And what advantage does that give me? I'd still have to set up XP or (soon) Vista in a VM.
Its extra overhead so I can say I run linux. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being able to say I run linux, or have a mac, or whatever the trendy OS of the week is. The computer is a tool, nothing more. Sometimes, as much as it pains the linux crowd to hear it, Windows IS the better solution.
Sometimes linux just isn't an option. Seriously. As much as people here would like it to be the ultimate solution to everything, it isn't there yet, and likely never will be.
Sure, it'll do 90% of what I need to do. But it won't connect with the office due to propriatary software at the office, so its 100% useless for me.
Dual-booting is an extra headache I don't need and don't want to put up with, since outside of work I rarely do much besides some websurfing, and firefox and opera handle that task just fine regardless of OS.
RPGs are unguided, and as such this system would not stop one.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
I used examples from my experiences, based on where I grew up, and where I've lived since then.
In the mid west, the republicans are not the trailer park dwellers, the republicans are the ones bitching about having "those people" moving into their all-white suburbs, and those living in small towns and more rural areas. The "upper class" tend to be split depending on if they feel they have the right to spend everyone elses money or if they feel that the rest of the world can go to hell as long as they get their tax breaks. Inner city residents, trailer park residents, and most minorites around here tend to vote democrat, either because they actually need the social programs and health care, or expect handouts, or want to stick it to "those rich white honkeys", although no reason matches exclusivly with any category. Again, I am basing my conclusions on my experiences around here. Yours are obviously different.
As for the inner city residents and a large percentage of minorities not having the same experience and comfort level with computers, again from my experiences, it is a true statement. They're generally good people trying to make a living, but that living doesn't necessarily involve computers, even the touch-screen kind -- the fast food places around here still haven't moved to touch-screens, many libraries are still using the old card catalog + pull tag from book and stamp it systems instead of computerized systems, etc.
But hey, I'm in "fly-over country", so ignore me, since I'm just another "mouth breather" right? The difference is I'm willing to at least admit there's a problem with using computers for voting when large chunks of the population are not comfortable with it, and that the problems around here likely are the result of the environment people are in. Oh, and unlike your stereotypical "mouth breather" from "flyover country", I'm not a fundamentalist christian who thinks bush was sent to deliver this country from the hands of sinners, and I didn't vote for him or any of his buddies -- I'm an independant agnostic, and much hated because I'm one of a few people in town that DON'T go to church every sunday morning -- putting me squarely in the "those people" category that said upper-middle-class folks don't want in their neighborhoods.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
I think its likely, yes. Inner city populations tend to vote democrat. Minorities tend to vote democrat. Sadly, inner city and minority populations also tend to have shitty schools, and are not well off economically, so the likelyhood that they'll have even basic computer skills IS much lower than the upper-middle-class white suburbanite "typical" republican. There are exceptions of course.
It may not be politically-correct to say so, but its not hard to understand that people that are struggling to pay rent and feed themselves aren't going to have the same abilities as someone who's parents were accountants (or whatever) and have had computers around them since they could walk.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Parties (BOTH SIDES) need to realize that just because someone is registered republican or democrat doesn't mean they'll automatically vote for that side's candidate.
I only have the option of republican or democrat for registering here, so I picked republican, since when I registered, they were more closely aligned with my beliefs (funny how they've become a 2nd party of big government...but thats another rant). Its been more than a decade since I voted for a republican. And even longer since I voted for a democrat. But I'm sure the republicans see my name on their list and wrongly assume I'm going to be another pro-bush lackey. Is it shennanigans when they don't get as many votes as they expected? No, its stupidity for assuming their lists are anything close to correct. Same goes for the democrats. Put forth a candidate thats actually worth voting for, and has ANY platform other than "I'm not the other guy" and they might get a turn out closer to what they expect.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Yet its fairly well known that various polling agencies lean different directions. Some left, some right. Obviously the democrats prefer numbers from the left leaning companies, while the republicans prefer numbers from the right leaning companies.
There's no risk of Zogby losing business by consistantly favoring the democrats -- the republicans won't use them for polling anyway. Likewise, the company that foxnews always uses polls from (I forget their name) lean right, and they're not losing business since the democrats wouldn't use them anyway.
In any case, you can have the most honest polling person and company and it doesn't mean a damn thing if the person they're polling lie. I ignore exit pollsters, since my vote is my own, and is no one elses business (especially true in a small town where the exit poll takers are known to most of the population) but a lot of my friends will answer "democrat" when they voted independant, or "republican" when they voted democrat, etc. and are often happy about screwing with the exit polls. Why, I don't know, but they get their kicks from it.
The two sites I spend the most time browsing both serve up their own ads, since their site designs don't work with "normal" 3rd-party banner ad sizes. So for 90% of my web use, blocking ads DOES save bandwidth costs for the sites I'm looking at.
