But if you're trying to tell me that you can get as much social interaction in a chatroom as at a party, then I just don't buy it. Not even a little bit.
Yes and no. At one point in my life, I was able to have more social interaction in a MMORPG because the normal barriers I had in meatspace were removed. That is no longer the case today, however I don't know that I would be as functional today if it wasn't for the help of easing into relationships online.
Many of us were made fun of and had low self esteem while growing up in BFE with a bunch of redneck jocks. Some people went to a doctor for help taking things through, some were lucky enough to make some friends later in life, some shot their classmates. I learned online that there were others like me, and that allowed me to be more confident IRL.
I don't mean to say that online relationships are superior to "real" ones. My only point is that often, people can have a more fullfilling and meaningful relationship online than in person, and that shouldn't be considered having no life. Being stuck with NO ONE AT ALL is having no life. We shouldn't say that someone's life is sad and not "real" if they only have online relationships. I am fortunate that I no longer have to depend on that, but I am happy for those who are able to find a few friends PERIOD, online or not. Being alone is what I think is sad.
So you are limited to a physical medium when you "have a life"? I don't play MMORPGs anymore, but I had deeper relationships with some people on there than many of friends that I only interact with IRL. Most of my best friends I have now I interact with only physicaly, but I don't think that is the only way to "have a life". Some people on the CSS server I visit I consider friends, and I don't even know what they look like other than their prefrence for bandana terrorist or gas-masked CT.
After all, you are only doing without three things in digital life right now: touch, smell, and taste. I don't feel the need to touch many of my friends, most I would rather not smell, and I have NO desire to taste any of them.
Keep in mind you ARE using an operating system that was not pre-tested and pre-installed for the machine you're using. Unforseen complications can arise.
Exactly the problem with so many flavors of Linux. There are enough people using Linux that almost every machine could be tested. However, with so many forks, the chance grows that each distro will have issues on one computer or another.
If we want people to switch to Linux from Windows, we need to pick a distro and test the hell out of it. Sure, it won't be as custom as many others, but there needs to be some Linux platform that "just works" on every computer that XP works on. Once it is established as a very stable platform that is easy to install, easy to run and use, the conversion can begin.
(or another possibility is that you don't buy physical media anymore, you simply stream it to your TV/computer as video on demand).
Ding ding! We have a winner. Unless optical media offers greater storage than HDD, download will be the way of the future. Maybe even streaming, if bandwidth outpaces optics.
I'm not saying Windows software installation is better. Being able to compile software to fit your OS and hardware is always better. However, not everyone knows how to do that.
My main point is that the GP's statement that his installer still worked was amazing to me. I almost just expect 20 year old source to compile fine, so I didn't get what it had to do with the GP.
Isn't that exactly what Windows Software Update Service is supposed to help accomplish?
Yes, and it works quite well for SUPPORTED versions of Microsoft software. Windows 2000 entered extended support in the summer of 2005. That means only security fixes will be released. I run WSUS, and my 60 XP computers are ready for DST in 2007. My 200 Win2k computers are not, and I still need to make a script to fix that through reg changes. And yes, I know how to make a script. However, creating a script to deploy those changes TAKES MORE TIME than clicking "Approve" in WSUS.
And isn't that what alot of large business use?
No, most large ones use either SMS or some other enterprise software to manage software and patches. SMS is not limited to supported MS products. You can update ANY software with a solution like that, but it takes more time to do. If you have to take care of 5,000 computers, than the hours it takes to feed and care for SMS is totally worth it. When you have 200-300 computers, it usually is not.
However, EVERY business that runs Microsoft and has a server SHOULD run WSUS if they don't have some other software to manage patches. You can deploy patches at your own pace, and you can TEST them first. For those that complain that they don't have a dedicated test lab, don't worry about that. Just deploy to a group of computers that amounts to 1/10th to 1/5th of your network. If MS deploys a bad patch, you'll have far fewer computers to fix than you would if you just had all computers pointed to Windows Update. This is directed at all the lazy admins that require MS to make "IE Blocker software". If people were using WSUS (FREE), they can choose when to deploy things like XP SP2 or IE 7.
It couldn't have DRM (Digital Rights Management), IT WAS ANALOG!
If you're talking about Macrovision, anyone could walk into Radio Shack (back when the salesmen actually knew about radios) and get a device for less than $20 that would ignore the gain control from that. Macrovision stripped, and you had a pretty good copy.
