I paid for access and verified that the story was not there.
Let's see how many times you can be wrong in one story.
First you believe what someone else said without even reading the Table of Contents.
Then you claim that I would not spend the time checking my facts.
Now you're claiming that because the story is available via other sources, the original story about the article not being at Time is wrong?
You were wrong on your statement because you failed to check the facts and now you are thrashing around trying to find anything that will lessen your embarassment at being publicly rebuked for such.
I embarassed you in public.
That hurt your pride. That is why I asked you if it hurt.
The reason they haven't tried to remove it from archive.org is very simple. Read the update to the story. There wasn't a conspiracy.
Don't forget that you can script one machine to just download the updates every night so you can test them and then deploy them to all your other machines. Instead of having each machine download its updates from Debian's website. Much nicer on Debian's internet connection if you do it that way.
But the corporations don't seem to like that idea. They seem to want larger service packs delivered on a quarterly or so basis. I think this might be a leftover from Microsoft's packaging.
Using Debian, you could accomplish that. Just make a meta-package that references all the individual packages. Presto! Instant Microsoft-styled service pack.:)
And it's good in TWO ways. You can update the individual packages, if you are so inclined, and the mega-service-pack will be able to handle that.
That would be an improvement over Microsoft's current handling of hot-fixes and service-packs and making sure you get them loaded and re-loaded in the correct order.
Bruce should start work on the meta-package for the work he has envisioned. But he should keep is very simple.
One meta-package with all the components.
A service pack released every quarter with all the updates. With lots and lots of testing to make sure all the components play together nicely.
Use the practices that the corps are most familiar and comfortable with. Then show them how to handle it better with less work and less worry.
You did not even check to see if it was there. You just went off about how I was wrong.
I asked you to show that I was wrong. All you had to do was to go to the spot you claimed the article was at and give me the url. That's all.
You refused. You didn't check your facts. You went off about me being wrong and you refused to show a url proving it. Instead, you go off about Foxnews and Internet Archive neither of which have any bearing upon the story.
Now you ask if I'm twelve? What does my age have to do with whether you were wrong or not? I'm 22. Yet I have enough maturity to check my facts. I don't care how many years you have. Years do not accurately reflect emotional maturity.
You were crying because you were, again, shown to be wrong.
Go ahead and tell me that you're older than I am. That still won't change the fact that you were wrong. But it will support my opinion about your emotional immaturity.
You may not be as intelligent as I am.
You may not be as emotionally mature as I am.
You may not be as attractive as I am.
But you can rest easy in the knowledge that you're older than I am. So you weren't completely wrong about that article being deleted because you're older.
You think your worldview is rooted in reality yet you think there are only two possible opinions? Why do you think that someone has to be retarded to be incompetent?
Wasn't what Bruce is suggesting just a restatement of the Linux Standard Base Project?
But, mostly, I don't see why everyone needs to get behind a single project like that. All of your examples can be handled by different groups.
I like all of your examples and I'd like to add a few of my own.
#1. Service packs. Personally, I prefer lots of little updates so I can quickly back out anything that didn't work but it seems that others prefer their service packs as one big patch. That means that the desktop and Xserver and kernel all get updated at once.
#2. Distinct server and workstation versions with different installations. The workstation version should not ask to install server type applications like SMTP servers but the server install should. These would be useful when you're adding Linux installations to an existing Windows network.
#3. Thin client and supporting server installation options. This is where Linux surpasses Windows. But it is a new concept for Windows administrators. I'd also put NFS mounts of user directories under this option. Or it could be a different installation option.
I don't see why Bruce doesn't just take some of that money and start this project on his own. It shouldn't be that hard to get the basic structure functioning. The real problem will be testing all those applications together to find the bugs before you release the service pack. I believe that Bruce should focus his spending on that issue. People and machines paid for and dedicated to finding the bugs and getting them reported or fixed.
It would be nice to see some published test cases and testing methodology for that. I wonder if it would be possible to join forces with the OSDL.
The only thing different since 9/11 is the US's reaction to terrorism.
It is the height of political correctness to claim that "things have changed since September 11".
9/11 did not have anything to do with Iraq and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.
