"your [you're] really fucked up[,] you know that[?] your [you're] implying that I am moraly [morally] corrupt, just 'cos I have a different concept of right and wrong."
exactly. in fact, this is necessary and inevitable, a tautology. it wouldn't make any sense to call you immoral if you had the same concept of right and wrong as i do, would it?
"you really ARE the kind of person who thinks KaZaA is the devils [devil's] tool and warez leads to satanic baby eating[,] aren't you[?]"
no. among other things, i don't believe in the old bastard. earth to oktober sunset; come in, oktober sunset.
"I could accuse you of helping deny drugs to dying Africans, 'cos that seems to be the kind of thing you lean towards, and I expect your [you're] probably the kind of person who grasses his own mother into the police for being late paying thier [her] road tax[,] or [who] calls the police if your [his] mate is smoking a joint at a party, but I didn't say that 'cos its [it's] an unfair extrapolation[.] you've just shown what a completly [completely] obnoxious, bullshit filled, little prick you are. well done and goodbye."
"boo frickty who. Hey guess what I recorded Star Wars when it was on the telly, instead of buying the video. ohs noes! I'm such the thieving scum monkey!, I've robbed the food from George Lucas' mouth!"
so, your argument is that it's ok to steal, as long as you steal from rich people like microsoft or george lucas? well, i disagree. i think stealing is wrong, full stop.
"How exactly is pirate software worse than robbing?"
please show me where i said "pirate software is worse than robbing."
i'll wait.
*tapping fingers*
you can't find it, because i never said that. you're just making shit up. you know, these discussions would be much less unpleasant if imbeciles like you could at least learn to pay attention. we'll worry about actual *thinking* later on.
"Are you from the RIAA? Is KaZaA the devils tool? no-one has actually taken anything from anyone, microsoft has lost nothing."
this is the usual specious bullshit that we hear from petty thieves like you. once again, tweedledildo, since you missed it the first thousand times: if somebody creates something by their labor, whether it's a loaf of bread, an album of music, or a software program, they have a right to ask compensation for it. you have the right to decide whether it's worth the price or not; you do not have the right to take it for nothing.
"when you watch Robin Hood, I bet you are rooting for the Sherif of Nottingham right?"
microsoft is not analogous to the sheriff of nottingham; microsoft are not taking anything from you by force. i root for robin hood, because he has the courage to do the right thing - too bad you can't say the same.
p.s. your spelling, grammar, usage, punctuation, and style are atrocious. your lack of education is evident in every aspect of your drivel, from your inability to write to your inability to reason.
"OMG, right and wrong, yes people, you must give all your money to giant monopolising corporations cos its the 'right' thing to do, don't worry that they are assraping you for every last penny and the product is over priced, cos pirating it is so wrong, you are evil and deserve to go to hell for being a satanic baby killing warez monkey."
1) nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy products from microsoft. you have a choice in the matter; you have free will. if you think the product is overpriced, don't buy it.
2) the wealth of the merchant is irrelevant. helping yourself to windows is no different from helping yourself to a loaf of bread from the grocery store without paying for it - it's stealing, no matter how you rationalize it.
3) evil - as good - admits degrees. of course pirating software isn't as bad as killing babies; your saying so is a bullshit straw man smokescreen.
"the law does not have a monopoly on right and wrong, there are thousands of things wrong with it."
i agree - that's why i didn't say a word about law; you did. i'm talking about morality. you are a petty thief (if not worse), and no amount of your histrionics excuses that.
many of the posts so far are asking, "who would buy a crippled 'starter' version when they can get the full version bootleg for less, or even free?"
well, i have an answer for that: people with a conscience. people who care about right and wrong. are there any of those left (especially in the USA), or am i the last?
"On OSDir they've got a whole whack of screenshots..."
oh, thank goodness they've got a whole whack, because i'm so tired of websites that provide only half a whack or at best three quarters of a whack. i mean, what good is half a whack?
