the Democratic administration wants to encourage free market competition, and the Republicans in Congress want to limit it.
And Republicans are supposed to be for lower taxes. Meanwhile, Ken Davlin, the Democrat who was Mayor here before he shot himself, didn't raise taxes once. Mike Houstin, the current Republican Mayor, raised electric rates (the city owns the power plant) last year, and raised property yaxes this year.
I wonder why nobody seems to notice that the Tea Party didn't seem to mind Bush taking us from a balanced budget to the biggest defecit in history until Obama was elected? Or why they think we're "Taxed Enough Already" when Federal taxes are lower than they've been since Truman?
We Americans are (collectively) incredibly stupid. What's worse, the politicians know it.
You're only in the minority because most people don't have good enough speakers to tell the difference between am MP3 and a WAV. Especially when many of the CDs are mastered so badly.
As to listening to albums from start to finish, that is old school. Note that a lot of the older (from the analog age) music is meant to be listened to an LP side at a time, rather than the whole CD at once. Someone here once complained that "Money" didn't fit the "Dark Side of the Moon" CD, well, it isn't suposed to. There's supposed to be an intermission between sides, "Money" starts act two.
Most Pink Floyd, a lot of Bealtles and Who, and other older rock groups were into the "whole album" (or album side) thing.
No, this was in the news a few weeks ago. It isn't the caffiene, it's some other compound or mixture of compounds in coffee. Decaf works as well as caffeinated, and Coke, Pepsi, Red Bull and tea don't have the effect at all.
So clearly the takeaway is that Bradbury sucks at getting his point across.
That's the thing about all art -- it's often difficult to be completely understood, and easy to be misunderstood. When I was writing the Paxil Diaries, people that were actually in the stories were fans of the stories, and didn't even realise that they were the ones in the stories!
Charlie Manson thought the Beatles song "Helter Skelter" was a call to rise up and kill black people. Play it backwards and Lennon is singing "I like smack! Wooooo!" Actually, it's about a water slide.
It's incredibly hard to get a point across using fiction.
A couple of years ago (I wish I could find the link) a book publisher wanted to know how much piracy was costing him, so he commissioned a study to find out. Since books don't hit the internet for a few weeks after it goes on sale, the researchers watched sales figures from the time of release to a point after the book hit the net. The researchers and publisher were astounded that rather than a drop in sales, there was actually a sales spike! Having it on the net, they hypothesized, generated "buzz".
Cory Doctorow credits his standing as a best seller to the fact that he puts his books on boingboing for free download.
As he points out, nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. I believe this is the real reason the RIAA is against the internet -- they have radio, their independant competetion doesn't, and relies on the internet and P2P to escape obscurity.
Especially considering the case of Roger McGuinn. His band, the Byrds, were a huge success in the early sixties, but by 1970 his label condidered him "too old" and by 1980 he was pretty broke, playing in bars. Since the advent of the internet, he's successful again. "[the old outlawed] Napster ressurected my music career," he claims.
There is one group that piracy hurts -- those whose work sucks. These are perhaps the most vehemently anti-piracy folks; they can no longer fool you into buying a shitty album with one good song that gets lots of airplay.
I have 'em on tape, I have 'em on DVD, I have 'em on my hard drive, and they run them every Saturday night on MeTV (free over the air). Why would I want to pay NetFlix for what I already have?
However, think of all the visually impaired people who'd benefit from this
Visually impaired people would benefit from a phone that had no screen at all, but braille buttons and tactile/audio feedback. Why would a blind person want to to pay for an expensive touchscreen that they can't see? Real buttons are far cheaper. Touch screens are for the sighted only.
There was no "before" the big bang. There was no time, space, matter, energy, distance, or anything else. Our universe may be inside another universe, or there may be other universes along side ours, but other universes may not even have such a thing as "time".
Not knowing how to do something doesn't mean the underlying platform is rubbish
Not being able to easily find out how to do something is a glaring flaw in documentation. Microsoft used to have excellent docs back in the DOS days, but the help has gone from excellent to nearly useless.
easy enough to do in XP through to 7 the GUI
Where's the documentation? I listed the inability to do that in a comment last week, and only ONE person knew how to do it, and his explanation (although simple, one command) required the command line.
