Why would it be mostly retarded people who choose this treatment?
Well, first of all, consider if *everyone* took this treatment. If you took a survey of everyone who took the treatment, you'd find most of them were retarded. Or don't you see my point?
Now, I'd imagine many of the wise, also, would opt against it. Who's left?
Considering the type of people we hear from, who have searched for the fountain of youth, who have written about it, very intelligent people also want immortality.
I'll grant that *intelligent* people sometimes want immortality, but intelligent people can also be very retarded. By this, I mean, being intelligent, knowing things, and making wise decisions-- these are all different things.
The only thing worse than someone who is unwise, unknowing, and stupid is someone who is unwise, unknowing, and intelligent. In that case, intelligence means a greater power to do more damage with your foolishness and ignorance.
What kind of moral/ethical/practical problems exist for individuals?
Well, there are many, though their unusually hard to talk about especially since it will sound silly to most people. As an example (in simple terms), your mind tends to settle a bit as you get older. It's both an issue of having more extensive knowledge/habits and a physical change of the brain (so it seems). Teenagers are young and angsty and foolish, and in comparison, old people are stingy and stubborn and un-fun.
OK, so given that this is an issue of your biology "settling" as much as it's an issue of "experience", what happens to the mind when you "undo aging". Either you're stuck in a perpetual teenage mentality (which would be disgusting and horrible) or you become a stingy un-fun teenager (which is just yucky).
No, far better that we leave being teenagers to those who don't know any better, and that our stingy and un-fun years are limited. Besides, sometimes it's the fact of "getting old" that teaches us humility and wisdom, so removing this possibility will likely be detrimental to personal growth (for those of us who are interested in not-being dumb teenagers our entire lives).
I don't think these objections will make sense to those who don't already understand what I'm saying, but it reminds me of Montaigne, who said getting old was nature's way of preparing you so that you wouldn't mind death. There are greater and more complex problems than these, but I'm not looking to write a doctoral thesis on/.
I guess a better way to phrase my question is, would you be willing to suffer lots of pain to be famous? Granted that isn't all that Jesus is well known for...
But think of all the people who suffered "lots of pain" and weren't famous for it. You know lots of other people were crucified, right?
...but when I think of people who lived a thousand (or more) years ago, most of them had pretty crummy lives...
Yes, those people who lived thousands of years ago never experienced the transcendent joy of being hunched over a computer screen for 8 hours, only to drive home and be hunched over watching TV for several more hours. Ah, life. So much better since we've made "doing things" obsolete.
When you ask that question, to make it honest, you should ask "Should YOU live forever?" After all, people who are against such things aren't against it for themselves, they're against it for OTHER PEOPLE
Not really. Personally, I think I wouldn't choose the "treatment", whatever it was. There are plenty of moral/ethical/practical reasons why this is a "bad idea", not just for humanity, but for the individuals themselves.
However, you're right that I would be concerned about OTHER PEOPLE, but that's because it would mostly be the most retarded people, those incapable of understanding the ramifications of their actions, who choose this treatment, and I'd worry about what would happen to my kids with a world filled with retarded immortals.
I think it's true that an effective video-on-demand solution could defeat *some* piracy. If they're offering a good value, some people will be willing to pay *reasonable* prices.
It can be hard to find reliable sources for pirated material. If it's easy to find, it's usually going to get shut down. Downloading of P2P, you don't always know if a file is complete and free of corruption. It's hard to tell if you're downloading what you mean to be downloading. Even if it is, you don't know what kind of quality you're getting. All told, it's sort of messy and annoying and time-consuming process. And it's a messy, annoying, time-consuming process that might get you in legal trouble.
If someone can make a simple, easy, painless process, and they charge a nominal fee, some people who might otherwise have pirated may be willing to pay the price to save themselves the headache. For example, I know people who have pirated far less audio since the iTMS opened because they found shopping on iTMS to be an easier and more pleasant (and less frightening) experience than Kazaa, and therefore worth the $1/song.
