Cause this whole global warming thing is a farce. The penguins, well, they just want to get in on the new housing market.
The people who, along with the oil companies, pretend global warming isn't happening, deserve worse than losing office. They deserve some seriously sinister shit, at this point.
They deserve badness. Personally, and in their homes. They deserve badness. While their children watch, in the middle of the night, these people deserve the equivalent of what they do to everyone else. They deserve the worst. The most abominible thing you can think of is too good for these things. They aren't people, they're animals.
The worst thing you can do to them is too good for them.
It's time to find their names and addresses. It's time to find them in the middle of the night, and make it happen so fast the police don't even have a chance to get there in time. We can do it. We can end them.
It's just like writing a program. We find them, we execute, and the program is gone from memory, just like that.
There is nothing sinister going on here... if the NYT is upset, they should have just interviewed the National Security Council employee instead of using that individual as a co-author.
The thing is, I like to be able to play games on my home computer. Any old game I see at the store. I want to be able to play it. A home computer is half about entertainment. Windows has no competition in that area. They just don't.
I use Linux daily at work, but, I have no driving need to have a Linux box at home. I don't do that much worky stuff at home. I'm already burned out after doing it all day at work (and if I need to do more work, I can ssh in with Cygwin from home). And you really can't game on Linux. Yes, I'm sure some games are compatible with various Linuxes (the only one that comes to mind is Puzzle Pirates, and that's because it's written in Java), and I guess there's Windows emulation. But let's be honest. You're not gaming on Linux.
Mac, well. I can honestly never see myself owning one. If I was going to go another OS, it would be Linux for its flexibility. Apple just makes me nervous with all its proprietary stuff. I know lots of people own Macs and are happy with them. But the number of programs in general that are written for Mac is too tiny for me, games especially.
I have a box of junk in the corner with a bunch of games in it, and out of curiousity, I pulled them out while writing this, just to see which were compatible with Mac right out of the box... not with some lameass windows emulation that will run it at 1/10 speed, but actual Mac compatibility. Everquest (and about 7 expansions): Windows. Yeah, there was a Mac version a few years ago, where you get to play on your very own Mac server. Good luck with that. GTA: Vice City: Windows. Knights of the Old Republic: Windows. Dark Age of Camelot: Windows. There are plenty more in the closet. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only one in my entire collection that is compatible with Mac right out of the box is World of Warcraft.
But I hate World of Warcraft.
Sorry, but, my home box is my entertainment. And Microsoft knows it too. They agressively pursue the gaming angle with developer tools. Now they've got XNA, with the goal being to write a game once and have it play on both xbox or windows with a minimum of development fuss.
They know where their dollars are coming from. They court the market, because they know geeks like me would flee if Linux could entertain me even 1/100th as much. So what I'm saying is no, no there is no Windows competition, not in my market.
I'm not sure if this would work at 40% -- might realistically need to be a bit higher -- but anyway, here's a thought. Energy can be transmitted in the form of microwaves, right?
It better be better. That's what upgrades and new releases are for.
Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for. I'm sticking with XP until I'm absolutely forced to upgrade in 5 years or so because nothing has XP support anymore. I mean, give me a break. There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart. It's an OS, not Doom 3.
Seriously. If you want to look at the "symptoms", being an MMOG addict is more like joining a cult: you've got all these new friends, you've got to learn all these new things... instead of knowing verse 3.14, you need to know the cleric's level 44 spells. OMFG, you don't have Celestial Healing?
But in our cult, you get to kill dragons, not wait for a judgement day that just never seems to come (next year maybe!). Yes, you lose touch with family like a real cult-- guildies will even scorn you for leaving for family time ("WTF, you're logging? Come on, we've been planning this raid all week. We need your DPS, dude.").
In our cult, we don't go door to door spouting crazy nonsense that would get our asses kicked if people didn't feel so bad for us. We stay indoors, like good crazy people should.
And like a real cult, the other members may feel real sadness and loss when you have to "disconnect". "What do you mean FlowerGirl quit cause of RL issues? But she... but she... she was our recruitment officer, and she laughed at my jokes:("
I think what you're saying is that this would be easier than paper because it would avoid all the jamming and stuff, right?
I don't know, I'm not a Xerox tech. What I can tell you is that it would bring with it a host of new problems, like any new technology. The question is, are all these new problems worth it? My bet is no. I'm not a business wiz, but I know what I would think, and what my managers would think: "We know how to deal with paper jams, ink shortages, and people occaisionally sticking their penis in the copy machine. But are we willing to buy a new system, using paper that degrades after 10 uses, and only lasts 16 hours, and hiring/training/paying for support to make sure it works, and changing the office practices around it?"
