Part of being human and being aroudn humans is a little thing called being polite and considerate.
Its not an unreasonable expectation to be ablet o go into a movie theater and watch a movie without kids running around screaming or people talking on their cell phones.
It has everything to do with movies; I'm sure that's a large part of why people aren't gonig. I want to watch a movie, not listen to your kid scream.
Um, why is it vonage's fault if its the user's home network causing the problem? Do you think vonage's routers are that much different than a standard one?
If some guy is have NETWORK problems (and vonage is just another packet going out on the network) then why isn't your job to help them?
If the home network is the problem, they won't JUST be having problems with vonage will they?
Buying a stock makes you very much a partial owner in the company by giving quarterly gains you get an idea of what you own is worth
And there's no criteria to be a shareholder either is there? Should I be able to buy some stock and then expect the company to do whatever I see? Shareholders rarely ever understand how the business operates, yet they feel like they should be able to tell the company how to run or how much they think the company should make. Its insanity.
And while I agree with the if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought
So what exactly is your point?
why not just do away with money completely. We would all live in a better world where I can trade my sheep for your cow.
You go ahead and do that if you want; but don't try to imply that is what I was getting at. Nothing in my post even came close to saying that money was evil or even the problem here.
Nope, believe it or not, there are quite a few long term investors out there. IIRC, they far outnumber those trying to make short term gains.
I'm not arguing against companies going public as much as I am that some idiot shareholder thinks he knows more than the CEO and tries to tell the company how to act.
Why should a company destroy itself just so some greedy prick off the street can make alot of money?
Its been a while since i worked for the company, but I believe it was called Lotus Notes.. at least thats what I remember in the title bar.
I wish I could remember the version. Also for IM (internal only) there was SameTime connect.
I imagine they had the server, because while everyone hated the email client, the reason it was still there was that the administrators seemed to love the admin side of things.
Even though the email client was exteremly stupid; such as deleting an Accepted meeting request that the conference room sent back would end up deleting your reseveration for that room.
No one forced the stockholders to become owners. Indeed, owners that only own fora short time shouldn't have any real voice at all anyway. The short term thinkings are the ones that would destroy the company.
A real owner would be concerned about the viablity of the company, not quarterly gains. Every one of the 'owners' of google knew what they were buying into before hand. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought.
Do you really think everyone developing an internet app should be building their own TCP/IP stack? Do you think we should go back to text based computers?
Personally I'd rather developers building new features instead of constantly reiventing the wheel.
Go ahead, build a linux pc that has all the same apps that you'd use on windows, and it will take just as much space on the disk as windows.
The problem for any corporation updating to Vista is that you rather have to replace most of your hardware along the way as well.
Really? Might want to double check that. Current mid range or higher cpu, 512MB ram (which I've been recommending for years now). You likely WON'T need a high end graphics card, because Areo doesn't come with the business versions of Vista. Actually I seem to recall people saying the exact same thing when windows XP came out. Hmm...
And upgrade your memory. Over on The Inquirer they're reporting that Vista consumes 800MB of RAM while idling.
Um, maybe because its a debug build of BETA software??? Let me give you a clue.. debug performance != release performance. The above link says that they recommend 512MB ram; I've been putting that much ram into my computers for about 4 years now.
This is absolutely insane to someone who first started using computers in the early 1970's.
Maybe you should stop living in the '70s then. People weren't exactly playing Doom3 on ANY computers in the '70s either, yet today many computers can. Who cares what requirements an OS needed in the 70s? We're in the 21st century now.
here just isn't that much stuff that an Operating System should be doing. And yes, that really is 3X XP's current requirements, the thought of which certainly is warming Intel's little heart.
Again, take a breath, and realize this is a beta version.
Seems to me if MS wants to keep IBM in the fold they should be offering to buy them all new desktops.
Ever think that MS isn't targeting older computers, they are targeting what is current today?
You seriously think the US population could overthrow their government, given even 90% armed public support?
