I was with you until that last sentence. I dont think you can judge the console division based on what the rest of the company (or part of it) is doing. Sony is huge, one part probably doesn't have the slightest idea what the others are doing at any given time. The same goes for Microsoft.
Congrats for missing the point. You aren't supposed to "prove preferences". You are supposed to prove that those preferences actually exist.
I especially like your last sentence, "A Novell GNOME based Desktop Linux will get no acceptance on the market". That's nice. How do you know? After all, you can't prove it. You apparently can't back your claim with facts. So this is pure speculation (you could at least have marked it as such). There is no indication that users prefer KDE over GNOME. What do you know, Novell may just have done some research before switching to GNOME... I'm sure they know more about their users preferences than you do.
Another fan favorite is "Because we want it and we like it best". Who is "we"? You and your five zealot friends?
It doesn't work like this. In the end, all you said once again boils down to "Because I think it looks better". You think so. Not the average users. Not most users. Just you. So stop making those stupid claims.
Oh, ffs, there you go again. Another bullshit comment from our beloved Elektroschock.
At least this time you got the mod you deserved, seeing how you once again failed to back your claim that KDE is an absolute requirement for any desktop linux with actual facts (or at least any real arguments). All you have there is "I think KDE looks better".
You can't expect anyone to take your comments serious this way.
Over here, over here... Where is your "over here"?
Anyway, "over here" (in germany, where, incidentally, SuSE happens to come from), users don't give a fuck. And they certainly don't think "KDE is Linux". Get real, man!
This is seriously getting old... Second Encounter was supposed to be kind of a "Serious Sam 1.5", since they wanted the real Serious Sam II to have a new engine.
Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol.
That's probably because you wouldn't get those lower premiums.
"Oh, you buy that much alcohol, we are just going to assume you drink it all yourself, so you get to pay more."
The other way around, tho: "You apparently didn't buy many alcoholic drinks. However, this doesnt mean you didn't drink any. No, no lower premiums for you. Where did you get THAT idea?"
Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly.
Again, they'll probably just make assumptions.
So much for these two. The other arguments the original poster made are indeed rather silly, but for me that doesn't change the fact that there are things I do not want "everybody" (as in all the people who have access to the information collected about me, which won't be too few) to know about.
The "Why, do you have anything to hide?" argument is just as idiotic. Anyone who ever used this: Would you mind me installing cameras in your bathrooms? Yes? Why? You don't have anything to hide, do you? (Or maybe... something you don't even have to hide for me not to be able to see it? (j/k))
That's what gp was saying: Put the stuff in a container without compression (be it tar or an uncompressed zip), then gzip/bz2/whatever it. So, tar doesn't have to have any compression, in fact, in this scenario, it isn't supposed to.
He doesn't have anything to do with the movie, because he wasn't actually involved in writing it (the movie). He didn't actually work on it. That is exactly what I said, and it is perfectly true, argue all you want.
I'm sure he'll be mentioned in the credits. You still didn't get what I said, though. He wrote the material the movie is based on, but he isn't involved any further. The actual movie was not written by him. Is that so hard to understand?
Alan Moore wrote the graphic novel the movie is based on, but that doesn't mean he was in any way involved in the writing of the story as it appears in the movie. You see, the difference is that your Mona Lisa postcards are basically reproductions of Da Vinci's work. The film is not a reproduction of the graphic novel in that sense, as there will most likely be many differences. So, congratulations, that was the second worst analogy I've read here today.
Right. That's why it says The film [...] was written by [...]" in the summary... not a word about the graphic novel up there. And as far as I know, Alan Moore didn't/doesn't have sh*t to do with the movie.
Well, I think what matters is that the guy sold items from the game for real money. How he got them should be irrelevant. So, if the devs don't want player to rob other players ingame, make it impossible, or introduce ingame punishments for it or smth. The use of a bot and the selling of items for real money is, of course, something different, and should be punished.
So I don't really agree with you. All this talk about "actual damages" doesn't really make that much sense to me. What "actual damages"? The players whose items were stolen didn't lose any more than they would have lost if any normal player stole them from them, and kept them or sold them ingame. And that is, as you said yourself, the way the game is played. The only way those player would have any "real" loss would be if they had intended to sell those items themselves.
No, more ppl use Windows because they get it for "free" with their PC, and have probably never heard of any alternative, and even if they have, probably aren't technical enough to install another OS.
Seriously, if a vendor sold a PC with any major linux distro preinstalled, the average user would just have to start the already installed OpenOffice and could start working. It isn't harder to use than MS Office. They wouldn't even have to install it (unlike MS Office, if it didn't come preinstalled with the PC, too).
Well, would you really have expected the worm to spread this fast, and infect so many PCs? Sure, he must have known that he would cause damage, but if he didn't think this through, he may have well expected his creation to be far, far less "successful".
Slashdot Mirror
I was with you until that last sentence. I dont think you can judge the console division based on what the rest of the company (or part of it) is doing. Sony is huge, one part probably doesn't have the slightest idea what the others are doing at any given time. The same goes for Microsoft.
I never claimed that there was any preference. You did. I think that most customers don't give a fuck.
Of course, certain zealots beg to differ.
Congrats for missing the point. You aren't supposed to "prove preferences". You are supposed to prove that those preferences actually exist.
I especially like your last sentence, "A Novell GNOME based Desktop Linux will get no acceptance on the market". That's nice. How do you know? After all, you can't prove it. You apparently can't back your claim with facts. So this is pure speculation (you could at least have marked it as such). There is no indication that users prefer KDE over GNOME.