I don't buy based on ads. I don't do research based on ads. Why should I waste my bandwidth, AND YOURS, loading ads that are not going to result in a sale, or even a click for that matter? Bandwidth costs money. You should be thanking me for blocking ads and saving your business money, since there was no possibility of me clicking on the ad anyway.
And yes, I even block google ads, even though they are the least annoying. I still won't click them, so why bother with them in the first place?
While you have a point, there's also a lot of very high quality stuff out there, NOT produced by the "major players" for the simple reason that fetishes that are popular and legal, but still seen as deviant by society as a whole, and THAT content IS available for free on the p2p network of your choice.
Or so I'm told. I, of course, abide by our founding fathers vision that sex should always be missionary style, in the dark, and never talked about...
Or not. If two (or more) consenting adults want to have more fun, who am I to tell them not to? If they're not attractive I may not want to see it, but I'm not going to tell them they can't.:)
The problem is consoles do not have high end hardware by the time they make it to the shelves, and sometimes don't even have high end hardware in design, depending on the market the manufacturer is after.
Put another way: Consoles are finally running close to the resolutions that I was on my PC in 1996, because of hardware limitations that they were not able to free themselves from (using a tv instead of a dedicated display, like a computer monitor).
The Cell CPU was great while the PS3 was still on paper. Now its being outdone by mid-range PCs.
Bleeding edge, high end gaming will be the PC for quite a while to come, because PCs are upgradeable without a 5+ year wait for the next "generation" of boxes.
I don't want a PC in the entertainment center, for the simple reason that it won't fit.
I'm not going to buy another $1000+ entertainment center and a $500 computer when I can buy a $200 box that will accomplish the same thing, even though it wouldn't even dent the savings to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats great for you, but it still gives me ZERO advantage over just running XP or Vista natively other than saying "look at me, I run linux".
And what advantage does that give me? I'd still have to set up XP or (soon) Vista in a VM.
Its extra overhead so I can say I run linux. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being able to say I run linux, or have a mac, or whatever the trendy OS of the week is. The computer is a tool, nothing more. Sometimes, as much as it pains the linux crowd to hear it, Windows IS the better solution.
Sometimes linux just isn't an option. Seriously. As much as people here would like it to be the ultimate solution to everything, it isn't there yet, and likely never will be.
Sure, it'll do 90% of what I need to do. But it won't connect with the office due to propriatary software at the office, so its 100% useless for me.
Dual-booting is an extra headache I don't need and don't want to put up with, since outside of work I rarely do much besides some websurfing, and firefox and opera handle that task just fine regardless of OS.
You'd have to put a pro-linux spin on this before the EFF will give a damn.
Merely being anti-microsoft and anti-drm isn't enough to get the linux and open-source fanboys fired up enough to get the EFF to do anything.
You. Can if. You're. Captain Kirk.
It pays off for some people.
Their copyright won't expire in my lifetime, your lifetime, or likely even our kids' lifetimes.
Thanks to the Mouse and Sonny Bono, MS might as well own the software.
RPGs are unguided, and as such this system would not stop one.
I used examples from my experiences, based on where I grew up, and where I've lived since then.
In the mid west, the republicans are not the trailer park dwellers, the republicans are the ones bitching about having "those people" moving into their all-white suburbs, and those living in small towns and more rural areas. The "upper class" tend to be split depending on if they feel they have the right to spend everyone elses money or if they feel that the rest of the world can go to hell as long as they get their tax breaks. Inner city residents, trailer park residents, and most minorites around here tend to vote democrat, either because they actually need the social programs and health care, or expect handouts, or want to stick it to "those rich white honkeys", although no reason matches exclusivly with any category. Again, I am basing my conclusions on my experiences around here. Yours are obviously different.
As for the inner city residents and a large percentage of minorities not having the same experience and comfort level with computers, again from my experiences, it is a true statement. They're generally good people trying to make a living, but that living doesn't necessarily involve computers, even the touch-screen kind -- the fast food places around here still haven't moved to touch-screens, many libraries are still using the old card catalog + pull tag from book and stamp it systems instead of computerized systems, etc.
But hey, I'm in "fly-over country", so ignore me, since I'm just another "mouth breather" right? The difference is I'm willing to at least admit there's a problem with using computers for voting when large chunks of the population are not comfortable with it, and that the problems around here likely are the result of the environment people are in. Oh, and unlike your stereotypical "mouth breather" from "flyover country", I'm not a fundamentalist christian who thinks bush was sent to deliver this country from the hands of sinners, and I didn't vote for him or any of his buddies -- I'm an independant agnostic, and much hated because I'm one of a few people in town that DON'T go to church every sunday morning -- putting me squarely in the "those people" category that said upper-middle-class folks don't want in their neighborhoods.
