You know one of the easiest ways to make life simpler for people new to GNU/Linux? Just calling it fucking *Linux* rather than being pedantic.
When someone who doesn't know much about computers asks you, "What does your computer run?" do you answer simply with "Windows" or "Apple Mac" or perhaps "Linux" - which they would understand - or do you go into geek-mode and say, "A custom hybrid GNU/Linux slackware-ubuntu distribution running the 2.6 kernel with KDE and WindowMaker"?
Leave the GNU/ part out of it. We all know what you mean, and those that don't, well - they just don't give a crap.
Do you really think that the largest companies in the world would put their support requirements in the hands of "smaller outfits"? Large enterprises want products that they know will be around for a long time, support the know will be available 24/7/365 from big companies that know what they're talking about.
For small companies or groups on a budget, small OSS projects with mercenary support structures might be just what they want, I'm not disagreeing with you - but when you're big, and you're talking about losses of millions for every hour a system is down, you want to know something solid is there to back you up when you need it. You really don't want to get a "Sorry, all three of us are out the office today. Merry Christmas!" message when you ring up because your systems screwed themselves at an unfortunate time:P Red Hat is a perfect example of what big corporations want, and that's why RedHat is one of the biggest players in enterprise linux.
You can write very beautiful code and yet have an interface as ugly as sin... likewise, you can have horrible spaghetti code lying behind a very pretty GUI.
Besides, isn't it good design to keep the interface of your program slightly ugly, whilst maintaining a logical and flowing design, as to avoid distracting the user from what they're trying to do? Flowers and curves and ponies are all well and good, but they don't necessarily make for an easy to use interface.
and the tobacco that most people mix in with weed so it burns better...?
Either way, you're inhaling burning hot smoke particles of strange plant matter... that doesn't strike me as the most healthy sounding thing to be doing, and it may not kill you, but i can't see it being good for your throat and lungs particularly
I apologise to begin with, because I know I'll end up being bitter and twisted by the end of this post. But the simple fact is I can't believe that people think they're doing their bit to lower fuel consumption when they're still using an engine that's probably almost twice the size it needs to be.
2.3 litre? 26mpg? Get a 1.8 and do closer to 40mpg. I'm pretty sure you can live without that extra half a litre.
Do you actually do anything that requires an engine that big? or is this a secondary car only really used for commuting and the odd trip to the supermarket? I mean, I could be wrong - for all I know you tow a horsebox trailer every other weekend and need the torque to keep you moving Maybe you partake in illegal street races and need the speed to rip up the tarmac. Perhaps you live up a giant mountainside and need the power for the steep, steep slopes. But I somehow guess that's not the case, and you're just amazed that you're getting something above the teens for a change...
Full Disclosure: I drive a 1.2 Renault at the moment. Although it's inefficient doing motorway miles it's perfect for commuting to work in medium traffic at medium speeds, which is the vast majority of my driving. I am also a Land Rover enthusiast, although I do not currently own one, but I maintain that 4x4s (SUVs) should be used only where one is required, and not for driving to work in because you think you look cool.
Me? I'm not confusing anything. The post I replied to made a blanket statement that was false... Theories CAN be proven true, and it's not my fault that the distinction you talk about was not noted there. "Theory" was the term used, not "Scientific rather than Mathematical Theory"
You note the different facets of the nature of theories but ignore the fact that "theory" doesn't refer to any particular type - it includes both the scientific and the mathematical. In fact, doesn't scientific method say something about finding one example where a rule is broken is all that's required to prove something false?;)
You raise an interesting point actually - it seems to me that biologists never refer to multiple viruses as "virii", and it's a term used almost exclusively in IT (although I admit I only know a few bio-geeks so this is by no means an authoritative statement:D).
Is it therefore not a good and reasonable way to tell the difference between bio and tech viruses? It would, if anything, reduce confusion about which was being referred to...
Only 4 types of people should drive 4x4 off-roaders (or "SUV" if you like) - people who use them for something that a normal car could not do. e.g....
