Of course, the real trick is that windows does NOT support all legacy games, which seems to be the going assumption.
Wanna run an old DOS game (for whatever reason)? Don't even THINK about running it under WinXP. Win95 apps weren't much better.
Then there's the shenanigan with need for speed hot pursuit (the original): required win98, bjorked on win2000. Personally, I don't know why, but the programmers checked specifically for win98, and aborted with anything else, unless, of course, you decided to go ahead and run winXP in emulation mode, in which case it USUALLY works.
Linux can do just as well. I think WineX is a great start, and have been paying for access to it for quite a while, just because I do like it (and use it when my boxen is worken).
I'm sorry, perhaps you missed the part where I said it wasn't a perfect example, but you are right, it DOES limit the rapists' freedom to rape.
This is, of course, where all laws based on my ideals as explained earlier break down--ALL laws restrict freedom for some group or behavior. In this case, rape is restricted. But we argue that rape is not a fundamental freedom since it violences another person. The idea of society (as I remember from the few social studies classes I've had) is that humans group together to protect themselves from those who would hurt them. Laws, then, are meant to protect people's freedom, and their lives (etc).
In this case, most countries have laws against rape (generally speaking, of course; there are some who do not enforce this when certain individuals are the ones raping the women (such as soldiers)) because we agree that rape is not a fundamental right. This is how laws against murder, theft, and many other things, are justified.
The trouble is, if you ask the right person, this also justifies outlawing almost anything. Of course, there are those who would argue that no action should be denied, and all things should be legal. They are the minority, but still exist.
The truth is that it is much more difficult than it first appears. This is one reason, I suspect, that the Jews in the Old Testament wanted to switch from judges to kings--a democracy requires responsibility and informed decision making, whereas following a king does not. Even now there are some elements who question the wisdom of a democracy.
Personally, I am in favor of a true democracy instead of a representative model. When the US was formed it was not technologically feasible to require every citizen to vote on every law, but we are rapidly approaching the point where such a model will be possible.
But I am getting off track. The simple point is, if a law restricts a freedom that is harmful to others, then it is a good law (hence rape is illegal because it harms others), but if a law restricts a freedom that does not harm others (such as jogging, which is legal), it is a bad law. Remember though, that no rule this simple will work in every situation, but this is the gist of it. Perhaps a sociologist can point us in a more informed direction.
I personally don't even drink alcohol, let alone smoke anything, but I fail to see the rationale behind keeping pot illegal whilst having alcohol legal (or tobacco).
My brother told me once that tobacco was the most addictive drug he had ever tried (including marijuana). While the claims that the big T is more addictive than cocaine are dubious, I don't doubt that it is HIGHLY addictive.
To post On Topic, let me just say that the practice of extradition is dangerous in general. The ONLY time I think it is justified is if the criminal in question is either a) a citizen of the country whose laws they broke or b) broke a countries laws *while in that country*.
The idea that you *might* be responsible for breaking laws of a country in which you do not reside, and are not visiting, nor are you a citizen of (heck, though if you aren't there, I don't think you should be responsible for those laws while out of the country), is frightening in the extreme.
To make this political (and no I'm not karma whoring, my karma is good enough), this is the one legitimate complaint against Bush, IMNSHO: the patriot act (and similar drek). Laws that decrease freedom are bad laws.
By saying this, I feel obliged to state that I do believe that there are a number of laws that actually increase freedom. One example of this would be harsh laws against rape--by making rape illegal, women are made more free to live as they want without fear. Granted, this is not the "perfect" example, but it serves to illustrate the point--some laws do increase freedom. But laws that do not increase freedom, but instead restrict it, are bad laws, and should be unconstitutional. Certainly nothing about copyright rights protect freedom. (I am aware of the IP rights argument, but I think it's vain).
If you write a book, yes you should be allowed to make money off it--the same with anything else, but I think copyrights should be limited to 10 years, no more. This would actually INCREASE the amount of innovation, literary work, etc, because if you want to make money for more than 10 years, you must write a new book (or song, or what have you).
agreed, it is reasonable to assume that I would be looking.
And, since I'm not really, you may also assume that I think PHP is good for what I do.
