I would think that the more intellectual "nerds", who do not focus only on stereotypical nerd stuff would be interested in anything that has an intellectual component to it. Britney Spears is exempt, but "News for MBAs" is not. Betterment of ones' self can take many paths.
Anyways, that was pretty funny but I think it bears pointing out that not all nerds are the same.
I paid for Opera in the last few months, but I'm not taking part of the free registration PLUS I'm not pissed because I want to support them with my money.
I am honestly interested in how they were caught... Does anyone have any idea? Were some of the initial machines found that started spreading infections and then connections were traced back from there? Was there something in the actual worm's binary? Did they brag in some chatroom? Had some police been watching them already?
Just curious about how they caught them so fast...
There are also two groups of agnostics, one of which I consider myself a part of. The first kind is the theistic agnostic which leans towards believing in god or some deity. The second is the atheitistic agnostic which leans towards believing that there is no god.
Agnostics are agnostics primarily because they do not believe there is enough information to decide definitively on the existence of god and be happy with ones decision. Being an agnostic, I believe I am in a class of people unique in that they are comfortable with not knowing. I do not believe we can answer the question of whether there is a god or not. I do not believe that the religions in the world today are correct, but I also do not rule out the possibility of something existing that is today considered supernatural. It is not comforting to not know, but I think it would help the world a lot if people simply went by what exists in the world around them.
Back to the discussion at hand, Agnostics can fit your definition of absence of belief but I think that they do not properly cover the concept of true absence of consideration of a higher being that the word atheist provides.
Your point is not entirely without reason but you are incorrectly lumping all atheists under one umbrella. There are two kinds:
People who believe that there is no god.
People who have a lack of belief about god.
The first one might possibly be better described as Antitheism, while the second one is true atheism, a lack of religious belief. Your point applies correctly to the first, but not second definition of atheism, which is what atheism is really supposed to be.
Saying that service in the US is worse than elsewhere is a gross overgeneralization. I have been to Europe quite a few times, and (especially in eastern block countries) the service there can be just as horrible (if not more so since Europeans are much more direct) as it is here when it is horrible. People are people. I don't think there is a large difference in levels of service. You go to a nice place, you get good service.
What h2oliu said is true. There have been a number of studies that show that prayer helps sick people, etc. This of course does not mean it is the actual prayer that is helping the person, it may mean that these people have a support network that causes them to feel better or that praying has a psychological effect which is healthy. For religious sick people (I'm agnostic, but I do see that religion can have value in some ways), prayer can help them, since it can provide some faith in the future which is a psychological state that may also cause an improvement in a patient.
Unfortunately this can get out of hand, like with christian science, where people who see the positive effects of prayer and religion in some patients assume it is god doing the work, and then apply it to serious situations where of course a psychological effect does nothing.
There are also studies that shows that certain parts of the brain are only active when praying or thinking religious thoughts. It makes sense that mankind is hardwired for religion (of course we wouldn't have so many religious people were we not, huh) because of the increased strength and togetherness of societies where religion is shared. Of course this is backfiring a bit across the world now, but we still have the male nipple too:)
Anyways, h2oliu is right. If prayer can have a positive effect for people, why not use it? You should not attempt to force your beliefs on others (this goes for both theists and atheists)...
I can't believe no one has highly moderated a mention of KOTOR yet. This game had the coolest story I've seen in a long time... Not only was it an awesome RPG with great gameplay, but the story was actually one of the highlights of the game. As others have said on here, Lucas could learn a thing or two from that game.
MaximumPC magazine also had a recent review of MP3, and they said while the IPOD headphones are very good relative to other headphones that come with players, they are the best component to upgrade in order to get better sound out of your player into your brain.
They recommended the quite expensive earbuds at www.shure.com (the e3c mainly). Does anyone have any experience with these, or any other suggestions? I was looking for some great earbuds, I am worried about this in ear design though, that it may not fit correctly in my ears.
