Just five minutes ago I compiled and installed a kernel module and all I had to do was press "Forward", this is not fanaticism, when you have something like APT installing software that is targeted for your specific platform and configured to suit your environment is a breeze.
If Universal Binaries were a magical format that magically ran in every platform from the same compiled form we could be talking, but it is not, Universal Binaries are the same source compiled for each target architecture, all bundled together, it does not solve the problem of platform targeting, it only ensures you can put it in a media device as a big fat black box.
That can be useful but linux users have better ways to install software.
There is a panel applet that fuses the title bar with the task bar and another applet (at least I think it is an applet) that moves the menubar into the panel (which technically doesn't buy you much space but you could combine these two applets to effectively free two whole rows in your interfase.
I do, junk DNA, as well as other minerals and enzymes and pretty much anything that floats into the cytoplasm affects the functioning of DNA, they are as much part of your genotype as anything else, as should be expected, because the parts are there and interact, so the interaction must play a role in the expression of the phenotype.
Two thins are I know are, it wasn't placed there deliberately by some supernatural entity, it does not look even remotely designed, in fact we know exactly what it looks like, vestigial genes. Also while it might be true that a single base pair repeated over and over as I suggested could not be viable, simpler arrangements should be possible and indeed, we have deleted sections of it in flies and bacteria without noticeable effects.
I'm not against or in pro of the term junk DNA, what bugs me is the scare quotes, the haha "junk" DNA is not junk after all take that science! stance of the ID drones.
What/THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for? Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless, if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over. Instead junk DNA is compromised of a healthy dose of post-ad-hoc disabled vestigial genes and garbled ones. Since everything that affects your genome is in a sense part of your genotype it wouldn't be surprising if it is preserved but to suggest this DNA is not made of vestigial genes is, quite frankly, quite sick.
Not quite so, while paying to corporations might not seem compulsory like taxes are, in many ways they are. Food for example, we all need it. It is as mandatory as taxes. Yes, with corporations you get an array of options, but the cheapest provider may still being overcharging. With government you can get an even cheaper, if not optimal price, because you have power over it. The government is like a corporation we all own.
What is the alternative? No government spending on public health? What about the fire department? Wouldn't a corporation handle it better? What about roads? What about national defense? What about the police? Should we recur to corporations for a judicial system?
If you say "no", as I hope, then you agree with government spending, we just have to figure out the bugs, because while you must pay taxes to the government, the government give you legislative representation in return, if your representation fails you that's where the problem is.
Saying the government is the problem is not constructive, because getting rid of the government is not the solution, fixing the government is the solution. It might be that a given service is not best served by the government at some point, that doesn't invalidate the idea of a government.
With closed you have to have literally blind faith in one person who may not even be a real user of the software, with open you trust a subset of a community of users of the software.
So you don't believe in peer review, do you get homeopathic or acupuncture treatments?
So the whole codeplex thing is muddled enough even before we start asking why codeplex rejects GPLv3 or what's wrong with SourceForge that they had to invent their own brand of Open Source.
The deal with codeplex, like with mono, is that it is all very muddled. How can we be sure.NET is open? Do we get a license? No, we get a "promise", a conditioned promise, conditioned promise that only covers some "aspects" of it, a conditioned promise that only covers some aspects and only applies to some parties, etc, etc, etc.
I'll wouldn't touch that without a team of lawyers behind me. Wait, we do have some law teams, the EFF and PJ's "blog", and neither seem to like Mono or Codeplex either.
All of this from a corporation whose leadership is mostly anti Open Source, and totally anti-Free Software and has used every chance to attack it.
And you want us to take RMS advise to be watchful as unworthy paranoid fanaticism?
How retarded do you think I am?
It's like if your entire blog is a thinly veiled insult against my intelligence.
THAT is simply not true. For most users the main benefit of "open" is that it can be checked not to contain malicious code, artificial locks, or dumb exploitable mistakes. You may not be able to check it yourself but someone in your same position will.
In addition, "free" also ensures that in case one of those problems are found, that a version without them will be available.
And in addition to that, "copyleft" ensures all improvements will also be free.
Firstly, targeted ads won't make people more happy because they hate ads, period. The fact the ads are irrelevant just gives them more ammunition to complain about them but they'd still zap them if the can even if they are targeted.
