Because you appear to suffer from Aspergers and have no empathy, and because you have absolutely no understanding of depression, or indeed society, you really should not comment.
I know plenty of people who don't have Aspergers who behave exactly the same way the grand parent poster does. I think you're over reading things from just that tiny sample of a comment and in truth, do not understand much about people.
Do you seriously think that anybody who would commit suicide over something like this is actually mentally capable of taking responsibility and doing "some self hardening"?
You are correct, she should not of been allowed to use the Internet without supervision.
Now, I wonder whos responsibility it should be for ensuring such a person shouldn't be using the Internet without supervision.
I've never used IRC, so I can't recommend any. IRC as far as I know is used only by geeks and hackers.
Perhaps back in 1994, but this certainly has not been the case since 1995. Even 'regular joe' user manages to find themselves on there, despite absurd the difficulty of selecting a server and entering a nickname.
Not really an ideal target audience for Windows developers.
The manual for the Linux EEE includes very detailed instructions on how to wipe Linux and install XP. (The manual for the Windows EEE does not contain instructions on wiping XP an installing Linux).
Actually it does. There is a section on restoring the factory Linux install which can be done via a USB pen drive or SDcard using the included CDROM.
Nice blanket statement and wrong. There is plenty of FOSS for Windows (the fact that some people make money selling software for Windows doesn't mean that there is no FOSS for Windows).
Okay, so, let's take some well known 'obscure' type of software.. Let's say.. IRC
Recommend me a good free, FOSS IRC client on Windows.
And before you mention,
IRSSI has stability issues, xchat is not free on Windows, kvIRC is crash prone.
I know quite a few more purchases of systems where Windows pre-installed on systems is just to get the computer, even though the person intends to run Linux on it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But I'll just make the assumption you are in the rest of the post. Otherwise, Kudos to you.
I'm so stupid. For six years I've had the impression it was created by DevComponents.com
No, they just created a visual style look alike components to Office XP and Office 2000 for Visual Studio.net. They were not used in Office and it certainly looks nothing like Office 2007 and has nothing to do with it, I might add.
Probably I've been mislead by this press release
No you haven't, you just didn't read it correctly.
Off the top of my head, note that I have no really been touching Microsoft products that much these recent years.
Microsoft Office 2007's UI
The DHCP windows update security extensions in Vista and Server 2008 (unpatched systems go on another subnet which only has access to update software
The centeral management and statistics tracking of all Vista systems in a corporation (shows crash statistics between different software, which drivers are installed company wide and so on)
I am sure there is a lot more, but I can't be bothered to think about it or research since this isn't really a subject I'm concerned about.
I mean, Vista has to emulate the My Document folders
They are symbolic links on the file system. Not really any kind of 'emulation'. Before Vista, NTFS only supported hard links. Microsoft could of used either one.
A good example of a proprietary developer is Apple. They have some very strict guidelines on interface, and follow them on their own applications (in my opinion) very well. Hardly any 3rd party applications for Mac follow these guidelines exactly.
Hate to break it to you, but Apple does not follow their own human interface guideline fully, there are numerous violations in iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, mail.app etc.
For GUI programs, I thinks the most vital thing is to assemble a universal GUI guideline including all widget libraries such as GTK+, QT, and Tk for free software.
Nobody agrees to the guidelines. Even Microsoft and Apple don't follow their own guidelines to begin with.
What really gets me and why I won't be installing Vista on any servers or desktops at work is the DRM. To me it's reminiscent of the campaign slogan from a few years ago - "It's the DRM Stupid!"
Why on earth would you put a desktop operating system (Windows Vista) on a server instead of a server operating system (Windows 2003 or Windows 2008)?
(Technically, all an Apache-type web server really needs to do is support serving of plain pages, and FCGI. With that, you can do anything, because there's an efficient way to pass off work to other programs. Interprocess communication is a good thing. But that's not the way Apache grew.)
