Yes, and let us put a pack of smokes in every kid's lunch box and a beer in every happy meal because you are addicted.
Moron. I really can't stand people like you. I'm advocating personal choice and responsibity, not FORCING anyone to take anything. And your notion that caffeine is anywhere near the levels of nicotine is completely wrong. I cut it out cold turkey, and since I wasn't taking nearly as much as many others here, I was able to do so without any ill effects.
Not as if I'm suggesting we rip the caffeine out of your clutching shaking fingers. I'm suggesting that it should not be pushed on minors and should not be treated as if it isn't a serious drug when it obviously is.
How about this: you stay the fuck out of it, and let parents decide what's best for their kids. And I really hate to break it to you, but its not a serious drug at all. Headache and irritability if you go without a few days? Please. That's NOTHING at all like real withdraw that "serious" drug use causes.
I'm hardly trying to keep people from having caffeine as I feel illegal drugs should be legalized and regulated. I just don't think they should be force fed to children or mixed into foods without proper warning labels.
WTF are you talking about? Caffeine is in soda and chocolate. And not much in the latter. For the most part, I don't see many kids drinking starbucks. Lots of crap food is aimed at kids, but to act as if caffeine is being "force fed to children" just makes you look retarded.
Also technically true... but unless you're taking it in pill form, the amount water in which the caffeine is dissolved is more than the amount it will cause you to lose.
Caffeine should be regulated because your a weak willed moron? Piss off.
I think we should ban soda too... because that's bad for you as well, and it would solve your delima. Actually, lets just ban fast food, because that's bad for you too.
Grow up and take responsiblity for yourself, and don't tell others what they should be doing with their kids.
Caffine doesn't cause kidney stones. I drank lots of soda and had sleeplessness, racing heart, etc. I drink redline sometimes now.. but I had been for almost a month straight.
I've never had kidney stones.
Not drinking enough water can leads to kidney stones, because the calcium is building up in your kidneys. Also, low calcium intake can lead to stones. If you're drinking that much coffee, it's likely your diet is screwy in many other ways.. and given the state of most Americans today, I think it's a safe bet diet played a large role in your stones, and other problems.
Yes, actually I have. I ran it on my server for 10 years, and on the desktop for three. After wasting time fighting to get it to do what I wanted, I not only ditched Linux on the desktop, but on the server as well.
Actually Windows continues to fall behind.
Really? Then why does someone else apparently share my belief, enough to write a column about it? Please, linux on the desktop is a complete failure. Apple has more desktop market share than Linux... and Linux started ahead of Apple.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell Windows users, "no you can't do that because you're running Windows." You can't make statements like that if your desktop if "decades behind." And all that is really, completely beside the point.
I suspect you're lying to those Windows users to push your agenda. Please, tell me what an end user wanted to do but can't because of Windows.
Yes, obviously an imagined statement, completely unsubstantiated, which is obviously based on your own opinion proves your point. You might want to learn the difference between opinion and fact. In short, very safe to say, "completely busted!"
You're delusional... so much that you belive you're spouting fact, when you're not.
Confsed by context and then you turn around and complain I can't follow context. Grasping for straws isn't suddenly going to validate your opinion.
I have, just like the orignal article, been talking about Linux on the desktop. Then you go running your mouth about garbage that end users won't be doing... namely modifying the source to meet their needs. And if they have to pay, again, the open source argument fails, because the truth is the source is useless to most end users.
I've been running Linux as my desktop for four of five years now. It far from blows, especially for programmers and the more technically inclined.
It blows for me when I try to run financial software, play games without jumping through hoops, buy printers without worry, and even administer my systems / network. Windows makes it really easy. Linux makes you drop to the CLI. It blows, FOR END USERS, some of which ARE programmers and most of which are NOT.
In fact, Linux has always shined as a desktop for the technologically capable. That in it self has been the major gripe. "What about Average Joe on the street", and that was half a decade ago. Using a keyboard does not make one a "programmer." And once again, all of this is really beside the point.
