You may 'sigh' yet again, but the reason this keeps popping up is because it's a valid criticism that hasn't yet been addressed. Perhaps it's true that Apple wouldn't make as much money in that particular market; most people don't care! They just want a certain product at a certain price point, and Apple isn't delivering it. Sigh'ing that someone else is complaining about this oversight won't make the problem go away. Apple systems in general are either too underpowered or too expensive. There's no middle ground, and they're losing a lot of business because of it.
People need to stop thinking of jobs as the focal point of their lives. Hey, I'm as much a 'work to live' guy as the next person, but this advice is a little absurd. Tell you what, send me a million dollars (or two) and I'll gladly concentrate on other things in life. In fact, I would love to do so. But until then, don't suggest that a job and money doesn't mean anything. I for one would love to jump off the treadmill and live life on my own terms, but it's not going to happen without a job (or a huge stroke of luck).
That is a subjective opinion, but most people would look more favorably upon truly selfless giving rather than giving in an attempt to get *something* in return whether that be public approval, loyalty, or future expectation of favor(s).
In that case, nobody should ever know about selfless giving, since telling someone about it could imply that they're looking for acceptance. There's always self-interest in any human activity, even if it's on a subconscious level. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If someone donates time/money and feels good about doing so, and it benefits the recipient, what's wrong with that?
But one shouldn't ever be deluded in thinking that people do things for purely altruistic reasons. There's always an alterior motive (albeit often-times it's a good one).
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this comment, especially the part "Yes you do, you just don't know it yet". I remember being interested in compiler theory and virtual machines while going through my degree, but my understanding wasn't as good as I would have liked it to be. I found the material very interesting, but harder than all my other courses.
When I graduated, I looked around at some emulation projects, and got my feet wet with a few of them. Then after a year or so, all the things that seemed difficult during the degree started to make sense. I realized I really did understand this stuff; there just hadn't been enough time (or experience) for it to sink in. So I think you're probably not as disadvantaged as you might think. Just delve into a project and try it out!
BTW (and this is probably a minor plug), I speak from experience on this issue. I'm the current maintainer for Stella, and designed and coded large portions of the debugger that this post mentions:)
But now, returning to Linux, at least to Ubuntu. Since I installed I have had so *many* problems specifically with one of the things you say, the software is flakey, it is terribly unstable. The hibernating function works half the time and the suspend does not work (you see a whole paragraph stating that it is "experimental").
My wireless card is *supposed* to be supported and although it IS detected (broadcom 4093) it does not work so I had to add a PCMCIA card, neither ALSA or ESD work 100%, they hang half the time consuming 99% of processor, Amarok sucks as it is terribly buggy, some random applications just "die" in the middle of use without any message (the window just *disappears*).
Sounds like generally unsupported or marginal hardware. Hardware support in Linux isn't as good as Windows, and probably never will be. But for the hardware that is fully supported, I've often found it works much better in Linux than in Windows. Case in point, my current system (Latitude D420). The video updates are actually faster in Linux than in Windows, and every piece of hardware works perfectly, and this is with Kubuntu Edgy.
Long story short (and I'm not sure this is helpful to you): pair Linux with compatible hardware, and you won't have problems.
But at least the items you mention have some value other than 'to make someone jealous of what you have'. I haven't met a woman yet that wasn't ruled by that desire (to make others jealous), so I guess that explains why I'll always be alone:(
The first question people ask when someone gets lung cancer? "How long did they smoke?" For some of them the answer is, "They didn't."
And for most of them, the answer is "They did". I don't think anyone 'deserves' a disease, per se, but in many cases they are responsible for it. And smoking is one of those things that can be stopped, so someone getting lung cancer from smoking removes some compassion from their situation; it really was their own doing.
And by the way, is it one of/.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?
Not that ID is a real religion, but I think it's attacked so often because there isn't any subject that's more diametrically opposed to rational, logical ideas than religion. And since science and technology are based (or at least are supposed to be) on rational and logical ideas, I think the reason for opposition is obvious.