- farmers and the like using them as work vehicles (off-road for livelihood)
- people who live in really out-of-the-way places (off-road for practicality)
- leisure off-roaders. It's a sport and a hobby (off-road for pleasure)
- owners of really big trailers, caravans, that sort of thing, who need the pulling power Whereas 4 types of people should definitely NOT drive them...
- school-run mothers (mounting the pavement, that's off the road, right?)
- "I have a bigger car than you" (big car because of tiny penis)
- Men in their mid-life-crisis (all the cool kids drive open-top jeeps)
- Gangsters
You know, with the ammount of people saying how they *don't* have accounts, ever get the feeling that the lady doth protest too much?;)
"myspace is uuuugly!" Yes yes yes, we've all heard it a thousand times. Perhaps if geeks like you lot went on and used your ubar CSS and HTML skillz there'd be plenty of pretty profiles showing all those myspace losers how it's done;)
You don't like it? that's fine. But millions of people DO like it, so 1) it can't be all that bad, and 2) there simply aren't enough emo's for the entire site to be full of the stereotypes people are throwing out:P
If you haven't played (and then become addicted to) Oblivion, then you're seriously missing out. Plus, Supreme Commander comes out soon... and that will be awesome.
I don't see how it's different from using any natural product as a material used to make anything else. Wood, Rubber, Oil - these are all natural products with varying quality from item to item. You need to check each one - quality control. Surely this is exactly the same. Natural Nanowires would have to be tested to make sure they were suitable
In my experience, although MS operating sytems have the multitude of problems that/. screams about every 20 seconds, MS *hardware* has been excellent. For a long time MS was the best mouse manufacturer out there, and I'd quite happily use MS mice or keyboards, although I don't at the moment.
Two of my close friends - gamers both - use MS keyboards (A year old Natural and some new media offering) and mice (One with the new side-scrolling thing, one an InteliMouse of some sort) and love them deeply.
I have a Mac friend, but for years has been using MS mice because the Apple offerings were so dire.
I have a GameVoice, it's a brilliant piece of gear (admittedly, thay may be due to plantronics, but still...) and although the plantronics headset that comes with it broke on me a few months ago (but damn, that thing lasted for a good couple of years) the switch box I still use.
I own a modified Xbox, and I love it. I'll buy a 360 when I can both afford it and Halo3 is out.
At the moment I'm using a particularly lovely Logitec MX510 and a Cherry CyBo@rd keyboard - awful name, absolutely great keyboard that's so good, when I spilled tea all over my first one I scoured as many online shops as I could to find somewhere that still stocked the years old design - rather than MS offerings, but I have used MS previous to my current gear.
MS may be lacking behind Apple when it comes to software, but it's Keyboards and Mice offerings have generally been superior to apple offerings for years - the only area they're in the same market, afaik. Still are, if you ask me. Don't count them out quite so soon...
I love it when, just occasionally, someone on/. actually gives up some useful information. It's a shame that posts like this that, although not directly related to the story or such, clearly deserve at least an extra +1 or +2 end up stuck at their starting score, whilst bad "does it run linux", chair-throwing and "I for one welcome our new [blah] overlords" re-hashes end up with +5's./. moderation sucks.
I Thank you, Mr. Nougat, for your post. I fear no one else will:P
wouldn't it make more sense to just throw the grenade at the police and let the explosion do its thing? If you're going to use explosives you can't be worried about injuring people, so it seems silly to waste the explosion on just taking out their guns:P
Of course there are exceptions. The old volvo estates are a good example, and I'll agree to your Civic note... but as a matter of scale, it's generally not the same. Old-school Land Rovers are very common, whereas 20, 30 or 40 year old cars are the exception rather than the norm.
I don't live in the US:)
Well, in my experience - having lived in both urban, suburban and rural Britain, there are two types of "suv" - a "proper" 4x4 designed for use in the country, on farms, and for off-roading - typically, Land Rovers; and the school-run 4x4 - typically Porche or BMW monstrosities. I'm talking about the real off-roaders.