However, with VHS and all analog devices, your copy of a copy had flaws. If you did it right, maybe very small flaws.
In contrast, 20 year old UNIX software compiles...
You lost me at "compiles".
Seriously, you are talking about two seperate things. Double-clicking an Installshield wizard and having it work in Vista when it was COMPILED on a Windows NT 3.51 box is not the same thing as 20 year old source code still working.
Do you honestly think that banks don't pass every single expense they incur along to the customer?
No, they do. They pass the costs of shitty security along with the costs of great security. Both cost them (and in turn, you) money. They'll try to do the one that costs both of you less.
And if they don't do RFID, you pay more too. Banks make more when people do credit-card style transactions (signature based) than ATM (pin based). RFID are signature based, but you don't sign. So since they get a greater cut, you pay less. If you go to a bank that doesn't do RFID, they have more ATM transactions and less money, so you still pay more.
Ok, poles == bad idea. However, even with the losses, we're talking off-peak usage, and "free". If we have a panel on every roof type of deployment, and we're producing 5x what we need, then who cares if we lose even 1/2 of that on the way?
One thought I just had on "who cares"...I guess we don't lose the energy on the lines. It is turned to heat. How much could that produce in terms of global warming? That would be ironic: We rid the world of carbon-based energy, but we still increase the global average tempature because we have powerlines running everywhere that heat the air around them, and we have the ability to provide heat inside billions of homes (not just heaters, but PCs, TVs, etc) that did not have it before (rual India and China). Or, is it zero-sum becuase 40% of the light that would normally heat the ground is "sucked" into the panels?
You wouldn't pull a new line from USA to Australia. Think more in terms of connecting the grids on each land mass, then connecting between them. For example, the North America grid would connect to the Asian grid in Alaska, near the strait. Maybe Australia connects to the South American grid through Antartica. Remember we could setup large arrays in the poles that may not get as intense light, but would get less interruptions. (if we had one at each pole, they would be our constant source of low power)
Also, this would need to be designed in a "follow the sun" setup where each area is producing enough power localy to meet their needs, and also have a surplus to export while the others are in the dark. Energy use is lower at night, so the export requirements would not be anywhere near what an area's peak daytime use would be.
Exactly, and if they actually pull off getting it to run on with the current specs, that is only a good thing. However, adding more hardware to make XP work is not an option.
WOW. You tied the browser war to the Iraq war! WTF does "soldiers with half of their face blown off" have to do with web sites? You've got issues. Did your pr0n not show up right in Netscape 4 when you were growing up?
I have no issue with putting download buttons for every browser other than IE, or saying "This site designed to W3C standards, not IE standards. Download a W3C browser here:". The post is refering to people being complete asses about it in the way of not just audio files, but stupid redirects like awstats page where you get taken away from the page, after it loads, to be given a full-page lecture about your CHOICE of browser. I make it a point to go to this page with IE every time even though I have Firefox installed, just in case that person looks at his logs. Yes, I saw your notice and CHOOSE not to follow your advice.
Even better are pages like this: www.riskable.com. Here, I don't even get an option to press my luck and see how well (or poorly) IE does. I'm just told "You didn't choose the same browser I did, so I DON'T WANT YOU READING MY SITE".
I know the risks, it is my choice. If it doesn't work right because IE doesn't do it right, fine. Let me know that somewhere on your page and let me get irrated at MICROSOFT, not the zelot web designer who is pushing their choice on me. This is the shit that keeps alot of GOOD F/OSS software at the kids table. If people were just allowed to see Microsoft fall on their face, they might switch. If some pushy geek is telling people "YOU NEED TO CHANGE! MICROSOFT IS THE DEBIL! IDIOT!", they are less likely to listen.
First they'll need to have proper nutrition, proper electricity, and internet access first...
"Hello, Kim? This is Dubya. We're going to get your backwards pesants some proper care. Please open up the DMZ so we can send 100,000 aid guardsmen in to help with food handouts, infrastructure upgrades, and internet. Peace."
Why hasn't he made that call yet?
Re:Comment on Fedora in general.
on
Fedora Linux
·
· Score: 1
So, I assume you're typing your messages on a Supercoder 2000, and you just have a LED that is on or off on your desk to read this.
This is the Linux snob crap that keeps F/OSS in the corner. Everyone has a different level of intrest in how things work, and even Fedora requires more understanding of the underlying system than OSX or Windows.