What do you know, Novell may just have done some research before switching to GNOME... I'm sure they know more about their users preferences than you do.
Another fan favorite is "Because we want it and we like it best". Who is "we"? You and your five zealot friends?
It doesn't work like this. In the end, all you said once again boils down to "Because I think it looks better". You think so. Not the average users. Not most users. Just you. So stop making those stupid claims.
Oh, ffs, there you go again. Another bullshit comment from our beloved Elektroschock. At least this time you got the mod you deserved, seeing how you once again failed to back your claim that KDE is an absolute requirement for any desktop linux with actual facts (or at least any real arguments). All you have there is "I think KDE looks better".
You can't expect anyone to take your comments serious this way.
Over here, over here... Where is your "over here"? Anyway, "over here" (in germany, where, incidentally, SuSE happens to come from), users don't give a fuck. And they certainly don't think "KDE is Linux". Get real, man!
This is seriously getting old... Second Encounter was supposed to be kind of a "Serious Sam 1.5", since they wanted the real Serious Sam II to have a new engine.
They get porn in prison and all girl colleges? Awesome! ...although the idea of astronaut wanking sessions in space is somewhat disgusting.
Just take a look at the Website... yes, you can buy items and gold there. Gold seems to be rather cheap, too.
Well, I guess this is what that mysterious "Preview"-stuff I keep hearing about is for.
Good. If you engage in a risky behavior, your insurance premium should be higher. I notice you fail to allow for lower premiums for those who drink in moderation. You know what the research says about moderate amounts of alcohol. That's probably because you wouldn't get those lower premiums. "Oh, you buy that much alcohol, we are just going to assume you drink it all yourself, so you get to pay more." The other way around, tho: "You apparently didn't buy many alcoholic drinks. However, this doesnt mean you didn't drink any. No, no lower premiums for you. Where did you get THAT idea?" Nonsense. This is just alarmist garbage. There's no way to know WHEN you used a condom, so this is impossible. Your other example is just as silly. Again, they'll probably just make assumptions. So much for these two. The other arguments the original poster made are indeed rather silly, but for me that doesn't change the fact that there are things I do not want "everybody" (as in all the people who have access to the information collected about me, which won't be too few) to know about. The "Why, do you have anything to hide?" argument is just as idiotic. Anyone who ever used this: Would you mind me installing cameras in your bathrooms? Yes? Why? You don't have anything to hide, do you? (Or maybe... something you don't even have to hide for me not to be able to see it? (j/k))
GP was talking about MS trying to destroy Google, not AOL.
Yeah, but that way, you miss half of the actually interesting posts as well.
That's what gp was saying: Put the stuff in a container without compression (be it tar or an uncompressed zip), then gzip/bz2/whatever it. So, tar doesn't have to have any compression, in fact, in this scenario, it isn't supposed to.
He doesn't have anything to do with the movie, because he wasn't actually involved in writing it (the movie). He didn't actually work on it. That is exactly what I said, and it is perfectly true, argue all you want.
I'm sure he'll be mentioned in the credits. You still didn't get what I said, though. He wrote the material the movie is based on, but he isn't involved any further. The actual movie was not written by him. Is that so hard to understand?
I feel sorry for you, but at the same time, I want to beat you up for that post.
Alan Moore wrote the graphic novel the movie is based on, but that doesn't mean he was in any way involved in the writing of the story as it appears in the movie.
You see, the difference is that your Mona Lisa postcards are basically reproductions of Da Vinci's work. The film is not a reproduction of the graphic novel in that sense, as there will most likely be many differences. So, congratulations, that was the second worst analogy I've read here today.
Right. That's why it says The film [...] was written by [...]" in the summary... not a word about the graphic novel up there. And as far as I know, Alan Moore didn't/doesn't have sh*t to do with the movie.
Well, I think what matters is that the guy sold items from the game for real money. How he got them should be irrelevant. So, if the devs don't want player to rob other players ingame, make it impossible, or introduce ingame punishments for it or smth.
The use of a bot and the selling of items for real money is, of course, something different, and should be punished.
So I don't really agree with you. All this talk about "actual damages" doesn't really make that much sense to me. What "actual damages"? The players whose items were stolen didn't lose any more than they would have lost if any normal player stole them from them, and kept them or sold them ingame. And that is, as you said yourself, the way the game is played.
The only way those player would have any "real" loss would be if they had intended to sell those items themselves.
Oxygen may be a problem in this scenario, though.
Screw the darwin award. I just want to know if I will still have to do any cleaning up in the human gene pool after he blows himself up.
No, more ppl use Windows because they get it for "free" with their PC, and have probably never heard of any alternative, and even if they have, probably aren't technical enough to install another OS. Seriously, if a vendor sold a PC with any major linux distro preinstalled, the average user would just have to start the already installed OpenOffice and could start working. It isn't harder to use than MS Office. They wouldn't even have to install it (unlike MS Office, if it didn't come preinstalled with the PC, too).
I wonder how it will look like in terms of price compared to SLI solutions.
But if not then why, and if then why not? And why so if it is not, why not if it isn't so, and why isn't it so if it is, but is not not?
Well, would you really have expected the worm to spread this fast, and infect so many PCs? Sure, he must have known that he would cause damage, but if he didn't think this through, he may have well expected his creation to be far, far less "successful".