Now, maybe it's because countryside types are tight (teehee), or maybe it's because a "proper" 4x4 has been designed to take a shitload more punishment than any normal car would be exposed to, but off-roaders have, in my anecdotal experience, a much longer working lifespan than most other cars.
The simple fact is, a Land Rover *is* a *very* well built car - it has to be to survive it's job, and that's why militaries, governments and such all over the world use Land Rovers. One will easily last 30 years with just a little care and attention. Trying to run something as simple as a Ford Escort that's only something like 10 years old has been much more of a headache for a family member of mine than another who is running a ragtop series II.
The oft-quoted statistic is that 75% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in use today. I'd assume a similar level from many "true" 4x4s (real off-road types, rather than school run-esque designs) although my personal experience is more limited to Landies. Series/Defender Land Rovers are the easiest things to repair ever. The old-school Toyota Hi-Lux may be a decidedly average looking vehicle, but is virtually indestructable.
Standard cars are designed for a life of... what... 6 years? maybe 10 years at a push? You don't see many cars much older than that driving around - but I still see Series II Land Rovers, some of which which must now be over 40 years old, driving round quite a bit (relatively speaking). Series III's we're looking at 20, 25 year old vehicles, and they're as common as muck.
the actual act of Manufacturing the parts produces substantial ammounts of greenhouse gases.
That's one of the more interesting aspects of 4x4 (SUV) ownership - although they may use lots of fuel, often 4x4s will last years and years longer than any other car (the land rover [series/defender] is a prime example) - the ammount of damage done to the environment through fuel burning is relatively small when compared to the pollution caused by the actual manufacturing process. The same thing applies to rockets, I'd imagine...
Although you could argue that the United Kingdom really only existed from the Act of Union of 1800 onwards, I would argue that the various laws and acts which have created the UK are really just a continuation of government as has been in place since the English Monarchs were in control - more of an evolution than a revolution.
If, instead, you wish to point to Parliament, it has existed in various forms since 1066, although you might point to dates such as 1215 as the first point when those other than the monarch exerted control over government action, or 1265 when the first form of parliament truly first emerged. Maybe 1295, when the model parliament was formed? How about 1660, the date of the restoration?
Even the 11(?) years following the Civil War (the "Interregnum") when the Cromwell's were essentially Dictators, Parliament still existed, simply without the upper house. After the restoration, the country was returned to essentially exactly the same state it was in beforehand. Other than that, there has been a constant, fluid, evolution of government.
Lets take a looksie...
England as a country in pretty much the modern form has existed since Athelstan of England.
Wales and England have, essentially, been governed together since 1284. Officially they were united in 1535.
Scotland and England were similarly governed together since 1603, and officially since 1707.
The same thing with Ireland from the 15th-17th Centuries, officially since 1800.
The Republic of Ireland separated in 1922. Would you say that was a good point to say the UK existed from? I don't, and so I would argue that all the other changes that you state are just as much of a continuation of government as this.
If you lived in Germany over the last 70 years, I think there are several points where you could say, "Yes, this is a different country" - but i don't think any such drastic changes have happened in the UK which would make an observer say the same thing.
I'd say the UK has been in existence since 1284, and since then it has just added on extra bits:) If you don't like that date, how about 1295, when the entity that can be traced as the direct form to which the modern Parliament evolved from was first formed - i.e. the initial incarnation of the modern form of government, still in use today? Even if you use 1603, based upon monarchy, that still beats the US by a fair whack;)
Slashdot Mirror
You know one of the easiest ways to make life simpler for people new to GNU/Linux? Just calling it fucking *Linux* rather than being pedantic.
When someone who doesn't know much about computers asks you, "What does your computer run?" do you answer simply with "Windows" or "Apple Mac" or perhaps "Linux" - which they would understand - or do you go into geek-mode and say, "A custom hybrid GNU/Linux slackware-ubuntu distribution running the 2.6 kernel with KDE and WindowMaker"?
