I am quite certain that many people care about whether you were trying to kill them or if it was an accident.
For example, deaths caused by drunk driving (a very significant amount of motor-vehicle deaths) are usually blamed more on the alcohol than on the vehicle.
You far underestimate the intelligent, understanding, and forgiving nature of most of humanity. They have a problem when you cause an accident due to idiocy and then usually blame it on idiocy, not on the car.
"Don't like it? Don't use two tons of hurtling metal to haul your ever-enlardening buttcheeks around town when a 30 lb bike does the job just fine."
And how do you propose to commute fifty miles on a bike?
When a bike is a valid replacement, sure. It usually isn't.
More importantly, a gun is a weapon. If you can't call it that and still use it, you just have an unnatural fear of using a weapon. I do not have a gun. I do have a knife, and I'm not talking about my cooking and carving knives. My knife is a weapon, as is my sword.
If the situation demands, I fully intend to use it as a weapon. I own a weapon, as the second amendment provides for, and see no reason to insist that it's not a weapon.
Why do people have such a serious problem with weapons?
Very interesting. First, of course I have agenda's to push. Only a very unpatriots American rolls over whenever pushed.
Yes, the primary purpose is often hard to determine. Some chemicals used in weapons of mass destruction are used in non-weapon instances. However, I consider the chemical to not be the weapon. I would think that the chemical combined with propellant designed to spread it is a weapon. Kinda iffy, or course.
That would be similar to the knife which I said is very borderline. A butcher knife is, in my book, a tool and a weapon simultaneously, although more weapon than tool. Many things fall into this category, including some chemicals.
And, about guns punching those holes at distances, I did mention that the other uses were training with guns for how to use them as weapons.
I did not say their most common use, however, I said their primary use, which was likely a misleading wording on my part. The usage of guns revolves around their ability to cause damage. They are used in training to determine how to use them as a weapon. They are used in combat, as a weapon. They are designed to be useful as a weapon, and usually with the intent that they be used as a weapon. Their original invention was driven by their potential as a weapon.
I think that defining whether or not something is a weapon can be a little difficult.
My main issue is with the idea that we should not call guns weapons. It shows a significant personal weakness to refuse to use a weapon.
It is like saying that violence solves nothing. Possibly, violence isn't the best solution. Likely, violence only is reasonably used to solve already violent situations. It still solves them.
I am proud of the fact that I am capable of violence. I, personally, do not really like to fight. I usually run away if someone decides to try to hurt me, as I have no reason to fight with them.
However, if there is reason to fight, I will fight.
If possible, I will use a weapon to do this. I think that saying that the gun isn't a weapon demeans it. Of course guns are weapons. They are damn good weapons. Why refuse to call them that?
I understand why politcal groups don't call them weapons, they have to try to be PC and appease the masses.
I don't have to appease shit. I'm not gonna temper my words with lies to appease people.
And, in my mind they are lies if I say them, although possibly not if others do. Lies are things said with the intent to mislead. To imply that a gun is anything less than one of the most efficient weapons ever created is to attempt to lead people to not fear and respect guns as they should, and to imply that I will not gladly use a gun as a weapon if the situation demands such.
So, as for that agenda. Well, the citizens of the US should stop being a bunch of PC wussies who are afraid to say things because they might step on a few toes.
This is why some people use Stable Distributions, such as Slackware, Debian, SuSE, or... Damn.
Honestly, damn. I've had shit with RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, everything I've tried.
SuSE costs money, which I can't afford (nothing against them charging, I'm just damn broke). Also, I had a few stability problems last time I used it when I tried installing all the programs I usually use. Not nearly as many as with Mandrake and RedHat, but a few.
Debian is a lot of hassle to install (Just my opinion, I know some disagree).
Slackwares easy to use and reliable, but I sometimes wish it had a couple features, or at least a feature. (Once again, my opinion)
Yes, once you use something for harm it is a weapon. That doesn't mean that it is inherently a weapon.
What is and is not a weapon is not a totally clear-cut, definable thing, but it can be determined, at the very least, by checking the primary purpose of something.
A car's primary purpose is for motion. It can be a weapon, but is not inherently one. An IBM model-M keyboard works as a weapon, but it's primary purpose is for type.
A butcher knife is a form of a knife designed to cause damage. It is very borderline. It is primarily used as a tool, but is also basically a weapon. I would say that it is not a weapon, but it is fairly close. This is because it's ability as a weapon is not merely incidental, it is designed to (at the very least) cause damage to something.
A car is designed to aid with transportation. If a car could be designed which did not incidentally cause damage but still provided transportation, that would be great.
Guns are another matter. Their primary purpose, almost their only purpose, is to cause harm to living things. They do not have a tool purpose hardly ever (cutting, digging, typing, writing) but they have a multitude of purposes as a weapon. When a gun is not being used as a weapon, it is being usually being demonstrated to show how it can be used as a weapon, or practicing how to use it as a weapon.
