There are a bunch of bad bands, but I would also challenge the idea that there are not good ones. If you want to hear some good music, check out (Some of them are more new than others):
* Mae * Anberlin * Motion City Soundtrack * The Get Up Kids * Norah Jones * Vertical Horizon * Robert Randolph and the Family Band * The Format * The Forecast * Acceptance
These are all some great bands that are out there, and I will admit that my knowledge is even still very limited. Just because the stuff you hear on the radio is crap does not mean that there is not good stuff to be had.
My windows machine has an average uptime of 3 weeks, and the only reason it's not longer is because occasionally I restart it. I have no idea what this freezing stuff you are talking about is. Focus stealing happens in Linux and Mac OS X too. I use Windows and Linux, and I should also disclaim that Linux almost never crashes on me either, but I just wanted to make sure to call BS on what you said about Windows crashing all the time.
Better still than benchmarks by far would be code profiling, which can tell you exactly where your code is spending the most of its time, rather than just suggesting the general area as benchmarks do.
Granted, software *can* be written to be expert friendly and newbie friendly. However, I would submit to you that that is not generally the case. For instance: being a programmer, setting up Linux was not that bad, even when I had to script the actions that would bring up my wireless (the GUI would not do it properly). Not being a "mechanic" of computers would have made this impossible for me. I'm not really as concerned with what is possible as I am with what *is* and probably *will be* in the future -- that is, that Linux and much OSS will be unusable for most people.
Though most people don't know how cars work, there'll still always be mechanics. Linux is already in the state of only being used by the "mechanics" of the computing industry, but since I am one, I'm ok with that. =)
What does this have to do with anything? (I mean this question literally: is it something that IW has said, or are you saying that they might, or did you just have a random thought and decide to barf it out to Slashdot?)
Absolutely not. First, OSC sucks now, he stopped being any good at all when he wrote the first Shadow book. Second, you do not have to have a sphere. One highly mobile ship could theoretically defend the whole planet if it could shoot fast enough and do enough damage. Similarly, several very powerful weapons to up, north, south, east, west, and down would be able to protect the entire sphere (The minimal number of weapons to give total coverage without movement is four, arranged in a triangular pyramid.). Third, even assuming the fleet needs to be in a spherical formation, you do not have to expand the sphere to take the attack away from home. You just leave the original sphere at home and send another group of ships to attack.
What he is saying is that the aliens may not use "thrust" or any kind of explosive device to travel, so they may not be able to "push" as you say it. He's not overengineering, you are, otoh, oversimplifying.
Assuming the alien culture has a societal background that allows them to think in terms of weapons and killing. Which (might) be quite an assumtion.
Sorry to burst your bubble;-)
If your parents are paying the bills, you have no rights. You better quit whining and do what they tell you, or move out, get a job, and see how much free time you have to play video games then.
Not that I'm any better. I was just like you when I was a child, with the exact same phraseology (i.e. "Just a minute"). Thing is, now I've grown up a little and I can use the pause button.
If your parents are not paying the bills, why is your mom still nagging you!? There is nothing to nag about when you are not living under the same roof.
To me it seems obvious that the real world you have experienced is not one in which I would like to spend much time. Certainly, many people go into life and marriage with their eyes blinded by idealism, but you seem to have adopted the opposite tactic and shut your eyes entirely. The problem is that the end result is still a lack of vision for the truth.
Yes, some women like attention too much. Some men are too pompous and think they know more than they do. Some young people think they own the world. Some old people think that the world's not worth owning. A lot of people have problems, but there is more to life than the faults of others, and happiness can definitely be had despite the flaws of your loved one.
As for your comment about not having to settle down in the first 22: I don't understand why, if you find someone that you want to spend the rest of your life with, you would ever want to delay. Of course, your overriding ambition should probably not be to get married in college and start making babies, but you don't need to ignore the possibility either.
I think that you are putting words in his mouth. It is reasonable to expect the music industry to try to make what they see as theft illegal. It is not reasonable for them to impose restrictions on the hardware of their legitimate buyers, but I doubt that that was what the gpp was suggesting, and certainly there is no reason to *assume* that that was his intent.
It would be good to stop putting words in people's mouths.
It seems like certain people (you) can turn anything, even a fast response to a small number of customers who are having a problem, against a company if they want. If Microsoft hadn't issued a response, you would have been complaining about how they are ignoring their customers. With someone like you, Microsoft is "Damned if they do, damned if they don't."
Don't you realize the blinders you have put on your own thoughts?
I didn't play my thoughts out to their conclusion in my post, and for that I apologize. Let me write the rest of what I was thinking here.
What I meant to say was that, hey, this guy has a pretty good reputation for putting out good studies. Insane paranoiac people will say, he is getting paid to deliver a certain conclusion! Normal people will say, this guy has a reputation for honesty, I trust what he is saying. That is what I was trying to convey in my post.
"Could you please explain why you decided to risk drawing your objectivity into question with insane paranoiac Slashdot readers . .."
