um...that isn't the same computer at all, the one in the article had a dual amd64 3800 and that one you linked to had a celeron/pentium 4/pentium d...very different computers.
Hmmm, I don't think I'm really going to engage the first part of your argument, not because I'm disregarding it, but because it's a valid opinion that you are very entitled to (hey look, there's some of that horrible entitlement this country enjoys). I'll just say that I'm happy we live in a time and place when and where there is so much wealth that we can afford to spend some of it to make life easier for those who were not as fortunate as ourselves. And yes, I recognize your qualm with the usage of "equality" so I won't use it anymore, but what I don't have a problem with is a shop-owner spending 5,000 dollars to make his store more accessible to to handicapped people. He/She should have done it in the first place without being forced to, or the community, or a charity, but if it takes a governmental fire lit under the proverbial ass of America to make this a better place for a subset of its citizens for whom life is already terribly hard, and if the total cost is relatively low, then I don't think I have too much trouble with it. Even Adam Smith recognized that while the most free market creates the most wealth, it does not solve all of society's problems. But here I am, engaging your argument, when I simply meant to say "agree to disagree."
At least on that subject. I still think your whole thing with the money is silly. This is not the 1860's. We did not just have a Civil War during which time banks and people lost faith in the government due to uncertainty about which government to have faith in. This is post WWII America - superpower America. Yes, counterfeiting is still a huge problem, and the government has to deal with that, but people losing trust in the value of money? Really? Of course people who actually accept the money need to be trained in what it should look like, but everyone else just needs to have it taken from them in exchange from services. So I get my first goofy-European-looking 20 dollar bill from a bank teller or an ATM or a grandmother in a birthday card (like you - probably the latter). Of course I'm skeptical, after all it looks goofy and fake. Am I skeptical enough to not try giving it to someone? No. Does the person I give it to take it in exchange for goods or services? Yes, because they were trained to recognize the new bills. Voila, I have immediate faith in the new absurd looking 20 dollar bill. Each time this happens the faith increases. Like I said, this is not Abe Lincoln era America (though we may wish it were), we have the infrastructure and the information dissemination capabilities to train everyone in the country that must handle bills for a living, and people trust the government and the banks enough to at least accept the bills and *try* them and will gain immediate trust when they work.
Now, I agree that massive amounts of counterfeiting would throw a wrench in the entire system I just described, and as such, you have a valid, as you say, "for function's sake", argument if it is actually easier to counterfeit these bills. The difference here being a *real* rather than *perceived* corrosion in the value of money. So would it actually be easier to counterfeit these new bills. If they simply make them all colorful and change their size, I see no *technical* reason why it would be any easier or harder. If they do something fancy like make raised numbers (I don't really understand how they do that, I've never seen one, but people seem to talk about it, so I'll assume it's real) it seems to me that it would be slightly more difficult to fake. In any case, I can't see where any change of this nature would make it drastically easier or less costly to produce fake bills. You bring up a pretty good point in your creation-of-the-secret-service example in that the presence of many different "trusted" bills makes it more difficult to spot an "untrusted" bill, and you rightly qualify your statement by saying that this is a big problem for *untrained* people. I think you already know how I feel about our modern ability to train the people that need to be trained, and also about how unnecessary it is for untrained people to be able to spot a fake in the current market, so, while I am no longer baffled at your strong opinion, I now simply think it is silly.
...dude, if you're going to be one of those self-serving assholes that hasn't yet caught up to the modern virtue of the pursuit of equality for all whenever possible, at least don't be the bitter kind. You are one of these people that make so many good points but for some reason think they have to be all inflammatory to get them across and in doing so simply make themselves very hard to relate to.
And did you really just complain about how money looks? If you never use it, why do you care? Even if you do use it, why do you care? Is this just because it's a competition with other countries? Are you a teller or a cash register operator or someone else who is in a line of work in which it is important to be able to tell the difference between real and counterfeit money? I can't understand why you have such a strong opinion about this - it baffles me.
I'm with you ari_j, the original doesn't need "that" or "which" but I still don't think it was quite correct.
Proper spelling and grammar are unnatural constructs foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special.
It isn't correct to say "upper class tits that" because in this case "tits" are a group of people and must be referred to using "who."
This is definitely off topic, but I have always wondered about it when I heard it and maybe this is where someone can tell me. Why was the Nintendo 64 shipping without a disc drive "the biggest mistake in video game business history?" I have seen many people say this and it seems to be common knowledge but it does not make any sense to me. What are the advantages of CD/DVD again? At least in those days when you could fit an entire game on a ROM, tell me again why it was a bad idea? Because it didn't require ridiculous loading screens? Because it made life harder for piraters? I don't get it. Cartridges were faster and took up less room than CD's, why should anyone have switched until the very last moment when games became too large? I'm not trying to troll, I'm really interested.