One rare case where a gun is not a weapon is when used in a salute, but then it is still being used because of how it relates to being a weapon, as a sign of respect for a warrior.
Furthermore, you make the claim that it is used for deterrence. Although partially correct, you are a little off. A gun happens to be a deterrent because it is a weapon. People fear guns because they are weapons, and it is at the very least representing a weapon when being used as a deterrent. Even a fake gun, or un-loaded gun, used as a deterrent is representing a weapon and only has a purpose as a tool due to its similarity to a weapon.
For these reasons, and more, I would argue that a gun is a weapon.
"Actually, my left-wing friend, any tool can become a weapon."
Making assumptions makes you an ass. The big problem is that your afraid to call something a weapon. What that makes you is a coward. A gun is a weapon. If I want to carry a weapon, that is fine. I will. I do not carry a gun, but I commonly carry a knife and will gladly use it as a weapon whenever I need to.
You're so scared to do something with a weapon, you can't even call it a weapon. Well, then, is the military a unit for war, or isn't it? Is it for killing?
Yes.
Are you scared to say that? Guns are for killing, militaries are for killing, lots of things are for killing.
"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."
Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.
Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.
By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
Also, this will mean advertisements using sex-appeal will rank extremely high, even though thousands of real studies have shown that sex-appeal in advertisement has no real advantage, except maybe that it's really easy to do and not particularly worse than other adds.
I believe the situation is slightly different. I have a problem with the RIAA for committing barratry. Excessive fines happen to be their method for this activity.
However, I think that $1.000 is too high of a number. $10 or $100 would be more appropriate, taking into account network congestion, general hassle, and potential problems due to over-full mail-boxes. Of course, a class-action suit would make that $10-per-e-mail charge end up being an awful lot of money.
The larger fines would, in many cases, be for running a scam.
I use a charcoal grill for cooking, have a land-line which gets one call every week, tops, don't use the internet except when I really wish I had the self-control not to, don't always even use my computer as I'm a writer, don't own a car as I travel by bike, have gas heating for my house...
I just love the way that a freshly installed Windows system has viruses before its used. They're like special, poisonous Easter eggs!
But, seriously, that is so sad. Does anyone realize that we've already lost the war against viruses and are now to the point where we are trying to overthrow firmly entrenched tyranny?
Actually, feeding the starving millions is pretty easy, as far as getting enough food is concerned. There really isn't a food shortage.
Now, getting the food to them, thats where the feeding gets difficult. If we could figure out how to make sure people got the food they needed, we could end world hunger damn quick.
The problem is, transportation is really expensive. Much more expensive than food.
Also, something which helps keep corn farmers afloat will help deal with such problems in the long run.
You can do the same with GNOME, without touching GConf. For some more advanced tweakage, you will need to use GConf, which is pretty easy(not near as painful as windows's regedit).
Likewise, cutting off your hand is not as painful as disembowling yourself, but I would still rather just eat breakfast. Hence the reason I avoid such crap.
As for integration, KDE's "make other apps use KDE colors" hack is disgusting. If you want "integration," -- if by integration you mean widgets that look the same -- use Geramik, Bluecurve, or Mandrake's whatever-it's-called.
I really don't think looking identical is what is needed for integration. As an example, WinAmp integrates excellently with Windows.
Yes, KDE is pretty configurable -- if by configurable you mean you can change colors, fonts, and keybindings.
I'm guessing he means as in 'every option on the system'. Not that it's that far, but Appearance and Desktop are only the first two minor sections. So, we have panel functionality, backgrounds, colors, themes, feedback, desktops, window behavior, and all that stuff there.
Then there's desktop sharing, e-mail functionality, LAN browsing/chatting, web browsing (including all its subsections), personal information, file manager functionality, mime-types functionality, spell-checking, session management, X display, keyboards and mice, printers, sound playback, system notification, boot manager configuration, date/time, font management, linux kernel setup, login management, default paths for many basic locations, cryptography, password feedback, accesibility, reqion settings, and about a dozen other things.
And, yes, all of those things are actually configurable by KDE. That isn't just colors, fonts, and keybindings. Actually, I never mentioned keybindings. You can also configure keybindings.
5) Its development framework rocks. Take a good look at kioslaves, kparts, dcop, arts and qt and see why KDE is a programmer's dream. Modern c++, wonderful IDE, powerful command line scripting. Gnome gives you obsolete c, with a bunch of kludge libraries such as glib, Orbit, bonobo to hack together a application.
GNOME has C++ bindings for everything you need.
I'm not a programmer very often, but how do 'C++ bindings' equate to 'kioslaves, kparts, dcop, arts and qt' seeing as those do have C++ bindings. Not saying the parent wasn't wrong with that 'Gnome gives you obsolete c' line, but I don't think you exactly refuted his point, either.
Fucking kids...
First, please don't fuck kids.
