And then what if the updates crash Wine, but not normal Windows? Then they'd get it in the neck for "breaking" your Office install.
They can't ensure their stuff works with Wine, so they do what's best for everyone, and not update Wine installations. That's fair enough. After all, everyone would be screaming blue murder if these updates DID break their Wine.
They don't have a right? It's a private website, specifically designed to support software people have BOUGHT. Expecting them to give out their support to people who have paid them no money is ridiculous. How on earth does that make sense to you??
Oh, and DOSs of every flavour have eaten everyone's data at some point. That's why we were so happy to get rid of it. sheesh.
I don't know if you know this or not, but Microsoft makes more than just IE. Maybe you should think of the plethora of things Microsoft makes before you say something that makes you look silly...;)
And what's stopping the US or Israel using THEIR nukes against anyone else? Remember - the only nation in history to use a nuke against someone was the US. Twice. And somehow Iran isn't allowed nuclear weapons/power stations?? What about Pakistan - they have it, AND they have strong ties to Al Qaida.
Your statment makes just as much sense if you swap "Iran" and "US or Israel". Go figure.
So the international response after 9/11 should have been "Life ain't fair. Get over it" instead of showing solidarity? Is that how it should be?
You see, we're human beings. We only prosper if we all prosper. Sure, these days we can be selfish, as technology and society has allowed us to be able to live with a selfish attitude. Of course, when it comes to international development, each country is like a primitive human. We need to help the weakest ones we have, otherwise we all become weak. It's also along the same lines as the whole "do unto others" speil from the bible. You know - if you'd want someone to do it to you (ie help you when you need it) - it's good to help people when they need it.
Of course, it's still possible to just be a dick about it and not give a rats ass about anyone else, but on doing that, most people won't give a rats ass about you. Come the next 9/11, the US won't have any friends left.
Thanks for the great info! I figured it was something like that. Not being a mac user it's all a bit confusing.
BTW, Windows doesn't have "legacy" components - it is inherently backwards compatible. It doesn't need to load a subsystem to handle these older apps, it can do it natively. There's no delay, no wasted disk space, etc.
I'm not playing "my OS is better than yours" here, I just though I'd point out a couple of mistakes in your perception of windows.
The US agreed to pay 0.7%. They obliged themselves. If the US doesn't want to pay 0.7%, it shouldn't have promised to pay 0.7%. It's not about helping the poor at this point, but simply doing what you promise to do.
Just because life isn't fair is no reason to abandon people. The US prospered at a time when international law was a lot weaker than it is now. The US was built on slaves, something most developing nations can't do today. The US had the good fortune to be born from the British Empire, which in turn ruined most of the world (and indeed caused most of these "naturally fucked up" people and countries). Saying the world is not fair is silly. Sure it's not fair, but that's no excuse to run away from the mess you made without clearing it up.
I don't want to get into an argument with you. You've made it painfully obvious you don't really know much about the rest of the world, and I can't blame you. I've been to America quite a bit and I've seen how insular the media is. The fact you think other nations are somehow lesser nations than the US is highly worrying. I really hope you have an epiphany some point. Living your life in ignorance and hatred isn't good for anyone, least of all you.
What's that nonsense about 1991 anyway? I take it you haven't heard of socialism. It seems to be churning out better countries than the US. I wouldn't knock it so much.
As for your comments about the US developing, press-ganging sailors is trivial compared to expecting every single coal-fired furnace/boiler in the developing US to be regulated, as that's what you're implying.
For developing countries (who pollute less than the US) to follow it, it could damage the country irreparably. For the US to do it, it would mean less money in some CEOs' pockets. That's the difference.
Here's something you might not have realised before - every country in the world is the PEER of America, not some subsurvient lesser nation. To the rest of the world, the US is the guy on their block who plays his music loud, screams at his girlfriend, refuses to clear the broken cars off his lawn, and steals things from his neighbors. To that guy, he's the best person in the world and everyone else is a loser. To everyone else, it's the other way.
So please, go ahead - be selfish. Just don't complain when other nations are pissed off with the US and take action. It's that simple.
The US can afford to clean up its act. As the richest and most polluting country it has two factors in its favor. It makes a lot of mess, and has the resources to clean it up. Poor countries pollute less, and have less wealth. Expecting them to do the same is just ridiculously selfish.
Though you probably think I'm a stupid foreigner, which I expect;)
It doesn't matter WHY it does things, the fact is does those things means windows users will have difficulty coming over to Linux. Simply saying "well, it's PROPER to do things this way" isn't helping anyone. Windows is where it is today because people can use it. It's become the standard GUI OS around the world, like it or not. Linux just doesn't have the clout to dictate the "correct" ways to do things, as de jure is often no match for de facto.
