Uhhh... i believe that i mentioned that i saw this quote somewhere; it is not mine, i took it from somebody else's post on a forum that i've been known to visit. I'm very much aware that there are many other examples that could have been used, and most likely some of these numbers are probably incorrect as well. The point i was trying to make was the fact that the United States lives in such a distorted world, where every time some little thing ("little" in this sence used in comparison to other things, such as those listed in my post) happens to them, everybody acts like they live in such a harsh, cruel world.
I live in the United States, and i by no means hate the Western world, nor do i support socialism. I just think that the US has lost touch with who they are and what they stand for, and the fact that there are indeed other people living in this world.
WTF, again, THEY ARE PLASTIC. I've seen toddlers with absolutely no concept of what violence is depicting such things in their toys. When they make their aeroplane toy crash into their Batman toy, BATMAN IS DEAD. AN AEROPLANE CRASHED INTO HIM. The kid isn't "celebrating violence", he's playing. You can't kill plastic, it's inanimate. As long as these depictions don't carry over into real life, it's all good fun. Given the choice, would you rather people release their frustrations on real people, or on plastic toys?
And yes, i agree with you; the WTC jokes are really tasteless, and totally unnecessary. Despite the fact that it's kind of been blown out of proportion by the media/government, it was still a horrible act of violence, and people (especially families of the victims) don't need to see that.
This site was around LONG before the sniper attacks. Just because a couple of psycho fucking losers goes around shooting people doesn't mean that the whole world should stop what they're doing and get all hyper-sensitive about violence. They are P-L-A-S-T-I-C. It's supposed to be F-U-N-N-Y. I consider myself a pacifist, and this does not offend me in any way. And, to go back to the whole "whenever something bad happens we should all get anal about violence", there's a great quote a heard once, that goes something like:
-Vietnam (Takeover Failure): 3 500 000 Dead
-Cambodia (Carpet Bombs): 2 000 000 Dead
-Iraq (Sanctions aftermath) 1 700 000 Dead
-Dresden (Saturation Bombing): 500 000 Dead
-Laos (Rain Bombs): 500 000 Dead
-Guatemala (Guatemalan Genocide): 200 000 Dead
-Afghanistan (Muslim Genocide): 100 000 Dead
-Israel (Palestinian Genocide): 100 000 Dead
-Hiroshima (Atomic Bomb): 100 000 Dead
-Tokyo (Fire Bombs): 80 000 Dead
-Nagasaki (Atomic Bomb): 50 000 Dead
September 11: 3500? Only? Oh, get over it.
Harsh way of putting it, for sure, but you get the point. These things that happen to the US are horrible, horrible tragedies, yes, but i didn't see anyone in the United States skip a beat when the above things happened to other people. Many Americans have this kind of superiority complex, where they think they are the centre of the Universe, and that everybody else in the world should feel sorry for them whenever they are "picked on".
He spells it out right there at the end of his post:
Unfortunately, the "Hacktivismo" license, like the GPL, contains mechanisms whose intent is to destroy, or preclude the formation or success of, software businesses. It does this by preventing them from being able to use the code in the way that most benefits them: by creating commercial software with the code.
That is to say, the GPL (and apparently this licence as well, though i only skimmed over it) require that software derived from GPL-ed code have the full source code openly available to the public. The author of the post is operating under the assumption that these licences have the intent to destroy/prevent the success/formation of software businesses. This is incorrect, but it may indeed have that effect (there are companies, such as Red Hat, et al., that manage to make a fair profit off open-source software, but many companies/persons do not). I agree with you, though (that is, i disagree with the parent).
You forgot the PlayStation, which pretty much slaughtered everything. The Nintendo 64 didn't need to be slaughtered by anyone; just as you said Sega slaughtered the Dreamcast, so Nintendo did with the N64. Granted, the N64 had some great games (Goldeneye, Zelda, Perfect Dark, et al.), but for the most part it was riding on the wave of Nintendo's name.
Ok, i know i'm responding to a troll, but i just want to say something about this article (since it probably won't make it past here anyway).
It's all fine and well of course that they've discovered this, but the article gives absolutely NO BACKING WHATSOEVER for their claims. What the Hell, they go on for a whole page about how UNIX is insecure, and Windows isn't, just rewording it a dozen times. The only example they give is the trojan one, which doesn't even work to their side, really. Windows had six trojans during its peak; Linux had one, and now -- GASP!! -- it has TWO!! I may not be a math professor here, sir, but i do believe six is four more than two. Saying that Linux had two trojan alerts and Windows had six does not back up the claim that UNIX is "the most insecure OS".
