Oh hey, watch this! I'm sure this'll blow your mind - I'm sure it's never happened for you before. I'm going to admit something - I was wrong! It wasn't April - I misread the comment. It WAS report August 11th, 2009. Sorry, that part I was wrong about.
If you'd care to continue "discussing" the rest, feel free to respond. I'm sure the fact that it was "reported" only two days ago means you can completely ignore that it's been there since 2001. And you can ignore the fact that your assertion about Windows having bugs around that long that are reported and unpatched is completely unfounded.
See, calling me a MS fanboi has no basis. Just like your arguments. This is why you are a fanboy (notice how close fanboy is to fanatic? And how fanatic sounds like zealot? Have you ever looked up the meaning of those words?). As for the April thing - read the thread. It's right there. It might be WRONG, but it's there. No really - READ SOMETHING. Try it. Might hurt your head a little, but being a fanboy isn't really good for your health anyway. As for your link - nice try. If you actually WENT to the link, and USED the database, you'd see that your assertion isn't correct. Want to try again, little fanboy?
Read the article, fanboy. Bug has been around for EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Was reported in APRIL OF THIS YEAR. Was fixed TODAY. Hello? As for the Windows claim, linky linky Fanboy!
Which works are those? I'm guessing, pending on the direction this conversation goes, people are going to want to know. Money is scarce these days, you know - wouldn't want to waste it.
I'd like to know why it matters in the context of the statement? Seriously, this is your defense? We don't KNOW of life outside of Earth, so clearly they meant life on Earth? Seriously? That's know as sophistry. Look it up. It's really, truly, difficult to believe that you honestly thought that was the case.
I did read the graphs. Did you read my question? I'm not talking about the "taxes" that show up on the bill - I'm talking about the money used by the governments to subsidize or run the businesses that come out of taxes collected through other means. I THOUGHT I was clear on that, but perhaps not.
Are you purposefully misunderstanding the statement? I mean, you had to add words to get the meaning of the statement that you wanted - because that meaning wasn't in the first statement. It doesn't say anything about life found on Earth. It says life, period. It's not a silly statement, when you don't add meaning to the statement that isn't there. Understand?
A lot of people here might not like the ribbon. A lot of people here have never spent any real time using the ribbon. Many people that I know, including myself, have gotten to like the ribbon. One of its features requires use in order to come into play - the most used functionality shows up on the main ribbon. It figures it out based on usage, and it does a good job. The majority of what I do in Word, for example, is right above the document - no searching required.
When I see people write things like "having to use search to find the search button" - I know they haven't really tried using the ribbon.
1. No kidding. However, the transparent aluminum in Star Trek was invisible to the naked eye. Reading comprehension? Understanding implication? You fail.
2. Wrong - it says, and I quote "'Transparent aluminum' previously only existed in science fiction, featuring in the movie Star Trek IV,". Reading comprehension? You fail.
3. Of course it does. It talks about a material that is similar, if not the same, as in Star Trek. That material didn't degrade. Reading comprehension? Understanding implication? You fail.
In short, don't be an ass - it's not worth it. Especially when it's clear to anyone who bothers to read your tripe that you are quite wrong.
1. It's not invisible to the naked eye - only to "extreme ultraviolet radiation"
2. It's not anything like what was described in Star Trek
3. It's only "invisible" for milliseconds.
Neat stuff for physicists, but not for anyone else, at the moment, as far as I can tell.
I see - the word YOU causes you a lot of confusion. Let me guess - you have a corner office, and are in management, right? I mean, unmitigated ass = management. Good to know.
The "Do you really disagree?" was meant to show my amazement at your utter stupidity. After all, if you really think the majority of Windows users are sitting in offices with closed doors, typing away at various websites with their passwords, well, that's just sad. Again, clearly management - after all - EVERYONE knows management has their head up their ass and no understanding of reality.
As for my contribution to the discussion - I tried to interject some reality into some delusional people's worldview. I have no idea if it helped anyone else, but it clearly didn't help you. 'Course, it's pretty clear there isn't any help for you - after all, you got pissed off and started this waste of time conversation because you were offended that I used caps. Do you get told that you are a waste of time often? Or do you just try to ignore them?
I never said he wasn't in the majority in this case. I suggested that perhaps he wasn't - and I followed it up with a mantra he should repeat whenever he starts thinking "But I..." That was pretty damn clear, if you'd read my post. Apparently, either you have a reading deficiency, or you didn't bother - and just took offense at the capitals in my post. Too bad.
