Oh please. It's one thing to dash off a comment on Slashdot. It's completely different when you're writing a review that you (presumably) want people to take seriously.
Speaking for myself, I can't be bothered to read inane babblings like these that scatter the word "plz" around like sprinkles on a donut. I've got better things to do with my time, like posting to Slashdot.
Proper spelling and grammar--that's my high-pass filter.
Come on, is that the best you can do? Be creative! I'd like to see a virus send some private Word documents and Excel spreadsheets flying around the internet, courtesy Outlook's address book. I bet that would get people's attention.
Re:Actually, I would prefer...
on
The FragBook
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Maybe your problem is that you actually give a shit about your karma?
I mean, I believe in karma too, just not the Slashdot brand.
I think you're mixing up globalism and globalization--a fine distinction, to be sure, and easy to miss in the torrents of anticapitalist rhetoric that serve to soothe the modernist muddleheaded, but the difference between the two is sharp and useful and, if you ask me, ought to be preserved in common discourse on the respective subjects. Your apparent confusion notwithstanding, the process you describe isn't the "essence" of globalization any more than the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is the "essence" of literature. There's nothing new about it. Companies in seventeenth century England and France entrusted Dutch bankers to look after their wealth; two centuries after that, the world would look to London and, eventually, New York. Tea and sugar production have been "globalized" for at least as long. For an example that you may perhaps more viscerally appreciate, look no further than the plastic in your wallet. Have you ever wondered why all your credit card companies are incorporated in Delaware? I don't know of anyone who would call this phenomenon "globalism" or "globalization" at work. I suppose I could prattle on, if you've come this far in my monster paragraph, but I honestly don't think you're worth the effort. Just believe me that someday you'll realize what a fucking idiot you are.
Wow. You must be real proud of yourself. I would be too, if I were the kind of person to not only brag about avoiding TV, but also belittle anyone without the patience to spin silk for toilet paper.
Personally, truth be told, I find your comment pretty "infantilizing, shallow, banal, transparent and scripted."
Give 'em a break--they're just taking their cue from everything else about desktop Linux. And you'll know it's true if I get modded down for saying so.
This is probably going to come off as another one of those annoying "leap to Apple's defense at all costs!" posts, but what the hell.
It's true that iChat's incoming IM windows pop up on top of all your other windows, but it's not a nuisance at all. It's ghosted out, for one thing, so you can tell it's not a "real" window, and it doesn't take focus away from anything else you're working on. If you want it to obey normal stacking order, just click on it (making it a "normal" window) and then click back on whatever you were working on. No problem. Intuitive. Easy.
I happen to think iChat's interface is actually the best of any client I've ever tried, but that's another matter...
(a) We Slashdotters may have the time to check the page history for signs of abuse, but I doubt many others have the patience for that kind of obnoxious footwork.
(b) Even seeing that the last edit was a week ago, what does that prove? So someone edited it a week ago and slipped in that little lie, which has escaped the notice of whoever happens to be keeping an eye on the article. Why is this so unlikely?
My point is that Wikipedia is not, repeat NOT an authoritative source. It's a social experiment--a very interesting social experiment, but nothing more. Point being that if the original poster wanted to back up his assertion, he could have done a hell of a lot better, as sources go, than Wikipedia.
Are you serious? I don't know about you, but I've heard a lot of complaining right here on Slashdot about how shamelessly KDE and Gnome rip off both Windows and the Mac. (I actually think they have a point... the endlessly-duplicated Start button springs to mind, for example.)
"It's not an 'elitist attitude' - it's a fact. People who don't know how to take at least basic precautions shouldn't be on the Net because they are helping screw it up for everyone."
So in your utopian wet dream, the only people allowed on the internet are geeks? Explain to me again how that isn't elitist.
Look, you have to understand that not everyone has the time nor the inclination to learn how to fully secure their systems, and they shouldn't be expected to. If you want to blame someone for "helping screw it up for everyone," blame Microsoft. Don't blame users who have better things to do with their time than read the latest SecurityFocus alert.
Re:The "Linux for Grandma" idea is flawed
on
GNOME for Grandma
·
· Score: 1
What the hell? Exactly where did your parent poster mention Windows or Microsoft? I'm sorry, but just because the guy next to you at the urinal has a one-inch penis doesn't make your 1.5-incher any bigger.
yes, exactly like that. neither gwb nor the immature left are funny. i'd be ashamed to support gwb, and i am ashamed to share the political views of idiots with a two year old's sense of humor like the original poster.
sometimes i'll see someone who actually is funny, and my faith in the left is restored.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like open source software. Hmm...
Oh please. It's one thing to dash off a comment on Slashdot. It's completely different when you're writing a review that you (presumably) want people to take seriously.
Speaking for myself, I can't be bothered to read inane babblings like these that scatter the word "plz" around like sprinkles on a donut. I've got better things to do with my time, like posting to Slashdot.
Proper spelling and grammar--that's my high-pass filter.
Dropping to a shell and typing apt-get dist-upgrade is intuitive?
"...would be so kind as to format hard drives!"