And so ends my reply to the troll. If any of you higher-ups are considering accepting this as a Slashdot article, i urge you not to; if the article had more information, i'd say go for it, but this is just flamebait waiting to happen.
Ok, this arguement has always bothered me. Windows is MICROSOFT'S OPERATING SYSTEM. THEY MADE IT. THEY CAN PUT WHATEVER THEY WANT ON IT.
If you were, for example, writing your own operating system, would it be fair for someone to force you to include the competition's software? No, that would be ridiculous. That's like saying Ford is strong-arming the car market by not allowing Chevy parts to be easily installed into their cars. Microsoft should be free to do whatever they want with their operating system. Whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft's employees laboured over the operating system to make it work good (if it didn't work good, why would so many people use it?). They're entitled to include -- or exclude -- anything they wish.
That said, there's also another reason that Internet Explorer is so biasedly packaged into Windows; it's part of the operating system. Explorer and Internet Explorer, while separate, are closely tied together. Microsoft's target market (or, more specifically, the market that uses Microsoft products) don't care about third-party browsers. They LIKE the fact that they can type a URL into Explorer and have it connect straight to it, without having to wait for a less-integrated third-party browser to load up separately. The list of IE tie-ins goes on.
It's ridiculous to pick at this subject. If you don't like Internet Explorer, don't use it. You might not be able to uninstall it, but you can sure as Hell use Mozilla/Netscape/Opera/whatever if you want. You can set the default Web browser to something beside Internet Explorer. Sure it's still there, but why do you care?
:Lav
PS: Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a huge Microsoft fanboy, and i enjoy using alternate operating systems and even alternate browsers; please don't ass-rape me with flames suggesting the contrary.
The technology's often-touted selling points - speed and the capacity to be always on - have little clout with the people that use broadband, the study said.
Uhh... this part had me a little confused. Maybe i don't know as much about the broadband demographic as i thought, or maybe this is just a UK-only sort of deal, but.... Since when the Hell was this true? Am i disillusioned by the fact that my friends all happen to be either massive pirates or intense PC gamers? I was under the impression that older people (and i'm generalising here, as older people seem far less likely to be music/software pirates and/or gamers than younger users) stuck with dial-up when cable/DSL options rolled into their town. These people (again, generalising) seem to care far more about communicating with their children or ordering books online or getting online news updates than downloading massive porn videos, pirated software, and music. None of the former require the high speed that broadband offers; dial-up is quite sufficient for these activities.
In any case, can someone help me understand how this is true? Are the people that use the Internet for "old people" activities (such as e-mail, ordering online, and/or news) just naïve, having been sucked into broadband by sales pitches or the like, or is it something else? The added bonuses of not taking up your phone line and not having to worry about logging on and logging off hardly seem to warrant the $40 - $60 (USD) price tags of broadband service.
Actually, one addendum. Seems the hard drive bundle actually costs considerably more than the hard drive alone; so i guess i was sort of incorrect on the part about it being free. All the more reason for people like the parent not to buy it, i guess?
Nobody is forcing anything on you, jackass. It's not like they're saying "Hey, you can't buy a hard drive without Darwin". Rather, they're saying "Hey, if you're interested in using Darwin as your operating system, here's a hard drive pre-loaded with the system; you don't have to download any CDs or mess with the installation, it's all right there for you".
I don't know what the Hell your deal is with "that Devil mascot". It's a cartoon devil. If you're implying some sort of Christian, anti-Satan, whatever... that's pretty retarded. It's a CARTOON.
There is no "bad marketing". This stems from your incorrect belief that they are forcing you to use Darwin. This is merely an attempt at getting people to try Darwin in the easiest possible way. Darwin is FREE; if you did purchase one of these hard drives and decided that you did not like Darwin, you would be more than able to format the Hell out of it. You would not lose a single penny; you would simply have yourself a new hard drive.
:Lav
PS: The mascot for Darwin isn't actually a devil (or daemon, as BSD people seem to prefer). The devil is the mascot of BSD. Darwin, while built on BSD, is not exactly BSD. Rather, Darwin's mascot is Hexley the platypus (though he does where a devil costume).
As for "desktop-on-top-of-unix"... if you meant by that that it comes with the Aqua GUI, i don't believe it does. That's proprietary, if i'm not mistaken.
