To make a choice of an "alternate" OS is a resultant [sic] of a person who researches and learns that facts [sic] BEFORE making a decision.
Ok, all politics aside, your statement is logically flawed, based on an assumption of only one right answer. A person who researches and learns the facts before making a decision is certainly to be commended, but the ultimate decision is not necessarily a foregone conclusion when discussing so subjective a topic as operating systems. While I've also been using Linux recently (Knoppix in particular) for my own use and by no means wish to disparage it, you need to realize that when someone conducts the necessary research and learns the facts so as to make an informed decision, said user will (hopefully) make the OS choice that's best for his or her circumstances and needs, not what you'd prefer them to choose. If they choose Linux, great; if they choose Windows, so be it, as long as it serves that individual's needs.
Mac users and other non-M$ OS users have a tendency to be a more informed than the M$ lemmings, therefore will make political choices that is based upon personal competence and responsibility rather than what the talking heads thrust on them.
I would disagree. I am not saying that Linux or Mac users aren't informed, but simply that using a particular OS does not in any way make a person informed. One has nothing to do with the other. I've personally known Mac advocates who were quite intelligent, and others who were dolts. I've also known the same spectrum among Windows users. Of course, MS' monopoly on new-computer OS sales guarantees many, many inexperienced users running Windows, because their brother or aunt or cousin also has a Windows box with AOL preinstalled or what-not.
My point is, OS choice is not a political statement. It's simply a matter of preference. This may come as a shock to extremists in both camps, but there really is room for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. Just ask anyone who dual-boots.:)
Bluetooth is a standard wireless protocol - they could have acheived everything they wanted, *WITHOUT* creating interference.
Logitech did make a Bluetooth-based wireless mouse. Almost bought one but didn't have the money for it, so I settled for the MX700 instead... which I'm now glad I did.
Why don't they invent a mouse that can sit in a charge-cradle, and use rechargable batteries.
You don't buy new hardware much, do ya? I'm using just such a mouse right now... well, not right now, I'm typing of course.:P
It's a Logitech MX700 optical wireless, it sits in a recharging cradle when not in use, goes for over a day without needing to be recharged (though I sit it in the cradle every night anyway), takes about half an hour to recharge fully (though 5 minutes will keep it going for hours), it's got spot-on precision and zero lag for games, and not to sound like a Logitech marketing droid, but I wouldn't trade it for ANY other mouse on the market. Even other Logitechs are crap to me compared to this baby.
Oh, and I've had it for over a year and a half, and haven't replaced the rechargable batteries yet -- still the original batteries that came with it.
It was about US$60 last year, so it's no doubt much lower now. Go get one, you'll be glad you did.
Australia has pretty strict laws around "unfair dismissal", making it tough for employers to sack someone for just being bad at their job...
Um, I don't know how things are in other countries (ie. just a "dumb Yank"), but here in the U.S., being bad at one's job is a damn good reason for termination. Seriously, if I'm not doing my job right, I can expect to be canned, and I should be. That's not unfair, it's sensible.
such as T.Rex, Allosaurus etc [...] I was not aware that this has been common knowledge for the last 20 years.
Something else that's been common knowledge for a few decades, at least among paleontology circles and enthusiasts, is that antrodemus hasn't been called allosaurus for many years. Y'know, like brontosaurus was renamed apatosaurus? Yeah, it's annoying when a commonly accepted animal name is changed suddenly, but geez, these were both decades ago. Catch up already.
I don't miss the difficulty of games from earlier eras. They usually felt difficult because the control was clumsy, not because you had to be a master of technique to get through.
While I thought most of your post was insightful, I must respectfully disagree on this point. I grew up playing many of the arcade games of the early 80's, and one of my favorites, out of many, was Joust. That game was difficult, but not because of clumsy controls. It was challenging in the purest sense. The controls were not only very simple but actually perfect for the gameplay in question, and to become a master at the game meant becoming a master of controlling the flight of your mount. Technique was everything -- without it, you'd be dismounted by your enemies very quickly. And while it was technically possible to memorize the onscreen appearance of your many opponents, you were far better served by mastering the controls and techniques required to dominate the vertical battlefield and therefore being able to react to any situation thrown at you. The real challange came from using the skills you'd learned against the numerous enemies, not from working around clumsy controls.