I'm used to going out to eat a few times a week, to spending great sums of money on myself and so forth. In short, I'm selfish. But I'm working to fix that:-)
Every second message I'm reading is from people that are considered 'selfish' because they want to do things on their own terms with their own money. Granted, the term 'selfish' means have priorities for oneself, but the connotation is usually negative. I don't see why doing what you want with your own money should have negative connotations. It's just that most people are brainwashed into believing that having children - good, not having children - bad/you're going to hell.
or if it's for more selfish reasons (want to buy that new sportscar first, can't stand the possibility of losing free time to tending children, don't want to risk ruining their figure)
Why are those reasons considered selfish? Can people choose not to have children and not be labeled as selfish? Maybe some people just don't want them. And the reasons aren't selfish or non-selfish; they just are. Of course, a lot of people think you're absolutely weird if you don't want children. Why is that?
The affordability issue never seems to stop the poor around the world from having large families. It's only the professional middle-class that concerns themselves with it, but I believe that's just an excuse.
Maybe it's because the professional middle-class person is able to rationally consider the consequences of their actions, and realize that maybe they really can't afford having a family. Anybody can throw caution to the wind, ignore their current circumstances, and start popping out babies. That doesn't take skill. What really takes skill is evaluating whether you can 'do right' by a family, and that means whether you can actually afford it.
And that's why initiatives like this are doomed to fail. One person has a suggestion for the 'proper' place to put things, and another says that it belongs somewhere else. Repeat the argument ad-naseum.
What some people fail to understand is that the 'proper' place is the one that (a) someone just makes a decision on and is done with it, and (b) everyone else can depend on.
Who cares if it should have been/etc/X11 or/var/lib. Can someone just make a damn decision already? (yes, I develop software, and this unwillingness to just MAKE A DECISION is a pet peeve of mine).
According to many studies, switching to DST saves fuel. (I'm not going to debate whether or not that is actually true, because you basically admitted that it was.) You're saying we SHOULDN'T try to save fuel by changing to DST? Just because you don't want to give up the idea that "time is absolute"? Now THAT is stubborn.
Of course we should try to increase our fuel economy, BUT if we can use even less fuel by changing to DST, why is that a bad thing?
Because most people don't want to change the way they do things, and the government will use the 'DST saves us fuel' argument to relieve them from looking at the real thing to do; INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLES.
That's why some people are against the idea. Most other people want to put their fingers in their ears and sing 'la la la' until some politician comes along with a token gesture and tells them exactly what they want to hear. Specifically, that they can continue to live their lives without any consequences for their actions, and feel good about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You may 'sigh' yet again, but the reason this keeps popping up is because it's a valid criticism that hasn't yet been addressed. Perhaps it's true that Apple wouldn't make as much money in that particular market; most people don't care! They just want a certain product at a certain price point, and Apple isn't delivering it. Sigh'ing that someone else is complaining about this oversight won't make the problem go away. Apple systems in general are either too underpowered or too expensive. There's no middle ground, and they're losing a lot of business because of it.
I've never had any problems with 64-bit in either Linux or Vista. But I will grant you the hell that is ATI and Linux.
That is a subjective opinion, but most people would look more favorably upon truly selfless giving rather than giving in an attempt to get *something* in return whether that be public approval, loyalty, or future expectation of favor(s).
In that case, nobody should ever know about selfless giving, since telling someone about it could imply that they're looking for acceptance. There's always self-interest in any human activity, even if it's on a subconscious level. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If someone donates time/money and feels good about doing so, and it benefits the recipient, what's wrong with that?
But one shouldn't ever be deluded in thinking that people do things for purely altruistic reasons. There's always an alterior motive (albeit often-times it's a good one).
I have to wholeheartedly agree with this comment, especially the part "Yes you do, you just don't know it yet". I remember being interested in compiler theory and virtual machines while going through my degree, but my understanding wasn't as good as I would have liked it to be. I found the material very interesting, but harder than all my other courses.
When I graduated, I looked around at some emulation projects, and got my feet wet with a few of them. Then after a year or so, all the things that seemed difficult during the degree started to make sense. I realized I really did understand this stuff; there just hadn't been enough time (or experience) for it to sink in. So I think you're probably not as disadvantaged as you might think. Just delve into a project and try it out!
BTW (and this is probably a minor plug), I speak from experience on this issue. I'm the current maintainer for Stella, and designed and coded large portions of the debugger that this post mentions :)
But now, returning to Linux, at least to Ubuntu. Since I installed I have had so *many* problems specifically with one of the things you say, the software is flakey, it is terribly unstable. The hibernating function works half the time and the suspend does not work (you see a whole paragraph stating that it is "experimental").
