I have Linux mess up every so often. My friend's OS X laptop crashes as much as my XP laptop does.
Operating systems crash. But more people use Windows and therefore see more crashing.
I doubt the XP kernel and the Linux kernel are all that different in terms of reliability. They're both written by smart people. As if there is some magical dumbing-down of engineers that occurs if they're hired by Microsoft, while free-time volunteer work is always perfect. Sigh.
I imagine if people bothered to actually click the "Details..." button, they'd see that most of the alleged Windows faults they're reporting here are actually driver problems.
Give Linux the marketshare Windows has and I guarantee it would be crashing as often, if not more so. But, of course, Slashdot needs a scapegoat that fires up article hits. People fall for it.
Which is stupid, because most people have a clue that there is a problems if their system suddenly reboots itself!
So biased. Why is that stupid? Maybe someone has no idea what happened. Maybe they thought they acccidentally rebooted. Maybe they thought it was someone playing around. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
Just pointing out that something so ridiculously obvious and logical, because it's Microsoft, is considered stupid. If it were Linux, it'd be another story.
How surprising that to you, everyone is a shill for Microsoft, and everything is a ploy by Microsoft. Oh, and people "can't fight Lunix like they could a regular company."
Oh, yeah, Slashdot wants hits. So we get alternating Microsoft and SCO articles. Remember when Slashdot had cool science and technology articles? Now it's all Microsoft, SCO, and the occasional Ask Slashdot question that can be answered with a simple Google search...
People love to point out American arrogance all the time and yet never actually cite any real examples (other than some pro-US statements, which doesn't count since all citizens feel that way about their countries and it's normal).
Meanwhile, France is banning English words. But it's "okay."
Welcome to the world of leftist social programs. As usual, the head-in-the-clouds idealist mentality doesn't work in the real world, because money isn't infinite.
Okay, Slashbot, how is the RIAA trying to stop all forms of file-sharing in the world by suing people who are pirating copyrighted works on P2P networks? They're shutting down piracy, not the networks.
I'm just curious why so many here are still trying to paint the RIAA as the wrongdoer in this article.
What are they doing wrong? They're simply suing people who are breaking the law. Nobody argues that what those users do is against the law. So what's the problem?
Why do so many Slashbots appear to be against this at every step? Could it be because they don't want to stop pirating music?
In an article like this, use the following to cause the crackheads to fall over themselves modding you up fast enough:
1.) Turn the discussion into an anti-corporate speal.
2.) Mention something, anything, involving an executive and his BMW.
3.) Mention a failing business model. Claim they don't care anything about artists, even though it's the artists themselves who get signed up and put their names on those contracts.
4.) Ignore that people are still taking artists' music without paying for it. Pretend it's all some moral movement as justification.
5.) Ignore when artists complain about it. Claim that they're RIAA shills.
6.) Make mention of lowering the price of a CD as if you'd really stop downloading in that situation. You're too used to the convenience of downloading to stop now.
7.) Pretend that it wasn't you in the previous lawsuit articles who was crying out for the RIAA to go after "individual infringers" instead of the P2P network itself. Now that they're doing it, again desperately attempt to paint the RIAA as the wrongdoer here.
Totalitarian powers? The RIAA going after people who are illegally distributing music for others to obtain without paying for it is totalitarian? You're not allowed to protect what belongs to you?
What are you smoking and have you shared it with any other Slashbots? Seriously.
How about you write a program for some software publisher I hate, and I distribute all over the internet and justify it with "the publisher has totalitarian powers of the US citizens." And your software ends up selling less and you make less money than you should have because people now everybody has your software, and they all try to explain it away as some sort of silly movement against tyranny?
What excuse will you downloaders come up with to justify that?
Um, they listented to what the music industry aligarchy wanted them to listen to. Bands without a label couldn't get widespread exposure (there are perhaps a dozen notable exceptions. Not much over the last 50 years).
Please. That has nothing to do with p2p. The RIAA doesn't care if some indie bands put up a website with their own mp3s.
This is why the RIAA hates the internet so much, and why they dropped the ball so badly as to allow P2P to start in the first place.
You're simply making mental leaps to yet again paint the RIAA as the bad guy here. People are pirating music. What part don't you get? But of course, this has to become yet another "RIAA control" conspiracy.