No one said using a keyboard made you a programmers. The columist isn't and admits it.. and he's talking about Linux not working for those like him. And like me, he gave it a good shot from the sounds of it.
The point is, regardless of your bizarre slant, completely about receptivity of ideas for improvement. Thus far you've only shown a hatred for Linux, likely not a technical user, contrary to your assertions, and you offer up personal opinion as fact. In short order you sound exactly like the typical windows zealot, who trolls, looking for things to complain about and is ultimately ignored because your ideas likely suck or are irrational; and being ignored enrages you.
Yes, I dislike Linux, because years ago I bought in the lie, that M$ sucks and Linux was so much better. After a few years, the reality set it. It's garbage on the desktop.. still. As far as not being a technical user... I've been doing software engineering for 11 years now and have a BS in CS. I've worked in large and small teams building radiology application, financial applications, web applications, ERP systems... on both Windows and UNIX.
But when I go home, I want to USE my computer, not program it to do what I want.. when said programs already exist. What you're hearing is my frustration at the utter failure of linux on the desktop, and morons like you screaming "it's perfect as it, RTFM!! (what fucking manual??)"
Not when you consider that all of us have dealt with someone's death and would like to at least *pretend* that we don't like to see it happen.
Nobody suggested sending flowers, someone simply pointed out that it was crude.
Why pretend? That seems more crude to me. Nobody was wishing death on the guy.. but the fact is to most people here he simply doesn't matter. My life is the same now as it would have been if I didn't see this story on/. and never knew he died. Sorry... that's just how it is.
Sometimes you're supposed to do or not do things because it's acceptable or responsible.
Yes, a lot of people would say that, and I'm questioning why. Why should anyone that had no clue of even his name before this story pretend to care that he's gone? Everyone's going to die, that's the cold fact of life. Those that knew him surely feel loss, and sure it sucks for them... but just for them. Or should they pretend to be sad if they ever found out I died? I doubt they would.. most likely, it would be "oh, that's too bad," and their life goes on unaffected. That's fine.. I'm not so self-centered that I think people that don't know me should care at all.
Heh... Plato's Republic described a similar idea for handling politians. In that writing, once you became a public servant, you coudn't own anything, and had to rely on the charity of your constituents to survive.
Partially right in that the date he predicted for the earthquake was the date that something happened which triggered the quake (or itself was a precursor to a quake). If his method can predict within a week, that's better than what we have now, which is nothing, AFAIK.
That was already answered. You know, the answer than completely busted your assertion/position. There are many, many things Windows can not do which Linux can. Having the source available makes that gap even bigger. Having the source available makes Linux all the more accessible.
Really? Seems to me it's the other way around. The whole "linux needs critics" argument is based on improving Linux ON THE DESKTOP. And Linux is decades behind on that front. So no, my position isn't busted at all... all you're doing is backing me up.
Many companies have paid for or developed in house modifications to the Linux kernel which were later integrated into the kernel. It was done to scratch in itch which served the company's needs.
And what the fuck does that have to do with Linux on the desktop, for the end user? Nothing. Because linux still sucks on the desktop.
Yes, I'm excellent at pulling reality and facts out of my ass. Its odd how even when pulled from my ass they are more accurate than anything you've said so far.
Apparently you suck at context and RTFA. Linux on the desktop blows. I know... I keep trying. I'm a programmer even... and it was too much of a time sink to be worth running. So I shelled out for Windows on my computer and my home server.
Yet more proof you're completely delusional. Every project which has more than a single developer working on it is proof you are wrong. Same is true for every project which has been sponsored by a company.
Its not only safe to say your position is completely busted, but that you are delusional about the state of open source and its effect on an industry as a whole.
So... why does Linux suck on the desktop? I'm not the only one saying it. TFA says as much too. If my argument was busted, I should be able to stick with Linux this time, right?
It's amusing actually... your attitude is exactly what the author is talking about!
