Flash is dead horse. Stop using it as an argument.
It chews up CPU power and battery life and has no business on a portable device or on the web in general.
It's a proprietary attempt to own the web and I'll be glad when it's dead.
Good for you. It isn't dead yet, however, and regardless of its myriad of technical flaws average people (y'know, the crowd that the iPad is allegedly aimed at) still appreciate and most importantly expect it when browsing the web. Besides, the fact that your battery lasts longer than before won't make the website you're trying to access work, and *that* is a deal-killer for most folks.
A more accurate analogy would be if they *approve* of doing testing on animals. And I'd say it's perfectly ethical for a business owner not to have to disclose every single of his opinions to the world at large, just because he's a business owner.
If his business actually *did* animal testing, sure, put it out there. Same as if they actively discriminate against gays. But if the owner thinks goat fucking ought to be legal, why the fuck would you care?
And what a true average joe will say in response to your comment is: Why the hell would I buy an iPad to update my facebook status? I can already do that from my phone, and it weights less.
Face it, Apple doesn't produce computing devices for people either. They produce fashion accesories for people with more money than common sense.
We've established that netbooks are general purpose devices trying to be shoe horned into Internet devices by manufactures, you like that fact, good for you.
What the *FUCK* is an "Internet device" and why does a netbook need to be "shoe horned" into being one in the first place?
Because those who lined up for Vista didn't then line up for the newest versions of Exchange and SQL Server as well. The reason we mock Apple fans is that many of them buy *EVERY* *BLOODY* *PRODUCT* Apple releases then proceed to call it "groundbreaking" or such crap.
Read any debate of climate science - heck, read the comments right here in this Slashdot article. The effect is clearly visible.
I've yet to see any comment by somebody claiming to be a climate researched stating that his research is flawless. Again, prove your statement.
Except science doesn't work by debunking - it works by incorporating criticism. Or, in other and less kind words, you prove my point. AGW has become a religion, and like all religions resists criticism - to the point where it's supporters are no longer cognizant of how science works.
Only if the criticism is, itself, valid. Which hasn't happened with the 'skeptics' so far, everytime they've tried to put something out for peer-review it gets debunked so there's no reason to address them further.
Yet, when another hypothesis 'proves' AGW it is accepted as soon as it is published. When criticism arises, it's attacked and supported refuse to review it.
Prove it.
(And your use of 'denialist' just further proves my point. You aren't interested in science, you're a follower of a religion.)
Your use of 'follower' just furthers my point. You aren't interested in science, you're merely a denialist clinging to any excuse not to have their toys taken away. And that's why 'ad hominem' are considered a logical fallacy.
Which is that the scientists (and their political supporters) which you quote above insist that the studies criticizing them be reviewed and must be debunked* while simultaneously insisting that their work is above criticism.
Prove it, particularly the latter part.
Real scientists welcome reviews of their work - but the ones you quote above (and their political supporters) go to great lengths to debunk and marginalize any reviews that don't meet their pre-ordained conclusions.
As they should. If it can be debunked it should be debunked, and if it has been debunked it deserves to be marginalized, as it has little value for everybody else.
*Yes, not incorporated into the existing body of work as is usual in science, but debunked.
Wrong. Science is all about putting theories and hypothesis out there, waiting to be debunked. They don't become accepted and incorporated into the existing body of work until they've sustained for *years* such 'attacks' (we call them "peer review" though). If anybody's crazy little hypothesis would become accepted as soon as they're published, the world of science would be far more chaotic than it already is, and so far the denialists' studies haven't gone any farther than that.
Indeed, weather is not climate. Climate is the expectation of weather
Wrong. With apologies to Stalin: "One day is weather. A million is climate". It's been that way since ever in the scientific world, that the ignorant masses took both terms as equivalent (much like they take "theory" to mean "hypothesis") has no bearing on that fact.
Funny thing is, this "art collector" market is based on the same stupid model that got us into this economic mess to begin with: the price of things aren't based on what it's worth to *us* but, rather, how much we're planning on eventually reselling it for. And it only takes a single outbreak of common sense for your precious investment to plummet to the ground.