If iTunes had been around in 1995, there would have been no Napster. They don't give a shit about piracy (well, now the probably do, it's widespread enough to hurt), because they know all the same things that people post here - people downloading who wouldn't have bought the songs aren't customers. It's the decay of thier distribution network that scares them - if you can hear anything you want on P2P, you don't have to listen to the radio.
People constantly claim this, and I have yet to see any inkling of truth in it.
There are such things as Internet radio, you know. And mp3 clips, and so forth. The RIAA doesn't like p2p because of all the piracy going on.
This means you aren't hearing what the songs they want to hype, and you aren't listening to the commercials for the products they want to sell.
How is that any different from me simply turning off the radio?
They did this to themselves, though, so it's pretty hard for me to feel sorry for them.
Yeah, it's their fault you're stealing. Yet another attempt at justification for the obvious.
Here's another one. Don't break the law. The courts don't give a damn what you think about music or the RIAA. You can think music should be free all you want. That isn't going to change the fact that someone else has the copyright to it, not you.
Precisely.
And despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, last time I checked, there was no right to copyright infringement of any kind. Just because it's cheap, and easy, and it's music doesn't get you an exemption in the eyes of the law. And don't scream fair use at me either. Distributing a song to 100,000 of your closest friends on KaZaa isn't fair use.
Some feel they're only hurting labels and not artists by freely pirating their music all over the internet so that nobody pays them for it. It's insane.
Oh, and I seem to recall most of Slashdot's posters saying "Go after the infringers, not the technology!"
Well, looks like they called the bluff. Now that they're actualy suing individuals, the tune around here seems to have changed.
This is the smartest thing that's been said in this entire discussion. What happened, Slashbots? I remember those arguments as well.
People are used to the convenience of downloading anything they want now, and they're struggling to come to grips with the fact that it shouldn't have been occurring all along. There is always an excuse because they don't want to feel guilty. Witness some of the posts today.
Along your RANDOM OVERUSE of CAPS, your argument is foolish.
The ONLY people we care about are the artists, and while your endless speeches talk about how music pirates are hurting artists, we KNOW that the only people we are hurting are the labels.
A complete, 100% lie. You are hurting the artists. You think the labels will keep bands around if their stuff doesn't sell? What the hell is the matter with you?
You don't care about the artists one bit. You're just used to the convenience of downloading mp3s whenever you want and are justifying it to make it seem moral to yourself.
You, the labels, are the fucking hypocrite here. You shamelessly abuse the people we actually DO care about (the artists) and then sue US for hurting the artists??? Maybe you have forgotten, but WE ARE YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME.
No, you're not. You're illegally pirating their material. You are shamelessly abusing artists by grabbing their music and never even dreaming of sending them a single dime for it.
Enjoy your BMWs and Mercedes while you have them, because the second there's a way to cut you and your friends out of this picture, we will do it, and I will then start buying music again because I, unlike you, actually DO care about the artists.
It is clear you don't, or you wouldn't be stealing artists' music. You exhibit the typical Slashbot drone mentality of anti-corporatism and self-righteousness, trying to justify your illegal piracy as if it is part of some sort of movement of morality. What part don't you get? You're stealing artists' music.
Listen to yourself. You're claiming that the reason you pirate artists' music is because you care about them. You're so full of it.
Artists don't have to get signed if they don't want to. They don't have to sign those allegedly horrible contracts. Nobody is forcing them to do a single thing except themselves. But you need them to be victims so you can steal their music and not feel ashamed for it.
Clearly you're upset that you offered no point. Declaring what my response will be is a convenient tact of a weak position. Get back to me when you attempt to actually offer anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have issues or something?
I have Linux mess up every so often. My friend's OS X laptop crashes as much as my XP laptop does.
Operating systems crash. But more people use Windows and therefore see more crashing.
I doubt the XP kernel and the Linux kernel are all that different in terms of reliability. They're both written by smart people. As if there is some magical dumbing-down of engineers that occurs if they're hired by Microsoft, while free-time volunteer work is always perfect. Sigh.
I imagine if people bothered to actually click the "Details..." button, they'd see that most of the alleged Windows faults they're reporting here are actually driver problems.
Give Linux the marketshare Windows has and I guarantee it would be crashing as often, if not more so. But, of course, Slashdot needs a scapegoat that fires up article hits. People fall for it.