Also, maybe this person doesn't have as much FREE TIME to code his kernel in assembler like you do. Don't worry, I'll get off your damn lawn and take that guy with me.
Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose
Yes, in order for someone to win, someone (often more than one) has to lose.
It sounds like your issue is dealing with the "loss" of hours of grinding when you meet your end PvP. Maybe a solution would be to lower the penalty of death. For example, maybe a 1-hour block, but when you come back, everything is new.
Think about it, Counter-Strike has 50% of the people lose every round. When you are shot, you have to sit out the round and wait for that last camper to be found (and knifed, we hope). However, the round ends and now you can go again. You don't hear about the fact that someone has to lose for that game, or just about any other game where people play against each other. The only thing that is different is the scale, and the amount of time invested.
Even Occam's Razor can be used in support of a faith in religion over evolution. The explanation that is simple vaires for each person based on their POV. "God did it" is very simple, and much more understandable to MANY people than "random mutations happen, then depending on the effects of that mutation it is kept or removed from the gene pool".
I'll believe something when it has the reproductible experimental data that can't be explained otherwise.
Ok, God exists, and his refusal to perform miracles is part of his existance, for it denies faith (bablefish, etc). So each day you do not see a miracle, there is proof to the previous sentance. EVERYTHING can be explained otherwise. I still think regardless of your line of thinking, it all becomes a guess in the end that is decided on personal feelings.
Another thing to consider when you decline a breathalyser: In some states, your driving permit is dependant on compliance with requests for a breathalyser test. You can decline, you can still be arrested, and on top of that you would get your permit revoked, regardless if you were drunk.
But it doesn't take too much "denial" to at least consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there was no death and thus no resurrection.
It also does not take too much "denial" to assume otherwise. It works both ways. However, the repurcussions for being wrong one way means you lived your life with a false assumption, then go into the ground to rot. Being wrong the other way means that when your body dies, something else occours to your soul. Fear of hell is a shitty reason to have faith, I'm not making that point.
It is just the old point that you can't prove, and you can't disprove, so being completely dispassionate, what do you use to determine your stance? Risk vs reward? Gut feeling?
I'm confused by the statement at the end of each "day": "And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day."
Why, only for that 6 day period, would the writer go though the extra step of pointing out evening and morning each time? It seems to me that the writer was trying to stress that it was a "real" day, not a undefined period of time. In addition, the root word used for "day" is quite different than the word used for "days", like in "In the days of Moses".
Feel free to call it BS, but it seems clear that a 24-hour period was what was intended by the author.
obviously only held in check by their fear of divine retribution
Christians should not do something or not do something out of fear. One of the unique things about Christianity is that salvation is not measured by works. Yes, this means all the "ALL FAGS GO TO HELL" signs are false. "Good works" are a response to what God has already done, not something that you do so much of to "earn" your way to heaven. Honestly, that is one of the things that confuses me about all other religions: How do you know when you have done enough to earn your way to heaven / nirvana / not being reincarated as a rat / StoVoKor? Karma points? Where can I check my current count?
As for the morality, I have heard the statement mentioned and I don't think that is true at all. However, many people that have a book faith do not understand how there can be a universial moral code among those that don't have a religion. What YOU think is wrong isn't what I think is wrong, and so on. So, I understand that an atheist can have a personal moral code, but how is a moral code established that goes beyond law?
Is screwing someone while married to someone else ok, if it is ok with our own moral code and legal?
Slashdot Mirror
So why did the other way win? http://smallest.larger.largest/largest/smaller/sma llest is really screwed up.
Yes and no. At one point in my life, I was able to have more social interaction in a MMORPG because the normal barriers I had in meatspace were removed. That is no longer the case today, however I don't know that I would be as functional today if it wasn't for the help of easing into relationships online.
Many of us were made fun of and had low self esteem while growing up in BFE with a bunch of redneck jocks. Some people went to a doctor for help taking things through, some were lucky enough to make some friends later in life, some shot their classmates. I learned online that there were others like me, and that allowed me to be more confident IRL.
I don't mean to say that online relationships are superior to "real" ones. My only point is that often, people can have a more fullfilling and meaningful relationship online than in person, and that shouldn't be considered having no life. Being stuck with NO ONE AT ALL is having no life. We shouldn't say that someone's life is sad and not "real" if they only have online relationships. I am fortunate that I no longer have to depend on that, but I am happy for those who are able to find a few friends PERIOD, online or not. Being alone is what I think is sad.
