Some say XP was a new skin and a few improvements to win2k. From what I've heard about vista, it'll be the XP of win2k3. (if that makes any sense)
It makes perfect sense. I have heard for a while now that Vista is nothing but XP with a bit more eye-candy. I dismissed most of this type of commentary, considering it fueled by anti-MS sentiments. Until today.
Today I installed Vista RC1 today and gave it a test drive. After an hour or so of fooling around with it, I was shocked at how uninnovative it is. It is XP with lipstick and too much eyeshadow. There are some neat features, and some purdy effects. Everything feels a little slow and cumbersome, but it's not final, so I can forgive that. I like the browsing improvements to explorer, I generally like the file organization, and I like the new start menu. The widget thingys are nice. The Windows-Tab flip-through is fun.
But that's about it. I honestly can't believe Microsoft has spent more than 3,4 years on Vista. There's just not that much new. With the slight-step up in features it seems like something which should have taken less than a year to release. Why someone would spend a considerable amount of money to upgrade to Vista from XP is beyond me. I really expected a lot more from Vista. It is seriously unimpressive.
To me, this is one of the most frightening aspects of the current Congress. The Bush administration violates international law and flagrantly disregards the very document they are sworn to uphold (the Constitution). Does Congress make any attempt to hold the president accountable for his illegal actions? Not a damn bit. They hold quaint little hearings on the matter, some members even pretending that are upset (Arlen Specter, I'm looking at you), but in the end, they pass laws to make all of the Bush administration's actions not only tolerated, but encouraged and expanded.
It's disheartening and depressing. The American public finds out that the administration has been violating the 4th amendment by eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant. What happens? Here we are, months later, and constitutional concerns have all but been forgotten. Now it's no longer known as warrantless eavesdropping, but a "terrorist surveillance program". Suddenly politicians are criticizing other politicians for not supporting warrantless surveillance of citizens. It's all backward.
Congress is just as culpable as Bush for these unamerican policies, if not more so. They are supposed to be a distinct third-branch of government, helping to check and balance the power of the other two branches; instead, they follow the president around with baby-wipes and toilet paper as he shits all over the country.
I think you're underestimating quite how many protest votes there will be because of the general lack of confidence in the current administration.
Despite the lack of confidence, and despite an overwhelming feeling of disapproval of the current Congress, there's still a large slice of the American voting public who seem hypnotized by the media and government spin machine. Want to see a 5, 10 point rise in the president's approval ratings? Trot the president out and have him give a few speeches. Ta-da! Instant approval increase. The speeches don't even have to be original. Terrorism, freedom, terrorism, freedom, blah, blah. Combine that with the media's penchant for covering whatever issue the administration wants them to (why don't the major news outlets cover the health care crisis?), and you have a recipe for incumbent reelection.
There's a distinct difference between pornography , erotic art , and just plain 'ol photography.
In the eyes of the law, there's a difference, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it distinct.
A picture of a naked 14-year-old boy or girl, just standing there in a neutral kind of way...
Now, that same 14-yr-old doing something suggestive or posing in a not-for-kids manner would definitely be considered porn and thusly illegal.
So... 14 year old naked... perfect legal. 14 year old naked, blowing a kiss at the camera... 5-10 years of jail time. To me, that seems absolutely insane.
I wonder how long before someone uses CGI to make artificial kiddie-pr0n..
Already happened. Under the Protect Act of 2003, a computer-generated image which is indistinguishable from a real child is still illegal. No loophole there.
All they have to do today is name the bill the "Child Protection Act of 2006" and most of the politician's hands are automatically tied.
So damn insightful it hurts. It really is that simple. A politician or government official can get any internet-related law to sail right through congress by claiming it is for the children/anti-sex-predator. They don't need facts, they don't need logic... all they need is a good title and the accompanying media-hype.
What a scary world we live in when I am frightened to even click on your link for fear of seeing pictures, which despite my total lack of sexual interest in, could still land me in prison, just for having viewed them on my computer.
Of course your link could be some sort of joke, a link to pictures of baby elephants or something, but I guess I'll never know.
