All I keep in the file cabinet are mundane utility bills that could be easily duplicated. All my W2 are stored electronically at the University I work for - I can go back as far as I want and print them out. My important papers are stored offsite, or in the fireproof safe. I never said my computer was "cumbersome", or meant to imply that using it for bill storage/searching would be harder than using a file cabinet - simply that it takes up more space than paper.
I suspected you were being facetious with the 22 comment, but had to clarify anyways.
I wouldn't go so far as to say equal likeness - I've had a half dozen hard drives die on me over the years and never had my bill statements catch fire. I store regular statements, those that I can afford to lose, in the file cabinet. Anything I can't afford to lose gets sotred either in the bank safety deposit box, or my fireproof safe, which is stored above the floor in case of accidental flooding, or the fire department flooding my house in case of fire.
Yes, it isn't that hard to believe that several hundred individual sheets of paper take up less space than a full tower, 22" CRT, scanner and laserjet printer... And for the record I am much older than 22, although age is a complete non sequitur in this argument. I save my paper bills for 3 years, and I have 2 file drawers full. Much less space than my system takes. And if you think only 22 year olds look at porn, you had better do some research.
Which is all fine and dandy until your hard drive dies. On tax day. And yeah, you can scream "backup" all you want, but I can tell you now it is easier to walk over to my filing cabinet than it is to rebuild a system, put an OS on it, and restore the backup. Besides, all my paper bills take up far less space than my computer, monitor, scanner, and printer. Unfortunately computers are cumbersome, require storage space, and most of the time you don't ever look at them except possibly while surfing porn.
"Criticising someone for making a point in line with this is more of a comment of your smart-assedness"
This is what is called "productivity" on Slashdot.
"Its not a question of technical hurdles, but rather of return on investment and support costs."
Give that man a cigar. First and foremost, Blizzard is a business. If releasing a Linux client would generate more income than it cost to produce/support they would do it. There is no grand "anti-penguin" conspircay afoot, just simple numbers people.
Blizzard isn't "making" anyone run WOW in Wine. People choose to do so, with tht knowledge it is unsupported. If it works, bonus. If not, it was never promised that it would.
Re:Idiot! How dare you bring facts into bush hatre
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Communism defeated itself, old Ronny "What" Reagan had nothing to do with it. JFK "won" the cold war during the Cuban Missle Crisis - the rest of the time was just Communism collapsing under it's own bloated corpse. When there isn't incentives for people to work, they won't - and Reagan didn't cause that. However I do sleep better at night knowing old Ronny's "Star Wars Defense Initiative" is protecting all of us.
No, the funding would run out on that particular research. I doubt very much that the majority of scientist rely on one source of funding for their income - for precisely that reason. I am involved with some health related research myself, and our funding comes in from dozens of groups all wanting data on different things. And even if it were the case that they would put themselves out of a job, you would hope at least they would have the scientific integrity to not fudge the numbers. Once you are caught doing that, you career as a researcher is over, period.
Yep, I agree they will select studies to prove their point. And when the "global warming doesn't exist" crowd can point out 900 scientific studies proving their point, I'll consider it. Do you want to listen to scientists conducting experiments under specific guidelines, or guesses by a percentage of the non-scientific unwashed masses?
No problem, no offense taken. People (especially on Slashdot) have assumed much worse about my political views. I don't really fall into any "nice neat" political category - I'm socially very liberal but fiscally conservative. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have much appeal to me. And Libertarians are way to nuts about property rights and such for me to even consider it. So I just mostly pick and choose different parts from different philosophies. Because of this I am used to people lumping me in with one group or another - it's not intended to be malicious on the most part, but people really seem to like to be able to slap labels on things it seems.
"Yes, but you are jumping from "There is consensus that global warming is real", to "There is consensus that the Kyoto protocal will help stop global warming", or consensus that "Free Markets cause enviornmental destruction and we need more central planning and socialism""
Well, that's putting words into my mouth. I never stated support for the Koyoto treaty (which is more political than environmental), nor did I imply that the free market was causing damage. Hell I never even endorsed the film, or Gore. All I stated was if it gets people discussing the issues more, it is good.
"Seriously, can you come up with ONE activity that "conservatives" (such a broad term that it does not really mean anything) want to ban unreasonably ?"
The right to same-sex marriage. Why can't gay people be as miserable as the rest of us??
Whether or not you take the movie at face value, or any value for that matter is irrelevant. The fact that people are discussing the issue again is good. Seeing as there isn't a 100% agreement on what all the causes are, discussions and more research are obviously needed before making any conclusions. If this film causes that to happen, even a small degree, it has done some good. To me it is like looking at art - love it or hate it doesn't matter, it is that you feel something that is important.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer to ridiculous lawsuits is not more ridiculous lawsuits...
All I keep in the file cabinet are mundane utility bills that could be easily duplicated. All my W2 are stored electronically at the University I work for - I can go back as far as I want and print them out. My important papers are stored offsite, or in the fireproof safe. I never said my computer was "cumbersome", or meant to imply that using it for bill storage/searching would be harder than using a file cabinet - simply that it takes up more space than paper.