"...I'm a full-time, very-pedantic, anal-about-standards, web developer, so I can speak with absolute authority on this"
incorrect. with those qualifications, one could speak with relative authority, or great authority, but you cannot speak with absolute authority unless you are the official author of all the standards in question.
furthermore, as at least one other poster has pointed out, your own website is not 100% standards-compliant. while one supposes that you could argue that you'd made it "wrong" intentionally, that would at the least stretch credulity. according to the principle of occam's razor, it's much more likely that your knowledge of and ability to implement these standards is, while doubtless quite excellent, nonetheless less-than-perfect.
therefore don't be so quick to appoint yourself high lord magistrate of all things web-related; you're simply not (no one person can be!), and you just end up making yourself look like an ass.
bless you, my friend; you articulated perfectly what i had been struggling to say. i'm only sorry i used my mod points on other stories before i saw your post.
Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore".
Torvalds, who initially created Linux for the Intel x86 platform, revealed to the Linux Kernel Mailing List in February during a discussion on kernel size reduction that his main desktop machine no longer featured an x86 processor. Hence, Torvalds said, a patch specific to the x86 platform that he was submitting to the list for consideration was totally untested.
ZDNet Australia was intrigued by this remark, and sought to question Torvalds on why the man who has single-handedly revolutionised the use of Unix on the x86 platform would move away from it, and where he had moved to.
Torvald's response came quickly and succinctly. "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5 (aka PowerPC 970) - it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more;)" he said.
"As to the why... Part of it is simply that I wanted to try something else, and I felt like there were enough people testing the x86 side that it certainly didn't need me. Part of it is that I personally believe there are two main architectures out there: Power and x86-64 are what _I_ think are the two most relevant ones, and I decided that I had to at least check the other side of it out seriously if I really believed that," said Torvalds.
However the kernel guru stopped any potential accusations of favouritism in their tracks, saying: "And don't read anything really deep into that - Linux supports 20+ architectures, and the fact that I personally think that two of them are more likely to be the most relevant really doesn't mean all that much. It's just a personal quirk of mine."
But it turns out that the man who created a revolutionary operating system which he initially described as "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like GNU", is probably not all that different from any other technology enthusiast.
"Oh, and part of it is that I got the machine for free," said Torvalds, "I'm really a technology whore."
"In my opinion, both Apple and Microsoft would do well to learn one more lesson: That separating the base operating system from the GUI entirely is the best way to go. With Linux (my preference by a thin margin over OS X) I can have a complex GUI like KDE, a simpler one like Gnome, or a dozen others with their own strengths and weaknesses... or I can run them all at the same time! Both companies however, particularly Microsoft, can't resist the urge to lock users into a single way of doing things."
first of all, let me say that when it comes to myself, i agree with you. my personal preference is fluxbox or fvwm under openbsd, but i occasionally appreciate the opulence of kde. also, for the record, i hate microsoft and windows.
that said, though, i think that there is a very compelling argument for a "single way of doing things" - predictability. once they've learned how macOS or windows does things, anybody can go up to any mac or windows machine and get right to work. that familiarity allows people to spend less time trying to figure out different UIs, and thus inrease their ratio of productivity. that uniformity is particularly valuable in a large environment like a company or a school - imagine having to administer 500 machines, each with a different UI on it.
consider also the typical non-technical PC user; a secretary at the office, or mom & dad, for example. they've been using windows for 10 years now, through several versions, and it's always pretty much the same as it ever was. they can barely figure out how to use outlook express; if every PC they sat at had a different UI, they'd quickly give up altogether.
power users such as you and i can certainly derive benefit from a more customized UI, but for the vast majority of more casual users, UI homogeneity is probably a good thing.
"'Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.'
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3."
what the hell? first of all, the quotation is from yoda, from star wars. second, the character from star trek is named mr. spock; dr. spock was a noted pediatrician. thirdly, following on from the first two points, the "stardate" you have there is presumably just made up and meaningless. again, i ask: what the hell?
now, i figure nobody could be that wrong; i figure you must already know all this. but if so, what's the point? is it supposed to be funny? is it just a troll, to get people like me wondering what's the matter with you? what's the point? what the hell?