I think its likely, yes. Inner city populations tend to vote democrat. Minorities tend to vote democrat. Sadly, inner city and minority populations also tend to have shitty schools, and are not well off economically, so the likelyhood that they'll have even basic computer skills IS much lower than the upper-middle-class white suburbanite "typical" republican. There are exceptions of course.
It may not be politically-correct to say so, but its not hard to understand that people that are struggling to pay rent and feed themselves aren't going to have the same abilities as someone who's parents were accountants (or whatever) and have had computers around them since they could walk.
Parties (BOTH SIDES) need to realize that just because someone is registered republican or democrat doesn't mean they'll automatically vote for that side's candidate.
I only have the option of republican or democrat for registering here, so I picked republican, since when I registered, they were more closely aligned with my beliefs (funny how they've become a 2nd party of big government...but thats another rant). Its been more than a decade since I voted for a republican. And even longer since I voted for a democrat. But I'm sure the republicans see my name on their list and wrongly assume I'm going to be another pro-bush lackey. Is it shennanigans when they don't get as many votes as they expected? No, its stupidity for assuming their lists are anything close to correct. Same goes for the democrats. Put forth a candidate thats actually worth voting for, and has ANY platform other than "I'm not the other guy" and they might get a turn out closer to what they expect.
Yet its fairly well known that various polling agencies lean different directions. Some left, some right. Obviously the democrats prefer numbers from the left leaning companies, while the republicans prefer numbers from the right leaning companies.
There's no risk of Zogby losing business by consistantly favoring the democrats -- the republicans won't use them for polling anyway. Likewise, the company that foxnews always uses polls from (I forget their name) lean right, and they're not losing business since the democrats wouldn't use them anyway.
In any case, you can have the most honest polling person and company and it doesn't mean a damn thing if the person they're polling lie. I ignore exit pollsters, since my vote is my own, and is no one elses business (especially true in a small town where the exit poll takers are known to most of the population) but a lot of my friends will answer "democrat" when they voted independant, or "republican" when they voted democrat, etc. and are often happy about screwing with the exit polls. Why, I don't know, but they get their kicks from it.
reading this one's postmortem in Game Developer or gamasutra in 12 months.
The two sites I spend the most time browsing both serve up their own ads, since their site designs don't work with "normal" 3rd-party banner ad sizes. So for 90% of my web use, blocking ads DOES save bandwidth costs for the sites I'm looking at.
She was on a boat. It was a bit nipply out too.
I don't buy based on ads. I don't do research based on ads. Why should I waste my bandwidth, AND YOURS, loading ads that are not going to result in a sale, or even a click for that matter? Bandwidth costs money. You should be thanking me for blocking ads and saving your business money, since there was no possibility of me clicking on the ad anyway.
And yes, I even block google ads, even though they are the least annoying. I still won't click them, so why bother with them in the first place?
The purpose is to force you to read the ad.
Yes, its annoying. But the geniuses in marketing deparments think that annoying ads correlate to good sales.
Or is it just a ploy to get people to not worry about it, thereby making the NRO's job easier by hiding it in plain sight.
And thats why p2p will never die.
While you have a point, there's also a lot of very high quality stuff out there, NOT produced by the "major players" for the simple reason that fetishes that are popular and legal, but still seen as deviant by society as a whole, and THAT content IS available for free on the p2p network of your choice.
:)
Or so I'm told. I, of course, abide by our founding fathers vision that sex should always be missionary style, in the dark, and never talked about...
Or not. If two (or more) consenting adults want to have more fun, who am I to tell them not to? If they're not attractive I may not want to see it, but I'm not going to tell them they can't.
when talking about money M usually means thousand, and MM million.
True for parts of the world, but not other parts.
The problem is consoles do not have high end hardware by the time they make it to the shelves, and sometimes don't even have high end hardware in design, depending on the market the manufacturer is after.
Put another way: Consoles are finally running close to the resolutions that I was on my PC in 1996, because of hardware limitations that they were not able to free themselves from (using a tv instead of a dedicated display, like a computer monitor).
The Cell CPU was great while the PS3 was still on paper. Now its being outdone by mid-range PCs.
Bleeding edge, high end gaming will be the PC for quite a while to come, because PCs are upgradeable without a 5+ year wait for the next "generation" of boxes.
Very well put.
But its worth a lot more if you can claim you see $diety in the mold thats growing on it.
Its not a cost thing for some people.
I don't want a PC in the entertainment center, for the simple reason that it won't fit.
I'm not going to buy another $1000+ entertainment center and a $500 computer when I can buy a $200 box that will accomplish the same thing, even though it wouldn't even dent the savings to do so.