You could also just set it so that it doesn't do a google unless you type "google xxxxxxx" in the address bar. That's what I do; Phoenix takes over from there, and extrapalates URLs flawlessly.
Plus, there are a whole buncha gesture extensions for Phoenix. They work flawlessly, and are of course free. Having used pretty much every fully-developed browser, I have completely settled of Phoenix: It's simple, it's fast, it's incredibly customizable, and plus, it's good for the soul.
Anyway, that URL for mouse gesture extensions was:
Pray tell, what exactly are these problems of which you speak? Further, how would my education pertain to these problems?
The fact that you didn't learn anything in college, the fact that you are bitter about philosophy as a whole, and the utter philosophical hypocrisy you provide. Obviously, this pertains to your education insofar as your educational experiences crafted your knowledge and experience of philosophy, leading to your disregard for your very area of study.
Did you type that for a resume or something? That seems like a rather narrow benefit to gained your love of wisdom. It is also, to use a more vulgar expression, utter bullshit.
No, I typed it for you, dear boy. Plus, considering that the scope of the referenced sentence spans quite a few centuries of the most influential philosophical thought, I don't think it is a narrow benefit, and it is certainly not bullshit. Though you may not be able to reap personally meaningful knowledge from such texts, your limitations do not apply to everyone.
Ahh I can see where this is going, apparently you haven't learned one of the first lessons of philosophy, and that is moderation. Your response is already far out of proportion to what was a rather innocent and obviously light hearted post. Perhaps you didn't notice the parent post regarding how university philosophy professor are out of touch with reality. As pretty much any serious student of philosophy would easily admit, college is only the beginning of what is a life long journey.
If you think moderation is the first lesson of philosophy, you obviously missed most of the above discussion, which was in part concerned with the obvious lack of moderation of some of history's most notable philosophers. The reason I wrote such a long reply to a "light-hearted post" is because I think that your view typifies the public view of philosophy, one that I think is utter idiocy and naivete. It is also of note that you wrote an even longer reply, worthlessly and amusingly, considering your accusations.
Like I said, I don't believe you have mastered some of the more basic concepts of self control and moderation but I am glad your studies suited your needs. I must say however that unless you attended a school with less than demanding standards a triple major is hard to believe. I attended a top jesuit university and I could barely finish math and philosophy in four years, with fairly substantial AP credit. What relevence this has to our discussion, I don't know... but I feel like ripping on you.
First, it's good to know that you can make such character inferences from such little experience. I guess you must have learned something somewhere, though not in school apparently. And if you must know, I take six or seven classes per semester, have AP credit in psychology, and tested out of the first 3 years of German studies. With a passion for learning, such things are possible =P.
Why am I not surprised you have decided to use some 20th century buzz word. Please, by all means, let me know what non-cognitivist claims I am making... You read the opinion of a former philosophy student, I would love to see what claims you derived from a flippant post.
Non-cognitivism is the view that arguments over values, morals, etc. hold no truth-value, and therefore cannot be proven true or false by argument. In more frequent usage, it is when people make claims like "philosophy is worthless" or "the academic tradition is tired," statements against which I can provide no _facts_ to contradict you. You might have learned it in that same class where they forced you to read about Socrates, in works like the Phaedo or Theaetetus.
Actually, I had to take a whole class in it. Having attended a Jesuit university meant that most classes revolved around theistic philosophers, and as that single book is the best weapon a theist has for defending his faith it was required.
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied. Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split. You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education. Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital[sic] has still never been completely read by any man alive today.
There is no disputing that the Critique is huge, and most scholars have noted that Kant's writing style is so convoluted that understanding it is a task far beyond simply reading it. However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school. Most undergraduate programs just have you read the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, a simpler version of the same ideas, most notably the second Cartesian revolution and the Theoretical Unity of Apperception. So, just go to graduate school, or read the prolegomena.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve. I would argue that it has been understood to its fullest logical extent in most general and particular contents by a great number of Marx scholars. Oh, and one more thing about Marx: I have never been forced to read Marx for an actual class, but have instead taken him on personally. This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital[sic] is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
Ok -- this is just wrong. First, we don't have a lot of Plato's writings. Second, the Critique is NOT longer than all of Plato's KNOWN works combined for sure. The Critique is around 700 pages in a hardcover medium-type small-size edition. It really isn't that LONG, it is just amazingly thick. And you must not be the Nietzsche scholar you would wish to be, or you would know that he wrote a TON -- cretainly more than Das Kapital. Here is a short list from the web:
The Birth of Tragedy (1872)
Untimely Meditations (1873-1876)
Human, All Too Human (1878)
The Dawn (1880)
The Gay Science (1882-1886)
Zarathustra (1883-1885)
Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
The Genealogy of Morals (1887)
The Wagner Case (1888)
Twilight of the Idols (1888)
The Antichrist (1888), and
Ecce Homo (1888).
