It doesn't surprise me, though. When I decided to try Linux, I examined the popular desktop environments before installing, to see which one I wanted. When I went to the KDE website, all I could find was advocacy; there was a lot about how wonderful it was and how happy I'd be to use it, but no details. I sent them an email asking for details and got back a reply full of more advocacy. Not one detail. No information about just what's so great about KDE. When I installed, I did not install KDE. After an experience like that, seeing the developers expecting you to upgrade just to see if a bug's been fixed or not sounds just about like what I'd expect. I'm sure there are many people out there using KDE and loving it, and I'm glad for them. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it never sounded like anything I'd want personally.
Well, yes, but as I said, that's long-term damage. Very few MBAs give a damn about what happens in the long term because they don't expect to stick around long enough for it to matter.
"Wouldn't it be better to cut off people with infected computers than to censor the internet?"
If they did that, it would lower their income and cut into their profits. Filtering outbound email costs less, at least in the short run and that's all the typical MBA is interested in. Their idea is to move to a new company before the long-term damage they've caused becomes evident. (I'm not just wanking, here; I asked an MBA about it once and that's what he told me.)
It would depend, in part, in distro. It would also depend, in different ways, on what desktop you're running. Gnome has its share of annoyances that are completely different from the ones you find in KDE. Still, there are some that go across distros, such as proprietary drivers, variations on dependency hell and so on that could make up a generalized Linux Annoyances book useful to some extent.
I'd rather not fire them into the Sun right now; it's busy doing the payroll. Would it be OK if I fired them into one of the Dells? None of them are doing anything mission critical.
Note that this is entirely reasonable, the unreasonable part is the BSA's standards of proof being far more strict than the law allows for.
If so, and your records are up to what the law allows, make them take you to court. You'll have all the evidence the law requires you to have to prove your side, and the BSA is going to have a rough time proving that this isn't enough. Then, sue them for all the costs of defending themselves plus punitive damages.
Guadalcanal was, in part, a battle of attrition. We wanted the Japanese to keep pouring men and material into it instead of using it elsewhere. Yes, most of the night actions were trying to stop bombardments or supply missions, but they also served the purpose of wresting nighttime control of the Slot from them. This was mostly done by The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, although its main intent was simply to stop a resupply and reenforcement mission. The first half, the afore-mentioned Battle of Friday the Thirteenth, is possibly the most confused battle of the war.
As far as the shore bombardment, I never said you were disputing me; just letting you know about my personal experience because it was, for a change, slightly relevant. Don't know, though, about your last question.
Actually there's a tad more to the battles around Guadalcanal. As you say, American air power controlled the area by day. However, the Japanese controlled it by night; the only way to change that was by breaking their control, and that meant surface actions. I'll agree, however, that if Halsey hadn't been so eager to take out the last enemy carriers the Battle of Samar wouldn't have happened. As far as the Navy's role in shore bombardment goes, I probably know more about it than you, because I was on the Gun Line in Tonkin Gulf back in '72, doing exactly that. Rail guns, with their impressive range will make it far easier for the Navy to project its power over the horizon without sending highly-expensive carriers in.
i understand that in order to function in a modern workplace, the ability to navigate microsoft windows is almost as essential as any other office skill.
And what will they learn in those classes? They'll learn how to use a mouse, they'll learn how to cut and paste either with the mouse or with control keys, they'll learn how to navigate in a GUI. Then they'll learn how to use a word processor and a spreadsheet. The techniques will be exactly the same as they'll use in the Real World if they end up using Windows, except, possibly, for the arrangement of some of the menus, or the exact set of features available. Even so, they'll understand what's going on and find it easy to adapt, and that's the important thing.
Naval combat within visual range went out of style after Coral Sea.
Not exactly. There were a number of surface combats later, all withing visual range: Savo, Cape Esperance, the two halves of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (Battle of Friday the Thirteenth and the Capital Ship Action), Tassafaronga and Vela la Vela among others, but with few exceptions, they were all night actions. Samar, part of Leyte Gulf is about the only major daytime surface action I can think of from that period.
I guess where you're from, a conspiracy is not a civil & criminal offense?
It's possible. I remember reading, once, that there were problems at Nuremberg because conspiracy wasn't a crime in France or the Soviet Union at the time, and it took a little time for the judges from those nations to understand the charge and its importance. For all I know, it might not be a crime in Switzerland right now.
I'm doing it at her specific request. She got a new laptop with iCandy installed and tried using it. She's found it unusable. I don't know if she's tried turning off that stupid Cancel or Allow junque, but I do know she hates it. Besides, she's a professional costumer for The Industry and will be repairing a cape of mine in return, service I could never have afforded to pay for. I offered her Linux as an alternative, but she's familiar with XP, likes it and if that's what she wants, that's how I'm going to do it.
For that matter, since when does the average joe decide to install an operating system?
Never, if they don't have to, of course. I'm thinking more about people who have some idea of what they're doing and what they want who end up with computers (mostly laptops) with an OS they don't want simply because that's all they could find.
I'm sure most people do. However, it's still hard to find new laptops without a pre-installed OS. Also, I know there are people buying computers with iCandy installed and replacing it with XP; I'm going to be doing exactly that for a friend later this week.