I'm thinking no. They would not go for that, and neither would I.
I'm all for a greener world and workplace-- in fact, I work at a company whose business is eco-friendliness. But this, this just won't fly.
A neat idea that will never, ever, ever get used in a million years by any office that I know of.
I appreciate the sentiment, but business is about getting business done. The first time work was lost because someone left the memo on their desk for more than xxx hours would be the end of the system. I can imagine some cruel managers getting a kick out of it, but that's about it.
The "paperless office" was a 100x better idea than this (and an idea that's not entirely dead, either. I telecommute, and my office is 99.9% paperless).
Just because they don't dominate every market doesn't they're "losing". As a business, if they're making money stably (and boy, are they), they're winning. Period. They're just doing it in different ways.
I can tell you one way they're winning: when Google releases something new, I pay attention, because there's a good chance I'll like it more than what the competition offers. They've got my brand loyalty by not sucking.
Gmail: I don't know the numbers on whether it's beating Yahoo, Hotmail and AOL (doubt it), but I know it beats all of them in usability. Hotmail? Right, give me some more buggy javascript, annoying hooks into Messenger, and ads that make my brain seize. Yahoo just turns me off because it seems like everything Yahoo runs too slow. I never bothered even trying it. AOL? Heh.
Chat: Yahoo and Windows chat are ridiculously bloated and annoying pieces of software. Give me one reason that a chat program should suck so much memory and do so many annoying things. AOL chat? Heh. I'm just including AOL as a joke at this point; I wouldn't know, I haven't used it since 1995. Google chat is sleek, simple.
APIs/development: No surprise here, Google's APIs are the best (speaking as a programmer). Yahoo is actually not too far behind in this area-- I know that at least one of their APIs beats Google, and that's the geocoding API. They give better accuracy-- I've tested this myself as part of my job. That would be great except for one thing... Google's API allows 50,000 requests per day, Yahoo's only 5,000. Therefore, I have to stick with Google for the bulk of work, going to Yahoo only to correct hard to find addresses.
Mapping: A small subcategory maybe, but Google beats the rest here easily. Google maps are just cooler, faster, easier to use.
I'll stop there because this is starting to sound like a slashvertisement. But in my mind they're winning in every area that counts. If the majority of people stick with Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL, it's their loss, and maybe this is the one place Google is loosing: the constant, unceasing barrage of advertisement that keeps companies like AOL in business by recruiting customers too clueless to know any better.
I'm not one to take the side of the US in the "US vs. World" debates, but in this case, the US form makes more sense. Putting the year first in a date is a waste of reading time because you always know what year it is. Putting it last lets the eye read it more quickly-- you see the month and day, and comment out the rest (except in languages that read right to left, but I'm pretty sure they don't use our char set).
Minor point, maybe. Personally, I have a job that requires me to read 50-100 dates a day, and input about a third of that. So yeah. The US form takes this round. But I'm with you on the metric system, and Dr. Who.
Firefox bugs me. It always has. I only use it when I need something like its Javascript console (which is not better than IEs, it just presents the errors in a less annoying way). I just don't like it.
The way it handles some javascript events, like onFocus(), is buggy and whacked. The way it handles a lot of events is buggy and whacked. To get around it, I have to put Firefox-specific fixes in the CSS and elsewhere. I'm not talking about the infamous AJAX code forking-- that's different, and to be expected by now. This is purely for Firefox.
I had to alter my version of the Google Maps API just for Firefox. When I went in, I was shocked to find it wasn't my code that was broken... it was Google's. Guess which line was breaking it? The line that was supposed to make it compatible with IE. I'm assuming it's been fixed in newer versions of the API, but it raised an eyebrow.
There are bugs all over the place that you never see until you try to write for it. If you want to brag about how stable, fast, reliable, etc Firefox is, then fix all that crap first. "Fast" definitely doesn't apply to my development time.
I like the way it handles some things, like page layout. The way it arranges things on screen makes more sense than IE, sometimes. And it does render pages faster. But that's balanced out by all the things that annoy me about it.
Not everyone thinks Firefox is god's gift to Geeks. Deal with it. Call me when it starts to live up to its hype.
Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me. Then this idiot will be in charge for the remainder of his term, and every time he does something I don't like (all the time), I'll be told it's my fault because "it's a democracy".
Then, I'll have to hope the election doesn't get hijacked.
A party system isn't democracy, it's crap. Washington was the only one who had it right: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another..."
Slashdot Mirror
The people who, along with the oil companies, pretend global warming isn't happening, deserve worse than losing office. They deserve some seriously sinister shit, at this point.
They deserve badness. Personally, and in their homes. They deserve badness. While their children watch, in the middle of the night, these people deserve the equivalent of what they do to everyone else. They deserve the worst. The most abominible thing you can think of is too good for these things. They aren't people, they're animals.
The worst thing you can do to them is too good for them.
It's time to find their names and addresses. It's time to find them in the middle of the night, and make it happen so fast the police don't even have a chance to get there in time. We can do it. We can end them.
It's just like writing a program. We find them, we execute, and the program is gone from memory, just like that.
You're a fucking idiot.
Yeah, that last line was supposed to be the voice of the MS programmers. Sometimes I wish we had edit buttons round here.
MS: It seemed like a good idea at the time.
Public: In what way did it seem like a good idea?
MS: Well, maybe not a good idea, but an idea.
Public: So thinking was involved.
MS: Well, it was more like inspiration.
Public: ...
MS: They throw chairs at us. Help. Please.
I had like 50 of those in Sim City 2000, /yawn.
I use Linux daily at work, but, I have no driving need to have a Linux box at home. I don't do that much worky stuff at home. I'm already burned out after doing it all day at work (and if I need to do more work, I can ssh in with Cygwin from home). And you really can't game on Linux. Yes, I'm sure some games are compatible with various Linuxes (the only one that comes to mind is Puzzle Pirates, and that's because it's written in Java), and I guess there's Windows emulation. But let's be honest. You're not gaming on Linux.
Mac, well. I can honestly never see myself owning one. If I was going to go another OS, it would be Linux for its flexibility. Apple just makes me nervous with all its proprietary stuff. I know lots of people own Macs and are happy with them. But the number of programs in general that are written for Mac is too tiny for me, games especially.
I have a box of junk in the corner with a bunch of games in it, and out of curiousity, I pulled them out while writing this, just to see which were compatible with Mac right out of the box... not with some lameass windows emulation that will run it at 1/10 speed, but actual Mac compatibility. Everquest (and about 7 expansions): Windows. Yeah, there was a Mac version a few years ago, where you get to play on your very own Mac server. Good luck with that. GTA: Vice City: Windows. Knights of the Old Republic: Windows. Dark Age of Camelot: Windows. There are plenty more in the closet. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the only one in my entire collection that is compatible with Mac right out of the box is World of Warcraft.
But I hate World of Warcraft.
Sorry, but, my home box is my entertainment. And Microsoft knows it too. They agressively pursue the gaming angle with developer tools. Now they've got XNA, with the goal being to write a game once and have it play on both xbox or windows with a minimum of development fuss.
They know where their dollars are coming from. They court the market, because they know geeks like me would flee if Linux could entertain me even 1/100th as much. So what I'm saying is no, no there is no Windows competition, not in my market.
that this thread will turn into a flame war.
Fool! Didn't you ever play Sim City?
I wish I had the points to mod parent Insightful.
Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for. I'm sticking with XP until I'm absolutely forced to upgrade in 5 years or so because nothing has XP support anymore. I mean, give me a break. There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart. It's an OS, not Doom 3.
But in our cult, you get to kill dragons, not wait for a judgement day that just never seems to come (next year maybe!). Yes, you lose touch with family like a real cult-- guildies will even scorn you for leaving for family time ("WTF, you're logging? Come on, we've been planning this raid all week. We need your DPS, dude.").
In our cult, we don't go door to door spouting crazy nonsense that would get our asses kicked if people didn't feel so bad for us. We stay indoors, like good crazy people should.
And like a real cult, the other members may feel real sadness and loss when you have to "disconnect". "What do you mean FlowerGirl quit cause of RL issues? But she... but she... she was our recruitment officer, and she laughed at my jokes :("
This would be funny, if the government didn't listen to them half of the time.
I don't know, I'm not a Xerox tech. What I can tell you is that it would bring with it a host of new problems, like any new technology. The question is, are all these new problems worth it? My bet is no. I'm not a business wiz, but I know what I would think, and what my managers would think: "We know how to deal with paper jams, ink shortages, and people occaisionally sticking their penis in the copy machine. But are we willing to buy a new system, using paper that degrades after 10 uses, and only lasts 16 hours, and hiring/training/paying for support to make sure it works, and changing the office practices around it?"