Yes, he said the movie was awful. It's his job to review movies yes, but to review one that isn't finished? Seems rather unfair to me, given that the movie can be changed quite a bit in the next month, and from the sounds of it, most likely will. What is the point of reviewing something we know isn't finished?
The law to which you're refering is for journalist.. a movie reviewer isn't a journalist. It's usually some prick that's too cool for the room that totally misses the mark on what the average movie-goer is looking for.
Our democracy isn't in danger when a movie critic is fired over a review. It's not news... not that I really consider any of the big news outlets "news" anymore... or are you telling me clues to win a trip to see American Idol is news?
Um, instead of your long winded reply, maybe you should have taken the time to read what I wrote. After getting into the first paragraph, it seems clear that you're under the impression that the fact that the movie was unofffically released should not be reported... but that's not at all what I said.
What I said was, "why would anyone want to read a review of an unfinished movie." Notice the two bolded words, and take your rant somewhere else. No where did I claim that the fact that this got out should not be reported.
Thanks for the honesty. Its refreshing. I'm tired of people pretending to care about someone they never met, never talked to, and in this case, never even knew what he looked like.
It's interesting the socially correct thing to do is pretend you care about someone whose name you may not even have heard before and to offer insincere condolences. Personally I wouldn't want to be hearing from a bunch of strangers if I lost someone again.
I think the context matters. In your "Unedited" DVD version (which I've never seen.. only unrated or directors cut), I believe they mean "it has the scenes that would have gotten us an NC-17" as opposed to "the version you saw in the theater without said scenes." That's editing too... or if you like, censorship.
Wait, so someone steals a product prototype from my company, and I, WORKING FOR THE COMPANY, review said prototype and say it blows... I really shouldn't expect to be fired? Especially when I'm using my voice as a company representative?
Illegal or not, why would anyone want to read a review of a movie that isn't finished? Seems to be one of those things that as a professional movie reviewer you wouldn't do. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was unethical, but pretty questionable.
No... my original claim isn't "busted." Having the source is only relevent if you're a programmer with no life. As soon as you aren't that, you have to pay someone else to modify linux to fit your needs. In which case, why not just buy windows?
Your claim that "nothing alreays works" is nonsense you're pulling out of your ass, and doesn't do anything to refute the claim that linux needs critics. It does, because as a usable desktop it blows, and the snide "change it yourself" is an utter failure. That's why Apple passed Linux's desktop market share.
You're a twat... and exactly the reason why Linux isn't going to beat MS anytime soon.
If you have the time to fix Linux's shortcomings... well I can only assume you're single and still living in your mom's basement. I bet you think the only people that should be able to own cars are the ones that can do all the servicing themselves too.
No, they are rich asshats that believe picutres being on a website will cause other people to rob their houses. Sorry, but if you're allowed to drive down that street without permission, I fail to see why you should not be allowed to take picutures of what you can see for yourself.
Sorry, the "intelligent layman" argument you presented is nonsence. The reason is that he's reading the research of said professionals, but without the qualifications to properly interperate it.
All your link shows is that people don't think as much as they should when an expert weighs in. It doesn't show that "authorities, by their very nature of being authoritative, are subject to pressures to provide biased or invalid information." The expert may or may not be honest, and your citation does nothing to address that point. That's why we have second opinons and such.
At any rate, none of what you said matters; the OP isn't likely a doctor, and thus is not qualified to diagnose autism. He's therefore equally unqualified to assert that "[he's] also noticed a lot of misdiagnoses going on with autistics." It's like those that say the traffic pattern was designed wrong, but their only qualification is driving, not in civil engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and let us put a pack of smokes in every kid's lunch box and a beer in every happy meal because you are addicted.
Moron. I really can't stand people like you. I'm advocating personal choice and responsibity, not FORCING anyone to take anything. And your notion that caffeine is anywhere near the levels of nicotine is completely wrong. I cut it out cold turkey, and since I wasn't taking nearly as much as many others here, I was able to do so without any ill effects.