Corrected. I know it may seem like a troll, but I don't think it is. Something that a lot of the readers of this site don't understand is that not everyone thinks that Linux is the shit to the point of denying all evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong, I have one Linux-only computer that I use for work, my other is dual boot, and I like it. I love Linux both for its principles and because it allows me to do things that I can't normally do with Windows, BUT that does not mean that I believe its raw performance to be equal to that of a more heavily funded operating system. And you know what? That's OK. I'd still rather use it.
What I mean to say, is that if the teacher expects me to pay attention, he must not bore me. If he only expects me to make the grade, he can bore me all he wants -- I will learn from the book. But I don't believe that a teacher should expect that people will pay attention to his lecture when his lecture does not add value.
Failing is the furthest thing from what I am doing, regardless of my attitude.
That is wtf Draconian means. I would consider those wireless rules severe, and that is doubtless what the OP was trying to communicate. So yes, those wireless rules are draconian, at least in the common understanding of the word.
They sure do treat you like responsible, decision-making, business-class future executives and supposed adults at Harvard, don't they? Do they also pass out diapers in case anyone hasn't been potty-trained yet?
I play games or read the internet in class and do not cheat. I don't understand why you associate not paying attention with low grades or with cheating. Are people who are bored in class somehow less morally upright than those who do not?
In my view (as a college student), it's the teacher's obligation not to bore me, or at least to provide information that I could not easily look up in a book. If the information the teacher gives during class does not do at least one of these things, I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to pay attention. That is, if the marginal benefit of paying attention is less than the marginal cost, I don't see why I would.
On top of that, paying attention to boring lectures is just impossible. I wish more computer science classes allowed some kind of more interesting form of student-teacher interaction.
To me, it doesn't make sense at all that they would do this. I don't see what it wins them. The business decision would be, "How can we maximize profit?" Well, if we are the underdog, then we make interoperability king, just like they did with Excel back in the early '90s in order to take over the market from 1-2-3. If we are on top, though, interoperability is our enemy, and we want to prevent it as much as possible. For instance: if Office is a big money-maker, we don't want to make it easy to use OpenDocument.
Not that I'm arguing -- I use Firefox. But from a strictly business-oriented POV, I don't see the logic behind this. I guess, if I think about it, what they are probably trying to do is draw attention away from their lack of support for Free software where it actually costs them money -- i.e. OpenDocument.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a bunch of bad bands, but I would also challenge the idea that there are not good ones. If you want to hear some good music, check out (Some of them are more new than others):
* Mae
* Anberlin
* Motion City Soundtrack
* The Get Up Kids
* Norah Jones
* Vertical Horizon
* Robert Randolph and the Family Band
* The Format
* The Forecast
* Acceptance
These are all some great bands that are out there, and I will admit that my knowledge is even still very limited. Just because the stuff you hear on the radio is crap does not mean that there is not good stuff to be had.
My windows machine has an average uptime of 3 weeks, and the only reason it's not longer is because occasionally I restart it. I have no idea what this freezing stuff you are talking about is. Focus stealing happens in Linux and Mac OS X too. I use Windows and Linux, and I should also disclaim that Linux almost never crashes on me either, but I just wanted to make sure to call BS on what you said about Windows crashing all the time.
This mostly ignores the fact that Windows XP is largely absent of major bugs. But then again, I would contend that the same is true of open office.
Better still than benchmarks by far would be code profiling, which can tell you exactly where your code is spending the most of its time, rather than just suggesting the general area as benchmarks do.
Granted, software *can* be written to be expert friendly and newbie friendly. However, I would submit to you that that is not generally the case. For instance: being a programmer, setting up Linux was not that bad, even when I had to script the actions that would bring up my wireless (the GUI would not do it properly). Not being a "mechanic" of computers would have made this impossible for me. I'm not really as concerned with what is possible as I am with what *is* and probably *will be* in the future -- that is, that Linux and much OSS will be unusable for most people.
Though most people don't know how cars work, there'll still always be mechanics. Linux is already in the state of only being used by the "mechanics" of the computing industry, but since I am one, I'm ok with that. =)
What does this have to do with anything? (I mean this question literally: is it something that IW has said, or are you saying that they might, or did you just have a random thought and decide to barf it out to Slashdot?)
LOL, thought we were still talking about video games. When did the topic change to pooping? Also, wtf.
Absolutely not. First, OSC sucks now, he stopped being any good at all when he wrote the first Shadow book. Second, you do not have to have a sphere. One highly mobile ship could theoretically defend the whole planet if it could shoot fast enough and do enough damage. Similarly, several very powerful weapons to up, north, south, east, west, and down would be able to protect the entire sphere (The minimal number of weapons to give total coverage without movement is four, arranged in a triangular pyramid.). Third, even assuming the fleet needs to be in a spherical formation, you do not have to expand the sphere to take the attack away from home. You just leave the original sphere at home and send another group of ships to attack.
What he is saying is that the aliens may not use "thrust" or any kind of explosive device to travel, so they may not be able to "push" as you say it. He's not overengineering, you are, otoh, oversimplifying.