I hope I don't come off sounding too harsh here - that's not my intent.
Hahaha! A former Greenpeace member, and you accuse me of having a closed mind? Damn that was the most sublime irony I've encountered for the longest time.
I just don't get it. What has Iran done to anyone? Surely they're allowed nuclear material. I don't remember them blowing anyone/anything up recently (not as recently as the US blowing people/things up, anyway).
This whole thing smacks of double-standards. Accusing Syria of invading a country against the wish of the residents is incredible.
I think the real danger here is Israel. The US won't attack Iran (as it straight-up can't, due to few soldiers left), but Israel is sitting there, surrounded by military surplus and nukes. They've already said they'd attack Iran if they did anything they consider "stupid" (which could be just about anything, it seems).
Priceless. I imagine it doesn't register with you that you're grossly mis-informed about the rest of the world? Can I guess you're an American?
Maybe you should realise that the one nation on earth that can not be reasoned with is the US... your notion of "good guys vs. bad guys" is about 180-degrees out of whack;)
Care to name any of these "legions of people"? This is great fun.
Insisting on fairness? Ok... maybe the US should give 0.7% of its GDP to developing nations as it has promised to do, instead of giving the 0.1% it does now. That would be fair. Or, maybe, the US should give MOST of its GDP to poorer countries, as that would be EVEN FAIRER.
Back to the issue at hand - something has to be done now. The US is polluting more than any other nation on Earth, and more than most continents. Expecting to treat some struggling nation gripped by a military coup or millions of people starving the same way as a secured, comfortable, prosperous nation is so selfish it's beyond words. No-one was pestering the US to follow environmental treaties when IT was developing, but now you want to force those on other developing nations? THAT seems grossly unfair to me. Of course, I'm looking at a global picture, not one with myself in the middle looking amorously at a SUV;)
No, it doesn't load at boot. You're massively confusing things here.
Internet Explorer is a shell of an application. It has very little functionality of its own. Most of the power comes from its HTML rendering engine, which is a common component of most of Windows. Nearly everything in Windows that is from Microsoft these days is actually rendered HTML. Management tools, explorer bars, CHM files, etc. all use the same rendering engine.
The "Internet Explorer" application is tiny. The reason it loads up so fast is the initial instance of it uses up a few megs of memory. Firefox and other browsers bring a lot of extra functionality to the table, and that comes at a price. Firefox loads up slower than IE quite considerably on my machine (seconds more), and for that reason alone, I don't use it. I'm a heavy keyboard user in Windows, hardly touching the mouse. When I (windows key)+R and enter a web address, when I press enter, I want the address loaded as quickly as possible. If I'm waiting a few seconds for Firefox to load in some plugin or interface, or register some hotkeys or whatever it's doing, that's just too slow.
If Firefox could do what IE does that I really appreciate, I'd switch. I don't want to cut corners because of some ideology - I want the fastest thing out there:)
IE7 will share the same HTML rendering engine the rest of the operating system uses. It's not a dangerous flaw, as when used in the system, it's reading HTML from signed.dll files, etc., not warez sites or porn directories.
I think you're reading into it too far. IE is a very good browser for most people. It's fast, easy to use, and is very difficult to trick into breaking HTML layout.
If IE was so bad, people would install their own browsers instead. They won't sit there using a supposedly awful browser, sobbing, and refusing to install anything else:) It's not as if these other browsers are hidden on the net, in secret hidey holes or anything. There has always been high-publicity alternatives to IE, and still people didn't feel the need to switch. Attributing that to ignorance or lack of intelligence is silly.
It's big for you, maybe - don't assume everyone's like you. I'm a professional web developer, and I don't use "tabs" in the traditional sense.
I use XP (wait, please), and have it set to group all like windows on my task bar. I can then have easy access to each window I have from one central location. I can resize each one as I see fit, move them around, while still retaining the centralised control of each window.
When Firefox is as quick and as forgiving of poor HTML as IE is, I'll switch. I'm not trolling, I'm being objective. The two can look similar, but the motives are entirely different.
I don't see why people are leaving IE so much. I've used it ever since Netscape went awful, and my computer hasn't been hijacked, no bonsi buddies, no nothing. AND it's more responsive than Firefox, with a more forgiving HTML rendering engine.
Seriously, I'm being objective here. If Firefox was a better browser than IE for me, I'd switch.