I appreciate your answers--they are the kind of thing that I like to hear--especially from some one on/., since there are so many here that just want to fight, or argue a single position to death:)
I am mostly doing web-related stuff, since my professional (well, semi-pro: I'm a grad student) area is Industrial/Organizational Psychology (go to www.siop.org for an explanation of what that is). So my primary interest in programming is as a hobby, though I have found it useful on occasion.
As far as Postgres (which I had no idea was based on anything other than the SQL standard, so I'm sorry for the slip), I do think that it is a great db, and AFAIK, the php functions for it are just as good as the PHP functions for MySQL.
I was looking at some of the support for other dbs, and I think that PHP would survive just fine. I am definitely one of the "junior programmer-types" to which you so lovingly refer, and I don't see any reason I couldn't learn Postgres, IF I need to. Of course, I like where I am because its comfy, and I am not making a living off of my m4d skillz. If I ever did, then I would have to learn a lot more than I know, but I would probably want to use postgres, based on what I have heard.
I am generally a MySQL apologist, but I recognize that other choices are probably more appropriate for some situations. As far as PHP is concerned, I haven't ever heard a good argument against it as a server-side language.
If you know of a reason that some other language is better, I would be interested in hearing it. Personally, I am getting really interested in PDF export, and Ming creation, which are both offered in PHP. Do other languages (such as python) support these functions?
PHP, though most commonly used in conjunction with MySQL, cerainly has many other uses, and can connect to a number of other databases, even that *other* open source db, postgre.
Sorry, but while it might hurt php to lose mysql, it wouldn't kill it.
Yes, but like I said, isolationism isn't always the best policy, and no democrat since I've been voter has been more isolationist than any republican. People seem to forget that Clinton was fairly unilateral in bombing Kosovo initially, much like Bush in Iraq. (yes, i know there were differences).
It's interesting that your not american, given your sig.
As much as some people here who aren't american complain about us being involved in world matters (whether we should or shouldn't), I think that is just as important that they not muck in ours! If you want John Kerry as Prez, then come over here, become a citizen and VOTE! Elsewise, you are politely reminded that this is not your democracy, it is ours.
I tend to agree that the US shouldn't be mucking around overseas for the most part, but I don't think a policy of Isolationism is a good idea either. I think the situation is much more complicated than any of us realize.
For me, at least, the price also includes the price of the add-in card. My Gigabyte mobo included SATA on board, and only cost $105. If I wanted SCSI, then I would need to buy an add-in card, and worry about the appropriate drivers and what not.
So while the disks may cost about the same, the added cost of the add-in boards aren't worth it to me as a home user. If I was in enterprise, there is only one solution to consider for servers--SCSI. But then, if I went that route, I'd get 15K rpm drives, for even more speed. So yes, the SATA drives are worth having, even if I was wrong about the price difference on disks (and checking newegg.com, they have them for about the same cost @ 74GB disks).
What I want to know is why no one else has put out a 10K rpm disk to compete with WD. They seem to be selling quite well.
I LOVE Xfce4. It is so much faster than gnome, but has a similarly consistent UI, and is easy to use. Now, if I can only get my gentoo installation working again!
Yeah, isn't it amazing--linux actually uses the standards as written (for the most part, but not always), probably because open standards are frequently written by the same people developing linux (not entirely, but there is overlap).
As a note, nvidia drivers are very easy to set up, for the most part, but require some thought on the user's part.
Personally, I am having some trouble, but I am trying out Gentoo for the first time (mostly due to portage, which is an awesome system).
OH that's a laugh. An anonymous coward calling someone a troll.
Let me tell you my experience: MS office is fine for the most part. Outlook, however, is utter junk. The junk mail controls are unwieldy and barely work. The security issues are huge (although I don't know about the latest version--I haven't touched it yet), as are stability issues.
Now, comparing it to Thunderbird is not the correct way to go. I like thunderbird, but its what? version.4 or something? There will be bugs! Despite that, it is, in my opinion, still better than outlook.
It's easier to setup multiple inboxes, filters, the junk mail controls are painless to setup and they WORK! It's an amazing product for a beta/alpha product, but it's still a beta/alpha.
Now, as for openoffice, yes it lacks polish in some areas, but here's what it has: XML? yes. PDF? yes. Math formatting? yes. Other nifty features? oh yeah. All the features of MS office? No way.
