1. Having skin exposed to anything less than 37oC makes you colder. Losing a few extra W of thermal energy to power a microchip will not make a difference, it's trivial compared to the amount of energy you lose just by being exposed to air. 2. No, chemical reactions that are endothermic will occur at any temperature that supplies the necessary activation energy to the physical reagents.
Dodging the content of what I said, both times. But I guess I can see how it would be convenient to do so, given your level of comprehension.
Ok, then take a look at what the original poster was saying: linux handles similar cases more gracefully than windows does
And that's my point: It doesn't. Linux has as many issues as Vista does in this regard, probably more due to the smaller pool of devs working on drivers, but that's the reality of the situation. I'm getting sick of the "Vista suxorz and Linux rulez" camp, I know that Vista has serious issues, but pretending that Linux doesn't suffer from some of the same issues as well as some others is foolish. And no, I don't, and never will, use Vista. I do however, and have been for a long time, use Linux. Overall Linux suits me better than Vista. But hey, I said something defending Vista and pointing out that Linux isn't perfect either, therefore I'm a MS shill and need to be beaten with the Slashdot stick.
Dude, you have, like, totally missed my point. So far that I can't even say it flew over your head, as that would imply you were standing in the right spot, just that it was aimed too high for you. That's not the case. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be thusly: I've got my point, it's a dart, and I'm throwing it at a dartboard in a bar somewhere in Los Angeles. You're wandering around somewhere in Arizona.
My point is, and always was, that Linux doesn't just automagically solve any and all install and update issues, and anyone who claims that it does for them is either a liar or has a trivial use case. As I said, I like Linux, I use it all the time. But it's not some magical panacea to everything IT.
I was not implying that Windows > Linux. I was not implying that Linux is not on par with Windows. I was not implying just about anything that you seem to think I was implying. It's to be expected here on Slashdot that anyone who says anything other than "M$ iz teh sux0r!" and "Linux 1z d4h b3st!" gets barraged with belligerence from tards like you.
My original post said simply that Linux cannot magically do what Windows cannot, and thinking that it is some magic bullet that makes all IT issues disappear is naive at best. Linux does not just do everything Vista cannot, although there are many things that it does do far better Many (but not all) of Vista's problems are just the result of the fact that making software work for all people on all combinations of hardware given wildly varying usage environments is just damn hard. Reading any more into what I said is putting words into my mouth. But as I said, if you don't tow the "Linux Rulez!!@!" line around here you get yappy-mouthed twits following you around and badgering you like a bunch of underage groupies at a Snoop Dogg concert.
Try either distro with the latest Creative sound card and nVidia graphics card, and if you can get both working with full functionality without the need for a text editor, I shall retract my statement.
If you honestly think that the experience you get with Windows is on par with the experience you get with Linux, then your experience with Linux obviously doesn't include providing technical support for 100 office workers who use it on their office machines and laptops.
Sure, right after you give me an example of where Ubuntu has been deployed on this scale and among this widely varied a set of hardware configurations.
I'm a Slashdotter, and I like Linux as much as any other. It earns me my bread. But seriously, dude, if you think that Linux distro's "Just Work", and all updates never cause dependency or conflict issues, then you're dreaming. Not even Ubuntu's upgrades always go smoothly, especially when you have exotic server hardware thrown into the mix, or obscure or complex packages running.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The absolutely positively most tasteless joke ever made on Slashdot. Need I remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that this accolade is not a small achievement, as Slashdot is home of the recurring pointless meme, the overaggressive dupe Nazi, legions of spelling and grammar Nazis all trying to outdo each other on how insulting they each can be and of course, countless attempts to induce unsuspecting people to view an image of the inside of a man's painfully (or perhaps pleasurably as we know very little of the inclinations of the subject of *that* famous photo) distended anus. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the post just above shows a level of crass tastelessness that outshines all previous examples. Please put your hands together for Malevolent Tester (1201209)!
