yes, but 'weegie' looks more silly than 'ouija', which sounds like a Web 2.0 service. In short, the silliness of the actual concept is best described using the 'weegie' spelling, which can at least be misread as 'wedgie'.
Subconscious tuning is a known phenomenon and has been known about for ages. The fact it's in a video game proves nothing: the same can happen depending on the TV programme a person is watching, the posters on the walls, or the music they're listening to.
KDE, GNOME and Xfce are desktop environments. KWin, Metacity and Xfwm are their window managers. If you're geniunely bothered about WMs alone, you can always run KDE/GNOME with Xfwm.
What the... a blinking caret? Is that all you want? If it was something useful, like macros on window borders, or mouse gestures, I could understand, but a blinking caret? The majority of people don't give a shit, and the people that do will probably have the brains to either (a) ask someone to write support for it in the next version or (b) write support for it themselves.
...but any alternative theory to gravity doesn't involve a shiny, beardy sadist living on a cloud creating a massive, yet deeply flawed universe in 144 hours.
In the first Macs, the system software was stored in the ROM, and didn't have to be read from slow, clunky, rewriteable disks. There's also the minor fact that the Mac 128 didn't have to start the window compositor, the wi-fi extensions, the journaled file systems, quickly check the directory structure and file system integrity, and load several gigabytes of data from the disk, whilst also activating the swap and pre-emptively buffering data during boot.
It always bugs me when people choose to misunderstand statement. You clearly know what he means, even if it could have been said better. If you are going to disagree with somebody don't play stupid and think he actually meant that Windows can't run code not approved by MS. It makes you look silly and opportunistic.
But it can still run any code you throw at it. What the grandparent seems to be saying is that you are restricted into what you can install on Windows. To some extent, yes, but by technical limitations and the fact it's a crap OS. MS itself doesn't apply any restrictions on what code you can and can't run.
Actually, since Vista, Windows Update has been a standalone utility, a preference pane in Control Panel executed by rundll32.exe, I believe. True, it uses the IE rendering engine (I think) but it doesn't depend on the IE GUI.
Yes, but will a person without Internet access know to run
ftp pub.mozilla.org/? What if the URI changes? Besides, Windows's built-in FTP sucks.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to open up IE, point it at getfirefox.com, download the package and install it with a few deft finger presses. I don't fancy the idea of doing it via FTP, which is slow, buggy and inconvenient.
No Windows cannot load whatever it wants to on their Operating Systems.
er... yes it can.
It's still an open platform that runs any code you throw at it, provided it's compatible. The claim that Windows itself is a monopoly is complete and utter bollocks.
The immediate problem there: how on earth is one supposed to acquire another browser without a browser? The browser is a major component of all desktop OS distributions today, so I don't see why it should be unbundled from Windows. True, it may be crap, but at least I can use it to download and alternative.
Honestly? Qt on a phone? I hate having to have it on a desktop machine, let alone potentially on my person.
That aside, Cocoa's UI API isn't hard to learn. It's dead easy. The code goes into the method files, you declare it in the header files, you point the buttons at the bit of code to execute using a point-and-click interface. And it's less of a pain than Qt.
It's a bit bizarre at first, but you get used to it before long. The trick is to lay out the interface first, then code to it, and finally to connect everything up and hope it works.
This is why Ubuntu needs a tutorial. The first time the desktop appears, a dialog should be brought up saying 'press T if you've never used a computer before and need help, click here if you have used Windows before but not Ubuntu, click here to dismiss this message'.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a belief such as 'masturbation causes blindness' or 'some people have their sexual orientation determined before/at birth'.
I'd argue that it's merely because video games are a relatively new form of media and are being demonised: fact is, exposure to any form of violent media may trigger aggressive behaviour, regardless of whether it's in a video game, film, TV show, book, or real life. It's merely because video games, as a new, and as-yet mostly misunderstood by the older generation, form of entertainment, are being used as a scapegoat.
So making things up is an acceptable substitute to science that's been tested and proven over the last hundred and twenty years? EM radiation is nothing new.
Correlation is not causation. Spearman's Rank is not infallible.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, but 'weegie' looks more silly than 'ouija', which sounds like a Web 2.0 service. In short, the silliness of the actual concept is best described using the 'weegie' spelling, which can at least be misread as 'wedgie'.
It's the Mirror. You'd get more reliable information from a weegie board.