Secondly, ads are bad for consumers, (revenue not withstanding). I know this will be hard to get into some mind sets.
Unlike genuine recommendations, or impartial review sites and product guides, ads are meant to either
a) Make you buy a product you do not need or down right should not buy or... b) Make you choose a brand of a product you do need under false assumptions or wrong reasons.
That sometimes you actually need to buy the product and that at least one brand is actually the best for you does not make them more honest, they are biased and should not be advising you which things to buy.
Targeted ads are actually worse because they are more likely to trap you. This is specially obvious in the case where only the ad content is personally targeted not the product itself, example. Selling Pepsi to white adults using pop and using hip-hop for black kids (or kids in general). Since the targeted ad advertises the same product it's obvious that the only difference is the effectiveness to make you buy a drink you don't need.
Do I see no room for ads in the world?
Not at all, they are an excellent revenue source. As a consumer I want advertises to pay for ads, but as a consumer and a citizen I can only advise you to ignore them the best you can because they are never good for you.
Since the content of ads is best ignored whether they are targeted or not is irrelevant, the fact that you are being tracked, however, is not. Therefore targeted ads are a net loss for you and for the whole of society.
A case could be made that targeted ads are more valuable and thus advertisers will pay more for them, but this is mostly false, advertisers are not so much paying more for targeted ads as they are paying less for non targeted ones, if no ads are targeted the price of non targeted ads will rise.
One could further argue that since targeted ads are more likely to trap consumers, advertisers are more likely to profit and thus keep paying for ads but this is false too, the price of an ad is mostly driven by competition among product producers, as long as producers have to compete they'll buy ads.
I don't have hopes to convincing you, you probably are a glass house advocate.
You are right on spot. The truth is that Nintendo through the Wii, decided to base their entire market on the kind of people that don't really love games, and now they are worried because the non gamer market prefers non gaming devices, well I'm shocked, not
Seriously why did they expecting different? Are their marketing teams so retarded?
Hey you beat me to that! Yes, indeed that was a good game, ars is being and arse claiming this is a brand new concept simply because it is the first large budget game to use it.
Do they teach kids too about the reasoning behind copyright limits? That corporations that depended on lifted works from their culture now are strangling the new generations for profit? That they have extorted and lobbied the copyright limits to over ten times its original term?
Seriously why do you let these corporations run your government?
The problem is that people give personal anecdotes form themselves an their immediate circle, much, much higher thrust value than they deserve.
Data from research uses much larger samples under much more controlled circumstances but people distrust it.
It doesn't matter if the National Health Institute of whatever your country has not been able to prove any positive effects of homeopathic medicine after numerous tests by professionally trained personal under strict controls, "my friend took homeopathic pills once and he says he got better" completely utterly out-weights years and millions of dollars in research.
"Lots of users" does not equal "a large percentage".
The number of people who use Windows but loath it could be twice the number of total number Linux users combined, and it would still be less than 5% of number of people who use Windows. There are not that many people who hate Windows, the vast majority of windows users love it, especially XP and even Vista now that they've got most of the bugs ironed out.
Wrong lots of people hate Windows, but for they Windows is the only thing they know so they "hate computers", the majority of users delegate the burden of maintenance to someone else, usually a son or other younger relatives, and this people tend to hate Windows, but stick to it because that is all they know anyway.
There will never be an open source replacement for Windows, if anything replaces it it will be a closed-source OS like OSX
Dead wrong again. The reason replacements for windows have not come already --besides MS using dirty tactics to force partners into submission-- is because of the chicken and egg problem, if there was a bigger drive for cross platform development for desktop apps the chicken and egg problem would be solved, but at the same time Linux wound take the lead because the only thing stopping it is that everything is Windows only these days.
because programming the bits that ma ke Windows easy to use and acceptable to a large user base are the very bits that nobody likes to write. They are, in fact, a pain in the ass to write and there is no real sense of accomplishment. That is why GUIs in Linux are horrible. Not just bad, but horrible. The rare GUI that is easy to use is a pleasant surprise.