"Those who think it was bad are clearly selfish, if they assume the fired guy's right to speech without reprisal was more important than those 400 peoples' right to not be pissed off."
majority = morality? i don't think so. by way of example, here's your logic cast in another light: "Those who think it was bad are clearly selfish, if they assume the WTC workers' right to life was more important than those n-millions Muslims' right to not be pissed off."
right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of the numbers sitting on either side of the issue. i hope you can see that. history is filled with examples of the majority being wrong, and of individuals being martyred for standing on principle, only to be later exonerated.
p.s. please note that i am not expressing any judgement concerning the present case; i am only addressing the parent's flawed premise that "might makes right."
>> From: Jun Kuriyama >> Subject: FreeBSD logo design competition
> Hilarious. Notice the "Kuriyama"?
> Somehow, I think your Japanese is much more > laughable than his/her English.
the difference is that the poster isn't going around publishing bad japanese on websites. you've totally missed the point, you've made an invalid point in response, and you've successfully made an ass of yourself.
next time you think you have something to say in public, please shove jalapenos up your nose, sit in a dark closet, and, most importantly, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
no it isn't. i have not attacked an irrelevant aspect of the original poster's character. if you wish to impugn my argument, please make a more cogent case.
Slashdot Mirror
"your [you're] really fucked up[,] you know that[?] your [you're] implying that I am moraly [morally] corrupt, just 'cos I have a different concept of right and wrong."
exactly. in fact, this is necessary and inevitable, a tautology. it wouldn't make any sense to call you immoral if you had the same concept of right and wrong as i do, would it?
"you really ARE the kind of person who thinks KaZaA is the devils [devil's] tool and warez leads to satanic baby eating[,] aren't you[?]"
no. among other things, i don't believe in the old bastard. earth to oktober sunset; come in, oktober sunset.
"I could accuse you of helping deny drugs to dying Africans, 'cos that seems to be the kind of thing you lean towards, and I expect your [you're] probably the kind of person who grasses his own mother into the police for being late paying thier [her] road tax[,] or [who] calls the police if your [his] mate is smoking a joint at a party, but I didn't say that 'cos its [it's] an unfair extrapolation[.] you've just shown what a completly [completely] obnoxious, bullshit filled, little prick you are. well done and goodbye."
indeed.
-1 Uneducated
"But this begs the question..."
no it doesn't. it raises the question. the phrase "begging the question" means something else entirely.
"If thats not implying that piracy is worse than robbing I don't know what is."
what i'm actually implying is that since you're not concerned with right or wrong, you're very likely up to worse things than just petty theft.
"boo frickty who. Hey guess what I recorded Star Wars when it was on the telly, instead of buying the video. ohs noes! I'm such the thieving scum monkey!, I've robbed the food from George Lucas' mouth!"
so, your argument is that it's ok to steal, as long as you steal from rich people like microsoft or george lucas? well, i disagree. i think stealing is wrong, full stop.
"How exactly is pirate software worse than robbing?"
please show me where i said "pirate software is worse than robbing."
i'll wait.
*tapping fingers*
you can't find it, because i never said that. you're just making shit up. you know, these discussions would be much less unpleasant if imbeciles like you could at least learn to pay attention. we'll worry about actual *thinking* later on.
"Are you from the RIAA? Is KaZaA the devils tool? no-one has actually taken anything from anyone, microsoft has lost nothing."
this is the usual specious bullshit that we hear from petty thieves like you. once again, tweedledildo, since you missed it the first thousand times: if somebody creates something by their labor, whether it's a loaf of bread, an album of music, or a software program, they have a right to ask compensation for it. you have the right to decide whether it's worth the price or not; you do not have the right to take it for nothing.