1. Objective morality in no way proves god exists. There are plenty of biological and scientific explanations for people to think that "raping a child, murdering, greed torture" is wrong, because they don't want go to through it themselves. For example, as I said in my previous response, the biological purpose of mankind is to survive and reproduce. Therefore, since the main purpose is to produce offspring, people are especially touchy about damage done to children (i.e. raping a child). Why would this prove god exists? There are plenty of more viable reasons for this than god's existence. God's existence is just one explanation for this, and a pretty extreme one since it is based on the existence of the supernatural.
2. My point was that the point of view of the person dictates what is good and evil from their viewpoint. If two viewpoints differ, then how do you determine which one is correct about good and evil? If hitler thinks that murdering jews is the most wonderful thing that the world can do, yet you disagree, who is correct? Is it you because people in the world agree with you right now and you feel deep down in your gut that it was a horrible thing to do? Hitler felt deep down in his gut that it was a wonderful thing to do. My point was that how can objective good and evil exist if people disagree about good and evil? If objective good and evil existed then everyone would agree and there would be no large controversial issues like abortion. People would not be completely steadfast in thinking that abortion is evil (killing a child) with yet other people being completely steadfast in thinking that abortion is good.
A simple breakdown of my argument:
1. Objective morality means that everyone deep down would agree on certain moral issues, such as abortion being wrong, and executing jews being wrong (I am using these examples, since showing an exception breaks a rule).
2. Different people's morality (which often is based on their social situation) can be completely polar opposites on issues, and their "objective good and evil" can conflict with each other.
3. Objective good and evil existing does not allow for people to have different views of "objective" good and evil, since everyone would know good and evil deep down, therefore objective good and evil does not exist.
I will respond to a few points if yours also...
Huh? So, if the Nazi's had won, and either brainwashed or killed everyone who disagreed, then what they did was good? Yet if they won, but had a significant number of people thinking what they did was evil then it would be evil? So that if I murdered every single human, my actions would be evil until the point where I murdered the last person? Then suddenly it's good?
You already have your preconceptions of good and evil. Your point here, that after murdering everyone then it would suddenly be good involves the assumption that objective good and evil exist. What I am saying is that there is no objective measure of good and evil since it is not consitent across people. In your window on good and evil, the murder of everyone on the planet would always be bad, so it would of course not change after everyone dying. In another person's window on good and evil murdering of everyone on the planet could be seen as good, and of course would not be effected by how many people there are on the planet (unless of course they suddenly changed their mind which is allowed in subjective morality:) ).
We're talking about good and evil, not about 'bad' - since suffering is bad, but not necessarily evil.
I use good and evil interchangebly as good and bad, since evil is merely a subclass of bad that you feel especially strongly about, or wish to invoke some emotion with.
Absolute morality is something apart from human opinion. If we assume that murder is always wrong, that does not mean that every human will always recognise murder or think it is wrong. They could think they are doing the right th
Tyreth... you read and respond but you completely miss all of the points that I have and Bootsy have made. All of the points I was making were that perception of right and wrong dictates popular view of right and wrong (evil and good). If I lived in a world where the Nazis had won there I could see what they did as Good and seen the jews as evil. This difference in perception means would mean there is no good and evil, since what people see as good and evil can change. If it were absolute, then evil would be evil, good would be good. Human biology dictates a small set of things which are seen as evil. Death is always seen as bad, because there is the inherent drive to survive and reproduce in every organism on this planet. That does not mean that there is morality tied with surviving and reproducing that is drawn from some almighty being in the sky above. Killing is socially frowned upon because is is disadvantagous to society. There are societies such as the Yanamamo (sp?) tribes in southern america where people kill each other constantly and it is seen as a normal struggle for power. Samurai in Japan did not see killing and death as dishonorable or bad. In America society we view the act of killing itself as a purely evil thing. If evil and good were absolute then everyone the world over in every situtation would unmistakebly view murder as a bad thing in every situation in every society. This is not the case. People disagree on moral issues, because morality is a grey area and it changes over time and human progress. For some people sex before marriage is evil. For some people sex before marriage is beautiful and good. For some people abortion is evil. For some people abortion is good. The list goes on and on. There are no absolutes.
