While you're at it, why don't you dispense with the ad-hominem attacks and answer the question? -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
That suddenly worries me. What's to stop someone from posting their site as a "mirror" here, and distributing a version of Linux with something evil like a trojan or a backdoor in it? -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
You need apt. If you can't use apt to upgrade, you'd have an easier time with a new distribution. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Did Nostradamus really say that? I thought he predicted the world would end last summer, so I can't see why he'd make any further predictions. But if he did say it, that is really damn funny. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
The halfway house is Debian Unstable. Debian has a different scale of stability - the "stable" release is REALLY stable but rather old, and the "unstable" release has very current packages, yet is still stable enough to use.
If you're worried about the distribution breaking, you don't have to always upgrade everything at once (though many Debian users will attest that upgrading everything at once is fun). Start from the current unstable, then use apt-get like you'd use rpmfind, installing the new version of a package when you find that the old version doesn't cut it. This way you don't run into things like constant XFree86 upgrades.
Yeah, let's look at how Britney Spears' music works.
Some unknown guy with a synthesizer makes the music, according to what a committee determines is most likely to get stuck in their target market's collective head.
The producers make it catchy so you can't get the damn thing out of your head.
The backup singers carry the tune.
The advertisers sell the music.
Britney Spears' job is to look pretty and make horrid groaning noises.
No wait, the groaning noises are probably added in by the producer too. Her job is to look pretty.
And for some bizarre reason, this sells CDs that, I assume, people listen to.
There's no logic behind it, but it works. Watch for the logical extension: Claudia Schiffer (or insert some other woman here, if you prefer) (uh-oh, here come the trolls with their favorite statue) standing naked while catchy music plays. They'd announce it on the radio with "And here's Generic Song #8 with Claudia Schiffer standing naked! Woo!" -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Actually, the majority of typing is done with letters on the left side of the keyboard. I think the split is something like 70%/30%. Clusters on the left side are more common than "left right left right" patterns. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
No. The conclusion of the study was that "no competing keyboard has offered enough advantage to warrant a change."
That is to say, Dvorak's advantages aren't enough to overcome the time it takes to relearn for someone who already knows QWERTY. That is not the same as having no advantages. It's also rather subjective - I found Dvorak rather easy to learn, but it might be more difficult for others.
Consider that the study was done before "carpal tunnel" was part of the vernacular. The layout might have more advantages than typing speed, which is the only thing they considered.
Yes! Great idea! Make sure that you stifle him by making him do the one thing that smart children generally hate!
Imagine this the other way around. Consider the people who are "born athletes" - how would they have ended up if instead of practicing sports, they had been forced to solve differential equations?
Fitting the child into a mold is NOT the answer! If he _wants_ to play sports, of course, let him, but don't assume that throwing a football at him will make him "better" in the long run. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Your IQ is your mental age divided by your actual age. If you got a 191 as a child and kept learning things, you could get a 191 as an adult. If, however, you burn out and stop learning things, your IQ goes down, as it should.
Children don't naturally get higher scores on an IQ test - the average child's IQ would be 100 just like the average adult's. The difference is that average children don't take IQ tests, so you don't see those scores. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
"No, you can't. Go be a kid. Ride your bike or something."
"Where?"
"What? You're a kid. You're supposed to have fun riding your bike. It doesn't matter if you're going anywhere."
"But I'd have more fun programming in assembly."
"No you wouldn't. You're supposed to have fun doing things that other kids do. You're a kid. Here, I'll send you over to the neighbors' and you can watch cartoons with the kid there."
"But he's stupid and he beats me up."
"Then you just need to learn to socialize better!"
"I'd rather learn assembly programming."
"I ORDER YOU TO GO HAVE FUN!"
A large number of people are suggesting that the kid should be discouraged from following his dream, and instead of expanding his mind the tutor should work on fitting him into a mold. And they get modded up for it, because they express it in a sentimental kind of way, suggesting that the child would be happier that way.
Bullshit.