As for my opinion on the majority - I do have an opinion. I'd suggest that the majority of personal computers are not likely being used inside an office or closed space (that excludes servers, fyi). I'd suggest that most students use them on a desk in their dorm room, in a classroom surrounded by other desks filled with students, or even out in the open, in a restaurant or a bus bench. I'd suggest that most people using them in a business are sitting in a cube, surrounded by others sitting in cubes, with people passing and standing behind them constantly. This isn't an objective study, but it's pretty damn obvious. Do you really disagree?
Is that how you (using italics so you don't get scared at me "shouting at you") determine whether something is true or not? I prefer, I don't know, checking the statement against reality, personally.
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Repeat it with me:
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Repeat it with me:
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Okay, here's another step:
1. Make it illegal for candidates or sitting politicians to accept money from anyone, for any reason.
2. Make it illegal for a candidate to use their own money to promote an issue, or for their re-election.
3. Set aside a small amount of money for very basic advertising, and don't give it to the candidates - give them air time, etc. - just like with the homeless guy - buy him lunch, don't give him a $20.
4. Make sure that the qualifications for running for an office (to register and be considered a candidate) are standardized within a given state, or, for federal positions, federally - with citizens being able to directly vote on those provisions.
No, they aren't. A slave has zero choices to leave their situation, outside of death. It's not the same - it's trivializing what slavery actually means. It's fine, if you want, to call it wage slavery - but it's not slavery. If you don't understand the difference between being killed for running away (being a slave), and having trouble making ends meet because you are living paycheck to paycheck, then I don't know how to help you - but the gulf between the two is so large that comparing them is, yes, trivializing slavery.
Sure, under feudalism things got done. Oh, and slavery. So, there you go - alternate ways of ordering a market (not including capitalism, which, while not called such, has been around since, oh, I don't know, the idea of a market existed? Perhaps the first time anything was traded?) None of these things are new under the sun - just how we implement them. Capitalism isn't the best of systems, but it's hardly what you think you are describing.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh hey, watch this! I'm sure this'll blow your mind - I'm sure it's never happened for you before. I'm going to admit something - I was wrong! It wasn't April - I misread the comment. It WAS report August 11th, 2009. Sorry, that part I was wrong about.
If you'd care to continue "discussing" the rest, feel free to respond. I'm sure the fact that it was "reported" only two days ago means you can completely ignore that it's been there since 2001. And you can ignore the fact that your assertion about Windows having bugs around that long that are reported and unpatched is completely unfounded.
See, calling me a MS fanboi has no basis. Just like your arguments. This is why you are a fanboy (notice how close fanboy is to fanatic? And how fanatic sounds like zealot? Have you ever looked up the meaning of those words?). As for the April thing - read the thread. It's right there. It might be WRONG, but it's there. No really - READ SOMETHING. Try it. Might hurt your head a little, but being a fanboy isn't really good for your health anyway. As for your link - nice try. If you actually WENT to the link, and USED the database, you'd see that your assertion isn't correct. Want to try again, little fanboy?
Read the article, fanboy. Bug has been around for EIGHT FUCKING YEARS. Was reported in APRIL OF THIS YEAR. Was fixed TODAY. Hello? As for the Windows claim, linky linky Fanboy!
Go, fanboy, go!
Yay, fanboy, yay!
Fetch, fanboy, fetch!
And stay off my lawn, ya damn hippy fanboy!
Which works are those? I'm guessing, pending on the direction this conversation goes, people are going to want to know. Money is scarce these days, you know - wouldn't want to waste it.
I'd like to know why it matters in the context of the statement? Seriously, this is your defense? We don't KNOW of life outside of Earth, so clearly they meant life on Earth? Seriously? That's know as sophistry. Look it up. It's really, truly, difficult to believe that you honestly thought that was the case.
They should! As should the billions that the other listed governments pay in subsidies. Don't you think? Or do you find that information irrelevant?
I did read the graphs. Did you read my question? I'm not talking about the "taxes" that show up on the bill - I'm talking about the money used by the governments to subsidize or run the businesses that come out of taxes collected through other means. I THOUGHT I was clear on that, but perhaps not.
Do these monthly rates include all costs, including taxes? Or are they only including the actual amount that shows up on the monthly bill?
Are you purposefully misunderstanding the statement? I mean, you had to add words to get the meaning of the statement that you wanted - because that meaning wasn't in the first statement. It doesn't say anything about life found on Earth. It says life, period. It's not a silly statement, when you don't add meaning to the statement that isn't there. Understand?