It doesn't take more than few minutes (or few seconds using a script) to get them working and it's not really that hard.
First of all, even on Ubuntu, which is the easiest I have found, it *does* take more than a few minutes, and who in the world knows how to write a script or even what a script is? If Ubuntu, Mandriva, et al. want to get an actual stake in the desktop market they need to remove "script" from all but their most advanced vocabulary. Oh, sure, if you are familiar with the documentation or know where to look on the wiki, then it just takes a few minutes copying and pasting code to make everything work. This is still a few minutes too many and does not include the time it takes to figure out that things aren't working, figure out it isn't in the included help topics that come with the OS and search the internet for a solution.
Having said all of this, tools such as EasyUbuntu and Automatix are really coming along, and this problem may be close to being solved. I agree with you, there should be an icon on the desktop when the system is first installed, and it should point to a installed-by-default version of EasyUbuntu or Automatix or whatever Mandriva alternative there may be.
This is also the law in the United States. It is only legal to use social security numbers for tax purposes. Unfortunately, this law is completely unenforced and many people are completely unaware that they have the right to refuse disclosure of their SSN to anyone but employers. Of course, exercising this right causes a gigantic hassle and isn't really worth the extra time spent on the phone with managers et al.
I don't believe that libertarians fail to realize that on occasion the free market performs poorly. I think they believe that as the government steps in with social programs more often, people will come to expect such large-government intervention and politicians love to give people what they expect. Libertarians aren't all as dense and pig-headed as you make them out to be, they simply think it is a slippery slope towards full-out socialism and that they are very pig-headedly against.
the last thing we should be giving religious extremists is a Koran. It out and out tells them to kill the infidels (that'd be us.)...how come the people who recognize the cruelty of saddam's iraq and support his expulsion insist on showing their ignorance of Islam.
Or can we also blame the new testament for the people who have used it as a justification for killing of Jewish people throughout the centuries? Of course not, those people have grossly misinterpreted the bible.
The Quran is no more exempt from being used for evil than any other holy book.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."
- Blaise Pascal
Slashdot Mirror
um...that isn't the same computer at all, the one in the article had a dual amd64 3800 and that one you linked to had a celeron/pentium 4/pentium d ...very different computers.
Hmmm, I don't think I'm really going to engage the first part of your argument, not because I'm disregarding it, but because it's a valid opinion that you are very entitled to (hey look, there's some of that horrible entitlement this country enjoys). I'll just say that I'm happy we live in a time and place when and where there is so much wealth that we can afford to spend some of it to make life easier for those who were not as fortunate as ourselves. And yes, I recognize your qualm with the usage of "equality" so I won't use it anymore, but what I don't have a problem with is a shop-owner spending 5,000 dollars to make his store more accessible to to handicapped people. He/She should have done it in the first place without being forced to, or the community, or a charity, but if it takes a governmental fire lit under the proverbial ass of America to make this a better place for a subset of its citizens for whom life is already terribly hard, and if the total cost is relatively low, then I don't think I have too much trouble with it. Even Adam Smith recognized that while the most free market creates the most wealth, it does not solve all of society's problems. But here I am, engaging your argument, when I simply meant to say "agree to disagree."
At least on that subject. I still think your whole thing with the money is silly. This is not the 1860's. We did not just have a Civil War during which time banks and people lost faith in the government due to uncertainty about which government to have faith in. This is post WWII America - superpower America. Yes, counterfeiting is still a huge problem, and the government has to deal with that, but people losing trust in the value of money? Really? Of course people who actually accept the money need to be trained in what it should look like, but everyone else just needs to have it taken from them in exchange from services. So I get my first goofy-European-looking 20 dollar bill from a bank teller or an ATM or a grandmother in a birthday card (like you - probably the latter). Of course I'm skeptical, after all it looks goofy and fake. Am I skeptical enough to not try giving it to someone? No. Does the person I give it to take it in exchange for goods or services? Yes, because they were trained to recognize the new bills. Voila, I have immediate faith in the new absurd looking 20 dollar bill. Each time this happens the faith increases. Like I said, this is not Abe Lincoln era America (though we may wish it were), we have the infrastructure and the information dissemination capabilities to train everyone in the country that must handle bills for a living, and people trust the government and the banks enough to at least accept the bills and *try* them and will gain immediate trust when they work.