Not as if I'm suggesting we rip the caffeine out of your clutching shaking fingers. I'm suggesting that it should not be pushed on minors and should not be treated as if it isn't a serious drug when it obviously is.
How about this: you stay the fuck out of it, and let parents decide what's best for their kids. And I really hate to break it to you, but its not a serious drug at all. Headache and irritability if you go without a few days? Please. That's NOTHING at all like real withdraw that "serious" drug use causes.
I'm hardly trying to keep people from having caffeine as I feel illegal drugs should be legalized and regulated. I just don't think they should be force fed to children or mixed into foods without proper warning labels.
WTF are you talking about? Caffeine is in soda and chocolate. And not much in the latter. For the most part, I don't see many kids drinking starbucks. Lots of crap food is aimed at kids, but to act as if caffeine is being "force fed to children" just makes you look retarded.
Caffeine reduces the absorption of calcium.
Technically true... but not enough to cause problems. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12204390
It's also a diuretic.
Also technically true... but unless you're taking it in pill form, the amount water in which the caffeine is dissolved is more than the amount it will cause you to lose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/nutrition/04real.html
So your claims that caffeine causes kidney stones are totally unfounded.
Ya, that's why Europeans fly here for care.. becauase its "damn good."
Caffeine should be regulated because your a weak willed moron? Piss off.
I think we should ban soda too... because that's bad for you as well, and it would solve your delima. Actually, lets just ban fast food, because that's bad for you too.
Grow up and take responsiblity for yourself, and don't tell others what they should be doing with their kids.
Caffine doesn't cause kidney stones. I drank lots of soda and had sleeplessness, racing heart, etc. I drink redline sometimes now.. but I had been for almost a month straight.
I've never had kidney stones.
Not drinking enough water can leads to kidney stones, because the calcium is building up in your kidneys. Also, low calcium intake can lead to stones. If you're drinking that much coffee, it's likely your diet is screwy in many other ways.. and given the state of most Americans today, I think it's a safe bet diet played a large role in your stones, and other problems.
Huh? You can build up resistance to alcohol too, and it plays a big role.
So you're saying you have affordable but low quality health care? Hmm..
You've not used a Linux desktop have you?
Yes, actually I have. I ran it on my server for 10 years, and on the desktop for three. After wasting time fighting to get it to do what I wanted, I not only ditched Linux on the desktop, but on the server as well.
Actually Windows continues to fall behind.
Really? Then why does someone else apparently share my belief, enough to write a column about it? Please, linux on the desktop is a complete failure. Apple has more desktop market share than Linux... and Linux started ahead of Apple.
I can't tell you how many times I've had to tell Windows users, "no you can't do that because you're running Windows." You can't make statements like that if your desktop if "decades behind." And all that is really, completely beside the point.
I suspect you're lying to those Windows users to push your agenda. Please, tell me what an end user wanted to do but can't because of Windows.
Yes, obviously an imagined statement, completely unsubstantiated, which is obviously based on your own opinion proves your point. You might want to learn the difference between opinion and fact. In short, very safe to say, "completely busted!"
You're delusional... so much that you belive you're spouting fact, when you're not.
Confsed by context and then you turn around and complain I can't follow context. Grasping for straws isn't suddenly going to validate your opinion.
I have, just like the orignal article, been talking about Linux on the desktop. Then you go running your mouth about garbage that end users won't be doing... namely modifying the source to meet their needs. And if they have to pay, again, the open source argument fails, because the truth is the source is useless to most end users.
I've been running Linux as my desktop for four of five years now. It far from blows, especially for programmers and the more technically inclined.
It blows for me when I try to run financial software, play games without jumping through hoops, buy printers without worry, and even administer my systems / network. Windows makes it really easy. Linux makes you drop to the CLI. It blows, FOR END USERS, some of which ARE programmers and most of which are NOT.