Yup; there is something to be said for overwhelming your opponent with shear numbers. After all, isn't that how we lost Vietnam?
"A well regulated milita" maybe, but a bunch of disorganized civilians against the best funded and best trained army in the world?
If it came down to it, I think people would organize pretty quickly. After all, isn't that what happened a bit over 200 years ago? The colonists weren't well organized at first either. Yet they pulled it off. At the time, the british army was 'the best funded and best trained army in the world.'
This is an illusionary right. It hasn't made sense for about 100 years. Try and exercise it, and they'll Waco your ass.
I can exercise the right; I can go to a gun store and buy a gun. Doesn't seem like you're very bright; there's a difference between Waco and a nation which begins a civil war.
(I'm not sayinging it's a dictatorship; 90% public support against the adminstration would force resignations etc. It's just the armed part of the revolt that's outdated)
Well than i really hope your dictator decides to resign when the masses don't like him.. oh wait, a dictator doesn't give a shit if people like him or not.
EVERY one?
Fine, name one that hasn't. Could any old citizen own a gun in Saddam's Iraq?
And the US government would take away your guns if they thought they'd get away with it. You know it and I know it; the only reason they can't and never will is because the right to bear arms is so engrained in the american belief system.
If the only consequence is that some people would be upset, do you really think that would stop them?
I suppose that you believe the founders should have fought the british with stones and pointy sticks?
Sorry, but the right to bear arms exists so that the citizens can overthrow their government, should the need arise. Do a little research into our founders and you'll see that's exactly why we have that right.
Also note that each and every repressive government disarms its citizens as one of its first actions. Again, do research some history.
You should only give up your guns after the govermnet does..
I wasn't crediting the ability to detect real from fake to the human brain; I don't think that CG people will ever be able to capture all those little movements (some that are barely preceivable consciencely) needed to fool people.
There are alot of clues that people see in other people's movements that they aren't even aware that they are processing. If we aren't even aware of all the clues, how can you program CG to pick them up (and leave out other movements that may not mean anything at all)?
I hope he's right that we're goin back to things before Star Wars.
Sorry, but have you actually watched many movies from the 60s and 70s? Craptacular comes to mind. Alot of poor acting, and "special effects" so cheesy as not to be believable.
You honestly can't be that into a movie if you're thinking about how poor a shot was. There have been some crappy movies lately, but there have also been some good ones. The newer version of the Fog is far better than the previous one; same goes for the Haunting and a host of others.
Except it would have been totally avoided if he wasn't trying to steal your license...
Sorry, you can't take something that doesn't belong to you then complain when the person tries to get it back.. its yours, you have the right to take it back you don't need to rely on the police to do it for you.
Yeah, cos Sudofed is the ONLY cough remedy available.
Sudafed, first of all. Its not, but all the other options that work have the same ingredients.
You know that speed, mdma, cocaine and heroin were once "remedies" for various ailments?
So what? Take cocaine and it has an affect without you having to alter it. This particular drug you have to refine to make into meth. I've never gotten high from the pills i got out of the box.
Should we legalise all of the date rape drugs because they also have some beneficial qualities?
I don't really research them, so I don't know if any have actual benefits or not, so I'm not going to respond to this.
However, there are some limits as clearly many people just aren't capable or in the position to make a sensible opinion on what they ingest for kicks.
Its their body, they have every right to do whatever they want with it. Its pretty arrogant to think that you have the right to tell someone they can't do something with their own body.
If banning is the way were are to tackle these problems, then so be it.
The problem of someone taking a drug to get them high? If they do, well, their choice.
I tend towards education and regulation, something banning does nothing for.
So do you support the ban or support educating people on the dangers of meth? I can't really tell, since you seem to have an incomplete thought here (not the first it would seem though..).
His response was "Why should I have to pay for a road I never use?"
But he already is. Whats more, its likely a road not even in NJ. Roads benefit everyone, even if indirectly. Even here at the end of Canada, I can get items shipped cross country overnight (and the package will use roads to get to and from the airports).