Economic devestation? Are you kidding? May I suggest reading about Kyoto from somewhere other than whitehouse.gov, as you're incredibly mis-informed. In case you didn't notice, in 1990, MORE countries joined "Europe", so meeting targets would be harder.
The real difficulty for the US is that it's so increadibly polluting. It pollutes more than the EU does, by far. As the main polluter, it's the US's responsiblility to plough some of that money it made by ruining the environment back into fixing it. Your suggestion about agricultural subsidies is just plain ridiculous. Please, go read up some more, away from whitehouse.gov. Your closed mind is simply scary. Sorry if this offends.
You're confused, seriously confused. The US is heavily reliant on oil and other fossil fuels for its power. Most of the western world is moving away from those, however the US seems firmly attached.
China and India are still growing. The US has been fully grown for a while now, and can afford to start cutting emissions. Unfortunately, the US doesn't want to do anything that may be beneficial to the entire world if it means missing out on some money. I'd love to think otherwise, but that's the only reason I can see for not ratifying this protocol.
Seeing as the US is making wild accusations against both countries, it seems fair they form a pact. After all, the US is so keen to surround itself with allies when it does something, other nations should be allowed to do the same:)
Slashdot Mirror
They can't ensure their stuff works with Wine, so they do what's best for everyone, and not update Wine installations. That's fair enough. After all, everyone would be screaming blue murder if these updates DID break their Wine.
Oh, and DOSs of every flavour have eaten everyone's data at some point. That's why we were so happy to get rid of it. sheesh.
Those guys are racist fucks on that there site. not nice peeps.
I don't know if you know this or not, but Microsoft makes more than just IE. Maybe you should think of the plethora of things Microsoft makes before you say something that makes you look silly... ;)
Your statment makes just as much sense if you swap "Iran" and "US or Israel". Go figure.
You see, we're human beings. We only prosper if we all prosper. Sure, these days we can be selfish, as technology and society has allowed us to be able to live with a selfish attitude. Of course, when it comes to international development, each country is like a primitive human. We need to help the weakest ones we have, otherwise we all become weak. It's also along the same lines as the whole "do unto others" speil from the bible. You know - if you'd want someone to do it to you (ie help you when you need it) - it's good to help people when they need it.
Of course, it's still possible to just be a dick about it and not give a rats ass about anyone else, but on doing that, most people won't give a rats ass about you. Come the next 9/11, the US won't have any friends left.
BTW, Windows doesn't have "legacy" components - it is inherently backwards compatible. It doesn't need to load a subsystem to handle these older apps, it can do it natively. There's no delay, no wasted disk space, etc.
I'm not playing "my OS is better than yours" here, I just though I'd point out a couple of mistakes in your perception of windows.
Just because life isn't fair is no reason to abandon people. The US prospered at a time when international law was a lot weaker than it is now. The US was built on slaves, something most developing nations can't do today. The US had the good fortune to be born from the British Empire, which in turn ruined most of the world (and indeed caused most of these "naturally fucked up" people and countries). Saying the world is not fair is silly. Sure it's not fair, but that's no excuse to run away from the mess you made without clearing it up.
I don't want to get into an argument with you. You've made it painfully obvious you don't really know much about the rest of the world, and I can't blame you. I've been to America quite a bit and I've seen how insular the media is. The fact you think other nations are somehow lesser nations than the US is highly worrying. I really hope you have an epiphany some point. Living your life in ignorance and hatred isn't good for anyone, least of all you.
Sorry if this offends. just trying to help.
What's that nonsense about 1991 anyway? I take it you haven't heard of socialism. It seems to be churning out better countries than the US. I wouldn't knock it so much.
As for your comments about the US developing, press-ganging sailors is trivial compared to expecting every single coal-fired furnace/boiler in the developing US to be regulated, as that's what you're implying.
For developing countries (who pollute less than the US) to follow it, it could damage the country irreparably. For the US to do it, it would mean less money in some CEOs' pockets. That's the difference.
Here's something you might not have realised before - every country in the world is the PEER of America, not some subsurvient lesser nation. To the rest of the world, the US is the guy on their block who plays his music loud, screams at his girlfriend, refuses to clear the broken cars off his lawn, and steals things from his neighbors. To that guy, he's the best person in the world and everyone else is a loser. To everyone else, it's the other way.
So please, go ahead - be selfish. Just don't complain when other nations are pissed off with the US and take action. It's that simple.
The US can afford to clean up its act. As the richest and most polluting country it has two factors in its favor. It makes a lot of mess, and has the resources to clean it up. Poor countries pollute less, and have less wealth. Expecting them to do the same is just ridiculously selfish.