You have a mental blocker than prevents you from seeing Windows fairly compared to Linux. Perhaps you're more attuned to Linux, that's fine.
I've been using MS OSes since 1985, and used to be a big fan. They started going downhill some time after DOS 6.2. I started disliking Windows when 98 bluescreened constantly, and disliked it even more when I upgraded to XP and getting past their antipiracy bullshit when I paid for a boxed set at Circut City was a pain. I had to call MS to register the damned thing, and racked up an hour and a half on the phone with them, the damned phone call cost me $40 on my cell phone (I had AT&T back then). When a Windows update broke internet connectivity is when I started looking at Linux, and haven't looked back. Linux (at least KDE) has a lot of features that are either missing or impossible to find in Windows, but I haven't found a single thing Windows will do that KDE won't.
As to Linux, I hate Red Hat and I hate Gnome. If I'd only known about Gnome on Red Hat, I'd probably hate Linux.
Your OS just doesn't have any reason to exist on the desktop
I have better things to spend my money on than OSes and apps. Like more hardware, guitar strings, beer... it's foolish to spend money on bottled water when it's free out of the water fountain.
I'm a nerd, but I'm not Bill Gates. I have better places to waste my money than Redmond, especially since the free OS is head and shoulders above the paid-for one.
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, except in the minds of a few people in Kansas and Texas. Science and religion ask and answer different questions.
Half of all scientists are Christians. There isn't any connection or conflict between science and religion. As to intellect, the only logical position is agnosticism, unless you've experienced God first hand -- which I have.
Isn't it funny how all the Linux guys can't seem to keep Windows running and clean, while everybody else doesn't seem to have a bit o' trouble?
I've been hit by exactly two viruses: the Michelangelo boot sector virus I carried home from work on a floppy (that would have been 15-20 years ago) and Sony's XCP trojan rootkit. Most of the last ten years I've used Linux dual-boot, right now I have one Linux box and one Win7 box that will be dual-boot soon.
The Linux box has only 750K of RAM and runs like a top and has for a few years. The notebook (1 gig RAM) used to be fast, but it's six months old and slowing (God damned ever-growing registry).
Linux is a hell of a lot more of a PITA than Windows on its worst day. Don't take my word for it, read this fine article from one of the Red hat devs who says what linux is going through now is its "death cries" from mistakes made in the design at its conception.
I never did like Red Hat, you might want to take that article with a large grain of salt. If there were "mistakes made in the design at its conception" then it would have falen apart long before now, it's twenty years old. And you're wrong about Linux being a PITA; the Linux box gives me no trouble at all, Windows continually pisses me off. Linux updates every few weeks or so, and does so with a single click and no reboots. Windows (or one of the apps running on it) wants to update every two weeks or even more often, and almost always requires a reboot.
If Linux has a quality problem, then why is it Windows that needs patched at least monthy? Why is Windows so much slower on the same computer?
So if you want to spend your weekends fiddling with your PC like a 73 Dodge?
Then Windows is the OS for you!
the rest of us just use a decent AV and a tiny bit of common sense and magically we don't have any problems.
Thoseof us on Linux and Macs need no AV and "magically" have no problems (I could be wrong about Macs, I have no recent experience with them).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's several games. The winners are listed here.
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic with his "loose" spelling.
the Democratic administration wants to encourage free market competition, and the Republicans in Congress want to limit it.
And Republicans are supposed to be for lower taxes. Meanwhile, Ken Davlin, the Democrat who was Mayor here before he shot himself, didn't raise taxes once. Mike Houstin, the current Republican Mayor, raised electric rates (the city owns the power plant) last year, and raised property yaxes this year.
I wonder why nobody seems to notice that the Tea Party didn't seem to mind Bush taking us from a balanced budget to the biggest defecit in history until Obama was elected? Or why they think we're "Taxed Enough Already" when Federal taxes are lower than they've been since Truman?