We have had quite different experiences. I have used both Windows (2000/xp), and Linux (a variety of distros) on multiple computers, from a PII with 256 mb ram to an Athlon XP 2500 with a gig of ram, and every time I have found Windows to be noticeably snappier. Applications start up faster, the windows move more smoothly, and the mouse-clicks seem more... reliable.
I'm not trying to preach that everyone should ditch Linux and run Windows. "Genuine advantage" and DRM hassles aren't worth the minor speed boost, in my opinion. But it's not just me who has noticed a general sluggishness in modern Linux distros. Search the linux forums, they are rife with similar observations.
I only used nautilus as an example because one of the screenshots from the article shows FVWM-Crystal with a nautilus window open. While Rox is certainly feature-rich and speedy, I personally find it awkward and clunky for daily operation. My favorite "lightweight" file-browser for Linux is Thunar (although it's thumbnail previews leave something to be desired).
Every time I have experimented with a lightweight fast desktop (fluxbox, icewm, xfce, etc.), I am initially impressed at how snappy the desktop itself feels, but once I launch a few applications, I am again disappointed at the overall slow feel of the apps themselves.
FVWM with Nautilus? When I use nautilus in another environment (window manager, whatever), it always starts slower than it does in Gnome (I know, I know, preload gnome-stuff and all that, but if you have to do that, what's the point?). Once nautilus is open, it still behaves sluggish and ackward. And it's not just nautilus. I have the same issue with konqueror, firefox, music apps, k3b, and more. A lightweight desktop is fast if I just want to login and look at your wallpaper, but once I try to get something done, I have the same old issues.
I can't quite describe the problem, but even after the tremendous improvements that have been made to the Linux desktop in the past few years, it still feels... slow. I'm not trying to troll here. I love Linux, and I wish it all the success in the world, but it just doesn't feel as snappy to me as windows 2000/XP. Seems like lost mouse-clicks and slow window redraws are a large part of the problem. Perhaps the problem lies with X, or with my own warped sense of perception... who knows?
4) they don't like the US propping up regimes that suppress their brand of religion 5) they don't like the US propping up regimes that treat their citizens inhumanely
Bit off topic here, but I think in the short term at least, the terrorists (not that we can ever ascribe any sort of group mindthink to that term) may not be wholly opposed to #4 and #5 because it justifies and confirms their beliefs.
Of course, no one wants a bomb dropped in their backyard or their mother shot, but on a global scale, when the U.S. invades and occupies other nations, it creates a groundswell of support for the current popular trend of "terrorists", radical islamic groups. By the US continuing to pursue #4 and #5, the terrorists arguably are closer to achieving #6 and #7.
I thought there was a formal declaration of war against Iraq.
There was never a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, and thus it has become an extended military engagement, but there was never a formal declaration of war.
No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).
The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.
The NYT recently published a chilling study of Internet usage by pedophiles who did much worse than simply store dirty pictures on their hard drives.
I read the New York Times article, and it was far from "chilling". I think it would be more accurately described as sensationalistic. What exactly were the pedophiles doing on the internet that was worse than storing dirty pictures on their hard drives? Chatting with each other? Oh the horror!
A ten-year prison sentence for knowingly abetting a felony on the Internet could help
Please explain, Captain Think-of-the-children, what you mean by this statement. Are you suggesting there should be a 10 year sentence for approving of certain actions? If I say, "I approve of girls having sex at the age of 15," I should go to prison for 10 years? So much for freedom of speech.
If crime in the U.S. reaches the level it has in the former Soviet Union, there will be no Bill of Rights left to protect.
This type of statement is often used to argue, "In order to save the Bill of Rights, we have to ignore the Bill of Rights." Complete rubbish. If you want to abandon the Bill of Rights and everything the United States is supposed to stand for, just come out and say it.
Dude, everyone knows the best way to win an argument in the 21st century is to drag in terrorism and child porn.
Example:
Debater A: Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is only a temporary band-aid for America's growing energy problem. It will do nothing to stop our dependence on foreign oil.