Second, just because the parent post was rude in several places doesn't mean you need to be derogatory. It just sounds bad, reducing you to their level. And, yes, the original post was too harsh in its responses, but it did have much accuracy in it.
Still, KDE has some significant issues. The KDE family of programs is the only thing I use every day that I can easily recall running in to bugs with every single day.
That said, why do I use it?
It's not that configurability thing, although that comes in handy on occasion. It's also not power, although much of it is very powerful software. Mostly, it's a complete lack of anything else.
Konqueror is horribly buggy as far as its rendering goes, although it is mostly stable. I just use it because it's the best file-manager out there. Even better than Explorer in Windows. I can hardly use Windows anymore, because I can split things into panes and tabs and all that jazz.
I use Kate because I need to work on lots of files at once, and I really don't want any features added in.
What makes KDE so impressive is that there actually is an attempt to fill holes. In most open source, there is just an attempt to make what sounds fun. Even without strict leaders and organization, KDE manages to make something for almost everything that is needed.
What's more the apps usually aren't dependent on KDE. Sure, they get a little confused when you start them standalone, but I have completely given up on trying to use the GNOME tools without GNOME running.
That, more than configurability, is why I still use KDE's tools. (Although BlackBox is usually my WM of choice, hence the need for separation from KDE)
IP Justice Presents the Top 10 Reasons to Delete the IP Chapter of the FTAA Agreement:
1. Threatens to Imprison Millions of People for P2P File -Sharing of Music One option proposed for Article 4.1 of the intellectual property rights chapter in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty would mandate that countries must send noncommercial infringers such as Peer2-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. By changing the standard that triggers criminal penalties from commercial infringements to "significant willful infringements," people will be sent to prison for infringements that have no financial or commercial motivation or gain. An otherwise law-abiding person who swaps dozens or hundreds of songs over the Internet would be subject to imprisonment under this lower standard. An estimated 60 million Americans use P2P file-sharing software in the US alone.
2. Restrains Trade and Prevents Competition Mislabeled as a "free trade" agreement, the FTAA Treaty will actually harm free trade and restrict competition in the market. Anti-circumvention prohibitions, such as those contained in the FTAA Treaty, prevent people from bypassing trade barriers like DVD region code restrictions. They also create monopolies for entrenched corporations over the manufacture of compatible or interoperable devices. These provisions prevent consumers from purchasing after market replacement parts in industries completely unrelated to copyright. For example, Ford could embed a chip in a tire in order to require consumers to only purchase Ford tires. In the US where anti-circumvention laws are already in place, they have been used to sue a competing manufacturer of printer cartridges and a competing manufacturer of garage door openers for providing compatible parts.
3. Chills Freedom of Expression and Scientific Research Anti-circumvention laws outlaw tools including software and technical data that could help someone to bypass technological restrictions on digital media. Computer programs and research papers that assist in circumventing these restrictions are illegal under provisions against trafficking in circumvention technologies. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) outlawed circumvention in the US , creating a chilling effect for scientists and computer programmers who publish information about the vulnerabilities of media companies' technologies. Many researchers have been threatened with prosecution for their research and one Russian PhD student spent 6 weeks in jail on charges of trafficking in circumvention devices for the legitimate software he had written. Prominent scientists have publicly stated that they will not travel to or publish their research in jurisdictions that have passed anti-circumvention laws out of fear of liability. Scientific conferences are relocating to countries outside the US , where the organizers and speakers will not be subject to imprisonment for disseminating technical papers that describe the weaknesses of certain technologies. The FTAA Treaty threatens to expand these anti-circumvention provisions and extend them to all signatory nations, in violation of both the US Constitution and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantee of freedom of expression.
4. Stifles Innovation and Inhibits Free and Open Source Software Development Anti-circumvention provisions in the draft FTAA agreement limit the ability of innovators to develop media devices that are compatible with existing devices. Companies and individuals are prevented from building new and innovative technologies that would enable lawful uses of media, such as playing a DVD movie on nonproprietary software. Large multinational corporations can build on their monopolies and force small innovators out of the market. Open Source and Free Software developers, a major source of innovation in the software industry, are explicitly discriminated against in one proposed clause to Article 21.1, which provides less protection to software that is not being produced for commercial gain
"Personally I use wireless keyboard and mouse and find it really useful (although the mouse is relatively crappy and would suck balls if not for the fact that it's cordless and optical)"
How heavy are those? The only reason I always shun cordless mice is that they are bulky and heavy due to needing batteries, but I haven't checked on them recently.
"For $40 I can set up a whole computer that would be great for a lot of cool if a bit old games."
No doubt, but that was not the focus of the article. It was intended to be a high-end scientific/graphical workstation and a high-end gaming station.
"This is (especially with a pulsing blue LED) a good illustration of the overall attitude of the article - buy lots of shiny expensive things."