You misunderstood every single thing that we said in a way that is favorable to your argument. You do not reject the scientific method, yet you say that all of science is based on beliefs. Every single thing is philosophically based on beliefs on one level or another, but that does not mean that if you verify and perform proofs of a theory it does not have a much higher chance of being correct than some random thing that your parents told you since you were a child (i.e. some ineffective herbel remedy vs some scientifically developed medicine).
I can't reply as bearly eloquently as Bootsy, but I have to say something because you are completely ignoring his arguments.
For one thing, the #2 (2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.) in your argument is an assumption, though you are not willing to admit this. I was christian once and also worked out a little logical game that would prove that god exists to me. I know well how the thought process goes... This is not meant to be a personal attack, but it is easy to spot when someone is completely not listening to the other side of an argument, because they already believe in something and their argument is merely post-justification for believing in it.
Of course the Nazis have to be brought up since this is an extended argument, but you also need to see that it is yet ANOTHER assumption that you make when you say that we would still know that what the Nazis did is not good. History is written by the victors. Killing is usually seen as bad, but sometimes it is also portrayed as a means to an end, and therefore good. Nazi killings could easily be portrayed as being for the greater good, had they won the war.
I don't believe that there is any objective measure of good and evil. Every single argument has two sides, and this was one of my earliest discoveries in my life. Look at the Israel and Palestine situation, both view each other as evil, and neither of them are near perfect, but neither of them is pure evil either. I know it comforts you to think that there is an objective measure of good and evil, and if you do good you will be rewarded, but if you simply look around you in the world that is not the case. Good people are not always rewarded, bad people are not always punished. In the U.S. this process is often mediated by lawyers and money.
Also, you use the term naturalism with disdain. I personally am agnostic since I believe that science does not answer every single question, or answer them perfectly (obviously, nothing is perfect), yet I also subscribe to Bootsy's way of thought that something so extraordinary as a god requires some real, tangible proof, before I go devoting my life to it based on some logical argument I've constructed, or because people tell me that is what I need to believe. Naturalist beliefes are based on empirical proof, whereas religion is based on beliefs. I personally consider empirical studies and experiments to be more compelling for my beliefs.
I think this came out to be more trollish than I intended, but please don't view it that way. Bootsy (the grandparent) expressed much of what I believe in a very effective way, and I think you should read what he said a little closer and perhaps open your mind to what he is saying.
As you said, none of this requires true AI, and could have been implemented long ago. Online RTS games (unfortunately for you) require good micromanagement skills, becuase that is simply part of the game. Micromanagement skills seperates the good players from the mediocre. RTS games frankly just are not expansive or large enough to be competitive purely by strategy. There are only so many different strategies that you can use, so micromanagement is another aspect that keeps it interesting. RTS Developers (such as Blizzard) do not take out the micromanagement aspect of the game on purpose. This is bad for people who do not play the game much and want to be masters at it, and people who are not excellent at controlling their computers, but that is just aspect of competition.
Anyways, the point of WC3 and blizzard games is FUN. Not graphics, not story, not sound (although all of these are quite excellent in blizzard games IMHO), but FUN. Lasting fun requires that it remain a challenge for people, even after they have played it for a long time.
I frankly do not understand why these posts ragging on WC3 always get highly moderated. I don't ever see very good points, only stuff written by people who obviously did not give the game much of a chance.
It was just meant to be illstrative... there are lots of them out there. I don't run OS X myself, but I do run FreeBSD, which has linux binary compatability and should run the EMS manager, so shouldn't you be able to get it to work on OS X? Plus 400$ is a lot cheaper than MSSQL:)
There are plenty of good user interfaces, such as the ones made by EMS (i.e. http://ems-hitech.com/pgmanager/), and they don't cost thousands of dollars like the MSSQL one for example.