Debater B: If you are so against drilling in the Arctic for oil, please explain why you want the terrorists to have all our extra oil money so that they can continue to murder innocent civilians. In addition, what about child porn? 5 out of every 4 Eskimo children have been sexually abused due to the thriving Alaskan child porn trade, which exists because Alaskans can't make enough money off of oil revenues. Tell me sir, why do you support terrorism and child porn?
My view, therefore, is that this idea that there are gangs of cyberstalking paedophiles on the Internet is utter nonsense. It is a creation designed to instill fear in the general populace such that eventually the populace will expect governments to enforce Internet censorship and monitoring which is ultimately what those in control want.
Well said. It's the perfect excuse for governments to gain more monitoring ability over the internet and citizens in general. Very few disagree with new regulations designed to "protect the children" (certainly very few politicians), especially when they are given names such as, "Deleting Online Predators Act" and "Child Protection and Safety Act".
I should have been a bit more heavy-handed with my sarcasm (or use a sarcasm tag). I agree with you. It's ridiculous. I was trying to make the point that the above poster's friend was approached by an undesirable person online, and she was able to delete and ignore him. No harm caused. I don't see why people feel the need to track down people who are making inappropriate comments online (even if these comments are made to a teenager). Most of these "pedophiles" are half-a-world away from their "victims" and would never have an opportunity to harm them in person. If they do attempt to meet an underage person, fine. Bust them. But to have a "predator alert" button based on IM chats is unbelievably ridiculous.
But anyways, no, I am the last person who would want to legislate how consenting adults communicate with each other.
In my very limited knowledge, I know of one girl who was talked to by a paedophile over Messenger (he eventally started tossing himself off on webcam and asking her to get her tits out, which she declined) and she blocked and deleted him very quickly.
Well, it's a damn shame this predator-reporting feature wasn't already in place. The guy should be in prison, or at a minimum have his life effectively ruined, for his deplorable behavior. Blocking and deleting isn't good enough! We need long jail terms for people who are sexually crude over a long-distance communication medium.
Yeah, but those methods can't automatically flag conversation logs in Microsoft's servers. Something like this will make it much easier for police to gather necessary evidence. Additionally, there's the good chance that would-be predators will think twice before approaching anyone with ill-motivated conversation, since they *know* their conversations can easily be brought to the attention of authorities.
This is why I wish all public conversations were recorded, and not just those on the internet. What happens if little Sally walks outside of her fiercely protected home? Someone may just approach her and strike up some ill-motivated conversation. If we started to record every conversation everywhere, then the evil scary predators will think twice before they prey on our children.
Of course it's a crime. It's someone chatting with someone underage online. Actually communicating with them! And although they may not have committed a crime yet, they are surely going to in the future. Therefore, it's better to arrest them now and get it over with. Thought-crimes and future-crimes are fun to bust, and the public just loves it!
Slashdot Mirror
It makes perfect sense. I have heard for a while now that Vista is nothing but XP with a bit more eye-candy. I dismissed most of this type of commentary, considering it fueled by anti-MS sentiments. Until today.
Today I installed Vista RC1 today and gave it a test drive. After an hour or so of fooling around with it, I was shocked at how uninnovative it is. It is XP with lipstick and too much eyeshadow. There are some neat features, and some purdy effects. Everything feels a little slow and cumbersome, but it's not final, so I can forgive that. I like the browsing improvements to explorer, I generally like the file organization, and I like the new start menu. The widget thingys are nice. The Windows-Tab flip-through is fun.
But that's about it. I honestly can't believe Microsoft has spent more than 3,4 years on Vista. There's just not that much new. With the slight-step up in features it seems like something which should have taken less than a year to release. Why someone would spend a considerable amount of money to upgrade to Vista from XP is beyond me. I really expected a lot more from Vista. It is seriously unimpressive.
To me, this is one of the most frightening aspects of the current Congress. The Bush administration violates international law and flagrantly disregards the very document they are sworn to uphold (the Constitution). Does Congress make any attempt to hold the president accountable for his illegal actions? Not a damn bit. They hold quaint little hearings on the matter, some members even pretending that are upset (Arlen Specter, I'm looking at you), but in the end, they pass laws to make all of the Bush administration's actions not only tolerated, but encouraged and expanded.
