I guess you suck at critical thought. I actually used XP for many years without any AV. I do have Avast right now, but it never finds anything and my machine shows no signs of infection. Every now and then I do a boot scan and it's always clean. I might try one from Linux to see if it picks up anything, but I don't have my hopes up. A dose of common sense when using the Internet seems to do the trick. And ever since I've trained my mom to do the same, she never gets any viruses either (she is far from a techie). Same for my sister (who is more savvy, but is still not a techie). Gone are the days of having the do virus clean up for the family.
No, that's a shell feature. KDE and GNOME have had the same flaw. You name something.desktop and it will be executed/interpreted by the KDE/GNOME shell. The NT kernel uses the same mechanism as Unix for permissions.
Notice how I said "base Unix security model". In another post, I did actually mention SELinux. It is quite powerful, albeit a bit unruly for a regular user to administer. Thankfully, distros have done a good job with creating working default policies.
Yes, of course Facebook uses all those technologies under the hood. But *they* manage them, not the end user. They hide the implementation details and provide people with a useful abstraction.
So what is it about the Windows security model that's inferior to the Linux one? Because all of the documentation I've read says otherwise (SELinux aside).
Now, if you want to talk about Windows Explorer being weak with security, I'll buy that. If you want to talk about a culture of "don't care about security", I'll buy that. But don't tell me that the NT security model is weak.
And yet all of these services and technologies you mention are separate things, not connected to each other, and some of them require technical know-how to set up. You might have to buy hosting, install software, etc. And that's just so that *you* can have your own page. What about all your friends? Facebook has already done the legwork of creating all of that for you, so you can just focus on the content and sharing. And Facebook has it in one place.
Now, I really don't like the way that Facebook is treating privacy. I'm actually damn close to getting rid of my Facebook account myself. But I can't sell the idea short just because of the privacy issues. It really is a well-thought out and very useful platform for what it seeks to do (aside from some small issues that crop up from time to time, of course). And you can't expect people to use more complicated and disconnected solutions when there is an effective solution already in place: Facebook. I personally am glad we have moved away from tons of personal websites and towards uniformity with Facebook for that kind of thing. Geocities is gone and good riddance. The future of the web is not moving back to basic technology. In much the same way, while buying a personal computer in the late 70s meant DIY and programming skills required, today, you can buy one and pretty much open it up and start using it, no programming required. Same with any technology. So in my eyes, Facebook *is* the better solution, from a technical and social standpoint. The privacy issues are orthogonal to that.
I think it's funny that you seriously think email is an acceptable replacement for a social-networking site. Maybe it is for you, which is fine, but you aren't everybody.
The Windows NT security model is actually more advanced and capable than the base Unix security model. It's only because of culture, better-written 3rd party programs and marketshare that Linux/Unix doesn't have a malware problem.
They were perpetuated by a variety of people with a variety of goals. Especially in the 20th century, the focus has been quality writing and effective communication -- both of them laudable. However, the rules are generally based on personal prejudices and biases and not on any solid linguistic analysis. As such, I usually don't take kindly to prescriptivist bullshit and will try to fight it where I can. I am all for clear communication. I am totally against, however, silly rules that do nothing to further that cause and instead serve almost as a shibboleth amongst the snobbish.
There were paragraphs in there, but I forgot to select Plain Text, so it has all been joined together into an unfortunate wall of text. For those who care, the paragraphs start at "There's no reason", "But in answer to your question" and "My real problem".
There's no reason why conjunctions can't join two sentences together. Of course, I don't think that's what's happening here. Instead, I think we have a sentential adverb that sets the mood of the sentence, or acts as a semantics-only conjunction, connecting the sentence with thoughts before it without having an explicit syntactic connection. Pronouns and articles already get to do this.
But in answer to your question, no, I don't think "without" necessarily indicates contrast. The sentence could go on to be "without these technologies, we'd still be the greatest species on the planet", which confirms the previous thought, rather than conceding it. OF course, in that case, you'd definitely want to use a sentence-initial "and": "and without these technologies, we'd still be the greatest species on the planet". Omitting the "and" leads to a slightly stilted and somewhat disconnected series of sentences.