The question is, which feature set do you need. I personally rarely use any of the advanced features of MS office, and I would guess that most secretaries don't either. There are a few people that need them. Fine, but most of us don't.
Let me also state that all those feature's are fine, IF you want to run windows. Personally, i prefer linux (for a variety of reasons), and therefore can't run MS office all the time. That being the case, I would rather just use one office suite, not 2.
As far as "networking that works" on linux, this is where I have to laugh the hardest. I remember trying to get multiple computers to either daisy chain OR go through a hub to connect to the net on windows xp/2000/98. No way. It failed miserably every time. Even my friends who support windows professionally say that's what you should expect. Just keep trying until it works (ack!).
Mandrake, on the other hand, set it up perfectly the first time, and I was on the net with both computers in just moments, even the time I was using dialup. It was flawless, and the user interface was about the same in terms of usability.
I don't have wireless, so I can't comment on that particularly scenario, but if you have a wifi card that's supported, it should be fairly easy under linux.
I guess i'm just saying that there are good reasons to go with linux, if that's what you need. Most of us don't need MS, we just think we do. Currently, the ONLY reason I have windows is due to some sorry little app that my wife needs that WILL NOT run under wine. Grrrr.
I'm sorry, most of us don't need all the "features" of MS Office, but if you do, fine, use it.
I was not aware that SAS was available on Linux. This is good news, but it also means that I need to buckle down and learn the program properly.
I am aware of S-Plus/R, but as I started to reply to the poster before you, R lacks good newbie-friendly docs on how to do certain statistical tests. There is a baseline assumption of a certain level of knowledge about both statistics AND programming that makes it hard for a newbie to learn (especially without a resident expert to help).
When I asked someone for help, I got varied responses, but most of them wanted concrete data sets when I was trying to ask a theoretical question. Unfortunately, the documents available make the same assumption and fail to teach the principals in a coherent fashion. This is a major failing to those two progs.
Thanks for the info--if you know of any others, I'd be very happy.
This is correct. There is another point that is important to catch: if we get to the point where we can copy foodstuff as mentioned above, and software copies itself, we will also be able to cheaply replicate pretty much anything (clothing, etc.)
The question then, is what is left to provide jobs? My answer is this: education and entertainment. If we ever manage to solve the world's problems of food, clothing and other material goods, then the only things that will be of value will be education and etertainment.
But before we can get there, we must shift our mindset: we have to get rid of big businesses who exist merely to sustain themselves (there are several already who only exist because they have convinced someone that there services are of worth--indeed most businesses fit this model).
But if all material goods are easily reproduced, then its only a matter of time before they have no worth. Then, like diamonds, the only cost will be artificial.
At that time, we will be faced with the choice to accept the corporate overlords, or rebel and allow everyone equal access. I know what I will argue for.
Generally speaking, I am a capitalist, but if our technology goes far enough before we blow ourselves up, that economic model will need to pass also, as will all other current models. No clue what's next though, but I do imagine that it will be very different.
This is important--and it is why wine is such an important program. I know many people don't like it, but as long as MS continues to restrict other companies' ability to run a fully compatible OS, this is a valid concern.
As an interesting aside, how long do you think it would take to get COMPLETE compatibility with Windows under linux if MS opened the source code? Three days? Five maybe.
This is the exact reason that MS will never do that. Because as long as Adobe, Macromedia, and most of the big game shops don't release native versions of their software on linux, MS will continue to have a powerful monopoly.
IF OpenOffice EVER is as good as MS Office in the ways it counts (usability, userfriendly), then we will another step toward lessening MS monopoly power.
My big concern is that people like norton, TurboTax, and the gazillion and one other 'useful' commercial app makers will never jump off the MS bandwagon. As long as this is the case, then there will be big issues.
As a note, Pampered Chef uses some type of VB app for their consultants. It's windows only, and is one of the BIG reasons I can't ditch windows.
Another reason is companies like SPSS and SAS. If you can show me a stats app that is as easy to use and as powerful as either that runs natively under linux, I will be shocked.
These are just a few examples of apps that need replacing before Linux is ready for primetime.
Perhaps a repository is in order to list all the apps that need replacing, and possible alternatives--if one exists, PLEASE let me know.