Which is why the currency standard should be cows. You can eat them, you can drink their milk, you can use their hides for clothing and you can fuck them in a pinch as well, they're the perfect standard to base an economy on.
Some may suggest women instead, but human milk tastes like crap and human meat can be toxic, so cows are still better. Goats would be another option, but the idea of fucking them is just sick.
The problem is that it's not "assuming same old hardware". It's "assuming same price point at time of release". Debian Lenny runs much, *much* faster in a low-end 2009 machine than Woody did in a 2002 one, and Windows 7 flies on a mid-range 2009 machine compared to XP on a mid-range 2001 computer. The problem with Vista, however, is that in 2006 even on a high-end machine it ran like a freaking pig.
If it's a war, you bring the biggest, best-equipped army you can, get the best battlefield intelligence you can, and fight from the most advantageous terrain you can and with the best air support you can bring.
Or you simply hijack the other guy's planes and crash 'em into the biggest, most important buildings you can find. Small losses for you, *huge* damage to the enemy, what's not to love?
All of you motherfuckers have no clue. Hunting people is not very different at 20 yds then at 2000 miles.
So you've done both, then?
And no, I do it because I don't want my two little girls to be property. That is the cost of loosing.
First off, it's "losing". And secondly, if you really believe that's the "cost of losing" you're a moron of the highest order.
How many motherfuckers are there in the US army who still can't grasp the fact that *they* are the invading power in this war? you're there, you can answer me can't you?
When Scientologists start flying airliners into American buildings, I'll start taking that argument seriously.
Politics aren't a simple matter and hostilities *never* have a single reason behind them. If you believe otherwise, you're simply a fool who has never studied history in his life.
That's one of the reasons I said "arguably", the other being that they're actually trying to get it approved as the documented, official standard. But given they've already announced that if the W3C still picks Theora as the standard they'll just ignore it altogether, it's not a clear-cut case in their favor either.
Actually, it should be "Linux has had feature W since 20VV" since its about Windows' and Linux' capabilities to work as a WiFi access point which, as TFS states, is actually a pretty useful feature in many scenarios. The only problem with Windows' implementation is that its presumably(*) turned on by default, which can be problematic in some enviroments from a security standpoint.
(*) "presumably" because TFA is awfully thin on details, and is fairly unapologetic about being an ad for some security company's software. I'm merely assuming it's turned on by default because it's the only way it could be considered a problem to begin with.
You are correct it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. This is definately in the realm of embrace-extend-extinguish.
Wrong. Embrace-Extend-Extinguish is when you Embrace a competitor's product/standard, Extend it in ways incompatible with the original product, and Extinguish it by pushing your own product so hard in the minds of consumers it is you, and not your competitor or the standards body, who determines what's the standard to follow.
What Microsoft tried to do with HTML before Firefox, and Java before the anti-trust lawsuit are E-E-E. Arguably, what Apple, Nokia and Google are trying to do with h.264 and HTML5 is also E-E-E. But simply buying a company that makes a popular product for a competing platform isn't E-E-E, it's just business as usual and examples of such are plentiful in the corporate world.
Which is why I only play local multiplayer and break my opponents' fingers off with a hammer. If God hadn't intended me to cheat as such, He wouldn't have made people so squishy. Or they could've shown up in full-body armor, though I guess that wouldn't save them from my 'welding torch' backup solution.
Got any evidence for your claims? because I've yet to hear of such a case from any of the people I regularly play with on any VAC-enabled game I own. Punkbuster, yeah, they kick you out for the stupidest reasons (I believe until recently it detected ATI's Control Center as a 'cheat', and still does for the Steam Overlay), but it's a) just a kick, not a ban, and b) not VAC and therefore not Valve's responsability.
I've seen more cheaters in CoD4 than in TF2, in spite of the former using Punkbuster instead of VAC. Perhaps its just the fact that no anti-cheat engine will ever be perfect and so we'll always have to deal with the idiots.
I assume you mean can't. With good reason: it breaks the metaphor.