Not that it "defeats" piracy, but it's stopping *some* of the piracy from happening.
David Boylan, the WTVT general manager, was quoted as telling the reporters "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."
To be fair, this sort of thing, in itself, isn't the problem. I mean, an editor (or owner or someone else with editorial power) is within his rights to tell a reporter to rewrite stories. Sometimes the reporter disagrees, and might even believe that the editor's perspective on a story is "wrong". That an editor would pull the old, "I'm in charge here! Shut up and say what I tell you to say!" isn't necessarily unethical.
So, I guess all I'm pointing out is, the problem was not that FOX told a reporter what to say. The problem lies only in the fact that what FOX was telling him to say was demonstrably false.
The second problem is that neither are "paid to lie" by anyone. They are paid to be themselves. If they lie, that is part of their beliefs. It is not like they have bosses who say "Here's a lie. We are paying you to say it."
Well, when it comes to commentators on either side, it's clear what their job is. They are paid to go on TV and be convincing that their political party's party-line is the only right way to look at things. It is not required that they believe what they're saying. However, calling it a 'lie' is about like saying George Clooney is 'lying' when he claims to be Danny Ocean in the movies. They're paid to be convincing while sticking to a script. Sometimes they help write the script, but just the same, the talking-heads have scripted responses prepared, and they don't necessarily believe the content.
Well, Social Security does not only serve as a retirement plan for old people. There are also many physically/mentally disabled who are incapable of earning a full living for themselves, and who therefore receive some supplemental income from Social Security.
Hey, if the AOL browser comes up with anything cool, it goes straight back into Firefox, right?
Did AOL give all the IP rights to the Mozilla Foundation, or did they just open-source the code?
The reason I ask is, when someone open-sources code, don't they retain IP rights? In most cases, can't they then release their own proprietary version, altered however they want, with no legal obligation to open-source the alterations? Meaning, if AOL kept the IP rights, they don't have to open-source the changes. Or is that wrong?
I'm not an authority, but I seem to remember a little bit of an acknowledgement from the Ubuntu team that this release (Warty) was a little rough around the edges. As in, it should work fine, but maybe there are areas that are less polished than FC3 or Mandrake 10. The next release (Hoary) is supposed to add a lot of polish.
However, this is being typed on an Ubuntu system. I get a bunch of "fatal" errors when I boot, but haven't encountered any problems as a result. Its choice in packages and Synaptic package manager make it a winner in my book.
One is leaving my home directory and finding my way to the Macintosh HD, which takes exactly one click with Finder and I've never been able to do in the Terminal.
erm.... 'cd/'?
When I use SSH and FTP, downloading and uploading to varying folders is much, much harder without a split-frame interface that represents the server on one side and my home, client computer on the other.
Huh? the CLI for FTP and SSH are the same, no? If you're talking about a GUI client, there are some you can download for FTP (Cyberduck is free, Transmit is popular).
When I read a man page, I can't figure out how to drop back into a prompt without scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page.
Same as Linux....? 'q'?
So far, at least, learning a long string of terminal commands is much harder than using the OS X GUI.
I thought you were finding OSX exceedingly difficult to use. Maybe I misunderstood the thrust of your post. Are you complaining that the GUI is annoying or that the CLI is difficult?
I see that on FARK all the time, figured people would get the reference. Strange how the joke didn't get modded at all, but the explanation got modded 'Funny'.
'm sorry, but you don't need a firewall - if you don't want a service to be accessible (i.e. you want it firewalled) you should be asking yourself why you're running it in the first place.
I'm sorry, but you do need a firewall. It can be software, and it can be one that doesn't ask you which apps can access the internet. But why would you put a naked machine on the internet with no firewall whatsoever?
Fine, it's a band-aid, but it's still a good and proper security measure, especially for the gaping wound that is Windows, which seems to have 'your services completely misconfigured' by default.
