Why has this been marked as 'Flamebait'?
If there is anything written that you think isn't true please comment on it.
Why do you think the world's governments are now trying to avoid 'lock-in'? Could it possibly be that Microsoft's most valuable applications have a history of locking people in, forcing them to continually upgrade expensive solutions?
And are people unaware that Windows used to constantly crash? Jokes known the whole world over have even been made about it.
Linux was always heralded as being stable. Windows was always heralded as being prone to crashing. This was the general consensus - which can be read in many old news articles - even if people don't want to admit it.
"neither Microsoft's growth nor its profits are what they were like when Gates was at the helm."
Isn't this because people started to see just what Microsoft was up to?
Having to pay to upgrade the operating system every two or three years (which is what Microsoft would have liked).
Having to pay for new hardware in order to run the new operating system.
Having to pay to upgrade Microsoft Office every two or three years or be unable to open newer documents.
For a few years people were blindly paying out to keep up with new technology, until they suddenly realised they were spending too much with very little gain, purely in order to keep Microsoft afloat.
People used to think that operating systems and software were expected to crash multiple times each day. It was at the point when Linux and Open Source software was in the mainstream news that people realised that security and stability could be achieved.
People have become wise, and they're no longer just accepting everything Microsoft produces as 'normal'. Microsoft has had to work overtime in order to overcome this.
Of course a dog wouldn't directly turn into a horse, we would expect it to gradually change:
For an example, its feet would turn into hooves over a period of time, and we would also expect to find fossils of this change at various stages.
This brings up a point that Darwin mentioned: there is a distinct lack of fossils at these intermediary stages.
Speciation is one thing, but changing form completely (e.g. flippers turning into legs) in order to produce a different kind of creature is only speculated.
The speciation that is factual is merely a change of shape, behaviour, colour, etc. Darwins Finches have different beak shapes, but they are all still finches. Insects remain insects, even though they may completely change appearance.
There is no evidence in the world today which can prove that all land creatures evolved from fish. There is no evidence supporting the theory that one kind of creature can evolve into another (e.g. mammals evolving into birds).
If anybody could prove, beyond any doubt, that all life evolved from simple organisms which miraculously appeared via the accidental collision of a few atoms, and that mankind evolved from apes, there would be no arguments on this subject!
The only reason there is such a commotion about evolution (where one kind of species changes to a completely different kind - e.g. fish to dogs) is because it has not been proven.
If it is a fact, why are people trying so desperately to prove it? Why are they getting so excited when new 'evidence' emerges?
We don't have perpetual arguments about gravity, so obviously the 'proof' of evolution is lacking.
If I get a few bird skulls and line them up from the smallest to the largest it doesn't mean that they evolved from one another. This is really the level of proof that scientists offer us.
There are black people, white people, asian, etc. It is obvious that changes and/or mutations in species can occur, but this does not prove that my great*billions grandfather was plankton.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot has happened in the 149 years since Origin of Species was published.
For instance, speciation has since been observed.
I suppose that my point should really be that we haven't seen evidence of a dog turning into a horse, or one diverse species turning into another.
Usually any physical changes within a species are slight mutations. You can get humans that are three feet high, seven feet high, some with six fingers/toes, etc. This does not mean that they are evolving into another creature.
The fact that the employees at the computer company considered using pictures to burn is disgusting and disgraceful, and they should be punished. Would you like people searching through your computer and looking at personal pictures of you, your partner, or your children?
More than likely they thought it was 'normal' porn and wanted a copy for themselves.
Also, where were the pictures stored on the computer? Were they in a directory on the C drive named 'pictures'? If the pictures were hidden within a deep directory structure then the people must have been hunting specifically for pictures.
The point isn't that they found child porn, it's that people at other computer companies could be pedophiles, and they could be looking at pictures of your children...
All of these things should be taken into consideration rather than celebrating that another pedophile has been caught.
I would also suggest that you study this more deeply.
No one has yet created life purely from organic molecules.
New life forms have only been developed via the use of injecting existing cells, and many of the 'life created' experiments have not actually created a life form but deal with creating some of the primary building blocks of life.
It's like finding some naturally formed bricks and suggesting that all it takes is a tornado to come along and make a house out of them.