Though you probably think I'm a stupid foreigner, which I expect ;)
I hope I don't come off sounding too harsh here - that's not my intent.
Thanks for brightening up my day no end :)
This whole thing smacks of double-standards. Accusing Syria of invading a country against the wish of the residents is incredible.
I think the real danger here is Israel. The US won't attack Iran (as it straight-up can't, due to few soldiers left), but Israel is sitting there, surrounded by military surplus and nukes. They've already said they'd attack Iran if they did anything they consider "stupid" (which could be just about anything, it seems).
Only time will tell, I guess.
Maybe you should realise that the one nation on earth that can not be reasoned with is the US... your notion of "good guys vs. bad guys" is about 180-degrees out of whack ;)
Care to name any of these "legions of people"? This is great fun.
Back to the issue at hand - something has to be done now. The US is polluting more than any other nation on Earth, and more than most continents. Expecting to treat some struggling nation gripped by a military coup or millions of people starving the same way as a secured, comfortable, prosperous nation is so selfish it's beyond words. No-one was pestering the US to follow environmental treaties when IT was developing, but now you want to force those on other developing nations? THAT seems grossly unfair to me. Of course, I'm looking at a global picture, not one with myself in the middle looking amorously at a SUV ;)
Internet Explorer is a shell of an application. It has very little functionality of its own. Most of the power comes from its HTML rendering engine, which is a common component of most of Windows. Nearly everything in Windows that is from Microsoft these days is actually rendered HTML. Management tools, explorer bars, CHM files, etc. all use the same rendering engine.
The "Internet Explorer" application is tiny. The reason it loads up so fast is the initial instance of it uses up a few megs of memory. Firefox and other browsers bring a lot of extra functionality to the table, and that comes at a price. Firefox loads up slower than IE quite considerably on my machine (seconds more), and for that reason alone, I don't use it. I'm a heavy keyboard user in Windows, hardly touching the mouse. When I (windows key)+R and enter a web address, when I press enter, I want the address loaded as quickly as possible. If I'm waiting a few seconds for Firefox to load in some plugin or interface, or register some hotkeys or whatever it's doing, that's just too slow.
If Firefox could do what IE does that I really appreciate, I'd switch. I don't want to cut corners because of some ideology - I want the fastest thing out there :)
IE7 will share the same HTML rendering engine the rest of the operating system uses. It's not a dangerous flaw, as when used in the system, it's reading HTML from signed .dll files, etc., not warez sites or porn directories.
That's through some serious emulation. Don't you need a "classic" install (or large parts of one) on an OSX box to have true backwards compatability?
If IE was so bad, people would install their own browsers instead. They won't sit there using a supposedly awful browser, sobbing, and refusing to install anything else :) It's not as if these other browsers are hidden on the net, in secret hidey holes or anything. There has always been high-publicity alternatives to IE, and still people didn't feel the need to switch. Attributing that to ignorance or lack of intelligence is silly.
I use XP (wait, please), and have it set to group all like windows on my task bar. I can then have easy access to each window I have from one central location. I can resize each one as I see fit, move them around, while still retaining the centralised control of each window.
When Firefox is as quick and as forgiving of poor HTML as IE is, I'll switch. I'm not trolling, I'm being objective. The two can look similar, but the motives are entirely different.
Seeing as they have sites that rely on advertising for revenue, blocking their own adverts is a ridiculous idea :)
I don't see why people are leaving IE so much. I've used it ever since Netscape went awful, and my computer hasn't been hijacked, no bonsi buddies, no nothing. AND it's more responsive than Firefox, with a more forgiving HTML rendering engine.
Seriously, I'm being objective here. If Firefox was a better browser than IE for me, I'd switch.
By your logic, since Firefox came after IE, we can assume Firefox stole every common function... your point?
It's just selfish action on behalf of the US.
The real difficulty for the US is that it's so increadibly polluting. It pollutes more than the EU does, by far. As the main polluter, it's the US's responsiblility to plough some of that money it made by ruining the environment back into fixing it. Your suggestion about agricultural subsidies is just plain ridiculous. Please, go read up some more, away from whitehouse.gov. Your closed mind is simply scary. Sorry if this offends.
China and India are still growing. The US has been fully grown for a while now, and can afford to start cutting emissions. Unfortunately, the US doesn't want to do anything that may be beneficial to the entire world if it means missing out on some money. I'd love to think otherwise, but that's the only reason I can see for not ratifying this protocol.
Seeing as the US is making wild accusations against both countries, it seems fair they form a pact. After all, the US is so keen to surround itself with allies when it does something, other nations should be allowed to do the same :)