This doesn't even consider works like The Will to Power, one of the greatest works of postmodern philosophy. Anyway, you were obviously mistaken on a variety of levels for the facts, and I think this reflects well on your general views about philosophy as well. About some of the great works being "loads of crap," you cannot imagine the massive tomes of philosophy that took years to read, that have been summarily dismissed by the philosophical community. Of note is the history of pre-modern philosophy, in which bishops and cardinals spent their entire lives writing one philosophical work, almost none of which are studied in contemporary philosophy.
Anyway, that is the end of the lesson today =)...
hello mister man
on
Spam, Milord
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
helloooo mister man are you a mister man I love the mister man! I give you much love. You give me all your pies.
~Tris.
No, he's pretty consistent actually: the duty of the American government is to put the interests of American citizens first. Again, if your government isn't about looking after its own tax-paying law-abiding citizens, what the hell is it for?
Hypocrisy!=inconsistency. He can be both consistent and hypocritical. For example, by holding the US to one standard, but all other nations to a higher moral standard, he is a hypocrite, but as long as that position is firmly maintained, it is consistent.
If this government is looking out for its tax-paying citizens, it must be doing it on some transcendental level. Personally, I would rather NOT have billions of the money I so "generously" give to the government to be spent on the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men pressed into service, and civilians unrelated to the conflict.
Sign up to ICC and your citizens can be extradited to face a foreign court for something that isn't even a crime where they are now.
If you are a member of the ICC, you had a hand in crafting the laws that are enforced upon you. Also, the laws that the ICC enforces are pretty pitiful, covering only the most obviously disgusting types of crimes, like perverse forms of mass murder, torture, genocide, and the like
If anyone is a hypocrite here, I would say it is you. From your tone, I bet you support the lovely war on Iraq (or at least some type of military retaliation in some circumstance, like Pearl Harbor). However, in attacking a country such as Iraq, for example, we are holding them to OUR moral standard for things that are not illegal under THEIR system. Just because you think YOUR opinions are right does not justify that =P.
It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles
*ahem* -- I don't know what kind of model rockets YOU'VE been playing with, but mine were only in the air for about 10 seconds, and they sure as hell didn't go far. If somebody has a "stealth nuclear missile" that travels about 1000-2000 feet and then explodes, they are probably too stupid to be alive (think of the weapons tests).
Plus, if it only takes 10-15 seconds to get to DEFCON5, we might as well just pull the trigger now.
in the hands of the right person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents
I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you have produced chemical or biological agents and you are still using a 12-year-old's toy as a weapons delivery system, you are such an incompetent terrorist that you deserve the misfire your under-powered, chemical-agent-laden hobby rocket is going to produce shortly before those chemical agents are sitributed to a very small area surrounding your person.
The answer to this question is easy --- just hook up a cheapo webcam or something, and have it record for many many hours at its highest resolution. If you wanted something even faster, you could use a high-resolution camera with a firewire connection.
Cheers,
~Tris.
By the way, I can get XP running faster than you can ever get KDE3/GNOME2 running on an identical system. That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
That would be brilliantly true if it weren't blatantly false. That is true for the 30 seconds between when I pop my Knoppix CD into the drive and the time I have a KDE desktop, in all of its glory.
That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
Actually, I think I'm going to have to go with the latter.
What a dumbass post. How will they buy them? See, there are these things called stores. Walmart has a few. In fact, Walmart has a lot. In fact, Walmart is the largest retail company in the world.
Now, the dumbass post called the article:
"This exciting new $199 Desktop/LX Certified MicroTel PC will be available for purchase exclusively from the WalMart Online Lycoris Catalog."
So Joe Blow thinks : "I want to be able to access the internet. I will buy a computer. I will buy the $200 computer from Wal-Mart. This computer is only sold on the internet. I want to be able to access the internet. I will buy a computer."....