Leave the GNU/ part out of it. We all know what you mean, and those that don't, well - they just don't give a crap.
Do you really think that the largest companies in the world would put their support requirements in the hands of "smaller outfits"?
:P Red Hat is a perfect example of what big corporations want, and that's why RedHat is one of the biggest players in enterprise linux.
Large enterprises want products that they know will be around for a long time, support the know will be available 24/7/365 from big companies that know what they're talking about.
For small companies or groups on a budget, small OSS projects with mercenary support structures might be just what they want, I'm not disagreeing with you - but when you're big, and you're talking about losses of millions for every hour a system is down, you want to know something solid is there to back you up when you need it. You really don't want to get a "Sorry, all three of us are out the office today. Merry Christmas!" message when you ring up because your systems screwed themselves at an unfortunate time
Most people, when referring to the support needed, are talking about Companies, not Individuals.
If MegaWidgets, Inc. has its email and web servers crash and can't sell any Widgets, then that's when you need support.
You start losing money at a rapid, rapid rate when key services drop. In business, you can't afford to be out of the game for any length of time.
You can write very beautiful code and yet have an interface as ugly as sin... likewise, you can have horrible spaghetti code lying behind a very pretty GUI.
Besides, isn't it good design to keep the interface of your program slightly ugly, whilst maintaining a logical and flowing design, as to avoid distracting the user from what they're trying to do? Flowers and curves and ponies are all well and good, but they don't necessarily make for an easy to use interface.
and the tobacco that most people mix in with weed so it burns better...?
Either way, you're inhaling burning hot smoke particles of strange plant matter... that doesn't strike me as the most healthy sounding thing to be doing, and it may not kill you, but i can't see it being good for your throat and lungs particularly
I apologise to begin with, because I know I'll end up being bitter and twisted by the end of this post. But the simple fact is I can't believe that people think they're doing their bit to lower fuel consumption when they're still using an engine that's probably almost twice the size it needs to be.
2.3 litre? 26mpg? Get a 1.8 and do closer to 40mpg. I'm pretty sure you can live without that extra half a litre.
Do you actually do anything that requires an engine that big? or is this a secondary car only really used for commuting and the odd trip to the supermarket? I mean, I could be wrong - for all I know you tow a horsebox trailer every other weekend and need the torque to keep you moving Maybe you partake in illegal street races and need the speed to rip up the tarmac. Perhaps you live up a giant mountainside and need the power for the steep, steep slopes. But I somehow guess that's not the case, and you're just amazed that you're getting something above the teens for a change...
Full Disclosure: I drive a 1.2 Renault at the moment. Although it's inefficient doing motorway miles it's perfect for commuting to work in medium traffic at medium speeds, which is the vast majority of my driving. I am also a Land Rover enthusiast, although I do not currently own one, but I maintain that 4x4s (SUVs) should be used only where one is required, and not for driving to work in because you think you look cool.
Me? I'm not confusing anything. The post I replied to made a blanket statement that was false... Theories CAN be proven true, and it's not my fault that the distinction you talk about was not noted there. "Theory" was the term used, not "Scientific rather than Mathematical Theory"
;)
You note the different facets of the nature of theories but ignore the fact that "theory" doesn't refer to any particular type - it includes both the scientific and the mathematical. In fact, doesn't scientific method say something about finding one example where a rule is broken is all that's required to prove something false?
Mr. T?
Sure you can. They can turn into a Theorem.
Pythagoras is the most obvious example.
You raise an interesting point actually - it seems to me that biologists never refer to multiple viruses as "virii", and it's a term used almost exclusively in IT (although I admit I only know a few bio-geeks so this is by no means an authoritative statement :D).
Is it therefore not a good and reasonable way to tell the difference between bio and tech viruses? It would, if anything, reduce confusion about which was being referred to...
I find it amusing that everyone knew what was meant by "virii" but virtually no one knows what the fuck you're talking about ;)
Only 4 types of people should drive 4x4 off-roaders (or "SUV" if you like) - people who use them for something that a normal car could not do. e.g....