My real problem with your entire line of argumentation is that it is both unsupported by logic and is also limiting. Why force people to avoid useful language because of personal prejudices and opinions? Instead, let's allow people to be flexible in their language, that they may express shades of meaning and nuance that wouldn't be available with the kind of strict, bare-bones approach taken by the modern language pedant (no doubt well-versed in Strunk and White nonsense). Using "but" at the beginning of a sentence does nothing to take away from the meaning of sentence or series of sentences, nor does it contribute to confusion and vagueness (a legitimate concern in effective communication). Rather, it offers a nuanced alternative to other constructions (such as "however" and "though" -- themselves quite valid and useful). I simply can see no downside to using sentence-initial "but" and "and", save for an overzealous strictness when it comes to parts of speech and word usage. We aren't talking about unnecessarily vague and annoying synecdoche like "CPU" for "computer", where an incorrect metaphor has weakened the language of some speakers. If you had called someone out on that, I would have agreed with you. But I can't here because I see nothing wrong with "but". And neither should you, although you are free not to use it at the beginning of your sentences. Just don't tell people they are wrong for doing so.
Okay, please tell me what is "improper" about using "but" at the beginning of a sentence? And I can't believe that you actually compared that to using swear words. This is why I hate grammar pedants.
It lacks the force of my version. There is no sharp contrast connoted.
And you are still avoiding the key issue of whether there is anything wrong with starting a sentence with "but". Sure, you often can safely recast the sentence to avoid an initial "but". And sometimes you can recast it and end up with a weaker version. But why do that when you can just use "but" at the beginning of the sentence? Methinks it more reasonable to put a "but" at the beginning of the sentence than to go through contortions, or at least minor rewordings, to avoid it. Do you disagree?
Yes, you can use a comma and have it be an additional clause. That is perfectly valid. It's also valid to start a new sentence with "but". It retains the same concessive semantics, but can be used in situations where you don't want two clauses to be joined to each other in a single sentence. Consider the following example:
"We have developed all kinds of advanced technology and because of that, we consider ourselves to be the greatest species on the planet. But without that technology, we are as fragile, if not more so, than many other species."
You can't convert the period before the "but" to a comma without creating, at best, a run-on sentence. You also lose the strong contrastive force. If it were an additional clause, it would be a concession as a mere afterthought ("I would go, but I don't have time"), perhaps even just a clarification. At the beginning of a new sentence, however, it says "what I just said is about to be seriously questioned or refined". It applies instead to a whole string of thoughts, not just to the clause preceding it.
You might say "however" or "yet" would be better. They sound a bit stuffy and perform the same function as "but". Thanks the flexibility of language (which pedants, such as yourself, seem intent on needlessly stamping out, lest people be able to express themselves in anything but sanitary prose), the word can be used as a plain old coordinating conjunction, or it can be used as a sentential adverb (or even as a preposition -- gasp!).
The point is, there's no good reason to avoid putting "but" at the beginning of the sentence, and there are actually very good reasons *to* put it at the beginning of a sentence. In light of that, I will gladly put "but" at the beginning of sentences where appropriate.
Right, I don't disagree about that (in fact, I said as much in my post). But that memory usage should be more or less the same regardless of whether the browser uses one process for the whole browser, or has a single process per page. The OP suggested that it was the one-process-per-page model that introduced the extreme memory usage problems. And that's where I disagree.
Windows actually did have compositing in 2k and XP. But it was on a per-window basis. It also didn't use a compositing manager to redirect all windows and composite the entire desktop like we have now with DWM.
Maybe Windows sucks at memory management, but each tab process should be the same and have the same shared libraries and code. All of that should only have one instance in memory. Only the private memory for each page should be different, which would be true for traditional, single-process browsers as well. Sure, there will be some overhead for having separate processes (obviously, the kernel must have additional data structures allocated for each process and the processes themselves will have to use some more memory for communication with each other and such), but that should be negligible.
The idea with copyright is that you, the consumer, *don't* actually own the content. You own a copy, which is a limited use grant of the content. Only the copyright owner actually owns it and is free to do with it what he or she pleases, including giving it away for free to anyone. You do not have that freedom.
Still an idiotic argument. You *certainly* use your own router. You have no proof that these other people are doing it (and it's not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your router anyway). In the most likely case, it was *you* who did the downloading. If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that. And the mere possibility that someone might have used your router doesn't seem to me to be strong evidence. In fact, I recall that there was a case where the BS open WiFi argument was quashed (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/04/child-porn-case-shows-that-an-open-wifi-network-is-no-defense.ars).
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you suck at critical thought. I actually used XP for many years without any AV. I do have Avast right now, but it never finds anything and my machine shows no signs of infection. Every now and then I do a boot scan and it's always clean. I might try one from Linux to see if it picks up anything, but I don't have my hopes up. A dose of common sense when using the Internet seems to do the trick. And ever since I've trained my mom to do the same, she never gets any viruses either (she is far from a techie). Same for my sister (who is more savvy, but is still not a techie). Gone are the days of having the do virus clean up for the family.
