The humour of a joke is in the ear of the listener (my apologies to Margaret Wolfe Hungerford). I think that the fact that you think to be funny you need to put someone down or dominate someone else speaks to your own character. Granted that in general people tend to group together and look on those outside the group as outsiders. It is documented human nature. This does lead to this kind of 'alpha' humour and it isn't unusual in most places in the world. But it isn't the only kind of humour, and is relied on more, much more in some places than others. I find American humour relies more on put downs and domination than other places, and this seems to be accelerating. But I don't think that all American humour relies on it. I like Steve Wright and his humour, and I don't see many of his jokes making others the butt of a joke. Bob Newhart did great stand up comedy with little if any put down humour. As an example of humour where others are not the butt of a joke, even though not American look at the movie 'The Full Monte'. It was funny as hell, and I didn't see a mean bone in it. Mind you, even with the name of the movie I don't think we saw any bone in it. (See what I did there!?) And there are a ton of other great movies and comedians who don't rely on meanness and put downs.
Agreed. We're supposed to reduce carbon output worldwide, and carbon trading doesn't do this. It just stops new carbon emitting economic development in poorer countries by allowing existing carbon emitting industries to emit more. I don't see how this is supposed to help reduce CO2 levels. It really is just another add on to the political bullshit machine.
On the other hand, it could force poorer countries who have already traded their carbon output away to become experts in "green" technology. Eventually they might become the producers of the world's best "green" tech. Then the so-called rich countries will pay for their stubbornness to change. That is, this might be a hidden way for the poorer countries to catch up and possibly overtake the richer countries in some respects at least. The trouble with that is the current unscrupulous business leaders will get to keep being rewarded for bad behavior in (long) terms of society, if not business-wise. But perhaps that's the only best case scenario.
In Canada there are a lot of people who come here and get citizenship far more easily than is done in the U.S. Then they go back to their home country and play the 'Canadian get out of jail free' card when the shit hits the fan. A few years ago when Israel invaded southern Lebanon, literally thousands of these 'Lebanese Canadians' screamed for help to get out of there. The Canadian government spent millions of dollars to evacuate these 'Canadians'. One woman even complained because she said the service was poor and the sleeping conditions and food were not up to her standards. Then when the war was over, they all went back to Lebanon.
I can't stand these Canadian by convenience people who play both sides of the fence. If you want to be Canadian, you should have to renounce your citizenship to your former country or not become Canadian. At the minimum, you shouldn't expect any help if you get into trouble outside of Canada, especially in your former country that you hold your dual citizenship in.
This guy was also Thai. He knew or should have known the law and penalties for what he did. Especially if he didn't want to renounced his Thai citizenship, and especially so if he was going to travel there. He needs to own his own behaviour, even if the penalty for it is stupid and excessive. He is the victim of his own circumstance.
What you say is true in only two ways: 1) if you are only capable of taking pictures in the camera's 'automatic modes'. 2) if you buy lenses meant for anything less than for a full 35 mm sensor/film (what you are talking about with respect to consumer/pro digital lenses).
I have manual lenses that work just fine for me, but I do have to use them full manual. They are 20 or 30 years old, were purchased for 35 mm film, and work on film or digital Nikon cameras. Once you get to a certain point, it is the photographer and not the fancy features of the lens that make the difference. And what is nice here, is that if you can deal with it, you can get very high end (great glass) 35 mm film lenses second hand for cheaper because they aren't "digital compatible". Which really means they don't work with all the automatic features on digital camera, but they are still functional lenses often with very good glass (which is what is the most important part). If you know how to metre a scene yourself, that won't matter.
I know it is an extreme example, but look at the absolutely amazing photos Ansel Adams could do with an 8x10 camera doing landscapes... and those lenses only allowed for manual setting of f-stop; the focus was in the camera bellows! But of course even in full manual, a 35mm camera will allow you to shoot much more quickly than a large format camera, even if slower than in any automatic mode (including the various automatic metering modes). But being forced to shoot slower can also aid you in developing your skill in shot selection and composition. It can force you to be a better photographer, able to find good composition quickly instead of relying on being able to shoot dozens or hundreds of shots just to get one or two good ones. Ansel Adams for example often would be able to look at a scene and know exactly how he wanted to shoot it, right down to how he would process the film and print the paper. He had to get good at it given how much a pain working with the extremely large 8x10 format cameras that he preferred. He didn't often take quick shots. The only one I can remember him saying that he shot very quickly (that I read about in one of his books) was Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
Now if you are taking a lot of action shots (sports for example) the automatic features are almost required, but guys back in the day took some really good sports photos without all that too. It just depends on how much automation you really need or want.