It's disheartening and depressing. The American public finds out that the administration has been violating the 4th amendment by eavesdropping on Americans without a warrant. What happens? Here we are, months later, and constitutional concerns have all but been forgotten. Now it's no longer known as warrantless eavesdropping, but a "terrorist surveillance program". Suddenly politicians are criticizing other politicians for not supporting warrantless surveillance of citizens. It's all backward.
Congress is just as culpable as Bush for these unamerican policies, if not more so. They are supposed to be a distinct third-branch of government, helping to check and balance the power of the other two branches; instead, they follow the president around with baby-wipes and toilet paper as he shits all over the country.
Despite the lack of confidence, and despite an overwhelming feeling of disapproval of the current Congress, there's still a large slice of the American voting public who seem hypnotized by the media and government spin machine. Want to see a 5, 10 point rise in the president's approval ratings? Trot the president out and have him give a few speeches. Ta-da! Instant approval increase. The speeches don't even have to be original. Terrorism, freedom, terrorism, freedom, blah, blah. Combine that with the media's penchant for covering whatever issue the administration wants them to (why don't the major news outlets cover the health care crisis?), and you have a recipe for incumbent reelection.
In the eyes of the law, there's a difference, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it distinct.
So... 14 year old naked... perfect legal. 14 year old naked, blowing a kiss at the camera... 5-10 years of jail time. To me, that seems absolutely insane.
Already happened. Under the Protect Act of 2003, a computer-generated image which is indistinguishable from a real child is still illegal. No loophole there.
All they have to do today is name the bill the "Child Protection Act of 2006" and most of the politician's hands are automatically tied.
So damn insightful it hurts. It really is that simple. A politician or government official can get any internet-related law to sail right through congress by claiming it is for the children/anti-sex-predator. They don't need facts, they don't need logic... all they need is a good title and the accompanying media-hype.
What a scary world we live in when I am frightened to even click on your link for fear of seeing pictures, which despite my total lack of sexual interest in, could still land me in prison, just for having viewed them on my computer.
Of course your link could be some sort of joke, a link to pictures of baby elephants or something, but I guess I'll never know.
We have had quite different experiences. I have used both Windows (2000/xp), and Linux (a variety of distros) on multiple computers, from a PII with 256 mb ram to an Athlon XP 2500 with a gig of ram, and every time I have found Windows to be noticeably snappier. Applications start up faster, the windows move more smoothly, and the mouse-clicks seem more... reliable.
I'm not trying to preach that everyone should ditch Linux and run Windows. "Genuine advantage" and DRM hassles aren't worth the minor speed boost, in my opinion. But it's not just me who has noticed a general sluggishness in modern Linux distros. Search the linux forums, they are rife with similar observations.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=259606&h
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=245639&h
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=255959&h
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=256055&h
http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=238
http://www.suseforums.net/index.php?showtopic=205
http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t
http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t
Why stop there? Why not ditch the gnome-panels, ditch metacity, and ditch gnome-session!
I only used nautilus as an example because one of the screenshots from the article shows FVWM-Crystal with a nautilus window open. While Rox is certainly feature-rich and speedy, I personally find it awkward and clunky for daily operation. My favorite "lightweight" file-browser for Linux is Thunar (although it's thumbnail previews leave something to be desired).
Every time I have experimented with a lightweight fast desktop (fluxbox, icewm, xfce, etc.), I am initially impressed at how snappy the desktop itself feels, but once I launch a few applications, I am again disappointed at the overall slow feel of the apps themselves.
FVWM with Nautilus? When I use nautilus in another environment (window manager, whatever), it always starts slower than it does in Gnome (I know, I know, preload gnome-stuff and all that, but if you have to do that, what's the point?). Once nautilus is open, it still behaves sluggish and ackward. And it's not just nautilus. I have the same issue with konqueror, firefox, music apps, k3b, and more. A lightweight desktop is fast if I just want to login and look at your wallpaper, but once I try to get something done, I have the same old issues.