Maybe the dumbass poster assumed that you would have read the article. I guess he didn't think you would be a dumbass.
One of my acquaintances had a laptop he was looking to sell, which worked out well, since I was in the market for a laptop. The only snag was that it didn't work -- it wouldn't boot or install an OS. So I told him that I would come over and take a look at it -- sure enough, it seemed to have a hard drive problem -- easy enough to tell, because the hard drive made this funny noise every time it tried to spin.
Obviously it would have been stupid to buy the laptop at that time -- I didn't have a chance to make sure everything else was working, and didn't have a chance to demo it. So I just grabbed my Knoppix CD and popped it in. It worked perfectly the first time (of course). I got to test the whole system minus the hard drive, and run some hard drive checks while I was at it. Everything else in the computer was fine, so I told him that the hard drive was busted and that essentially disables the computer, but I could replace the hard drive.
So he says that his conscience "wouldn't be clear" if he sold me a broken computer -- so he offered to offload it for 300 bucks. Far be it from me to argue with him (in my poorness).
And that is how I saved around 700$ on a laptop (the 'puter usually costs around $1k on ebay).
.NET stuff is cool and people should take notice. Even the evil empire can raise the bar.
Whoa. You must have missed the "any comment about Microsoft that is not presented in a negative light will get you shot" memo that was floating around last week.
Anyway, isn't fundamental misattribution the best trick?
"There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either. "
Be that as it may, this does not mean that there is any necessity to attack Iraq. The question in Iraq is not "why are we going to attack Iraq?" Instead, it is "Why are we going to attack NOW?" We have known for decades that Saddam was a problem, and we helped create his regime by providing him with weapons (during the war with Iran).
The problem is one of motivation. I think the common rationale is that "he has weapons of mass destruction and they could be used to kill Americans." This is ridiculous -- there are countless other nations that also have weapons of mass destruction that are probably building animosities towards the United States BECAUSE of action against Iraq, and this threat is probably much more substantial than Iraq itself. If we are going to attack Iraq, then why would we not attack a country like India?
India developed nuclear weapons (I'm pretty sure those are weapons of mass destruction =P) despite various UN non-proliferation agreements. This, as you point out, 'entitles' us to attack India. However, we did not, because India was not perceived as a threat to the United States. When Pakistan subsequently developed nuclear capability (again outside of UN regulations), no action was taken. By any line of logic, I would say that a nuclear war between mortal enemies Pakistan and India would draw the United States' military attention, and I would venture a guess that such a mobilization would be far more dangerous to Americans than an attack on Iraq, which has no nuclear capability, nor any proven weapons of mass destruction.
So why would we go to war with Iraq? Is it because of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope -- or else India/Pakistan would be glazed radiation fields. Is it pre-emptive strikes against an obviously aggressive nation (which have been, historically, disastrous by the by)? No way -- or else we would have stepped into tons of other conflicts. What, then, remains? You said:
This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.
It is good to have your opinion, but it is just that: opinion. Evidence seems to lend itself to the contrary. In an address given at a Houston GOP fundraiser, Bush said of Saddam: "Remember, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad." Now, we know that this isn't from the pens of his speechwriters. They aren't that phenomenally dumb. It is Bush's core, his instinct, his true motivation. Other motivations could be political, p-oil-itical, chest-thumping-gorilla-dominance-rituals, or a continuation of the Domino Theory applied in reverse: once a country like the US starts spreading democracy, it won't stop eliminating dissenters until the entire world is under democratic thrall. But I still think that the personal "he tried to kill muh daddy" claim is Bush's main motivation, though not the primary motivation of his political cohorts.
In sum, you have your humble opinion, and I hope you see the logic of my NSHBQ (not so humble but qualified) opinion.
Please note that the original post did not refer to Open Source as software with an EULA. The point, rather, is that if EULAs get as ridiculous as this one, and start impinging upon our basic rights as computer users, we are going to turn to more reasonable alternatives.
He assumes, and I think correctly, that average consumers will begin to look with increasing frequency to free software, with none of the legal implications for an end user.
The problem, here, is EULAs in general. Especially when a consumer BUYS something, he expects that the product is going to be to his benefit, not his detriment. The EULA obviously moves towards a product with more negatives than positives.
