AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.
As you point out, we always knew it was going to happen, sooner or later. Now, it's finally happened. (Unless, of course, the evidence was faked to drive a stake through the heart of any movement to bring Zelaya back as president.) The other shoe has dropped. I'm very interested in watching how Honduras handles this, and how, if at all, they prove that Zelaya really intended to stuff the (virtual) ballot box.
No. I specified "out of the box," and that would mean using IE only. (I'm not counting a third-party virus scanner because that's used to get rid of viruses that you've downloaded, not to prevent them from getting onto your machine in the first place.) Mind you, it's possible that you'd get the same results with IE; I wouldn't know, and I'm not ruling out the possibility, although I'm skeptical.
If I have Vista with UAC turned on and Opera, how likely is a drive by download?
I didn't know that Vista came with Opera installed. (In fact, isn't that part of what TFA was about?) I specified "out-of-the-box," and if you're using Opera, your box doesn't qualify as a counter-example any more.
I have to say I've been enjoying 7 on my gaming desktop
If you're happy with it, I see no reason for you to change. My point is, as it always has been, that so many people are happy with Windows 7 because it's almost as good as XP, when they should (IMO) be unhappy that it's not better.
As a side note, I think it says quite a bit that several of the Windows users disagreeing with me find it proper to spice their posts with argumentum ad hominum. It seems that disagreeing with me isn't enough for them, they have to insult anybody who dares say anything bad about Windows or good about Linux. Your post, OTOH, was a breath of fresh air. I thank you.
My sister didn't find it that way and she's barely computer literate. Everything Just Worked, with two exceptions: she was unable to get her Lexmark printer working, but that was because Lexmark refuses to write Linux drivers or release the specs, and that's not exactly Ubuntu's fault, is it? Then, when she got a new printer, it took a little looking to find a driver for the scanner. Aside from that, It Just Worked. It even recognized that she was using an nVidia graphics card and installed the proprietary drivers without any user input except for asking if she wanted them. I don't know what you had on whatever computers you tried Ubuntu on, but your experience isn't exactly normal.
Look: if you're happy with Windows, don't care about having to install third-party programs just to patch the security holes, don't mind having to check for viruses or malware, stick with Windows. It's your machine, and if that's the way you want to work, knock your socks off. I don't. I like being able to keep my machine running for over two weeks without a reboot, running projects for BOINC 24/7 and not worrying about malicious code. I also like the fact that I don't have to pay for upgrades. YMMV, and obviously does. Have fun and enjoy your experience and I'll do the same.
but now I can stand it without crying in frustration while I'm using it.
So let me get this straight. With Vista, your computer was almost completely unusable. With Windows7, it works well enough to get things done. Wouldn't it be better if it worked well enough that you enjoyed using it? Shouldn't you be complaining that Microsoft can't seem to produce a modern OS that's not a chore to use?
Wow, that's probably the best sales pitch I've heard for windows yet. Congrats.
All I can say is, some people have what I consider very strange standards for judging how their computers work. Back about eight or nine years ago, one of my supervisors (supposedly a tech, mind you) was telling me that he used Windows NT 4 at home and that it was "perfectly stable." Of course, he pointed out, he kept the most recent service pack on the desktop and applied it once a month or his system started crashing, but it was "perfectly stable." I was tactful enough not to comment, but it was clear to me that he had a very non-standard definition for the term "stable."
Interesting. I recently bought a laptop, reformatted it and installed Fedora 11 on it. Everything worked the first time, without any tweaking. Not only did it recognize and use my wifi card, it spotted the built-in webcam and installed the appropriate program (cheese) to use it. And, I might add, the first time I tried the program it came right up and the webcam Just Worked without any configuring, tweaking or hunting for drivers. Maybe I was just lucky, or you weren't, but the install and set up process were remarkably simple and painless for me.
I don't just think there aren't any viruses out there that can infect Linux, I know it. I don't think there aren't any trojans out there that can damage my Linux box, I know it. I don't think that any site that tries to run a drive-by download on my box will fail, I know it. As long as the above statements are true for Linux out-of-the-box and aren't for a clean install of any version of Windows, I'll continue to consider Linux better than Windows. YMMV, and obviously does. If you're happy with Windows, stick to what you like, and I'll do the same.
A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux.
Well, if what you want is a snappy machine (and a hard-core gamer probably does) why bother with XP at all? Just install Linux and get a faster more responsive machine that's immune to current viruses, trojans, malware and adware. And, of course, it's free. Of course, if you need to use proprietary software that won't work under Wine, you may not have a choice. Still, the more I read about Windows, and especially comments like this from people who clearly like Windows, the more glad I get that I've gone over to the Linux side of the Force.
Gold would probably retain value (maybe even the same value; who knows) in that situation, because its main value is as a treasure metal and/or medium of exchange.
I don't think you understand how such things work. Currently, one ounce of gold is worth several hundred packs of cigarettes. If the price per pack goes up ba a factor of 1,000,000, so will the price of gold. One ounce will always be worth the same amount of other goods, even though the price (in dollars, euros, pounds or whatever) fluctuates. That's why people buy gold to hedge against inflation.
if they could be reduced because an OS was more secure, there would be an actual savings.