"when you watch Robin Hood, I bet you are rooting for the Sherif of Nottingham right?"
microsoft is not analogous to the sheriff of nottingham; microsoft are not taking anything from you by force. i root for robin hood, because he has the courage to do the right thing - too bad you can't say the same.
p.s. your spelling, grammar, usage, punctuation, and style are atrocious. your lack of education is evident in every aspect of your drivel, from your inability to write to your inability to reason.
"OMG, right and wrong, yes people, you must give all your money to giant monopolising corporations cos its the 'right' thing to do, don't worry that they are assraping you for every last penny and the product is over priced, cos pirating it is so wrong, you are evil and deserve to go to hell for being a satanic baby killing warez monkey."
1) nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy products from microsoft. you have a choice in the matter; you have free will. if you think the product is overpriced, don't buy it.
2) the wealth of the merchant is irrelevant. helping yourself to windows is no different from helping yourself to a loaf of bread from the grocery store without paying for it - it's stealing, no matter how you rationalize it.
3) evil - as good - admits degrees. of course pirating software isn't as bad as killing babies; your saying so is a bullshit straw man smokescreen.
"the law does not have a monopoly on right and wrong, there are thousands of things wrong with it."
i agree - that's why i didn't say a word about law; you did. i'm talking about morality. you are a petty thief (if not worse), and no amount of your histrionics excuses that.
many of the posts so far are asking, "who would buy a crippled 'starter' version when they can get the full version bootleg for less, or even free?"
well, i have an answer for that: people with a conscience. people who care about right and wrong. are there any of those left (especially in the USA), or am i the last?
8-P
(for the record, i use openbsd.)
"On OSDir they've got a whole whack of screenshots..."
oh, thank goodness they've got a whole whack, because i'm so tired of websites that provide only half a whack or at best three quarters of a whack. i mean, what good is half a whack?
AMD's making the "(Cen)Turion" to compete with Intel's "Centrino?" God bless AMD, I love 'em, but man, they need a better marketing department...
"Women Leaving I.T. - what are the overall effects of such a mass departure?"
fewer complaints about bikini-babe desktop wallpaper.
"...I'm a full-time, very-pedantic, anal-about-standards, web developer, so I can speak with absolute authority on this"
incorrect. with those qualifications, one could speak with relative authority, or great authority, but you cannot speak with absolute authority unless you are the official author of all the standards in question.
furthermore, as at least one other poster has pointed out, your own website is not 100% standards-compliant. while one supposes that you could argue that you'd made it "wrong" intentionally, that would at the least stretch credulity. according to the principle of occam's razor, it's much more likely that your knowledge of and ability to implement these standards is, while doubtless quite excellent, nonetheless less-than-perfect.
therefore don't be so quick to appoint yourself high lord magistrate of all things web-related; you're simply not (no one person can be!), and you just end up making yourself look like an ass.
bless you, my friend; you articulated perfectly what i had been struggling to say. i'm only sorry i used my mod points on other stories before i saw your post.
"...it entails changing the entire music industry as we know it..."
where do i sign up?
Linux creator Linus Torvalds said this afternoon that he's now running an Apple Macintosh as his main desktop, mainly for work reasons, although partly simply because he's a self-described "technology whore".
Torvalds, who initially created Linux for the Intel x86 platform, revealed to the Linux Kernel Mailing List in February during a discussion on kernel size reduction that his main desktop machine no longer featured an x86 processor. Hence, Torvalds said, a patch specific to the x86 platform that he was submitting to the list for consideration was totally untested.
ZDNet Australia was intrigued by this remark, and sought to question Torvalds on why the man who has single-handedly revolutionised the use of Unix on the x86 platform would move away from it, and where he had moved to.
Torvald's response came quickly and succinctly. "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5 (aka PowerPC 970) - it's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more
"As to the why
However the kernel guru stopped any potential accusations of favouritism in their tracks, saying: "And don't read anything really deep into that - Linux supports 20+ architectures, and the fact that I personally think that two of them are more likely to be the most relevant really doesn't mean all that much. It's just a personal quirk of mine."