Why do you say "a hardware solution"? Where's the advantage?
That's why I said "somehow". My point wasn't that the best solution for home PC security would be for Dell to actually implement a hardware firewall of some kind into their machines. That does seem to be a silly solution. However, from the know-nothing consumer point of view, I think it's fair to expect that *someone* would have taken care of it. If it's a hardware issue, the hardware people would do it. If it's a software issue, the software people. If it's a ISP issue, your cable company. However, in many cases, with the Dell(or whoever)/WinXP/Broadband combo, know-nothings are still somehow slipping through the cracks and their computers are getting hosed by malware.
I think it's fair for consumers to expect that, after paying all this money to tall these different people, they'd have a trouble-free means of accessing the internet.
Personally, I spent the time protecting myself and my network from issues. Yeah, they could probably still come through but I have at least closed most of the holes that I know of. If you are on the Internet without a hardware router/firewall and using software without a software firewall and surfing the web without virus protection and Spyware detection I really don't feel sorry for you.
I disagree with this for one reason: hardware/software manufacturers are marketing to know-nothings without providing included solutions. What I mean is, Microsoft and Dell and everyone else are telling consumers, "These computers are for you. You don't need to know anything. You don't need any computer knowledge or expertise. Just plug it in and it works!" Most people don't know enough to know that they don't know enough, so they trust these 'experts'. They just plug the stuff in, and guess what, they have these problems.
Now, I don't expect manufacturers to stop marketing to the know-nothings, but I think the know-nothing are right to think that someone somewhere along the line should have provided them with what they needed. They don't know what that is. Dell said that you just need their computer. Microsoft said you just need their software. The cable company said they just need their service. But someone, somewhere along the line, should have said, "Yeah, but you'll need a firewall with that."
Microsoft could have provided better software (they have a firewall now, but I don't trust it). Dell could have had a hardware solution built-in somehow. The cable-company could provide a router/firewall/modem to their customers. Or anywhere along the line, someone could have put in big bold letters: WARNING! DO NOT CONNECT TO THE INTERNET WITHOUT A FIREWALL. -or- WARNING! THIS COMPUTER SHOULD NOT BE USED BY UNTRAINED PERSONNEL.
But, hey, that just doesn't fit into anyone's business model.
When I read a game review, I want to be told information that will either push or pull me away from buying (or playing) that game.
I absolutely agree. When I'm reading a review for any product (or even a movie review), what I want to know is, is this worth my time and money?
I don't want to be impressed by the writing style of some guy who wishes he were a novelist. Give me the info, short and sweet. Good graphics? Good level design? Good story? Many bugs? Yes, yes, yes, no? Sounds good.
I'm even interested to read a *short* explanation of the intangible aspects, like, "This game doesn't really have anything innovative, and if you think about it, it's repetitive, but for some reason I found it really addictive and fun." That's fine.
I think there is also room for a completely different thing: game design commentary. Want to talk about your theories about what makes a 'good game'? Fine, but put that in a different article. If I'm reading a review, it's about the info, not about what a clever writer you are.
They're running a website, and they need to keep the posts coming. Otherwise, we morans will go someplace else with our flame-wars, and they have to get real jobs.
Some changes were made to support the 64bit processor, but the g5 can also run 32bit code. So, mostly, in Panther, you weren't taking advantage of the 64bit-ed-ness of the processor.
However, I thought Tiger still wasn't going to be true/complete 64bit. Anyone remember authoritatively? (No, I don't trust ZDnet)
Software isn't cars - so flatly the comparison failes. However - if we must use the comparison it's more like "Hi, I have this civic, and I just got a free hydraulic snowplow from this guy down the street, and we bolted it in (or I did, I don't remember) Now my cars front end is sitting on the tires and it won't move - so I want you to fix your defective civic." "Whattya mean it's not a design fault? There were places to bolt it into the frame!"