If companies really wanted to save money on virus/malware/spyware/adware cleanup, they'd migrate to Linux and get rid of those teams completely. Of course, there'd be all that money spent on retraining their users to...oh, wait, Lunux uses a GUI that looks almost exactly like Windows and most of the programs have the same UI as their Windows equivalent. Never mind.
If you really want to interest your two rugrats in basic science, you need to go back to the basics: Watch Mr. Wizard. Not only did Mr. Wizard teach basic science, he did it with experiments that you could easily duplicae at home. And, he did it live, with no editing, no retakes, no special effects to make things come out right.
i've tried using open DNS but that does not seem to help either
Well, of course not. Who you get your DNS from has nothing to do with how your packets are routed. The interesting question (to me, at least) is why you thought using open DNS would reduce your ping times?
Personally, I'd be more inclined to ban ultra fine print and require that anything containing acetaminophen prominently warn not to take with ANYthing else unless a doctor says so.
I LIKE that idea! Of course, being sensible and effective, it has no chance of being accepted.
As far as the Glypizide goes, it's more of a reducto ad absurdum than anything else.
Type II diabetics are insulin resistive and have excessive levels of insulin already.
Not all of us are producing enough insulin. In my case, I'm not producing enough and am (as you point out) insulin resitant. For that, I take metformin, which can't force your bg down far enough to be dangerous, but I also need glypizide to improve my insulin production. I've also been warned that many Type II diabetics gradually "migrate" to Type I and end up on insulin, which directly contradicts your claim.
I'm a Type II diabetic. One of the medications I take for it is glypizide, which increases my insulin production, lowering my blood glucose level. If I took too many, my bg would get so low I'd pass out and possibly die. Does that mean it should be banned? No, of course not; it means that I'm given instructions on how much to take and when, and I follow those instructions. Give patients using these drugs instructions that include not taking other, non-prescription pain killers with them (or listing which ones are safe, and in what dose) and trust them to do as they're told. Most people will follow that type of doctor's orders, especially if it's explained why and it's not just an arbitrary order. And don't point out that some people aren't smart enough to understand, either, because it's the people who are smart enough to "know better" that are the problem. The "left side of the bell curve" is more likely to do what they're told because they understand that they don't know better.
Slashdot Mirror
AIUI, their constitution not only forbids removing the term limits, it specifies that any elected official who submits a bill to chage the constitution in that way be removed from office. If so, Zelaya had, in fact, violated their constitution and was properly removed from office.
As you point out, we always knew it was going to happen, sooner or later. Now, it's finally happened. (Unless, of course, the evidence was faked to drive a stake through the heart of any movement to bring Zelaya back as president.) The other shoe has dropped. I'm very interested in watching how Honduras handles this, and how, if at all, they prove that Zelaya really intended to stuff the (virtual) ballot box.
No. I specified "out of the box," and that would mean using IE only. (I'm not counting a third-party virus scanner because that's used to get rid of viruses that you've downloaded, not to prevent them from getting onto your machine in the first place.) Mind you, it's possible that you'd get the same results with IE; I wouldn't know, and I'm not ruling out the possibility, although I'm skeptical.
If politicians stopped taking credit for things like that, most politicians would have nothing at all to their credit.
I didn't know that Vista came with Opera installed. (In fact, isn't that part of what TFA was about?) I specified "out-of-the-box," and if you're using Opera, your box doesn't qualify as a counter-example any more.
Yes, I know. That's why I specified viruses, trojans and drive-bys (oh my!) and didn't list rootkits.
If you're happy with it, I see no reason for you to change. My point is, as it always has been, that so many people are happy with Windows 7 because it's almost as good as XP, when they should (IMO) be unhappy that it's not better.
As a side note, I think it says quite a bit that several of the Windows users disagreeing with me find it proper to spice their posts with argumentum ad hominum. It seems that disagreeing with me isn't enough for them, they have to insult anybody who dares say anything bad about Windows or good about Linux. Your post, OTOH, was a breath of fresh air. I thank you.
My sister didn't find it that way and she's barely computer literate. Everything Just Worked, with two exceptions: she was unable to get her Lexmark printer working, but that was because Lexmark refuses to write Linux drivers or release the specs, and that's not exactly Ubuntu's fault, is it? Then, when she got a new printer, it took a little looking to find a driver for the scanner. Aside from that, It Just Worked. It even recognized that she was using an nVidia graphics card and installed the proprietary drivers without any user input except for asking if she wanted them. I don't know what you had on whatever computers you tried Ubuntu on, but your experience isn't exactly normal.
Look: if you're happy with Windows, don't care about having to install third-party programs just to patch the security holes, don't mind having to check for viruses or malware, stick with Windows. It's your machine, and if that's the way you want to work, knock your socks off. I don't. I like being able to keep my machine running for over two weeks without a reboot, running projects for BOINC 24/7 and not worrying about malicious code. I also like the fact that I don't have to pay for upgrades. YMMV, and obviously does. Have fun and enjoy your experience and I'll do the same.