I notice your nickname is OOPIsForLiberals, and you say "Be prepared to abandon cherished modern concepts about OOP and dynamic memory usage". Can you please explain that? (As a programmer) I'm curious how it fits into game programming, and what you mean. Less OOP for less code? Can you please explain?
1. You are taking this too literally. 2. You must not have much experience with Windows.
Computers can have a "mood swing" when hardware randomly starts failing. This often just comes from out of nowhere. Windows can also have "mood swings"... you know the problem that makes no sense but pops up and often a reboot will fix it. At the level of 1s and 0s, computers are the ultimate in logic, however when youre running on layer upon layer of code written by all sorts of different people, your computer can behave more complexly than those 1s and 0s should allow it to.
There is way too much patting on the back in the comments. Yes, it would be nice if people respected computers more, and yes it would be nice if everyone was a master with computers. However, that is not going to happen any time soon, and in a perfect world, software would not allow people who want just basic things from their computer, to behave dangerously on the internet. Yeah, (referring to the car analogy) a car is dangerous, but all you need to know is how to read signs, some basic traffic literacy, and how to push pedals and pull knobs. Fully understanding how to operate a computer is much more complex.
It would have been nice if he had stressed that this was on the AMD64 architecture in the title, but either way it is a useful review. There aren't many reviews of an OS with the new AMD cpus, so it is extra informative... this doesn't make it a troll article.
You know, I really don't think they chose France for their stance on the war. It makes sense that everyone is assuming that, but France has always sort-of been made fun of in the US (for whatever reason), and what would be a better choice that fits into this kind-of joking poll? America would make more sense, yes, but France is sort of a fun pick for weaseliest.
My favorite mass review site...
on
Max Payne 2 Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
is GameRankings.com which has a lot of MP2 reviews here
Slashdot Mirror
I would think that the more intellectual "nerds", who do not focus only on stereotypical nerd stuff would be interested in anything that has an intellectual component to it. Britney Spears is exempt, but "News for MBAs" is not. Betterment of ones' self can take many paths.
Anyways, that was pretty funny but I think it bears pointing out that not all nerds are the same.
I paid for Opera in the last few months, but I'm not taking part of the free registration PLUS I'm not pissed because I want to support them with my money.
I am honestly interested in how they were caught... Does anyone have any idea? Were some of the initial machines found that started spreading infections and then connections were traced back from there? Was there something in the actual worm's binary? Did they brag in some chatroom? Had some police been watching them already?
Just curious about how they caught them so fast...
There are also two groups of agnostics, one of which I consider myself a part of. The first kind is the theistic agnostic which leans towards believing in god or some deity. The second is the atheitistic agnostic which leans towards believing that there is no god.
Agnostics are agnostics primarily because they do not believe there is enough information to decide definitively on the existence of god and be happy with ones decision. Being an agnostic, I believe I am in a class of people unique in that they are comfortable with not knowing. I do not believe we can answer the question of whether there is a god or not. I do not believe that the religions in the world today are correct, but I also do not rule out the possibility of something existing that is today considered supernatural. It is not comforting to not know, but I think it would help the world a lot if people simply went by what exists in the world around them.
Back to the discussion at hand, Agnostics can fit your definition of absence of belief but I think that they do not properly cover the concept of true absence of consideration of a higher being that the word atheist provides.
Your point is not entirely without reason but you are incorrectly lumping all atheists under one umbrella. There are two kinds:
The first one might possibly be better described as Antitheism, while the second one is true atheism, a lack of religious belief. Your point applies correctly to the first, but not second definition of atheism, which is what atheism is really supposed to be.
Saying that service in the US is worse than elsewhere is a gross overgeneralization. I have been to Europe quite a few times, and (especially in eastern block countries) the service there can be just as horrible (if not more so since Europeans are much more direct) as it is here when it is horrible. People are people. I don't think there is a large difference in levels of service. You go to a nice place, you get good service.