Possibly so, but my point is that it IS possible to obtain the benefits of those ingredients in other forms, possibly without the negative side effects (eg, getting drunk) associated with wine (bad breath is another one).
This doesn't mean that I think wine does not have benefits, just that it isn't a necessary part of the diet if you want certain benefits. Also, in American culture at least, there are relatively few individuals who are able to drink wine at the rate that is recommended to get the benefits, but no more.
I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about that, and neither was the post I replied to.
Yes, fossil fuels are a different story. Let me ask you this, though: how much of the fossil fuels are used to start the manufacturing process? How much does it take to manufacture 2 PCs? If it takes less than 480kg to make it, then the study is biased, and that's what we don't know.
If, on the other hand, it takes 480kg to make 2, then you have a serious problem, and we need to find ways to make the process more efficient.
I am no energy expert, so I can' comment on how much energy this is in relation to, say driving a car, or whatever.
Also, does this include energy used to power the devices that make the PC? If so, then switching to hydro would change this, and the source of the electricity isn't an issue that the manufacturer's can directly address.
I spent a couple years in Portugal (though we may have some natives who are more aware of things than I am) and I have seen any number of them who would order an espresso, then dump an equal amount of milk into it.
As far as the study is concerned, I am always suspicious of things like this. It is *not* that coffee is good for you, much like it is *not* the marijuana or the wine that is good for you, but rather that in specific instances, some of the ingredients can be medicinal. For instance, the oft-sited "fact" that wine is good for you, typically fails to mention that it is only red wine, and then its a result of the natural coloring agent. This agent is also found in red grape juice. So its not the wine, its an ingredient thereof.
Similarly, its not coffe itself, but a specific set of ingredients in the coffee. This means that coffee itself may still be more harmful than good (who knows). Personally, I never touch the stuff, and I think it smells nasty (except *some* of the specialty stuff, but that's different).
Someone will probably next study tobacco and find that its also *good* for you, but I don't think most of us are going to buy that.
Always be suspicious of people who do research. I say this as a person currently involved in various types of research.
Yes, but the point that many people are trying to make is that the water isn't just 'gone'. It's still around. The article doesn't tell what happens to it, or if it's usable after the fact.
If you make a PC, and use 1.5 tons of water, but after the fact 1.49 tons are put back into the environment, uncontaminated, how much have you really used?
Yes, there is some impact, but it means that the way these guys are painting the picture is hardly the end of the story.
I don't trust ecologists who rail against technology. If they want to study a situation and offer solutions to the problem (hey, if you do this, you will only use 1.1 tons of water), then I'm all ears. But to just say how bad it is that we are using so much material just for one PC is misleading (as some one else said, what about the 2nd PC), as well as nearly useless. I say nearly, because I recognize that without this, no one would even know there was a problem, and that is important.
All it takes is ONE lawsuit from ONE person who can't access essential content because some MORON decided to use flash for their company's website.
Seriously, if you serve up content that might be considered essential (that is from a bank or some such), you are strongly recommended to avoid Flash like the plague.
I do think that there is a place for it, but by all that's holy, if you are using a text reader because you are vision impaired, then flash will screw with your mind.
I am goind to a talk later today about this--I'll keep you all in mind.
Certainly the final site took some time and effort. The question in my mind is why anyone would want to waste so much of their own time making drivel like that.
Yes, I agree, flash is pointless. Especially now that I've seen that site.
I have to say, that I am excited that Macromedia is considering porting anything to Linux. I wish they would start with either fireworks or dreamweaver. Both of those are more useful than flash by a huge margin.
I was speaking in for the masses, not the religious. When speaking for the religious, there is a different perspective, because what is considered evidence changes.
AFAIAC, there is no need for scientific confirmation of religion, although it IS nice when some bit of research that confirms my religions view is published.
Like I say, I am NOT a physicist, so my ideas on creation are atrocious to physicists because they lack information.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, the real trick is that windows does NOT support all legacy games, which seems to be the going assumption.
Wanna run an old DOS game (for whatever reason)? Don't even THINK about running it under WinXP. Win95 apps weren't much better.