I was a gifted child, and all through elementary school I was encouraged to learn more. Then I got into middle school and suddenly I was a burden to them. They didn't want to give me advanced classes, they wanted me to learn the same things as all the other fifth-graders, it would be more convenient for them that way. Incidentally, I had a miserable time in most of middle school, and now I think of all the stuff I could have learned if I had been given the opportunity then.
Sure, he COULD learn to be a programmer as an adult, but why stifle his youthful mind and then try to cram programming into his adult mind which would have a much harder time learning?
I'm inclined to believe that you're talking out your ass, unless VMware has made some amazing leap that lets you run multiple layers of emulation without instructions being caught by the wrong layer... Could you show me where they announced this feature? -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
In fact, since he sent that email on how to use email to everyone else on the network, the first e-mail was spam.:P -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
The thing that sends the addresses of sites you visit to Google, only does so if you _choose_ to use that feature in a program you _choose_ to download. It even tells you in the install what the feature does, and asks whether you want it on or off.
If Microsoft had made something like this and done it as well as Google, I'd say "Holy shit, they got a clue".
Who's talking about stopping using Google itself? That would be a completely irrational response to a feature that they don't force you to use, in a program that they don't force you to use.
Um. They're NOT selling your privacy. They're just providing a service where it looks up whatever page you're on on their site, which incidentally has to send the address you're on to them, because it's part of how it works.
If you pronounce GNU without the hard G, how does anyone understand what you're referring to? The adjective "new" would often fit in the same context. -- Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
I've had to say this to people numerous times as well. It happens far too often. There needs to be a jargon word for making a flawed argument based on the assumption that everyon thinks the same, the same way "trolling" and "astroturfing" apply to other kinds of posts. "Borging" comes to mind for me.
Then shooting down one of these people would be as easy as saying "I'm sorry, but you're borging." and provide a link to a web page that describes borging.
Slashdot Mirror
Me?
Look back at the poster's name. And consider thinking for more than 5 seconds when you type a comment.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
While you're at it, why don't you dispense with the ad-hominem attacks and answer the question?
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Yes, nethack is fun in a retro sort of way, but there's higher standards now.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
That suddenly worries me. What's to stop someone from posting their site as a "mirror" here, and distributing a version of Linux with something evil like a trojan or a backdoor in it?
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
You need apt. If you can't use apt to upgrade, you'd have an easier time with a new distribution.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Uh, right. Keep up that sense of humor.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Did Nostradamus really say that? I thought he predicted the world would end last summer, so I can't see why he'd make any further predictions. But if he did say it, that is really damn funny.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
I'm going to take a guess and say SuSE.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
The halfway house is Debian Unstable. Debian has a different scale of stability - the "stable" release is REALLY stable but rather old, and the "unstable" release has very current packages, yet is still stable enough to use.
If you're worried about the distribution breaking, you don't have to always upgrade everything at once (though many Debian users will attest that upgrading everything at once is fun). Start from the current unstable, then use apt-get like you'd use rpmfind, installing the new version of a package when you find that the old version doesn't cut it. This way you don't run into things like constant XFree86 upgrades.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Wow, looks like the one person who still finds that funny had moderation points.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Yeah, let's look at how Britney Spears' music works.
Some unknown guy with a synthesizer makes the music, according to what a committee determines is most likely to get stuck in their target market's collective head.
The producers make it catchy so you can't get the damn thing out of your head.
The backup singers carry the tune.
The advertisers sell the music.
Britney Spears' job is to look pretty and make horrid groaning noises.
No wait, the groaning noises are probably added in by the producer too. Her job is to look pretty.
And for some bizarre reason, this sells CDs that, I assume, people listen to.
There's no logic behind it, but it works. Watch for the logical extension: Claudia Schiffer (or insert some other woman here, if you prefer) (uh-oh, here come the trolls with their favorite statue) standing naked while catchy music plays. They'd announce it on the radio with "And here's Generic Song #8 with Claudia Schiffer standing naked! Woo!"
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Actually, the majority of typing is done with letters on the left side of the keyboard. I think the split is something like 70%/30%. Clusters on the left side are more common than "left right left right" patterns.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
No. The conclusion of the study was that "no competing keyboard has offered enough advantage to warrant a change."