Technically if that's all Apache did, I wouldn't be using Apache. I heavily use mod rewrite, mod proxy and many other modules that come with Apache.
I want to see vorbis & theora succeed, but is it right to cheer on the FF team while they're going around the W3C?
Two things:
1) W3C has yet to release any web browser standards, they have only released specifications as 'recommendations'. The only web browser 'standard' I can think of is the HTML4 spec by IEEE/ISO.
2) There is no codec specified in the recommendations by w3c, so how is this going around anything?
why is it okay for Firefox to break or extend the standards when we all acknowledge that it was bad when Netscape & Microsoft kept doing it?
Firefox seems to handle IEEE/ISO's standards just fine. The problem with IE is more so that it doesn't behave to any kind of open specifications. The sad thing is that IE doesn't even adhere properly to Microsoft's specifications on the MSDN.
These problems make it difficult for any inter0operable platform as the existing standards are broken. I don't see how using the open specification Theora in the documented specification method by the W3C is a problem.
Youtube will stay with Adobe's
Youtube is using a modified MPEG4 codec in a FLV container which is played by a player written in Flash. One can write C64 emulators and such in Flash - I'm sure a company with the resources of Google could implement any codec they wanted in Flash.
I personally don't think the future is as certain as you believe it to be. Eventually Youtube will move on to other technologies, be it technologies implemented in Adobe to other technologies widely adopted.
How long is HTML6 going to take when the W3C has to clean up the mess from the latest round of the every-browser-company-deciding-they-know-what's-best-for-me wars.
The problem with the W3C is that they have never really completely defined the entire specification, these 'every-browser-company-deciding-they-know-what's-best-for-me wars' have existed since the first two browsers were ever created, for example:
There was and still isn't a 'recommendation' for webpage standard colors, so some browsers (especially in the 90s) would by default use different colors. For example, a dark gray color for a background instead of white. This meant when you visited a website that was normally made to display text on white background, but because of the lack of insight by the web developer, he only defined the text color and this made the webpage somewhat difficult to read.
What eventually made most browsers adopt the default white background, blue unclicked links, purple visited links was the fact the top two browsers dominating the market (IE and Netscape) were exhibiting this behavior and web developers were assuming browsers were all behaving the same way.
This problem was all caused by the W3C not defining these settings.
What are you talking about? I am not aware of any quality issues in Theora at all and I've used it and H.264 for watching HD content - I can't tell the difference with either and I have encoded to both formats. The only issue I can really think of is the fact that while Theora video tends to be smaller verses H.264 (I've used VLC for transcoding), the CPU required to decode Theora content is quite a lot and my older computers (over five years old) are incapable of doing so in real time.
Slashdot Mirror
I buy my games off Steam, but even there they hype the prices up (still cheaper than UK stores though),
http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=app&AppId=7940&cc=GB
So I change the 'GB' in the URL to 'US':
http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=app&AppId=7940&cc=US
and buy it that way.
I did. I had to reread it three times before I got it right.
I know plenty of people who don't have Aspergers who behave exactly the same way the grand parent poster does. I think you're over reading things from just that tiny sample of a comment and in truth, do not understand much about people.
You are correct, she should not of been allowed to use the Internet without supervision.
Now, I wonder whos responsibility it should be for ensuring such a person shouldn't be using the Internet without supervision.
Don't know about them.
Perhaps back in 1994, but this certainly has not been the case since 1995. Even 'regular joe' user manages to find themselves on there, despite absurd the difficulty of selecting a server and entering a nickname.
I disagree. There is plenty of for-pay/closed source IRC software for Windows.
Actually it does. There is a section on restoring the factory Linux install which can be done via a USB pen drive or SDcard using the included CDROM.
To be honest... I can't think of any. I'm sure some do exist, could you give examples in such vast quantities that you suggest is the case?
Okay, so, let's take some well known 'obscure' type of software.. Let's say.. IRC
Recommend me a good free, FOSS IRC client on Windows.