I'm not the one making wild claims. You want to make horseshit claims, them back it up or expect push back. And your posted citation that you finally made here is a list that has no bearing on what you are claiming (it only shows consumption and has no mention of development of newly developed reserves whether traditional or otherwise). So stopcryingyouwhineyfuck.com and back up your claims or be called a bullshitter who thinks by 'repeating' things it makes them true. You must have been reading Carl Rove's book.
Now this one really does require a citation. And oil doesn't just have to be pumped in the traditional manner. There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil. There is fracking, and oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic that are just being discovered. And if the antarctic ice shelf melts to any degree, who wants to bet that oil companies won't be buying off politicians in Russia, the U.K., and America to get rules changed to drill there. A whole new continent that hasn't been exploited. But first before I believe there is only 40 years of oil left I need convincing with published facts, and even then it would have to be pretty damned convincing.
Mythbusters did an episode on cars versus motorbikes with respect to pollution. The upshot was that motorbikes polluted about as much as cars. They used less gas and create less carbon dioxide, but also create way more other polluting oxides like those of nitrogen and others (by orders of magnitude). So you can try and say your bike is not as bad as a Prius, but you are likely wrong considering a Prius is much less polluting (with respect to emissions) than traditional internal combustion engined cars.
I was thinking about the villains in old western movies who would shoot their 'six guns' at someone's feet and tell them to dance. Hackers could take this to a whole new level.
You talk about how landing is meaningless because of all the experience yet you think looking for comparisons at how others fare is meaningless. Or irrelevant. When you discount things that happen to others with more experience (that is what having more time in space means... are you really that dumb or just trolling?) you show a lack of wisdom. Learning from others' mistakes is a form of wisdom. And given your last statement being 180 degrees from your original response to me... wait now you aren't taking a safe landing for granted? which is the point I originally made... I guess you really are just being argumentative with no coherent point. And if you can't join the dots I don't have anything more to say to you, as either you can't understand or don't want to... or are just trolling.
If these were every day occurrences your point would be valid. They aren't. So neither is your point. There are a great deal of uncertainties and with a 10 or 15 minutes control lag on a piece of equipment that has traveled between worlds people can count on nothing. Especially as this is only the second rover to have this method of landing. And if you are still so full of... ahem... confidence, look at the Russian mars probe that didn't even make it out of orbit. The Russians have more time in space than the Americans. And at least at this point in that mission, the technology is indeed old hat. I won't be surprised when the Curiosity touches down successfully. But I personally wouldn't take it for granted like you and others seem to. In fact, I would bet money on it that almost all the NASA engineers involved feel the same way.
Hah!:) I guess I just paraphrased since I was thinking of all that: launching, getting out of orbit (unlike the Mars Grunt), the trip, orbital insertion, Mars atmospheric entry, landing, establishing communication with earth, blah, blah, blah. My head was just at a place that said landing on the planet was really the only thing that is important right now, AND all the things entailed to achieve said landing. As far as the actual landing this time, it is pretty damned involved. I'm not sure if you are aware, but it isn't a passive decent this time. It does start classically with heat shield and parachute, but then it uses rocket motors to descend further and then hover while it lowers the actual rover to the ground on a winch. And then flies off somewhere once the rover has touched down and the cable(s) is released (probably doesn't matter where the airborne vehicle goes as long as it isn't right on top of the rover). Things as mundane as releasing the cable are worrisome, never mind the uber high tech stuff. So that is why I think I would rather wait till it actually lands and can communicate with home before bragging about the other stuff. If it doesn't land then I think it would be better not to do the 'look at all the cool stuff we could have done dance. So yeah, I get your point. I just wrapped it all up in one phrase. But you are right of course.
Well the "aimed at" part might actually produce a bunch of hooey considering that some researchers somehow figured out that duck spoof has antibiotic properties. And if that makes you squeamish at the thought, the Scandinavians have figured out that human spoof does too! Now to convince your girlfriend/wife that you are really trying to help her when she gets strep throat.
You are sort of trivializing an important point. Perhaps the most important point, at that. At this stage there is only ONE cool thing that this rover needs to do. And that is land safely on the surface of Mars. No mean feat considering how complex this new landing system is. Retro/landing rockets, hovering, winching down, etc. etc. etc. At this point I don't give a good God damn (take that Pakistani censors!) about the other 11 cool things. They don't mean shit if it can't land. Articles like this just make me feel like we are patting ourselves (humans in general) on the back before it's time. I am an optimistic pessimist, so counting my chickens first makes me nervous.