There are many other games, both in the arcades and on classic consoles, which rewarded the player who mastered the controls, but I think this one example makes my point. The best games had (have?) very tight, responsive controls, and then gradually let the player learn new skills and tricks as a result of mastering those controls.
C'mon Trip, that article had to be a joke. Nobody, not even Microsoft drones... er, employees... could possibly be gullible/brainwashed enough to believe something like that.
Yes, eventually, the tendency for war may be bred out of human beings.
That's a nice sentiment, but being a realist, I highly doubt it. Those most likely to procreate and carry on their national/societal traditions are -- surprise -- the victors in war. Ergo, unless everyone suddenly stops waging war, that aspect of humanity will never go away. Even in a war of survival, if the underdog wins, they're still continuing to preserve and replicate their ability and tendancy to not only wage war but to win.
Aaaand, I'm assuming by that the potential for a surfer to inadvertantly pick up a highjacker while browsing your site causes you to lose sleep? Wow. Take some Nytol or something, dude. It's Not That Friggin Important!
Damn, that is the funniest thing I've ever read on this site. And for all you mods out there who don't have a sense of humor, g'head, mod me down, I don't care. It's worth it!
But... but... Dr. Octavius already TRIED this, and if his non-magnetic metal arms can't contain the reaction and keep it from blowing up the world, WHO CAN?!
IN OTHER NEWS...
"France Now World's Largest Smoking Crater; Film at 11"
The fence you speak of is utterly fictional. Think about it. If God created the universe, then by definition he created the laws by which said universe functions, ergo he created what we humans call "science", that is, The Way The Universe Works.
So, if God created science, then how can science contradict or disprove God? It can't.
So tell me again about this fence, this debate. And don't try to feed me any crap about fossils being a "test of faith". Do you really choose to believe that the God you pray to would pull the wool over your eyes and plant evidence that is essentially a lie? Bare in mind, if it's the Christian God you believe in, then remember this one statement from the Bible you read: God hates lies. So, is the God you pray to a hypocrite, a liar, or both? Maybe you have no problem believing that God is so two-faced and practices double standards, so go ahead and pull the wool over your own eyes.
As a friend of mine is fond of saying, bullshit the tourist, buddy, I live here.
Though I am an athiest, I don't see how an understanding and acknowledgement of evolution in any way conflicts with the idea that there is some supreme being.
Very well said. And as someone who just happens to believe in God and has been a hard-core science enthusiest my entire life, I've long ago come to the conclusion that there is no conflict between science and religion. As someone else pointed out here, this is largely an imaginary debate that the over-zealous fundimentalists wish to invent so as to impose their beliefs upon others. The bible isn't a history book, nor is it a science textbook, it's a book about a philosophy of life.
Personally I hate what the fundies are doing. This kind of behavior only serves to bring an unnecessary backlash against the many religious people who strive for peaceful coexistance with all, who don't wear their religion on their sleeve, and who have no desire to impose beliefs upon others.
As for this idiotic notion by the fundies that fossils were put in the ground by God to test our faith... Hello? What kind of misleading, deceptive god do you worship?
Great quote from a fellow/.-er: "Keep your stickers out of my science book; I don't paste crap in your bible." Nuf said.
Slashdot Mirror
To make a choice of an "alternate" OS is a resultant [sic] of a person who researches and learns that facts [sic] BEFORE making a decision.
:)
Ok, all politics aside, your statement is logically flawed, based on an assumption of only one right answer. A person who researches and learns the facts before making a decision is certainly to be commended, but the ultimate decision is not necessarily a foregone conclusion when discussing so subjective a topic as operating systems. While I've also been using Linux recently (Knoppix in particular) for my own use and by no means wish to disparage it, you need to realize that when someone conducts the necessary research and learns the facts so as to make an informed decision, said user will (hopefully) make the OS choice that's best for his or her circumstances and needs, not what you'd prefer them to choose. If they choose Linux, great; if they choose Windows, so be it, as long as it serves that individual's needs.