So let me get this straight. With Vista, your computer was almost completely unusable. With Windows7, it works well enough to get things done. Wouldn't it be better if it worked well enough that you enjoyed using it? Shouldn't you be complaining that Microsoft can't seem to produce a modern OS that's not a chore to use?
All I can say is, some people have what I consider very strange standards for judging how their computers work. Back about eight or nine years ago, one of my supervisors (supposedly a tech, mind you) was telling me that he used Windows NT 4 at home and that it was "perfectly stable." Of course, he pointed out, he kept the most recent service pack on the desktop and applied it once a month or his system started crashing, but it was "perfectly stable." I was tactful enough not to comment, but it was clear to me that he had a very non-standard definition for the term "stable."
Interesting. I recently bought a laptop, reformatted it and installed Fedora 11 on it. Everything worked the first time, without any tweaking. Not only did it recognize and use my wifi card, it spotted the built-in webcam and installed the appropriate program (cheese) to use it. And, I might add, the first time I tried the program it came right up and the webcam Just Worked without any configuring, tweaking or hunting for drivers. Maybe I was just lucky, or you weren't, but the install and set up process were remarkably simple and painless for me.
I don't just think there aren't any viruses out there that can infect Linux, I know it. I don't think there aren't any trojans out there that can damage my Linux box, I know it. I don't think that any site that tries to run a drive-by download on my box will fail, I know it. As long as the above statements are true for Linux out-of-the-box and aren't for a clean install of any version of Windows, I'll continue to consider Linux better than Windows. YMMV, and obviously does. If you're happy with Windows, stick to what you like, and I'll do the same.
My sister runs Ubuntu. I've seen several updates go just fine. Maybe she's lucky, maybe you aren't. Who knows?
Well, if what you want is a snappy machine (and a hard-core gamer probably does) why bother with XP at all? Just install Linux and get a faster more responsive machine that's immune to current viruses, trojans, malware and adware. And, of course, it's free. Of course, if you need to use proprietary software that won't work under Wine, you may not have a choice. Still, the more I read about Windows, and especially comments like this from people who clearly like Windows, the more glad I get that I've gone over to the Linux side of the Force.
Some versions of Linux (Fedora is one.) don't upgrade well. Others, like Ubuntu, do.
Gold would probably retain value (maybe even the same value; who knows) in that situation, because its main value is as a treasure metal and/or medium of exchange.
I don't think you understand how such things work. Currently, one ounce of gold is worth several hundred packs of cigarettes. If the price per pack goes up ba a factor of 1,000,000, so will the price of gold. One ounce will always be worth the same amount of other goods, even though the price (in dollars, euros, pounds or whatever) fluctuates. That's why people buy gold to hedge against inflation.
If companies really wanted to save money on virus/malware/spyware/adware cleanup, they'd migrate to Linux and get rid of those teams completely. Of course, there'd be all that money spent on retraining their users to...oh, wait, Lunux uses a GUI that looks almost exactly like Windows and most of the programs have the same UI as their Windows equivalent. Never mind.
If you really want to interest your two rugrats in basic science, you need to go back to the basics: Watch Mr. Wizard. Not only did Mr. Wizard teach basic science, he did it with experiments that you could easily duplicae at home. And, he did it live, with no editing, no retakes, no special effects to make things come out right.
Well, of course not. Who you get your DNS from has nothing to do with how your packets are routed. The interesting question (to me, at least) is why you thought using open DNS would reduce your ping times?
It's probably not a good idea to take any RFC seriously if its release date is April 1.
Why not just stay 39 from now on? You won't be the first person to spend several decades at 39.
I LIKE that idea! Of course, being sensible and effective, it has no chance of being accepted.
As far as the Glypizide goes, it's more of a reducto ad absurdum than anything else.
Not all of us are producing enough insulin. In my case, I'm not producing enough and am (as you point out) insulin resitant. For that, I take metformin, which can't force your bg down far enough to be dangerous, but I also need glypizide to improve my insulin production. I've also been warned that many Type II diabetics gradually "migrate" to Type I and end up on insulin, which directly contradicts your claim.
I'm a Type II diabetic. One of the medications I take for it is glypizide, which increases my insulin production, lowering my blood glucose level. If I took too many, my bg would get so low I'd pass out and possibly die. Does that mean it should be banned? No, of course not; it means that I'm given instructions on how much to take and when, and I follow those instructions. Give patients using these drugs instructions that include not taking other, non-prescription pain killers with them (or listing which ones are safe, and in what dose) and trust them to do as they're told. Most people will follow that type of doctor's orders, especially if it's explained why and it's not just an arbitrary order. And don't point out that some people aren't smart enough to understand, either, because it's the people who are smart enough to "know better" that are the problem. The "left side of the bell curve" is more likely to do what they're told because they understand that they don't know better.