Although it may not be very obvious, blue LEDs are often well worth it. Red it much harsher on the eyes and can be very irritating in dark rooms. In particular, I recommend getting really dim LEDs, and expecially avoiding ultra-brights. Even in good lighting, it's damn simple to tell if a light is on, and then it won't be annoying in a dimly lit area.
"The author decided to get a single relatively small hard-drive. Yeah, it's 10,000 RPM, but it's just 70Gb. That means less than 30 games can be installed at the same time, even assuming zero movies or music stored there. He advises to do regular backups, but he doesn't seem to be capable of realising how easy would be backing everything up on cheap 80Gb 5400 harddrive."
If I recall correctly, he actually got a 7200 RPM drive. He is waiting for the 10,000 RPM drive. The issue with a larger 10,000 RPM drive is that larger drives have more platters, causing there to be more heat. Spinning faster also causes more heat. For this reason, very large and very fast drives burn out faster. This was one reason, at least last year when I bought a computer, to go for a mid-size Maxtor. At the time, Maxtors had the highest data density, so it would have less platters. As such, my hard-drive runs really cool and I have less worries about it burning out.
"If I understand correctly, he suggests using stereo speakers, not 4.1 or 5.1 or even 7.1. Yeah, a high-end gaming workstation with only two speakers. Lame!.."
He was building his own system, and did not have a physical layout capable of surround. Obviously, surround would be worthwhile otherwise, but he was building where it simply could not be done.
"And then there is all that dual-processor nonsense. He speaks about reliability, but there isn't even a cheap UPS."
Yes, a UPS is needed. How is that related to dual processors? If those were separate comments, then the dual processors are absolutely needed because it is intended to double as a workstation.
"He goes for style and for mythical uber-performance. That's the common attitude among audiophiles - buy gold connectors and other crap $$$. That's utter idiocy if you just want to play a nice game of Half-Life 2 or something."
Those little things really add up, and he was also setting up a workstation. Often, technically perfect quality is essential there. This wasn't a recommendation for a PC if you 'just want to play a nice game of Half-Life 2.' If that is all you want, don't go for a high-end gaming workstation.
"And he doesn't even talk about how many FPS he got with that uber-cool setup."
It mentioned at the end that benchmarks were covered in part two, as it is a two-part article. Check for FPS when that comes out.
"But if spending $40 on an 'incredibly well-built USB aluminum knob that acts like a super scroll wheel' with 'a pulsing blue LED light at the base of the unit' is not wasting money, I don't know what is."
I'll go with, "I don't know what is." You have no clue. The useability gain from a quality mouse is of as much value as a couple hundred mhz on your CPU, easy. The only reason people ignore the peripherals is because they are stupid. If you care more about speed than ease of use, your going to have an uncomfortable experience every time you use your computer.
Who says it needs electricity? Is it then impossible for someone to make a bio-mass burning internal generator? Sure that's a long way off, but so are AI. Now, a robot powered by an internal bio-mass generator might be slow and weak, but it would be a self-contained independent AI. All it needs to do is browse on plants regularly, and it's fine.
As opposed to the conservatives, that never make intrusions into your privacy with massive things such as the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act. No, they would never try to decide what was best for you.
There are occasionally reasons for such a blanket statement. Consider what he wanted: Open Source, Open Standards. There is no claim for free software, only open software.
I do not know, but there is a distinct possibility that the reason for this has a little to do with price and a lot to do with risk.
If the system follows open standards, other systems can be used along-side it reliably, meaning an upgrade won't mean upgrading the entire network. Also, it means that products can be replaced, in case a business fails or other problems develop, and their files can still be used.
Also, using open source means that, in a worst case scenario, the program can be fixed. For most businesses and individuals, this isn't an issue, but governments are very much about worst case scenarios. They have to plan for the worst that can happen, or it'll be really bad when the worst does happen. Using open source means MicroSoft cannot pull the rug from under their feet by refusing to fix serious errors.
Slashdot Mirror
I am quite certain that many people care about whether you were trying to kill them or if it was an accident.
For example, deaths caused by drunk driving (a very significant amount of motor-vehicle deaths) are usually blamed more on the alcohol than on the vehicle.
You far underestimate the intelligent, understanding, and forgiving nature of most of humanity. They have a problem when you cause an accident due to idiocy and then usually blame it on idiocy, not on the car.
"Don't like it? Don't use two tons of hurtling metal to haul your ever-enlardening buttcheeks around town when a 30 lb bike does the job just fine."
And how do you propose to commute fifty miles on a bike?
When a bike is a valid replacement, sure. It usually isn't.
That looked like what happens to distro FTPs when a new release is out. Now they just need a physical equivalent to BitTorrent.
I believe it should be called either FleshTorrent or Orgy.
More importantly, a gun is a weapon. If you can't call it that and still use it, you just have an unnatural fear of using a weapon. I do not have a gun. I do have a knife, and I'm not talking about my cooking and carving knives. My knife is a weapon, as is my sword.