Death to the EULA. Long live freedom [as in beer [no, not that free beer -- the real free beer)]
I got UT2K3 working with daemon-tools within 3 minutes of installation. Amusingly, you don't even break the rules by doing it, since the code that you run is legitimately installed with the copy that you bought (I would hope).
It's simple. Instead of running UT2003.exe (on windows), just run UDebugger.exe (in the ut2003/system directory). By running it through the debugger, it disables the SecureROM check, and works like a charm, 100% within the bounds of the installed software.
Before everyone goes and finds an optimistic thought about MS, let's consider the motivation of this newfound benign giant. As we've seen before [slashdot.org], the set-top box has everything going against it:
1) Price (around $2k)
2) No real benefits over conventional PCs
3) Loss of conventional computer features.
4) Wacko copy protection
Obviously, a product like this is not going to sell well.
This news TEMPORARILY (they can always re-add it after market is successful) removes #4 from the list of problems. Therefore, one would assume that less problems for sales = higher sales.
Like most actions that seem altruistic, this can be passed away in the Evil Empire paradigm yet again.
Sure, it's expensive, but think of the value! I mean, that's just pennies per gene! With all of that information you can.. uhh.... erm..... prove your genetic superiority!
I mean, after they sequence your genes and find out that you share 99% of your genes with every other human on the planet, you can use the remaining 1% to find out absolutely nothing that you didn't already know about your phenotypical characteristics! I know -- I'm just getting too excited.
Now I just have to sell my stock in Venter's enterprise to affod it --- oh wait: I OWE 500 grand on ledger. Silly me!
Cheers,
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers,
As for sorting bookmarks, you can do that. Go to Bookmarks->Manage. Change the display order.
Cheers,
Anyway, that URL for mouse gesture extensions was:
http://texturizer.net/firebird/extensions.html
Cheers,
~Tris
Pray tell, what exactly are these problems of which you speak? Further, how would my education pertain to these problems?
The fact that you didn't learn anything in college, the fact that you are bitter about philosophy as a whole, and the utter philosophical hypocrisy you provide. Obviously, this pertains to your education insofar as your educational experiences crafted your knowledge and experience of philosophy, leading to your disregard for your very area of study.
Did you type that for a resume or something? That seems like a rather narrow benefit to gained your love of wisdom. It is also, to use a more vulgar expression, utter bullshit.
No, I typed it for you, dear boy. Plus, considering that the scope of the referenced sentence spans quite a few centuries of the most influential philosophical thought, I don't think it is a narrow benefit, and it is certainly not bullshit. Though you may not be able to reap personally meaningful knowledge from such texts, your limitations do not apply to everyone.
Ahh I can see where this is going, apparently you haven't learned one of the first lessons of philosophy, and that is moderation. Your response is already far out of proportion to what was a rather innocent and obviously light hearted post. Perhaps you didn't notice the parent post regarding how university philosophy professor are out of touch with reality. As pretty much any serious student of philosophy would easily admit, college is only the beginning of what is a life long journey.
If you think moderation is the first lesson of philosophy, you obviously missed most of the above discussion, which was in part concerned with the obvious lack of moderation of some of history's most notable philosophers. The reason I wrote such a long reply to a "light-hearted post" is because I think that your view typifies the public view of philosophy, one that I think is utter idiocy and naivete. It is also of note that you wrote an even longer reply, worthlessly and amusingly, considering your accusations.
Like I said, I don't believe you have mastered some of the more basic concepts of self control and moderation but I am glad your studies suited your needs. I must say however that unless you attended a school with less than demanding standards a triple major is hard to believe. I attended a top jesuit university and I could barely finish math and philosophy in four years, with fairly substantial AP credit. What relevence this has to our discussion, I don't know... but I feel like ripping on you.
First, it's good to know that you can make such character inferences from such little experience. I guess you must have learned something somewhere, though not in school apparently. And if you must know, I take six or seven classes per semester, have AP credit in psychology, and tested out of the first 3 years of German studies. With a passion for learning, such things are possible =P.
Why am I not surprised you have decided to use some 20th century buzz word. Please, by all means, let me know what non-cognitivist claims I am making... You read the opinion of a former philosophy student, I would love to see what claims you derived from a flippant post.
Non-cognitivism is the view that arguments over values, morals, etc. hold no truth-value, and therefore cannot be proven true or false by argument. In more frequent usage, it is when people make claims like "philosophy is worthless" or "the academic tradition is tired," statements against which I can provide no _facts_ to contradict you. You might have learned it in that same class where they forced you to read about Socrates, in works like the Phaedo or Theaetetus.