Come on, is that the best you can do? Be creative! I'd like to see a virus send some private Word documents and Excel spreadsheets flying around the internet, courtesy Outlook's address book. I bet that would get people's attention.
Maybe your problem is that you actually give a shit about your karma?
I mean, I believe in karma too, just not the Slashdot brand.
I think you're mixing up globalism and globalization--a fine distinction, to be sure, and easy to miss in the torrents of anticapitalist rhetoric that serve to soothe the modernist muddleheaded, but the difference between the two is sharp and useful and, if you ask me, ought to be preserved in common discourse on the respective subjects. Your apparent confusion notwithstanding, the process you describe isn't the "essence" of globalization any more than the Pulitzer Prize for fiction is the "essence" of literature. There's nothing new about it. Companies in seventeenth century England and France entrusted Dutch bankers to look after their wealth; two centuries after that, the world would look to London and, eventually, New York. Tea and sugar production have been "globalized" for at least as long. For an example that you may perhaps more viscerally appreciate, look no further than the plastic in your wallet. Have you ever wondered why all your credit card companies are incorporated in Delaware? I don't know of anyone who would call this phenomenon "globalism" or "globalization" at work. I suppose I could prattle on, if you've come this far in my monster paragraph, but I honestly don't think you're worth the effort. Just believe me that someday you'll realize what a fucking idiot you are.
"That's the essence of globalism?" I don't think you know what you're talking about.
Wow. You must be real proud of yourself. I would be too, if I were the kind of person to not only brag about avoiding TV, but also belittle anyone without the patience to spin silk for toilet paper.
Personally, truth be told, I find your comment pretty "infantilizing, shallow, banal, transparent and scripted."
Give 'em a break--they're just taking their cue from everything else about desktop Linux. And you'll know it's true if I get modded down for saying so.
"Most of the general public" aren't Mac users. Trust me, Mac users are very well aware of the p2p apps available to them.
The hell are you on about, chimp-boy?
Sounds like an interesting theory. Good luck getting anyone in the real world to listen to you.
"Like Gimp over Photoshop, Scribus walks all over Quark."
Is this like when you said "I mean really how many large annoying companies are around that were around in the 1920s for example???? None!" ?
I really can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or just stupid. Pardon my boorishness.
And how is that a guarantee of accuracy? "Moron."
This is probably going to come off as another one of those annoying "leap to Apple's defense at all costs!" posts, but what the hell.
It's true that iChat's incoming IM windows pop up on top of all your other windows, but it's not a nuisance at all. It's ghosted out, for one thing, so you can tell it's not a "real" window, and it doesn't take focus away from anything else you're working on. If you want it to obey normal stacking order, just click on it (making it a "normal" window) and then click back on whatever you were working on. No problem. Intuitive. Easy.
I happen to think iChat's interface is actually the best of any client I've ever tried, but that's another matter...
(a) We Slashdotters may have the time to check the page history for signs of abuse, but I doubt many others have the patience for that kind of obnoxious footwork.
(b) Even seeing that the last edit was a week ago, what does that prove? So someone edited it a week ago and slipped in that little lie, which has escaped the notice of whoever happens to be keeping an eye on the article. Why is this so unlikely?
My point is that Wikipedia is not, repeat NOT an authoritative source. It's a social experiment--a very interesting social experiment, but nothing more. Point being that if the original poster wanted to back up his assertion, he could have done a hell of a lot better, as sources go, than Wikipedia.
I'll sign my name to this one...
Are you serious? I don't know about you, but I've heard a lot of complaining right here on Slashdot about how shamelessly KDE and Gnome rip off both Windows and the Mac. (I actually think they have a point... the endlessly-duplicated Start button springs to mind, for example.)
So you're saying that it's OK that Linux sucks, because Windows sucks more?
I'm pretty sure even Gandhi would have hit back in self-defense. Well, maybe not Gandhi. Martin Luther King, maybe.
"It's not an 'elitist attitude' - it's a fact. People who don't know how to take at least basic precautions shouldn't be on the Net because they are helping screw it up for everyone."
So in your utopian wet dream, the only people allowed on the internet are geeks? Explain to me again how that isn't elitist.
Look, you have to understand that not everyone has the time nor the inclination to learn how to fully secure their systems, and they shouldn't be expected to. If you want to blame someone for "helping screw it up for everyone," blame Microsoft. Don't blame users who have better things to do with their time than read the latest SecurityFocus alert.
What the hell? Exactly where did your parent poster mention Windows or Microsoft? I'm sorry, but just because the guy next to you at the urinal has a one-inch penis doesn't make your 1.5-incher any bigger.
Oh wait, I just noticed it's "colleges" with best wireless, not "universities." I agree it's weird Columbia didn't make the list.
I bet they considered the fact that Health Sciences isn't wireless. But you know, they do have Barnard on the list. (Rape back the night!)
so you actually laughed out loud at the original post? you found it sarcastic in an insightful and humorous way?
gimme a fucking break.
yes, exactly like that. neither gwb nor the immature left are funny. i'd be ashamed to support gwb, and i am ashamed to share the political views of idiots with a two year old's sense of humor like the original poster.
sometimes i'll see someone who actually is funny, and my faith in the left is restored.