Which is stupid, because most people have a clue that there is a problems if their system suddenly reboots itself!
So biased. Why is that stupid? Maybe someone has no idea what happened. Maybe they thought they acccidentally rebooted. Maybe they thought it was someone playing around. Maybe, maybe, maybe...
Just pointing out that something so ridiculously obvious and logical, because it's Microsoft, is considered stupid. If it were Linux, it'd be another story.
...on the wonders of a joke.
You're way too emotional over this. Go out and catch a movie or something. Please.
How surprising that to you, everyone is a shill for Microsoft, and everything is a ploy by Microsoft. Oh, and people "can't fight Lunix like they could a regular company."
This isn't 1998, dude.
I can name an OS that completely corrupted my filesystem when I downloaded its latest kernel.
A lot of your gripes are with applications anyway.
Next.
"I'm fully certified for Microsoft Flight Simulator."
...
"You killed the Hubble!"
Better yet, why post so much about them?
Oh, yeah, Slashdot wants hits. So we get alternating Microsoft and SCO articles. Remember when Slashdot had cool science and technology articles? Now it's all Microsoft, SCO, and the occasional Ask Slashdot question that can be answered with a simple Google search...
This couldn't have been edited onto the previous SCO story this morning?
It's getting to be a bit much, especially since attention is what they're after in the first place, Slashdot...
How does a Caldera employee contributing to Linux have anything to do with your rights?
SCO's been covered endlessly at Slashdot. This is getting old.
"has a very distinct French sound"
What is sounds like to me is a pretty goofy reason to ban another word.
People love to point out American arrogance all the time and yet never actually cite any real examples (other than some pro-US statements, which doesn't count since all citizens feel that way about their countries and it's normal).
Meanwhile, France is banning English words. But it's "okay."
Amusing.
Welcome to the world of leftist social programs. As usual, the head-in-the-clouds idealist mentality doesn't work in the real world, because money isn't infinite.
Clearly, I have won this debate. Next time, I won't be so forgiving.
Your mention of being 17 and knowing about security was amusing, thank you.
Next.
Why do userland apps get forced into the name of the operating system you're using?
I use Linux. I hardly even use GNU software on it.
Next.
No, there isn't a difference. You're stealing revenue owed to them.
Next.
Okay, Slashbot, how is the RIAA trying to stop all forms of file-sharing in the world by suing people who are pirating copyrighted works on P2P networks? They're shutting down piracy, not the networks.
I won't hold my breath for your response.
Next.
I'm just curious why so many here are still trying to paint the RIAA as the wrongdoer in this article.
What are they doing wrong? They're simply suing people who are breaking the law. Nobody argues that what those users do is against the law. So what's the problem?
Why do so many Slashbots appear to be against this at every step? Could it be because they don't want to stop pirating music?
In an article like this, use the following to cause the crackheads to fall over themselves modding you up fast enough:
1.) Turn the discussion into an anti-corporate speal.
2.) Mention something, anything, involving an executive and his BMW.
3.) Mention a failing business model. Claim they don't care anything about artists, even though it's the artists themselves who get signed up and put their names on those contracts.
4.) Ignore that people are still taking artists' music without paying for it. Pretend it's all some moral movement as justification.
5.) Ignore when artists complain about it. Claim that they're RIAA shills.
6.) Make mention of lowering the price of a CD as if you'd really stop downloading in that situation. You're too used to the convenience of downloading to stop now.
7.) Pretend that it wasn't you in the previous lawsuit articles who was crying out for the RIAA to go after "individual infringers" instead of the P2P network itself. Now that they're doing it, again desperately attempt to paint the RIAA as the wrongdoer here.
8.) "+5 Insightful."
Totalitarian powers? The RIAA going after people who are illegally distributing music for others to obtain without paying for it is totalitarian? You're not allowed to protect what belongs to you?
What are you smoking and have you shared it with any other Slashbots? Seriously.
How about you write a program for some software publisher I hate, and I distribute all over the internet and justify it with "the publisher has totalitarian powers of the US citizens." And your software ends up selling less and you make less money than you should have because people now everybody has your software, and they all try to explain it away as some sort of silly movement against tyranny?
What excuse will you downloaders come up with to justify that?