Problem with your comparison: The computers come with Windows preinstalled, and Windows, with default settings, is insecure. It's not enough to "not do stupid things", you need to know quite a bit to make Windows even semi-secure in the first place. You had better use a firewall (even in XP SP2, the included one isn't sufficient) an anti-virus, install Firefox, and anti-spyware software. If you don't do this, using your computer in reasonable ways can still get you into trouble.
So, back to your example, it'd be a little more like if your car came with its shocks set up so, unless you modified the car pretty heavily before driving, the front end would be sitting on the tires after you hit your first rock. Now, you could put in the manual, "You may only drive this car on perfectly smooth surfaces. Steer around pebbles." Or, you could buy a car that doesn't have that problem.
How am I naive? Sounds like your "educated users" are stupid.
That's my point. If you think education stops people from being stupid, you're naive.
Well, good *new* CRTs are the way to go for color matching. Bad old CRTs tend to be what I see around. Good new LCDs do a pretty good job, plus take up less desk space, are easier to move around, take less power, are easier on the eyes for long working hours, look cool, etc.
And if you're doing help desk work - well, you asked for it. You're dealing with the clueless dips.
Sure, I asked for it, but what about that excuses MS? If I were a mechanic and noticed that Honda Civics engines died if people were a few days late changing the oil, then sure, you could say, "Well, what are you complaining for? It's your job to fix cars!" You could also advise me to tell my customers who owned Civics to make sure they change their oil on time. None of this, however, would let Honda off the hook for making a sub-standard product. If I knew Civics showed this behavior, I would advise people to purchase another model of car. Likewise, I generally advise people to use something other than Windows.
Does education stop spyware infestations? Absofuckinglutely.
You're naive. Education paired with locking users down to a secure profile and a proper array of anti-spyware software (and switching to Firefox) has been doing a pretty good job at my company, but education alone? No.
Noone is holding a gun to the head of a grandmother that clicks the new free software for weather - and infecting her system either.
Not disagreeing... However, if you have a grandmother who is liable to want the new free weather software no matter what you tell her, isn't it then better to put her on a system where the free weather software, or just visiting the free weather software's web site, isn't likely to cause her harm? I mean, if that's the grandmother you're dealing with, why are you insisting that, no, she *must* be given this insecure system, and any argument to the contrary is FUD?
As an aside - I'd really look to get a job where you have a bit more control or a bit more of a future
I wasn't complaining about my job. I was saying that you don't seem to have any idea what it takes to do my job. Part of my job is to make purchasing recommendations based on what technology is going to best help the business run smoothly. Given the current state of things, I advise against Windows (where feasible). It's not FUD, it's experience.
It IS easy - tell them where not to go, tell them to watch what they do, and above all stay on top of updates.
Maybe you're a troll, or maybe you just aren't quite catching the sarcasm here, but let me say it flat out. Supporting your brother, father, and grandfather is not the same as working a helpdesk professionally. I understand you think it is. I did too, when I was 17 and had never worked professionally as a tech.
The first mistake you're making is that you cannot rely on your users to have the common sense or the will-power of a lemur. You don't want your users to do something, you pretty much have to make it impossible, and even then, some exec who could fire you on a whim may very likely disapprove of the fact that his favorite joke sites are blocked.
Does user education help? Sure. Will it actually stop spyware infestation? No. Does any of this excuse MS from making the monumentally bone-headed decision of giving their web-browser the ability to install random apps without asking? No.
Not only that, but I find a lot of things in the original movie much more forgivable given that it was made in the '80s when people were much more naive about these magical boxes we call 'computers'. Now, since computers are so ubiquitous and people have a better understanding of what they really are, it seems like, without a *severe* rewrite, the story just wouldn't fly.
To me it's the User that's at fault - not the system. Tell your users to avoid Kazaa, Bonzai Buddy, stop surfing porn sitres , and pay for the software instead of using warez and cracks.
