Well, as most people in the US obviously know (51%, actually), dinosaurs never existed, and the planet was created only about 3000 years ago, and took 7 days. So, all of this is a moot point. Your "science" is no match for the Bible, which is REAL "science" (which somebody actually told me previously, with a straight face).
I don't know about you, but if the giant "conventional" bombs that the US uses on a regular basis don't cause "mass destruction", then we need to re-define the term.
I'm starting a new competition. I'm "challenging" 3000 college students to see who can clean my floors the best! The winner gets $20!! Competition my ass.
The whole blogging thing has of course made an enormous impact on the Internet.
How, exactly? I see blogs as nothing but an earlier poster described... a bunch of dull people writing (poorly) about the minutae of their lives, with links to web sites they find interesting. How has this had an "enormous impact"?
Re:Compatibility?
on
Digital Retro
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ah, I love to hear/.'ers clamoring for MORE variety in hardware and software. Those/.'ers are obviously not old enough to remember these days of computing, when finding software and parts for each brand and model of computer was next to impossible (requiring the giant Computer Shopper, eventually). Lack of compatibility was an absolute nightmare, and all the experts predicted that compatibility would bring about the Golden Age of PC's. I, for one, have no interest at all to go back to those days. I'm a big fan of buying generic computer parts or software, and they "just work". But, I guess if you never lived through that, and now have a fall back (Windows), I guess I can see the bizarre appeal of wanting to find esoteric OS's that all work differently (20,000 distributions of Linux that all work differently and require re-compiles of each software install).
I don't think that most people who download movies are watching them on a computer any more. With a $100 DVD Burner, $0.25 blank DVD, plus free (and awesome) DVD Shrink, you've got yourself a shiny new DVD movie.
HP symbolizes to me what happens when MBAs and Accountants run businesses.
As opposed to who? Techies? Techies that would demand open source everything, and drive the company into the ground faster than you can say "profit!" To lump all MBA's together is short sighted. In case you just fell off the turnip truck, almost every large business on the planet is run by MBA's. So before you go knocking an entire educational track, you should look into who runs the companies that made all of the computer stuff you posted with, or the people running the companies that you get your bandwidth from, or the people that run the companies that made the clothes you're wearing right now, etc.
No, people actually came running. It wasn't sound quality, but volume. There weren't too many audiophiles living in the dorm. But, people weren't used to hearing assault rifles & shotguns very loudly with no movie soundtrack. Again, this was Sound Blaster 1.0. So loud gun sounds, along with people yelling did the trick.
Good point. I never thought about that because I've always had at least one computer in my main living room along with my TV, stereo, PS2, etc. My computer has always been a part of my home entertainment stuff, so I never thought of putting a computer in a room without a stereo.
I remember using a Sound Blaster 1.0 about 10 years ago to play Doom 1 in my dorm room in college, and when I cranked the volume, we actually had the police show up at one point to investigate because everybody thought that there was real gunfire coming from somewhere.
The REAL future of PC audio is what smart people have been doing for years... getting a $3 rradio Shack cable, and plugging the computer into a real stereo amp. I don't understand the obsession with getting tiny, overpriced, shitty sounding computer speakers when even a basic stereo from Wal-Mart is going to sound better than even the best "computer speakers". I know, I know, everybody has their favorite computer speakers, but there is simply no replacement for displacement. Meaning, bigger speakers being driven by a real amp will almost ALWAYS sound better than any computer speakers.
High prices and having to deal with sketchy dealers?
Actually, you can thank your government for that. By making drugs highly illegal, they create a dangerous black market. Alcohol and tobacco are as physically dangerous as most illegal drugs, and much more harmful than marijuana, but there aren't high prices and sketchy dealers because they're legal. As soon as the US gets its head of it's ass (that'll take at least 4 years), and gets rid of all of its stupid drug laws, maybe we'll have a nice, safe market for currently illegal drugs.
But seriously, shouldn't a monetary transaction require a signature and/or a passcode, not just a gesture?
I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you think that traditional credit cards are much more secure, you're kidding yourself. Signatures are pretty useless, since 1. The merchant banks don't require us (businesses that accept credit cards) to check them against any other verified signature 2. A signature is easy to forge, especially when retail workers aren't handwriting experts 3. Merchant banks don't require us to do anything with the signed receipts once we have them. Our merchant bank requires, barring a real, physical card, to check the billing zip code, but even this information should be pretty easy to get. The only protection that credit cards have is the right to dispute charges. But since, these will also be credit cards, the same will apply. Therefore, these new gizmos will be about as secure as existing credit cards: they won't be.