With Windows, as well as with most proprietary software, some schmuck got paid to make sure all the bits that nobody likes to program work the way they are supposed to, and what you get is a GUI that is so easy to use nobody even thinks about it. This is one thing that open source developement is terrible at. Not bad, but terrible, and it is an area closed-source developement excels at. Usually the poor schmuck doing the GUI work is an intern or new guy making his way up the ranks, being told what to do by the high-paid GUI designer. Neither of those two exist in an open source project. If they do, it's very rare.
Wrong and wrong again, Linux desktop (as Gnome and KDE) usability and gui design has exceeded MS for the last 4 years of so. And even there the most generic (aka boring) desktops apps are superior either in features (Amarok, K3B...) or simplicity and ease of use (Rhythmbox, Bracero).
You could not be more wrong, what's missing in Linux is not the boring bits (such an old meme!) what's missing in Linux are sufficiently powerful alternatives for many professional software.
AutoCAD, Photoshop and many others disciplines I can't even name (in fact it's precisely because I can't name them) these are the too obscure and do not attract enough developers.
The only highly specialized software branch where Linux is packed with excellent apps is, unsurprisingly, software development.
But guess what? Windows doesn't provide those specialized software applications either! It's all third parties! That's why the hope for Linux in the desktop doesn't die, because if all those third parties apps had Linux ports Linux would have already won.
Slashdot Mirror
MOD PARENT FLAMEBAIT
Just five minutes ago I compiled and installed a kernel module and all I had to do was press "Forward", this is not fanaticism, when you have something like APT installing software that is targeted for your specific platform and configured to suit your environment is a breeze.
If Universal Binaries were a magical format that magically ran in every platform from the same compiled form we could be talking, but it is not, Universal Binaries are the same source compiled for each target architecture, all bundled together, it does not solve the problem of platform targeting, it only ensures you can put it in a media device as a big fat black box.
That can be useful but linux users have better ways to install software.
There is a panel applet that fuses the title bar with the task bar and another applet (at least I think it is an applet) that moves the menubar into the panel (which technically doesn't buy you much space but you could combine these two applets to effectively free two whole rows in your interfase.
And none of that is new to me the only news is that I'm running short on temper for creationists, probably caused by reading youtube comments.
Casinos are loser factories that produce winners as waste material.
I do, junk DNA, as well as other minerals and enzymes and pretty much anything that floats into the cytoplasm affects the functioning of DNA, they are as much part of your genotype as anything else, as should be expected, because the parts are there and interact, so the interaction must play a role in the expression of the phenotype.
Two thins are I know are, it wasn't placed there deliberately by some supernatural entity, it does not look even remotely designed, in fact we know exactly what it looks like, vestigial genes. Also while it might be true that a single base pair repeated over and over as I suggested could not be viable, simpler arrangements should be possible and indeed, we have deleted sections of it in flies and bacteria without noticeable effects.
I'm not against or in pro of the term junk DNA, what bugs me is the scare quotes, the haha "junk" DNA is not junk after all take that science! stance of the ID drones.
I don't mean that they are only vestigial and serve no structural purpose.
But rather that if they were placed there deliberately for structural purpose only it would be obvious and they would be made of vestigial genes.
They are junk, not "junk".
What /THE FUCK/ are the scare quotes for? Junk DNA is junk because it's content is useless, if it was there for structural purposes it would consist of the same base-pair repeated over and over. Instead junk DNA is compromised of a healthy dose of post-ad-hoc disabled vestigial genes and garbled ones. Since everything that affects your genome is in a sense part of your genotype it wouldn't be surprising if it is preserved but to suggest this DNA is not made of vestigial genes is, quite frankly, quite sick.
Big Whoosh, parent is urging users to use an expensive and extremely overrated OS based on BSD, can you name it?
...someone seem to want to get it.
I think you can really say poke is a helpful form of communication!
pokepokepokepoke poke pokepoookepokepoke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke pokepoke pokepoooke poookepoooke poooke pokepoookepoke pokepoooke pokepoookepoookepoke pokepoookepoookepoke poke poookepokepoke pokepoke poookepoke pokepokepoke pokepoke poookepokepoke poke pokepokepoookepoke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepokepokepoke poookepoookepoooke poookepoookepoooke poookepokepoooke poookepokepoke pokepoooke poooke pokepoooke poookepokepoookepoke poke poookepoke poooke poke pokepoookepoke pokepoookepokepoookepokepoooke
Not quite so, while paying to corporations might not seem compulsory like taxes are, in many ways they are. Food for example, we all need it. It is as mandatory as taxes. Yes, with corporations you get an array of options, but the cheapest provider may still being overcharging. With government you can get an even cheaper, if not optimal price, because you have power over it. The government is like a corporation we all own.