It's not just Bluetooth that dies. I have a friend with a large LAN at home. One (and only one) of the machines has Windows iCandy on it. It occasionally decides that one of the other machines has dropped off the LAN even though all other machines can see it and connect to it. When that happens, the only recourse is a reboot. Not only that, it will sometimes "decide" that it can't connect to another machine until a reboot even though it admits it's there. Weird, really, but there it is.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't surprise me, though. When I decided to try Linux, I examined the popular desktop environments before installing, to see which one I wanted. When I went to the KDE website, all I could find was advocacy; there was a lot about how wonderful it was and how happy I'd be to use it, but no details. I sent them an email asking for details and got back a reply full of more advocacy. Not one detail. No information about just what's so great about KDE. When I installed, I did not install KDE. After an experience like that, seeing the developers expecting you to upgrade just to see if a bug's been fixed or not sounds just about like what I'd expect. I'm sure there are many people out there using KDE and loving it, and I'm glad for them. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it never sounded like anything I'd want personally.
Not unless you're old enough to remember when that was first run, because I do.
Well, what do you expect? You're getting it for nothing and we all know that what you get for nothing is good for nothing.
Well, yes, but as I said, that's long-term damage. Very few MBAs give a damn about what happens in the long term because they don't expect to stick around long enough for it to matter.
If they did that, it would lower their income and cut into their profits. Filtering outbound email costs less, at least in the short run and that's all the typical MBA is interested in. Their idea is to move to a new company before the long-term damage they've caused becomes evident. (I'm not just wanking, here; I asked an MBA about it once and that's what he told me.)
It would depend, in part, in distro. It would also depend, in different ways, on what desktop you're running. Gnome has its share of annoyances that are completely different from the ones you find in KDE. Still, there are some that go across distros, such as proprietary drivers, variations on dependency hell and so on that could make up a generalized Linux Annoyances book useful to some extent.
Interestingly, there's none on Linux annoyances.
I'd rather not fire them into the Sun right now; it's busy doing the payroll. Would it be OK if I fired them into one of the Dells? None of them are doing anything mission critical.
If so, and your records are up to what the law allows, make them take you to court. You'll have all the evidence the law requires you to have to prove your side, and the BSA is going to have a rough time proving that this isn't enough. Then, sue them for all the costs of defending themselves plus punitive damages.
They do, in California. You can get up to two replacements if needed.
As far as the shore bombardment, I never said you were disputing me; just letting you know about my personal experience because it was, for a change, slightly relevant. Don't know, though, about your last question.
Actually there's a tad more to the battles around Guadalcanal. As you say, American air power controlled the area by day. However, the Japanese controlled it by night; the only way to change that was by breaking their control, and that meant surface actions. I'll agree, however, that if Halsey hadn't been so eager to take out the last enemy carriers the Battle of Samar wouldn't have happened. As far as the Navy's role in shore bombardment goes, I probably know more about it than you, because I was on the Gun Line in Tonkin Gulf back in '72, doing exactly that. Rail guns, with their impressive range will make it far easier for the Navy to project its power over the horizon without sending highly-expensive carriers in.
Only in America. In Soviet Russia, sites slashdot you!
I presume, then, that you still get sudden, uncontrollable erotic urges every time you see a lobster.
And what will they learn in those classes? They'll learn how to use a mouse, they'll learn how to cut and paste either with the mouse or with control keys, they'll learn how to navigate in a GUI. Then they'll learn how to use a word processor and a spreadsheet. The techniques will be exactly the same as they'll use in the Real World if they end up using Windows, except, possibly, for the arrangement of some of the menus, or the exact set of features available. Even so, they'll understand what's going on and find it easy to adapt, and that's the important thing.
Not exactly. There were a number of surface combats later, all withing visual range: Savo, Cape Esperance, the two halves of the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (Battle of Friday the Thirteenth and the Capital Ship Action), Tassafaronga and Vela la Vela among others, but with few exceptions, they were all night actions. Samar, part of Leyte Gulf is about the only major daytime surface action I can think of from that period.
Except here on Slashdot. Here, everything's a variation on a meme.
It's possible. I remember reading, once, that there were problems at Nuremberg because conspiracy wasn't a crime in France or the Soviet Union at the time, and it took a little time for the judges from those nations to understand the charge and its importance. For all I know, it might not be a crime in Switzerland right now.
Why? You're no different from most slashdotters.
I'm doing it at her specific request. She got a new laptop with iCandy installed and tried using it. She's found it unusable. I don't know if she's tried turning off that stupid Cancel or Allow junque, but I do know she hates it. Besides, she's a professional costumer for The Industry and will be repairing a cape of mine in return, service I could never have afforded to pay for. I offered her Linux as an alternative, but she's familiar with XP, likes it and if that's what she wants, that's how I'm going to do it.
Never, if they don't have to, of course. I'm thinking more about people who have some idea of what they're doing and what they want who end up with computers (mostly laptops) with an OS they don't want simply because that's all they could find.
Thank you, I'll pass it on to him.
I'm sure most people do. However, it's still hard to find new laptops without a pre-installed OS. Also, I know there are people buying computers with iCandy installed and replacing it with XP; I'm going to be doing exactly that for a friend later this week.
...and CP/M beat them all out.
It's not just Bluetooth that dies. I have a friend with a large LAN at home. One (and only one) of the machines has Windows iCandy on it. It occasionally decides that one of the other machines has dropped off the LAN even though all other machines can see it and connect to it. When that happens, the only recourse is a reboot. Not only that, it will sometimes "decide" that it can't connect to another machine until a reboot even though it admits it's there. Weird, really, but there it is.