If the situation demands, I fully intend to use it as a weapon. I own a weapon, as the second amendment provides for, and see no reason to insist that it's not a weapon.
Why do people have such a serious problem with weapons?
Very interesting. First, of course I have agenda's to push. Only a very unpatriots American rolls over whenever pushed.
Yes, the primary purpose is often hard to determine. Some chemicals used in weapons of mass destruction are used in non-weapon instances. However, I consider the chemical to not be the weapon. I would think that the chemical combined with propellant designed to spread it is a weapon. Kinda iffy, or course.
That would be similar to the knife which I said is very borderline. A butcher knife is, in my book, a tool and a weapon simultaneously, although more weapon than tool. Many things fall into this category, including some chemicals.
And, about guns punching those holes at distances, I did mention that the other uses were training with guns for how to use them as weapons.
I did not say their most common use, however, I said their primary use, which was likely a misleading wording on my part. The usage of guns revolves around their ability to cause damage. They are used in training to determine how to use them as a weapon. They are used in combat, as a weapon. They are designed to be useful as a weapon, and usually with the intent that they be used as a weapon. Their original invention was driven by their potential as a weapon.
I think that defining whether or not something is a weapon can be a little difficult.
My main issue is with the idea that we should not call guns weapons. It shows a significant personal weakness to refuse to use a weapon.
It is like saying that violence solves nothing. Possibly, violence isn't the best solution. Likely, violence only is reasonably used to solve already violent situations. It still solves them.
I am proud of the fact that I am capable of violence. I, personally, do not really like to fight. I usually run away if someone decides to try to hurt me, as I have no reason to fight with them.
However, if there is reason to fight, I will fight.
If possible, I will use a weapon to do this. I think that saying that the gun isn't a weapon demeans it. Of course guns are weapons. They are damn good weapons. Why refuse to call them that?
I understand why politcal groups don't call them weapons, they have to try to be PC and appease the masses.
I don't have to appease shit. I'm not gonna temper my words with lies to appease people.
And, in my mind they are lies if I say them, although possibly not if others do. Lies are things said with the intent to mislead. To imply that a gun is anything less than one of the most efficient weapons ever created is to attempt to lead people to not fear and respect guns as they should, and to imply that I will not gladly use a gun as a weapon if the situation demands such.
So, as for that agenda. Well, the citizens of the US should stop being a bunch of PC wussies who are afraid to say things because they might step on a few toes.
This is why some people use Stable Distributions, such as Slackware, Debian, SuSE, or... Damn.
Honestly, damn. I've had shit with RedHat, Mandrake, Gentoo, everything I've tried.
SuSE costs money, which I can't afford (nothing against them charging, I'm just damn broke). Also, I had a few stability problems last time I used it when I tried installing all the programs I usually use. Not nearly as many as with Mandrake and RedHat, but a few.
Debian is a lot of hassle to install (Just my opinion, I know some disagree).
Slackwares easy to use and reliable, but I sometimes wish it had a couple features, or at least a feature. (Once again, my opinion)
I beleve you are missaken. That woul be the avage Joe. the avage /.'er nos how to spel only inturmittenly
Yes, once you use something for harm it is a weapon. That doesn't mean that it is inherently a weapon.
What is and is not a weapon is not a totally clear-cut, definable thing, but it can be determined, at the very least, by checking the primary purpose of something.
A car's primary purpose is for motion. It can be a weapon, but is not inherently one. An IBM model-M keyboard works as a weapon, but it's primary purpose is for type.
A butcher knife is a form of a knife designed to cause damage. It is very borderline. It is primarily used as a tool, but is also basically a weapon. I would say that it is not a weapon, but it is fairly close. This is because it's ability as a weapon is not merely incidental, it is designed to (at the very least) cause damage to something.
A car is designed to aid with transportation. If a car could be designed which did not incidentally cause damage but still provided transportation, that would be great.
Guns are another matter. Their primary purpose, almost their only purpose, is to cause harm to living things. They do not have a tool purpose hardly ever (cutting, digging, typing, writing) but they have a multitude of purposes as a weapon. When a gun is not being used as a weapon, it is being usually being demonstrated to show how it can be used as a weapon, or practicing how to use it as a weapon.
One rare case where a gun is not a weapon is when used in a salute, but then it is still being used because of how it relates to being a weapon, as a sign of respect for a warrior.
Furthermore, you make the claim that it is used for deterrence. Although partially correct, you are a little off. A gun happens to be a deterrent because it is a weapon. People fear guns because they are weapons, and it is at the very least representing a weapon when being used as a deterrent. Even a fake gun, or un-loaded gun, used as a deterrent is representing a weapon and only has a purpose as a tool due to its similarity to a weapon.
For these reasons, and more, I would argue that a gun is a weapon.
"Actually, my left-wing friend, any tool can become a weapon."