What is the alternative? No government spending on public health? What about the fire department? Wouldn't a corporation handle it better? What about roads? What about national defense? What about the police? Should we recur to corporations for a judicial system?
If you say "no", as I hope, then you agree with government spending, we just have to figure out the bugs, because while you must pay taxes to the government, the government give you legislative representation in return, if your representation fails you that's where the problem is.
Saying the government is the problem is not constructive, because getting rid of the government is not the solution, fixing the government is the solution. It might be that a given service is not best served by the government at some point, that doesn't invalidate the idea of a government.
With closed you have to have literally blind faith in one person who may not even be a real user of the software, with open you trust a subset of a community of users of the software.
So you don't believe in peer review, do you get homeopathic or acupuncture treatments?
Given the superiority of 7z the popularity of rar is a fucking mystery, I blame net effects.
So the whole codeplex thing is muddled enough even before we start asking why codeplex rejects GPLv3 or what's wrong with SourceForge that they had to invent their own brand of Open Source.
The deal with codeplex, like with mono, is that it is all very muddled. How can we be sure .NET is open? Do we get a license? No, we get a "promise", a conditioned promise, conditioned promise that only covers some "aspects" of it, a conditioned promise that only covers some aspects and only applies to some parties, etc, etc, etc.
I'll wouldn't touch that without a team of lawyers behind me. Wait, we do have some law teams, the EFF and PJ's "blog", and neither seem to like Mono or Codeplex either.
All of this from a corporation whose leadership is mostly anti Open Source, and totally anti-Free Software and has used every chance to attack it.
And you want us to take RMS advise to be watchful as unworthy paranoid fanaticism?
How retarded do you think I am?
It's like if your entire blog is a thinly veiled insult against my intelligence.
THAT is simply not true. For most users the main benefit of "open" is that it can be checked not to contain malicious code, artificial locks, or dumb exploitable mistakes. You may not be able to check it yourself but someone in your same position will.
In addition, "free" also ensures that in case one of those problems are found, that a version without them will be available.
And in addition to that, "copyleft" ensures all improvements will also be free.
No, he is suggesting that he, Linus and at least part of Microsoft are his allies, only an apologist would read it any other way.
A survey is not scientific
Imaginary experiments are!
:I like my privacy but... If I must have ads, I would rather have targeted ads for something I might actually want or use.
I like free services so... if I will ignore ads, I would rather have advertisers not invade my privacy.
BULLSHIT for 2 reasons
Firstly, targeted ads won't make people more happy because they hate ads, period. The fact the ads are irrelevant just gives them more ammunition to complain about them but they'd still zap them if the can even if they are targeted.
Secondly, ads are bad for consumers, (revenue not withstanding). I know this will be hard to get into some mind sets.
Unlike genuine recommendations, or impartial review sites and product guides, ads are meant to either
a) Make you buy a product you do not need or down right should not buy
or...
b) Make you choose a brand of a product you do need under false assumptions or wrong reasons.
That sometimes you actually need to buy the product and that at least one brand is actually the best for you does not make them more honest, they are biased and should not be advising you which things to buy.
Targeted ads are actually worse because they are more likely to trap you. This is specially obvious in the case where only the ad content is personally targeted not the product itself, example. Selling Pepsi to white adults using pop and using hip-hop for black kids (or kids in general). Since the targeted ad advertises the same product it's obvious that the only difference is the effectiveness to make you buy a drink you don't need.
Do I see no room for ads in the world?
Not at all, they are an excellent revenue source. As a consumer I want advertises to pay for ads, but as a consumer and a citizen I can only advise you to ignore them the best you can because they are never good for you.
Since the content of ads is best ignored whether they are targeted or not is irrelevant, the fact that you are being tracked, however, is not. Therefore targeted ads are a net loss for you and for the whole of society.
A case could be made that targeted ads are more valuable and thus advertisers will pay more for them, but this is mostly false, advertisers are not so much paying more for targeted ads as they are paying less for non targeted ones, if no ads are targeted the price of non targeted ads will rise.