But Al Qaeda does have something to do with Iraq now and the reason for that is because American invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Opium production in Afghanistan is generating billions of dollars in revenue and huge chunks of that money is going straight to the terrorists who use it to buy weapons and pay people to keep the war going in Iraq.
Saddam didn't even have the supplies to start a nuclear weapon research program. Keeping Saddam under UN observation seems to have worked because he didn't even get to build chemical weapons. Saddam wasn't a threat to America.
Bane was possessed by Smith and took out most of their ships. They didn't have enough ships to carry all the people and those ships didn't seem to have the fire power of those mechs so the only reason would be to stop the ships from using their EMP against the squids.
The whole battle sequence was badly written. They must have known that their guns would not stop the squids. If you can't stop them with those weapons, your only options are to run, use different weapons or die.
Locke was setting up to have a last stand in the temple. They were getting ready to die. What kind of plan is that?
What about Zion's mainframe? Wasn't that what Smith wanted into in the first movie? But Zion doesn't seem to have any computerized defenses. Sure, the computer opens the doors and such, but why would Smith be so intent on getting access to Zion's mainframe in the first movie if Zion could be wiped out with squids and that seemed to have been the plan all along. At least that was the plan that The Architect told Neo in the second movie.
They're disposable. You pick up a new one every day and the cops have to keep tracking new numbers. The more dealers that do this, the more work the cops have to do and the more work the cops have to do means less likelyhood of criminals being caught.
I'm pretty sure I understand enough philosophy and religion to understand what they were attempting and how they failed.
You see, Neo's pseudo-Jesus-sacrifice doesn't work in that context because there isn't a "God" in the movie. Unless you count the machine god, but the machine god is what is enslaving the humans and what is trying to kill the people in Zion. So their "God" to Neo's "Jesus" would be Satan. Oops. Guess you didn't see that one coming.
You think that was great acting? The only good acting was the guy playing Bane possessed by Smith. People didn't even care when Trinity died. They wanted her to die FASTER. How badly do you have to act to ruin a death scene like that?
You don't think the whole movie was FX? Then go watch it again and count the scenes without FX in them. Go ahead.
Go on. Say whatever you want about the LOTR movies. I didn't produce them. I didn't write them and I didn't say they had fewer FX. What are you, stupid?
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, you're saying the same thing Enderle said. Incredibly gorgeous beautiful sexy paint job, less than awesome tech.
Or just a bad refresh rate?
badda boom!
The issue isn't about having Word read a file.
The issue is about allowing another program to read and edit a file created in Word, while maintaining the formating and fonts and so forth.
I paid for access and verified that the story was not there.
Let's see how many times you can be wrong in one story.
First you believe what someone else said without even reading the Table of Contents.
Then you claim that I would not spend the time checking my facts.
Now you're claiming that because the story is available via other sources, the original story about the article not being at Time is wrong?
You were wrong on your statement because you failed to check the facts and now you are thrashing around trying to find anything that will lessen your embarassment at being publicly rebuked for such.
I embarassed you in public.
That hurt your pride. That is why I asked you if it hurt.
The reason they haven't tried to remove it from archive.org is very simple. Read the update to the story. There wasn't a conspiracy.
But then, I never said there was one.
Are you going for another factual error?
Don't forget that you can script one machine to just download the updates every night so you can test them and then deploy them to all your other machines. Instead of having each machine download its updates from Debian's website. Much nicer on Debian's internet connection if you do it that way.
:)
But the corporations don't seem to like that idea. They seem to want larger service packs delivered on a quarterly or so basis. I think this might be a leftover from Microsoft's packaging.
Using Debian, you could accomplish that. Just make a meta-package that references all the individual packages. Presto! Instant Microsoft-styled service pack.
And it's good in TWO ways. You can update the individual packages, if you are so inclined, and the mega-service-pack will be able to handle that.
That would be an improvement over Microsoft's current handling of hot-fixes and service-packs and making sure you get them loaded and re-loaded in the correct order.
Bruce should start work on the meta-package for the work he has envisioned. But he should keep is very simple.
One meta-package with all the components.