Making assumptions makes you an ass. The big problem is that your afraid to call something a weapon. What that makes you is a coward. A gun is a weapon. If I want to carry a weapon, that is fine. I will. I do not carry a gun, but I commonly carry a knife and will gladly use it as a weapon whenever I need to.
You're so scared to do something with a weapon, you can't even call it a weapon. Well, then, is the military a unit for war, or isn't it? Is it for killing?
Yes.
Are you scared to say that? Guns are for killing, militaries are for killing, lots of things are for killing.
Grow some balls and accept the facts.
"After all, a car is a lethal weapon just like a gun and guns have serial numbers."
Actually a car is a TOOL which is used for TRANSPORTATION and occasionally has SIDE-EFFECTS which may be harmful, but usually just have the intended effect.
Guns, by contrast, are TOOLS which are used for KILLING and commonly have the intended effect.
By your logic, a whole damn lot of things are lethal weapons just because they cause death. Your mistake is in calling a car a weapon. Weapons are DESIGNED to cause harm. Cars are designed to MOVE.
Now, if you rig a car up with scythed wheels like a good ol' fashioned war chariot, that'll qualify as a weapon.
Also, this will mean advertisements using sex-appeal will rank extremely high, even though thousands of real studies have shown that sex-appeal in advertisement has no real advantage, except maybe that it's really easy to do and not particularly worse than other adds.
However, the average Joe will spell 'ad' correctly, because he realizes that watching TV isn't the same as doing arithmetic.
For that matter, he might even put a '.' in the title of his post, so the '/' doesn't get loney.
I believe the situation is slightly different. I have a problem with the RIAA for committing barratry. Excessive fines happen to be their method for this activity.
However, I think that $1.000 is too high of a number. $10 or $100 would be more appropriate, taking into account network congestion, general hassle, and potential problems due to over-full mail-boxes. Of course, a class-action suit would make that $10-per-e-mail charge end up being an awful lot of money.
The larger fines would, in many cases, be for running a scam.
I use a charcoal grill for cooking, have a land-line which gets one call every week, tops, don't use the internet except when I really wish I had the self-control not to, don't always even use my computer as I'm a writer, don't own a car as I travel by bike, have gas heating for my house...
"maybe something like Escape from L.A.?"
Maybe not.
I just love the way that a freshly installed Windows system has viruses before its used. They're like special, poisonous Easter eggs!
But, seriously, that is so sad. Does anyone realize that we've already lost the war against viruses and are now to the point where we are trying to overthrow firmly entrenched tyranny?
(Likewise with spam and Microsoft)
I think that your missing part of the reason this closeness exists in Linux and not in Windows.
With Linux, the community controls the product, so the community has reason to care about the product.
With Windows, if they make a decision you don't like, you just cope.
This means that Windows help==learning how to use what they give you while Linux help==learning how to find what you want to use.
This is the difference which will not go away, thanks to the GPL.
Oh yes! Especially Slackware. I know that those stuck-up .debs and RPMs will just love having to move into the .tgz ghetto.
Actually, feeding the starving millions is pretty easy, as far as getting enough food is concerned. There really isn't a food shortage.
Now, getting the food to them, thats where the feeding gets difficult. If we could figure out how to make sure people got the food they needed, we could end world hunger damn quick.
The problem is, transportation is really expensive. Much more expensive than food.
Also, something which helps keep corn farmers afloat will help deal with such problems in the long run.
You can do the same with GNOME, without touching GConf. For some more advanced tweakage, you will need to use GConf, which is pretty easy(not near as painful as windows's regedit).
Likewise, cutting off your hand is not as painful as disembowling yourself, but I would still rather just eat breakfast. Hence the reason I avoid such crap.
As for integration, KDE's "make other apps use KDE colors" hack is disgusting. If you want "integration," -- if by integration you mean widgets that look the same -- use Geramik, Bluecurve, or Mandrake's whatever-it's-called.
I really don't think looking identical is what is needed for integration. As an example, WinAmp integrates excellently with Windows.
Yes, KDE is pretty configurable -- if by configurable you mean you can change colors, fonts, and keybindings.
I'm guessing he means as in 'every option on the system'. Not that it's that far, but Appearance and Desktop are only the first two minor sections. So, we have panel functionality, backgrounds, colors, themes, feedback, desktops, window behavior, and all that stuff there. Then there's desktop sharing, e-mail functionality, LAN browsing/chatting, web browsing (including all its subsections), personal information, file manager functionality, mime-types functionality, spell-checking, session management, X display, keyboards and mice, printers, sound playback, system notification, boot manager configuration, date/time, font management, linux kernel setup, login management, default paths for many basic locations, cryptography, password feedback, accesibility, reqion settings, and about a dozen other things. And, yes, all of those things are actually configurable by KDE. That isn't just colors, fonts, and keybindings. Actually, I never mentioned keybindings. You can also configure keybindings.