Assuming the alien culture has a societal background that allows them to think in terms of weapons and killing. Which (might) be quite an assumtion. Sorry to burst your bubble ;-)
In this case, intergalactic war could be very detrimental to an alien species.
If your parents are paying the bills, you have no rights. You better quit whining and do what they tell you, or move out, get a job, and see how much free time you have to play video games then.
Not that I'm any better. I was just like you when I was a child, with the exact same phraseology (i.e. "Just a minute"). Thing is, now I've grown up a little and I can use the pause button.
If your parents are not paying the bills, why is your mom still nagging you!? There is nothing to nag about when you are not living under the same roof.
To me it seems obvious that the real world you have experienced is not one in which I would like to spend much time. Certainly, many people go into life and marriage with their eyes blinded by idealism, but you seem to have adopted the opposite tactic and shut your eyes entirely. The problem is that the end result is still a lack of vision for the truth.
Yes, some women like attention too much. Some men are too pompous and think they know more than they do. Some young people think they own the world. Some old people think that the world's not worth owning. A lot of people have problems, but there is more to life than the faults of others, and happiness can definitely be had despite the flaws of your loved one.
As for your comment about not having to settle down in the first 22: I don't understand why, if you find someone that you want to spend the rest of your life with, you would ever want to delay. Of course, your overriding ambition should probably not be to get married in college and start making babies, but you don't need to ignore the possibility either.
I think that you are putting words in his mouth. It is reasonable to expect the music industry to try to make what they see as theft illegal. It is not reasonable for them to impose restrictions on the hardware of their legitimate buyers, but I doubt that that was what the gpp was suggesting, and certainly there is no reason to *assume* that that was his intent.
It would be good to stop putting words in people's mouths.
It seems like certain people (you) can turn anything, even a fast response to a small number of customers who are having a problem, against a company if they want. If Microsoft hadn't issued a response, you would have been complaining about how they are ignoring their customers. With someone like you, Microsoft is "Damned if they do, damned if they don't."
Don't you realize the blinders you have put on your own thoughts?
I didn't play my thoughts out to their conclusion in my post, and for that I apologize. Let me write the rest of what I was thinking here.
What I meant to say was that, hey, this guy has a pretty good reputation for putting out good studies. Insane paranoiac people will say, he is getting paid to deliver a certain conclusion! Normal people will say, this guy has a reputation for honesty, I trust what he is saying. That is what I was trying to convey in my post.
"Could you please explain why you decided to risk drawing your objectivity into question with insane paranoiac Slashdot readers . . ."
Corrected. I know it may seem like a troll, but I don't think it is. Something that a lot of the readers of this site don't understand is that not everyone thinks that Linux is the shit to the point of denying all evidence to the contrary. Don't get me wrong, I have one Linux-only computer that I use for work, my other is dual boot, and I like it. I love Linux both for its principles and because it allows me to do things that I can't normally do with Windows, BUT that does not mean that I believe its raw performance to be equal to that of a more heavily funded operating system. And you know what? That's OK. I'd still rather use it.
What I mean to say, is that if the teacher expects me to pay attention, he must not bore me. If he only expects me to make the grade, he can bore me all he wants -- I will learn from the book. But I don't believe that a teacher should expect that people will pay attention to his lecture when his lecture does not add value.
Failing is the furthest thing from what I am doing, regardless of my attitude.
Dracionian: 2 : CRUEL; also : SEVERE
That is wtf Draconian means. I would consider those wireless rules severe, and that is doubtless what the OP was trying to communicate. So yes, those wireless rules are draconian, at least in the common understanding of the word.
They sure do treat you like responsible, decision-making, business-class future executives and supposed adults at Harvard, don't they? Do they also pass out diapers in case anyone hasn't been potty-trained yet?
I play games or read the internet in class and do not cheat. I don't understand why you associate not paying attention with low grades or with cheating. Are people who are bored in class somehow less morally upright than those who do not?
In my view (as a college student), it's the teacher's obligation not to bore me, or at least to provide information that I could not easily look up in a book. If the information the teacher gives during class does not do at least one of these things, I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to pay attention. That is, if the marginal benefit of paying attention is less than the marginal cost, I don't see why I would.
On top of that, paying attention to boring lectures is just impossible. I wish more computer science classes allowed some kind of more interesting form of student-teacher interaction.
OMG it's another recycling of the tired "MS Software is Buggy!" joke.
Listen, people, it's not, "Microsoft software is buggy," it's, "Software is buggy."
To me, it doesn't make sense at all that they would do this. I don't see what it wins them. The business decision would be, "How can we maximize profit?" Well, if we are the underdog, then we make interoperability king, just like they did with Excel back in the early '90s in order to take over the market from 1-2-3. If we are on top, though, interoperability is our enemy, and we want to prevent it as much as possible. For instance: if Office is a big money-maker, we don't want to make it easy to use OpenDocument.
Not that I'm arguing -- I use Firefox. But from a strictly business-oriented POV, I don't see the logic behind this. I guess, if I think about it, what they are probably trying to do is draw attention away from their lack of support for Free software where it actually costs them money -- i.e. OpenDocument.