Yes, but that's clearly what the management want. They themselves abuse the moderation system, penalising accounts of people who are anti-OSS, and penalising people who don't click on adverts.
Slashdot has never been a site free of censorship and corruption, editors will hobble the account of someone they don't agree with then a minute later post a furious article about Australia censoring Internet users.
I personally can't comprehend how people become so attached to celebrities that they collect things about or belonging to them. Or in the case of a musician (er most likely bad singer) go to an event with the person and scream so much they don't even hear the music-- what are they really there for?
Perhaps because they enjoy it, because it brings them more pleasure than sitting at home trying to analyse other people's behaviour in a transparent declaration of superiority? Not everything you do has to have a logical reason behind it. There are a lot of things I don't enjoy but I don't imply that other people are stupid for enjoying it.
Get over yourself, you're not better than other people. I'm sure you do lots of things that other people think are pointless.
I think the real idiots are the nerds who think that because they happen to spend so much of their lives at the computer that they're a fucking god, and everyone who spends less than 12 hours a day reading Linux manuals is an idiot, as if they only true measure of intelligence and self-worth is how good you are at computers.
What is it about computers and egos? Computers are only one of millions of different tools in the world, why is it that computer 'experts' think they're above everyone, that they can ignore copyright law, that they can do nothing in school because the work's 'below them', that they're entitled to at least 100k/year wages even with no experience just because they can write bash scripts, I can't think of many other fields of expertise where people behave like this.
I suspect it's due to the poor social skills of nerds and/or their lack of exposure to real life. All that time stuck behind a computer really takes it toll. Also the dot-com boom gave nerds a false sense of inflated-worth. They learnt that they were made out of gold, but now that's over they haven't adjusted to a life where they on average will make less money than a humble plumber covered in shit. Now they're a commodity which can be outsourced to India which makes things even worse. Reality will be a bitter pill to swallow.
Also this post's already at -1 so you Nazi nerd moderators who think you're gods because you spend your life on slashdot can't try to censor it.
I think this discussion begs the question of whether it's a good thing or not that copyrights last for seemingly indefinite amounts of time. Surely if you've come up with something yourself, you deserve rights over it forever? Why should copyrighted works be released unless the owner wants it?
The main problem with leaving the case cover off is the increased noise
The main problem is dust. I've got the side of my computer off, and when I do that, the computer collects lots of dust. So much so that the computer occasionally freezes up and makes a funny noise when accessing the disks.
The problem is solved by blowing out all of the dust.
I think it's pretty shameful that you're expected to cough up for new versions of your software every few years, or pay an extortion tax for upgrades, just to keep your computer running. What happened to the days when you could have a system and it would work for years and years, only being patched and fixed, and only upgraded when new features were vital, without a constant forced hardware/software upgrade cycle designed to make people more money than they deserve?
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft (and other software makers) deliberately made shoddy, insecure software so they could charge people to upgrade.
Can someone please explain how Microsoft has been anything other than a complete and utter disaster for the computer industry?
Erm, the rich actually get LESS out of the system, but pay more. They are far less likely to use public healthcare, public education, they don't get any benefits or handouts. They pay more but get less. That's obscene. Income tax should be capped at 5k or so. Any shortfalls can be sorted out by abolishing all benefits and the NHS.
And then the webmaster replies: "We are sorry, but Internet Explorer is the only browser supported by our website blah blah blah etc."
And for your next trick?
So what servers are there that are available for Linux but aren't available for Windows? Also I thought we were comparing Linux to XP home edition? I don't think grandma will be using apache.
Windows still has the better media players, Linux doesn't yet have any mpeg players that work as fluently as the media player that comes with Windows 98, and some Linux distros don't even play MP3s.
As for office suites, well Linux can't run MS Office at all, let alone provite it with the distro, and that's the only office suite that matters. I installed the latest open office last week, and I'm sorry but it's a complete nightmare compared even to MS Office 97.
You'll find that XP has plenty of cheese games, and also all of the decent ones as well. No-one installs Linux as a gamer's OS.