5) Its development framework rocks. Take a good look at kioslaves, kparts, dcop, arts and qt and see why KDE is a programmer's dream. Modern c++, wonderful IDE, powerful command line scripting. Gnome gives you obsolete c, with a bunch of kludge libraries such as glib, Orbit, bonobo to hack together a application.
GNOME has C++ bindings for everything you need.
I'm not a programmer very often, but how do 'C++ bindings' equate to 'kioslaves, kparts, dcop, arts and qt' seeing as those do have C++ bindings. Not saying the parent wasn't wrong with that 'Gnome gives you obsolete c' line, but I don't think you exactly refuted his point, either.
Fucking kids...
First, please don't fuck kids.
Second, just because the parent post was rude in several places doesn't mean you need to be derogatory. It just sounds bad, reducing you to their level. And, yes, the original post was too harsh in its responses, but it did have much accuracy in it.
Still, KDE has some significant issues. The KDE family of programs is the only thing I use every day that I can easily recall running in to bugs with every single day.
That said, why do I use it?
It's not that configurability thing, although that comes in handy on occasion. It's also not power, although much of it is very powerful software. Mostly, it's a complete lack of anything else.
Konqueror is horribly buggy as far as its rendering goes, although it is mostly stable. I just use it because it's the best file-manager out there. Even better than Explorer in Windows. I can hardly use Windows anymore, because I can split things into panes and tabs and all that jazz.
I use Kate because I need to work on lots of files at once, and I really don't want any features added in.
What makes KDE so impressive is that there actually is an attempt to fill holes. In most open source, there is just an attempt to make what sounds fun. Even without strict leaders and organization, KDE manages to make something for almost everything that is needed.
What's more the apps usually aren't dependent on KDE. Sure, they get a little confused when you start them standalone, but I have completely given up on trying to use the GNOME tools without GNOME running.
That, more than configurability, is why I still use KDE's tools. (Although BlackBox is usually my WM of choice, hence the need for separation from KDE)
IP Justice Presents the Top 10 Reasons to Delete the IP Chapter of the FTAA Agreement:
1.
Threatens to Imprison Millions of People for P2P File -Sharing of Music
One option proposed for Article 4.1 of the intellectual property rights chapter in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) Treaty would mandate that countries must send noncommercial infringers such as Peer2-Peer (P2P) file-sharers to prison. By changing the standard that triggers criminal penalties from commercial infringements to "significant willful infringements," people will be sent to prison for infringements that have no financial or commercial motivation or gain. An otherwise law-abiding person who swaps dozens or hundreds of songs over the Internet would be subject to imprisonment under this lower standard. An estimated 60 million Americans use P2P file-sharing software in the US alone.
2.
Restrains Trade and Prevents Competition
Mislabeled as a "free trade" agreement, the FTAA Treaty will actually harm free trade and restrict competition in the market. Anti-circumvention prohibitions, such as those contained in the FTAA Treaty, prevent people from bypassing trade barriers like DVD region code restrictions. They also create monopolies for entrenched corporations over the manufacture of compatible or interoperable devices. These provisions prevent consumers from purchasing after market replacement parts in industries completely unrelated to copyright. For example, Ford could embed a chip in a tire in order to require consumers to only purchase Ford tires. In the US where anti-circumvention laws are already in place, they have been used to sue a competing manufacturer of printer cartridges and a competing manufacturer of garage door openers for providing compatible parts.
3.
Chills Freedom of Expression and Scientific Research
Anti-circumvention laws outlaw tools including software and technical data that could help someone to bypass technological restrictions on digital media. Computer programs and research papers that assist in circumventing these restrictions are illegal under provisions against trafficking in circumvention technologies. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) outlawed circumvention in the US , creating a chilling effect for scientists and computer programmers who publish information about the vulnerabilities of media companies' technologies. Many researchers have been threatened with prosecution for their research and one Russian PhD student spent 6 weeks in jail on charges of trafficking in circumvention devices for the legitimate software he had written. Prominent scientists have publicly stated that they will not travel to or publish their research in jurisdictions that have passed anti-circumvention laws out of fear of liability. Scientific conferences are relocating to countries outside the US , where the organizers and speakers will not be subject to imprisonment for disseminating technical papers that describe the weaknesses of certain technologies. The FTAA Treaty threatens to expand these anti-circumvention provisions and extend them to all signatory nations, in violation of both the US Constitution and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantee of freedom of expression.
4.
Stifles Innovation and Inhibits Free and Open Source Software Development
Anti-circumvention provisions in the draft FTAA agreement limit the ability of innovators to develop media devices that are compatible with existing devices. Companies and individuals are prevented from building new and innovative technologies that would enable lawful uses of media, such as playing a DVD movie on nonproprietary software. Large multinational corporations can build on their monopolies and force small innovators out of the market. Open Source and Free Software developers, a major source of innovation in the software industry, are explicitly discriminated against in one proposed clause to Article 21.1, which provides less protection to software that is not being produced for commercial gain
"Personally I use wireless keyboard and mouse and find it really useful (although the mouse is relatively crappy and would suck balls if not for the fact that it's cordless and optical)"
How heavy are those? The only reason I always shun cordless mice is that they are bulky and heavy due to needing batteries, but I haven't checked on them recently.
