Oddly, you're too lazy to put up links to prove your assertions but you're not too lazy to type two fairly longwinded paragraphs rewording the original poster and then multiple follow up insults to requests that you prove your theories.
1. That was episode VI (6), not episode (IV) and her memory of her mother was described as "Images really. Feelings." Which (with little imagination and some empathy) could be attributed to a little girl's idealization of a mother she never knew blurred over time.
2. When in the series did anyone ever explain that Vader wore a suit because he was 'battle-scarred'? When did you see any jedi save possibly yoda actually levitate or indeed ever use the force to move against inertia? I don't think I need to mention how stupid the lava comment was.
3. The one thing we're told again and again about the force is that you can't just jump sides whenever you please. Once you turn to the dark side, you can't just go back (especially when, to get there, you murdered a bunch of children). He gave hints that he was dissatisfied with how the Senate was running things and intimated that he could do better. The second and third movies were all about his dissatisfaction with the Jedi order and his yearning to use his considerable power to force people to conform to his world view, held back only by his jedi training, but fostered by the soon to be emperor.
Aside from all that, it was Obi Wan (who wasn't actually there when he turned) who told Luke he was seduced by the Dark Side which just makes that line hearsay.
I'm sure you have more and I'm sure they're just as well thought out and shallow as these. There is criticism that can be leveraged against the Star Wars saga as written by Lucas but frankly, you can do that to any movie or set of movies in hindsight.
In this case Apple is responsible for both the hardware and the underlying OS. What do they have to gain from homebrew? Will that increase sales? How does allowing 'wild' software on their Macintosh computer help them make money delivering iLife and iWork?
Apple is selling a personal computer, not a game system. It's meant to run arbitrary software. Nintendo is selling a game console which has a much more specific purpose.
So instead of a console, what device that connects to an SDTV should fans of amateur software use?
So now your defense is, "If we can't use this then what can we use?!" (nevermind the obvious answer, build a PC and get a decent graphics adapter)
Why would this be Nintendo's problem? You're looking at this as if you feel entitled because the hardware is there and it's possible to manipulate.
Their answer to your question would be go build your own hardware and code your own drivers and stop distributing what could potentially be malicious code to a system we design and sell as a game console meant to be used to play games we distribute.
Look, I'm all for modifying, coding, and tuning whatever you own for whatever purpose you want.
The problem is not the actual doing it.
The problem is trying to claim everything is completely legal and attempting to justify it so as to get Nintendo to support it. That's like trying to justify pirated copies of Windows to Microsoft and demanding they give you free updates.
So your logic is, because they haven't, they can't and therefore all of that activity is legal?
Your keyword successfully tells me you know that's not the case.
So now you would expect Nintendo to support homebrew applications based on the logic that they're not likely to be sued for illegal activity.
So we've gone from telling Nintendo, "It's not illegal." to "Well, okay, maybe some of it is, but you won't get in trouble." Next you'll be saying, "C'mon, try some. Everybody's doing it."
You're throwing out computer examples but using the same logic. Again, just because no one has doesn't mean they can't. In this case Nintendo is responsible for both the hardware and the underlying OS. What do they have to gain from homebrew? Will that increase sales? How does allowing 'wild' software on their console help them make money delivering games?
To take another angle, what happens when they endorse homebrew (remember, this is code they can't see or control) and someone decides to throw some code in there that pulls your credit card number and information as you're plugging it into the Wii Shop Channel? Who're you going to hold responsible for that? Everyone and their brother will be shouting about that evil Nintendo just as they do for that evil Microsoft full of bugs and holes that allow people to run arbitrary code that 'haxor'd my boxen' or some crap.
To reiterate yet again, do as you like but don't expect Nintendo to go along or sit idly by. You're acting in self-interest and so are they. You're just going to have to live with the fact that if you choose to use it you'll need to either never update your firmware (not likely) or continue to rely on the homebrew coders to fix things after an update.
You're missing the point. This isn't about what you can or can't do with a console or a computer. It's about doing that and expecting the manufacturer to allow it.
No, you can't tell without a screenshot and even then you can't tell because the underlying code may still be infringing. That's the problem with Nintendo allowing homebrew or even looking the other way while it's going on. They have no control over the code so for them to allow it to run on their console is leaving them open to lawsuits.