Welllllll.... in my book, spam is advertising. Not all spam is advertising, but all advertising is spam. Clearly if he were advertising, it would have been spam. So I'm not sure where you're going with this one.
It looked like you were advertising to me but possibly not. That is why I said 'appears'. I also acknowledged that the idea of just using off the shelf solution is a good idea. It is generally cheaper in the long run to go with a pre-existing solution. I've tried the roll your own a few times and learned my lesson to really figure it out first to make sure what I am doing will actually be cheaper. And humbly admit that I have on a more than a few occasions tried the cheap route only to find I didn't save anything. Which is why I generally agreed with your post. Apologies if you weren't trying to sell anything. And I believe you weren't. Cheers.
Since you seem to suffer from reading incomprehension, let me explain it to you. The OP was making a case for adding third party repositories to the standard Apple package manager so that less tech savvy Apple users don't only have the Apple Store to download from. I am making the point that Apple doesn't want that because it would cut into profits. Understand?
Now if you still don't understand there are one of three reasons: 1) you don't have enough information to understand (but given the info in this thread, you should have that already); 2) you aren't smart enough to understand (given that the info is here, that might be the case); and 3) you don't want to understand (given that you appear to be an Apple stooge and likely fanatic this is a strong possibility). But let me help you some more:
Linux has many safe third party repositories where users can legally download and legally use software (on however many computers they want, not just up to 5). And the software for each repository is almost always geared to a particular distribution (e.g. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.), and as such tested to make sure it works on that distribution before being added to the repository (Sourceforge doesn't guarantee a binary build for your OS, that is a convenience the developers provide, Sourceforge generally only guarantees the source code is there in case you want or need to build the application for your particular system). But the key difference between third party repositories and the Apple Store here is that those repositories host free (as in beer) software. In fact, almost all the usable software found on Sourceforge can be found in those free repositories. Now here is where you need to put on your thinking cap: but Apple doesn't allow third party repositories. Why? Because if they made it easy to get software from repositories other than the Apple Store, less tech savvy users (who are intimidated by manually installing software) would be able to get the same free software found on Sourceforge without having to install it manually or having to build it themselves. And more to the point, they wouldn't have to pay a fee or at least a commission for installing the software from the Apple Store. Get it fucktard?
Apple users ARE getting software from Sourceforge. You can't argue that. Apple wants to limit users from being able to get free software as much as they can. It is why all software sold on the Apple Store needs to pay a cut to Apple.
The other advantage to third party repositories as opposed to manually installing from Sourceforge, if you can figure it out, is that the third party repositories keep the software up to date, allowing you to automate updates to your computer from those repositories. That way you get patches when they happen instead of having to check back at Sourceforge periodically and updating manually (which is a source of vulnerability since most people don't check often enough). And try telling people that the software at Sourceforge is not safe or that it has viruses in it, or malware. You will be told by others in no uncertain terms to fuck right off. Sourceforge hosts safe software. At least as safe as that found on the Apple Store.
The only reason Apple doesn't allow third party repositories is that they can't make money from them. Now if you don't want to understand that, take your Apple Stooging Ass out of here and fuck right off. And for the record, I think Apple makes a good product. But they are more closed up than Microsoft for certain, and care more about dollars than their customers. And I don't see the percentage of spending twice as much for an Apple than for a PC, since Microsoft PCs are just as stable and safe, have more software available for cheaper, and just work too. The only valid reason to spend that kind of money is if you are a programmer on Unix systems. Other than that buyers are fanatic snobs who think they are cool. Fuck, Android phones make iPhones look like shit. Jobs was a tyrant and I seriously dou
While this appears to be spam, the idea is valid: One of the choices besides roll your own, is to buy a system. After all the farting around and buying parts etc. sometimes it is in the same pricing ball park to buy a system ready made to do what you want. Especially if you take into account the time you spend. If that is not an issue, at least examine the price points. I don't know a thing about mesh, but I would assume it isn't the only off the shelf option out there either.
Slashdot Mirror
GODZILLA!