Actually, I had to take a whole class in it. Having attended a Jesuit university meant that most classes revolved around theistic philosophers, and as that single book is the best weapon a theist has for defending his faith it was required.
That is quite imp
Ok, but I think that your problems are an artifact of your place of education, not the actual works you studied. Personally, philosophy study has taught me quite a bit about historical philosophical thought in a variety of realms and also modern controversies and the recovery from the now-widely-criticized Cartesian split. You can write all you want about how worthless your education was, but that is just it: it was your education. Philosophy is great, and I have learned more from philosophy (that I can apply to my actual life) than I have in any of my other studies, though I am a triple major (philosophy, German, psychology), as well as a professional technical writer, and contracting network administrator/web designer.
I can't reasonably hope to disprove your non-coginitivist claims about your personal experience, but if you want to talk about _facts_, you mentioned a few that seemed ludicrous to me:
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a behemoth, Marx's Das Capital[sic] has still never been completely read by any man alive today.
There is no disputing that the Critique is huge, and most scholars have noted that Kant's writing style is so convoluted that understanding it is a task far beyond simply reading it. However, the reason you did not learn about the Critique in you undergraduate program is because you would need to spend an extremely intense period of time studying it -- usually in a course during graduate school. Most undergraduate programs just have you read the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics, a simpler version of the same ideas, most notably the second Cartesian revolution and the Theoretical Unity of Apperception. So, just go to graduate school, or read the prolegomena.
Second, to say that Das Kapital has never been completely read by any man alive today is ridiculous, unless you mean only that it has never been fully understood by any man alive today, which is a question that is impossible to resolve. I would argue that it has been understood to its fullest logical extent in most general and particular contents by a great number of Marx scholars. Oh, and one more thing about Marx: I have never been forced to read Marx for an actual class, but have instead taken him on personally. This seems strange in one of the most thorough philosophy programs in the country, but as one of my professors said: we leave Marx for the less intelligent political science theorists.
Both books are bigger than all of Plato's writings combined. Das Capital[sic] is easily longer than all of Nietzsche's writings combined.
Ok -- this is just wrong. First, we don't have a lot of Plato's writings. Second, the Critique is NOT longer than all of Plato's KNOWN works combined for sure. The Critique is around 700 pages in a hardcover medium-type small-size edition. It really isn't that LONG, it is just amazingly thick.
And you must not be the Nietzsche scholar you would wish to be, or you would know that he wrote a TON -- cretainly more than Das Kapital. Here is a short list from the web: The Birth of Tragedy (1872) Untimely Meditations (1873-1876) Human, All Too Human (1878) The Dawn (1880) The Gay Science (1882-1886) Zarathustra (1883-1885) Beyond Good and Evil (1886) The Genealogy of Morals (1887) The Wagner Case (1888) Twilight of the Idols (1888) The Antichrist (1888), and Ecce Homo (1888). This doesn't even consider works like The Will to Power, one of the greatest works of postmodern philosophy. Anyway, you were obviously mistaken on a variety of levels for the facts, and I think this reflects well on your general views about philosophy as well. About some of the great works being "loads of crap," you cannot imagine the massive tomes of philosophy that took years to read, that have been summarily dismissed by the philosophical community. Of note is the history of pre-modern philosophy, in which bishops and cardinals spent their entire lives writing one philosophical work, almost none of which are studied in contemporary philosophy.
Anyway, that is the end of the lesson today =)...
helloooo mister man are you a mister man I love the mister man! I give you much love. You give me all your pies. ~Tris.
No, he's pretty consistent actually: the duty of the American government is to put the interests of American citizens first. Again, if your government isn't about looking after its own tax-paying law-abiding citizens, what the hell is it for?
Hypocrisy!=inconsistency. He can be both consistent and hypocritical. For example, by holding the US to one standard, but all other nations to a higher moral standard, he is a hypocrite, but as long as that position is firmly maintained, it is consistent.
If this government is looking out for its tax-paying citizens, it must be doing it on some transcendental level. Personally, I would rather NOT have billions of the money I so "generously" give to the government to be spent on the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men pressed into service, and civilians unrelated to the conflict.
Sign up to ICC and your citizens can be extradited to face a foreign court for something that isn't even a crime where they are now.