Another example would be a homebrew coder writing totally his own code and creating some ultra-violent game that adults might find hilarious and fun but that same game, written outside the boundaries of the parental controls might be picked up by some young kid whose clueless parent might then flip over it and sue Nintendo because their parental controls failed.
Aside from that, Nintendo has no control over the entertainment being distributed via the homebrew crowd and since they're in the business of making money from selling games it would be kinda foolish of them to allow even amateur game makers to compete for their customers' time and money.
Again, people can do what they want on any machine they want but honestly expect a manufacturer to endorse it and deny any illegalities (yes, whether the code is the same or not, naming your game Duck Hunt is an infringement making it an illegal distribution)is just naive.
From another quick glance at the list,
Asteroids
Duck Hunt
Missile Command
Tetris
Don't suppose any of those sound familiar?
Think all of those games are in the public domain?
Just because they're old does not mean they're fair game.
The point being, go ahead, have a blast modding your Wii to do whatever it is you please but asking Nintendo to endorse software that could potentially allow people to run software (homebrewed or stolen) that might end up costing them money when the game owner comes along with a lawsuit is not just ridiculous, it's stupid.
You're doing something with their console that they didn't intend and you somehow feel entitled to their blessing because you feel you're making their system better.
"Nintendo sell the console at a profit. They make money off anyone who buys one, including the homebrewers. Anyway, Nintendo don't lease you a wii under a signed contract, they sell you one in a shop. Therefore, aren't they ethically obliged (not to mention legally) to let you do with it what you wish?"
They sell their product for profit?!!! The scoundrels! Because, you know, most successful companies just give their stuff away.
"Anyway, Nintendo don't lease you a wii under a signed contract, they sell you one in a shop. Therefore, aren't they ethically obliged (not to mention legally) to let you do with it what you wish?"
No, not when what you're doing with it is illegal. They are ethically obliged to do as much as possible to ensure you can't run illegal, unlicensed software on it.
Just from a glance at the wiki, some of the games being made available are clones of Nintendo's own games!
If you're going to defend homebrew do not take the stance that Nintendo should be happy and endorse it.
"The important thing to understand here is that even MS has realised linux is making it big in businesses, that kinda give Linux the seal of approval from MS, not even the most pro-MS, anti-OSS PHB can say its not a valid OS anymore."
You obviously haven't met my PHB.;)
The scary part? I work on the Unix support team.
The really really scary part? Our Windows team is exploring deploying Suse Enterprise because my PHB refuses to support it. He regards me as strange because I run Slackware rather than Windows on my laptop.
So maybe I don't get quite what you were being sarcastic about.
You wryly stated that three seperate games will cost the same as one yearly MMO subscription hinting that their excuse was "more story to tell". Maybe I assumed wrong that you were chiding them for not putting it all in one game, which you've made abundantly clear you will not buy, which is beside the point as my "read a book" comment was meant for whoever might be upset that they'd now have to buy all three (again, clearly not you).
The problem I have with this is, you're comparing apples to oranges.
An MMO is a fairly non-linear experience where you can go off and do whatever it is you want to do in pretty much whatever order you want to do it or do nothing at all to advance and still have fun playing the game. As well, during that year's subscription you'll likely see at least one or two updates with new content that you don't have to pay extra for.
Starcraft is a turn based strategy game with a linear storyline. You complete missions in order and the story unfolds. You insinuated that they should be putting all three storylines in the same package because to break them into three seperate games will make the total cost as much as an MMO yearly subscription (which we've established that we hate for the purposes of this discussion). What that infers to me is that it's somehow not fair that the consumer has to pay as much for this trilogy of games (that again I can only surmise by the tone you think should be one big game) as they would for a year's worth of an MMO.
So either I assume your point is that they should keep it all in one game (however, were they to do that the storylines would likely be shorter at which point the complaint would be that the stories lack depth and so the game isn't worth the money) or your point is that they're somehow making up an excuse (too much story to tell) to get consumers to pay more for what you seem to contend should be a single game that you're not buying. Or did I somehow completely miss your point?