I find it hard to believe that our gov't is willing to spend $200 Billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country for no good reason, but can't get their shit together enough to start arresting people for the avalanche of fraud online.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but there are many people who feel homosexuality is a mental disease[1]. Taken in this context, gay marriage is not something to be encouraged.
Well smack my ass and call me a bitch. I thought the US was about personal freedom. Whether or not you think that being gay is a "mental disease" is no reason to outlaw it. It harms nobody. That would be akin to politicians passing laws to outlaw Nascar because some of them do not like it.
I understand that there are people who don't agree with various issues. The problem I have is that these are issues that don't impact other people, yet they're being outlawed. It's akin to outlawing stamp collecting. Harmless activities that are, frankly, nobody else's business.
How is the USA becoming a "religious police state"?
Well, the country IS run by a "Born Again Christian", and he has vowed to attack abortion rights, gay marriage, and continue to slaughter other random countries without the consent of the rest of the world, and the feds can monitor the books that we buy and checkout from libraries.
Won't happen. It should, but it won't. As soon as rumblings start to appear in the press, there will be another "terrorist" attack designed to keep the sheeple properly frightened.
No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.
Of course not!! i believe the very act of porting the software to a linux machine would create the numbers they need!!!i don't think i only speak for myself when i say it feels like i am stuck with windows as long as i am trying to stay marketable in the graphics design world. Sure those of you Linux people might say, "Linux has a lot of software that acts like Photoshop..." But thats just not good enough... i promise, i for one would reformat this weekend if i could use the same graphics software on a Linux machine...
You've said the same thing about 100 other people have said in this thread. But, you're not thinking... you're ALREADY an Adobe customer. Why would they bother to port to Linux for you, and everybody else that says, "If I had Photoshop on Linux, I'd use Linux"? What do they stand to gain? You're not a new customer. If anything, they'd make LESS money, because they're not going to gain any new customers, but will have to spend ($100,000's?) to port to Linux.
Quick, be sure to get all of the various ways this study could be wrong posted before any Windows users say, "See I told you so!". Be sure to slander the company, cite bizarre statistical reasons, etc. This is the appropriate reaction for all Slashdot users any time an article mentioning ANY Linux flaws comes up. (Note: Any study that points out Windows problems, even if the study was conducted by a 12 year old and his friends should be affirmed immediately.)
I, quite honestly, believe that there is a real conspiracy between the Big 2 to make sure that there are only 2 "real" parties. I see them like Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they "compete" with each other, but in reality, both are in such massive positions of power, and a monopoly in either case (sodas or politics) is impossible, so the best possible position is to be completely entrenched with one rival that, like you, won't make any crazy sudden moves and will ensure that you have roughly half of the market (or voting populace). There's no substantial difference between the parties at all. It makes total and complete sense that would do anything and everything to prevent REAL change.
It's the polls that keep the 2 parties in power. It's the polls that the media spits out every 30 seconds that, if anything, tell voters with EACH AND EVERY POLL that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. The only way to get the rich, old white men out of office and their perpetual seat of power is to make polls illegal. Period. Outlaw them. They completely and totally obstruct the voting ideal. Let people vote for who they think is the best candidate. That's what democracy is all about, not trying to avoid "throwing away" one's vote on a 3rd party. Unfortunately, short of a revolution, I honestly don't think that anything will ever change.
Again, tin foil hat stuff. All they do is track when and how often you visit sites. I thought that this cookie paranoia was dead around 2000? You can always just not accept cookies if it's such a terrible thing. Also, setting cookies to expire in a year or two isn't going to reduce the number of cookies you have for at least several years, if that.
What's the big deal? It's a cookie. It's a few K text file. I don't care how many sites you visit, all of your cookies combined will never equal to half of one 3 1/2 minute (regular radio song) MP3. So, while I understand that you're bitching, you haven't said what, exactly, you're complaining about. This sounds like a tin foil hat issue to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as most people in the US obviously know (51%, actually), dinosaurs never existed, and the planet was created only about 3000 years ago, and took 7 days. So, all of this is a moot point. Your "science" is no match for the Bible, which is REAL "science" (which somebody actually told me previously, with a straight face).