If you are a member of the ICC, you had a hand in crafting the laws that are enforced upon you. Also, the laws that the ICC enforces are pretty pitiful, covering only the most obviously disgusting types of crimes, like perverse forms of mass murder, torture, genocide, and the like
If anyone is a hypocrite here, I would say it is you. From your tone, I bet you support the lovely war on Iraq (or at least some type of military retaliation in some circumstance, like Pearl Harbor). However, in attacking a country such as Iraq, for example, we are holding them to OUR moral standard for things that are not illegal under THEIR system. Just because you think YOUR opinions are right does not justify that =P.
It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles
*ahem* -- I don't know what kind of model rockets YOU'VE been playing with, but mine were only in the air for about 10 seconds, and they sure as hell didn't go far. If somebody has a "stealth nuclear missile" that travels about 1000-2000 feet and then explodes, they are probably too stupid to be alive (think of the weapons tests).
Plus, if it only takes 10-15 seconds to get to DEFCON5, we might as well just pull the trigger now.
in the hands of the right person, they could certainly be used as a "weapons delivery system". They can reach altitudes high enough to distribute chemical or biological agents
I hate to be the one to point this out, but if you have produced chemical or biological agents and you are still using a 12-year-old's toy as a weapons delivery system, you are such an incompetent terrorist that you deserve the misfire your under-powered, chemical-agent-laden hobby rocket is going to produce shortly before those chemical agents are sitributed to a very small area surrounding your person.
The answer to this question is easy --- just hook up a cheapo webcam or something, and have it record for many many hours at its highest resolution. If you wanted something even faster, you could use a high-resolution camera with a firewire connection. Cheers, ~Tris.
That's what the Brits thought too, Commie scum!
~Tris!
Google whoring works better when you log in, wussy =).
Cheers,
~Tris.
That would be brilliantly true if it weren't blatantly false. That is true for the 30 seconds between when I pop my Knoppix CD into the drive and the time I have a KDE desktop, in all of its glory.
That's a fact, not uninformed FUD.
Actually, I think I'm going to have to go with the latter.
Now, the dumbass post called the article: "This exciting new $199 Desktop/LX Certified MicroTel PC will be available for purchase exclusively from the WalMart Online Lycoris Catalog."
So Joe Blow thinks : "I want to be able to access the internet. I will buy a computer. I will buy the $200 computer from Wal-Mart. This computer is only sold on the internet. I want to be able to access the internet. I will buy a computer."....
Maybe the dumbass poster assumed that you would have read the article. I guess he didn't think you would be a dumbass.
One of my acquaintances had a laptop he was looking to sell, which worked out well, since I was in the market for a laptop. The only snag was that it didn't work -- it wouldn't boot or install an OS. So I told him that I would come over and take a look at it -- sure enough, it seemed to have a hard drive problem -- easy enough to tell, because the hard drive made this funny noise every time it tried to spin.
Obviously it would have been stupid to buy the laptop at that time -- I didn't have a chance to make sure everything else was working, and didn't have a chance to demo it. So I just grabbed my Knoppix CD and popped it in. It worked perfectly the first time (of course). I got to test the whole system minus the hard drive, and run some hard drive checks while I was at it. Everything else in the computer was fine, so I told him that the hard drive was busted and that essentially disables the computer, but I could replace the hard drive.
So he says that his conscience "wouldn't be clear" if he sold me a broken computer -- so he offered to offload it for 300 bucks. Far be it from me to argue with him (in my poorness).
And that is how I saved around 700$ on a laptop (the 'puter usually costs around $1k on ebay).
Cheers,
~Tris!
.NET stuff is cool and people should take notice. Even the evil empire can raise the bar.
Whoa. You must have missed the "any comment about Microsoft that is not presented in a negative light will get you shot" memo that was floating around last week.
Anyway, isn't fundamental misattribution the best trick?
Yay!
"There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either. "
Be that as it may, this does not mean that there is any necessity to attack Iraq. The question in Iraq is not "why are we going to attack Iraq?" Instead, it is "Why are we going to attack NOW?" We have known for decades that Saddam was a problem, and we helped create his regime by providing him with weapons (during the war with Iran).
The problem is one of motivation. I think the common rationale is that "he has weapons of mass destruction and they could be used to kill Americans." This is ridiculous -- there are countless other nations that also have weapons of mass destruction that are probably building animosities towards the United States BECAUSE of action against Iraq, and this threat is probably much more substantial than Iraq itself. If we are going to attack Iraq, then why would we not attack a country like India?