So other than whining about a game you're not going to buy, what exactly did you contribute to the conversation? Even if I don't truly care about the discussion, am I not allowed to show my disdain for the irrelevance of another's post? I dismissed your post because it was pointless, however I wasn't feeling particularly wordy. I'm a little sad I needed to explain this much just why your post was nothing more than whining (Score 5 Interesting notwithstanding).
No, you whined because they were coming out with not one but supposedly three Starcraft games and getting all of them would cost as much as an MMO yearly subscription.
So my (admittedly somewhat sarcastic) suggestion to you was, don't buy them.
I'll try again in plain English. Unlike an MMO subscription, just because they're making three doesn't mean you have to spend the money to get them all.
I think I'll remain on the horse. The view is nice.
What you fail to grasp is not that the invasion was necessarily wrong but that the reasons given for it were duplicitous and the support from the rest of the globe was still lacking when we decided to ride in Leeeeeroy Jeeeenkins! style. So now we're saddled with the full cost of the conflict and wars in two nations at one time stretching our military thin and vastly reducing our ability to wage said wars.
At the same time Santa Bush is handing out huge tax cuts and rebate checks because everyone loves getting money back, nevermind that we're basically spending all that loot on higher gas prices (which by the way also affects the prices of everything else). If I get a rebate check from the government but my company defers raises for six months because of poor performance and the two values are roughly equal, can anyone tell me what I've gained?
I'm quite tired of the Hannity's and the Limbaugh's of the world preaching to the gullible about how all the evils of the world are the fault of those greedy Democrats and we should trust the Republican candidates to fix it all and people eat it up despite Republicans practically OWNING Washington for at least four of the past eight years and having done nothing but dig a deeper and deeper hole. And still we hear about how horribly the Clinton Administration screwed things up. Absolutely incredible.
He lists one of the cons of a LINUX DESKTOP is that it can't run Mac and Windows software.
Show me one review of a Mac or Windows machine that lists that either can't run each other's software nor can they run linux specific software. That line alone makes the entire review irrelevant. He doesn't like the OS so he slams not only the OS but also the hardware in one lump argument that is fairly badly written.
So what you're saying is that kids can get ahold of it whether we want them to or not so we shouldn't even attempt to keep it from them? It's the parents' responsibility, after all, to ensure their kids keep on the straight and narrow path, right?
You don't have kids and it shows. I would love for a society where I didn't have to worry about my kids walking out the door (which generally means out of my line of sight) and not having 500 little temptations thrown at them by people who are either greedy, malicious, or really just want someone else to jump into the same miserable sewer they live in.
It would be absolutely wonderful if everyone could assess a situation such as a 12 year old (13, 14, 15, etc... because just who the hell does get to decide when is the right time for my kid to experience the thrill of popping off an innocent civilian's head with a baseball bat?) buying a fairly senselessly violent video game/movie and understand that that particular person is not yet mature enough for that content.
As you pointed out laws are not going to stop kids from getting things they shouldn't and parents need to teach their kids what's right and what's wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with that but, having been a kid myself and having got hold of said illicit things upon occasion (mostly alcohol) I find that laws are necessary to keep it from being too easy. At 15, 16, 17 years old if I could have walked into just any store to buy beer I would have and I would have either drank it while I was out or snuck it home and drank it when my parents were out. Thankfully I only had one particularly hairy friend who could buy it at a convenience store across town in a not so nice neighborhood which made it sufficiently difficult to get hold of. The kicker is, I wasn't a bad kid at all. In fact I was probably a little TOO straight and narrow which made me think I could handle stuff like alcohol because in my mind I was mature enough to deal with it even if everyone else might not think so.
The bottom line is kids do stupid things because they're bulletproof in their own minds. They haven't lived yet in the real world and they tend to make bad decisions (not always but far too often) when faced with real world situations. If I as a parent find out my kid was sold something they shouldn't have been I should have the right to press charges against the individual who sold it. I'd much rather the repercussions be a bit more severe than a stern warning not to do it again.