I do feel your pain on the tolls though; I used to drive 20-30 miles on the PA turnpike. When I could afford it, I moved closer to my job.
Um, no one is every going to look for people that checked out Winnie the pooh; its books say on islam that tend to attract attention. People have a right to be informed and to make their own decisions and you shouldn't come under suspesion just because you read a book the majority doesn't like. Popular speech doesn't need to be protected, its the unpopular speech that does.
Do you have a choice of water companies? What about cable? Electric?
My city controls the water and electric departments, and they seem to run just fine. My cable on the other hand leaves alot to be desired.
You seem to like things just the way they are; with two monopolies to choose from (cable vs. telco). In case you haven't noticed, both of those options seem to suck no matter where you live in the US. Having a city run network would actually provide the monoplies with some competition that would motivate them to provide better service.
You also (quite stupidly, i might add) assume that such a city run network would be paid for with taxes. Did it not occur to you that they could charge fees for those that want to hook up and those that don't won't have to pay anything? We're about to get FTTH from Burlington, and I can't wait until they move into my area of the city. They are offering better service for cheaper and not using your tax dollars.
Personally I think the city should just run and maintain the lines and let cable phone and internet providers lease space on them. As long as the city can't say what is allowed over the lines, there's no problem.
Or do you really prefer that 50 different companies all spend their resources on doing the exact same thing (running and maintaining the lines)? Seems to me that would actually make service from any one of them more expensive..
Slashdot Mirror
Part of being human and being aroudn humans is a little thing called being polite and considerate.
Its not an unreasonable expectation to be ablet o go into a movie theater and watch a movie without kids running around screaming or people talking on their cell phones.
It has everything to do with movies; I'm sure that's a large part of why people aren't gonig. I want to watch a movie, not listen to your kid scream.
Um, why is it vonage's fault if its the user's home network causing the problem? Do you think vonage's routers are that much different than a standard one?
If some guy is have NETWORK problems (and vonage is just another packet going out on the network) then why isn't your job to help them?
If the home network is the problem, they won't JUST be having problems with vonage will they?
Buying a stock makes you very much a partial owner in the company
by giving quarterly gains you get an idea of what you own is worth
And there's no criteria to be a shareholder either is there? Should I be able to buy some stock and then expect the company to do whatever I see? Shareholders rarely ever understand how the business operates, yet they feel like they should be able to tell the company how to run or how much they think the company should make. Its insanity.
And while I agree with the if they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought
So what exactly is your point?
why not just do away with money completely. We would all live in a better world
where I can trade my sheep for your cow.
You go ahead and do that if you want; but don't try to imply that is what I was getting at. Nothing in my post even came close to saying that money was evil or even the problem here.
Nope, believe it or not, there are quite a few long term investors out there. IIRC, they far outnumber those trying to make short term gains.
I'm not arguing against companies going public as much as I am that some idiot shareholder thinks he knows more than the CEO and tries to tell the company how to act.
Why should a company destroy itself just so some greedy prick off the street can make alot of money?
Its been a while since i worked for the company, but I believe it was called Lotus Notes.. at least thats what I remember in the title bar.
I wish I could remember the version. Also for IM (internal only) there was SameTime connect.
I imagine they had the server, because while everyone hated the email client, the reason it was still there was that the administrators seemed to love the admin side of things.
Even though the email client was exteremly stupid; such as deleting an Accepted meeting request that the conference room sent back would end up deleting your reseveration for that room.
Nobody said anything about Domino..
I didn't decide what Lotus was used for, the company i had worked for did. And they were just using it for email / calendar.
No one forced the stockholders to become owners. Indeed, owners that only own fora short time shouldn't have any real voice at all anyway. The short term thinkings are the ones that would destroy the company.
A real owner would be concerned about the viablity of the company, not quarterly gains. Every one of the 'owners' of google knew what they were buying into before hand. If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have bought.
The shareholders knew the companies mantras before buying stock. If they didn't like those mantas, they should not have purchased stock.
No one forced these people to buy stock in the first place!! Don't like it, then sell!