Then there's the shenanigan with need for speed hot pursuit (the original): required win98, bjorked on win2000. Personally, I don't know why, but the programmers checked specifically for win98, and aborted with anything else, unless, of course, you decided to go ahead and run winXP in emulation mode, in which case it USUALLY works.
Linux can do just as well. I think WineX is a great start, and have been paying for access to it for quite a while, just because I do like it (and use it when my boxen is worken).
I'm sorry, perhaps you missed the part where I said it wasn't a perfect example, but you are right, it DOES limit the rapists' freedom to rape.
This is, of course, where all laws based on my ideals as explained earlier break down--ALL laws restrict freedom for some group or behavior. In this case, rape is restricted. But we argue that rape is not a fundamental freedom since it violences another person. The idea of society (as I remember from the few social studies classes I've had) is that humans group together to protect themselves from those who would hurt them. Laws, then, are meant to protect people's freedom, and their lives (etc).
In this case, most countries have laws against rape (generally speaking, of course; there are some who do not enforce this when certain individuals are the ones raping the women (such as soldiers)) because we agree that rape is not a fundamental right. This is how laws against murder, theft, and many other things, are justified.
The trouble is, if you ask the right person, this also justifies outlawing almost anything. Of course, there are those who would argue that no action should be denied, and all things should be legal. They are the minority, but still exist.
The truth is that it is much more difficult than it first appears. This is one reason, I suspect, that the Jews in the Old Testament wanted to switch from judges to kings--a democracy requires responsibility and informed decision making, whereas following a king does not. Even now there are some elements who question the wisdom of a democracy.
Personally, I am in favor of a true democracy instead of a representative model. When the US was formed it was not technologically feasible to require every citizen to vote on every law, but we are rapidly approaching the point where such a model will be possible.
But I am getting off track. The simple point is, if a law restricts a freedom that is harmful to others, then it is a good law (hence rape is illegal because it harms others), but if a law restricts a freedom that does not harm others (such as jogging, which is legal), it is a bad law. Remember though, that no rule this simple will work in every situation, but this is the gist of it. Perhaps a sociologist can point us in a more informed direction.
yes, but which is which?
Have you ever seen a guy/girl having a "nic fit"?
I personally don't even drink alcohol, let alone smoke anything, but I fail to see the rationale behind keeping pot illegal whilst having alcohol legal (or tobacco).
My brother told me once that tobacco was the most addictive drug he had ever tried (including marijuana). While the claims that the big T is more addictive than cocaine are dubious, I don't doubt that it is HIGHLY addictive.
To post On Topic, let me just say that the practice of extradition is dangerous in general. The ONLY time I think it is justified is if the criminal in question is either a) a citizen of the country whose laws they broke or b) broke a countries laws *while in that country*.
The idea that you *might* be responsible for breaking laws of a country in which you do not reside, and are not visiting, nor are you a citizen of (heck, though if you aren't there, I don't think you should be responsible for those laws while out of the country), is frightening in the extreme.
To make this political (and no I'm not karma whoring, my karma is good enough), this is the one legitimate complaint against Bush, IMNSHO: the patriot act (and similar drek). Laws that decrease freedom are bad laws.
By saying this, I feel obliged to state that I do believe that there are a number of laws that actually increase freedom. One example of this would be harsh laws against rape--by making rape illegal, women are made more free to live as they want without fear. Granted, this is not the "perfect" example, but it serves to illustrate the point--some laws do increase freedom. But laws that do not increase freedom, but instead restrict it, are bad laws, and should be unconstitutional. Certainly nothing about copyright rights protect freedom. (I am aware of the IP rights argument, but I think it's vain).
If you write a book, yes you should be allowed to make money off it--the same with anything else, but I think copyrights should be limited to 10 years, no more. This would actually INCREASE the amount of innovation, literary work, etc, because if you want to make money for more than 10 years, you must write a new book (or song, or what have you).
agreed, it is reasonable to assume that I would be looking.
/., since there are so many here that just want to fight, or argue a single position to death:)
And, since I'm not really, you may also assume that I think PHP is good for what I do.
I appreciate your answers--they are the kind of thing that I like to hear--especially from some one on
I am mostly doing web-related stuff, since my professional (well, semi-pro: I'm a grad student) area is Industrial/Organizational Psychology (go to www.siop.org for an explanation of what that is). So my primary interest in programming is as a hobby, though I have found it useful on occasion.