In fact, Linux has always shined as a desktop for the technologically capable. That in it self has been the major gripe. "What about Average Joe on the street", and that was half a decade ago. Using a keyboard does not make one a "programmer." And once again, all of this is really beside the point.
No one said using a keyboard made you a programmers. The columist isn't and admits it.. and he's talking about Linux not working for those like him. And like me, he gave it a good shot from the sounds of it.
The point is, regardless of your bizarre slant, completely about receptivity of ideas for improvement. Thus far you've only shown a hatred for Linux, likely not a technical user, contrary to your assertions, and you offer up personal opinion as fact. In short order you sound exactly like the typical windows zealot, who trolls, looking for things to complain about and is ultimately ignored because your ideas likely suck or are irrational; and being ignored enrages you.
Yes, I dislike Linux, because years ago I bought in the lie, that M$ sucks and Linux was so much better. After a few years, the reality set it. It's garbage on the desktop.. still. As far as not being a technical user... I've been doing software engineering for 11 years now and have a BS in CS. I've worked in large and small teams building radiology application, financial applications, web applications, ERP systems... on both Windows and UNIX.
But when I go home, I want to USE my computer, not program it to do what I want.. when said programs already exist. What you're hearing is my frustration at the utter failure of linux on the desktop, and morons like you screaming "it's perfect as it, RTFM!! (what fucking manual??)"
So back to th
Not when you consider that all of us have dealt with someone's death and would like to at least *pretend* that we don't like to see it happen.
Nobody suggested sending flowers, someone simply pointed out that it was crude.
Why pretend? That seems more crude to me. Nobody was wishing death on the guy.. but the fact is to most people here he simply doesn't matter. My life is the same now as it would have been if I didn't see this story on /. and never knew he died. Sorry... that's just how it is.
Sometimes you're supposed to do or not do things because it's acceptable or responsible.
Yes, a lot of people would say that, and I'm questioning why. Why should anyone that had no clue of even his name before this story pretend to care that he's gone? Everyone's going to die, that's the cold fact of life. Those that knew him surely feel loss, and sure it sucks for them... but just for them. Or should they pretend to be sad if they ever found out I died? I doubt they would.. most likely, it would be "oh, that's too bad," and their life goes on unaffected. That's fine.. I'm not so self-centered that I think people that don't know me should care at all.
Heh... Plato's Republic described a similar idea for handling politians. In that writing, once you became a public servant, you coudn't own anything, and had to rely on the charity of your constituents to survive.
Partially right in that the date he predicted for the earthquake was the date that something happened which triggered the quake (or itself was a precursor to a quake). If his method can predict within a week, that's better than what we have now, which is nothing, AFAIK.
That was already answered. You know, the answer than completely busted your assertion/position. There are many, many things Windows can not do which Linux can. Having the source available makes that gap even bigger. Having the source available makes Linux all the more accessible.
Really? Seems to me it's the other way around. The whole "linux needs critics" argument is based on improving Linux ON THE DESKTOP. And Linux is decades behind on that front. So no, my position isn't busted at all... all you're doing is backing me up.
Many companies have paid for or developed in house modifications to the Linux kernel which were later integrated into the kernel. It was done to scratch in itch which served the company's needs.
And what the fuck does that have to do with Linux on the desktop, for the end user? Nothing. Because linux still sucks on the desktop.
Yes, I'm excellent at pulling reality and facts out of my ass. Its odd how even when pulled from my ass they are more accurate than anything you've said so far.
Apparently you suck at context and RTFA. Linux on the desktop blows. I know... I keep trying. I'm a programmer even... and it was too much of a time sink to be worth running. So I shelled out for Windows on my computer and my home server.
Yet more proof you're completely delusional. Every project which has more than a single developer working on it is proof you are wrong. Same is true for every project which has been sponsored by a company.
Its not only safe to say your position is completely busted, but that you are delusional about the state of open source and its effect on an industry as a whole.