What exactly do you consider massive OS bloat?
Do you really think everyone developing an internet app should be building their own TCP/IP stack? Do you think we should go back to text based computers?
Personally I'd rather developers building new features instead of constantly reiventing the wheel.
Go ahead, build a linux pc that has all the same apps that you'd use on windows, and it will take just as much space on the disk as windows.
The problem for any corporation updating to Vista is that you rather have to replace most of your hardware along the way as well.
Really? Might want to double check that. Current mid range or higher cpu, 512MB ram (which I've been recommending for years now). You likely WON'T need a high end graphics card, because Areo doesn't come with the business versions of Vista. Actually I seem to recall people saying the exact same thing when windows XP came out. Hmm...
And upgrade your memory. Over on The Inquirer they're reporting that Vista consumes 800MB of RAM while idling.
Um, maybe because its a debug build of BETA software??? Let me give you a clue.. debug performance != release performance. The above link says that they recommend 512MB ram; I've been putting that much ram into my computers for about 4 years now.
This is absolutely insane to someone who first started using computers in the early 1970's.
Maybe you should stop living in the '70s then. People weren't exactly playing Doom3 on ANY computers in the '70s either, yet today many computers can. Who cares what requirements an OS needed in the 70s? We're in the 21st century now.
here just isn't that much stuff that an Operating System should be doing. And yes, that really is 3X XP's current requirements, the thought of which certainly is warming Intel's little heart.
Again, take a breath, and realize this is a beta version.
Seems to me if MS wants to keep IBM in the fold they should be offering to buy them all new desktops.
Ever think that MS isn't targeting older computers, they are targeting what is current today?
Lotus on windows isn't very stable either. Possibly some of the worst email / calendar applications on the planet.
I never used to like outlook, but after having to use Lotus, followed by Groupwise, I believe outlook wins hands down.
He's not the one making absurd claims that no one else seems to be able to back up either.
You seriously think the US population could overthrow their government, given even 90% armed public support?
Yup; there is something to be said for overwhelming your opponent with shear numbers. After all, isn't that how we lost Vietnam?
"A well regulated milita" maybe, but a bunch of disorganized civilians against the best funded and best trained army in the world?
If it came down to it, I think people would organize pretty quickly. After all, isn't that what happened a bit over 200 years ago? The colonists weren't well organized at first either. Yet they pulled it off. At the time, the british army was 'the best funded and best trained army in the world.'
This is an illusionary right. It hasn't made sense for about 100 years. Try and exercise it, and they'll Waco your ass.
I can exercise the right; I can go to a gun store and buy a gun. Doesn't seem like you're very bright; there's a difference between Waco and a nation which begins a civil war.
(I'm not sayinging it's a dictatorship; 90% public support against the adminstration would force resignations etc. It's just the armed part of the revolt that's outdated)
Well than i really hope your dictator decides to resign when the masses don't like him.. oh wait, a dictator doesn't give a shit if people like him or not.
EVERY one?
Fine, name one that hasn't. Could any old citizen own a gun in Saddam's Iraq?
And the US government would take away your guns if they thought they'd get away with it. You know it and I know it; the only reason they can't and never will is because the right to bear arms is so engrained in the american belief system.
If the only consequence is that some people would be upset, do you really think that would stop them?
If anything, guns are anti-freedom.
I suppose that you believe the founders should have fought the british with stones and pointy sticks?
Sorry, but the right to bear arms exists so that the citizens can overthrow their government, should the need arise. Do a little research into our founders and you'll see that's exactly why we have that right.
Also note that each and every repressive government disarms its citizens as one of its first actions. Again, do research some history.
You should only give up your guns after the govermnet does..
I wasn't crediting the ability to detect real from fake to the human brain; I don't think that CG people will ever be able to capture all those little movements (some that are barely preceivable consciencely) needed to fool people.
There are alot of clues that people see in other people's movements that they aren't even aware that they are processing. If we aren't even aware of all the clues, how can you program CG to pick them up (and leave out other movements that may not mean anything at all)?