Is that really what "mass" refers to in this context? I never even thought of it that way.
I don't know about you, but if the giant "conventional" bombs that the US uses on a regular basis don't cause "mass destruction", then we need to re-define the term.
I'm starting a new competition. I'm "challenging" 3000 college students to see who can clean my floors the best! The winner gets $20!! Competition my ass.
Or you could just NOT SHOP BIG BOX STORES, instead of whoring out your money and your rights to whoever will shave an extra $0.05. off the price.
The whole blogging thing has of course made an enormous impact on the Internet.
How, exactly? I see blogs as nothing but an earlier poster described... a bunch of dull people writing (poorly) about the minutae of their lives, with links to web sites they find interesting. How has this had an "enormous impact"?
Ah, I love to hear /.'ers clamoring for MORE variety in hardware and software. Those /.'ers are obviously not old enough to remember these days of computing, when finding software and parts for each brand and model of computer was next to impossible (requiring the giant Computer Shopper, eventually). Lack of compatibility was an absolute nightmare, and all the experts predicted that compatibility would bring about the Golden Age of PC's. I, for one, have no interest at all to go back to those days. I'm a big fan of buying generic computer parts or software, and they "just work". But, I guess if you never lived through that, and now have a fall back (Windows), I guess I can see the bizarre appeal of wanting to find esoteric OS's that all work differently (20,000 distributions of Linux that all work differently and require re-compiles of each software install).
I don't think that most people who download movies are watching them on a computer any more. With a $100 DVD Burner, $0.25 blank DVD, plus free (and awesome) DVD Shrink, you've got yourself a shiny new DVD movie.
HP symbolizes to me what happens when MBAs and Accountants run businesses.
As opposed to who? Techies? Techies that would demand open source everything, and drive the company into the ground faster than you can say "profit!" To lump all MBA's together is short sighted. In case you just fell off the turnip truck, almost every large business on the planet is run by MBA's. So before you go knocking an entire educational track, you should look into who runs the companies that made all of the computer stuff you posted with, or the people running the companies that you get your bandwidth from, or the people that run the companies that made the clothes you're wearing right now, etc.
No, people actually came running. It wasn't sound quality, but volume. There weren't too many audiophiles living in the dorm. But, people weren't used to hearing assault rifles & shotguns very loudly with no movie soundtrack. Again, this was Sound Blaster 1.0. So loud gun sounds, along with people yelling did the trick.
Good point. I never thought about that because I've always had at least one computer in my main living room along with my TV, stereo, PS2, etc. My computer has always been a part of my home entertainment stuff, so I never thought of putting a computer in a room without a stereo.
I remember using a Sound Blaster 1.0 about 10 years ago to play Doom 1 in my dorm room in college, and when I cranked the volume, we actually had the police show up at one point to investigate because everybody thought that there was real gunfire coming from somewhere.
The REAL future of PC audio is what smart people have been doing for years... getting a $3 rradio Shack cable, and plugging the computer into a real stereo amp. I don't understand the obsession with getting tiny, overpriced, shitty sounding computer speakers when even a basic stereo from Wal-Mart is going to sound better than even the best "computer speakers". I know, I know, everybody has their favorite computer speakers, but there is simply no replacement for displacement. Meaning, bigger speakers being driven by a real amp will almost ALWAYS sound better than any computer speakers.
High prices and having to deal with sketchy dealers?
Actually, you can thank your government for that. By making drugs highly illegal, they create a dangerous black market. Alcohol and tobacco are as physically dangerous as most illegal drugs, and much more harmful than marijuana, but there aren't high prices and sketchy dealers because they're legal. As soon as the US gets its head of it's ass (that'll take at least 4 years), and gets rid of all of its stupid drug laws, maybe we'll have a nice, safe market for currently illegal drugs.
I don't know who I dislike more, Monsanto or the Drug Cartels..
What is there to dislike about drug cartels? Seriously?
But seriously, shouldn't a monetary transaction require a signature and/or a passcode, not just a gesture?
I'm sorry to break it to you, but if you think that traditional credit cards are much more secure, you're kidding yourself. Signatures are pretty useless, since 1. The merchant banks don't require us (businesses that accept credit cards) to check them against any other verified signature 2. A signature is easy to forge, especially when retail workers aren't handwriting experts 3. Merchant banks don't require us to do anything with the signed receipts once we have them. Our merchant bank requires, barring a real, physical card, to check the billing zip code, but even this information should be pretty easy to get. The only protection that credit cards have is the right to dispute charges. But since, these will also be credit cards, the same will apply. Therefore, these new gizmos will be about as secure as existing credit cards: they won't be.