Um, they listented to what the music industry aligarchy wanted them to listen to. Bands without a label couldn't get widespread exposure (there are perhaps a dozen notable exceptions. Not much over the last 50 years).
Please. That has nothing to do with p2p. The RIAA doesn't care if some indie bands put up a website with their own mp3s.
This is why the RIAA hates the internet so much, and why they dropped the ball so badly as to allow P2P to start in the first place.
You're simply making mental leaps to yet again paint the RIAA as the bad guy here. People are pirating music. What part don't you get? But of course, this has to become yet another "RIAA control" conspiracy.
If iTunes had been around in 1995, there would have been no Napster. They don't give a shit about piracy (well, now the probably do, it's widespread enough to hurt), because they know all the same things that people post here - people downloading who wouldn't have bought the songs aren't customers. It's the decay of thier distribution network that scares them - if you can hear anything you want on P2P, you don't have to listen to the radio.
People constantly claim this, and I have yet to see any inkling of truth in it.
There are such things as Internet radio, you know. And mp3 clips, and so forth. The RIAA doesn't like p2p because of all the piracy going on.
This means you aren't hearing what the songs they want to hype, and you aren't listening to the commercials for the products they want to sell.
How is that any different from me simply turning off the radio?
They did this to themselves, though, so it's pretty hard for me to feel sorry for them.
Yeah, it's their fault you're stealing. Yet another attempt at justification for the obvious.
Next.
Here's another one. Don't break the law. The courts don't give a damn what you think about music or the RIAA. You can think music should be free all you want. That isn't going to change the fact that someone else has the copyright to it, not you.
Precisely.
And despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth here, last time I checked, there was no right to copyright infringement of any kind. Just because it's cheap, and easy, and it's music doesn't get you an exemption in the eyes of the law. And don't scream fair use at me either. Distributing a song to 100,000 of your closest friends on KaZaa isn't fair use.
Some feel they're only hurting labels and not artists by freely pirating their music all over the internet so that nobody pays them for it. It's insane.
Oh, and I seem to recall most of Slashdot's posters saying "Go after the infringers, not the technology!"
Well, looks like they called the bluff. Now that they're actualy suing individuals, the tune around here seems to have changed.
This is the smartest thing that's been said in this entire discussion. What happened, Slashbots? I remember those arguments as well.
People are used to the convenience of downloading anything they want now, and they're struggling to come to grips with the fact that it shouldn't have been occurring all along. There is always an excuse because they don't want to feel guilty. Witness some of the posts today.
Along your RANDOM OVERUSE of CAPS, your argument is foolish.
The ONLY people we care about are the artists, and while your endless speeches talk about how music pirates are hurting artists, we KNOW that the only people we are hurting are the labels.
A complete, 100% lie. You are hurting the artists. You think the labels will keep bands around if their stuff doesn't sell? What the hell is the matter with you?
You don't care about the artists one bit. You're just used to the convenience of downloading mp3s whenever you want and are justifying it to make it seem moral to yourself.
You, the labels, are the fucking hypocrite here. You shamelessly abuse the people we actually DO care about (the artists) and then sue US for hurting the artists??? Maybe you have forgotten, but WE ARE YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME.
No, you're not. You're illegally pirating their material. You are shamelessly abusing artists by grabbing their music and never even dreaming of sending them a single dime for it.
Enjoy your BMWs and Mercedes while you have them, because the second there's a way to cut you and your friends out of this picture, we will do it, and I will then start buying music again because I, unlike you, actually DO care about the artists.
It is clear you don't, or you wouldn't be stealing artists' music. You exhibit the typical Slashbot drone mentality of anti-corporatism and self-righteousness, trying to justify your illegal piracy as if it is part of some sort of movement of morality. What part don't you get? You're stealing artists' music.
Listen to yourself. You're claiming that the reason you pirate artists' music is because you care about them. You're so full of it.
Artists don't have to get signed if they don't want to. They don't have to sign those allegedly horrible contracts. Nobody is forcing them to do a single thing except themselves. But you need them to be victims so you can steal their music and not feel ashamed for it.
Rot in hell in the meantime.
Guess we'll see you there.
Next.
Clearly you're upset that you offered no point. Declaring what my response will be is a convenient tact of a weak position. Get back to me when you attempt to actually offer anything.
Next.