I can't quite describe the problem, but even after the tremendous improvements that have been made to the Linux desktop in the past few years, it still feels... slow. I'm not trying to troll here. I love Linux, and I wish it all the success in the world, but it just doesn't feel as snappy to me as windows 2000/XP. Seems like lost mouse-clicks and slow window redraws are a large part of the problem. Perhaps the problem lies with X, or with my own warped sense of perception... who knows?
Scratch that mofo off the list, PCTurd. I'm off to order a bathrobe.
Bit off topic here, but I think in the short term at least, the terrorists (not that we can ever ascribe any sort of group mindthink to that term) may not be wholly opposed to #4 and #5 because it justifies and confirms their beliefs.
Of course, no one wants a bomb dropped in their backyard or their mother shot, but on a global scale, when the U.S. invades and occupies other nations, it creates a groundswell of support for the current popular trend of "terrorists", radical islamic groups. By the US continuing to pursue #4 and #5, the terrorists arguably are closer to achieving #6 and #7.
I thought there was a formal declaration of war against Iraq.
There was never a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, and thus it has become an extended military engagement, but there was never a formal declaration of war.
This is just political tactics.
No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).
The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.
I don't care if he was torrenting Richard Stallman's nutsack. Tor was never designed to handle bittorrent. It's slow enough as it is.
Torrenting on tor is selfish.
Also crazy:
In many states you can legally have sex with a 16, 17 year old girl, yet if you take a nude picture of her, you can go to prison.
I only collect grandma porn (60+), just to be sure.
I don't trust anything from Congress that will be called a "Net Neutrality Act"
Yet you'll trust the massive telecom corporations to be in control and deliver you unrestricted internet content?
The NYT recently published a chilling study of Internet usage by pedophiles who did much worse than simply store dirty pictures on their hard drives.
I read the New York Times article, and it was far from "chilling". I think it would be more accurately described as sensationalistic. What exactly were the pedophiles doing on the internet that was worse than storing dirty pictures on their hard drives? Chatting with each other? Oh the horror!
A ten-year prison sentence for knowingly abetting a felony on the Internet could help
Please explain, Captain Think-of-the-children, what you mean by this statement. Are you suggesting there should be a 10 year sentence for approving of certain actions? If I say, "I approve of girls having sex at the age of 15," I should go to prison for 10 years? So much for freedom of speech.
If crime in the U.S. reaches the level it has in the former Soviet Union, there will be no Bill of Rights left to protect.
This type of statement is often used to argue, "In order to save the Bill of Rights, we have to ignore the Bill of Rights." Complete rubbish. If you want to abandon the Bill of Rights and everything the United States is supposed to stand for, just come out and say it.
Dude, everyone knows the best way to win an argument in the 21st century is to drag in terrorism and child porn.
Example:
Debater A: Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is only a temporary band-aid for America's growing energy problem. It will do nothing to stop our dependence on foreign oil.
Debater B: If you are so against drilling in the Arctic for oil, please explain why you want the terrorists to have all our extra oil money so that they can continue to murder innocent civilians. In addition, what about child porn? 5 out of every 4 Eskimo children have been sexually abused due to the thriving Alaskan child porn trade, which exists because Alaskans can't make enough money off of oil revenues. Tell me sir, why do you support terrorism and child porn?
There's a difference?
Well said. It's the perfect excuse for governments to gain more monitoring ability over the internet and citizens in general. Very few disagree with new regulations designed to "protect the children" (certainly very few politicians), especially when they are given names such as, "Deleting Online Predators Act" and "Child Protection and Safety Act".
I should have been a bit more heavy-handed with my sarcasm (or use a sarcasm tag). I agree with you. It's ridiculous. I was trying to make the point that the above poster's friend was approached by an undesirable person online, and she was able to delete and ignore him. No harm caused. I don't see why people feel the need to track down people who are making inappropriate comments online (even if these comments are made to a teenager). Most of these "pedophiles" are half-a-world away from their "victims" and would never have an opportunity to harm them in person. If they do attempt to meet an underage person, fine. Bust them. But to have a "predator alert" button based on IM chats is unbelievably ridiculous.
But anyways, no, I am the last person who would want to legislate how consenting adults communicate with each other.