Er... you mean, tell the users not to visit any web site. Because, you know, those joke sites that have the funny flash animations? Those sites that give oh-so-fun cursor sets and "you've got mail" sounds? Wasn't there even a case of commercial websites from semi-respectable businesses being hacked and used to install spyware?
And the recent story about WMP running arbitrary code when searching for licenses? And all the security problems Outlook has had?
Ok, so basically tell my users to not use their computers to visit web sites, answer e-mail, or listen to music because it's really important that we continue to use software from a company who doesn't know the meaning of the words "security scheme". How about I just tell the PHB that the best way to keep his computer secured is to leave it off and unplugged? That'll get me that raise.
Oh, or there's another option. Stop using MS products when possible, and when you must use MS products, install 50 different products to cover all the various virus/firewall/spyware security holes.
But we all know it's really easy, since you have no problem supporting your dad.
Breaking free of the PC hype here for a moment - I've been "blue screen/pop up/adware infested " free for years. To me it's a lot of FUD.
As an IT pro managing a helpdesk with a mixed Windows/OSX population, I can tell you it's not a lot of FUD. There may be some FUD mixed in with it, but spyware has become a hell of a thing, and the fact that MS made their OS so that their web browser and media player can install programs doesn't help. But oh, wait-- it must not be a problem, because *your Dad* is fine.
Now I'm not saying you need to use OSX, but I try to avoid Windows where I can. And it so happens that OSX is quite a good desktop OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first of all, consider if *everyone* took this treatment. If you took a survey of everyone who took the treatment, you'd find most of them were retarded. Or don't you see my point?
Now, I'd imagine many of the wise, also, would opt against it. Who's left?
Considering the type of people we hear from, who have searched for the fountain of youth, who have written about it, very intelligent people also want immortality.
I'll grant that *intelligent* people sometimes want immortality, but intelligent people can also be very retarded. By this, I mean, being intelligent, knowing things, and making wise decisions-- these are all different things.
The only thing worse than someone who is unwise, unknowing, and stupid is someone who is unwise, unknowing, and intelligent. In that case, intelligence means a greater power to do more damage with your foolishness and ignorance.
What kind of moral/ethical/practical problems exist for individuals?
Well, there are many, though their unusually hard to talk about especially since it will sound silly to most people. As an example (in simple terms), your mind tends to settle a bit as you get older. It's both an issue of having more extensive knowledge/habits and a physical change of the brain (so it seems). Teenagers are young and angsty and foolish, and in comparison, old people are stingy and stubborn and un-fun.
OK, so given that this is an issue of your biology "settling" as much as it's an issue of "experience", what happens to the mind when you "undo aging". Either you're stuck in a perpetual teenage mentality (which would be disgusting and horrible) or you become a stingy un-fun teenager (which is just yucky).
No, far better that we leave being teenagers to those who don't know any better, and that our stingy and un-fun years are limited. Besides, sometimes it's the fact of "getting old" that teaches us humility and wisdom, so removing this possibility will likely be detrimental to personal growth (for those of us who are interested in not-being dumb teenagers our entire lives).
I don't think these objections will make sense to those who don't already understand what I'm saying, but it reminds me of Montaigne, who said getting old was nature's way of preparing you so that you wouldn't mind death. There are greater and more complex problems than these, but I'm not looking to write a doctoral thesis on /.
But think of all the people who suffered "lots of pain" and weren't famous for it. You know lots of other people were crucified, right?
Yes, those people who lived thousands of years ago never experienced the transcendent joy of being hunched over a computer screen for 8 hours, only to drive home and be hunched over watching TV for several more hours. Ah, life. So much better since we've made "doing things" obsolete.
Not really. Personally, I think I wouldn't choose the "treatment", whatever it was. There are plenty of moral/ethical/practical reasons why this is a "bad idea", not just for humanity, but for the individuals themselves.