You would need to show a study showing intelligent people are equally prone to immoral decisions (a cursory googling found me no study for either side). But i find i'm comfortable betting that stupid people would be more willing to murder, rape, rob a bank or beat their wifes than intelligent people. Reason being, all those things are stupid things to do.
I said there is *no* relationship, not that there is one in the other direction. If you think that only stupid people lie, cheat, steal, deceive and exploit then you must be living in an alternate universe, one that I wish I was living in. I pointed out a few examples, but the world is rife with examples of smart people being immoral. Let me point out the legal profession, oil companies, SCO, Wall Street Bankers, insurance companies, sweatshop operators, any company engaging in willing environmental destruction for marginal increases in profit (such as paper mills, steel smelters) and the RIAA. All those groups contain people who are smart, but are still doing things that they may not even consider the immorality of. Why? Because one can be smart and still have an utterly broken moral compass.
A smart person is just as likely to be immoral as a dumb person, only they won't be as blatantly bone-headed about it like the wife-beating rednecks you mention, who, conversely, won't have the smarts to embezzle millions like the guys in Arthur Anderson, Enron or WorldCom did. Being smart isn't some kind of righteousness card, smart or dumb, one has to guard one's soul against the temptations of immorality. To think otherwise is intellectual arrogance.
smarts gives you foresight. Foresight gives you ethics.
I'm sorry, but neither rationale nor observation in the field support either of these relationships. Spam-bots are written by smart people. Where's the foresight or ethics in spamming? Smart people designed chemical weapons.
It is quite possible to be smart and devoid of ethics. Smart people with no ethics run Wall Street. Smart people with no ethics are headhunted and encouraged to develop their smarts and suppress their ethics by industrial lobby groups such as petrochemicals and big pharma. I'm sorry, but I sadly have to report that smarts and ethics, in my observations and experience, have absolutely no relationship whatsoever. The very basis of capitalism is that one must do what one can do, not what one should do. If it's legal but immoral, do it, if it makes you richer. It's the American way.
Come on. What self-respecting non-moron actually takes this story seriously? When "tests" come up with results as ridiculous as this I want not just the results published, but the method and assumptions of the experiment, and most importantly, who funded the experiment.
The second quotes me, claiming I said the exact opposite of what I did.
you approve of citizenship being granted on the basis of belief in islam
Israel gives citizenship based upon belief in Judaism. Furthermore, I don't see how granting citizenship based upon the random chance of being born in a certain place is a better system. It's far less likely to result in a body of citizens with a shared common vision and sense of togetherness. In any case, my point was that 200 years ago (before the nation-state system was even in place) that's how "citizenship" was worked out, as the idea of nations did not exist the way it does today. I was making a point about the extra tax on non-Muslims, which I might add amounted to the exact same amount the Muslims were required to pay in their Zakat. I was responding to the rather uninformed view that non-Muslims lived under harsh conditions back when the Arab world was run in an Islamic way rather than the tinpot whackos that are in charge today.
Anyway, why am I digging up a point of clarification with an AC a year after that discussion ended?
At risk of sounding like this is some kind of low-ID pissing contest, I don't ever remember Slashdot being apolitical, and I was a reader for years before I became a subscriber. Slashdot, to me, was (and to a certain extent still is) a great place for very wide ranging discussions with a group heavily biased toward the favourable side of the IQ bell curve. Even after the dilution of the last few years, Slashdot is still a place I can count on reading interesting and insightful opinions from a broad cross-section of the global body politic.
Bloody hell, that's the third time someone's made a nasty crack about me being Muslim in as many days. And according to Fox News, I'm the one supposedly from an intolerant belligerent religion. Quite telling, really.
Many long time Slashdot readers remember the days when militant rednecks didn't come here, and they were able to comment on what an intelligent foreign policy would look like without having to put up with the "let's go shoot us some bad guys!" clowns. Sadly, those days are gone, as you have just demonstrated.
Oh Slashdot, unfounded conclusions and ridiculous extrapolation of benign ideas into cultish plans to consume the still warm corpses of children get you a +5.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Having skin exposed to anything less than 37oC makes you colder. Losing a few extra W of thermal energy to power a microchip will not make a difference, it's trivial compared to the amount of energy you lose just by being exposed to air.
2. No, chemical reactions that are endothermic will occur at any temperature that supplies the necessary activation energy to the physical reagents.
Hope I didn't sound like an elitist snob...
Yes, it does. The verb in that sentence is "is".
No, but I have links to several good papers on the nature and purpose of satirical humor. I'm sure you'll find them extremely enlightening.
Dodging the content of what I said, both times. But I guess I can see how it would be convenient to do so, given your level of comprehension.
And that's my point: It doesn't. Linux has as many issues as Vista does in this regard, probably more due to the smaller pool of devs working on drivers, but that's the reality of the situation. I'm getting sick of the "Vista suxorz and Linux rulez" camp, I know that Vista has serious issues, but pretending that Linux doesn't suffer from some of the same issues as well as some others is foolish. And no, I don't, and never will, use Vista. I do however, and have been for a long time, use Linux. Overall Linux suits me better than Vista. But hey, I said something defending Vista and pointing out that Linux isn't perfect either, therefore I'm a MS shill and need to be beaten with the Slashdot stick.
Dude, you have, like, totally missed my point. So far that I can't even say it flew over your head, as that would imply you were standing in the right spot, just that it was aimed too high for you. That's not the case. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be thusly: I've got my point, it's a dart, and I'm throwing it at a dartboard in a bar somewhere in Los Angeles. You're wandering around somewhere in Arizona.
My point is, and always was, that Linux doesn't just automagically solve any and all install and update issues, and anyone who claims that it does for them is either a liar or has a trivial use case. As I said, I like Linux, I use it all the time. But it's not some magical panacea to everything IT.
You're a fucking retard.
Yes. My point. Completely.
I was not implying that Windows > Linux. I was not implying that Linux is not on par with Windows. I was not implying just about anything that you seem to think I was implying. It's to be expected here on Slashdot that anyone who says anything other than "M$ iz teh sux0r!" and "Linux 1z d4h b3st!" gets barraged with belligerence from tards like you.
My original post said simply that Linux cannot magically do what Windows cannot, and thinking that it is some magic bullet that makes all IT issues disappear is naive at best. Linux does not just do everything Vista cannot, although there are many things that it does do far better Many (but not all) of Vista's problems are just the result of the fact that making software work for all people on all combinations of hardware given wildly varying usage environments is just damn hard. Reading any more into what I said is putting words into my mouth. But as I said, if you don't tow the "Linux Rulez!!@!" line around here you get yappy-mouthed twits following you around and badgering you like a bunch of underage groupies at a Snoop Dogg concert.
You'll forgive me for not believing you :P I chose the Audigy specifically because I know there is no Linux driver that supports its full feature set :P
Well done on missing the point totally.
Been there, done that. We called it VT100.
Try either distro with the latest Creative sound card and nVidia graphics card, and if you can get both working with full functionality without the need for a text editor, I shall retract my statement.
If you honestly think that the experience you get with Windows is on par with the experience you get with Linux, then your experience with Linux obviously doesn't include providing technical support for 100 office workers who use it on their office machines and laptops.
Sure, right after you give me an example of where Ubuntu has been deployed on this scale and among this widely varied a set of hardware configurations.
I'm a Slashdotter, and I like Linux as much as any other. It earns me my bread. But seriously, dude, if you think that Linux distro's "Just Work", and all updates never cause dependency or conflict issues, then you're dreaming. Not even Ubuntu's upgrades always go smoothly, especially when you have exotic server hardware thrown into the mix, or obscure or complex packages running.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The absolutely positively most tasteless joke ever made on Slashdot. Need I remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that this accolade is not a small achievement, as Slashdot is home of the recurring pointless meme, the overaggressive dupe Nazi, legions of spelling and grammar Nazis all trying to outdo each other on how insulting they each can be and of course, countless attempts to induce unsuspecting people to view an image of the inside of a man's painfully (or perhaps pleasurably as we know very little of the inclinations of the subject of *that* famous photo) distended anus. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the post just above shows a level of crass tastelessness that outshines all previous examples. Please put your hands together for Malevolent Tester (1201209)!
I said there is *no* relationship, not that there is one in the other direction. If you think that only stupid people lie, cheat, steal, deceive and exploit then you must be living in an alternate universe, one that I wish I was living in. I pointed out a few examples, but the world is rife with examples of smart people being immoral. Let me point out the legal profession, oil companies, SCO, Wall Street Bankers, insurance companies, sweatshop operators, any company engaging in willing environmental destruction for marginal increases in profit (such as paper mills, steel smelters) and the RIAA. All those groups contain people who are smart, but are still doing things that they may not even consider the immorality of. Why? Because one can be smart and still have an utterly broken moral compass.
A smart person is just as likely to be immoral as a dumb person, only they won't be as blatantly bone-headed about it like the wife-beating rednecks you mention, who, conversely, won't have the smarts to embezzle millions like the guys in Arthur Anderson, Enron or WorldCom did. Being smart isn't some kind of righteousness card, smart or dumb, one has to guard one's soul against the temptations of immorality. To think otherwise is intellectual arrogance.
I'm sorry, but neither rationale nor observation in the field support either of these relationships. Spam-bots are written by smart people. Where's the foresight or ethics in spamming? Smart people designed chemical weapons.
It is quite possible to be smart and devoid of ethics. Smart people with no ethics run Wall Street. Smart people with no ethics are headhunted and encouraged to develop their smarts and suppress their ethics by industrial lobby groups such as petrochemicals and big pharma. I'm sorry, but I sadly have to report that smarts and ethics, in my observations and experience, have absolutely no relationship whatsoever. The very basis of capitalism is that one must do what one can do, not what one should do. If it's legal but immoral, do it, if it makes you richer. It's the American way.
Come on. What self-respecting non-moron actually takes this story seriously? When "tests" come up with results as ridiculous as this I want not just the results published, but the method and assumptions of the experiment, and most importantly, who funded the experiment.
How aggressive. Now we know what the logos for defence contractors do to you.
The second quotes me, claiming I said the exact opposite of what I did.
Israel gives citizenship based upon belief in Judaism. Furthermore, I don't see how granting citizenship based upon the random chance of being born in a certain place is a better system. It's far less likely to result in a body of citizens with a shared common vision and sense of togetherness. In any case, my point was that 200 years ago (before the nation-state system was even in place) that's how "citizenship" was worked out, as the idea of nations did not exist the way it does today. I was making a point about the extra tax on non-Muslims, which I might add amounted to the exact same amount the Muslims were required to pay in their Zakat. I was responding to the rather uninformed view that non-Muslims lived under harsh conditions back when the Arab world was run in an Islamic way rather than the tinpot whackos that are in charge today.
Anyway, why am I digging up a point of clarification with an AC a year after that discussion ended?
At risk of sounding like this is some kind of low-ID pissing contest, I don't ever remember Slashdot being apolitical, and I was a reader for years before I became a subscriber. Slashdot, to me, was (and to a certain extent still is) a great place for very wide ranging discussions with a group heavily biased toward the favourable side of the IQ bell curve. Even after the dilution of the last few years, Slashdot is still a place I can count on reading interesting and insightful opinions from a broad cross-section of the global body politic.
Bloody hell, that's the third time someone's made a nasty crack about me being Muslim in as many days. And according to Fox News, I'm the one supposedly from an intolerant belligerent religion. Quite telling, really.
Many long time Slashdot readers remember the days when militant rednecks didn't come here, and they were able to comment on what an intelligent foreign policy would look like without having to put up with the "let's go shoot us some bad guys!" clowns. Sadly, those days are gone, as you have just demonstrated.
IMHO "peace and quiet pollution" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Oh Slashdot, unfounded conclusions and ridiculous extrapolation of benign ideas into cultish plans to consume the still warm corpses of children get you a +5.