After all, you are only doing without three things in digital life right now: touch, smell, and taste. I don't feel the need to touch many of my friends, most I would rather not smell, and I have NO desire to taste any of them.
Exactly the problem with so many flavors of Linux. There are enough people using Linux that almost every machine could be tested. However, with so many forks, the chance grows that each distro will have issues on one computer or another.
If we want people to switch to Linux from Windows, we need to pick a distro and test the hell out of it. Sure, it won't be as custom as many others, but there needs to be some Linux platform that "just works" on every computer that XP works on. Once it is established as a very stable platform that is easy to install, easy to run and use, the conversion can begin.
Ding ding! We have a winner. Unless optical media offers greater storage than HDD, download will be the way of the future. Maybe even streaming, if bandwidth outpaces optics.
I know! I'll vote for the person who will promise to lower his own wage and keep it! Anyone? Anyone? Dang.
My main point is that the GP's statement that his installer still worked was amazing to me. I almost just expect 20 year old source to compile fine, so I didn't get what it had to do with the GP.
Yes, and it works quite well for SUPPORTED versions of Microsoft software. Windows 2000 entered extended support in the summer of 2005. That means only security fixes will be released. I run WSUS, and my 60 XP computers are ready for DST in 2007. My 200 Win2k computers are not, and I still need to make a script to fix that through reg changes. And yes, I know how to make a script. However, creating a script to deploy those changes TAKES MORE TIME than clicking "Approve" in WSUS.
No, most large ones use either SMS or some other enterprise software to manage software and patches. SMS is not limited to supported MS products. You can update ANY software with a solution like that, but it takes more time to do. If you have to take care of 5,000 computers, than the hours it takes to feed and care for SMS is totally worth it. When you have 200-300 computers, it usually is not.
However, EVERY business that runs Microsoft and has a server SHOULD run WSUS if they don't have some other software to manage patches. You can deploy patches at your own pace, and you can TEST them first. For those that complain that they don't have a dedicated test lab, don't worry about that. Just deploy to a group of computers that amounts to 1/10th to 1/5th of your network. If MS deploys a bad patch, you'll have far fewer computers to fix than you would if you just had all computers pointed to Windows Update. This is directed at all the lazy admins that require MS to make "IE Blocker software". If people were using WSUS (FREE), they can choose when to deploy things like XP SP2 or IE 7.
If you're talking about Macrovision, anyone could walk into Radio Shack (back when the salesmen actually knew about radios) and get a device for less than $20 that would ignore the gain control from that. Macrovision stripped, and you had a pretty good copy.
However, with VHS and all analog devices, your copy of a copy had flaws. If you did it right, maybe very small flaws.
Seriously, you are talking about two seperate things. Double-clicking an Installshield wizard and having it work in Vista when it was COMPILED on a Windows NT 3.51 box is not the same thing as 20 year old source code still working.
No, they do. They pass the costs of shitty security along with the costs of great security. Both cost them (and in turn, you) money. They'll try to do the one that costs both of you less.
And if they don't do RFID, you pay more too. Banks make more when people do credit-card style transactions (signature based) than ATM (pin based). RFID are signature based, but you don't sign. So since they get a greater cut, you pay less. If you go to a bank that doesn't do RFID, they have more ATM transactions and less money, so you still pay more.
One thought I just had on "who cares"...I guess we don't lose the energy on the lines. It is turned to heat. How much could that produce in terms of global warming? That would be ironic: We rid the world of carbon-based energy, but we still increase the global average tempature because we have powerlines running everywhere that heat the air around them, and we have the ability to provide heat inside billions of homes (not just heaters, but PCs, TVs, etc) that did not have it before (rual India and China). Or, is it zero-sum becuase 40% of the light that would normally heat the ground is "sucked" into the panels?
Enough armchair science for me today, I'm spent.
Also, this would need to be designed in a "follow the sun" setup where each area is producing enough power localy to meet their needs, and also have a surplus to export while the others are in the dark. Energy use is lower at night, so the export requirements would not be anywhere near what an area's peak daytime use would be.
Exactly, and if they actually pull off getting it to run on with the current specs, that is only a good thing. However, adding more hardware to make XP work is not an option.
WOW. You tied the browser war to the Iraq war! WTF does "soldiers with half of their face blown off" have to do with web sites? You've got issues. Did your pr0n not show up right in Netscape 4 when you were growing up?