So... why does Linux suck on the desktop? I'm not the only one saying it. TFA says as much too. If my argument was busted, I should be able to stick with Linux this time, right?
It's amusing actually... your attitude is exactly what the author is talking about!
Yes, he said the movie was awful. It's his job to review movies yes, but to review one that isn't finished? Seems rather unfair to me, given that the movie can be changed quite a bit in the next month, and from the sounds of it, most likely will. What is the point of reviewing something we know isn't finished?
The law to which you're refering is for journalist.. a movie reviewer isn't a journalist. It's usually some prick that's too cool for the room that totally misses the mark on what the average movie-goer is looking for.
Our democracy isn't in danger when a movie critic is fired over a review. It's not news... not that I really consider any of the big news outlets "news" anymore... or are you telling me clues to win a trip to see American Idol is news?
Um, instead of your long winded reply, maybe you should have taken the time to read what I wrote. After getting into the first paragraph, it seems clear that you're under the impression that the fact that the movie was unofffically released should not be reported... but that's not at all what I said.
What I said was, "why would anyone want to read a review of an unfinished movie." Notice the two bolded words, and take your rant somewhere else. No where did I claim that the fact that this got out should not be reported.
Thanks for the honesty. Its refreshing. I'm tired of people pretending to care about someone they never met, never talked to, and in this case, never even knew what he looked like.
It's interesting the socially correct thing to do is pretend you care about someone whose name you may not even have heard before and to offer insincere condolences. Personally I wouldn't want to be hearing from a bunch of strangers if I lost someone again.
I think the context matters. In your "Unedited" DVD version (which I've never seen.. only unrated or directors cut), I believe they mean "it has the scenes that would have gotten us an NC-17" as opposed to "the version you saw in the theater without said scenes." That's editing too... or if you like, censorship.
Wait, so someone steals a product prototype from my company, and I, WORKING FOR THE COMPANY, review said prototype and say it blows... I really shouldn't expect to be fired? Especially when I'm using my voice as a company representative?
Illegal or not, why would anyone want to read a review of a movie that isn't finished? Seems to be one of those things that as a professional movie reviewer you wouldn't do. I wouldn't go as far as to say it was unethical, but pretty questionable.
No... my original claim isn't "busted." Having the source is only relevent if you're a programmer with no life. As soon as you aren't that, you have to pay someone else to modify linux to fit your needs. In which case, why not just buy windows?
Your claim that "nothing alreays works" is nonsense you're pulling out of your ass, and doesn't do anything to refute the claim that linux needs critics. It does, because as a usable desktop it blows, and the snide "change it yourself" is an utter failure. That's why Apple passed Linux's desktop market share.
You're a twat... and exactly the reason why Linux isn't going to beat MS anytime soon.
If you have the time to fix Linux's shortcomings... well I can only assume you're single and still living in your mom's basement. I bet you think the only people that should be able to own cars are the ones that can do all the servicing themselves too.
Well, at that point it'd be cheaper just to buy something that already works for me... ie, Windows.
No, they are rich asshats that believe picutres being on a website will cause other people to rob their houses. Sorry, but if you're allowed to drive down that street without permission, I fail to see why you should not be allowed to take picutures of what you can see for yourself.
Only if you happen to be a programmer and have no life.
Sorry, the "intelligent layman" argument you presented is nonsence. The reason is that he's reading the research of said professionals, but without the qualifications to properly interperate it.
All your link shows is that people don't think as much as they should when an expert weighs in. It doesn't show that "authorities, by their very nature of being authoritative, are subject to pressures to provide biased or invalid information." The expert may or may not be honest, and your citation does nothing to address that point. That's why we have second opinons and such.
At any rate, none of what you said matters; the OP isn't likely a doctor, and thus is not qualified to diagnose autism. He's therefore equally unqualified to assert that "[he's] also noticed a lot of misdiagnoses going on with autistics." It's like those that say the traffic pattern was designed wrong, but their only qualification is driving, not in civil engineering.