But it turns out that the man who created a revolutionary operating system which he initially described as "just a hobby, won't be big and professional like GNU", is probably not all that different from any other technology enthusiast.
"Oh, and part of it is that I got the machine for free," said Torvalds, "I'm really a technology whore."
unfortunately, windows has performance issues on apple hardware. 8-P
first of all, let me say that when it comes to myself, i agree with you. my personal preference is fluxbox or fvwm under openbsd, but i occasionally appreciate the opulence of kde. also, for the record, i hate microsoft and windows.
that said, though, i think that there is a very compelling argument for a "single way of doing things" - predictability. once they've learned how macOS or windows does things, anybody can go up to any mac or windows machine and get right to work. that familiarity allows people to spend less time trying to figure out different UIs, and thus inrease their ratio of productivity. that uniformity is particularly valuable in a large environment like a company or a school - imagine having to administer 500 machines, each with a different UI on it.
consider also the typical non-technical PC user; a secretary at the office, or mom & dad, for example. they've been using windows for 10 years now, through several versions, and it's always pretty much the same as it ever was. they can barely figure out how to use outlook express; if every PC they sat at had a different UI, they'd quickly give up altogether.
power users such as you and i can certainly derive benefit from a more customized UI, but for the vast majority of more casual users, UI homogeneity is probably a good thing.
if i see your ad on any sort of popup, your product is BLACKLISTED, i will NEVER buy it, and i will tell my FRIENDS not to buy it.
using popup ads is the surest way to get me NOT to buy your product.
pissing us off is NO way to sell product!
p.s. the same thing goes for animated gifs and macromedia flash. yes, you're getting my attention - NEGATIVE attention! now i know what NOT to buy!
...if you put it on "repeat," it syncs up perfectly with the michael jackson version of "the wizard of oz"
it was a really bad example. it was really late and i was really tired when i posted that. i regret it and i publically retract it.
that doesn't change the truth of the point that i was trying to make, though (that majority != morality).
furthermore, your name-calling ad hominem attacks on me are puerile, prove nothing, and serve only to damage your own credibility.
"'Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.'
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822.3."
what the hell? first of all, the quotation is from yoda, from star wars . second, the character from star trek is named mr. spock; dr. spock was a noted pediatrician. thirdly, following on from the first two points, the "stardate" you have there is presumably just made up and meaningless. again, i ask: what the hell?
now, i figure nobody could be that wrong; i figure you must already know all this. but if so, what's the point? is it supposed to be funny? is it just a troll, to get people like me wondering what's the matter with you? what's the point? what the hell?
"Those who think it was bad are clearly selfish, if they assume the fired guy's right to speech without reprisal was more important than those 400 peoples' right to not be pissed off."
majority = morality? i don't think so. by way of example, here's your logic cast in another light: "Those who think it was bad are clearly selfish, if they assume the WTC workers' right to life was more important than those n-millions Muslims' right to not be pissed off."
right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of the numbers sitting on either side of the issue. i hope you can see that. history is filled with examples of the majority being wrong, and of individuals being martyred for standing on principle, only to be later exonerated.
p.s. please note that i am not expressing any judgement concerning the present case; i am only addressing the parent's flawed premise that "might makes right."
>> From: Jun Kuriyama
>> Subject: FreeBSD logo design competition
> Hilarious. Notice the "Kuriyama"?
> Somehow, I think your Japanese is much more
> laughable than his/her English.
the difference is that the poster isn't going around publishing bad japanese on websites. you've totally missed the point, you've made an invalid point in response, and you've successfully made an ass of yourself.
next time you think you have something to say in public, please shove jalapenos up your nose, sit in a dark closet, and, most importantly, SHUT THE FUCK UP.
(cf. anthem, ayn rand)
"...your post is an ad hominem attack."
no it isn't. i have not attacked an irrelevant aspect of the original poster's character. if you wish to impugn my argument, please make a more cogent case.
"You are also, an asshole."
that's no argument at all; simply first-grade name-calling.