We Americans are (collectively) incredibly stupid. What's worse, the politicians know it.
The woosh is on you, son. You never saw Police Squad?
tea can be dangerous in too large a quantity
There is little that isn't dangerous in too large a quantity. Even oxygen and water.
You're only in the minority because most people don't have good enough speakers to tell the difference between am MP3 and a WAV. Especially when many of the CDs are mastered so badly.
As to listening to albums from start to finish, that is old school. Note that a lot of the older (from the analog age) music is meant to be listened to an LP side at a time, rather than the whole CD at once. Someone here once complained that "Money" didn't fit the "Dark Side of the Moon" CD, well, it isn't suposed to. There's supposed to be an intermission between sides, "Money" starts act two.
Most Pink Floyd, a lot of Bealtles and Who, and other older rock groups were into the "whole album" (or album side) thing.
No, this was in the news a few weeks ago. It isn't the caffiene, it's some other compound or mixture of compounds in coffee. Decaf works as well as caffeinated, and Coke, Pepsi, Red Bull and tea don't have the effect at all.
So clearly the takeaway is that Bradbury sucks at getting his point across.
That's the thing about all art -- it's often difficult to be completely understood, and easy to be misunderstood. When I was writing the Paxil Diaries, people that were actually in the stories were fans of the stories, and didn't even realise that they were the ones in the stories!
Charlie Manson thought the Beatles song "Helter Skelter" was a call to rise up and kill black people. Play it backwards and Lennon is singing "I like smack! Wooooo!" Actually, it's about a water slide.
It's incredibly hard to get a point across using fiction.
Piracy = increased sales?
A couple of years ago (I wish I could find the link) a book publisher wanted to know how much piracy was costing him, so he commissioned a study to find out. Since books don't hit the internet for a few weeks after it goes on sale, the researchers watched sales figures from the time of release to a point after the book hit the net. The researchers and publisher were astounded that rather than a drop in sales, there was actually a sales spike! Having it on the net, they hypothesized, generated "buzz".
Cory Doctorow credits his standing as a best seller to the fact that he puts his books on boingboing for free download.
As he points out, nobody ever went broke from piracy, but many artists have starved from obscurity. I believe this is the real reason the RIAA is against the internet -- they have radio, their independant competetion doesn't, and relies on the internet and P2P to escape obscurity.
Especially considering the case of Roger McGuinn. His band, the Byrds, were a huge success in the early sixties, but by 1970 his label condidered him "too old" and by 1980 he was pretty broke, playing in bars. Since the advent of the internet, he's successful again. "[the old outlawed] Napster ressurected my music career," he claims.
There is one group that piracy hurts -- those whose work sucks. These are perhaps the most vehemently anti-piracy folks; they can no longer fool you into buying a shitty album with one good song that gets lots of airplay.
I have 'em on tape, I have 'em on DVD, I have 'em on my hard drive, and they run them every Saturday night on MeTV (free over the air). Why would I want to pay NetFlix for what I already have?
However, think of all the visually impaired people who'd benefit from this
Visually impaired people would benefit from a phone that had no screen at all, but braille buttons and tactile/audio feedback. Why would a blind person want to to pay for an expensive touchscreen that they can't see? Real buttons are far cheaper. Touch screens are for the sighted only.
We are talking specifically about Christianity and it's zealotry.
No, we're talking about a tiny subset of Christianity. Most Christians accept evolution.
There was no "before" the big bang. There was no time, space, matter, energy, distance, or anything else. Our universe may be inside another universe, or there may be other universes along side ours, but other universes may not even have such a thing as "time".
Not knowing how to do something doesn't mean the underlying platform is rubbish
Not being able to easily find out how to do something is a glaring flaw in documentation. Microsoft used to have excellent docs back in the DOS days, but the help has gone from excellent to nearly useless.
easy enough to do in XP through to 7 the GUI
Where's the documentation? I listed the inability to do that in a comment last week, and only ONE person knew how to do it, and his explanation (although simple, one command) required the command line.
You have a mental blocker than prevents you from seeing Windows fairly compared to Linux. Perhaps you're more attuned to Linux, that's fine.
