't have to make money, but most people do have to make money, and I wonder why RMS is so opposed to economic acceptance. It seems that he believes F/OSS's noble goals will be corrupted if Linux gains momentum in the corporate world, but don't we have the GPL to prevent just that? Ultimately, corporate support will help secure the foundation of F/OSS -- I'm thinking of IBM and Sun, and the corporate support behind OpenBSD and FreeBSD.
Yes, that's what GE companies have always promised. However, read this:
GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans.
What a bold an unfounded statement.
They are tested extensivly before release.
So are drugs, and yet we have huge scandals every few years because someone made a mistake.
So, while GE foods could pose health risks (both to humans and the enviroment), they usually don't.
They usually don't? How do you know? How long has GE food been around, and to what extent has it been produced? We don't have enough empirical data as of yet to come to the conclusion that they are "never harmful to humans".
...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?
Nothing's wrong with that.
What people fear are unforeseen long-term consequences of messing with genetics and releasing the results of that into the wild. Once it's out, it's extremely difficult to undo any damage.
Anyone else uncomfortable with the phrases "pound for pound" and "largest member" being used in the same sentence?
Not me. It's comments like those that made me get a Slashdot account.
No, but he later suggested that the unusually high ratio of distance to time in his mandible sample could be explained by the beer and Jack Daniels shots he had the night before.
That ant must be a Kennedy.
In case you're still not aware, Rockbox enables my nano to seamlessly play ogg, flac, mp3, and several other formats. Not only that, but the playback is gapless, has beautiful cross-fading, and quite a few additional features.
Yeah, Rockbox is a fantastic project and I would just love to try it out -- if it weren't for a major problem: the code hasn't been optimised for low power consumption. From the web site: Battery life is significantly less than the Apple firmware.
I wouldn't mind the other known flaws/bugs, but a high battery life is a must for me. I'll install Rockbox as soon as that has been ironed out.
Funny, I always figured the announcement of experimental confirmation of dark matter would first be published in a scientific journal or announced at a news conference...not on a blog shared by Mark, Claire, and Sean, whoever they may be.
I'm outraged -- are you really implying that we should take this proof of dark matter with a grain of salt, while there's this well-known Irish company that's using dark matter to produce free, clean and constant energy right now?
I'd be more interested in genuine scientific proof of the link between HIV and AIDS. There isn't one you know. I've never unterstood this scientific war. People readily believe that a virus causes the common cold, but for some people, there's doubt that HIV causes AIDS?
Could someone with more insight please explain why there are scientists who deny there's a link?
I think that even with birth defects a cure for AIDS would be useful.
Plus, for all we know, most males lack a uterus.
We know that HIV is the virus which mutates into AIDS. Proof enough?
No, because, well, you know, viruses cause diseases, they don't mutate into diseases. Even if we're laymen and not scientists, we should choose our words more carefully so as to not spread bullshit and misconceptions.
Really, we're supposed to believe the study had exactly 49 participants? Not 50, or 150?
Pssst, there were 150 participants, but 101 of them died.
If 802.11b/g works for me, why would I upgrade? Don't be a consumer whore just because some shiny new wireless protocol comes out... stick with what you have unless it sucks.
Most comments seem to indicate upgrading is useless because speed improvements don't matter as long as the slowest wifi protocol is still faster than your internet connection, but speed is not the only concern. Future protocols are said to offer better/easier security and more reliabality, which if true is a good enough reason to me to upgrade.
What? You expect the editors to read their own site? You must be new here.
This site has editors? I must be new here.
That doesn't really prove their commitment to open source in general beyond their commitment to making profit. Which is not a bad thing.
Yes, quite a few. Red Hat, SuSE, Novell, and even Sun, to name just a few.
How does IBM's contributing to the Linux kernel compare to Sun open sourcing an entire OS?
I wasn't trying to defend Sun, I find their actions quite ugly too. I just think it isn't IBM's place to point their finger at others and whine about their competitors while their own offerings suck such as bad or even worse.
If IBM really cared about openness, they should open source AIX or OS/2 and shut up about Solaris.
This is actually good news, and I thank Microsoft for driving yet more people to Linux and BSD and other excellent alternatives.
Windows eats Linux and poops FreeBSD
I am confused - are you trying to depict Windows as a gourmet or rather as an entity with a magic colon?
I couldn't find a single example of Scott's "vow to compete" with Linux in the article. All he did was express his hopes of feature parity within a year or so. The "vow to compete" is a useless and sensationalist addition by the author, so let's keep it civil and avoid flame wars.