Calm the fuck down, loser, and perhaps go back a step and read what I was responding to. The person posting before me was worried about a "Chilling Effect" if they actually enforce the age limit on games which I'm in complete favor of. So you can relax, genius. No one's trying to take away your toys. I just don't want them being sold to my kid by some asshole in a game store with a "fuck the establishment" attitude (much like yours) who can't see past the window in his parent's basement to think that maybe some of us "helicopter parents" are just people who would like to think they didn't have to worry constantly (which we will anyway) that some fucker (much like yourself) won't be pushing porn, booze, or violence at our kids every time they walk out the door.
Having said that, I find it wonderful that the Bunny cartoons helped you through the trama that was your early childhood. I find it amusing that you called me a helicopter parent without so much as a first clue what the hell you're talking about. I'll assume that was a knee-jerk reaction.
Then maybe we should just lift all laws barring kids from buying anything. Porn? Here ya go Junior! Booze? Drink up Suzy!
Why do I get the feeling most of the posts that are against any regulation here are either by kids under 18 or people who don't have kids?
While these rules they're attempting to install may inconvenience you a little, try to look past your own somewhat selfish needs and maybe understand what good this might have for the rest of the community.
So you've gone from NTFS doesn't fragment to yeah it fragments but so do all other filesystems and NTFS handles it better (which it actually doesn't when it becomes a factor). You claim to have been a sysadmin for a number of years but your credibility is dwindling.
No one was comparing NTFS to FAT (or even *nix filesystems). The original remark was around the ultimate slowdown of the NTFS filesystem after several months without proper maintenance. If you can say with a straight face that you can go six months on an even moderately used Windows XP machine without defragmenting at least your system drive and not experience slowness I'd have to say you're full of it.
I love how people can make garbage claims like this, yet there are companies that are running NTFS volumes that are 15years old without any incident. You know companies like EDS, GM, and other agencies like Lockheed and NASA.
NTFS was introduced in July of 1993... That's 14 years ago and the first go round was hardly stellar.
But I'm sure youf 'assessment' of NTFS is much smarter than the 'rocket scientists' at these organizations.
Rocket science and system administration are two different animals. I work as a Windows Sysadmin for a Fortune 20 company and some days I'm amazed the whole show is still up and running with some of the people we have on staff. The size of a company is not automatically proportionate to the depth of the staff's technical knowledge.
Would you care to explain how this could possibliy, logistically or physically even be possble? Fragmentation is the only thing that could slow a FS over time unless the FS used a really stupid indexing system for the File Table. And yet not only is NTFS is still one of the best FS for handing fragmentation, ever, it has a well managed and fast file table indexing system.
Microsoft's defragmentation tools are the some of the best at handling defragmentation. After the fact. This is due to the fact that the filesystem is prone to fragmentation when there are a lot of reads/writes and a lot of small files. While most of the servers I work with are fine as is, our File Cluster needs to be defragged approximately once a month (we use Diskkeeper for that).
Just for giggles check your NTFS filesystem after a fresh install of Windows 2003 Server (or Windows XP for that matter). It'll likely need to be defragmented immediately (or perhaps after the subsequent few hours of patching that must take place).
On the other hand Ext2 and Ext3 (to name two) are some of the best at handling fragmentation on the fly and so do not need to be defragmented. This is why *nix doesn't come with very robust defragmentation tools.
So please do englighten us all with your knowledge so I can call my contacts at NASA and tell them how stupid they are for trusting NTFS and explain to them that their systems are getting slower.
Better get NASA on the phone.
Go read up on NTFS, and Windows NT before you come back, you are only embarrasing yourself, and that is hard to do on Slashdot when talking about Windows and NT.
You might want to go grab a book yourself (or at the very least use google!). Or better yet put down the crappy Microsoft manual and actually take a look at a variety of machines before going on the attack with such silly assertions.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with parent.
Oddly, you're too lazy to put up links to prove your assertions but you're not too lazy to type two fairly longwinded paragraphs rewording the original poster and then multiple follow up insults to requests that you prove your theories.
A reasonable person maybe.
1. That was episode VI (6), not episode (IV) and her memory of her mother was described as "Images really. Feelings." Which (with little imagination and some empathy) could be attributed to a little girl's idealization of a mother she never knew blurred over time.
2. When in the series did anyone ever explain that Vader wore a suit because he was 'battle-scarred'? When did you see any jedi save possibly yoda actually levitate or indeed ever use the force to move against inertia? I don't think I need to mention how stupid the lava comment was.