What h2oliu said is true. There have been a number of studies that show that prayer helps sick people, etc. This of course does not mean it is the actual prayer that is helping the person, it may mean that these people have a support network that causes them to feel better or that praying has a psychological effect which is healthy. For religious sick people (I'm agnostic, but I do see that religion can have value in some ways), prayer can help them, since it can provide some faith in the future which is a psychological state that may also cause an improvement in a patient.
:)
Unfortunately this can get out of hand, like with christian science, where people who see the positive effects of prayer and religion in some patients assume it is god doing the work, and then apply it to serious situations where of course a psychological effect does nothing.
There are also studies that shows that certain parts of the brain are only active when praying or thinking religious thoughts. It makes sense that mankind is hardwired for religion (of course we wouldn't have so many religious people were we not, huh) because of the increased strength and togetherness of societies where religion is shared. Of course this is backfiring a bit across the world now, but we still have the male nipple too
Anyways, h2oliu is right. If prayer can have a positive effect for people, why not use it? You should not attempt to force your beliefs on others (this goes for both theists and atheists)...
I can't believe no one has highly moderated a mention of KOTOR yet. This game had the coolest story I've seen in a long time... Not only was it an awesome RPG with great gameplay, but the story was actually one of the highlights of the game. As others have said on here, Lucas could learn a thing or two from that game.
MaximumPC magazine also had a recent review of MP3, and they said while the IPOD headphones are very good relative to other headphones that come with players, they are the best component to upgrade in order to get better sound out of your player into your brain.
They recommended the quite expensive earbuds at www.shure.com (the e3c mainly). Does anyone have any experience with these, or any other suggestions? I was looking for some great earbuds, I am worried about this in ear design though, that it may not fit correctly in my ears.
1. Objective morality in no way proves god exists. There are plenty of biological and scientific explanations for people to think that "raping a child, murdering, greed torture" is wrong, because they don't want go to through it themselves. For example, as I said in my previous response, the biological purpose of mankind is to survive and reproduce. Therefore, since the main purpose is to produce offspring, people are especially touchy about damage done to children (i.e. raping a child). Why would this prove god exists? There are plenty of more viable reasons for this than god's existence. God's existence is just one explanation for this, and a pretty extreme one since it is based on the existence of the supernatural.
:) ).
2. My point was that the point of view of the person dictates what is good and evil from their viewpoint. If two viewpoints differ, then how do you determine which one is correct about good and evil? If hitler thinks that murdering jews is the most wonderful thing that the world can do, yet you disagree, who is correct? Is it you because people in the world agree with you right now and you feel deep down in your gut that it was a horrible thing to do? Hitler felt deep down in his gut that it was a wonderful thing to do. My point was that how can objective good and evil exist if people disagree about good and evil? If objective good and evil existed then everyone would agree and there would be no large controversial issues like abortion. People would not be completely steadfast in thinking that abortion is evil (killing a child) with yet other people being completely steadfast in thinking that abortion is good.
A simple breakdown of my argument:
1. Objective morality means that everyone deep down would agree on certain moral issues, such as abortion being wrong, and executing jews being wrong (I am using these examples, since showing an exception breaks a rule).
2. Different people's morality (which often is based on their social situation) can be completely polar opposites on issues, and their "objective good and evil" can conflict with each other.
3. Objective good and evil existing does not allow for people to have different views of "objective" good and evil, since everyone would know good and evil deep down, therefore objective good and evil does not exist.
I will respond to a few points if yours also...
Huh? So, if the Nazi's had won, and either brainwashed or killed everyone who disagreed, then what they did was good? Yet if they won, but had a significant number of people thinking what they did was evil then it would be evil? So that if I murdered every single human, my actions would be evil until the point where I murdered the last person? Then suddenly it's good?