I find it hard to believe that our gov't is willing to spend $200 Billion to bomb the living fuck out of a country for no good reason, but can't get their shit together enough to start arresting people for the avalanche of fraud online.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but there are many people who feel homosexuality is a mental disease[1]. Taken in this context, gay marriage is not something to be encouraged.
Well smack my ass and call me a bitch. I thought the US was about personal freedom. Whether or not you think that being gay is a "mental disease" is no reason to outlaw it. It harms nobody. That would be akin to politicians passing laws to outlaw Nascar because some of them do not like it.
I understand that there are people who don't agree with various issues. The problem I have is that these are issues that don't impact other people, yet they're being outlawed. It's akin to outlawing stamp collecting. Harmless activities that are, frankly, nobody else's business.
How is the USA becoming a "religious police state"?
Well, the country IS run by a "Born Again Christian", and he has vowed to attack abortion rights, gay marriage, and continue to slaughter other random countries without the consent of the rest of the world, and the feds can monitor the books that we buy and checkout from libraries.
Civil War
Won't happen. It should, but it won't. As soon as rumblings start to appear in the press, there will be another "terrorist" attack designed to keep the sheeple properly frightened.
It's damn immature and pig-headed.
No, not at all. Personally, I don't want to live in a religious police state. I'm getting my financials ready and will be ready to go probably in the summer of 2005.
Of course not!! i believe the very act of porting the software to a linux machine would create the numbers they need!!!i don't think i only speak for myself when i say it feels like i am stuck with windows as long as i am trying to stay marketable in the graphics design world. Sure those of you Linux people might say, "Linux has a lot of software that acts like Photoshop..." But thats just not good enough... i promise, i for one would reformat this weekend if i could use the same graphics software on a Linux machine...
You've said the same thing about 100 other people have said in this thread. But, you're not thinking... you're ALREADY an Adobe customer. Why would they bother to port to Linux for you, and everybody else that says, "If I had Photoshop on Linux, I'd use Linux"? What do they stand to gain? You're not a new customer. If anything, they'd make LESS money, because they're not going to gain any new customers, but will have to spend ($100,000's?) to port to Linux.
Quick, be sure to get all of the various ways this study could be wrong posted before any Windows users say, "See I told you so!". Be sure to slander the company, cite bizarre statistical reasons, etc. This is the appropriate reaction for all Slashdot users any time an article mentioning ANY Linux flaws comes up. (Note: Any study that points out Windows problems, even if the study was conducted by a 12 year old and his friends should be affirmed immediately.)
I, quite honestly, believe that there is a real conspiracy between the Big 2 to make sure that there are only 2 "real" parties. I see them like Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they "compete" with each other, but in reality, both are in such massive positions of power, and a monopoly in either case (sodas or politics) is impossible, so the best possible position is to be completely entrenched with one rival that, like you, won't make any crazy sudden moves and will ensure that you have roughly half of the market (or voting populace). There's no substantial difference between the parties at all. It makes total and complete sense that would do anything and everything to prevent REAL change.
It's the polls that keep the 2 parties in power. It's the polls that the media spits out every 30 seconds that, if anything, tell voters with EACH AND EVERY POLL that voting 3rd party is a wasted vote. The only way to get the rich, old white men out of office and their perpetual seat of power is to make polls illegal. Period. Outlaw them. They completely and totally obstruct the voting ideal. Let people vote for who they think is the best candidate. That's what democracy is all about, not trying to avoid "throwing away" one's vote on a 3rd party. Unfortunately, short of a revolution, I honestly don't think that anything will ever change.
I vote Libertarian.
Again, tin foil hat stuff. All they do is track when and how often you visit sites. I thought that this cookie paranoia was dead around 2000? You can always just not accept cookies if it's such a terrible thing. Also, setting cookies to expire in a year or two isn't going to reduce the number of cookies you have for at least several years, if that.
What's the big deal? It's a cookie. It's a few K text file. I don't care how many sites you visit, all of your cookies combined will never equal to half of one 3 1/2 minute (regular radio song) MP3. So, while I understand that you're bitching, you haven't said what, exactly, you're complaining about. This sounds like a tin foil hat issue to me.