- farmers and the like using them as work vehicles (off-road for livelihood)
- people who live in really out-of-the-way places (off-road for practicality)
- leisure off-roaders. It's a sport and a hobby (off-road for pleasure)
- owners of really big trailers, caravans, that sort of thing, who need the pulling power
Whereas 4 types of people should definitely NOT drive them...
- school-run mothers (mounting the pavement, that's off the road, right?)
- "I have a bigger car than you" (big car because of tiny penis)
- Men in their mid-life-crisis (all the cool kids drive open-top jeeps)
- Gangsters
what really impresses me is just how much spending the time to correct a two letter grammatical mistake added to the conversation :)
:/
oh, no... wait... I'm being hypocritical, aren't I?
Why do I have no mod points? arrr!
;)
;)
:P
You know, with the ammount of people saying how they *don't* have accounts, ever get the feeling that the lady doth protest too much?
"myspace is uuuugly!" Yes yes yes, we've all heard it a thousand times. Perhaps if geeks like you lot went on and used your ubar CSS and HTML skillz there'd be plenty of pretty profiles showing all those myspace losers how it's done
You don't like it? that's fine. But millions of people DO like it, so 1) it can't be all that bad, and 2) there simply aren't enough emo's for the entire site to be full of the stereotypes people are throwing out
If you haven't played (and then become addicted to) Oblivion, then you're seriously missing out.
Plus, Supreme Commander comes out soon... and that will be awesome.
I don't see how it's different from using any natural product as a material used to make anything else. Wood, Rubber, Oil - these are all natural products with varying quality from item to item. You need to check each one - quality control. Surely this is exactly the same. Natural Nanowires would have to be tested to make sure they were suitable
In my experience, although MS operating sytems have the multitude of problems that /. screams about every 20 seconds, MS *hardware* has been excellent. For a long time MS was the best mouse manufacturer out there, and I'd quite happily use MS mice or keyboards, although I don't at the moment.
Two of my close friends - gamers both - use MS keyboards (A year old Natural and some new media offering) and mice (One with the new side-scrolling thing, one an InteliMouse of some sort) and love them deeply.
I have a Mac friend, but for years has been using MS mice because the Apple offerings were so dire.
I have a GameVoice, it's a brilliant piece of gear (admittedly, thay may be due to plantronics, but still...) and although the plantronics headset that comes with it broke on me a few months ago (but damn, that thing lasted for a good couple of years) the switch box I still use.
I own a modified Xbox, and I love it. I'll buy a 360 when I can both afford it and Halo3 is out.
At the moment I'm using a particularly lovely Logitec MX510 and a Cherry CyBo@rd keyboard - awful name, absolutely great keyboard that's so good, when I spilled tea all over my first one I scoured as many online shops as I could to find somewhere that still stocked the years old design - rather than MS offerings, but I have used MS previous to my current gear.
MS may be lacking behind Apple when it comes to software, but it's Keyboards and Mice offerings have generally been superior to apple offerings for years - the only area they're in the same market, afaik. Still are, if you ask me. Don't count them out quite so soon...
I love it when, just occasionally, someone on /. actually gives up some useful information. It's a shame that posts like this that, although not directly related to the story or such, clearly deserve at least an extra +1 or +2 end up stuck at their starting score, whilst bad "does it run linux", chair-throwing and "I for one welcome our new [blah] overlords" re-hashes end up with +5's. /. moderation sucks.
:P
I Thank you, Mr. Nougat, for your post. I fear no one else will
$N? you've been playing Galactic Civ II too, huh? :P
wouldn't it make more sense to just throw the grenade at the police and let the explosion do its thing? If you're going to use explosives you can't be worried about injuring people, so it seems silly to waste the explosion on just taking out their guns :P
You got the title wrong...
When a game is 50% loading sequences and 50% running back where you've *JUST BEEN*, it stops being fun and becomes really, really irritating.