However, you're right that I would be concerned about OTHER PEOPLE, but that's because it would mostly be the most retarded people, those incapable of understanding the ramifications of their actions, who choose this treatment, and I'd worry about what would happen to my kids with a world filled with retarded immortals.
It can be hard to find reliable sources for pirated material. If it's easy to find, it's usually going to get shut down. Downloading of P2P, you don't always know if a file is complete and free of corruption. It's hard to tell if you're downloading what you mean to be downloading. Even if it is, you don't know what kind of quality you're getting. All told, it's sort of messy and annoying and time-consuming process. And it's a messy, annoying, time-consuming process that might get you in legal trouble.
If someone can make a simple, easy, painless process, and they charge a nominal fee, some people who might otherwise have pirated may be willing to pay the price to save themselves the headache. For example, I know people who have pirated far less audio since the iTMS opened because they found shopping on iTMS to be an easier and more pleasant (and less frightening) experience than Kazaa, and therefore worth the $1/song.
Not that it "defeats" piracy, but it's stopping *some* of the piracy from happening.
David Boylan, the WTVT general manager, was quoted as telling the reporters "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."
To be fair, this sort of thing, in itself, isn't the problem. I mean, an editor (or owner or someone else with editorial power) is within his rights to tell a reporter to rewrite stories. Sometimes the reporter disagrees, and might even believe that the editor's perspective on a story is "wrong". That an editor would pull the old, "I'm in charge here! Shut up and say what I tell you to say!" isn't necessarily unethical.
So, I guess all I'm pointing out is, the problem was not that FOX told a reporter what to say. The problem lies only in the fact that what FOX was telling him to say was demonstrably false.
Well, when it comes to commentators on either side, it's clear what their job is. They are paid to go on TV and be convincing that their political party's party-line is the only right way to look at things. It is not required that they believe what they're saying. However, calling it a 'lie' is about like saying George Clooney is 'lying' when he claims to be Danny Ocean in the movies. They're paid to be convincing while sticking to a script. Sometimes they help write the script, but just the same, the talking-heads have scripted responses prepared, and they don't necessarily believe the content.
Well, Social Security does not only serve as a retirement plan for old people. There are also many physically/mentally disabled who are incapable of earning a full living for themselves, and who therefore receive some supplemental income from Social Security.
Did AOL give all the IP rights to the Mozilla Foundation, or did they just open-source the code?
The reason I ask is, when someone open-sources code, don't they retain IP rights? In most cases, can't they then release their own proprietary version, altered however they want, with no legal obligation to open-source the alterations? Meaning, if AOL kept the IP rights, they don't have to open-source the changes. Or is that wrong?
However, this is being typed on an Ubuntu system. I get a bunch of "fatal" errors when I boot, but haven't encountered any problems as a result. Its choice in packages and Synaptic package manager make it a winner in my book.
erm.... 'cd /'?
When I use SSH and FTP, downloading and uploading to varying folders is much, much harder without a split-frame interface that represents the server on one side and my home, client computer on the other.
Huh? the CLI for FTP and SSH are the same, no? If you're talking about a GUI client, there are some you can download for FTP (Cyberduck is free, Transmit is popular).
When I read a man page, I can't figure out how to drop back into a prompt without scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page.
Same as Linux....? 'q'?
So far, at least, learning a long string of terminal commands is much harder than using the OS X GUI.
I thought you were finding OSX exceedingly difficult to use. Maybe I misunderstood the thrust of your post. Are you complaining that the GUI is annoying or that the CLI is difficult?
I see that on FARK all the time, figured people would get the reference. Strange how the joke didn't get modded at all, but the explanation got modded 'Funny'.
I'm sorry, but you do need a firewall. It can be software, and it can be one that doesn't ask you which apps can access the internet. But why would you put a naked machine on the internet with no firewall whatsoever?
Fine, it's a band-aid, but it's still a good and proper security measure, especially for the gaping wound that is Windows, which seems to have 'your services completely misconfigured' by default.