As far as Postgres (which I had no idea was based on anything other than the SQL standard, so I'm sorry for the slip), I do think that it is a great db, and AFAIK, the php functions for it are just as good as the PHP functions for MySQL.
I was looking at some of the support for other dbs, and I think that PHP would survive just fine. I am definitely one of the "junior programmer-types" to which you so lovingly refer, and I don't see any reason I couldn't learn Postgres, IF I need to. Of course, I like where I am because its comfy, and I am not making a living off of my m4d skillz. If I ever did, then I would have to learn a lot more than I know, but I would probably want to use postgres, based on what I have heard.
I am generally a MySQL apologist, but I recognize that other choices are probably more appropriate for some situations. As far as PHP is concerned, I haven't ever heard a good argument against it as a server-side language.
If you know of a reason that some other language is better, I would be interested in hearing it. Personally, I am getting really interested in PDF export, and Ming creation, which are both offered in PHP. Do other languages (such as python) support these functions?
Not really...
PHP, though most commonly used in conjunction with MySQL, cerainly has many other uses, and can connect to a number of other databases, even that *other* open source db, postgre.
Sorry, but while it might hurt php to lose mysql, it wouldn't kill it.
Yes, but like I said, isolationism isn't always the best policy, and no democrat since I've been voter has been more isolationist than any republican. People seem to forget that Clinton was fairly unilateral in bombing Kosovo initially, much like Bush in Iraq. (yes, i know there were differences).
It's interesting that your not american, given your sig.
As much as some people here who aren't american complain about us being involved in world matters (whether we should or shouldn't), I think that is just as important that they not muck in ours! If you want John Kerry as Prez, then come over here, become a citizen and VOTE! Elsewise, you are politely reminded that this is not your democracy, it is ours.
I tend to agree that the US shouldn't be mucking around overseas for the most part, but I don't think a policy of Isolationism is a good idea either. I think the situation is much more complicated than any of us realize.
For me, at least, the price also includes the price of the add-in card. My Gigabyte mobo included SATA on board, and only cost $105. If I wanted SCSI, then I would need to buy an add-in card, and worry about the appropriate drivers and what not.
So while the disks may cost about the same, the added cost of the add-in boards aren't worth it to me as a home user. If I was in enterprise, there is only one solution to consider for servers--SCSI. But then, if I went that route, I'd get 15K rpm drives, for even more speed. So yes, the SATA drives are worth having, even if I was wrong about the price difference on disks (and checking newegg.com, they have them for about the same cost @ 74GB disks).
What I want to know is why no one else has put out a 10K rpm disk to compete with WD. They seem to be selling quite well.
The other nice thing about sata is western digitals 10K rpm HDD's.
Those puppies have a 5 year warranty, and are awesome by all accounts. Next hdd I buy will be a WD 10K raptor.
Yes, they max at 73GB currently, but I like that much better, and its still cheaper than SCSI!
Preach it, brother!
No, seriously, preach on.
I LOVE Xfce4. It is so much faster than gnome, but has a similarly consistent UI, and is easy to use. Now, if I can only get my gentoo installation working again!
Yeah, isn't it amazing--linux actually uses the standards as written (for the most part, but not always), probably because open standards are frequently written by the same people developing linux (not entirely, but there is overlap).
As a note, nvidia drivers are very easy to set up, for the most part, but require some thought on the user's part.
Personally, I am having some trouble, but I am trying out Gentoo for the first time (mostly due to portage, which is an awesome system).
OH that's a laugh. An anonymous coward calling someone a troll.
.4 or something? There will be bugs! Despite that, it is, in my opinion, still better than outlook.
Let me tell you my experience: MS office is fine for the most part. Outlook, however, is utter junk. The junk mail controls are unwieldy and barely work. The security issues are huge (although I don't know about the latest version--I haven't touched it yet), as are stability issues.
Now, comparing it to Thunderbird is not the correct way to go. I like thunderbird, but its what? version
It's easier to setup multiple inboxes, filters, the junk mail controls are painless to setup and they WORK! It's an amazing product for a beta/alpha product, but it's still a beta/alpha.