I've been using MS OSes since 1985, and used to be a big fan. They started going downhill some time after DOS 6.2. I started disliking Windows when 98 bluescreened constantly, and disliked it even more when I upgraded to XP and getting past their antipiracy bullshit when I paid for a boxed set at Circut City was a pain. I had to call MS to register the damned thing, and racked up an hour and a half on the phone with them, the damned phone call cost me $40 on my cell phone (I had AT&T back then). When a Windows update broke internet connectivity is when I started looking at Linux, and haven't looked back. Linux (at least KDE) has a lot of features that are either missing or impossible to find in Windows, but I haven't found a single thing Windows will do that KDE won't.
As to Linux, I hate Red Hat and I hate Gnome. If I'd only known about Gnome on Red Hat, I'd probably hate Linux.
This world that we live in really needs more imagination
It could always use more imagination. I haven't been to Florida since 1985, so I don't know what Disney's "imagineers" are up to these days.
Your OS just doesn't have any reason to exist on the desktop
I have better things to spend my money on than OSes and apps. Like more hardware, guitar strings, beer... it's foolish to spend money on bottled water when it's free out of the water fountain.
I'm a nerd, but I'm not Bill Gates. I have better places to waste my money than Redmond, especially since the free OS is head and shoulders above the paid-for one.
Well, since we're nerds, we're already kooks.
It's firsthand experience for me, but it would only be unsubstantiated, unbelievable rumor to you.
And I got the feeling that you might want to be educated. My bad.
Odin would go after the guy with a spear, not an axe
Indeed. Here's Odin and here's his spear. Yes, he used it on me! WARNING: The second link is a bit gruesome.
Well, the main box is running Linux so I won't worry TOO much. If the Win box craps out, I can always slap Linux on it.
Science and religion have nothing to do with each other, except in the minds of a few people in Kansas and Texas. Science and religion ask and answer different questions.
Half of all scientists are Christians. There isn't any connection or conflict between science and religion. As to intellect, the only logical position is agnosticism, unless you've experienced God first hand -- which I have.
Funny, but incorrect. Jet fuel (I'm only acquainted with JP-3 and JP-4) is a mixture of gasoline and kerosine.
Isn't it funny how all the Linux guys can't seem to keep Windows running and clean, while everybody else doesn't seem to have a bit o' trouble?
I've been hit by exactly two viruses: the Michelangelo boot sector virus I carried home from work on a floppy (that would have been 15-20 years ago) and Sony's XCP trojan rootkit. Most of the last ten years I've used Linux dual-boot, right now I have one Linux box and one Win7 box that will be dual-boot soon.
The Linux box has only 750K of RAM and runs like a top and has for a few years. The notebook (1 gig RAM) used to be fast, but it's six months old and slowing (God damned ever-growing registry).
Linux is a hell of a lot more of a PITA than Windows on its worst day. Don't take my word for it, read this fine article from one of the Red hat devs who says what linux is going through now is its "death cries" from mistakes made in the design at its conception.
I never did like Red Hat, you might want to take that article with a large grain of salt. If there were "mistakes made in the design at its conception" then it would have falen apart long before now, it's twenty years old. And you're wrong about Linux being a PITA; the Linux box gives me no trouble at all, Windows continually pisses me off. Linux updates every few weeks or so, and does so with a single click and no reboots. Windows (or one of the apps running on it) wants to update every two weeks or even more often, and almost always requires a reboot.
If Linux has a quality problem, then why is it Windows that needs patched at least monthy? Why is Windows so much slower on the same computer?
So if you want to spend your weekends fiddling with your PC like a 73 Dodge?
Then Windows is the OS for you!
the rest of us just use a decent AV and a tiny bit of common sense and magically we don't have any problems.
Thoseof us on Linux and Macs need no AV and "magically" have no problems (I could be wrong about Macs, I have no recent experience with them).
The US leads the world in but two things: shit and debt.
Well, we may be more full of shit than anybody else, but Europe is farther in debt than we are. Its debt is dragging the entire world's economy down.