All wasps are hard-wired to feed their young; so what made this one wasp decide to first of all commandeer a cockroach and then decide to leave its larva alone without feeding it?
Surely the wasp's natural 'hard-wired' instinct to feed its young would have overtaken?
Perhaps this was just a smart and lazy mutant wasp that overcame its instincts.
People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance. Even the most simplest life form is such a complex structure that it's like suggesting that, given time, a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced. Perhaps this will happen in a few billion years from now. One never knows...
Evolution. Who would have thought that wasps could get so clever?
1) The wasps learned how to paralyze and control the roach without a science degree!
I assume the first wasp must have discovered this by mistake and written a book on it -- which must have been a bestseller, considering that all of these wasps now do it.
2) The wasp larva eats the roach in an order which keeps the roach alive until the larva reaches the pupal stage.
Now, how does the larva know how to do this, or is it coincidence that all larva eat the roach internals in the same order? Rather clever stuff.
Even after all these years people eagerly line up to get screwed by Microsoft, so it's highly unlikely that something as tame as GPL v 3 is going to bring about a mass exodus from Linux.
Who ever said anyone was going to be limited to one phone?
The opposite of choice is no choice, which led me to the 'one telephone' waffle.
My point -- the original point that you responded to -- was to say that having choice does not make a mess.
I am not comparing the cellular telephone market as a whole to the Linux distribution market as a whole. I am comparing the variety of telephones to the variety of Linux distributions, and stating that nobody ever complains about the different varieties of cellular telephone, yet people are always moaning about the variety of Linux distributions. Having the variety there in the first place is not in itself a bad thing.
I'm sorry to hear that you had an encounter with unsavoury individuals; however, it would be entirely wrong of you to associate this behaviour with Linux users alone -- and completely unfounded. If one asks a question on any subject via IRC one must be prepared for a vulgar response.
I am glad of different telephone networks, and that each network can offer a wide range of telephones. If tomorrow we were all restricted to using only one approved cellular telephone device there would be uproar. People choose different telephones depending on which features are the most important to them.
My point was to disprove the claim that many different variations of something make a mess, not to produce an in-depth whitepaper comparing the Linux distribution market to that of the cellular telephone. I apologuise if I led you to believe otherwise.
There are many variations of Linux, and there are many variations of cellular telephone. Nobody is complaining about the different telephones on offer so why complain about variations of Linux?
That specific aspect was the one I was focusing on.
When people suggested that this could be the case at the time others complained that the Open Source crowd were just finding another reason to drag Microsoft's name through the mud.
Funnily enough, Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out. Shocking stuff.
I have seen quite a number of corrupt e-mails coming from spammers. Occasionally you find the subject is merely %%SUBJECT%%, or an e-mail has entered your system consisting of just the headers and no body.
My theory is that there are more people attempting to use spamming applications, and many of these people don't have a clue what they're doing. You'll probably find that they've forgotten to add their text to the e-mails, or are just not reading the documentation on how to successfully send their spam.
If you can honestly say that Open Source is not reliable or dependable, does that mean that by changing the license to a proprietary one instantly makes it reliable and dependable?
Slashdot Mirror
You could try:
C:\>del C:\windows
Why has this been marked as 'Flamebait'? If there is anything written that you think isn't true please comment on it.
Why do you think the world's governments are now trying to avoid 'lock-in'? Could it possibly be that Microsoft's most valuable applications have a history of locking people in, forcing them to continually upgrade expensive solutions?
And are people unaware that Windows used to constantly crash? Jokes known the whole world over have even been made about it.
Linux was always heralded as being stable. Windows was always heralded as being prone to crashing. This was the general consensus - which can be read in many old news articles - even if people don't want to admit it.
Do some research. It's all there.
"neither Microsoft's growth nor its profits are what they were like when Gates was at the helm."
Isn't this because people started to see just what Microsoft was up to?
Having to pay to upgrade the operating system every two or three years (which is what Microsoft would have liked).
Having to pay for new hardware in order to run the new operating system.
Having to pay to upgrade Microsoft Office every two or three years or be unable to open newer documents.
For a few years people were blindly paying out to keep up with new technology, until they suddenly realised they were spending too much with very little gain, purely in order to keep Microsoft afloat.