Subconscious tuning is a known phenomenon and has been known about for ages. The fact it's in a video game proves nothing: the same can happen depending on the TV programme a person is watching, the posters on the walls, or the music they're listening to.
This may sound like a stupid suggestion, but... if you're so bothered about the caret, why don't you use xterm?
KDE, GNOME and Xfce are desktop environments. KWin, Metacity and Xfwm are their window managers. If you're geniunely bothered about WMs alone, you can always run KDE/GNOME with Xfwm.
What the... a blinking caret? Is that all you want? If it was something useful, like macros on window borders, or mouse gestures, I could understand, but a blinking caret? The majority of people don't give a shit, and the people that do will probably have the brains to either (a) ask someone to write support for it in the next version or (b) write support for it themselves.
...but any alternative theory to gravity doesn't involve a shiny, beardy sadist living on a cloud creating a massive, yet deeply flawed universe in 144 hours.
In the first Macs, the system software was stored in the ROM, and didn't have to be read from slow, clunky, rewriteable disks. There's also the minor fact that the Mac 128 didn't have to start the window compositor, the wi-fi extensions, the journaled file systems, quickly check the directory structure and file system integrity, and load several gigabytes of data from the disk, whilst also activating the swap and pre-emptively buffering data during boot.
It always bugs me when people choose to misunderstand statement. You clearly know what he means, even if it could have been said better. If you are going to disagree with somebody don't play stupid and think he actually meant that Windows can't run code not approved by MS. It makes you look silly and opportunistic.
But it can still run any code you throw at it. What the grandparent seems to be saying is that you are restricted into what you can install on Windows. To some extent, yes, but by technical limitations and the fact it's a crap OS. MS itself doesn't apply any restrictions on what code you can and can't run.
Actually, since Vista, Windows Update has been a standalone utility, a preference pane in Control Panel executed by rundll32.exe, I believe. True, it uses the IE rendering engine (I think) but it doesn't depend on the IE GUI.
Yes, but will a person without Internet access know to run ftp pub.mozilla.org/? What if the URI changes? Besides, Windows's built-in FTP sucks.
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to open up IE, point it at getfirefox.com, download the package and install it with a few deft finger presses. I don't fancy the idea of doing it via FTP, which is slow, buggy and inconvenient.
No Windows cannot load whatever it wants to on their Operating Systems.
er... yes it can.
It's still an open platform that runs any code you throw at it, provided it's compatible. The claim that Windows itself is a monopoly is complete and utter bollocks.
...but how am I supposed to find an FTP client? Windows's FTP capabilities are notoriously unreliable.
The immediate problem there: how on earth is one supposed to acquire another browser without a browser? The browser is a major component of all desktop OS distributions today, so I don't see why it should be unbundled from Windows. True, it may be crap, but at least I can use it to download and alternative.
Honestly? Qt on a phone? I hate having to have it on a desktop machine, let alone potentially on my person.
That aside, Cocoa's UI API isn't hard to learn. It's dead easy. The code goes into the method files, you declare it in the header files, you point the buttons at the bit of code to execute using a point-and-click interface. And it's less of a pain than Qt.
It's a bit bizarre at first, but you get used to it before long. The trick is to lay out the interface first, then code to it, and finally to connect everything up and hope it works.
This is why Ubuntu needs a tutorial. The first time the desktop appears, a dialog should be brought up saying 'press T if you've never used a computer before and need help, click here if you have used Windows before but not Ubuntu, click here to dismiss this message'.
This will leave only Linus, who will, by 2015, have turned into a Cyberman.
Does this mean we'll have a sequel to Los Disneys : Las Apples?
...so Apple will have a cyborg in charge, like MS had the Borg in charge until not so long ago? It's true. Apple IS the new Microsoft.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a belief such as 'masturbation causes blindness' or 'some people have their sexual orientation determined before/at birth'.
...which is why it advises you to check it at least 72 hours in advance.
I'd argue that it's merely because video games are a relatively new form of media and are being demonised: fact is, exposure to any form of violent media may trigger aggressive behaviour, regardless of whether it's in a video game, film, TV show, book, or real life. It's merely because video games, as a new, and as-yet mostly misunderstood by the older generation, form of entertainment, are being used as a scapegoat.
Just my $0.02's worth.
But surely, if it raises awareness of the dangers of insecure wi-fi, it's a good thing?
So making things up is an acceptable substitute to science that's been tested and proven over the last hundred and twenty years? EM radiation is nothing new.
Correlation is not causation. Spearman's Rank is not infallible.