I actually tried installing Darwin 6.0 on a laptop i got lying around here, a few weeks back. But, because the disc wouldn't boot (i made the mistake of using WinRAR to unzip and un-ISO the image), i can't really offer anything more specific about Darwin. I believe other people on Slashdot, however, are indeed running it (for x86, that is).
For all intents and purposes, it's just a BSD distro, i guess.
Name an instance where a converted-from-the-novel movie was accurate, please. I've been watching movies my whole life, and i've yet to see one. As for LOTR, it was more accurate than most novels-to-movies i've seen.
At $18,000 (the price of a new single-family home or a top Rolls Royce), a researcher received...
Ok, i don't know anything about Rolls-Royce cars (or houses, either), but what the Hell, $18'000 seems JUST a touch too low for a "top" Rolls-Royce. An entry-level Beetle costs $18'000.
I hope sharp sticks will soon be controlled by the American military, because dagnabbit, those terrorists would stab me in the heart FIRST CHANCE THEY GET!
Slashdot Mirror
I live in the United States, and i by no means hate the Western world, nor do i support socialism. I just think that the US has lost touch with who they are and what they stand for, and the fact that there are indeed other people living in this world.
And yes, i agree with you; the WTC jokes are really tasteless, and totally unnecessary. Despite the fact that it's kind of been blown out of proportion by the media/government, it was still a horrible act of violence, and people (especially families of the victims) don't need to see that.
-Vietnam (Takeover Failure): 3 500 000 Dead
-Cambodia (Carpet Bombs): 2 000 000 Dead
-Iraq (Sanctions aftermath) 1 700 000 Dead
-Dresden (Saturation Bombing): 500 000 Dead
-Laos (Rain Bombs): 500 000 Dead
-Guatemala (Guatemalan Genocide): 200 000 Dead
-Afghanistan (Muslim Genocide): 100 000 Dead
-Israel (Palestinian Genocide): 100 000 Dead
-Hiroshima (Atomic Bomb): 100 000 Dead
-Tokyo (Fire Bombs): 80 000 Dead
-Nagasaki (Atomic Bomb): 50 000 Dead
September 11: 3500? Only? Oh, get over it.
Harsh way of putting it, for sure, but you get the point. These things that happen to the US are horrible, horrible tragedies, yes, but i didn't see anyone in the United States skip a beat when the above things happened to other people. Many Americans have this kind of superiority complex, where they think they are the centre of the Universe, and that everybody else in the world should feel sorry for them whenever they are "picked on".
Unfortunately, the "Hacktivismo" license, like the GPL, contains mechanisms whose intent is to destroy, or preclude the formation or success of, software businesses. It does this by preventing them from being able to use the code in the way that most benefits them: by creating commercial software with the code.
That is to say, the GPL (and apparently this licence as well, though i only skimmed over it) require that software derived from GPL-ed code have the full source code openly available to the public. The author of the post is operating under the assumption that these licences have the intent to destroy/prevent the success/formation of software businesses. This is incorrect, but it may indeed have that effect (there are companies, such as Red Hat, et al., that manage to make a fair profit off open-source software, but many companies/persons do not). I agree with you, though (that is, i disagree with the parent).
How the Hell do people keep finding connections between 09/11 and the Big Scary Terrorists, and every single other fucking subject?
It's all fine and well of course that they've discovered this, but the article gives absolutely NO BACKING WHATSOEVER for their claims. What the Hell, they go on for a whole page about how UNIX is insecure, and Windows isn't, just rewording it a dozen times. The only example they give is the trojan one, which doesn't even work to their side, really. Windows had six trojans during its peak; Linux had one, and now -- GASP!! -- it has TWO!! I may not be a math professor here, sir, but i do believe six is four more than two. Saying that Linux had two trojan alerts and Windows had six does not back up the claim that UNIX is "the most insecure OS".
And so ends my reply to the troll. If any of you higher-ups are considering accepting this as a Slashdot article, i urge you not to; if the article had more information, i'd say go for it, but this is just flamebait waiting to happen.
... DUH. That would be the reason why people won't shut up about Palladium.
You're forgetting that with Palladium (TM) ® © viruses won't be allowed onto your computer!
That's GEORDI, you uncultured swine!
If you were, for example, writing your own operating system, would it be fair for someone to force you to include the competition's software? No, that would be ridiculous. That's like saying Ford is strong-arming the car market by not allowing Chevy parts to be easily installed into their cars. Microsoft should be free to do whatever they want with their operating system. Whatever you may think of Windows, Microsoft's employees laboured over the operating system to make it work good (if it didn't work good, why would so many people use it?). They're entitled to include -- or exclude -- anything they wish.
