Or you could read the article and see that if you buy said Dell at $1,800, and fill it up with RAM from Dell, you end up paying $50,760, which is over 20-fold. But please don't let the article get in the way of you bitching about the article. Where's the fun in that?
Tell that to David Hahn. Sometimes people's obvious intelligence makes them a danger - their desire to learn can rapidly overcome their desire to not endanger themselves and others. I'm not for censorship of this nature in any way - I'd rather people interested in such things had a safe place to go play with chemicals/radiation/transvestitism.
No, the OS X GUI is as good as it is because it was designed by a team of world-class designers working under a design brief crafted by someone with shedloads of experience of UI design, and funded by a company that expected to see a hard return of cash for the investment. Not a disparate group of folks all over the world designing what they personally want to use, in their spare time, for free. I've yet to see a single continuous shred of decent design in OSS UIs. I'm not trolling, it's obviously the truth. I wish it wasn't.
"How is it different?"?? I know this is slashdot, but at least try to read the summary! It's cross-platform, doesn't require hardware (you can play in a plugin in your browser), and you never have to upgrade your console to play new games. Obviously I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get you to understand something you clearly find repugnant, but hey - as I said, I know this is slashdot.
Actually it's more like the new RDP Microsoft is unleashing in Windows 7 - it can play HD videos across it without lagging like hell. I appreciate the joke, though:) Aaah X11.
Not everyone wants virtual desktops. I know I don't, and I don't do just "trivial" stuff, either. I've tried to use them, but that's not how my mind works. I don't page in and out of different parts of my mind, so it doesn't make sense to do that on a desktop. Multiple desktops seems like a hack when the UI can't organise lots of windows effectively - it just kind of says "fuck it - let's start over with a fresh desktop and clutter that one up until it's full and rinse, repeat". I'm not having a pop, it's just not something that everyone wants. Microsoft clearly listens to their users, and it is a trivial thing to implement (there are third-party add-ons that provide such functionality), but it's not how most people use Windows.
That's merely a semantic argument, as well-meaning as it is. The many definitions of "believe" also include "I judge this to be true", which is exactly what a religion is not. I believe in evolution, as that's what the evidence suggests. If evidence comes to light that shows it to be unlikely or incorrect, then *poof* goes that belief. Religious beliefs are not based on evidence.
Yes, but then you have to retrain people or expect them to muddle through learning new software. That will negatively affect the productivity, appearance to the client, and the bottom line. Buying licenses doesn't - it affects the bottom line only - the rest of the company works exactly 100% as it did before.
That would be a perfect solution if OSS alternatives existed for all software, or even all software without a learning curve. But it simply doesn't. The only alternative is to buy licenses for the software.
So you had enough time to stop safely on yellow, unless you were speeding (which I'm not insinuating you are), and didn't. It does kind of seem your fault, unless the yellow was on for under 4 seconds or so. Just sayin'.
Exactly. They themselves are benign - it's how they're implemented that can be the problem. This ridiculous "oh my god they didn't work first time so let's scrap the entire technology forever" mindset is doing the public a great disservice.
Did you ever think why these adverts are flashy and in your face? Just think about it for a while. You're not helping the situation with your self-righteous justification of using bandwidth you have no intention of paying for, even when that's clearly not wanted by the site you clearly want to visit.
It's not only clicking adverts that generates revenue - it's serving them up. Blocking them means they don't get served, which means the website you obviously like (hence being there) does not get the money to pay for your visit. Depriving someone of something is stealing. It's not like 'piracy' where no-one actually loses anything.
Then don't visit the sites. Using an adblocker deprives the site of revenue. If you truly value the site and appreciate its content, you are being a dick for denying them revenue. Justify it all you want, but adverts are not superfluous - they keep sites on the internet. "Original intent of the web"? Give me a break. The web's intent was sharing research information. So unless that's all you do (hint: slashdot isn't that) then you clearly don't mean what you said. Nice.
There is a way, surely - examine the certificate that was sent. See who signed it. Read every last inch of it. If it's a MITM attack, it'll be signed by some bogus entity. If Capital One screwed up it'll most likely be a legitimate certificate, but for a different domain/subdomain.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could read the article and see that if you buy said Dell at $1,800, and fill it up with RAM from Dell, you end up paying $50,760, which is over 20-fold. But please don't let the article get in the way of you bitching about the article. Where's the fun in that?