Even better are pages like this: www.riskable.com. Here, I don't even get an option to press my luck and see how well (or poorly) IE does. I'm just told "You didn't choose the same browser I did, so I DON'T WANT YOU READING MY SITE".
I know the risks, it is my choice. If it doesn't work right because IE doesn't do it right, fine. Let me know that somewhere on your page and let me get irrated at MICROSOFT, not the zelot web designer who is pushing their choice on me. This is the shit that keeps alot of GOOD F/OSS software at the kids table. If people were just allowed to see Microsoft fall on their face, they might switch. If some pushy geek is telling people "YOU NEED TO CHANGE! MICROSOFT IS THE DEBIL! IDIOT!", they are less likely to listen.
"Hello, Kim? This is Dubya. We're going to get your backwards pesants some proper care. Please open up the DMZ so we can send 100,000 aid guardsmen in to help with food handouts, infrastructure upgrades, and internet. Peace."
Why hasn't he made that call yet?
This is the Linux snob crap that keeps F/OSS in the corner. Everyone has a different level of intrest in how things work, and even Fedora requires more understanding of the underlying system than OSX or Windows.
Also, maybe this person doesn't have as much FREE TIME to code his kernel in assembler like you do. Don't worry, I'll get off your damn lawn and take that guy with me.
Yes, in order for someone to win, someone (often more than one) has to lose.
It sounds like your issue is dealing with the "loss" of hours of grinding when you meet your end PvP. Maybe a solution would be to lower the penalty of death. For example, maybe a 1-hour block, but when you come back, everything is new.
Think about it, Counter-Strike has 50% of the people lose every round. When you are shot, you have to sit out the round and wait for that last camper to be found (and knifed, we hope). However, the round ends and now you can go again. You don't hear about the fact that someone has to lose for that game, or just about any other game where people play against each other. The only thing that is different is the scale, and the amount of time invested.
Even Occam's Razor can be used in support of a faith in religion over evolution. The explanation that is simple vaires for each person based on their POV. "God did it" is very simple, and much more understandable to MANY people than "random mutations happen, then depending on the effects of that mutation it is kept or removed from the gene pool".
Ok, God exists, and his refusal to perform miracles is part of his existance, for it denies faith (bablefish, etc). So each day you do not see a miracle, there is proof to the previous sentance. EVERYTHING can be explained otherwise. I still think regardless of your line of thinking, it all becomes a guess in the end that is decided on personal feelings.
Another thing to consider when you decline a breathalyser: In some states, your driving permit is dependant on compliance with requests for a breathalyser test. You can decline, you can still be arrested, and on top of that you would get your permit revoked, regardless if you were drunk.
It also does not take too much "denial" to assume otherwise. It works both ways. However, the repurcussions for being wrong one way means you lived your life with a false assumption, then go into the ground to rot. Being wrong the other way means that when your body dies, something else occours to your soul. Fear of hell is a shitty reason to have faith, I'm not making that point.
It is just the old point that you can't prove, and you can't disprove, so being completely dispassionate, what do you use to determine your stance? Risk vs reward? Gut feeling?
Why, only for that 6 day period, would the writer go though the extra step of pointing out evening and morning each time? It seems to me that the writer was trying to stress that it was a "real" day, not a undefined period of time. In addition, the root word used for "day" is quite different than the word used for "days", like in "In the days of Moses".
Feel free to call it BS, but it seems clear that a 24-hour period was what was intended by the author.
Christians should not do something or not do something out of fear. One of the unique things about Christianity is that salvation is not measured by works. Yes, this means all the "ALL FAGS GO TO HELL" signs are false. "Good works" are a response to what God has already done, not something that you do so much of to "earn" your way to heaven. Honestly, that is one of the things that confuses me about all other religions: How do you know when you have done enough to earn your way to heaven / nirvana / not being reincarated as a rat / StoVoKor? Karma points? Where can I check my current count?
As for the morality, I have heard the statement mentioned and I don't think that is true at all. However, many people that have a book faith do not understand how there can be a universial moral code among those that don't have a religion. What YOU think is wrong isn't what I think is wrong, and so on. So, I understand that an atheist can have a personal moral code, but how is a moral code established that goes beyond law?
Is screwing someone while married to someone else ok, if it is ok with our own moral code and legal?
Thanks! You just gave me my new .sig!
You are correct, though.