A service pack released every quarter with all the updates. With lots and lots of testing to make sure all the components play together nicely.
Use the practices that the corps are most familiar and comfortable with. Then show them how to handle it better with less work and less worry.
Is that so hard for you to admit?
The article is not where you said it was.
You did not even check to see if it was there. You just went off about how I was wrong.
I asked you to show that I was wrong. All you had to do was to go to the spot you claimed the article was at and give me the url. That's all.
You refused. You didn't check your facts. You went off about me being wrong and you refused to show a url proving it. Instead, you go off about Foxnews and Internet Archive neither of which have any bearing upon the story.
Now you ask if I'm twelve? What does my age have to do with whether you were wrong or not? I'm 22. Yet I have enough maturity to check my facts. I don't care how many years you have. Years do not accurately reflect emotional maturity.
You were crying because you were, again, shown to be wrong.
Go ahead and tell me that you're older than I am. That still won't change the fact that you were wrong. But it will support my opinion about your emotional immaturity.
You may not be as intelligent as I am.
You may not be as emotionally mature as I am.
You may not be as attractive as I am.
But you can rest easy in the knowledge that you're older than I am. So you weren't completely wrong about that article being deleted because you're older.
Is that it?
The story was about Time.
/. article says that it was removed at Time.
/. article says it is not, then you were wrong.
The story wasn't about whether you could find copies of that article through other means.
The story was about Time.
The story wasn't about whether Foxnews would do this.
The story was about Time.
You claimed that that article was available through paid access.
The
You refused to prove that it was available at Time, through paid access or otherwise.
Now you're crying some more.
Is the article available, as you claimed, through paid access or otherwise at Time?
If it is not, as the
Then you were wrong.
It hurts when you're wrong, doesn't it? It makes you cry, doesn't it?
You cried because I said that neither was an accurate depiction.
Now you're crying again.
Maybe you can go to the Table of Contents and find a listing for that article? After all, the Table of Contents is free.
/. article was about?
And it isn't just me that you'd be proving wrong. Did you forget that that was what the
Poor little baby. You've been proven wrong again. And again. And again.
Does it hurt?
Now, the /. article said that the Time article had been removed.
:)
You've found a line that says that all of that issue has been moved to paid only access.
Now, go to that paid only access and find that article. Go ahead.
You'll spend your money and then you'll discover that the article is not in the paid access area.
The article is gone. It has been deleted. The article is not freely available on Time's website, nor is it available in Time's paid access site.
The article has been deleted.
It is not available for free or for money on Time's website.
It is not there any more.
Go ahead. Find it on Time's paid access site and post the url.
The article isn't even listed in the table of contents that you can access for free.
The article was purged from the site AND the reference in the table of contents was purged.
Yet you have trouble understanding that. Even when you cannot find the article on Time's website yourself.
Go ahead. Try. Show me that I'm wrong and post the url.
The article is not available on Time's website in either free form or under paid access.
You are wrong and the reference you cited is wrong.
But at least both of you are wrong together.
This seems to be a trend on your part. You don't seem to be able to read and understand the links.
You think your worldview is rooted in reality yet you think there are only two possible opinions? Why do you think that someone has to be retarded to be incompetent?
Compare the same hardware. Not what you think people ask.
You're right that the home user won't move to Linux. Not unless Linux can offer them something that Windows can't.
Corporations are a different story.
The link in the parent post. Read that. Click on the link and then tell me where the article is referenced on that page.
/. article is about how the article has been removed from Time and how MemoryHole has it. You can read, can't you?
The
Wasn't what Bruce is suggesting just a restatement of the Linux Standard Base Project?
But, mostly, I don't see why everyone needs to get behind a single project like that. All of your examples can be handled by different groups.
I like all of your examples and I'd like to add a few of my own.
#1. Service packs. Personally, I prefer lots of little updates so I can quickly back out anything that didn't work but it seems that others prefer their service packs as one big patch. That means that the desktop and Xserver and kernel all get updated at once.
#2. Distinct server and workstation versions with different installations. The workstation version should not ask to install server type applications like SMTP servers but the server install should. These would be useful when you're adding Linux installations to an existing Windows network.