Now, as for openoffice, yes it lacks polish in some areas, but here's what it has: XML? yes. PDF? yes. Math formatting? yes. Other nifty features? oh yeah. All the features of MS office? No way.
The question is, which feature set do you need. I personally rarely use any of the advanced features of MS office, and I would guess that most secretaries don't either. There are a few people that need them. Fine, but most of us don't.
Let me also state that all those feature's are fine, IF you want to run windows. Personally, i prefer linux (for a variety of reasons), and therefore can't run MS office all the time. That being the case, I would rather just use one office suite, not 2.
As far as "networking that works" on linux, this is where I have to laugh the hardest. I remember trying to get multiple computers to either daisy chain OR go through a hub to connect to the net on windows xp/2000/98. No way. It failed miserably every time. Even my friends who support windows professionally say that's what you should expect. Just keep trying until it works (ack!).
Mandrake, on the other hand, set it up perfectly the first time, and I was on the net with both computers in just moments, even the time I was using dialup. It was flawless, and the user interface was about the same in terms of usability.
I don't have wireless, so I can't comment on that particularly scenario, but if you have a wifi card that's supported, it should be fairly easy under linux.
I guess i'm just saying that there are good reasons to go with linux, if that's what you need. Most of us don't need MS, we just think we do. Currently, the ONLY reason I have windows is due to some sorry little app that my wife needs that WILL NOT run under wine. Grrrr.
I'm sorry, most of us don't need all the "features" of MS Office, but if you do, fine, use it.
I was not aware that SAS was available on Linux. This is good news, but it also means that I need to buckle down and learn the program properly.
I am aware of S-Plus/R, but as I started to reply to the poster before you, R lacks good newbie-friendly docs on how to do certain statistical tests. There is a baseline assumption of a certain level of knowledge about both statistics AND programming that makes it hard for a newbie to learn (especially without a resident expert to help).
When I asked someone for help, I got varied responses, but most of them wanted concrete data sets when I was trying to ask a theoretical question. Unfortunately, the documents available make the same assumption and fail to teach the principals in a coherent fashion. This is a major failing to those two progs.
Thanks for the info--if you know of any others, I'd be very happy.
This is correct. There is another point that is important to catch: if we get to the point where we can copy foodstuff as mentioned above, and software copies itself, we will also be able to cheaply replicate pretty much anything (clothing, etc.)
The question then, is what is left to provide jobs? My answer is this: education and entertainment. If we ever manage to solve the world's problems of food, clothing and other material goods, then the only things that will be of value will be education and etertainment.
But before we can get there, we must shift our mindset: we have to get rid of big businesses who exist merely to sustain themselves (there are several already who only exist because they have convinced someone that there services are of worth--indeed most businesses fit this model).
But if all material goods are easily reproduced, then its only a matter of time before they have no worth. Then, like diamonds, the only cost will be artificial.
At that time, we will be faced with the choice to accept the corporate overlords, or rebel and allow everyone equal access. I know what I will argue for.
Generally speaking, I am a capitalist, but if our technology goes far enough before we blow ourselves up, that economic model will need to pass also, as will all other current models. No clue what's next though, but I do imagine that it will be very different.
This is important--and it is why wine is such an important program. I know many people don't like it, but as long as MS continues to restrict other companies' ability to run a fully compatible OS, this is a valid concern.
As an interesting aside, how long do you think it would take to get COMPLETE compatibility with Windows under linux if MS opened the source code? Three days? Five maybe.
This is the exact reason that MS will never do that. Because as long as Adobe, Macromedia, and most of the big game shops don't release native versions of their software on linux, MS will continue to have a powerful monopoly.
IF OpenOffice EVER is as good as MS Office in the ways it counts (usability, userfriendly), then we will another step toward lessening MS monopoly power.
My big concern is that people like norton, TurboTax, and the gazillion and one other 'useful' commercial app makers will never jump off the MS bandwagon. As long as this is the case, then there will be big issues.
As a note, Pampered Chef uses some type of VB app for their consultants. It's windows only, and is one of the BIG reasons I can't ditch windows.
Another reason is companies like SPSS and SAS. If you can show me a stats app that is as easy to use and as powerful as either that runs natively under linux, I will be shocked.
These are just a few examples of apps that need replacing before Linux is ready for primetime.