I don't anywhere recall George Bush calling for the deaths of Iraqi children, nor do I see him excusing their deliberate killing. You're confusing deliberate abortions with accidental deaths in war. I think you're being obtuse in order to find a stick to bash Bush with, but you're not debating honestly.
Cheap shots and lame jokes aside, you have to wonder about the character of a person who wants a load of buildings named after himself. Is he donating this money to be kind or to get his name mentioned a lot?
There's nothing contradictory about that. He thinks that unborn feotuses shouldn't be aborted, and he thinks that some wars are justified, there is no contradiction there. You might have a point if he had a policy of deliberately killing random people, but it's not like he set out to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticise George Bush, you don't need to resort to cheap shots.
On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.
Science on the other hand builds a view of the universe by observing it and constructing logical theories to explain it. If a theory is shown to be false, it is changed, scientists seek a better theory rather than sticking to the old one even when it has been proven false.
This is why science and religion can never co-exist. Science means challenging long-held theories whereas religion means having 'faith' in them no matter what.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
Neither does religion. Religions can't make people more moral, all they do is brainwash people in thinking certain actions are moral and certain actions are immoral. Whether they are or not is irrelevent, if that's what the old religious leaders who wrote the Bible, Koran etc. thought, that's what you have to think yourself if you follow the religion. There is no room for actually deciding whether something is moral or not, you just follow the dogma and persecute anyone who doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
But then hundreds of millions of people vote in the US election. I think about half a dozen turned out for the EU election.
Yes, but that's clearly what the management want. They themselves abuse the moderation system, penalising accounts of people who are anti-OSS, and penalising people who don't click on adverts.
Slashdot has never been a site free of censorship and corruption, editors will hobble the account of someone they don't agree with then a minute later post a furious article about Australia censoring Internet users.
The problem with software is though, if MS stopped selling software in the EU, everyone would just pirate it.
I personally can't comprehend how people become so attached to celebrities that they collect things about or belonging to them. Or in the case of a musician (er most likely bad singer) go to an event with the person and scream so much they don't even hear the music-- what are they really there for?
Perhaps because they enjoy it, because it brings them more pleasure than sitting at home trying to analyse other people's behaviour in a transparent declaration of superiority? Not everything you do has to have a logical reason behind it. There are a lot of things I don't enjoy but I don't imply that other people are stupid for enjoying it.
Get over yourself, you're not better than other people. I'm sure you do lots of things that other people think are pointless.
I think the real idiots are the nerds who think that because they happen to spend so much of their lives at the computer that they're a fucking god, and everyone who spends less than 12 hours a day reading Linux manuals is an idiot, as if they only true measure of intelligence and self-worth is how good you are at computers.
What is it about computers and egos? Computers are only one of millions of different tools in the world, why is it that computer 'experts' think they're above everyone, that they can ignore copyright law, that they can do nothing in school because the work's 'below them', that they're entitled to at least 100k/year wages even with no experience just because they can write bash scripts, I can't think of many other fields of expertise where people behave like this.
I suspect it's due to the poor social skills of nerds and/or their lack of exposure to real life. All that time stuck behind a computer really takes it toll. Also the dot-com boom gave nerds a false sense of inflated-worth. They learnt that they were made out of gold, but now that's over they haven't adjusted to a life where they on average will make less money than a humble plumber covered in shit. Now they're a commodity which can be outsourced to India which makes things even worse. Reality will be a bitter pill to swallow.
Also this post's already at -1 so you Nazi nerd moderators who think you're gods because you spend your life on slashdot can't try to censor it.
I think this discussion begs the question of whether it's a good thing or not that copyrights last for seemingly indefinite amounts of time. Surely if you've come up with something yourself, you deserve rights over it forever? Why should copyrighted works be released unless the owner wants it?
Yeah, but the main thing that hotmail has over gmail is that you can actually sign up for an account, which makes it 100% more usable.
For the benefit of non-canadians, what the fuck is poutine?
The main problem with leaving the case cover off is the increased noise
The main problem is dust. I've got the side of my computer off, and when I do that, the computer collects lots of dust. So much so that the computer occasionally freezes up and makes a funny noise when accessing the disks.