3. The one thing we're told again and again about the force is that you can't just jump sides whenever you please. Once you turn to the dark side, you can't just go back (especially when, to get there, you murdered a bunch of children). He gave hints that he was dissatisfied with how the Senate was running things and intimated that he could do better. The second and third movies were all about his dissatisfaction with the Jedi order and his yearning to use his considerable power to force people to conform to his world view, held back only by his jedi training, but fostered by the soon to be emperor. Aside from all that, it was Obi Wan (who wasn't actually there when he turned) who told Luke he was seduced by the Dark Side which just makes that line hearsay.
I'm sure you have more and I'm sure they're just as well thought out and shallow as these. There is criticism that can be leveraged against the Star Wars saga as written by Lucas but frankly, you can do that to any movie or set of movies in hindsight.
And typically when I get to work in the morning I don't really care how long it takes to boot.
It's when I'm shutting down to leave that I need it to speed up!
In this case Apple is responsible for both the hardware and the underlying OS. What do they have to gain from homebrew? Will that increase sales? How does allowing 'wild' software on their Macintosh computer help them make money delivering iLife and iWork?
Apple is selling a personal computer, not a game system. It's meant to run arbitrary software. Nintendo is selling a game console which has a much more specific purpose.
So instead of a console, what device that connects to an SDTV should fans of amateur software use?
So now your defense is, "If we can't use this then what can we use?!" (nevermind the obvious answer, build a PC and get a decent graphics adapter)
Why would this be Nintendo's problem? You're looking at this as if you feel entitled because the hardware is there and it's possible to manipulate.
Their answer to your question would be go build your own hardware and code your own drivers and stop distributing what could potentially be malicious code to a system we design and sell as a game console meant to be used to play games we distribute.
Look, I'm all for modifying, coding, and tuning whatever you own for whatever purpose you want.
The problem is not the actual doing it.
The problem is trying to claim everything is completely legal and attempting to justify it so as to get Nintendo to support it. That's like trying to justify pirated copies of Windows to Microsoft and demanding they give you free updates.
Because trusting them has worked out so well... /sarcasm
So your logic is, because they haven't, they can't and therefore all of that activity is legal?
Your keyword successfully tells me you know that's not the case.
So now you would expect Nintendo to support homebrew applications based on the logic that they're not likely to be sued for illegal activity.
So we've gone from telling Nintendo, "It's not illegal." to "Well, okay, maybe some of it is, but you won't get in trouble." Next you'll be saying, "C'mon, try some. Everybody's doing it."
You're throwing out computer examples but using the same logic. Again, just because no one has doesn't mean they can't. In this case Nintendo is responsible for both the hardware and the underlying OS. What do they have to gain from homebrew? Will that increase sales? How does allowing 'wild' software on their console help them make money delivering games?
To take another angle, what happens when they endorse homebrew (remember, this is code they can't see or control) and someone decides to throw some code in there that pulls your credit card number and information as you're plugging it into the Wii Shop Channel? Who're you going to hold responsible for that? Everyone and their brother will be shouting about that evil Nintendo just as they do for that evil Microsoft full of bugs and holes that allow people to run arbitrary code that 'haxor'd my boxen' or some crap.
To reiterate yet again, do as you like but don't expect Nintendo to go along or sit idly by. You're acting in self-interest and so are they. You're just going to have to live with the fact that if you choose to use it you'll need to either never update your firmware (not likely) or continue to rely on the homebrew coders to fix things after an update.
You're missing the point. This isn't about what you can or can't do with a console or a computer. It's about doing that and expecting the manufacturer to allow it.
No, you can't tell without a screenshot and even then you can't tell because the underlying code may still be infringing. That's the problem with Nintendo allowing homebrew or even looking the other way while it's going on. They have no control over the code so for them to allow it to run on their console is leaving them open to lawsuits.
Another example would be a homebrew coder writing totally his own code and creating some ultra-violent game that adults might find hilarious and fun but that same game, written outside the boundaries of the parental controls might be picked up by some young kid whose clueless parent might then flip over it and sue Nintendo because their parental controls failed.