India developed nuclear weapons (I'm pretty sure those are weapons of mass destruction =P) despite various UN non-proliferation agreements. This, as you point out, 'entitles' us to attack India. However, we did not, because India was not perceived as a threat to the United States. When Pakistan subsequently developed nuclear capability (again outside of UN regulations), no action was taken. By any line of logic, I would say that a nuclear war between mortal enemies Pakistan and India would draw the United States' military attention, and I would venture a guess that such a mobilization would be far more dangerous to Americans than an attack on Iraq, which has no nuclear capability, nor any proven weapons of mass destruction.
So why would we go to war with Iraq? Is it because of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope -- or else India/Pakistan would be glazed radiation fields. Is it pre-emptive strikes against an obviously aggressive nation (which have been, historically, disastrous by the by)? No way -- or else we would have stepped into tons of other conflicts. What, then, remains? You said:
This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.
It is good to have your opinion, but it is just that: opinion. Evidence seems to lend itself to the contrary. In an address given at a Houston GOP fundraiser, Bush said of Saddam: "Remember, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad." Now, we know that this isn't from the pens of his speechwriters. They aren't that phenomenally dumb. It is Bush's core, his instinct, his true motivation. Other motivations could be political, p-oil-itical, chest-thumping-gorilla-dominance-rituals, or a continuation of the Domino Theory applied in reverse: once a country like the US starts spreading democracy, it won't stop eliminating dissenters until the entire world is under democratic thrall. But I still think that the personal "he tried to kill muh daddy" claim is Bush's main motivation, though not the primary motivation of his political cohorts.
In sum, you have your humble opinion, and I hope you see the logic of my NSHBQ (not so humble but qualified) opinion.
Cheers,
--No! The GPL is not an EULA.
Please note that the original post did not refer to Open Source as software with an EULA. The point, rather, is that if EULAs get as ridiculous as this one, and start impinging upon our basic rights as computer users, we are going to turn to more reasonable alternatives.
He assumes, and I think correctly, that average consumers will begin to look with increasing frequency to free software, with none of the legal implications for an end user.
The problem, here, is EULAs in general. Especially when a consumer BUYS something, he expects that the product is going to be to his benefit, not his detriment. The EULA obviously moves towards a product with more negatives than positives.
Death to the EULA. Long live freedom [as in beer [no, not that free beer -- the real free beer)]
Ok --- Let's get into the BIOS first.
"Press DEL to enter Setup..."
*Mashes delete key repeatedly and vigorously on broken keyboard, and since keyboard is broken, is unable to get into Setup*
"Keyboard not found -- press F1 to continue"
Damn you slashdot! Failed again!
I got UT2K3 working with daemon-tools within 3 minutes of installation. Amusingly, you don't even break the rules by doing it, since the code that you run is legitimately installed with the copy that you bought (I would hope).
It's simple. Instead of running UT2003.exe (on windows), just run UDebugger.exe (in the ut2003/system directory). By running it through the debugger, it disables the SecureROM check, and works like a charm, 100% within the bounds of the installed software.
Cheers,
Before everyone goes and finds an optimistic thought about MS, let's consider the motivation of this newfound benign giant. As we've seen before [slashdot.org], the set-top box has everything going against it:
1) Price (around $2k)
2) No real benefits over conventional PCs
3) Loss of conventional computer features.
4) Wacko copy protection
Obviously, a product like this is not going to sell well.
This news TEMPORARILY (they can always re-add it after market is successful) removes #4 from the list of problems. Therefore, one would assume that less problems for sales = higher sales.
Like most actions that seem altruistic, this can be passed away in the Evil Empire paradigm yet again.
Heil Gates.
Cheers,
Sure, it's expensive, but think of the value! I mean, that's just pennies per gene! With all of that information you can.. uhh.... erm..... prove your genetic superiority! I mean, after they sequence your genes and find out that you share 99% of your genes with every other human on the planet, you can use the remaining 1% to find out absolutely nothing that you didn't already know about your phenotypical characteristics! I know -- I'm just getting too excited.
Now I just have to sell my stock in Venter's enterprise to affod it --- oh wait: I OWE 500 grand on ledger. Silly me!
Cheers,