The problem is solved by blowing out all of the dust.
I think it's pretty shameful that you're expected to cough up for new versions of your software every few years, or pay an extortion tax for upgrades, just to keep your computer running. What happened to the days when you could have a system and it would work for years and years, only being patched and fixed, and only upgraded when new features were vital, without a constant forced hardware/software upgrade cycle designed to make people more money than they deserve?
I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft (and other software makers) deliberately made shoddy, insecure software so they could charge people to upgrade.
Can someone please explain how Microsoft has been anything other than a complete and utter disaster for the computer industry?
That's a really convoluted way of finding something. And you need to take into account the really long time it takes for wikipedia to serve a page.
Erm, the rich actually get LESS out of the system, but pay more. They are far less likely to use public healthcare, public education, they don't get any benefits or handouts. They pay more but get less. That's obscene. Income tax should be capped at 5k or so. Any shortfalls can be sorted out by abolishing all benefits and the NHS.
Not quite. More like:
4. Original owner reports to police.
5. Police write down some things.
6. Original owner gives up months later and buys new bike.
7. Profit!!!!
But then mine plan's based on the real world rather than some utopian paradise where the police actually do anything other than fine motorists.
People with this 'I'm alright Jack' attitude usually change their minds when they're the ones who end up losing money off their pay.
And then the webmaster replies: "We are sorry, but Internet Explorer is the only browser supported by our website blah blah blah etc." And for your next trick?
Compared to Linux-using girls, that's pretty slim.
So what servers are there that are available for Linux but aren't available for Windows? Also I thought we were comparing Linux to XP home edition? I don't think grandma will be using apache.
Windows still has the better media players, Linux doesn't yet have any mpeg players that work as fluently as the media player that comes with Windows 98, and some Linux distros don't even play MP3s.
As for office suites, well Linux can't run MS Office at all, let alone provite it with the distro, and that's the only office suite that matters. I installed the latest open office last week, and I'm sorry but it's a complete nightmare compared even to MS Office 97.
You'll find that XP has plenty of cheese games, and also all of the decent ones as well. No-one installs Linux as a gamer's OS.
One fatal flaw in your plan: If we spent the money instead on going to Mars, where would we get the money for invading and occupying Iraq?
I don't anywhere recall George Bush calling for the deaths of Iraqi children, nor do I see him excusing their deliberate killing. You're confusing deliberate abortions with accidental deaths in war. I think you're being obtuse in order to find a stick to bash Bush with, but you're not debating honestly.
Cheap shots and lame jokes aside, you have to wonder about the character of a person who wants a load of buildings named after himself. Is he donating this money to be kind or to get his name mentioned a lot?
He's also pro-life AND pro-war, go figure.
There's nothing contradictory about that. He thinks that unborn feotuses shouldn't be aborted, and he thinks that some wars are justified, there is no contradiction there. You might have a point if he had a policy of deliberately killing random people, but it's not like he set out to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible.
There are plenty of legitimate ways to criticise George Bush, you don't need to resort to cheap shots.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive
On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged, for example Christians cannot challenge what is written in the Bible, even if it is obviously false. Religion tries to explain things by making up absurd stories about gods rather than looking for the simplest logical explanations. Even when these stories are found to be false, anyone claiming such is persecuted.
Science on the other hand builds a view of the universe by observing it and constructing logical theories to explain it. If a theory is shown to be false, it is changed, scientists seek a better theory rather than sticking to the old one even when it has been proven false.
This is why science and religion can never co-exist. Science means challenging long-held theories whereas religion means having 'faith' in them no matter what.
As elegant as science is, and as helpful as it has been to the world around us, it has no room for things like morality.
Neither does religion. Religions can't make people more moral, all they do is brainwash people in thinking certain actions are moral and certain actions are immoral. Whether they are or not is irrelevent, if that's what the old religious leaders who wrote the Bible, Koran etc. thought, that's what you have to think yourself if you follow the religion. There is no room for actually deciding whether something is moral or not, you just follow the dogma and persecute anyone who doesn't.