The humour of a joke is in the ear of the listener (my apologies to Margaret Wolfe Hungerford). I think that the fact that you think to be funny you need to put someone down or dominate someone else speaks to your own character. Granted that in general people tend to group together and look on those outside the group as outsiders. It is documented human nature. This does lead to this kind of 'alpha' humour and it isn't unusual in most places in the world. But it isn't the only kind of humour, and is relied on more, much more in some places than others. I find American humour relies more on put downs and domination than other places, and this seems to be accelerating. But I don't think that all American humour relies on it. I like Steve Wright and his humour, and I don't see many of his jokes making others the butt of a joke. Bob Newhart did great stand up comedy with little if any put down humour. As an example of humour where others are not the butt of a joke, even though not American look at the movie 'The Full Monte'. It was funny as hell, and I didn't see a mean bone in it. Mind you, even with the name of the movie I don't think we saw any bone in it. (See what I did there!?) And there are a ton of other great movies and comedians who don't rely on meanness and put downs.
Agreed. We're supposed to reduce carbon output worldwide, and carbon trading doesn't do this. It just stops new carbon emitting economic development in poorer countries by allowing existing carbon emitting industries to emit more. I don't see how this is supposed to help reduce CO2 levels. It really is just another add on to the political bullshit machine.
On the other hand, it could force poorer countries who have already traded their carbon output away to become experts in "green" technology. Eventually they might become the producers of the world's best "green" tech. Then the so-called rich countries will pay for their stubbornness to change. That is, this might be a hidden way for the poorer countries to catch up and possibly overtake the richer countries in some respects at least. The trouble with that is the current unscrupulous business leaders will get to keep being rewarded for bad behavior in (long) terms of society, if not business-wise. But perhaps that's the only best case scenario.
In Canada there are a lot of people who come here and get citizenship far more easily than is done in the U.S. Then they go back to their home country and play the 'Canadian get out of jail free' card when the shit hits the fan. A few years ago when Israel invaded southern Lebanon, literally thousands of these 'Lebanese Canadians' screamed for help to get out of there. The Canadian government spent millions of dollars to evacuate these 'Canadians'. One woman even complained because she said the service was poor and the sleeping conditions and food were not up to her standards. Then when the war was over, they all went back to Lebanon.
I can't stand these Canadian by convenience people who play both sides of the fence. If you want to be Canadian, you should have to renounce your citizenship to your former country or not become Canadian. At the minimum, you shouldn't expect any help if you get into trouble outside of Canada, especially in your former country that you hold your dual citizenship in.
This guy was also Thai. He knew or should have known the law and penalties for what he did. Especially if he didn't want to renounced his Thai citizenship, and especially so if he was going to travel there. He needs to own his own behaviour, even if the penalty for it is stupid and excessive. He is the victim of his own circumstance.
And spoken like Droopy Dog.
What you say is true in only two ways: 1) if you are only capable of taking pictures in the camera's 'automatic modes'. 2) if you buy lenses meant for anything less than for a full 35 mm sensor/film (what you are talking about with respect to consumer/pro digital lenses).
I have manual lenses that work just fine for me, but I do have to use them full manual. They are 20 or 30 years old, were purchased for 35 mm film, and work on film or digital Nikon cameras. Once you get to a certain point, it is the photographer and not the fancy features of the lens that make the difference. And what is nice here, is that if you can deal with it, you can get very high end (great glass) 35 mm film lenses second hand for cheaper because they aren't "digital compatible". Which really means they don't work with all the automatic features on digital camera, but they are still functional lenses often with very good glass (which is what is the most important part). If you know how to metre a scene yourself, that won't matter.
I know it is an extreme example, but look at the absolutely amazing photos Ansel Adams could do with an 8x10 camera doing landscapes... and those lenses only allowed for manual setting of f-stop; the focus was in the camera bellows! But of course even in full manual, a 35mm camera will allow you to shoot much more quickly than a large format camera, even if slower than in any automatic mode (including the various automatic metering modes). But being forced to shoot slower can also aid you in developing your skill in shot selection and composition. It can force you to be a better photographer, able to find good composition quickly instead of relying on being able to shoot dozens or hundreds of shots just to get one or two good ones. Ansel Adams for example often would be able to look at a scene and know exactly how he wanted to shoot it, right down to how he would process the film and print the paper. He had to get good at it given how much a pain working with the extremely large 8x10 format cameras that he preferred. He didn't often take quick shots. The only one I can remember him saying that he shot very quickly (that I read about in one of his books) was Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico
Now if you are taking a lot of action shots (sports for example) the automatic features are almost required, but guys back in the day took some really good sports photos without all that too. It just depends on how much automation you really need or want.