Now, I agree that massive amounts of counterfeiting would throw a wrench in the entire system I just described, and as such, you have a valid, as you say, "for function's sake", argument if it is actually easier to counterfeit these bills. The difference here being a *real* rather than *perceived* corrosion in the value of money. So would it actually be easier to counterfeit these new bills. If they simply make them all colorful and change their size, I see no *technical* reason why it would be any easier or harder. If they do something fancy like make raised numbers (I don't really understand how they do that, I've never seen one, but people seem to talk about it, so I'll assume it's real) it seems to me that it would be slightly more difficult to fake. In any case, I can't see where any change of this nature would make it drastically easier or less costly to produce fake bills. You bring up a pretty good point in your creation-of-the-secret-service example in that the presence of many different "trusted" bills makes it more difficult to spot an "untrusted" bill, and you rightly qualify your statement by saying that this is a big problem for *untrained* people. I think you already know how I feel about our modern ability to train the people that need to be trained, and also about how unnecessary it is for untrained people to be able to spot a fake in the current market, so, while I am no longer baffled at your strong opinion, I now simply think it is silly.
...dude, if you're going to be one of those self-serving assholes that hasn't yet caught up to the modern virtue of the pursuit of equality for all whenever possible, at least don't be the bitter kind. You are one of these people that make so many good points but for some reason think they have to be all inflammatory to get them across and in doing so simply make themselves very hard to relate to. And did you really just complain about how money looks? If you never use it, why do you care? Even if you do use it, why do you care? Is this just because it's a competition with other countries? Are you a teller or a cash register operator or someone else who is in a line of work in which it is important to be able to tell the difference between real and counterfeit money? I can't understand why you have such a strong opinion about this - it baffles me.
You are correct! **Bows head in respectful defeat**
It isn't correct to say "upper class tits that" because in this case "tits" are a group of people and must be referred to using "who."
This is definitely off topic, but I have always wondered about it when I heard it and maybe this is where someone can tell me. Why was the Nintendo 64 shipping without a disc drive "the biggest mistake in video game business history?" I have seen many people say this and it seems to be common knowledge but it does not make any sense to me. What are the advantages of CD/DVD again? At least in those days when you could fit an entire game on a ROM, tell me again why it was a bad idea? Because it didn't require ridiculous loading screens? Because it made life harder for piraters? I don't get it. Cartridges were faster and took up less room than CD's, why should anyone have switched until the very last moment when games became too large? I'm not trying to troll, I'm really interested.
First of all, even on Ubuntu, which is the easiest I have found, it *does* take more than a few minutes, and who in the world knows how to write a script or even what a script is? If Ubuntu, Mandriva, et al. want to get an actual stake in the desktop market they need to remove "script" from all but their most advanced vocabulary. Oh, sure, if you are familiar with the documentation or know where to look on the wiki, then it just takes a few minutes copying and pasting code to make everything work. This is still a few minutes too many and does not include the time it takes to figure out that things aren't working, figure out it isn't in the included help topics that come with the OS and search the internet for a solution.
Having said all of this, tools such as EasyUbuntu and Automatix are really coming along, and this problem may be close to being solved. I agree with you, there should be an icon on the desktop when the system is first installed, and it should point to a installed-by-default version of EasyUbuntu or Automatix or whatever Mandriva alternative there may be.
What does firefox do by default with its tabbing functionality? In my experience you have to make a concious effort to use tabs.
Why is parent modded funny? Perhaps there should be a "wryly astute" option.
This is also the law in the United States. It is only legal to use social security numbers for tax purposes. Unfortunately, this law is completely unenforced and many people are completely unaware that they have the right to refuse disclosure of their SSN to anyone but employers. Of course, exercising this right causes a gigantic hassle and isn't really worth the extra time spent on the phone with managers et al.
Just make sure not to put the Marx next to the Rand, they might rip each other to shreds.
I don't believe that libertarians fail to realize that on occasion the free market performs poorly. I think they believe that as the government steps in with social programs more often, people will come to expect such large-government intervention and politicians love to give people what they expect. Libertarians aren't all as dense and pig-headed as you make them out to be, they simply think it is a slippery slope towards full-out socialism and that they are very pig-headedly against.
But that is a whole different argument.
Did neither of you notice that his site clearly says "all fixed with 1.0.7"?
the last thing we should be giving religious extremists is a Koran. It out and out tells them to kill the infidels (that'd be us.) ...how come the people who recognize the cruelty of saddam's iraq and support his expulsion insist on showing their ignorance of Islam.
Or can we also blame the new testament for the people who have used it as a justification for killing of Jewish people throughout the centuries? Of course not, those people have grossly misinterpreted the bible.
The Quran is no more exempt from being used for evil than any other holy book.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction."
- Blaise Pascal