I'll tell you what breaks the metaphor: the fact that it's a fucking computer instead of a real, solid desktop with actual dead-tree folders in it. *FUCK* the metaphor, Cut&Paste has become an integral part of how regular users think of their computer desktops, Windows has recognized that, Linux has recognized that and it's about bloody time that Macs recognize that.
There's always Terminal or third-party file managers that can be more Windows Explorer-like (Ubuntu's model) if that's your preference.
Yeah, that'll fly really well for grandma. Just install this small app from this shady-looking website to enable some basic functionality in your $1k+ desktop.
Oh come on. Two finger tap, control-click, buy a multi-button mouse.
Sucks, sucks, and unavailable for a laptop's touchpad respectively.
Fn+delete is forward delete.
Ahh, so intuitive and comfortable. Didn't we learn anything from Emacs' finger chords? basic functionality shouldn't require you to play pianist on your computer keyboard.
This is all pretty basic stuff that my kids managed. Certainly, no sophisticated Linux user could actually go three months without figuring all of those things out.
Good for you. I was making money doing DOS tech support when I was 8, I guess that means a simple CLI is all anybody should ever need, and fuck GUIs right?
As a long-time Debian and Ubuntu user myself, I find it particularly comical that you think Ubuntu is well-thought-out. Configuration options are scattered about, the menubar has a truly bizarre default arrangement, and the application menu is far from complete. It's much more likely the case that "well thought out" means "the one I'm more familiar with".
Exactly, you're far too used to OSX to notice the idiocy of its interfaces and, as result, find Debian and Ubuntu "bizarre". Lemme guess, you think the same of Windows, right? oh, don't worry, I can tell.
Start simple and let users add what they personally like is a recipe that works. How about asking the question, "how can I do what I want?"
The problem is that when the simplest answer is "install Windows or Linux on this", as in the GP's case, you've already lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash is dead horse. Stop using it as an argument.
It chews up CPU power and battery life and has no business on a portable device or on the web in general.
It's a proprietary attempt to own the web and I'll be glad when it's dead.
Good for you. It isn't dead yet, however, and regardless of its myriad of technical flaws average people (y'know, the crowd that the iPad is allegedly aimed at) still appreciate and most importantly expect it when browsing the web. Besides, the fact that your battery lasts longer than before won't make the website you're trying to access work, and *that* is a deal-killer for most folks.
A more accurate analogy would be if they *approve* of doing testing on animals. And I'd say it's perfectly ethical for a business owner not to have to disclose every single of his opinions to the world at large, just because he's a business owner.
If his business actually *did* animal testing, sure, put it out there. Same as if they actively discriminate against gays. But if the owner thinks goat fucking ought to be legal, why the fuck would you care?
If you have a daughter, can you send me her number?
And what a true average joe will say in response to your comment is: Why the hell would I buy an iPad to update my facebook status? I can already do that from my phone, and it weights less.
Face it, Apple doesn't produce computing devices for people either. They produce fashion accesories for people with more money than common sense.
We've established that netbooks are general purpose devices trying to be shoe horned into Internet devices by manufactures, you like that fact, good for you.
What the *FUCK* is an "Internet device" and why does a netbook need to be "shoe horned" into being one in the first place?
Because those who lined up for Vista didn't then line up for the newest versions of Exchange and SQL Server as well. The reason we mock Apple fans is that many of them buy *EVERY* *BLOODY* *PRODUCT* Apple releases then proceed to call it "groundbreaking" or such crap.
Read any debate of climate science - heck, read the comments right here in this Slashdot article. The effect is clearly visible.
I've yet to see any comment by somebody claiming to be a climate researched stating that his research is flawless. Again, prove your statement.
Except science doesn't work by debunking - it works by incorporating criticism. Or, in other and less kind words, you prove my point. AGW has become a religion, and like all religions resists criticism - to the point where it's supporters are no longer cognizant of how science works.
Only if the criticism is, itself, valid. Which hasn't happened with the 'skeptics' so far, everytime they've tried to put something out for peer-review it gets debunked so there's no reason to address them further.