And before you mention,
IRSSI has stability issues, xchat is not free on Windows, kvIRC is crash prone.
I know quite a few more purchases of systems where Windows pre-installed on systems is just to get the computer, even though the person intends to run Linux on it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. But I'll just make the assumption you are in the rest of the post. Otherwise, Kudos to you.
No, they just created a visual style look alike components to Office XP and Office 2000 for Visual Studio .net. They were not used in Office and it certainly looks nothing like Office 2007 and has nothing to do with it, I might add.
No you haven't, you just didn't read it correctly.
No, it isn't.
Using Skype to send text messages (and Skype calls) is free though on my mobile phone.
I live in the UK.
Off the top of my head, note that I have no really been touching Microsoft products that much these recent years.
I am sure there is a lot more, but I can't be bothered to think about it or research since this isn't really a subject I'm concerned about.
They are symbolic links on the file system. Not really any kind of 'emulation'. Before Vista, NTFS only supported hard links. Microsoft could of used either one.
Hate to break it to you, but Apple does not follow their own human interface guideline fully, there are numerous violations in iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, mail.app etc.
Nobody agrees to the guidelines. Even Microsoft and Apple don't follow their own guidelines to begin with.
How to delete your Yahoo! account.
There, I fixed it for you.
Britney Spears secret sex scene.WMV.exe
Why on earth would you put a desktop operating system (Windows Vista) on a server instead of a server operating system (Windows 2003 or Windows 2008)?
Technically if that's all Apache did, I wouldn't be using Apache. I heavily use mod rewrite, mod proxy and many other modules that come with Apache.
Windows 95 OSR2.1 and higher came with Internet Explorer.
Two things:
1) W3C has yet to release any web browser standards, they have only released specifications as 'recommendations'. The only web browser 'standard' I can think of is the HTML4 spec by IEEE/ISO.
2) There is no codec specified in the recommendations by w3c, so how is this going around anything?
Firefox seems to handle IEEE/ISO's standards just fine. The problem with IE is more so that it doesn't behave to any kind of open specifications. The sad thing is that IE doesn't even adhere properly to Microsoft's specifications on the MSDN.
These problems make it difficult for any inter0operable platform as the existing standards are broken. I don't see how using the open specification Theora in the documented specification method by the W3C is a problem.
Youtube is using a modified MPEG4 codec in a FLV container which is played by a player written in Flash. One can write C64 emulators and such in Flash - I'm sure a company with the resources of Google could implement any codec they wanted in Flash.
I personally don't think the future is as certain as you believe it to be. Eventually Youtube will move on to other technologies, be it technologies implemented in Adobe to other technologies widely adopted.
The problem with the W3C is that they have never really completely defined the entire specification, these 'every-browser-company-deciding-they-know-what's-best-for-me wars' have existed since the first two browsers were ever created, for example:
There was and still isn't a 'recommendation' for webpage standard colors, so some browsers (especially in the 90s) would by default use different colors. For example, a dark gray color for a background instead of white. This meant when you visited a website that was normally made to display text on white background, but because of the lack of insight by the web developer, he only defined the text color and this made the webpage somewhat difficult to read.
What eventually made most browsers adopt the default white background, blue unclicked links, purple visited links was the fact the top two browsers dominating the market (IE and Netscape) were exhibiting this behavior and web developers were assuming browsers were all behaving the same way.
This problem was all caused by the W3C not defining these settings.
What are you talking about? I am not aware of any quality issues in Theora at all and I've used it and H.264 for watching HD content - I can't tell the difference with either and I have encoded to both formats. The only issue I can really think of is the fact that while Theora video tends to be smaller verses H.264 (I've used VLC for transcoding), the CPU required to decode Theora content is quite a lot and my older computers (over five years old) are incapable of doing so in real time.
Not really, it's better than loads of other crap they've done.