Fine. I get as many viruses and malware on Windows as I do on Linux.
No, that's a shell feature. KDE and GNOME have had the same flaw. You name something .desktop and it will be executed/interpreted by the KDE/GNOME shell. The NT kernel uses the same mechanism as Unix for permissions.
Notice how I said "base Unix security model". In another post, I did actually mention SELinux. It is quite powerful, albeit a bit unruly for a regular user to administer. Thankfully, distros have done a good job with creating working default policies.
Yes, of course Facebook uses all those technologies under the hood. But *they* manage them, not the end user. They hide the implementation details and provide people with a useful abstraction.
It is not a replacement for what Facebook has, nor does it have the simplicity of Facebook.
So what is it about the Windows security model that's inferior to the Linux one? Because all of the documentation I've read says otherwise (SELinux aside).
Now, if you want to talk about Windows Explorer being weak with security, I'll buy that. If you want to talk about a culture of "don't care about security", I'll buy that. But don't tell me that the NT security model is weak.
And yet all of these services and technologies you mention are separate things, not connected to each other, and some of them require technical know-how to set up. You might have to buy hosting, install software, etc. And that's just so that *you* can have your own page. What about all your friends? Facebook has already done the legwork of creating all of that for you, so you can just focus on the content and sharing. And Facebook has it in one place.
Now, I really don't like the way that Facebook is treating privacy. I'm actually damn close to getting rid of my Facebook account myself. But I can't sell the idea short just because of the privacy issues. It really is a well-thought out and very useful platform for what it seeks to do (aside from some small issues that crop up from time to time, of course). And you can't expect people to use more complicated and disconnected solutions when there is an effective solution already in place: Facebook. I personally am glad we have moved away from tons of personal websites and towards uniformity with Facebook for that kind of thing. Geocities is gone and good riddance. The future of the web is not moving back to basic technology. In much the same way, while buying a personal computer in the late 70s meant DIY and programming skills required, today, you can buy one and pretty much open it up and start using it, no programming required. Same with any technology. So in my eyes, Facebook *is* the better solution, from a technical and social standpoint. The privacy issues are orthogonal to that.
I think it's funny that you seriously think email is an acceptable replacement for a social-networking site. Maybe it is for you, which is fine, but you aren't everybody.
The Windows NT security model is actually more advanced and capable than the base Unix security model. It's only because of culture, better-written 3rd party programs and marketshare that Linux/Unix doesn't have a malware problem.
They were perpetuated by a variety of people with a variety of goals. Especially in the 20th century, the focus has been quality writing and effective communication -- both of them laudable. However, the rules are generally based on personal prejudices and biases and not on any solid linguistic analysis. As such, I usually don't take kindly to prescriptivist bullshit and will try to fight it where I can. I am all for clear communication. I am totally against, however, silly rules that do nothing to further that cause and instead serve almost as a shibboleth amongst the snobbish.
There were paragraphs in there, but I forgot to select Plain Text, so it has all been joined together into an unfortunate wall of text. For those who care, the paragraphs start at "There's no reason", "But in answer to your question" and "My real problem".
There's no reason why conjunctions can't join two sentences together. Of course, I don't think that's what's happening here. Instead, I think we have a sentential adverb that sets the mood of the sentence, or acts as a semantics-only conjunction, connecting the sentence with thoughts before it without having an explicit syntactic connection. Pronouns and articles already get to do this. But in answer to your question, no, I don't think "without" necessarily indicates contrast. The sentence could go on to be "without these technologies, we'd still be the greatest species on the planet", which confirms the previous thought, rather than conceding it. OF course, in that case, you'd definitely want to use a sentence-initial "and": "and without these technologies, we'd still be the greatest species on the planet". Omitting the "and" leads to a slightly stilted and somewhat disconnected series of sentences. My real problem with your entire line of argumentation is that it is both unsupported by logic and is also limiting. Why force people to avoid useful language because of personal prejudices and opinions? Instead, let's allow people to be flexible in their language, that they may express shades of meaning and nuance that wouldn't be available with the kind of strict, bare-bones approach taken by the modern language pedant (no doubt well-versed in Strunk and White nonsense). Using "but" at the beginning of a sentence does nothing to take away from the meaning of sentence or series of sentences, nor does it contribute to confusion and vagueness (a legitimate concern in effective communication). Rather, it offers a nuanced alternative to other constructions (such as "however" and "though" -- themselves quite valid and useful). I simply can see no downside to using sentence-initial "but" and "and", save for an overzealous strictness when it comes to parts of speech and word usage. We aren't talking about unnecessarily vague and annoying synecdoche like "CPU" for "computer", where an incorrect metaphor has weakened the language of some speakers. If you had called someone out on that, I would have agreed with you. But I can't here because I see nothing wrong with "but". And neither should you, although you are free not to use it at the beginning of your sentences. Just don't tell people they are wrong for doing so.