Mac users and other non-M$ OS users have a tendency to be a more informed than the M$ lemmings, therefore will make political choices that is based upon personal competence and responsibility rather than what the talking heads thrust on them.
I would disagree. I am not saying that Linux or Mac users aren't informed, but simply that using a particular OS does not in any way make a person informed. One has nothing to do with the other. I've personally known Mac advocates who were quite intelligent, and others who were dolts. I've also known the same spectrum among Windows users. Of course, MS' monopoly on new-computer OS sales guarantees many, many inexperienced users running Windows, because their brother or aunt or cousin also has a Windows box with AOL preinstalled or what-not.
My point is, OS choice is not a political statement. It's simply a matter of preference. This may come as a shock to extremists in both camps, but there really is room for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS. Just ask anyone who dual-boots.
Bluetooth is a standard wireless protocol - they could have acheived everything they wanted, *WITHOUT* creating interference.
Logitech did make a Bluetooth-based wireless mouse. Almost bought one but didn't have the money for it, so I settled for the MX700 instead... which I'm now glad I did.
Why don't they invent a mouse that can sit in a charge-cradle, and use rechargable batteries.
:P
You don't buy new hardware much, do ya? I'm using just such a mouse right now... well, not right now, I'm typing of course.
It's a Logitech MX700 optical wireless, it sits in a recharging cradle when not in use, goes for over a day without needing to be recharged (though I sit it in the cradle every night anyway), takes about half an hour to recharge fully (though 5 minutes will keep it going for hours), it's got spot-on precision and zero lag for games, and not to sound like a Logitech marketing droid, but I wouldn't trade it for ANY other mouse on the market. Even other Logitechs are crap to me compared to this baby.
Oh, and I've had it for over a year and a half, and haven't replaced the rechargable batteries yet -- still the original batteries that came with it.
It was about US$60 last year, so it's no doubt much lower now. Go get one, you'll be glad you did.
A tad off-topic, but...
Australia has pretty strict laws around "unfair dismissal", making it tough for employers to sack someone for just being bad at their job...
Um, I don't know how things are in other countries (ie. just a "dumb Yank"), but here in the U.S., being bad at one's job is a damn good reason for termination. Seriously, if I'm not doing my job right, I can expect to be canned, and I should be. That's not unfair, it's sensible.
such as T.Rex, Allosaurus etc [...] I was not aware that this has been common knowledge for the last 20 years.
Something else that's been common knowledge for a few decades, at least among paleontology circles and enthusiasts, is that antrodemus hasn't been called allosaurus for many years. Y'know, like brontosaurus was renamed apatosaurus? Yeah, it's annoying when a commonly accepted animal name is changed suddenly, but geez, these were both decades ago. Catch up already.
[end terminology-nazi rant]
Is it just me or do the countries chosen for the launch seem kind of strange. I mean France...
Well, if Microsoft are gonna conquer anybody without firing a shot, I can't think of a better place to start...
Um, was that out loud?
I don't miss the difficulty of games from earlier eras. They usually felt difficult because the control was clumsy, not because you had to be a master of technique to get through.
While I thought most of your post was insightful, I must respectfully disagree on this point. I grew up playing many of the arcade games of the early 80's, and one of my favorites, out of many, was Joust. That game was difficult, but not because of clumsy controls. It was challenging in the purest sense. The controls were not only very simple but actually perfect for the gameplay in question, and to become a master at the game meant becoming a master of controlling the flight of your mount. Technique was everything -- without it, you'd be dismounted by your enemies very quickly. And while it was technically possible to memorize the onscreen appearance of your many opponents, you were far better served by mastering the controls and techniques required to dominate the vertical battlefield and therefore being able to react to any situation thrown at you. The real challange came from using the skills you'd learned against the numerous enemies, not from working around clumsy controls.