#3. Thin client and supporting server installation options. This is where Linux surpasses Windows. But it is a new concept for Windows administrators. I'd also put NFS mounts of user directories under this option. Or it could be a different installation option.
I don't see why Bruce doesn't just take some of that money and start this project on his own. It shouldn't be that hard to get the basic structure functioning. The real problem will be testing all those applications together to find the bugs before you release the service pack. I believe that Bruce should focus his spending on that issue. People and machines paid for and dedicated to finding the bugs and getting them reported or fixed.
It would be nice to see some published test cases and testing methodology for that. I wonder if it would be possible to join forces with the OSDL.
It shows that the situation in Iraq was understood 3 years before 9/11.
It shows that the situation in Iraq was understood back in 1990.
So why did Bush think that the situation would be different now?
Why not? What idiot mod'ed that as "informative"?
Unless he was sent by Clinton. But you said he did it on his own.
The only thing different since 9/11 is the US's reaction to terrorism.
It is the height of political correctness to claim that "things have changed since September 11".
9/11 did not have anything to do with Iraq and Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq.
But Al Qaeda does have something to do with Iraq now and the reason for that is because American invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Opium production in Afghanistan is generating billions of dollars in revenue and huge chunks of that money is going straight to the terrorists who use it to buy weapons and pay people to keep the war going in Iraq.
Saddam didn't even have the supplies to start a nuclear weapon research program. Keeping Saddam under UN observation seems to have worked because he didn't even get to build chemical weapons. Saddam wasn't a threat to America.
Whether it is the right thing to do or not also depends upon the cost in lives and dollars that we'll have to pay.
Saddam was not worth the cost of American lives or American dollars.
We should not have gone in without UN backing.
He is incompetent. He is not retarded.
The article and references to it were deleted.
But the deletion was noted and the original is now available again.
Along with a story about how it was deleted.
So he tries to be devious and cunning but he fails because he is incompetent.
Did I upset your worldview?
Bane was possessed by Smith and took out most of their ships. They didn't have enough ships to carry all the people and those ships didn't seem to have the fire power of those mechs so the only reason would be to stop the ships from using their EMP against the squids.
The whole battle sequence was badly written. They must have known that their guns would not stop the squids. If you can't stop them with those weapons, your only options are to run, use different weapons or die.
Locke was setting up to have a last stand in the temple. They were getting ready to die. What kind of plan is that?
What about Zion's mainframe? Wasn't that what Smith wanted into in the first movie? But Zion doesn't seem to have any computerized defenses. Sure, the computer opens the doors and such, but why would Smith be so intent on getting access to Zion's mainframe in the first movie if Zion could be wiped out with squids and that seemed to have been the plan all along. At least that was the plan that The Architect told Neo in the second movie.
While you and your opponent are playing in "bullet time", your opponent's friends have time to run over and group gank you.
They're disposable. You pick up a new one every day and the cops have to keep tracking new numbers. The more dealers that do this, the more work the cops have to do and the more work the cops have to do means less likelyhood of criminals being caught.
They couldn't defeat the squids on the dock. They were losing it.
So they were setting up to do a last stand in the temple. Which would have, eventually, fallen. Even if the squids had to get another digger.
So, you either use the EMP to knock out the squids or you die in the temple.
I'm pretty sure I understand enough philosophy and religion to understand what they were attempting and how they failed.
You see, Neo's pseudo-Jesus-sacrifice doesn't work in that context because there isn't a "God" in the movie. Unless you count the machine god, but the machine god is what is enslaving the humans and what is trying to kill the people in Zion. So their "God" to Neo's "Jesus" would be Satan. Oops. Guess you didn't see that one coming.
You think that was great acting? The only good acting was the guy playing Bane possessed by Smith. People didn't even care when Trinity died. They wanted her to die FASTER. How badly do you have to act to ruin a death scene like that?
You don't think the whole movie was FX? Then go watch it again and count the scenes without FX in them. Go ahead.
Go on. Say whatever you want about the LOTR movies. I didn't produce them. I didn't write them and I didn't say they had fewer FX. What are you, stupid?