My wireless card is *supposed* to be supported and although it IS detected (broadcom 4093) it does not work so I had to add a PCMCIA card, neither ALSA or ESD work 100%, they hang half the time consuming 99% of processor, Amarok sucks as it is terribly buggy, some random applications just "die" in the middle of use without any message (the window just *disappears*).
Sounds like generally unsupported or marginal hardware. Hardware support in Linux isn't as good as Windows, and probably never will be. But for the hardware that is fully supported, I've often found it works much better in Linux than in Windows. Case in point, my current system (Latitude D420). The video updates are actually faster in Linux than in Windows, and every piece of hardware works perfectly, and this is with Kubuntu Edgy.
Long story short (and I'm not sure this is helpful to you): pair Linux with compatible hardware, and you won't have problems.
But at least the items you mention have some value other than 'to make someone jealous of what you have'. I haven't met a woman yet that wasn't ruled by that desire (to make others jealous), so I guess that explains why I'll always be alone :(
The first question people ask when someone gets lung cancer? "How long did they smoke?" For some of them the answer is, "They didn't."
And for most of them, the answer is "They did". I don't think anyone 'deserves' a disease, per se, but in many cases they are responsible for it. And smoking is one of those things that can be stopped, so someone getting lung cancer from smoking removes some compassion from their situation; it really was their own doing.
And by the way, is it one of /.'s top priorities to attack religion every chance it gets?
Not that ID is a real religion, but I think it's attacked so often because there isn't any subject that's more diametrically opposed to rational, logical ideas than religion. And since science and technology are based (or at least are supposed to be) on rational and logical ideas, I think the reason for opposition is obvious.
I'm used to going out to eat a few times a week, to spending great sums of money on myself and so forth. In short, I'm selfish. But I'm working to fix that:-)
Every second message I'm reading is from people that are considered 'selfish' because they want to do things on their own terms with their own money. Granted, the term 'selfish' means have priorities for oneself, but the connotation is usually negative. I don't see why doing what you want with your own money should have negative connotations. It's just that most people are brainwashed into believing that having children - good, not having children - bad/you're going to hell.
or if it's for more selfish reasons (want to buy that new sportscar first, can't stand the possibility of losing free time to tending children, don't want to risk ruining their figure)
Why are those reasons considered selfish? Can people choose not to have children and not be labeled as selfish? Maybe some people just don't want them. And the reasons aren't selfish or non-selfish; they just are. Of course, a lot of people think you're absolutely weird if you don't want children. Why is that?
The affordability issue never seems to stop the poor around the world from having large families. It's only the professional middle-class that concerns themselves with it, but I believe that's just an excuse.
Maybe it's because the professional middle-class person is able to rationally consider the consequences of their actions, and realize that maybe they really can't afford having a family. Anybody can throw caution to the wind, ignore their current circumstances, and start popping out babies. That doesn't take skill. What really takes skill is evaluating whether you can 'do right' by a family, and that means whether you can actually afford it.
And that's why initiatives like this are doomed to fail. One person has a suggestion for the 'proper' place to put things, and another says that it belongs somewhere else. Repeat the argument ad-naseum.
What some people fail to understand is that the 'proper' place is the one that (a) someone just makes a decision on and is done with it, and (b) everyone else can depend on.
Who cares if it should have been /etc/X11 or /var/lib. Can someone just make a damn decision already? (yes, I develop software, and this unwillingness to just MAKE A DECISION is a pet peeve of mine).
According to many studies, switching to DST saves fuel. (I'm not going to debate whether or not that is actually true, because you basically admitted that it was.) You're saying we SHOULDN'T try to save fuel by changing to DST? Just because you don't want to give up the idea that "time is absolute"? Now THAT is stubborn.
Of course we should try to increase our fuel economy, BUT if we can use even less fuel by changing to DST, why is that a bad thing?
Because most people don't want to change the way they do things, and the government will use the 'DST saves us fuel' argument to relieve them from looking at the real thing to do; INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLES.
That's why some people are against the idea. Most other people want to put their fingers in their ears and sing 'la la la' until some politician comes along with a token gesture and tells them exactly what they want to hear. Specifically, that they can continue to live their lives without any consequences for their actions, and feel good about it.