You already have your preconceptions of good and evil. Your point here, that after murdering everyone then it would suddenly be good involves the assumption that objective good and evil exist. What I am saying is that there is no objective measure of good and evil since it is not consitent across people. In your window on good and evil, the murder of everyone on the planet would always be bad, so it would of course not change after everyone dying. In another person's window on good and evil murdering of everyone on the planet could be seen as good, and of course would not be effected by how many people there are on the planet (unless of course they suddenly changed their mind which is allowed in subjective morality
We're talking about good and evil, not about 'bad' - since suffering is bad, but not necessarily evil.
I use good and evil interchangebly as good and bad, since evil is merely a subclass of bad that you feel especially strongly about, or wish to invoke some emotion with.
Absolute morality is something apart from human opinion. If we assume that murder is always wrong, that does not mean that every human will always recognise murder or think it is wrong. They could think they are doing the right th
Tyreth... you read and respond but you completely miss all of the points that I have and Bootsy have made. All of the points I was making were that perception of right and wrong dictates popular view of right and wrong (evil and good). If I lived in a world where the Nazis had won there I could see what they did as Good and seen the jews as evil. This difference in perception means would mean there is no good and evil, since what people see as good and evil can change. If it were absolute, then evil would be evil, good would be good. Human biology dictates a small set of things which are seen as evil. Death is always seen as bad, because there is the inherent drive to survive and reproduce in every organism on this planet. That does not mean that there is morality tied with surviving and reproducing that is drawn from some almighty being in the sky above. Killing is socially frowned upon because is is disadvantagous to society. There are societies such as the Yanamamo (sp?) tribes in southern america where people kill each other constantly and it is seen as a normal struggle for power. Samurai in Japan did not see killing and death as dishonorable or bad. In America society we view the act of killing itself as a purely evil thing. If evil and good were absolute then everyone the world over in every situtation would unmistakebly view murder as a bad thing in every situation in every society. This is not the case. People disagree on moral issues, because morality is a grey area and it changes over time and human progress. For some people sex before marriage is evil. For some people sex before marriage is beautiful and good. For some people abortion is evil. For some people abortion is good. The list goes on and on. There are no absolutes.
You misunderstood every single thing that we said in a way that is favorable to your argument. You do not reject the scientific method, yet you say that all of science is based on beliefs. Every single thing is philosophically based on beliefs on one level or another, but that does not mean that if you verify and perform proofs of a theory it does not have a much higher chance of being correct than some random thing that your parents told you since you were a child (i.e. some ineffective herbel remedy vs some scientifically developed medicine).
I can't reply as bearly eloquently as Bootsy, but I have to say something because you are completely ignoring his arguments.
For one thing, the #2 (2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.) in your argument is an assumption, though you are not willing to admit this. I was christian once and also worked out a little logical game that would prove that god exists to me. I know well how the thought process goes... This is not meant to be a personal attack, but it is easy to spot when someone is completely not listening to the other side of an argument, because they already believe in something and their argument is merely post-justification for believing in it.
Of course the Nazis have to be brought up since this is an extended argument, but you also need to see that it is yet ANOTHER assumption that you make when you say that we would still know that what the Nazis did is not good. History is written by the victors. Killing is usually seen as bad, but sometimes it is also portrayed as a means to an end, and therefore good. Nazi killings could easily be portrayed as being for the greater good, had they won the war.
I don't believe that there is any objective measure of good and evil. Every single argument has two sides, and this was one of my earliest discoveries in my life. Look at the Israel and Palestine situation, both view each other as evil, and neither of them are near perfect, but neither of them is pure evil either. I know it comforts you to think that there is an objective measure of good and evil, and if you do good you will be rewarded, but if you simply look around you in the world that is not the case. Good people are not always rewarded, bad people are not always punished. In the U.S. this process is often mediated by lawyers and money.
Also, you use the term naturalism with disdain. I personally am agnostic since I believe that science does not answer every single question, or answer them perfectly (obviously, nothing is perfect), yet I also subscribe to Bootsy's way of thought that something so extraordinary as a god requires some real, tangible proof, before I go devoting my life to it based on some logical argument I've constructed, or because people tell me that is what I need to believe. Naturalist beliefes are based on empirical proof, whereas religion is based on beliefs. I personally consider empirical studies and experiments to be more compelling for my beliefs.