People used to think that operating systems and software were expected to crash multiple times each day. It was at the point when Linux and Open Source software was in the mainstream news that people realised that security and stability could be achieved.
People have become wise, and they're no longer just accepting everything Microsoft produces as 'normal'. Microsoft has had to work overtime in order to overcome this.
If schools stop giving children homework then the children can't cheat.
If children are supposed to produce extra work then why not require the school day to increase by an extra hour? That way they can be supervised.
Of course a dog wouldn't directly turn into a horse, we would expect it to gradually change:
For an example, its feet would turn into hooves over a period of time, and we would also expect to find fossils of this change at various stages.
This brings up a point that Darwin mentioned: there is a distinct lack of fossils at these intermediary stages.
Speciation is one thing, but changing form completely (e.g. flippers turning into legs) in order to produce a different kind of creature is only speculated.
The speciation that is factual is merely a change of shape, behaviour, colour, etc. Darwins Finches have different beak shapes, but they are all still finches. Insects remain insects, even though they may completely change appearance.
There is no evidence in the world today which can prove that all land creatures evolved from fish. There is no evidence supporting the theory that one kind of creature can evolve into another (e.g. mammals evolving into birds).
Evolution is still a theory until proven a fact.
Why was this post labelled as 'Troll'?
It's true!
If anybody could prove, beyond any doubt, that all life evolved from simple organisms which miraculously appeared via the accidental collision of a few atoms, and that mankind evolved from apes, there would be no arguments on this subject!
The only reason there is such a commotion about evolution (where one kind of species changes to a completely different kind - e.g. fish to dogs) is because it has not been proven.
If it is a fact, why are people trying so desperately to prove it? Why are they getting so excited when new 'evidence' emerges?
We don't have perpetual arguments about gravity, so obviously the 'proof' of evolution is lacking.
If I get a few bird skulls and line them up from the smallest to the largest it doesn't mean that they evolved from one another. This is really the level of proof that scientists offer us.
There are black people, white people, asian, etc. It is obvious that changes and/or mutations in species can occur, but this does not prove that my great*billions grandfather was plankton.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958
I don't know if you're aware of this, but a lot has happened in the 149 years since Origin of Species was published.
For instance, speciation has since been observed.
I suppose that my point should really be that we haven't seen evidence of a dog turning into a horse, or one diverse species turning into another.
Usually any physical changes within a species are slight mutations. You can get humans that are three feet high, seven feet high, some with six fingers/toes, etc. This does not mean that they are evolving into another creature.
There was a theory that the sound barrier could not be broken, and this was considered a fact. Obviously we now know that this is completely wrong.
There is a theory of evolution, but because there are two types of evolution people usually confuse them, and arguments are pointless.
Micro Evolution is where species can adapt and change appearance due to environmental circumstances.
Macro Evolution is where one species changes to another species.
Micro evolution is factual, but macro evolution is purely speculative, having no facts behind it - which even Darwin himself concluded.
We found you back in 1863.
Soon you shall all die.
The fact that the employees at the computer company considered using pictures to burn is disgusting and disgraceful, and they should be punished. Would you like people searching through your computer and looking at personal pictures of you, your partner, or your children?
More than likely they thought it was 'normal' porn and wanted a copy for themselves.
Also, where were the pictures stored on the computer? Were they in a directory on the C drive named 'pictures'? If the pictures were hidden within a deep directory structure then the people must have been hunting specifically for pictures.
The point isn't that they found child porn, it's that people at other computer companies could be pedophiles, and they could be looking at pictures of your children...
All of these things should be taken into consideration rather than celebrating that another pedophile has been caught.
Dell recently moaned about the low uptake on its Linux PCs. I'm not surprised, considering what they were offering.
I have bought several machines from Dell over the past few years, the latest being an Inspiron 550, and have installed Linux on all of them.
Fedora 8 runs beautifully on the Inspiron 550, which is a very inexpensive machine, for which there is no option to buy with Linux installed.
So, really, Dell shouldn't complain about the low uptake on its Linux PCs but should offer more diversity of machines that come with Linux!
I would also suggest that you study this more deeply.
No one has yet created life purely from organic molecules.