Aside from that, Nintendo has no control over the entertainment being distributed via the homebrew crowd and since they're in the business of making money from selling games it would be kinda foolish of them to allow even amateur game makers to compete for their customers' time and money.
Again, people can do what they want on any machine they want but honestly expect a manufacturer to endorse it and deny any illegalities (yes, whether the code is the same or not, naming your game Duck Hunt is an infringement making it an illegal distribution)is just naive.
Well, lets see...
http://wiibrew.org/wiki/List_of_homebrew_applications_(games)
From another quick glance at the list,
Asteroids
Duck Hunt
Missile Command
Tetris
Don't suppose any of those sound familiar?
Think all of those games are in the public domain?
Just because they're old does not mean they're fair game.
The point being, go ahead, have a blast modding your Wii to do whatever it is you please but asking Nintendo to endorse software that could potentially allow people to run software (homebrewed or stolen) that might end up costing them money when the game owner comes along with a lawsuit is not just ridiculous, it's stupid.
You're doing something with their console that they didn't intend and you somehow feel entitled to their blessing because you feel you're making their system better.
"Nintendo sell the console at a profit. They make money off anyone who buys one, including the homebrewers. Anyway, Nintendo don't lease you a wii under a signed contract, they sell you one in a shop. Therefore, aren't they ethically obliged (not to mention legally) to let you do with it what you wish?"
They sell their product for profit?!!! The scoundrels! Because, you know, most successful companies just give their stuff away.
"Anyway, Nintendo don't lease you a wii under a signed contract, they sell you one in a shop. Therefore, aren't they ethically obliged (not to mention legally) to let you do with it what you wish?"
No, not when what you're doing with it is illegal. They are ethically obliged to do as much as possible to ensure you can't run illegal, unlicensed software on it.
Just from a glance at the wiki, some of the games being made available are clones of Nintendo's own games!
If you're going to defend homebrew do not take the stance that Nintendo should be happy and endorse it.
"The important thing to understand here is that even MS has realised linux is making it big in businesses, that kinda give Linux the seal of approval from MS, not even the most pro-MS, anti-OSS PHB can say its not a valid OS anymore."
;)
You obviously haven't met my PHB.
The scary part? I work on the Unix support team.
The really really scary part? Our Windows team is exploring deploying Suse Enterprise because my PHB refuses to support it. He regards me as strange because I run Slackware rather than Windows on my laptop.
So maybe I don't get quite what you were being sarcastic about.
You wryly stated that three seperate games will cost the same as one yearly MMO subscription hinting that their excuse was "more story to tell". Maybe I assumed wrong that you were chiding them for not putting it all in one game, which you've made abundantly clear you will not buy, which is beside the point as my "read a book" comment was meant for whoever might be upset that they'd now have to buy all three (again, clearly not you).
The problem I have with this is, you're comparing apples to oranges.
An MMO is a fairly non-linear experience where you can go off and do whatever it is you want to do in pretty much whatever order you want to do it or do nothing at all to advance and still have fun playing the game. As well, during that year's subscription you'll likely see at least one or two updates with new content that you don't have to pay extra for.
Starcraft is a turn based strategy game with a linear storyline. You complete missions in order and the story unfolds. You insinuated that they should be putting all three storylines in the same package because to break them into three seperate games will make the total cost as much as an MMO yearly subscription (which we've established that we hate for the purposes of this discussion). What that infers to me is that it's somehow not fair that the consumer has to pay as much for this trilogy of games (that again I can only surmise by the tone you think should be one big game) as they would for a year's worth of an MMO.
So either I assume your point is that they should keep it all in one game (however, were they to do that the storylines would likely be shorter at which point the complaint would be that the stories lack depth and so the game isn't worth the money) or your point is that they're somehow making up an excuse (too much story to tell) to get consumers to pay more for what you seem to contend should be a single game that you're not buying. Or did I somehow completely miss your point?
So other than whining about a game you're not going to buy, what exactly did you contribute to the conversation? Even if I don't truly care about the discussion, am I not allowed to show my disdain for the irrelevance of another's post? I dismissed your post because it was pointless, however I wasn't feeling particularly wordy. I'm a little sad I needed to explain this much just why your post was nothing more than whining (Score 5 Interesting notwithstanding).