Yet, when another hypothesis 'proves' AGW it is accepted as soon as it is published. When criticism arises, it's attacked and supported refuse to review it.
Prove it.
(And your use of 'denialist' just further proves my point. You aren't interested in science, you're a follower of a religion.)
Your use of 'follower' just furthers my point. You aren't interested in science, you're merely a denialist clinging to any excuse not to have their toys taken away. And that's why 'ad hominem' are considered a logical fallacy.
Which is that the scientists (and their political supporters) which you quote above insist that the studies criticizing them be reviewed and must be debunked* while simultaneously insisting that their work is above criticism.
Prove it, particularly the latter part.
Real scientists welcome reviews of their work - but the ones you quote above (and their political supporters) go to great lengths to debunk and marginalize any reviews that don't meet their pre-ordained conclusions.
As they should. If it can be debunked it should be debunked, and if it has been debunked it deserves to be marginalized, as it has little value for everybody else.
*Yes, not incorporated into the existing body of work as is usual in science, but debunked.
Wrong. Science is all about putting theories and hypothesis out there, waiting to be debunked. They don't become accepted and incorporated into the existing body of work until they've sustained for *years* such 'attacks' (we call them "peer review" though). If anybody's crazy little hypothesis would become accepted as soon as they're published, the world of science would be far more chaotic than it already is, and so far the denialists' studies haven't gone any farther than that.
Indeed, weather is not climate. Climate is the expectation of weather
Wrong. With apologies to Stalin: "One day is weather. A million is climate". It's been that way since ever in the scientific world, that the ignorant masses took both terms as equivalent (much like they take "theory" to mean "hypothesis") has no bearing on that fact.
Funny thing is, this "art collector" market is based on the same stupid model that got us into this economic mess to begin with: the price of things aren't based on what it's worth to *us* but, rather, how much we're planning on eventually reselling it for. And it only takes a single outbreak of common sense for your precious investment to plummet to the ground.
Which is why the currency standard should be cows. You can eat them, you can drink their milk, you can use their hides for clothing and you can fuck them in a pinch as well, they're the perfect standard to base an economy on.
Some may suggest women instead, but human milk tastes like crap and human meat can be toxic, so cows are still better. Goats would be another option, but the idea of fucking them is just sick.
The problem is that it's not "assuming same old hardware". It's "assuming same price point at time of release". Debian Lenny runs much, *much* faster in a low-end 2009 machine than Woody did in a 2002 one, and Windows 7 flies on a mid-range 2009 machine compared to XP on a mid-range 2001 computer. The problem with Vista, however, is that in 2006 even on a high-end machine it ran like a freaking pig.
If it's a war, you bring the biggest, best-equipped army you can, get the best battlefield intelligence you can, and fight from the most advantageous terrain you can and with the best air support you can bring.
Or you simply hijack the other guy's planes and crash 'em into the biggest, most important buildings you can find. Small losses for you, *huge* damage to the enemy, what's not to love?
All of you motherfuckers have no clue. Hunting people is not very different at 20 yds then at 2000 miles.
So you've done both, then?
And no, I do it because I don't want my two little girls to be property. That is the cost of loosing.
First off, it's "losing". And secondly, if you really believe that's the "cost of losing" you're a moron of the highest order.
How many motherfuckers are there in the US army who still can't grasp the fact that *they* are the invading power in this war? you're there, you can answer me can't you?
When Scientologists start flying airliners into American buildings, I'll start taking that argument seriously.
Politics aren't a simple matter and hostilities *never* have a single reason behind them. If you believe otherwise, you're simply a fool who has never studied history in his life.
That's one of the reasons I said "arguably", the other being that they're actually trying to get it approved as the documented, official standard. But given they've already announced that if the W3C still picks Theora as the standard they'll just ignore it altogether, it's not a clear-cut case in their favor either.
Most of the world doesn't care to use Windows Update in the first place, hence all of Windows' security problems.
Actually, it should be "Linux has had feature W since 20VV" since its about Windows' and Linux' capabilities to work as a WiFi access point which, as TFS states, is actually a pretty useful feature in many scenarios. The only problem with Windows' implementation is that its presumably(*) turned on by default, which can be problematic in some enviroments from a security standpoint.