That is to say, Dvorak's advantages aren't enough to overcome the time it takes to relearn for someone who already knows QWERTY. That is not the same as having no advantages. It's also rather subjective - I found Dvorak rather easy to learn, but it might be more difficult for others.
Consider that the study was done before "carpal tunnel" was part of the vernacular. The layout might have more advantages than typing speed, which is the only thing they considered.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Actually, a PLURALITY of Americans (49% to Bush's 48%) voted for Gore.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Yes! Great idea! Make sure that you stifle him by making him do the one thing that smart children generally hate!
Imagine this the other way around. Consider the people who are "born athletes" - how would they have ended up if instead of practicing sports, they had been forced to solve differential equations?
Fitting the child into a mold is NOT the answer! If he _wants_ to play sports, of course, let him, but don't assume that throwing a football at him will make him "better" in the long run.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
No.
Your IQ is your mental age divided by your actual age. If you got a 191 as a child and kept learning things, you could get a 191 as an adult. If, however, you burn out and stop learning things, your IQ goes down, as it should.
Children don't naturally get higher scores on an IQ test - the average child's IQ would be 100 just like the average adult's. The difference is that average children don't take IQ tests, so you don't see those scores.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
"Hey, I wanna learn Assembly."
"No, you can't. Go be a kid. Ride your bike or something."
"Where?"
"What? You're a kid. You're supposed to have fun riding your bike. It doesn't matter if you're going anywhere."
"But I'd have more fun programming in assembly."
"No you wouldn't. You're supposed to have fun doing things that other kids do. You're a kid. Here, I'll send you over to the neighbors' and you can watch cartoons with the kid there."
"But he's stupid and he beats me up."
"Then you just need to learn to socialize better!"
"I'd rather learn assembly programming."
"I ORDER YOU TO GO HAVE FUN!"
A large number of people are suggesting that the kid should be discouraged from following his dream, and instead of expanding his mind the tutor should work on fitting him into a mold. And they get modded up for it, because they express it in a sentimental kind of way, suggesting that the child would be happier that way.
Bullshit.
I was a gifted child, and all through elementary school I was encouraged to learn more. Then I got into middle school and suddenly I was a burden to them. They didn't want to give me advanced classes, they wanted me to learn the same things as all the other fifth-graders, it would be more convenient for them that way. Incidentally, I had a miserable time in most of middle school, and now I think of all the stuff I could have learned if I had been given the opportunity then.
Sure, he COULD learn to be a programmer as an adult, but why stifle his youthful mind and then try to cram programming into his adult mind which would have a much harder time learning?
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
I'm inclined to believe that you're talking out your ass, unless VMware has made some amazing leap that lets you run multiple layers of emulation without instructions being caught by the wrong layer... Could you show me where they announced this feature?
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Too late. Microsoft bought out the EU in 2045.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
In fact, since he sent that email on how to use email to everyone else on the network, the first e-mail was spam. :P
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
RTFA.
The thing that sends the addresses of sites you visit to Google, only does so if you _choose_ to use that feature in a program you _choose_ to download. It even tells you in the install what the feature does, and asks whether you want it on or off.
If Microsoft had made something like this and done it as well as Google, I'd say "Holy shit, they got a clue".
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Who's talking about stopping using Google itself? That would be a completely irrational response to a feature that they don't force you to use, in a program that they don't force you to use.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Um. They're NOT selling your privacy. They're just providing a service where it looks up whatever page you're on on their site, which incidentally has to send the address you're on to them, because it's part of how it works.
RTFA.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
If you pronounce GNU without the hard G, how does anyone understand what you're referring to? The adjective "new" would often fit in the same context.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Thank you.
I've had to say this to people numerous times as well. It happens far too often. There needs to be a jargon word for making a flawed argument based on the assumption that everyon thinks the same, the same way "trolling" and "astroturfing" apply to other kinds of posts. "Borging" comes to mind for me.
Then shooting down one of these people would be as easy as saying "I'm sorry, but you're borging." and provide a link to a web page that describes borging.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.