I'm thinking no. They would not go for that, and neither would I.
I'm all for a greener world and workplace-- in fact, I work at a company whose business is eco-friendliness. But this, this just won't fly.
Also, "suggests".
I appreciate the sentiment, but business is about getting business done. The first time work was lost because someone left the memo on their desk for more than xxx hours would be the end of the system. I can imagine some cruel managers getting a kick out of it, but that's about it.
The "paperless office" was a 100x better idea than this (and an idea that's not entirely dead, either. I telecommute, and my office is 99.9% paperless).
That was covered by Starcraft, which ripped off Aliens.
[Terminator]
[Robocop]
[Starcraft]
[random sci fi movie]
joke here.
Doctor: Hang on. (types, waits, wrinkles his brow) Um, don't do that.
I can tell you one way they're winning: when Google releases something new, I pay attention, because there's a good chance I'll like it more than what the competition offers. They've got my brand loyalty by not sucking.
- Gmail: I don't know the numbers on whether it's beating Yahoo, Hotmail and AOL (doubt it), but I know it beats all of them in usability. Hotmail? Right, give me some more buggy javascript, annoying hooks into Messenger, and ads that make my brain seize. Yahoo just turns me off because it seems like everything Yahoo runs too slow. I never bothered even trying it. AOL? Heh.
- Chat: Yahoo and Windows chat are ridiculously bloated and annoying pieces of software. Give me one reason that a chat program should suck so much memory and do so many annoying things. AOL chat? Heh. I'm just including AOL as a joke at this point; I wouldn't know, I haven't used it since 1995. Google chat is sleek, simple.
-
APIs/development: No surprise here, Google's APIs are the best (speaking as a programmer). Yahoo is actually not too far behind in this area-- I know that at least one of their APIs beats Google, and that's the geocoding API. They give better accuracy-- I've tested this myself as part of my job. That would be great except for one thing... Google's API allows 50,000 requests per day, Yahoo's only 5,000. Therefore, I have to stick with Google for the bulk of work, going to Yahoo only to correct hard to find addresses.
-
Mapping: A small subcategory maybe, but Google beats the rest here easily. Google maps are just cooler, faster, easier to use.
I'll stop there because this is starting to sound like a slashvertisement. But in my mind they're winning in every area that counts. If the majority of people stick with Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL, it's their loss, and maybe this is the one place Google is loosing: the constant, unceasing barrage of advertisement that keeps companies like AOL in business by recruiting customers too clueless to know any better.Minor point, maybe. Personally, I have a job that requires me to read 50-100 dates a day, and input about a third of that. So yeah. The US form takes this round. But I'm with you on the metric system, and Dr. Who.
More ways to use AOL services! It's kind of like being given different ways to stab yourself in the eye.
The way it handles some javascript events, like onFocus(), is buggy and whacked. The way it handles a lot of events is buggy and whacked. To get around it, I have to put Firefox-specific fixes in the CSS and elsewhere. I'm not talking about the infamous AJAX code forking-- that's different, and to be expected by now. This is purely for Firefox.
I had to alter my version of the Google Maps API just for Firefox. When I went in, I was shocked to find it wasn't my code that was broken... it was Google's. Guess which line was breaking it? The line that was supposed to make it compatible with IE. I'm assuming it's been fixed in newer versions of the API, but it raised an eyebrow.
There are bugs all over the place that you never see until you try to write for it. If you want to brag about how stable, fast, reliable, etc Firefox is, then fix all that crap first. "Fast" definitely doesn't apply to my development time.
I like the way it handles some things, like page layout. The way it arranges things on screen makes more sense than IE, sometimes. And it does render pages faster. But that's balanced out by all the things that annoy me about it.
Not everyone thinks Firefox is god's gift to Geeks. Deal with it. Call me when it starts to live up to its hype.
I was tempted to mod that down cause it would have been funny. But no one but me would have got it.
Sure. Out of the entire country, I get to choose between TWO people, neither of whom represent me. Then this idiot will be in charge for the remainder of his term, and every time he does something I don't like (all the time), I'll be told it's my fault because "it's a democracy".
Then, I'll have to hope the election doesn't get hijacked.
A party system isn't democracy, it's crap. Washington was the only one who had it right: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another..."