I hope he's right that we're goin back to things before Star Wars.
Sorry, but have you actually watched many movies from the 60s and 70s? Craptacular comes to mind. Alot of poor acting, and "special effects" so cheesy as not to be believable.
You honestly can't be that into a movie if you're thinking about how poor a shot was. There have been some crappy movies lately, but there have also been some good ones. The newer version of the Fog is far better than the previous one; same goes for the Haunting and a host of others.
Once the human mind can't tell the difference between a live actor and a computer generated one
I believe this will never happen though; there will always be some clue (even if its subconscience) that will tip people off.
99% of the negative social effect of controlled substances are caused by the restrictions.
Oh come on, you make it sound like banning something would give rise to some kind of organized crime. Surely that's never happened.
Except it would have been totally avoided if he wasn't trying to steal your license...
Sorry, you can't take something that doesn't belong to you then complain when the person tries to get it back.. its yours, you have the right to take it back you don't need to rely on the police to do it for you.
Yeah, cos Sudofed is the ONLY cough remedy available.
Sudafed, first of all. Its not, but all the other options that work have the same ingredients.
You know that speed, mdma, cocaine and heroin were once "remedies" for various ailments?
So what? Take cocaine and it has an affect without you having to alter it. This particular drug you have to refine to make into meth. I've never gotten high from the pills i got out of the box.
Should we legalise all of the date rape drugs because they also have some beneficial qualities?
I don't really research them, so I don't know if any have actual benefits or not, so I'm not going to respond to this.
However, there are some limits as clearly many people just aren't capable or in the position to make a sensible opinion on what they ingest for kicks.
Its their body, they have every right to do whatever they want with it. Its pretty arrogant to think that you have the right to tell someone they can't do something with their own body.
If banning is the way were are to tackle these problems, then so be it.
The problem of someone taking a drug to get them high? If they do, well, their choice.
I tend towards education and regulation, something banning does nothing for.
So do you support the ban or support educating people on the dangers of meth? I can't really tell, since you seem to have an incomplete thought here (not the first it would seem though..).
Don't have anything better to do than troll? At least be less obvious about it..
His response was "Why should I have to pay for a road I never use?"
But he already is. Whats more, its likely a road not even in NJ. Roads benefit everyone, even if indirectly. Even here at the end of Canada, I can get items shipped cross country overnight (and the package will use roads to get to and from the airports).
I do feel your pain on the tolls though; I used to drive 20-30 miles on the PA turnpike. When I could afford it, I moved closer to my job.
The only reason these cold and flu remedies weren't banned outright is because of the drug industry bribery to politicians.
Or perhaps because people want to have cold and flu remedies when they catch the cold or the flue...
Um, no one is every going to look for people that checked out Winnie the pooh; its books say on islam that tend to attract attention. People have a right to be informed and to make their own decisions and you shouldn't come under suspesion just because you read a book the majority doesn't like. Popular speech doesn't need to be protected, its the unpopular speech that does.
Do you have a choice of water companies? What about cable? Electric?
My city controls the water and electric departments, and they seem to run just fine. My cable on the other hand leaves alot to be desired.
You seem to like things just the way they are; with two monopolies to choose from (cable vs. telco). In case you haven't noticed, both of those options seem to suck no matter where you live in the US. Having a city run network would actually provide the monoplies with some competition that would motivate them to provide better service.
You also (quite stupidly, i might add) assume that such a city run network would be paid for with taxes. Did it not occur to you that they could charge fees for those that want to hook up and those that don't won't have to pay anything? We're about to get FTTH from Burlington, and I can't wait until they move into my area of the city. They are offering better service for cheaper and not using your tax dollars.
Personally I think the city should just run and maintain the lines and let cable phone and internet providers lease space on them. As long as the city can't say what is allowed over the lines, there's no problem.
Or do you really prefer that 50 different companies all spend their resources on doing the exact same thing (running and maintaining the lines)? Seems to me that would actually make service from any one of them more expensive..