I suspected you were being facetious with the 22 comment, but had to clarify anyways.
My fireproof safe protects paper from burning. How well do you think a CD or DVD would stand up in the same safe?? Warped as hell and unreadable...
I wouldn't go so far as to say equal likeness - I've had a half dozen hard drives die on me over the years and never had my bill statements catch fire. I store regular statements, those that I can afford to lose, in the file cabinet. Anything I can't afford to lose gets sotred either in the bank safety deposit box, or my fireproof safe, which is stored above the floor in case of accidental flooding, or the fire department flooding my house in case of fire.
Yes, it isn't that hard to believe that several hundred individual sheets of paper take up less space than a full tower, 22" CRT, scanner and laserjet printer... And for the record I am much older than 22, although age is a complete non sequitur in this argument. I save my paper bills for 3 years, and I have 2 file drawers full. Much less space than my system takes. And if you think only 22 year olds look at porn, you had better do some research.
Which is all fine and dandy until your hard drive dies. On tax day. And yeah, you can scream "backup" all you want, but I can tell you now it is easier to walk over to my filing cabinet than it is to rebuild a system, put an OS on it, and restore the backup. Besides, all my paper bills take up far less space than my computer, monitor, scanner, and printer. Unfortunately computers are cumbersome, require storage space, and most of the time you don't ever look at them except possibly while surfing porn.
Newman!
(makes fist and clenches teeth)
Q:Why Vista Took So Long
A: To give people something to bitch about on a slow Slashdot news day
"Criticising someone for making a point in line with this is more of a comment of your smart-assedness"
This is what is called "productivity" on Slashdot.
I didn't know Michael Richards visited Slashdot...
"Its not a question of technical hurdles, but rather of return on investment and support costs."
Give that man a cigar. First and foremost, Blizzard is a business. If releasing a Linux client would generate more income than it cost to produce/support they would do it. There is no grand "anti-penguin" conspircay afoot, just simple numbers people.
Blizzard isn't "making" anyone run WOW in Wine. People choose to do so, with tht knowledge it is unsupported. If it works, bonus. If not, it was never promised that it would.
Communism defeated itself, old Ronny "What" Reagan had nothing to do with it. JFK "won" the cold war during the Cuban Missle Crisis - the rest of the time was just Communism collapsing under it's own bloated corpse. When there isn't incentives for people to work, they won't - and Reagan didn't cause that. However I do sleep better at night knowing old Ronny's "Star Wars Defense Initiative" is protecting all of us.
When you can point to actual scientific studies that prove your point, get back to me. Otherwise, you too, are just a goddamned liar.
No, the funding would run out on that particular research. I doubt very much that the majority of scientist rely on one source of funding for their income - for precisely that reason. I am involved with some health related research myself, and our funding comes in from dozens of groups all wanting data on different things. And even if it were the case that they would put themselves out of a job, you would hope at least they would have the scientific integrity to not fudge the numbers. Once you are caught doing that, you career as a researcher is over, period.
Yep, I agree they will select studies to prove their point. And when the "global warming doesn't exist" crowd can point out 900 scientific studies proving their point, I'll consider it. Do you want to listen to scientists conducting experiments under specific guidelines, or guesses by a percentage of the non-scientific unwashed masses?
As soon as I disprove this "flying spaghetti monster" that will be the next thing I look into...
{WARNING - Off topic ahead]
No problem, no offense taken. People (especially on Slashdot) have assumed much worse about my political views. I don't really fall into any "nice neat" political category - I'm socially very liberal but fiscally conservative. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have much appeal to me. And Libertarians are way to nuts about property rights and such for me to even consider it. So I just mostly pick and choose different parts from different philosophies. Because of this I am used to people lumping me in with one group or another - it's not intended to be malicious on the most part, but people really seem to like to be able to slap labels on things it seems.
"Yes, but you are jumping from "There is consensus that global warming is real", to "There is consensus that the Kyoto protocal will help stop global warming", or consensus that "Free Markets cause enviornmental destruction and we need more central planning and socialism""
Well, that's putting words into my mouth. I never stated support for the Koyoto treaty (which is more political than environmental), nor did I imply that the free market was causing damage. Hell I never even endorsed the film, or Gore. All I stated was if it gets people discussing the issues more, it is good.
Well duh. If our entire generation were dead, there would be no Slashdot!
So you are saying 3-4000 dead is irrelevant? That we should only target the very biggest targets, and ignore the smaller ones completely?
"Seriously, can you come up with ONE activity that "conservatives" (such a broad term that it does not really mean anything) want to ban unreasonably ?"
The right to same-sex marriage. Why can't gay people be as miserable as the rest of us??
I'm pretty sure that isn't just YOUR reality...
Whether or not you take the movie at face value, or any value for that matter is irrelevant. The fact that people are discussing the issue again is good. Seeing as there isn't a 100% agreement on what all the causes are, discussions and more research are obviously needed before making any conclusions. If this film causes that to happen, even a small degree, it has done some good. To me it is like looking at art - love it or hate it doesn't matter, it is that you feel something that is important.
If your reputation can be injured by an anonymous insult, it wasn't that solid to begin with.