I think this came out to be more trollish than I intended, but please don't view it that way. Bootsy (the grandparent) expressed much of what I believe in a very effective way, and I think you should read what he said a little closer and perhaps open your mind to what he is saying.
As you said, none of this requires true AI, and could have been implemented long ago. Online RTS games (unfortunately for you) require good micromanagement skills, becuase that is simply part of the game. Micromanagement skills seperates the good players from the mediocre. RTS games frankly just are not expansive or large enough to be competitive purely by strategy. There are only so many different strategies that you can use, so micromanagement is another aspect that keeps it interesting. RTS Developers (such as Blizzard) do not take out the micromanagement aspect of the game on purpose. This is bad for people who do not play the game much and want to be masters at it, and people who are not excellent at controlling their computers, but that is just aspect of competition.
Anyways, the point of WC3 and blizzard games is FUN. Not graphics, not story, not sound (although all of these are quite excellent in blizzard games IMHO), but FUN. Lasting fun requires that it remain a challenge for people, even after they have played it for a long time.
I frankly do not understand why these posts ragging on WC3 always get highly moderated. I don't ever see very good points, only stuff written by people who obviously did not give the game much of a chance.
It was just meant to be illstrative... there are lots of them out there. I don't run OS X myself, but I do run FreeBSD, which has linux binary compatability and should run the EMS manager, so shouldn't you be able to get it to work on OS X? :)
Plus 400$ is a lot cheaper than MSSQL
There are plenty of good user interfaces, such as the ones made by EMS (i.e. http://ems-hitech.com/pgmanager/), and they don't cost thousands of dollars like the MSSQL one for example.
I notice your nickname is OOPIsForLiberals, and you say "Be prepared to abandon cherished modern concepts about OOP and dynamic memory usage". Can you please explain that? (As a programmer) I'm curious how it fits into game programming, and what you mean. Less OOP for less code? Can you please explain?
1. You are taking this too literally.
2. You must not have much experience with Windows.
Computers can have a "mood swing" when hardware randomly starts failing. This often just comes from out of nowhere. Windows can also have "mood swings"... you know the problem that makes no sense but pops up and often a reboot will fix it. At the level of 1s and 0s, computers are the ultimate in logic, however when youre running on layer upon layer of code written by all sorts of different people, your computer can behave more complexly than those 1s and 0s should allow it to.
There is way too much patting on the back in the comments. Yes, it would be nice if people respected computers more, and yes it would be nice if everyone was a master with computers. However, that is not going to happen any time soon, and in a perfect world, software would not allow people who want just basic things from their computer, to behave dangerously on the internet. Yeah, (referring to the car analogy) a car is dangerous, but all you need to know is how to read signs, some basic traffic literacy, and how to push pedals and pull knobs. Fully understanding how to operate a computer is much more complex.
It would have been nice if he had stressed that this was on the AMD64 architecture in the title, but either way it is a useful review. There aren't many reviews of an OS with the new AMD cpus, so it is extra informative... this doesn't make it a troll article.
True, but nonetheless she deserved it...
This is one of the dumbest highly moderated posts I've ever seen... who decided to moderate this up??
I don't think these laws would work very hard to make a distinction between SMB File Sharing and Shared files on a p2p network :)
When things aren't worded explicitly, that just means they can pretty easily be interpreted how the prosecuting lawyer wants.
You know, I really don't think they chose France for their stance on the war. It makes sense that everyone is assuming that, but France has always sort-of been made fun of in the US (for whatever reason), and what would be a better choice that fits into this kind-of joking poll? America would make more sense, yes, but France is sort of a fun pick for weaseliest.
is GameRankings.com which has a lot of MP2 reviews here
3 years?
How's everything going for you in 2005?
yep