New life forms have only been developed via the use of injecting existing cells, and many of the 'life created' experiments have not actually created a life form but deal with creating some of the primary building blocks of life.
It's like finding some naturally formed bricks and suggesting that all it takes is a tornado to come along and make a house out of them.
All wasps are hard-wired to feed their young; so what made this one wasp decide to first of all commandeer a cockroach and then decide to leave its larva alone without feeding it?
Surely the wasp's natural 'hard-wired' instinct to feed its young would have overtaken?
Perhaps this was just a smart and lazy mutant wasp that overcame its instincts.
People may mock creationism, but the creation of life via evolution is just as hard to believe: such as organic molecules becoming the first life form by chance. Even the most simplest life form is such a complex structure that it's like suggesting that, given time, a tornado could take a pile of bricks and some cement and a house could be produced. Perhaps this will happen in a few billion years from now. One never knows...
Evolution. Who would have thought that wasps could get so clever?
1) The wasps learned how to paralyze and control the roach without a science degree!
I assume the first wasp must have discovered this by mistake and written a book on it -- which must have been a bestseller, considering that all of these wasps now do it.
2) The wasp larva eats the roach in an order which keeps the roach alive until the larva reaches the pupal stage.
Now, how does the larva know how to do this, or is it coincidence that all larva eat the roach internals in the same order? Rather clever stuff.
Even after all these years people eagerly line up to get screwed by Microsoft, so it's highly unlikely that something as tame as GPL v 3 is going to bring about a mass exodus from Linux.
You're taking your own analogy out of context.
Not at all.
Who ever said anyone was going to be limited to one phone?
The opposite of choice is no choice, which led me to the 'one telephone' waffle.
My point -- the original point that you responded to -- was to say that having choice does not make a mess.
I am not comparing the cellular telephone market as a whole to the Linux distribution market as a whole. I am comparing the variety of telephones to the variety of Linux distributions, and stating that nobody ever complains about the different varieties of cellular telephone, yet people are always moaning about the variety of Linux distributions. Having the variety there in the first place is not in itself a bad thing.
I'm sorry to hear that you had an encounter with unsavoury individuals; however, it would be entirely wrong of you to associate this behaviour with Linux users alone -- and completely unfounded. If one asks a question on any subject via IRC one must be prepared for a vulgar response.
I am glad of different telephone networks, and that each network can offer a wide range of telephones. If tomorrow we were all restricted to using only one approved cellular telephone device there would be uproar. People choose different telephones depending on which features are the most important to them.
My point was to disprove the claim that many different variations of something make a mess, not to produce an in-depth whitepaper comparing the Linux distribution market to that of the cellular telephone. I apologuise if I led you to believe otherwise.
There are many variations of Linux, and there are many variations of cellular telephone. Nobody is complaining about the different telephones on offer so why complain about variations of Linux?
That specific aspect was the one I was focusing on.
Too many Linux distros make for Open Source mess
Isn't that the same as suggesting too many different brands of cellular telephone make for a communications mess?
"Oh dear me, there are far too many different cell phones! How do I choose? What do I do? Oh, damn it, I'll just send letters instead."
I think not.
I think there's prior art. With a little luck, a patent examiner might even realize it!
It would need more than just a little luck, given the way the patent system seems to be going.
Somebody should patent the action of patenting things. Then everybody that gets a patent should be forced to pay that person royalties.
Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out.
I disagree.
You disagree after evidence is revealed that shows Microsoft in a non-clean-cut light?
When people suggested that this could be the case at the time others complained that the Open Source crowd were just finding another reason to drag Microsoft's name through the mud.
Funnily enough, Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out. Shocking stuff.
I have seen quite a number of corrupt e-mails coming from spammers. Occasionally you find the subject is merely %%SUBJECT%%, or an e-mail has entered your system consisting of just the headers and no body.
My theory is that there are more people attempting to use spamming applications, and many of these people don't have a clue what they're doing. You'll probably find that they've forgotten to add their text to the e-mails, or are just not reading the documentation on how to successfully send their spam.
If you can honestly say that Open Source is not reliable or dependable, does that mean that by changing the license to a proprietary one instantly makes it reliable and dependable?
I think not.
Anyway, what happened to the old TCO argument?