Okay, please tell me what is "improper" about using "but" at the beginning of a sentence? And I can't believe that you actually compared that to using swear words. This is why I hate grammar pedants.
It lacks the force of my version. There is no sharp contrast connoted.
And you are still avoiding the key issue of whether there is anything wrong with starting a sentence with "but". Sure, you often can safely recast the sentence to avoid an initial "but". And sometimes you can recast it and end up with a weaker version. But why do that when you can just use "but" at the beginning of the sentence? Methinks it more reasonable to put a "but" at the beginning of the sentence than to go through contortions, or at least minor rewordings, to avoid it. Do you disagree?
Yes, you can use a comma and have it be an additional clause. That is perfectly valid. It's also valid to start a new sentence with "but". It retains the same concessive semantics, but can be used in situations where you don't want two clauses to be joined to each other in a single sentence. Consider the following example:
"We have developed all kinds of advanced technology and because of that, we consider ourselves to be the greatest species on the planet. But without that technology, we are as
fragile, if not more so, than many other species."
You can't convert the period before the "but" to a comma without creating, at best, a run-on sentence. You also lose the strong contrastive force. If it were an additional clause, it would be a concession as a mere afterthought ("I would go, but I don't have time"), perhaps even just a clarification. At the beginning of a new sentence, however, it says "what I just said is about to be seriously questioned or refined". It applies instead to a whole string of thoughts, not just to the clause preceding it.
You might say "however" or "yet" would be better. They sound a bit stuffy and perform the same function as "but". Thanks the flexibility of language (which pedants, such as yourself, seem intent on needlessly stamping out, lest people be able to express themselves in anything but sanitary prose), the word can be used as a plain old coordinating conjunction, or it can be used as a sentential adverb (or even as a preposition -- gasp!).
The point is, there's no good reason to avoid putting "but" at the beginning of the sentence, and there are actually very good reasons *to* put it at the beginning of a sentence. In light of that, I will gladly put "but" at the beginning of sentences where appropriate.
Right, I don't disagree about that (in fact, I said as much in my post). But that memory usage should be more or less the same regardless of whether the browser uses one process for the whole browser, or has a single process per page. The OP suggested that it was the one-process-per-page model that introduced the extreme memory usage problems. And that's where I disagree.
Windows actually did have compositing in 2k and XP. But it was on a per-window basis. It also didn't use a compositing manager to redirect all windows and composite the entire desktop like we have now with DWM.
Maybe Windows sucks at memory management, but each tab process should be the same and have the same shared libraries and code. All of that should only have one instance in memory. Only the private memory for each page should be different, which would be true for traditional, single-process browsers as well. Sure, there will be some overhead for having separate processes (obviously, the kernel must have additional data structures allocated for each process and the processes themselves will have to use some more memory for communication with each other and such), but that should be negligible.
Why not? You can't express certain thoughts without doing that.
Be careful. Git doesn't track file permissions and ownership, which, unlike in most repos, is actually pretty darn important for /etc.
The idea with copyright is that you, the consumer, *don't* actually own the content. You own a copy, which is a limited use grant of the content. Only the copyright owner actually owns it and is free to do with it what he or she pleases, including giving it away for free to anyone. You do not have that freedom.
That document has no binding legal force in the US and so is irrelevant for this discussion.
Still an idiotic argument. You *certainly* use your own router. You have no proof that these other people are doing it (and it's not "likely" that large numbers of people are using your router anyway). In the most likely case, it was *you* who did the downloading. If you want to propose that it's someone else, you will need to provide evidence for that. And the mere possibility that someone might have used your router doesn't seem to me to be strong evidence. In fact, I recall that there was a case where the BS open WiFi argument was quashed (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/04/child-porn-case-shows-that-an-open-wifi-network-is-no-defense.ars).
You can use the Windows bootloader to boot Linux and install GRUB on the Linux partition instead of on the MBR. That's what I do.