How about the fact that you CAN'T turn it off in WinXP either?
Changing the sound scheme doesn't matter, a few reboots later and it's all back again. Creating a NEW scheme... No dice, reverts back to the default scheme again in a couple of days.
I did actually get to see parts of this. In my honest opinion, Dawkins came off as MORE ignorant than ANY of the people he interviewed.
Basically, he just went out to try and ridicule every single religion. He had no real arguments that were much better than "my book says so, thus it must be true" himself, and in the end he just looked quite stupid.
While I'm all for religion and science in a happy co-existance, I'm an atheist myself. I believe in facts, and not fiction. Show me one single fact saying that the bible is a true story, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible is just a work of fiction.
As a matter of fact, it was the cheapest Acer laptop I could find in the stores...
And I really don't fancy those OEM versions of XP where I have to spend as much time removing crap as I have to spend time installing drivers in a regular Windows version.
Put simply, in Windows, everything works out of the box in 99.999% of the cases. In the case of Linux, there is *always* some modicum of configuration needed.
Uhm... Yeah...
Last time I installed windows, I had to sit in 640x480 and download drivers for VGA, audio, motherboard and other stuff, while using an unpatched windows just screaming to get owned.
Then I tried Ubuntu, and had EVERYTHING work right after the install. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Not one single driver-download, and patching the system had been taken care of DURING the install, so that when I rebooted I had a fresh and stable system.
#1. After using the console for a short while, you quickly learn that many things are both faster and easier to do via the Command Line Interface. And running Gnome or KDE, when did you last HAVE to open a console?
#2. "The User". Who's that? I take pity on those users who actually DO want to use/proc or/dev, and can't because some people would rather never even be reminded that they exist at all. If you don't need it, don't use it. I don't use Internet Explorer, but I think you'd cry yourself to sleep were you deprived of using it simply because *I* don't like it.
#3. Yeah, and the Windows registry is as logical as it gets...
#4. There are exactly the same kinds of ownerships in Windows as there are in GNU/Linux. The only difference is that on GNU/Linux the ownership actually makes a difference.
I feel I'm very much like you. I, too, bought alot of movies I've previously only seen as Divx-rips. Same thing with CD's. Since music costs what it costs nowadays, you really have to be able to listen to it first, so yuo can decide whether it's worth spending a great deal of money on.
One thing that totally made me loose my mind yesterday, was when watching Reservoir Dogs (I got the Quentin Tarantino-box for christmas! yay!) and having to sit through a minute long commercial/lecture/accusation about how "downloadin movies is the same as stealing them from the store" (apparently along with chips and candy, though they failed to mention how it is possible to download snacks...). WTF?! The movie I was going to watch was bought legally from a store, and yet they feel it necessary to tell me how I'm breaking the law when downloading movies. Ironically, had I downloaded the DVD-R instead, that part would probably have been stripped.
What's the lesson I've learned, thanks to the MPAA?
That downloading movies instead of buying them actually pays off.
They seriously have to get a reality-check and change their strategies. What they're doing now is NOT helping in any way imaginable.
Actually you have to elect them before they get to be president. You can't make a true judgemnet
based on their capabiltiy at being a president unless it's their second term. You'll have to estimated based on previous conduct how capable he/she actually would be.
Seems you're trying to start a debate here, just for the hell of it:)
of course I can't know for sure how fit they are to be a president, but I can make a guess. And really trying to read the candidates, sure beat trusting them based purely on their view on religion. Doesn't it?
If they are into the religious thing their ideas and values are very much bound by that religion. Like always, the more any candiate is extreme or fanatic in any way, the more troublesome their gone be. The worst are those trying to backup their ideas and values with their interpretation of their relegion, as they are most probably gone create their private crusade in the name of some ideal.
Of course Their views and ideas will be based on their religion, but what I said is that I won't elect a president purely on what he calls his God-of-choice. If a presidential candidate says that "I will not wage wars, because it's wrong and doesn't help anything" it really doesn't matter if that opinion is based on christian ideals, or islamic fundamentalism. The thought is still a good one.
I'm sorry, I just can't help mentioning that I actually judge things like this based on how capable they are of being a president, rather than take a magnifying glass to his/her life. Whether they're christian, jewish, muslim or vulcan, I consider their values and ideas higher than their religion
...And by "us" you mean the small, oh so small, minority that actually knows how to do just that?
Atleast see Windows for what it is. It's an operating system for the masses, not for the individual. If you want customization, go with Unix/GNULinux or something similar.
Yes it has. I read the interview where a member of the team itself told about how the code was unmanageable, and they had to rewrite big parts of it. That doesn't mean they improved it, they just wrote it to become more easily managed.