Why do you say "a hardware solution"? Where's the advantage?
That's why I said "somehow". My point wasn't that the best solution for home PC security would be for Dell to actually implement a hardware firewall of some kind into their machines. That does seem to be a silly solution. However, from the know-nothing consumer point of view, I think it's fair to expect that *someone* would have taken care of it. If it's a hardware issue, the hardware people would do it. If it's a software issue, the software people. If it's a ISP issue, your cable company. However, in many cases, with the Dell(or whoever)/WinXP/Broadband combo, know-nothings are still somehow slipping through the cracks and their computers are getting hosed by malware.
I think it's fair for consumers to expect that, after paying all this money to tall these different people, they'd have a trouble-free means of accessing the internet.
I disagree with this for one reason: hardware/software manufacturers are marketing to know-nothings without providing included solutions. What I mean is, Microsoft and Dell and everyone else are telling consumers, "These computers are for you. You don't need to know anything. You don't need any computer knowledge or expertise. Just plug it in and it works!" Most people don't know enough to know that they don't know enough, so they trust these 'experts'. They just plug the stuff in, and guess what, they have these problems.
Now, I don't expect manufacturers to stop marketing to the know-nothings, but I think the know-nothing are right to think that someone somewhere along the line should have provided them with what they needed. They don't know what that is. Dell said that you just need their computer. Microsoft said you just need their software. The cable company said they just need their service. But someone, somewhere along the line, should have said, "Yeah, but you'll need a firewall with that."
Microsoft could have provided better software (they have a firewall now, but I don't trust it). Dell could have had a hardware solution built-in somehow. The cable-company could provide a router/firewall/modem to their customers. Or anywhere along the line, someone could have put in big bold letters: WARNING! DO NOT CONNECT TO THE INTERNET WITHOUT A FIREWALL. -or- WARNING! THIS COMPUTER SHOULD NOT BE USED BY UNTRAINED PERSONNEL.
But, hey, that just doesn't fit into anyone's business model.
You've seen this, no?
I absolutely agree. When I'm reading a review for any product (or even a movie review), what I want to know is, is this worth my time and money?
I don't want to be impressed by the writing style of some guy who wishes he were a novelist. Give me the info, short and sweet. Good graphics? Good level design? Good story? Many bugs? Yes, yes, yes, no? Sounds good.
I'm even interested to read a *short* explanation of the intangible aspects, like, "This game doesn't really have anything innovative, and if you think about it, it's repetitive, but for some reason I found it really addictive and fun." That's fine.
I think there is also room for a completely different thing: game design commentary. Want to talk about your theories about what makes a 'good game'? Fine, but put that in a different article. If I'm reading a review, it's about the info, not about what a clever writer you are.
They're running a website, and they need to keep the posts coming. Otherwise, we morans will go someplace else with our flame-wars, and they have to get real jobs.
However, I thought Tiger still wasn't going to be true/complete 64bit. Anyone remember authoritatively? (No, I don't trust ZDnet)
Problem with your comparison: The computers come with Windows preinstalled, and Windows, with default settings, is insecure. It's not enough to "not do stupid things", you need to know quite a bit to make Windows even semi-secure in the first place. You had better use a firewall (even in XP SP2, the included one isn't sufficient) an anti-virus, install Firefox, and anti-spyware software. If you don't do this, using your computer in reasonable ways can still get you into trouble.
So, back to your example, it'd be a little more like if your car came with its shocks set up so, unless you modified the car pretty heavily before driving, the front end would be sitting on the tires after you hit your first rock. Now, you could put in the manual, "You may only drive this car on perfectly smooth surfaces. Steer around pebbles." Or, you could buy a car that doesn't have that problem.
How am I naive? Sounds like your "educated users" are stupid.
That's my point. If you think education stops people from being stupid, you're naive.
Well, good *new* CRTs are the way to go for color matching. Bad old CRTs tend to be what I see around. Good new LCDs do a pretty good job, plus take up less desk space, are easier to move around, take less power, are easier on the eyes for long working hours, look cool, etc.