Perhaps a repository is in order to list all the apps that need replacing, and possible alternatives--if one exists, PLEASE let me know.
Possibly so, but my point is that it IS possible to obtain the benefits of those ingredients in other forms, possibly without the negative side effects (eg, getting drunk) associated with wine (bad breath is another one).
This doesn't mean that I think wine does not have benefits, just that it isn't a necessary part of the diet if you want certain benefits. Also, in American culture at least, there are relatively few individuals who are able to drink wine at the rate that is recommended to get the benefits, but no more.
I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about that, and neither was the post I replied to.
Yes, fossil fuels are a different story. Let me ask you this, though: how much of the fossil fuels are used to start the manufacturing process? How much does it take to manufacture 2 PCs? If it takes less than 480kg to make it, then the study is biased, and that's what we don't know.
If, on the other hand, it takes 480kg to make 2, then you have a serious problem, and we need to find ways to make the process more efficient.
I am no energy expert, so I can' comment on how much energy this is in relation to, say driving a car, or whatever.
Also, does this include energy used to power the devices that make the PC? If so, then switching to hydro would change this, and the source of the electricity isn't an issue that the manufacturer's can directly address.
I spent a couple years in Portugal (though we may have some natives who are more aware of things than I am) and I have seen any number of them who would order an espresso, then dump an equal amount of milk into it.
As far as the study is concerned, I am always suspicious of things like this. It is *not* that coffee is good for you, much like it is *not* the marijuana or the wine that is good for you, but rather that in specific instances, some of the ingredients can be medicinal. For instance, the oft-sited "fact" that wine is good for you, typically fails to mention that it is only red wine, and then its a result of the natural coloring agent. This agent is also found in red grape juice. So its not the wine, its an ingredient thereof.
Similarly, its not coffe itself, but a specific set of ingredients in the coffee. This means that coffee itself may still be more harmful than good (who knows). Personally, I never touch the stuff, and I think it smells nasty (except *some* of the specialty stuff, but that's different).
Someone will probably next study tobacco and find that its also *good* for you, but I don't think most of us are going to buy that.
Always be suspicious of people who do research. I say this as a person currently involved in various types of research.
Yes, but the point that many people are trying to make is that the water isn't just 'gone'. It's still around. The article doesn't tell what happens to it, or if it's usable after the fact.
If you make a PC, and use 1.5 tons of water, but after the fact 1.49 tons are put back into the environment, uncontaminated, how much have you really used?
Yes, there is some impact, but it means that the way these guys are painting the picture is hardly the end of the story.
I don't trust ecologists who rail against technology. If they want to study a situation and offer solutions to the problem (hey, if you do this, you will only use 1.1 tons of water), then I'm all ears. But to just say how bad it is that we are using so much material just for one PC is misleading (as some one else said, what about the 2nd PC), as well as nearly useless. I say nearly, because I recognize that without this, no one would even know there was a problem, and that is important.
I just wish they would offer a solution too.
All it takes is ONE lawsuit from ONE person who can't access essential content because some MORON decided to use flash for their company's website.
Seriously, if you serve up content that might be considered essential (that is from a bank or some such), you are strongly recommended to avoid Flash like the plague.
I do think that there is a place for it, but by all that's holy, if you are using a text reader because you are vision impaired, then flash will screw with your mind.
I am goind to a talk later today about this--I'll keep you all in mind.
was I supposed to be impressed? I can't tell.
Certainly the final site took some time and effort. The question in my mind is why anyone would want to waste so much of their own time making drivel like that.
Yes, I agree, flash is pointless. Especially now that I've seen that site.
I have to say, that I am excited that Macromedia is considering porting anything to Linux. I wish they would start with either fireworks or dreamweaver. Both of those are more useful than flash by a huge margin.
I was speaking in for the masses, not the religious. When speaking for the religious, there is a different perspective, because what is considered evidence changes.
AFAIAC, there is no need for scientific confirmation of religion, although it IS nice when some bit of research that confirms my religions view is published.
Like I say, I am NOT a physicist, so my ideas on creation are atrocious to physicists because they lack information.
To each their own.
Was that a statement?
Why do you want to play at questions?
That made my day...thanks.
15 seconds....grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr