...Christians that insist on injecting quaint little refrigerator magnet-style philosophy and superstitious dogma into conversations about death, or pseudo-intellectual atheists that hamfistedly bring up their personal beliefs (or lack of beliefs) at every fucking opportunity. For the more vocal atheist like the OP, here's a tip for winning over middle-of-the-road crowd : When you haphazardly ejaculate your "deep" musings into topics that really have nothing to do with them, you look just as fucking retarded and self-righteous as the zealous Bible-thumper prattling on about eternal hellfire or heaven or whatever they're talking about these days.
I am an atheist, believing in no life after this one, and the upshot of this is I find all human life to have indefinite value - indefinite but basically equal. If you are mourning right now and your surname isn't "Jackson", then it is a direct affront to those who die through no fault of their own and are implicitly disregarded by the rest of the world during the absurd rituals we employ to mark the death of somebody famous.
I don't believe in human nature or historical inevitability. I believe in free will, and thus I believe people have a choice. Masses of people have made the wrong choice, and it makes me both sad and angry. The reaction to Michael Jackson's death, rather than the death itself, has put a real downer on my day.
Wow! That's fascinating!
Please be sure and keep us updated on your personal beliefs and what they imply for your vision of the world! Afterward, take a moment to reflect on how you have the social and intellectual high ground on annoying theists who invoke their religion at times that are inappropriate and to an audience that doesn't care.
2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.
Mod this shit up, yo!
Streetview is especially useful when you're in a big city other than your own - rows and rows of skyscrapers and highrises can all blend in and obscure the actual street and location you're looking for, but Streetview allows you to look around and pick a landmark as an identifier. When I first saw it demoed on mobile devices, I was like "Why the fuck would I want to see (what is essentially) a Power Point presentation of city blocks on my phone?", but one set of wonky directions from my GPS provided an opportunity for Streetview to prove its usefulness.
I can't speak to the usefulness of the service to criminals, but I can definitely find legitimate purpose in it.
Not if your net worth is below something like $5,000,000. Those poor multi-millionaires!
So because they're worth a certain amount of money, it's okay to plunder the estate state of the deceased?
What a peculiar outlook. Not necessarily a wrong outlook - it just strikes me as odd to see the "us vs. them" mentality justified because those "poor multi-millionaires" are somehow less deserving to pass their worldly gains to their children with less taxation than those who are worth less.
I don't really get it, but then I suppose that doesn't really matter.
I'll readily admit that Slashdot has gone down hill a bit in the last few years, but it's nowhere near as bad as digg. Seriously. Trolling on digg is like pissing in an ocean of piss, the comments are so bad.
I mean this as no insult to digg, but the comments on the articles (and most of the articles themselves) are absolute shit. Most of the people commenting are - by their own admission - highschoolers and young college kids. With Slashdot, at least there's some pretense of being accurate and factual in the comments - users who troll or make ill-informed posts are usually modded down or corrected by other users.
In summary, I submit to you a summary of the current digg RSS feed as evidence of article and community quality on digg -
3 newbie-oriented or otherwise obvious Linux articles
4 pro-Obama articles.
4 anti-McCain/Palin articles.
3 YouTube/Break.com video submissions
5 "list" articles (e.g. - "Top 10 Drinks Real Men Don't Order")
3 image articles (article is just a link to a single image.)
2 articles that Slashdot covered earlier this week.
The above is but a small sample of the typical digg feed. Oddly, there aren't any "Marijuana will cure everything and it's 'big pharma' keeping it illegal maaaaaan" articles in the feed, but I'm sure those will trickle in as the day goes on.
Seriously. Digg is fucking retarded. Hang out there for a week and tell me Slashdot has approached that level of stupidity or redundancy.
Bullcrap. If they nag you intermittently until you either upgrade or uninstall FF altogether, they're trying hard to not give you a choice.
Uhm, what? No, they're following their design path. Because it doesn't line up with your software design is entirely irrelevant as far as "freedom" goes. If you don't want the nagging, fork the fucking software and build your version. Mother of Christ, I don't get why this is so hard to understand for some people.
As a secondary point, when your "choice" has the potential to impact other people, you may find the vendors are hesitant to cater to it.
Excuse me, but what? That doesn't make sense. How is it asking them to design their software in any way at all to not be nagged? The user in this equation is asking them to not to do something, not to do something.
So in your mind, if a vendor doesn't follow your design specifications, you don't have "choice". Interesting. What if I don't want to be asked if I want to save my tab session when I exit (by default)? LO, MY FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON - TRULY THE EVILS OF CORPORATE AMERICA HAVE INFECTED THE FORMER BASTION OF WEB BROWSING FREEDOM!
Mozilla wants their users to run secure software. They feel obligated to protect the rest of the Internet (and their own brand name) from people exploiting retired browser code against them. I personally admire Mozilla for reminding their users they're making a bad choice - I wish Microsoft would do the same. But even if you don't like it, tons of other posters have pointed out that you can disable auto-updates.
That's not the point. My computer, my software, my choice. Remember "choice"? Mozilla was all about it at one point in time. It seems with greater market share comes all the negatives we've come to expect from other software vendors.
By all means ask the question. But respect my answer.
I think you would have a stronger case about "choice" if they were remotely disabling old versions of FireFox. You do have a right to subject yourself to security vulnerabilities, but by no means is the software vendor obligated to design their software in a manner that caters to this behavior.
As it stands, you have plenty of choices -
You can upgrade to new version for free.
You can continue to use your preferred version and be nagged every few weeks.
You can fork your preferred version and remove the nagging bit
You can stop using the browser.
Don't get me wrong - I understand the strain associated with clicking "No" every few weeks, but I think this is a good solution for keeping FireFox users secure and complying with web standards.
Just maybe, a browser will emerge for Windows Mobile that doesn't completely suck.
Is the ability to actually SAVE files that difficult for this platform? IE and Minimo say so.
I personally have been underwhelmed with just about every mobile browser I've used (Blazer, Mobile IE and Opera Mini are especially awful), but this Opera Mobile Beta is pretty much amazing. It goes out of its way to ape Safari Mobile - and it shows. The smooth scrolling, slick interface and zoom gestures are all lifted rather liberally from Safari. My only real criticism is that I'd like to see the finger gestures fine-tuned and further explored, but it's still a great browser.
I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but I hope the iPhone continues to light a fire under the collective ass of the mobile phone industry. Microsoft and friends need to get their shit together before Apple moves in on the business smartphone sector.
Tech innovation from a state where it is still legal to marry your first cousin. The end is near. Ho-hum. You might want to look into which states allow cousins to marry : New York, California, Massachusetts, D.C., etc... - Not exactly backwoods. If anything, Georgia is in the minority of southern states allowing first cousins to marry.
Why don't you post the relevant law that states that driving the speed limit in a passing lane is illegal? I'd really love to see that one...
I don't seem to recall reading in any drivers manual that one must drive over the speed limit in a "passing lane" or one is breaking the law.
Passing lanes are there for people who are driving the speed limit who wish to pass other people in the middle or right hand lanes that are driving slower than the speed limit.
Cheers! Your wish is my command
I can't really be bothered to list any more sources, but they exist if you're so inclined.
"Irrigardless" is not a word. If you are going to troll, at least use proper English so you have some credibility. It is a word, but only if you're within Boston city limits.
I didn't realise/. had started posting links to things the submitter happened to find amusing today. I'm not quite ready to call this Digg until I see at least THREE separate marijuana legalization stories in the RSS feed, each sandwiched between a Ron Pa,er,Obama-worship/Hillary-bashing article, and every other post calling America a fascist police state.
Seriously though - I'm not crazy about this embedded video business. I hope this isn't a trend Slashdot embraces.
Oh dear, MS trolls becoming a bit desperate? Is this really the best you can do, Windows is better because I am used to it? You can get used to practically anything. Basically you are saying,"I am to lazy to change". Well good luck to you then, wonder how you deal with the changes with each new windows version however.
...
No, you are a slave, you do not get to choose. I choose for you and you follow. That is after all what you are familiair with.
...
He claims he is a geek. Sorry, no he isn't. He is just one of those many people who over recent years have grasped basic windows operation and thinks that makes him a computer whiz. Linux scares these people because there carefully learned routines no longer work. This is the major reason Vista is so hated, not because it is bad, but because countless XP drones have to learn a different routine and they never learned to use MS software, just learned what buttons to click in what order.
He doesn't want choice or freedom, he wants every computer to be the same so he can amaze people by being able to change the background.
To defend this, he assaults anything that dares to be different, re-hashing trolls he heard before without understanding.
The proof he is just a simple buttong clicker? He editted conf files with vi. No doubt because the tutorial he was following without understanding told him so ">vi somefile.conf" and never grasped the concept that he could substitute his preffered editor with vi. Riiiiight. Clearly it's the "free" part that's holding Linux back. With apologists such as the parent parading as would-be liberators of the poor, ignorant Windows-using mongrels of the world, I have no idea why corporations and grandmothers alike aren't flocking to Linux in droves.
I know that not all Linux enthusiasts are this way, but there are enough of these foaming-at-the-mouth, arrogant dipshits running amok that it's genuinely becoming a problem for adoption in geek circles.
To the parent poster: Chill the fuck out. Whatever valid points you were making were buried underneath a cloud of arrogance and decidedly unoriginal stereotyping and put-downs. You missed an opportunity to kindly correct some misgivings a fellow geek has about Linux (and possibly make another Linux user), and instead used the circumstances to lash out against him like a jerk and give Linux users some more bad PR. Thanks a lot, asshole.
This is a non-story, and these kind of "stories" are making Slashdot feel more and more like digg. Microsoft leveraging their popular products to artificially limit the functionality of Linux users? SRSLY? SOMEONE ALERT THE INTERNETZ!! WE'VE GOT BREAKING NEWS! Hotmail works fine from Linux + FireFox - I too tried it last night. It's got some deprecated functionality, but that's pretty much par for the course with Microsoft-oriented webapps under Linux.
Also, exchanges like the following really do nothing to enhance anyones perception of Linux users -
Hotmail Staff :
Mitch, after reviewing the information you provided, I determined that Microsoft Product Support Services Team could best address your issue. They are tasked to provide all the information you need to be able to configure correctly your Windows Live Hotmail through Outlook Express.
Me:
Excuse me? I don't want to use Opendoor Virus Extreme - sorry, Outlook Express, I want to use Windows Live Hotmail, Full version, under Mozilla Firefox 2, on any machine and/or OS I have installed! I thought I was being clear, I'm using a BROWSER to access a WEBMAIL INTERFACE that seems to be ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED IN FUNCTIONALITY due to BASIC USER AGENT SNIFFING.
The article doesn't indicate if he has paid for a subscription or not (just says "subscribed"), but responses like the above annoy the piss out of me. Everyone who cares knows that Microsoft does this. Everyone who cares, knows that in an ideal world, standards would prevail and that Microsoft's tactics in the market aren't very ethical. Why we have to continue to broadcast it with some kind of obnoxious, faux-righteous indignation is beyond me - it really only alienates people and strengthens Microsoft's point that Linux is only for pot-smoking, Hobbit-reading, half-commie hippies. Unless the guy paid for his subscription, his tone is just uncalled for (and even if he did, I think its still obnoxious.)
One day, I'd like to be able to suggest Linux without having to fight these perceptions, and if Mitch (and people like him) would tone it down a little bit, that would make things much easier.
This guy must've wrote his speech the way Edge plays guitar - just pumped a couple sentences into his delay pedal and let it reverberate for 20 minutes.
In all seriousness, I lost interest in U2 with the whole "Popmart" bullshit they did back in the 90's, and I think even the most hardcore U2 fan would have to admit that the band has gotten a bit pretentious in recent years. I think what Bono does for charity and awareness is great, but having this manager deliver far-reaching, accusatory speeches (and uploading them to the official band website, no less) does nothing to combat this "Number Two" image that Bono's cultivated in recent years.
Unrelated to this, a fun experiment: Next time you're in the car with your buddies, and a U2 song comes on the radio, sing lyrics from a different U2 song and see if your friends notice. Dollars to donuts they won't. This experiment works best with "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"/"Where The Streets Have No Names"/"With Or Without You" and "Pride"/"With Or Without You".
Okay, could someone (more knowledgeable than I) explain how this whole trademark vs. IP thing works? From what I understand, it sounds like Novell owns the underlying IP of Unix, but I also thought The Open Group was in charge of the "UNIX" trademark/certification. So speaking purely hypothetically, say Novell were to get back into the Unix market, would they have to have certification by the Open Group to call it "UNIX"?
I guess my question is bit more far-reaching - what is the relationship between the IP holder v. the trademark holder in these circumstances, and are there any other examples where someone owns the IP of something, but doesn't necessarily own the trademark?
There's opinion's, and then there's facts. Show Cobain's rambling gibberish to someone who would have no idea of who it comes from and it's a fact they'll tell you that it's aimless babble.
Hopefully you'll grow up and realise that his writing is complete sophmoric shit -it would be tragic if you reached forty still thinking that cobain is any sort of writer -particularly since that would mean you'd most likely miss out on people who really are great lyricists. Ah, fancy that! I think I can find a couple of people in the 40+ demographic who might have something to say...
That kid had heart.
-- Bob Dylan
He really, really inspired me. He was so great. Wonderful. One of the best, but more than that. Kurt was one of the absolute best of all time for me.
--Neil Young
He was a genius.
--Paul McCartney
Cobain was a marvellous singer...I heard his unplugged version of that Leadbelly song and it was such a perfect vocal that I was really moved.
--Allen Ginsberg
He had a touch most guitarists would kill for.
--Chuck Berry
But hey, it's not like those guys know anything about songwriting, right? Maybe one day people like Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney can rise to your level of hipster songwriting.
Jesus Christ, dude. Would you knock it off with the faux-Onion link whoring? The first couple were alright, but it's just getting lame now. We get it - you've got an Onion-style satire site with a tech slant. Please quit spamming every article with disguised links to your site - it confuses trigger-happy moderators into thinking your posting something, you know, relevant or informative.
Mods - the parent post is just a link to his own satire site. His post is sitting at +5 Interesting right now and doesn't address the issue raised in the original article in any way whatsoever. Please don't reward affiliate linkwhoring with Interesting or Insightful mods.
From the last two pages of his autobiography -
The music scene as I look at it today is little different from when I was growing up. The percentages are roughly the same - 95 percent rubbish, 5 percent pure. However, the system of marketing and distribution are in the middle of a huge shift, and by the end of this decade I think it's unlikely that any of the existing record companies will still be in business. With the greatest respect to all involved, that would be no great loss. Music will always find its way to us, with or without business, politics, religion, or any other bullshit attached. Music survives everything, and like God, it is always present. It needs no help, and suffers no hindrance. It has always found me, and with God's blessing and permission it always will.
"pioneered rock and roll and actually brought creativity back to a genre which many had dismissed simply as hippie music"
Creativity? How creative is it to BLATENTLY rip off blues musicians from 20,30,40 years before they were BORN?
If sampling were available in Led Zeps time, I don't think they would have even bothered "trying" to disguise the theft.
Methinks you were looking for a different word. Plagiarism comes to mind.
No credits (initially) to the songwriters they stole from?
World's biggest cover band.
Sorry, this one makes my sick and is EXACTLY why I hate the music industry.
I know it's the hipster thing to act like Zeppelin plagiarized everything they ever did from old blues players, but I feel obligated to balance that out by highlighting a few things -
For whatever reason, Zeppelin is the whipping boy for would-be music snobs to scoff at. Interestingly, these same people have no problem giving Jeff Beck, The Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton a free pass. Cream's "Strange Brew" is a re-imagined version of "Lawdy Mama". The legendary riff from "Layla" is lifted from "As The Years Go Passing By" by Albert King (side note: Jeff Healy does an AMAZING version of the song - google it sometime), "Honky Tonk Woman" is pretty much a complete rip-off of an early arrangement of a Gram Parson's song, and Jeff Beck's "Blow By Blow" is littered with "stolen" licks from other musicians he's toured with. If you really want to get into it, you could go into how the aforementioned artists incorporated stolen licks into the guitar solos and how lyrics were generally "borrowed" without proper credit being given. But when Zeppelin does it, everyones conscience suddenly gets bothered.
Musicians draw from other musicians. Guitarists borrow licks from other guitarists they admire, and vocalists - especially in the blues - "steal" lines from other blues songs. It's really not that shocking, and honestly, it's seen more as an homage than any kind of malicious gesture. It's kind of shitty that Zeppelin didn't always give credit where credit was due, but they certainly weren't the only ones.
Led Zeppelin's real "plagiarism" was against their contemporaries - Jake Holmes, Bert Jansch and Joan Baez are three that jump out at me at the moment, but I know there are others. The blues songs they "ripped" were more re-imagined than actual rip-offs - ala "Crossroads" or "Outside Woman Blues" by Cream. Again, it's pretty shitty that they had to be taken to court to give credit where credit was due, but to call them the "world's biggest cover band" is over-sensational nonsense.
It really annoys me that a bunch of plagiarism-aware "music experts" cropped up as soon as Howard Stern had some guy on his show speaking to Zeppelin ripping other artists off. It's not that I'm disputing the more grievous acts of plagiarism on Zeppelin's part, it's that they really only tend to whine about Led Zeppelin, and none of the gazillion other artists who did the same thing.
This entire discussion wasn't really that interesting back on Usenet, and it's certainly not anymore shocking or revelatory today.
I know many people happy with XP. Ignorance is bliss. XP was designed poorly. Microsoft has written a better operating system, and so my previous post recommends Windows 2003.
XP is Windows NT 5.1. 2003 is Windows NT 5.2. I'd be interested to hear why you think they're so different when the differences are, in fact, relatively minor (and from a *design* perspective, nonexistant).
Agreed.
His remarks consist entirely anecdotal bullshit. The fact that he dismisses Windows 2000 and places Windows 98SE over it is a dead give away. I don't think anyone who's ever done serious IT work on a Windows-based network would ever suggest Windows 98SE over an NT-based flavor of Windows. It's just naive and goes back to the "anecdotal" bit.
The icing on the cake is the dismissal of Windows 2000 because "[it] did not have driver support for gamers.", and the the bit of fictional Fortune 500 and CPA name dropping in the follow up post.
Like you said, the differences between 2003 and XP aren't really that great, from a user experience (I run Standard - sans additional CALs - on my workstation at home), and aren't nearly as dramatic as the OP suggests.
And since it doesn't appear that the movies can be burned to DVD
Does the word burned make it not count as a copy restriction? I assumed the lack of DVD-burning had more to do with the resolution or codec - not so much the DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
I am an atheist, believing in no life after this one, and the upshot of this is I find all human life to have indefinite value - indefinite but basically equal. If you are mourning right now and your surname isn't "Jackson", then it is a direct affront to those who die through no fault of their own and are implicitly disregarded by the rest of the world during the absurd rituals we employ to mark the death of somebody famous.
I don't believe in human nature or historical inevitability. I believe in free will, and thus I believe people have a choice. Masses of people have made the wrong choice, and it makes me both sad and angry. The reaction to Michael Jackson's death, rather than the death itself, has put a real downer on my day.
Wow! That's fascinating!
Please be sure and keep us updated on your personal beliefs and what they imply for your vision of the world! Afterward, take a moment to reflect on how you have the social and intellectual high ground on annoying theists who invoke their religion at times that are inappropriate and to an audience that doesn't care.
2) If my wife calls me and says she is lost, if I can get Google Street up, I can get a fair sense of what she is seeing once I have an intersection. Much, much better than guiding someone around over the phone using a map.
Mod this shit up, yo!
Streetview is especially useful when you're in a big city other than your own - rows and rows of skyscrapers and highrises can all blend in and obscure the actual street and location you're looking for, but Streetview allows you to look around and pick a landmark as an identifier. When I first saw it demoed on mobile devices, I was like "Why the fuck would I want to see (what is essentially) a Power Point presentation of city blocks on my phone?", but one set of wonky directions from my GPS provided an opportunity for Streetview to prove its usefulness.
I can't speak to the usefulness of the service to criminals, but I can definitely find legitimate purpose in it.
Not if your net worth is below something like $5,000,000. Those poor multi-millionaires!
So because they're worth a certain amount of money, it's okay to plunder the estate state of the deceased?
What a peculiar outlook. Not necessarily a wrong outlook - it just strikes me as odd to see the "us vs. them" mentality justified because those "poor multi-millionaires" are somehow less deserving to pass their worldly gains to their children with less taxation than those who are worth less.
I don't really get it, but then I suppose that doesn't really matter.
I mean this as no insult to digg, but the comments on the articles (and most of the articles themselves) are absolute shit. Most of the people commenting are - by their own admission - highschoolers and young college kids. With Slashdot, at least there's some pretense of being accurate and factual in the comments - users who troll or make ill-informed posts are usually modded down or corrected by other users.
In summary, I submit to you a summary of the current digg RSS feed as evidence of article and community quality on digg -
The above is but a small sample of the typical digg feed. Oddly, there aren't any "Marijuana will cure everything and it's 'big pharma' keeping it illegal maaaaaan" articles in the feed, but I'm sure those will trickle in as the day goes on.
:-)
Seriously. Digg is fucking retarded. Hang out there for a week and tell me Slashdot has approached that level of stupidity or redundancy.
No offense to digg or the OP, BTW
Bullcrap. If they nag you intermittently until you either upgrade or uninstall FF altogether, they're trying hard to not give you a choice.
Uhm, what? No, they're following their design path. Because it doesn't line up with your software design is entirely irrelevant as far as "freedom" goes. If you don't want the nagging, fork the fucking software and build your version. Mother of Christ, I don't get why this is so hard to understand for some people.
As a secondary point, when your "choice" has the potential to impact other people, you may find the vendors are hesitant to cater to it.
Excuse me, but what? That doesn't make sense. How is it asking them to design their software in any way at all to not be nagged? The user in this equation is asking them to not to do something, not to do something.
So in your mind, if a vendor doesn't follow your design specifications, you don't have "choice". Interesting. What if I don't want to be asked if I want to save my tab session when I exit (by default)? LO, MY FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON - TRULY THE EVILS OF CORPORATE AMERICA HAVE INFECTED THE FORMER BASTION OF WEB BROWSING FREEDOM!
Mozilla wants their users to run secure software. They feel obligated to protect the rest of the Internet (and their own brand name) from people exploiting retired browser code against them. I personally admire Mozilla for reminding their users they're making a bad choice - I wish Microsoft would do the same. But even if you don't like it, tons of other posters have pointed out that you can disable auto-updates.
That's not the point. My computer, my software, my choice. Remember "choice"? Mozilla was all about it at one point in time. It seems with greater market share comes all the negatives we've come to expect from other software vendors.
By all means ask the question. But respect my answer.
I think you would have a stronger case about "choice" if they were remotely disabling old versions of FireFox. You do have a right to subject yourself to security vulnerabilities, but by no means is the software vendor obligated to design their software in a manner that caters to this behavior.
As it stands, you have plenty of choices -
Don't get me wrong - I understand the strain associated with clicking "No" every few weeks, but I think this is a good solution for keeping FireFox users secure and complying with web standards.
Xiino was the only thing that made my old Treo 650 anything close to usable for web browsing.
Just maybe, a browser will emerge for Windows Mobile that doesn't completely suck.
Is the ability to actually SAVE files that difficult for this platform? IE and Minimo say so.
I personally have been underwhelmed with just about every mobile browser I've used (Blazer, Mobile IE and Opera Mini are especially awful), but this Opera Mobile Beta is pretty much amazing. It goes out of its way to ape Safari Mobile - and it shows. The smooth scrolling, slick interface and zoom gestures are all lifted rather liberally from Safari. My only real criticism is that I'd like to see the finger gestures fine-tuned and further explored, but it's still a great browser.
I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but I hope the iPhone continues to light a fire under the collective ass of the mobile phone industry. Microsoft and friends need to get their shit together before Apple moves in on the business smartphone sector.
I can't really be bothered to list any more sources, but they exist if you're so inclined.
Seriously though - I'm not crazy about this embedded video business. I hope this isn't a trend Slashdot embraces.
...
No, you are a slave, you do not get to choose. I choose for you and you follow. That is after all what you are familiair with.
...
He claims he is a geek. Sorry, no he isn't. He is just one of those many people who over recent years have grasped basic windows operation and thinks that makes him a computer whiz. Linux scares these people because there carefully learned routines no longer work. This is the major reason Vista is so hated, not because it is bad, but because countless XP drones have to learn a different routine and they never learned to use MS software, just learned what buttons to click in what order.
He doesn't want choice or freedom, he wants every computer to be the same so he can amaze people by being able to change the background.
To defend this, he assaults anything that dares to be different, re-hashing trolls he heard before without understanding.
The proof he is just a simple buttong clicker? He editted conf files with vi. No doubt because the tutorial he was following without understanding told him so ">vi somefile.conf" and never grasped the concept that he could substitute his preffered editor with vi.
Riiiiight. Clearly it's the "free" part that's holding Linux back. With apologists such as the parent parading as would-be liberators of the poor, ignorant Windows-using mongrels of the world, I have no idea why corporations and grandmothers alike aren't flocking to Linux in droves.
I know that not all Linux enthusiasts are this way, but there are enough of these foaming-at-the-mouth, arrogant dipshits running amok that it's genuinely becoming a problem for adoption in geek circles.
To the parent poster: Chill the fuck out. Whatever valid points you were making were buried underneath a cloud of arrogance and decidedly unoriginal stereotyping and put-downs. You missed an opportunity to kindly correct some misgivings a fellow geek has about Linux (and possibly make another Linux user), and instead used the circumstances to lash out against him like a jerk and give Linux users some more bad PR. Thanks a lot, asshole.
This is a non-story, and these kind of "stories" are making Slashdot feel more and more like digg. Microsoft leveraging their popular products to artificially limit the functionality of Linux users? SRSLY? SOMEONE ALERT THE INTERNETZ!! WE'VE GOT BREAKING NEWS! Hotmail works fine from Linux + FireFox - I too tried it last night. It's got some deprecated functionality, but that's pretty much par for the course with Microsoft-oriented webapps under Linux.
Also, exchanges like the following really do nothing to enhance anyones perception of Linux users - Hotmail Staff : Mitch, after reviewing the information you provided, I determined that Microsoft Product Support Services Team could best address your issue. They are tasked to provide all the information you need to be able to configure correctly your Windows Live Hotmail through Outlook Express.
Me: Excuse me? I don't want to use Opendoor Virus Extreme - sorry, Outlook Express, I want to use Windows Live Hotmail, Full version, under Mozilla Firefox 2, on any machine and/or OS I have installed! I thought I was being clear, I'm using a BROWSER to access a WEBMAIL INTERFACE that seems to be ARTIFICIALLY LIMITED IN FUNCTIONALITY due to BASIC USER AGENT SNIFFING.
The article doesn't indicate if he has paid for a subscription or not (just says "subscribed"), but responses like the above annoy the piss out of me. Everyone who cares knows that Microsoft does this. Everyone who cares, knows that in an ideal world, standards would prevail and that Microsoft's tactics in the market aren't very ethical. Why we have to continue to broadcast it with some kind of obnoxious, faux-righteous indignation is beyond me - it really only alienates people and strengthens Microsoft's point that Linux is only for pot-smoking, Hobbit-reading, half-commie hippies. Unless the guy paid for his subscription, his tone is just uncalled for (and even if he did, I think its still obnoxious.)
One day, I'd like to be able to suggest Linux without having to fight these perceptions, and if Mitch (and people like him) would tone it down a little bit, that would make things much easier.
5) ONLY supports iTunes Music Store and not other, cheaper services.
blah blah more whiny bullshit blah blah
O RLY?
I extend now to you the warmest of invitations to go fuck yourself.
HTH. HAND.
This guy must've wrote his speech the way Edge plays guitar - just pumped a couple sentences into his delay pedal and let it reverberate for 20 minutes.
In all seriousness, I lost interest in U2 with the whole "Popmart" bullshit they did back in the 90's, and I think even the most hardcore U2 fan would have to admit that the band has gotten a bit pretentious in recent years. I think what Bono does for charity and awareness is great, but having this manager deliver far-reaching, accusatory speeches (and uploading them to the official band website, no less) does nothing to combat this "Number Two" image that Bono's cultivated in recent years.
Unrelated to this, a fun experiment: Next time you're in the car with your buddies, and a U2 song comes on the radio, sing lyrics from a different U2 song and see if your friends notice. Dollars to donuts they won't. This experiment works best with "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"/"Where The Streets Have No Names"/"With Or Without You" and "Pride"/"With Or Without You".
Okay, could someone (more knowledgeable than I) explain how this whole trademark vs. IP thing works? From what I understand, it sounds like Novell owns the underlying IP of Unix, but I also thought The Open Group was in charge of the "UNIX" trademark/certification. So speaking purely hypothetically, say Novell were to get back into the Unix market, would they have to have certification by the Open Group to call it "UNIX"?
I guess my question is bit more far-reaching - what is the relationship between the IP holder v. the trademark holder in these circumstances, and are there any other examples where someone owns the IP of something, but doesn't necessarily own the trademark?
Hopefully you'll grow up and realise that his writing is complete sophmoric shit -it would be tragic if you reached forty still thinking that cobain is any sort of writer -particularly since that would mean you'd most likely miss out on people who really are great lyricists. Ah, fancy that! I think I can find a couple of people in the 40+ demographic who might have something to say...
That kid had heart.
-- Bob Dylan He really, really inspired me. He was so great. Wonderful. One of the best, but more than that. Kurt was one of the absolute best of all time for me.
--Neil Young He was a genius.
--Paul McCartney Cobain was a marvellous singer...I heard his unplugged version of that Leadbelly song and it was such a perfect vocal that I was really moved.
--Allen Ginsberg He had a touch most guitarists would kill for.
--Chuck Berry
But hey, it's not like those guys know anything about songwriting, right? Maybe one day people like Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney can rise to your level of hipster songwriting.
Do NOT pass "Go".
Do NOT collect $200.
Jesus Christ, dude. Would you knock it off with the faux-Onion link whoring? The first couple were alright, but it's just getting lame now. We get it - you've got an Onion-style satire site with a tech slant. Please quit spamming every article with disguised links to your site - it confuses trigger-happy moderators into thinking your posting something, you know, relevant or informative.
Mods - the parent post is just a link to his own satire site. His post is sitting at +5 Interesting right now and doesn't address the issue raised in the original article in any way whatsoever. Please don't reward affiliate linkwhoring with Interesting or Insightful mods.
Hey, it's your doppleganger!
"pioneered rock and roll and actually brought creativity back to a genre which many had dismissed simply as hippie music"
Creativity? How creative is it to BLATENTLY rip off blues musicians from 20,30,40 years before they were BORN?
If sampling were available in Led Zeps time, I don't think they would have even bothered "trying" to disguise the theft.
Methinks you were looking for a different word. Plagiarism comes to mind.
No credits (initially) to the songwriters they stole from?
World's biggest cover band.
Sorry, this one makes my sick and is EXACTLY why I hate the music industry.
I know it's the hipster thing to act like Zeppelin plagiarized everything they ever did from old blues players, but I feel obligated to balance that out by highlighting a few things -
For whatever reason, Zeppelin is the whipping boy for would-be music snobs to scoff at. Interestingly, these same people have no problem giving Jeff Beck, The Rolling Stones and Eric Clapton a free pass. Cream's "Strange Brew" is a re-imagined version of "Lawdy Mama". The legendary riff from "Layla" is lifted from "As The Years Go Passing By" by Albert King (side note: Jeff Healy does an AMAZING version of the song - google it sometime), "Honky Tonk Woman" is pretty much a complete rip-off of an early arrangement of a Gram Parson's song, and Jeff Beck's "Blow By Blow" is littered with "stolen" licks from other musicians he's toured with. If you really want to get into it, you could go into how the aforementioned artists incorporated stolen licks into the guitar solos and how lyrics were generally "borrowed" without proper credit being given. But when Zeppelin does it, everyones conscience suddenly gets bothered.
Musicians draw from other musicians. Guitarists borrow licks from other guitarists they admire, and vocalists - especially in the blues - "steal" lines from other blues songs. It's really not that shocking, and honestly, it's seen more as an homage than any kind of malicious gesture. It's kind of shitty that Zeppelin didn't always give credit where credit was due, but they certainly weren't the only ones.
Led Zeppelin's real "plagiarism" was against their contemporaries - Jake Holmes, Bert Jansch and Joan Baez are three that jump out at me at the moment, but I know there are others. The blues songs they "ripped" were more re-imagined than actual rip-offs - ala "Crossroads" or "Outside Woman Blues" by Cream. Again, it's pretty shitty that they had to be taken to court to give credit where credit was due, but to call them the "world's biggest cover band" is over-sensational nonsense.
It really annoys me that a bunch of plagiarism-aware "music experts" cropped up as soon as Howard Stern had some guy on his show speaking to Zeppelin ripping other artists off. It's not that I'm disputing the more grievous acts of plagiarism on Zeppelin's part, it's that they really only tend to whine about Led Zeppelin, and none of the gazillion other artists who did the same thing.
This entire discussion wasn't really that interesting back on Usenet, and it's certainly not anymore shocking or revelatory today.
I know many people happy with XP. Ignorance is bliss. XP was designed poorly. Microsoft has written a better operating system, and so my previous post recommends Windows 2003.
XP is Windows NT 5.1. 2003 is Windows NT 5.2. I'd be interested to hear why you think they're so different when the differences are, in fact, relatively minor (and from a *design* perspective, nonexistant).
Agreed.His remarks consist entirely anecdotal bullshit. The fact that he dismisses Windows 2000 and places Windows 98SE over it is a dead give away. I don't think anyone who's ever done serious IT work on a Windows-based network would ever suggest Windows 98SE over an NT-based flavor of Windows. It's just naive and goes back to the "anecdotal" bit.
The icing on the cake is the dismissal of Windows 2000 because "[it] did not have driver support for gamers.", and the the bit of fictional Fortune 500 and CPA name dropping in the follow up post.
Like you said, the differences between 2003 and XP aren't really that great, from a user experience (I run Standard - sans additional CALs - on my workstation at home), and aren't nearly as dramatic as the OP suggests.
Does the word burned make it not count as a copy restriction? I assumed the lack of DVD-burning had more to do with the resolution or codec - not so much the DRM.