One could further argue that since targeted ads are more likely to trap consumers, advertisers are more likely to profit and thus keep paying for ads but this is false too, the price of an ad is mostly driven by competition among product producers, as long as producers have to compete they'll buy ads.
I don't have hopes to convincing you, you probably are a glass house advocate.
Where are the mod points when you need them?
You are right on spot. The truth is that Nintendo through the Wii, decided to base their entire market on the kind of people that don't really love games, and now they are worried because the non gamer market prefers non gaming devices, well I'm shocked, not
Seriously why did they expecting different? Are their marketing teams so retarded?
Hey you beat me to that! Yes, indeed that was a good game, ars is being and arse claiming this is a brand new concept simply because it is the first large budget game to use it.
Do they teach kids too about the reasoning behind copyright limits? That corporations that depended on lifted works from their culture now are strangling the new generations for profit? That they have extorted and lobbied the copyright limits to over ten times its original term?
Seriously why do you let these corporations run your government?
And yet no Hitler? Bah ÂÂ...
Yes, to that extent that's right.
The problem is that people give personal anecdotes form themselves an their immediate circle, much, much higher thrust value than they deserve.
Data from research uses much larger samples under much more controlled circumstances but people distrust it.
It doesn't matter if the National Health Institute of whatever your country has not been able to prove any positive effects of homeopathic medicine after numerous tests by professionally trained personal under strict controls, "my friend took homeopathic pills once and he says he got better" completely utterly out-weights years and millions of dollars in research.
That's the problem.
Who modded you up? It's pathetic nonsense.
"Lots of users" does not equal "a large percentage".
The number of people who use Windows but loath it could be twice the number of total number Linux users combined, and it would still be less than 5% of number of people who use Windows. There are not that many people who hate Windows, the vast majority of windows users love it, especially XP and even Vista now that they've got most of the bugs ironed out.
Wrong lots of people hate Windows, but for they Windows is the only thing they know so they "hate computers", the majority of users delegate the burden of maintenance to someone else, usually a son or other younger relatives, and this people tend to hate Windows, but stick to it because that is all they know anyway.
There will never be an open source replacement for Windows, if anything replaces it it will be a closed-source OS like OSX
Dead wrong again. The reason replacements for windows have not come already --besides MS using dirty tactics to force partners into submission-- is because of the chicken and egg problem, if there was a bigger drive for cross platform development for desktop apps the chicken and egg problem would be solved, but at the same time Linux wound take the lead because the only thing stopping it is that everything is Windows only these days.
because programming the bits that ma
ke Windows easy to use and acceptable to a large user base are the very bits that nobody likes to write. They are, in fact, a pain in the ass to write and there is no real sense of accomplishment. That is why GUIs in Linux are horrible. Not just bad, but horrible. The rare GUI that is easy to use is a pleasant surprise.
With Windows, as well as with most proprietary software, some schmuck got paid to make sure all the bits that nobody likes to program work the way they are supposed to, and what you get is a GUI that is so easy to use nobody even thinks about it. This is one thing that open source developement is terrible at. Not bad, but terrible, and it is an area closed-source developement excels at. Usually the poor schmuck doing the GUI work is an intern or new guy making his way up the ranks, being told what to do by the high-paid GUI designer. Neither of those two exist in an open source project. If they do, it's very rare.
Wrong and wrong again, Linux desktop (as Gnome and KDE) usability and gui design has exceeded MS for the last 4 years of so. And even there the most generic (aka boring) desktops apps are superior either in features (Amarok, K3B...) or simplicity and ease of use (Rhythmbox, Bracero).
You could not be more wrong, what's missing in Linux is not the boring bits (such an old meme!) what's missing in Linux are sufficiently powerful alternatives for many professional software.
AutoCAD, Photoshop and many others disciplines I can't even name (in fact it's precisely because I can't name them) these are the too obscure and do not attract enough developers.
The only highly specialized software branch where Linux is packed with excellent apps is, unsurprisingly, software development.
But guess what? Windows doesn't provide those specialized software applications either! It's all third parties! That's why the hope for Linux in the desktop doesn't die, because if all those third parties apps had Linux ports Linux would have already won.