No, you whined because they were coming out with not one but supposedly three Starcraft games and getting all of them would cost as much as an MMO yearly subscription.
So my (admittedly somewhat sarcastic) suggestion to you was, don't buy them.
I'll try again in plain English. Unlike an MMO subscription, just because they're making three doesn't mean you have to spend the money to get them all.
I think I'll remain on the horse. The view is nice.
The kicker? No one's twisting your arm to buy them!
Seriously. Go read a book.
What you fail to grasp is not that the invasion was necessarily wrong but that the reasons given for it were duplicitous and the support from the rest of the globe was still lacking when we decided to ride in Leeeeeroy Jeeeenkins! style. So now we're saddled with the full cost of the conflict and wars in two nations at one time stretching our military thin and vastly reducing our ability to wage said wars.
/rant
At the same time Santa Bush is handing out huge tax cuts and rebate checks because everyone loves getting money back, nevermind that we're basically spending all that loot on higher gas prices (which by the way also affects the prices of everything else). If I get a rebate check from the government but my company defers raises for six months because of poor performance and the two values are roughly equal, can anyone tell me what I've gained?
I'm quite tired of the Hannity's and the Limbaugh's of the world preaching to the gullible about how all the evils of the world are the fault of those greedy Democrats and we should trust the Republican candidates to fix it all and people eat it up despite Republicans practically OWNING Washington for at least four of the past eight years and having done nothing but dig a deeper and deeper hole. And still we hear about how horribly the Clinton Administration screwed things up. Absolutely incredible.
I work on the UNIX team in a large corporation and I can't get even them to switch to a linux desktop.
It's like everyone is afraid of even looking at something they're not familiar with.
And on the other end of the spectrum we have the X-Men trilogy which showed just how bad a Hollywood interpretation of a comic can be...
Spot on?
He lists one of the cons of a LINUX DESKTOP is that it can't run Mac and Windows software.
Show me one review of a Mac or Windows machine that lists that either can't run each other's software nor can they run linux specific software. That line alone makes the entire review irrelevant. He doesn't like the OS so he slams not only the OS but also the hardware in one lump argument that is fairly badly written.
And chocolate bunnies!
So what you're saying is that kids can get ahold of it whether we want them to or not so we shouldn't even attempt to keep it from them? It's the parents' responsibility, after all, to ensure their kids keep on the straight and narrow path, right?
You don't have kids and it shows. I would love for a society where I didn't have to worry about my kids walking out the door (which generally means out of my line of sight) and not having 500 little temptations thrown at them by people who are either greedy, malicious, or really just want someone else to jump into the same miserable sewer they live in.
It would be absolutely wonderful if everyone could assess a situation such as a 12 year old (13, 14, 15, etc... because just who the hell does get to decide when is the right time for my kid to experience the thrill of popping off an innocent civilian's head with a baseball bat?) buying a fairly senselessly violent video game/movie and understand that that particular person is not yet mature enough for that content.
As you pointed out laws are not going to stop kids from getting things they shouldn't and parents need to teach their kids what's right and what's wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with that but, having been a kid myself and having got hold of said illicit things upon occasion (mostly alcohol) I find that laws are necessary to keep it from being too easy. At 15, 16, 17 years old if I could have walked into just any store to buy beer I would have and I would have either drank it while I was out or snuck it home and drank it when my parents were out. Thankfully I only had one particularly hairy friend who could buy it at a convenience store across town in a not so nice neighborhood which made it sufficiently difficult to get hold of. The kicker is, I wasn't a bad kid at all. In fact I was probably a little TOO straight and narrow which made me think I could handle stuff like alcohol because in my mind I was mature enough to deal with it even if everyone else might not think so.
The bottom line is kids do stupid things because they're bulletproof in their own minds. They haven't lived yet in the real world and they tend to make bad decisions (not always but far too often) when faced with real world situations. If I as a parent find out my kid was sold something they shouldn't have been I should have the right to press charges against the individual who sold it. I'd much rather the repercussions be a bit more severe than a stern warning not to do it again.