Of course there are exceptions. The old volvo estates are a good example, and I'll agree to your Civic note... but as a matter of scale, it's generally not the same. Old-school Land Rovers are very common, whereas 20, 30 or 40 year old cars are the exception rather than the norm.
:)
I don't live in the US
Well, in my experience - having lived in both urban, suburban and rural Britain, there are two types of "suv" - a "proper" 4x4 designed for use in the country, on farms, and for off-roading - typically, Land Rovers; and the school-run 4x4 - typically Porche or BMW monstrosities. I'm talking about the real off-roaders.
Now, maybe it's because countryside types are tight (teehee), or maybe it's because a "proper" 4x4 has been designed to take a shitload more punishment than any normal car would be exposed to, but off-roaders have, in my anecdotal experience, a much longer working lifespan than most other cars.
The simple fact is, a Land Rover *is* a *very* well built car - it has to be to survive it's job, and that's why militaries, governments and such all over the world use Land Rovers. One will easily last 30 years with just a little care and attention. Trying to run something as simple as a Ford Escort that's only something like 10 years old has been much more of a headache for a family member of mine than another who is running a ragtop series II.
The oft-quoted statistic is that 75% of all Land Rovers ever produced are still in use today. I'd assume a similar level from many "true" 4x4s (real off-road types, rather than school run-esque designs) although my personal experience is more limited to Landies. Series/Defender Land Rovers are the easiest things to repair ever. The old-school Toyota Hi-Lux may be a decidedly average looking vehicle, but is virtually indestructable.
Standard cars are designed for a life of... what... 6 years? maybe 10 years at a push? You don't see many cars much older than that driving around - but I still see Series II Land Rovers, some of which which must now be over 40 years old, driving round quite a bit (relatively speaking). Series III's we're looking at 20, 25 year old vehicles, and they're as common as muck.
the actual act of Manufacturing the parts produces substantial ammounts of greenhouse gases.
That's one of the more interesting aspects of 4x4 (SUV) ownership - although they may use lots of fuel, often 4x4s will last years and years longer than any other car (the land rover [series/defender] is a prime example) - the ammount of damage done to the environment through fuel burning is relatively small when compared to the pollution caused by the actual manufacturing process. The same thing applies to rockets, I'd imagine...
Uuuuhm... No.
:) If you don't like that date, how about 1295, when the entity that can be traced as the direct form to which the modern Parliament evolved from was first formed - i.e. the initial incarnation of the modern form of government, still in use today? Even if you use 1603, based upon monarchy, that still beats the US by a fair whack ;)
Although you could argue that the United Kingdom really only existed from the Act of Union of 1800 onwards, I would argue that the various laws and acts which have created the UK are really just a continuation of government as has been in place since the English Monarchs were in control - more of an evolution than a revolution.
If, instead, you wish to point to Parliament, it has existed in various forms since 1066, although you might point to dates such as 1215 as the first point when those other than the monarch exerted control over government action, or 1265 when the first form of parliament truly first emerged. Maybe 1295, when the model parliament was formed? How about 1660, the date of the restoration?
Even the 11(?) years following the Civil War (the "Interregnum") when the Cromwell's were essentially Dictators, Parliament still existed, simply without the upper house. After the restoration, the country was returned to essentially exactly the same state it was in beforehand. Other than that, there has been a constant, fluid, evolution of government.
Lets take a looksie...
England as a country in pretty much the modern form has existed since Athelstan of England.
Wales and England have, essentially, been governed together since 1284. Officially they were united in 1535.
Scotland and England were similarly governed together since 1603, and officially since 1707.
The same thing with Ireland from the 15th-17th Centuries, officially since 1800.
The Republic of Ireland separated in 1922. Would you say that was a good point to say the UK existed from? I don't, and so I would argue that all the other changes that you state are just as much of a continuation of government as this.
If you lived in Germany over the last 70 years, I think there are several points where you could say, "Yes, this is a different country" - but i don't think any such drastic changes have happened in the UK which would make an observer say the same thing.
I'd say the UK has been in existence since 1284, and since then it has just added on extra bits