I'm not the one making wild claims. You want to make horseshit claims, them back it up or expect push back. And your posted citation that you finally made here is a list that has no bearing on what you are claiming (it only shows consumption and has no mention of development of newly developed reserves whether traditional or otherwise). So stopcryingyouwhineyfuck.com and back up your claims or be called a bullshitter who thinks by 'repeating' things it makes them true. You must have been reading Carl Rove's book.
Now this one really does require a citation. And oil doesn't just have to be pumped in the traditional manner. There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil. There is fracking, and oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic that are just being discovered. And if the antarctic ice shelf melts to any degree, who wants to bet that oil companies won't be buying off politicians in Russia, the U.K., and America to get rules changed to drill there. A whole new continent that hasn't been exploited. But first before I believe there is only 40 years of oil left I need convincing with published facts, and even then it would have to be pretty damned convincing.
Sorry, boneheaded the link about the results of the Mythbusters bike versus car episode in my original post.
Mythbusters did an episode on cars versus motorbikes with respect to pollution. The upshot was that motorbikes polluted about as much as cars. They used less gas and create less carbon dioxide, but also create way more other polluting oxides like those of nitrogen and others (by orders of magnitude). So you can try and say your bike is not as bad as a Prius, but you are likely wrong considering a Prius is much less polluting (with respect to emissions) than traditional internal combustion engined cars.
I was thinking about the villains in old western movies who would shoot their 'six guns' at someone's feet and tell them to dance. Hackers could take this to a whole new level.
Not to mention the E coli.
You talk about how landing is meaningless because of all the experience yet you think looking for comparisons at how others fare is meaningless. Or irrelevant. When you discount things that happen to others with more experience (that is what having more time in space means... are you really that dumb or just trolling?) you show a lack of wisdom. Learning from others' mistakes is a form of wisdom. And given your last statement being 180 degrees from your original response to me... wait now you aren't taking a safe landing for granted? which is the point I originally made... I guess you really are just being argumentative with no coherent point. And if you can't join the dots I don't have anything more to say to you, as either you can't understand or don't want to... or are just trolling.
If these were every day occurrences your point would be valid. They aren't. So neither is your point. There are a great deal of uncertainties and with a 10 or 15 minutes control lag on a piece of equipment that has traveled between worlds people can count on nothing. Especially as this is only the second rover to have this method of landing. And if you are still so full of ... ahem... confidence, look at the Russian mars probe that didn't even make it out of orbit. The Russians have more time in space than the Americans. And at least at this point in that mission, the technology is indeed old hat. I won't be surprised when the Curiosity touches down successfully. But I personally wouldn't take it for granted like you and others seem to. In fact, I would bet money on it that almost all the NASA engineers involved feel the same way.
They didn't tell you that they have sharks piloting the spacecraft.
Hah! :) I guess I just paraphrased since I was thinking of all that: launching, getting out of orbit (unlike the Mars Grunt), the trip, orbital insertion, Mars atmospheric entry, landing, establishing communication with earth, blah, blah, blah. My head was just at a place that said landing on the planet was really the only thing that is important right now, AND all the things entailed to achieve said landing. As far as the actual landing this time, it is pretty damned involved. I'm not sure if you are aware, but it isn't a passive decent this time. It does start classically with heat shield and parachute, but then it uses rocket motors to descend further and then hover while it lowers the actual rover to the ground on a winch. And then flies off somewhere once the rover has touched down and the cable(s) is released (probably doesn't matter where the airborne vehicle goes as long as it isn't right on top of the rover). Things as mundane as releasing the cable are worrisome, never mind the uber high tech stuff. So that is why I think I would rather wait till it actually lands and can communicate with home before bragging about the other stuff. If it doesn't land then I think it would be better not to do the 'look at all the cool stuff we could have done dance. So yeah, I get your point. I just wrapped it all up in one phrase. But you are right of course.
Well the "aimed at" part might actually produce a bunch of hooey considering that some researchers somehow figured out that duck spoof has antibiotic properties. And if that makes you squeamish at the thought, the Scandinavians have figured out that human spoof does too! Now to convince your girlfriend/wife that you are really trying to help her when she gets strep throat.
You are sort of trivializing an important point. Perhaps the most important point, at that. At this stage there is only ONE cool thing that this rover needs to do. And that is land safely on the surface of Mars. No mean feat considering how complex this new landing system is. Retro/landing rockets, hovering, winching down, etc. etc. etc. At this point I don't give a good God damn (take that Pakistani censors!) about the other 11 cool things. They don't mean shit if it can't land. Articles like this just make me feel like we are patting ourselves (humans in general) on the back before it's time. I am an optimistic pessimist, so counting my chickens first makes me nervous.
