if you are going to troll, try to at least sound half intelligent. it was john romero not carmack that did daikatana. and your regurgitation of the old 'linux doesn't support any hardware' is a bit old and outdated. linux supports more devices 'out of the box' than any other operating system out there. yes, that includes windows.
Sometimes run-on sentences are not as bad as some people think, although there are definitely times when they would be correct in saying that run-on sentences are 'grotesque' or 'ambiguous' (these are, of course, both subjective terms, and should be treated as such), but these thoughts are not the only thoughts that can be had of run-on sentences, and you should not assume that everyone else believes that run-on sentences are grotesque and ambiguous, because other people have feelings too and you shouldn't assume that your opinion is more important than theirs, because they might think otherwise, and that is how arguments start.
i don't think dapper will ever roll over to 2.x. from memory the firefox 1.5 code was buried too deeply in their customised gnome packages or something, so it was a major undertaking to pull it out. when i ran dapper though i found it easy to download and install firefox 2 off the official site and either run it from my home dir or install system wide, just install to/usr/local/bin etc and do something like ln -sf/usr/local/bin/firefox/usr/bin/firefox if you want to make it completely override the system version like i did.
your point is valid and well explained, but there is only one minor problem (i'm being nitpicky here people, not arguing the idea): an added 'hum' at 19khz, although barely perceptible can add to the maximum amplitude of the signal. if the 'pure' signal was already close to the max amplitude for the given bit depth the wave gets clipped, causing more distortion.
to do the same programming that I did on my Windows box is a lot more complicated on a Unix box
...and that was? perhaps someone here might be able to help point you in the right direction. i have done programming for a windows environment at work, and i actually set up a linux box to do it on, since i find windows too clunky and in the way.
and in the same way that drm can screw over legitimate customers, i cant watch macrovision tainted dvds on my old tv because i have to run it through a video player to convert the composite signal to the old tv-aerial type, which of course has the same effect as if i was copying it (changing brightness etc).
so if i have an external firewall that does host/ip/mac etc spoofing on outgoing packets vista automagically detects that 'the internet is routing wrong' and bypasses this? wow, maybe microsoft programmers *do* deserve credit... i agree with your post's intentions though (esp the last line)
on this note, is there any good non-geek article i can use to show people the difference between the two? i must not be that great at explaining some things (i know the difference myself, but i mean a simple analogy type article thing.. my employers love them).:)
the only time I've seen a blue screen in Vista was when DivX raped my install of Windows Media Player 11.
so what you are saying is that the 'only' time you have seen a blue screen on vista is when two programs that should have *no* access to lower level functions without going through special sandbox privileged paths designed to keep them from being able to crash the kernel when they crash crashed and brought down the kernel with them?
doesn't sound much better to me. when xp was released (you can see this in the installation banners if you don't believe me) they claimed that when a program crashes you will no longer need to restart the computer as they are safely in their own memory spaces... i think someone is crying 'wolf!' again...
i don't know if this is too late to post, but that is what i was saying. i work at a school where the bureaucrats higher up don't allow us to have a direct internet connection. our router is locked out (can't even attempt to log on unless we know the right ip address to spoof, and *everything* we do is pushed through a shitty proxy server. fortunately i have been able to use tunneling programs in linux to jump through it (setting up a vpn to my pc at home for 'unrestricted' access etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
i can think of one...
I can't actually see any reference to speed in the GP's post...
i would seriously donate money to that cause :)
if you are going to troll, try to at least sound half intelligent. it was john romero not carmack that did daikatana. and your regurgitation of the old 'linux doesn't support any hardware' is a bit old and outdated. linux supports more devices 'out of the box' than any other operating system out there. yes, that includes windows.
Sometimes run-on sentences are not as bad as some people think, although there are definitely times when they would be correct in saying that run-on sentences are 'grotesque' or 'ambiguous' (these are, of course, both subjective terms, and should be treated as such), but these thoughts are not the only thoughts that can be had of run-on sentences, and you should not assume that everyone else believes that run-on sentences are grotesque and ambiguous, because other people have feelings too and you shouldn't assume that your opinion is more important than theirs, because they might think otherwise, and that is how arguments start.
nonsense! it's a 'car hole'.
as was 'plug and play' for win95...
i don't think dapper will ever roll over to 2.x. from memory the firefox 1.5 code was buried too deeply in their customised gnome packages or something, so it was a major undertaking to pull it out. when i ran dapper though i found it easy to download and install firefox 2 off the official site and either run it from my home dir or install system wide, just install to /usr/local/bin etc and do something like ln -sf /usr/local/bin/firefox /usr/bin/firefox if you want to make it completely override the system version like i did.
we need a new mod stat: (+1: Touche) :)
actually it can...
your point is valid and well explained, but there is only one minor problem (i'm being nitpicky here people, not arguing the idea): an added 'hum' at 19khz, although barely perceptible can add to the maximum amplitude of the signal. if the 'pure' signal was already close to the max amplitude for the given bit depth the wave gets clipped, causing more distortion.
you mean like mplayer? vlc?
and in the same way that drm can screw over legitimate customers, i cant watch macrovision tainted dvds on my old tv because i have to run it through a video player to convert the composite signal to the old tv-aerial type, which of course has the same effect as if i was copying it (changing brightness etc).
so if i have an external firewall that does host/ip/mac etc spoofing on outgoing packets vista automagically detects that 'the internet is routing wrong' and bypasses this? wow, maybe microsoft programmers *do* deserve credit... i agree with your post's intentions though (esp the last line)
legal != moral
wait, is linuc the singular of linux now?
so you are saying that if too many people download the apache code then there will be less copies left for others?
how about something like "the closer you are the slower i go". have i seen it somewhere or did i make it up?
on this note, is there any good non-geek article i can use to show people the difference between the two? i must not be that great at explaining some things (i know the difference myself, but i mean a simple analogy type article thing.. my employers love them). :)
actually i have first post, until tomorrow when you go back and made a parent post to it...
so what you are saying is that the 'only' time you have seen a blue screen on vista is when two programs that should have *no* access to lower level functions without going through special sandbox privileged paths designed to keep them from being able to crash the kernel when they crash crashed and brought down the kernel with them?
doesn't sound much better to me. when xp was released (you can see this in the installation banners if you don't believe me) they claimed that when a program crashes you will no longer need to restart the computer as they are safely in their own memory spaces... i think someone is crying 'wolf!' again...
it appears that novell believed that resistance *was* futile...
i don't know if this is too late to post, but that is what i was saying. i work at a school where the bureaucrats higher up don't allow us to have a direct internet connection. our router is locked out (can't even attempt to log on unless we know the right ip address to spoof, and *everything* we do is pushed through a shitty proxy server. fortunately i have been able to use tunneling programs in linux to jump through it (setting up a vpn to my pc at home for 'unrestricted' access etc.)
so how would the router would know the difference between https traffic and a vpn running over port 443? http://openvpn.net/ for instance...