A lot of people here might not like the ribbon. A lot of people here have never spent any real time using the ribbon. Many people that I know, including myself, have gotten to like the ribbon. One of its features requires use in order to come into play - the most used functionality shows up on the main ribbon. It figures it out based on usage, and it does a good job. The majority of what I do in Word, for example, is right above the document - no searching required.
When I see people write things like "having to use search to find the search button" - I know they haven't really tried using the ribbon.
Nicely put.
1. No kidding. However, the transparent aluminum in Star Trek was invisible to the naked eye. Reading comprehension? Understanding implication? You fail.
2. Wrong - it says, and I quote "'Transparent aluminum' previously only existed in science fiction, featuring in the movie Star Trek IV,". Reading comprehension? You fail.
3. Of course it does. It talks about a material that is similar, if not the same, as in Star Trek. That material didn't degrade. Reading comprehension? Understanding implication? You fail.
In short, don't be an ass - it's not worth it. Especially when it's clear to anyone who bothers to read your tripe that you are quite wrong.
Insulting me for no good reason? You fail.
Good point. Mistype.
1. It's not invisible to the naked eye - only to "extreme ultraviolet radiation"
2. It's not anything like what was described in Star Trek
3. It's only "invisible" for milliseconds.
Neat stuff for physicists, but not for anyone else, at the moment, as far as I can tell.
I see - the word YOU causes you a lot of confusion. Let me guess - you have a corner office, and are in management, right? I mean, unmitigated ass = management. Good to know.
The "Do you really disagree?" was meant to show my amazement at your utter stupidity. After all, if you really think the majority of Windows users are sitting in offices with closed doors, typing away at various websites with their passwords, well, that's just sad. Again, clearly management - after all - EVERYONE knows management has their head up their ass and no understanding of reality.
As for my contribution to the discussion - I tried to interject some reality into some delusional people's worldview. I have no idea if it helped anyone else, but it clearly didn't help you. 'Course, it's pretty clear there isn't any help for you - after all, you got pissed off and started this waste of time conversation because you were offended that I used caps. Do you get told that you are a waste of time often? Or do you just try to ignore them?
I never said he wasn't in the majority in this case. I suggested that perhaps he wasn't - and I followed it up with a mantra he should repeat whenever he starts thinking "But I..." That was pretty damn clear, if you'd read my post. Apparently, either you have a reading deficiency, or you didn't bother - and just took offense at the capitals in my post. Too bad.
As for my opinion on the majority - I do have an opinion. I'd suggest that the majority of personal computers are not likely being used inside an office or closed space (that excludes servers, fyi). I'd suggest that most students use them on a desk in their dorm room, in a classroom surrounded by other desks filled with students, or even out in the open, in a restaurant or a bus bench. I'd suggest that most people using them in a business are sitting in a cube, surrounded by others sitting in cubes, with people passing and standing behind them constantly. This isn't an objective study, but it's pretty damn obvious. Do you really disagree?
Is that how you (using italics so you don't get scared at me "shouting at you") determine whether something is true or not? I prefer, I don't know, checking the statement against reality, personally.
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Repeat it with me:
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Repeat it with me:
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
YOU ARE NOT IN THE MAJORITY!
Good for you. Have you ever considered that you aren't in the majority? If not, I'd suggest that you start considering that question EVERY SINGLE TIME you start thinking to yourself something that starts with "But I..."
Okay, here's another step: 1. Make it illegal for candidates or sitting politicians to accept money from anyone, for any reason. 2. Make it illegal for a candidate to use their own money to promote an issue, or for their re-election. 3. Set aside a small amount of money for very basic advertising, and don't give it to the candidates - give them air time, etc. - just like with the homeless guy - buy him lunch, don't give him a $20. 4. Make sure that the qualifications for running for an office (to register and be considered a candidate) are standardized within a given state, or, for federal positions, federally - with citizens being able to directly vote on those provisions.
No, they aren't. A slave has zero choices to leave their situation, outside of death. It's not the same - it's trivializing what slavery actually means. It's fine, if you want, to call it wage slavery - but it's not slavery. If you don't understand the difference between being killed for running away (being a slave), and having trouble making ends meet because you are living paycheck to paycheck, then I don't know how to help you - but the gulf between the two is so large that comparing them is, yes, trivializing slavery.
Sure, dude - trivializing the actuality of slavery is fun, ain't it?
Sure, under feudalism things got done. Oh, and slavery. So, there you go - alternate ways of ordering a market (not including capitalism, which, while not called such, has been around since, oh, I don't know, the idea of a market existed? Perhaps the first time anything was traded?) None of these things are new under the sun - just how we implement them. Capitalism isn't the best of systems, but it's hardly what you think you are describing.