Welllllll.... in my book, spam is advertising. Not all spam is advertising, but all advertising is spam. Clearly if he were advertising, it would have been spam. So I'm not sure where you're going with this one.
It looked like you were advertising to me but possibly not. That is why I said 'appears'. I also acknowledged that the idea of just using off the shelf solution is a good idea. It is generally cheaper in the long run to go with a pre-existing solution. I've tried the roll your own a few times and learned my lesson to really figure it out first to make sure what I am doing will actually be cheaper. And humbly admit that I have on a more than a few occasions tried the cheap route only to find I didn't save anything. Which is why I generally agreed with your post. Apologies if you weren't trying to sell anything. And I believe you weren't. Cheers.
At 7-11 doesn't that mean the same thing as sell tuna?
They are thinking of the Taliban. Mentally the same thing.
Very nice from an Apple stooge.
Since you seem to suffer from reading incomprehension, let me explain it to you. The OP was making a case for adding third party repositories to the standard Apple package manager so that less tech savvy Apple users don't only have the Apple Store to download from. I am making the point that Apple doesn't want that because it would cut into profits. Understand?
Now if you still don't understand there are one of three reasons: 1) you don't have enough information to understand (but given the info in this thread, you should have that already); 2) you aren't smart enough to understand (given that the info is here, that might be the case); and 3) you don't want to understand (given that you appear to be an Apple stooge and likely fanatic this is a strong possibility). But let me help you some more:
Linux has many safe third party repositories where users can legally download and legally use software (on however many computers they want, not just up to 5). And the software for each repository is almost always geared to a particular distribution (e.g. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Suse, etc.), and as such tested to make sure it works on that distribution before being added to the repository (Sourceforge doesn't guarantee a binary build for your OS, that is a convenience the developers provide, Sourceforge generally only guarantees the source code is there in case you want or need to build the application for your particular system). But the key difference between third party repositories and the Apple Store here is that those repositories host free (as in beer) software. In fact, almost all the usable software found on Sourceforge can be found in those free repositories. Now here is where you need to put on your thinking cap: but Apple doesn't allow third party repositories. Why? Because if they made it easy to get software from repositories other than the Apple Store, less tech savvy users (who are intimidated by manually installing software) would be able to get the same free software found on Sourceforge without having to install it manually or having to build it themselves. And more to the point, they wouldn't have to pay a fee or at least a commission for installing the software from the Apple Store. Get it fucktard?
Apple users ARE getting software from Sourceforge. You can't argue that. Apple wants to limit users from being able to get free software as much as they can. It is why all software sold on the Apple Store needs to pay a cut to Apple.
The other advantage to third party repositories as opposed to manually installing from Sourceforge, if you can figure it out, is that the third party repositories keep the software up to date, allowing you to automate updates to your computer from those repositories. That way you get patches when they happen instead of having to check back at Sourceforge periodically and updating manually (which is a source of vulnerability since most people don't check often enough). And try telling people that the software at Sourceforge is not safe or that it has viruses in it, or malware. You will be told by others in no uncertain terms to fuck right off. Sourceforge hosts safe software. At least as safe as that found on the Apple Store.
The only reason Apple doesn't allow third party repositories is that they can't make money from them. Now if you don't want to understand that, take your Apple Stooging Ass out of here and fuck right off. And for the record, I think Apple makes a good product. But they are more closed up than Microsoft for certain, and care more about dollars than their customers. And I don't see the percentage of spending twice as much for an Apple than for a PC, since Microsoft PCs are just as stable and safe, have more software available for cheaper, and just work too. The only valid reason to spend that kind of money is if you are a programmer on Unix systems. Other than that buyers are fanatic snobs who think they are cool. Fuck, Android phones make iPhones look like shit. Jobs was a tyrant and I seriously dou
While this appears to be spam, the idea is valid: One of the choices besides roll your own, is to buy a system. After all the farting around and buying parts etc. sometimes it is in the same pricing ball park to buy a system ready made to do what you want. Especially if you take into account the time you spend. If that is not an issue, at least examine the price points. I don't know a thing about mesh, but I would assume it isn't the only off the shelf option out there either.
I never thought of that. Honestly, just when I thought I had a justifiable troll going.