Tell that to David Hahn. Sometimes people's obvious intelligence makes them a danger - their desire to learn can rapidly overcome their desire to not endanger themselves and others. I'm not for censorship of this nature in any way - I'd rather people interested in such things had a safe place to go play with chemicals/radiation/transvestitism.
Warn us before you do that next time, OK?
But if they already have Office 2007, and know how to use it, then it's a matter of spending $200, or taking hours of someone's productivity.
No, the OS X GUI is as good as it is because it was designed by a team of world-class designers working under a design brief crafted by someone with shedloads of experience of UI design, and funded by a company that expected to see a hard return of cash for the investment. Not a disparate group of folks all over the world designing what they personally want to use, in their spare time, for free. I've yet to see a single continuous shred of decent design in OSS UIs. I'm not trolling, it's obviously the truth. I wish it wasn't.
You should probably watch the video where they have Crysis running on a cheap-ass Dell notebook. Jackass.
"How is it different?"?? I know this is slashdot, but at least try to read the summary! It's cross-platform, doesn't require hardware (you can play in a plugin in your browser), and you never have to upgrade your console to play new games. Obviously I'm flogging a dead horse trying to get you to understand something you clearly find repugnant, but hey - as I said, I know this is slashdot.
Actually it's more like the new RDP Microsoft is unleashing in Windows 7 - it can play HD videos across it without lagging like hell. I appreciate the joke, though :) Aaah X11.
Not everyone wants virtual desktops. I know I don't, and I don't do just "trivial" stuff, either. I've tried to use them, but that's not how my mind works. I don't page in and out of different parts of my mind, so it doesn't make sense to do that on a desktop. Multiple desktops seems like a hack when the UI can't organise lots of windows effectively - it just kind of says "fuck it - let's start over with a fresh desktop and clutter that one up until it's full and rinse, repeat". I'm not having a pop, it's just not something that everyone wants. Microsoft clearly listens to their users, and it is a trivial thing to implement (there are third-party add-ons that provide such functionality), but it's not how most people use Windows.
Kind of like the "Hide pointer while typing" option in Windows since at least Vista.
DNA says you're wrong.
At least try to understand evolution before deciding it should be criticised! It's not really helping your argument.
That's merely a semantic argument, as well-meaning as it is. The many definitions of "believe" also include "I judge this to be true", which is exactly what a religion is not. I believe in evolution, as that's what the evidence suggests. If evidence comes to light that shows it to be unlikely or incorrect, then *poof* goes that belief. Religious beliefs are not based on evidence.
Yes, but then you have to retrain people or expect them to muddle through learning new software. That will negatively affect the productivity, appearance to the client, and the bottom line. Buying licenses doesn't - it affects the bottom line only - the rest of the company works exactly 100% as it did before.
That would be a perfect solution if OSS alternatives existed for all software, or even all software without a learning curve. But it simply doesn't. The only alternative is to buy licenses for the software.
So you had enough time to stop safely on yellow, unless you were speeding (which I'm not insinuating you are), and didn't. It does kind of seem your fault, unless the yellow was on for under 4 seconds or so. Just sayin'.
Exactly. They themselves are benign - it's how they're implemented that can be the problem. This ridiculous "oh my god they didn't work first time so let's scrap the entire technology forever" mindset is doing the public a great disservice.
Did you ever think why these adverts are flashy and in your face? Just think about it for a while. You're not helping the situation with your self-righteous justification of using bandwidth you have no intention of paying for, even when that's clearly not wanted by the site you clearly want to visit.
It's not only clicking adverts that generates revenue - it's serving them up. Blocking them means they don't get served, which means the website you obviously like (hence being there) does not get the money to pay for your visit. Depriving someone of something is stealing. It's not like 'piracy' where no-one actually loses anything.
Then don't visit the sites. Using an adblocker deprives the site of revenue. If you truly value the site and appreciate its content, you are being a dick for denying them revenue. Justify it all you want, but adverts are not superfluous - they keep sites on the internet. "Original intent of the web"? Give me a break. The web's intent was sharing research information. So unless that's all you do (hint: slashdot isn't that) then you clearly don't mean what you said. Nice.
There is a way, surely - examine the certificate that was sent. See who signed it. Read every last inch of it. If it's a MITM attack, it'll be signed by some bogus entity. If Capital One screwed up it'll most likely be a legitimate certificate, but for a different domain/subdomain.
Do you not like the websites you visit? Don't you want them to keep running?
It's actually 62 miles for most folks. It seems only NASA likes to say 50 miles.
So you can not provide revenue for the sites you clearly like to visit? Nice guy.
Get a grip.