I wasn't talking about the core literally, I was talking about the core being that they should focus on Windows being stable and secure, as is. They shouldn't use old software, patch it for 10 years, and the re-use that old, patched code for yet ANOTHER operating system so that they can patch THAT even more.
Make it stable and secure from the beginning, and you'll waste less time worrying about patches.
As I see it, Windows is now nothing more than a big heap of patches. Several layers of it.
Instead of patching a system with roots in old NT systems, rewrite the operating system so that it's stable and secure from the start. Less patching, and if they do it correctly they might stop most, if not all, bugs and exploits that are out there today.
Make the crackers think twice, because you did first.
My suggestion is that Microsoft reworks it's entire operating system. Catch a glance at Unix, Mac OS, BSD or whatever, just make a new operating system that DOESN't inherit all the combined flaws of the older systems.
Vista has already been completely rewritten, since the codee was too messy. Well, if they can do that, why can't they just rework the entire structure while they're at it. Harden the system at the core, don't make the fingertips bulletproof.
I think he means more along the line of "don't lay it on me to do the parenting. I don't want to get sued because some kid carded a game he's not allowed to play."
I wouldn't be surprised at all if some christian, american parents decided to sue the game-store, just because their precious, protected child stole money to buy the game he wanted but didn't get for christmas.
People have really lost sight of what's important. Sure, rating games is a good way to quickly estimate if the game COULD be harmful to a minor child. But that doesn't mean the parents get to skip actually finding out HOW harmful, if at all, the game REALLY is. In the end, it's always the parents that should do the parenting.
Running Ubuntu myself, I can honestly say that it is NOT bloated. I get the most basic software, everything I need for a desktop computer. Open Office, Firefox and Thunderbird, it's all there.
And as far as patching goes, naturally you'll need more patches on a desktop computer, since they're running a whole other set of software.
If you're running a server, you already know to shut everything not being used off. And after doing that, there's rarely that much need to update anything at all. Sure, sometimes some critical exploit gets revealed and patched, but that is always quickly and easily installed (provided you've set the system up to be easily patched).
I'm sorry, but I just can't see what argument you're trying to make.
Yeah... Well, the thing is that they never flatout lie. They bend the truth to work FOR them, while fraining from breaking it alltogether.
We can't sue them, because the way they see it, it's true. It's just that we all know that it's not the whole truth, and we know it's not really like that.
In a perfect world, no one would lie. In said world, there would only be monopolized companies, since only one single company could claim to be "The Best" without lying:)
The funniest thing I see, is that they actually compare Windows "one patch fits all" to Linux vast number of programs and software, each managing their own updates.
OF COURSE Linux demands more updates, there's simply more software to patch!
Slashdot Mirror
How about the fact that you CAN'T turn it off in WinXP either?
Changing the sound scheme doesn't matter, a few reboots later and it's all back again. Creating a NEW scheme... No dice, reverts back to the default scheme again in a couple of days.
My solution?
remove the frikkin' soundfiles!
http://www.endemoniada.org/2006/08/16/jack-jack-ja ck/
I mentioned your post in my blog. It's not much, but I believe in what you've said and I'll try anything to make it known.
I did actually get to see parts of this. In my honest opinion, Dawkins came off as MORE ignorant than ANY of the people he interviewed.
Basically, he just went out to try and ridicule every single religion. He had no real arguments that were much better than "my book says so, thus it must be true" himself, and in the end he just looked quite stupid.
While I'm all for religion and science in a happy co-existance, I'm an atheist myself. I believe in facts, and not fiction. Show me one single fact saying that the bible is a true story, and I'll consider it. Until then, the bible is just a work of fiction.
As a matter of fact, it was the cheapest Acer laptop I could find in the stores...
And I really don't fancy those OEM versions of XP where I have to spend as much time removing crap as I have to spend time installing drivers in a regular Windows version.
Last time I installed windows, I had to sit in 640x480 and download drivers for VGA, audio, motherboard and other stuff, while using an unpatched windows just screaming to get owned.
Then I tried Ubuntu, and had EVERYTHING work right after the install. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Not one single driver-download, and patching the system had been taken care of DURING the install, so that when I rebooted I had a fresh and stable system.
Take that, Windows!
Actually, that IS what you get for buying a Dell. My IBM T43 boots up from suspend-to-ram in about 5 seconds, and takes ~10 seconds to put to sleep.
...Running Linux, ofcourse.
#1. After using the console for a short while, you quickly learn that many things are both faster and easier to do via the Command Line Interface. And running Gnome or KDE, when did you last HAVE to open a console? /proc or /dev, and can't because some people would rather never even be reminded that they exist at all. If you don't need it, don't use it. I don't use Internet Explorer, but I think you'd cry yourself to sleep were you deprived of using it simply because *I* don't like it.