"For $40 I can set up a whole computer that would be great for a lot of cool if a bit old games."
No doubt, but that was not the focus of the article. It was intended to be a high-end scientific/graphical workstation and a high-end gaming station.
"This is (especially with a pulsing blue LED) a good illustration of the overall attitude of the article - buy lots of shiny expensive things."
Although it may not be very obvious, blue LEDs are often well worth it. Red it much harsher on the eyes and can be very irritating in dark rooms. In particular, I recommend getting really dim LEDs, and expecially avoiding ultra-brights. Even in good lighting, it's damn simple to tell if a light is on, and then it won't be annoying in a dimly lit area.
"The author decided to get a single relatively small hard-drive. Yeah, it's 10,000 RPM, but it's just 70Gb. That means less than 30 games can be installed at the same time, even assuming zero movies or music stored there. He advises to do regular backups, but he doesn't seem to be capable of realising how easy would be backing everything up on cheap 80Gb 5400 harddrive."
If I recall correctly, he actually got a 7200 RPM drive. He is waiting for the 10,000 RPM drive. The issue with a larger 10,000 RPM drive is that larger drives have more platters, causing there to be more heat. Spinning faster also causes more heat. For this reason, very large and very fast drives burn out faster. This was one reason, at least last year when I bought a computer, to go for a mid-size Maxtor. At the time, Maxtors had the highest data density, so it would have less platters. As such, my hard-drive runs really cool and I have less worries about it burning out.
"If I understand correctly, he suggests using stereo speakers, not 4.1 or 5.1 or even 7.1. Yeah, a high-end gaming workstation with only two speakers. Lame!.."
He was building his own system, and did not have a physical layout capable of surround. Obviously, surround would be worthwhile otherwise, but he was building where it simply could not be done.
"And then there is all that dual-processor nonsense. He speaks about reliability, but there isn't even a cheap UPS."
Yes, a UPS is needed. How is that related to dual processors? If those were separate comments, then the dual processors are absolutely needed because it is intended to double as a workstation.
"He goes for style and for mythical uber-performance. That's the common attitude among audiophiles - buy gold connectors and other crap $$$. That's utter idiocy if you just want to play a nice game of Half-Life 2 or something."
Those little things really add up, and he was also setting up a workstation. Often, technically perfect quality is essential there. This wasn't a recommendation for a PC if you 'just want to play a nice game of Half-Life 2.' If that is all you want, don't go for a high-end gaming workstation.
"And he doesn't even talk about how many FPS he got with that uber-cool setup."
It mentioned at the end that benchmarks were covered in part two, as it is a two-part article. Check for FPS when that comes out.
"But if spending $40 on an 'incredibly well-built USB aluminum knob that acts like a super scroll wheel' with 'a pulsing blue LED light at the base of the unit' is not wasting money, I don't know what is."
I'll go with, "I don't know what is." You have no clue. The useability gain from a quality mouse is of as much value as a couple hundred mhz on your CPU, easy. The only reason people ignore the peripherals is because they are stupid. If you care more about speed than ease of use, your going to have an uncomfortable experience every time you use your computer.
Who says it needs electricity? Is it then impossible for someone to make a bio-mass burning internal generator? Sure that's a long way off, but so are AI. Now, a robot powered by an internal bio-mass generator might be slow and weak, but it would be a self-contained independent AI. All it needs to do is browse on plants regularly, and it's fine.
As opposed to the conservatives, that never make intrusions into your privacy with massive things such as the Department of Homeland Security and the PATRIOT Act. No, they would never try to decide what was best for you.
There are occasionally reasons for such a blanket statement. Consider what he wanted: Open Source, Open Standards. There is no claim for free software, only open software.
I do not know, but there is a distinct possibility that the reason for this has a little to do with price and a lot to do with risk.
If the system follows open standards, other systems can be used along-side it reliably, meaning an upgrade won't mean upgrading the entire network. Also, it means that products can be replaced, in case a business fails or other problems develop, and their files can still be used.
Also, using open source means that, in a worst case scenario, the program can be fixed. For most businesses and individuals, this isn't an issue, but governments are very much about worst case scenarios. They have to plan for the worst that can happen, or it'll be really bad when the worst does happen. Using open source means MicroSoft cannot pull the rug from under their feet by refusing to fix serious errors.
No, I'm not. Are you an idiot?
I'm saying it makes standards. Like ISO makes standards. That's all that it says.
Maybe it does make an OS, but that's not what that quote says.