Calm the fuck down, loser, and perhaps go back a step and read what I was responding to. The person posting before me was worried about a "Chilling Effect" if they actually enforce the age limit on games which I'm in complete favor of. So you can relax, genius. No one's trying to take away your toys. I just don't want them being sold to my kid by some asshole in a game store with a "fuck the establishment" attitude (much like yours) who can't see past the window in his parent's basement to think that maybe some of us "helicopter parents" are just people who would like to think they didn't have to worry constantly (which we will anyway) that some fucker (much like yourself) won't be pushing porn, booze, or violence at our kids every time they walk out the door.
Having said that, I find it wonderful that the Bunny cartoons helped you through the trama that was your early childhood. I find it amusing that you called me a helicopter parent without so much as a first clue what the hell you're talking about. I'll assume that was a knee-jerk reaction.
Then maybe we should just lift all laws barring kids from buying anything. Porn? Here ya go Junior! Booze? Drink up Suzy!
Why do I get the feeling most of the posts that are against any regulation here are either by kids under 18 or people who don't have kids?
While these rules they're attempting to install may inconvenience you a little, try to look past your own somewhat selfish needs and maybe understand what good this might have for the rest of the community.
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
;) )
(omniscient was probably the word you guys were going for
Too much pleasure is a bad thing if it means you are addicted to it (porn, money, etc.) and it affects your life and relationships.
Does this include taking pleasure in religious worship?
So you've gone from NTFS doesn't fragment to yeah it fragments but so do all other filesystems and NTFS handles it better (which it actually doesn't when it becomes a factor). You claim to have been a sysadmin for a number of years but your credibility is dwindling.
No one was comparing NTFS to FAT (or even *nix filesystems). The original remark was around the ultimate slowdown of the NTFS filesystem after several months without proper maintenance. If you can say with a straight face that you can go six months on an even moderately used Windows XP machine without defragmenting at least your system drive and not experience slowness I'd have to say you're full of it.
I love how people can make garbage claims like this, yet there are companies that are running NTFS volumes that are 15years old without any incident. You know companies like EDS, GM, and other agencies like Lockheed and NASA.
9 483,sid68_gci1215568,00.html
e /2006/12/27/ntfs-fragmentation-bad-for-databases.a spx
NTFS was introduced in July of 1993... That's 14 years ago and the first go round was hardly stellar.
But I'm sure youf 'assessment' of NTFS is much smarter than the 'rocket scientists' at these organizations.
Rocket science and system administration are two different animals. I work as a Windows Sysadmin for a Fortune 20 company and some days I'm amazed the whole show is still up and running with some of the people we have on staff. The size of a company is not automatically proportionate to the depth of the staff's technical knowledge.
Would you care to explain how this could possibliy, logistically or physically even be possble? Fragmentation is the only thing that could slow a FS over time unless the FS used a really stupid indexing system for the File Table. And yet not only is NTFS is still one of the best FS for handing fragmentation, ever, it has a well managed and fast file table indexing system.
Microsoft's defragmentation tools are the some of the best at handling defragmentation. After the fact. This is due to the fact that the filesystem is prone to fragmentation when there are a lot of reads/writes and a lot of small files. While most of the servers I work with are fine as is, our File Cluster needs to be defragged approximately once a month (we use Diskkeeper for that).
Just for giggles check your NTFS filesystem after a fresh install of Windows 2003 Server (or Windows XP for that matter). It'll likely need to be defragmented immediately (or perhaps after the subsequent few hours of patching that must take place).
On the other hand Ext2 and Ext3 (to name two) are some of the best at handling fragmentation on the fly and so do not need to be defragmented. This is why *nix doesn't come with very robust defragmentation tools.
So please do englighten us all with your knowledge so I can call my contacts at NASA and tell them how stupid they are for trusting NTFS and explain to them that their systems are getting slower.
Better get NASA on the phone.
Go read up on NTFS, and Windows NT before you come back, you are only embarrasing yourself, and that is hard to do on Slashdot when talking about Windows and NT.
You might want to go grab a book yourself (or at the very least use google!). Or better yet put down the crappy Microsoft manual and actually take a look at a variety of machines before going on the attack with such silly assertions.
Some random links:
http://searchwincomputing.techtarget.com/tip/0,28
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/archiv