#2. "The User". Who's that? I take pity on those users who actually DO want to use
#3. Yeah, and the Windows registry is as logical as it gets...
#4. There are exactly the same kinds of ownerships in Windows as there are in GNU/Linux. The only difference is that on GNU/Linux the ownership actually makes a difference.
I hope the post pieces of the source for people to comment on :>
One thing that totally made me loose my mind yesterday, was when watching Reservoir Dogs (I got the Quentin Tarantino-box for christmas! yay!) and having to sit through a minute long commercial/lecture/accusation about how "downloadin movies is the same as stealing them from the store" (apparently along with chips and candy, though they failed to mention how it is possible to download snacks...). WTF?! The movie I was going to watch was bought legally from a store, and yet they feel it necessary to tell me how I'm breaking the law when downloading movies. Ironically, had I downloaded the DVD-R instead, that part would probably have been stripped.
What's the lesson I've learned, thanks to the MPAA?
That downloading movies instead of buying them actually pays off.
They seriously have to get a reality-check and change their strategies. What they're doing now is NOT helping in any way imaginable.
Seems you're trying to start a debate here, just for the hell of it :)
of course I can't know for sure how fit they are to be a president, but I can make a guess. And really trying to read the candidates, sure beat trusting them based purely on their view on religion. Doesn't it?
If they are into the religious thing their ideas and values are very much bound by that religion. Like always, the more any candiate is extreme or fanatic in any way, the more troublesome their gone be. The worst are those trying to backup their ideas and values with their interpretation of their relegion, as they are most probably gone create their private crusade in the name of some ideal.
Of course Their views and ideas will be based on their religion, but what I said is that I won't elect a president purely on what he calls his God-of-choice. If a presidential candidate says that "I will not wage wars, because it's wrong and doesn't help anything" it really doesn't matter if that opinion is based on christian ideals, or islamic fundamentalism. The thought is still a good one.
My two cents...
In the words of the common World of Warcraft-player: "LINK PLZZZX!! NEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!" /spit
...And by "us" you mean the small, oh so small, minority that actually knows how to do just that? Atleast see Windows for what it is. It's an operating system for the masses, not for the individual. If you want customization, go with Unix/GNULinux or something similar.
I wasn't talking about the core literally, I was talking about the core being that they should focus on Windows being stable and secure, as is. They shouldn't use old software, patch it for 10 years, and the re-use that old, patched code for yet ANOTHER operating system so that they can patch THAT even more.
Make it stable and secure from the beginning, and you'll waste less time worrying about patches.
Instead of patching a system with roots in old NT systems, rewrite the operating system so that it's stable and secure from the start. Less patching, and if they do it correctly they might stop most, if not all, bugs and exploits that are out there today.
Make the crackers think twice, because you did first.
Vista has already been completely rewritten, since the codee was too messy. Well, if they can do that, why can't they just rework the entire structure while they're at it. Harden the system at the core, don't make the fingertips bulletproof.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if some christian, american parents decided to sue the game-store, just because their precious, protected child stole money to buy the game he wanted but didn't get for christmas.
People have really lost sight of what's important. Sure, rating games is a good way to quickly estimate if the game COULD be harmful to a minor child. But that doesn't mean the parents get to skip actually finding out HOW harmful, if at all, the game REALLY is. In the end, it's always the parents that should do the parenting.
Children see worse things on TV every day, REAL things, and don't get screwed up for life. Get your priorities straight, people!
Way to go, slashdotting Firefox and Mozilla BEFORE they even release the new version :D
Whether you want to call it Debian With Changes, or Ubuntu, or probably up to you...
I'm glad to finally be able to say that there is a GNU/Linux distribution out there that "Just Works!" (tm).
And as far as patching goes, naturally you'll need more patches on a desktop computer, since they're running a whole other set of software.
If you're running a server, you already know to shut everything not being used off. And after doing that, there's rarely that much need to update anything at all. Sure, sometimes some critical exploit gets revealed and patched, but that is always quickly and easily installed (provided you've set the system up to be easily patched).
I'm sorry, but I just can't see what argument you're trying to make.
Is this a commercial, or an announcement of an independent study being performed?
We can't sue them, because the way they see it, it's true. It's just that we all know that it's not the whole truth, and we know it's not really like that.
In a perfect world, no one would lie. In said world, there would only be monopolized companies, since only one single company could claim to be "The Best" without lying :)
The funniest thing I see, is that they actually compare Windows "one patch fits all" to Linux vast number of programs and software, each managing their own updates. OF COURSE Linux demands more updates, there's simply more software to patch!