That said, there's also another reason that Internet Explorer is so biasedly packaged into Windows; it's part of the operating system. Explorer and Internet Explorer, while separate, are closely tied together. Microsoft's target market (or, more specifically, the market that uses Microsoft products) don't care about third-party browsers. They LIKE the fact that they can type a URL into Explorer and have it connect straight to it, without having to wait for a less-integrated third-party browser to load up separately. The list of IE tie-ins goes on.
It's ridiculous to pick at this subject. If you don't like Internet Explorer, don't use it. You might not be able to uninstall it, but you can sure as Hell use Mozilla/Netscape/Opera/whatever if you want. You can set the default Web browser to something beside Internet Explorer. Sure it's still there, but why do you care?
PS: Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a huge Microsoft fanboy, and i enjoy using alternate operating systems and even alternate browsers; please don't ass-rape me with flames suggesting the contrary.
... Fuck, i knew i should've refreshed the page before i posted that. I failed, i'm sorry. :/
Don't make fun of Bill's grammar, mister "droped out". Heh.
Uhh... this part had me a little confused. Maybe i don't know as much about the broadband demographic as i thought, or maybe this is just a UK-only sort of deal, but.... Since when the Hell was this true? Am i disillusioned by the fact that my friends all happen to be either massive pirates or intense PC gamers? I was under the impression that older people (and i'm generalising here, as older people seem far less likely to be music/software pirates and/or gamers than younger users) stuck with dial-up when cable/DSL options rolled into their town. These people (again, generalising) seem to care far more about communicating with their children or ordering books online or getting online news updates than downloading massive porn videos, pirated software, and music. None of the former require the high speed that broadband offers; dial-up is quite sufficient for these activities.
In any case, can someone help me understand how this is true? Are the people that use the Internet for "old people" activities (such as e-mail, ordering online, and/or news) just naïve, having been sucked into broadband by sales pitches or the like, or is it something else? The added bonuses of not taking up your phone line and not having to worry about logging on and logging off hardly seem to warrant the $40 - $60 (USD) price tags of broadband service.
Nope, mIRC is not open-source. Khaled (the author) has said that somebody he might open-source it, but it won't be any time soon.
Fair enough. :p
Actually, one addendum. Seems the hard drive bundle actually costs considerably more than the hard drive alone; so i guess i was sort of incorrect on the part about it being free. All the more reason for people like the parent not to buy it, i guess?
Nobody is forcing anything on you, jackass. It's not like they're saying "Hey, you can't buy a hard drive without Darwin". Rather, they're saying "Hey, if you're interested in using Darwin as your operating system, here's a hard drive pre-loaded with the system; you don't have to download any CDs or mess with the installation, it's all right there for you".
I don't know what the Hell your deal is with "that Devil mascot". It's a cartoon devil. If you're implying some sort of Christian, anti-Satan, whatever... that's pretty retarded. It's a CARTOON.
There is no "bad marketing". This stems from your incorrect belief that they are forcing you to use Darwin. This is merely an attempt at getting people to try Darwin in the easiest possible way. Darwin is FREE; if you did purchase one of these hard drives and decided that you did not like Darwin, you would be more than able to format the Hell out of it. You would not lose a single penny; you would simply have yourself a new hard drive.
PS: The mascot for Darwin isn't actually a devil (or daemon, as BSD people seem to prefer). The devil is the mascot of BSD. Darwin, while built on BSD, is not exactly BSD. Rather, Darwin's mascot is Hexley the platypus (though he does where a devil costume).
As for "desktop-on-top-of-unix"... if you meant by that that it comes with the Aqua GUI, i don't believe it does. That's proprietary, if i'm not mistaken.
I actually tried installing Darwin 6.0 on a laptop i got lying around here, a few weeks back. But, because the disc wouldn't boot (i made the mistake of using WinRAR to unzip and un-ISO the image), i can't really offer anything more specific about Darwin. I believe other people on Slashdot, however, are indeed running it (for x86, that is).
For all intents and purposes, it's just a BSD distro, i guess.
It says "news for nerds", not "technology news". Ass.
Ok, i don't know anything about Rolls-Royce cars (or houses, either), but what the Hell, $18'000 seems JUST a touch too low for a "top" Rolls-Royce. An entry-level Beetle costs $18'000.
I hope sharp sticks will soon be controlled by the American military, because dagnabbit, those terrorists would stab me in the heart FIRST CHANCE THEY GET!
2. ???
3. SLASHDOT!
Laugh, it's a joke.