(*) "presumably" because TFA is awfully thin on details, and is fairly unapologetic about being an ad for some security company's software. I'm merely assuming it's turned on by default because it's the only way it could be considered a problem to begin with.
You are correct it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. This is definately in the realm of embrace-extend-extinguish.
Wrong. Embrace-Extend-Extinguish is when you Embrace a competitor's product/standard, Extend it in ways incompatible with the original product, and Extinguish it by pushing your own product so hard in the minds of consumers it is you, and not your competitor or the standards body, who determines what's the standard to follow.
What Microsoft tried to do with HTML before Firefox, and Java before the anti-trust lawsuit are E-E-E. Arguably, what Apple, Nokia and Google are trying to do with h.264 and HTML5 is also E-E-E. But simply buying a company that makes a popular product for a competing platform isn't E-E-E, it's just business as usual and examples of such are plentiful in the corporate world.
Which is why I only play local multiplayer and break my opponents' fingers off with a hammer. If God hadn't intended me to cheat as such, He wouldn't have made people so squishy. Or they could've shown up in full-body armor, though I guess that wouldn't save them from my 'welding torch' backup solution.
Got any evidence for your claims? because I've yet to hear of such a case from any of the people I regularly play with on any VAC-enabled game I own. Punkbuster, yeah, they kick you out for the stupidest reasons (I believe until recently it detected ATI's Control Center as a 'cheat', and still does for the Steam Overlay), but it's a) just a kick, not a ban, and b) not VAC and therefore not Valve's responsability.
I've seen more cheaters in CoD4 than in TF2, in spite of the former using Punkbuster instead of VAC. Perhaps its just the fact that no anti-cheat engine will ever be perfect and so we'll always have to deal with the idiots.
If Civ was realistic it'd take thousands of years to go from the stone age to the space age instead of a single night.
Is a hex more realistic than a square? yes. Therefore, is Civ5 more realistic than Civ4 and previous? yes. Therefore, the label is appropiate.
I assume you mean can't. With good reason: it breaks the metaphor.
I'll tell you what breaks the metaphor: the fact that it's a fucking computer instead of a real, solid desktop with actual dead-tree folders in it. *FUCK* the metaphor, Cut&Paste has become an integral part of how regular users think of their computer desktops, Windows has recognized that, Linux has recognized that and it's about bloody time that Macs recognize that.
There's always Terminal or third-party file managers that can be more Windows Explorer-like (Ubuntu's model) if that's your preference.
Yeah, that'll fly really well for grandma. Just install this small app from this shady-looking website to enable some basic functionality in your $1k+ desktop.
Oh come on. Two finger tap, control-click, buy a multi-button mouse.
Sucks, sucks, and unavailable for a laptop's touchpad respectively.
Fn+delete is forward delete.
Ahh, so intuitive and comfortable. Didn't we learn anything from Emacs' finger chords? basic functionality shouldn't require you to play pianist on your computer keyboard.
This is all pretty basic stuff that my kids managed. Certainly, no sophisticated Linux user could actually go three months without figuring all of those things out.
Good for you. I was making money doing DOS tech support when I was 8, I guess that means a simple CLI is all anybody should ever need, and fuck GUIs right?
As a long-time Debian and Ubuntu user myself, I find it particularly comical that you think Ubuntu is well-thought-out. Configuration options are scattered about, the menubar has a truly bizarre default arrangement, and the application menu is far from complete. It's much more likely the case that "well thought out" means "the one I'm more familiar with".
Exactly, you're far too used to OSX to notice the idiocy of its interfaces and, as result, find Debian and Ubuntu "bizarre". Lemme guess, you think the same of Windows, right? oh, don't worry, I can tell.
Start simple and let users add what they personally like is a recipe that works. How about asking the question, "how can I do what I want?"
The problem is that when the simplest answer is "install Windows or Linux on this", as in the GP's case, you've already lost.
Same goes for Windows and the registry, and OSX and their XML config files. Your point?