There are many other games, both in the arcades and on classic consoles, which rewarded the player who mastered the controls, but I think this one example makes my point. The best games had (have?) very tight, responsive controls, and then gradually let the player learn new skills and tricks as a result of mastering those controls.
I can see it now:
"When you use Firefox, you are supporting terrorism!"
It's the kind of funny that makes you want to laugh and cry simultaneously.
Hey Slashdot eds, we need a mod option for "+1, Sad-but-true".
C'mon Trip, that article had to be a joke. Nobody, not even Microsoft drones... er, employees... could possibly be gullible/brainwashed enough to believe something like that.
...could they??
There's always Starcraft.
:)
And that's a bad thing how?
Am I the only one thinking "holy crap I could buy a half-decent PC for that price?!"
Can't have people without money cured too, because if we do cure them, why would people with money pay for treatment ?
Damn, none of my mod points will do "+1, Insightfully Cynical"...
What's a torrent file?
:/
Score:-1, Sad
there is no such thing as a centrifugal force
Not so, Grasshopper:
http://www.tfd.com/centrifugal+force
Yes, eventually, the tendency for war may be bred out of human beings.
That's a nice sentiment, but being a realist, I highly doubt it. Those most likely to procreate and carry on their national/societal traditions are -- surprise -- the victors in war. Ergo, unless everyone suddenly stops waging war, that aspect of humanity will never go away. Even in a war of survival, if the underdog wins, they're still continuing to preserve and replicate their ability and tendancy to not only wage war but to win.
Sad but true.
Man, you have put waaaaaaaaaay too much thought into this.
Seriously... you're scaring me. Go play Doo-- er, Counter-Strike, or something.
Geez.
Did anybody else read the title as "Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Potato"?
No?
Ummm... nevermind.
Aaaand, I'm assuming by that the potential for a surfer to inadvertantly pick up a highjacker while browsing your site causes you to lose sleep? Wow. Take some Nytol or something, dude. It's Not That Friggin Important!
I hate to respond to a sig, but...
Damn, that is the funniest thing I've ever read on this site. And for all you mods out there who don't have a sense of humor, g'head, mod me down, I don't care. It's worth it!
Just. Fucking. Classic.
Is it me, or is all of this making a great case for developing transporter technology...?
Heisenburg won't mind...
But... but... Dr. Octavius already TRIED this, and if his non-magnetic metal arms can't contain the reaction and keep it from blowing up the world, WHO CAN?!
...spidey sense... tingling...
IN OTHER NEWS...
"France Now World's Largest Smoking Crater; Film at 11"
"Warning: You have reached the End Of The Internet. Please turn back... Now."
So, if God created science, then how can science contradict or disprove God? It can't.
So tell me again about this fence, this debate. And don't try to feed me any crap about fossils being a "test of faith". Do you really choose to believe that the God you pray to would pull the wool over your eyes and plant evidence that is essentially a lie? Bare in mind, if it's the Christian God you believe in, then remember this one statement from the Bible you read: God hates lies. So, is the God you pray to a hypocrite, a liar, or both? Maybe you have no problem believing that God is so two-faced and practices double standards, so go ahead and pull the wool over your own eyes.
As a friend of mine is fond of saying, bullshit the tourist, buddy, I live here.
And a propos is two words, not one.
Very well said. And as someone who just happens to believe in God and has been a hard-core science enthusiest my entire life, I've long ago come to the conclusion that there is no conflict between science and religion. As someone else pointed out here, this is largely an imaginary debate that the over-zealous fundimentalists wish to invent so as to impose their beliefs upon others. The bible isn't a history book, nor is it a science textbook, it's a book about a philosophy of life.
Personally I hate what the fundies are doing. This kind of behavior only serves to bring an unnecessary backlash against the many religious people who strive for peaceful coexistance with all, who don't wear their religion on their sleeve, and who have no desire to impose beliefs upon others.
As for this idiotic notion by the fundies that fossils were put in the ground by God to test our faith... Hello? What kind of misleading, deceptive god do you worship?
Great quote from a fellow /.-er: "Keep your stickers out of my science book; I don't paste crap in your bible." Nuf said.