Sure, I asked for it, but what about that excuses MS? If I were a mechanic and noticed that Honda Civics engines died if people were a few days late changing the oil, then sure, you could say, "Well, what are you complaining for? It's your job to fix cars!" You could also advise me to tell my customers who owned Civics to make sure they change their oil on time. None of this, however, would let Honda off the hook for making a sub-standard product. If I knew Civics showed this behavior, I would advise people to purchase another model of car. Likewise, I generally advise people to use something other than Windows.
Does education stop spyware infestations? Absofuckinglutely.
You're naive. Education paired with locking users down to a secure profile and a proper array of anti-spyware software (and switching to Firefox) has been doing a pretty good job at my company, but education alone? No.
Noone is holding a gun to the head of a grandmother that clicks the new free software for weather - and infecting her system either.
Not disagreeing... However, if you have a grandmother who is liable to want the new free weather software no matter what you tell her, isn't it then better to put her on a system where the free weather software, or just visiting the free weather software's web site, isn't likely to cause her harm? I mean, if that's the grandmother you're dealing with, why are you insisting that, no, she *must* be given this insecure system, and any argument to the contrary is FUD?
As an aside - I'd really look to get a job where you have a bit more control or a bit more of a future
I wasn't complaining about my job. I was saying that you don't seem to have any idea what it takes to do my job. Part of my job is to make purchasing recommendations based on what technology is going to best help the business run smoothly. Given the current state of things, I advise against Windows (where feasible). It's not FUD, it's experience.
Maybe you're a troll, or maybe you just aren't quite catching the sarcasm here, but let me say it flat out. Supporting your brother, father, and grandfather is not the same as working a helpdesk professionally. I understand you think it is. I did too, when I was 17 and had never worked professionally as a tech.
The first mistake you're making is that you cannot rely on your users to have the common sense or the will-power of a lemur. You don't want your users to do something, you pretty much have to make it impossible, and even then, some exec who could fire you on a whim may very likely disapprove of the fact that his favorite joke sites are blocked.
Does user education help? Sure. Will it actually stop spyware infestation? No. Does any of this excuse MS from making the monumentally bone-headed decision of giving their web-browser the ability to install random apps without asking? No.
Not only that, but I find a lot of things in the original movie much more forgivable given that it was made in the '80s when people were much more naive about these magical boxes we call 'computers'. Now, since computers are so ubiquitous and people have a better understanding of what they really are, it seems like, without a *severe* rewrite, the story just wouldn't fly.
Er... you mean, tell the users not to visit any web site. Because, you know, those joke sites that have the funny flash animations? Those sites that give oh-so-fun cursor sets and "you've got mail" sounds? Wasn't there even a case of commercial websites from semi-respectable businesses being hacked and used to install spyware?
And the recent story about WMP running arbitrary code when searching for licenses? And all the security problems Outlook has had?
Ok, so basically tell my users to not use their computers to visit web sites, answer e-mail, or listen to music because it's really important that we continue to use software from a company who doesn't know the meaning of the words "security scheme". How about I just tell the PHB that the best way to keep his computer secured is to leave it off and unplugged? That'll get me that raise.
Oh, or there's another option. Stop using MS products when possible, and when you must use MS products, install 50 different products to cover all the various virus/firewall/spyware security holes.
But we all know it's really easy, since you have no problem supporting your dad.
As an IT pro managing a helpdesk with a mixed Windows/OSX population, I can tell you it's not a lot of FUD. There may be some FUD mixed in with it, but spyware has become a hell of a thing, and the fact that MS made their OS so that their web browser and media player can install programs doesn't help. But oh, wait-- it must not be a problem, because *your Dad* is fine.
Now I'm not saying you need to use OSX, but I try to avoid Windows where I can. And it so happens that OSX is quite a good desktop OS.