As an ex-Mac user, and a video game fan, the rule is that the Mac version of the number 1 game usually comes out about 3 months after everybody else has already gotten sick of playing it to death.
KRKO only broadcast local sports, no political programming whatsoever. I feel compelled to add: "you gigantic idiot."
You could have spent 5 seconds looking that up, you know. It's not like the radio station's format is classified. Hey look, they even have a website: http://www.krko.com/
Well, it could be some combo of the two. There are definitely crazy people around here who have been opposing these radio towers for a LONG time. (I live less than 20 miles from where the towers were knocked down.) Drive down Highway 9 between Snohomish and Woodinville, and you've seen these crazy people's crazy signs.
I'm guessing that the the crazies opposing the antennas might have gone to ELF after they lost their hearing, and arranged an alliance with that group, in order to get them to claim responsibility. The real question is which group the actual guy driving the actual piece of construction equipment that downed the antennas was with... I'd wager that person was a local.]
It's also possible that ELF has people nearby who were available to do the act itself, but in either case, I'm certain that one of the crazy locals along Highway 9 planned and arranged this. Why else would ELF even slightly care about this?
Ah, but windows (XP pre-installs) come out of the box moronically set up (default user is administrator being the biggest problem, much software assuming and requiring administrator access being the second).
The current Windows version has been Vista for TWO AND A HALF YEARS at this point. The only way to even buy XP at all at this point is to get a Netbook, and that won't be the case in another 3 months anyway.
How long does Vista have to be current before Slashdot acknowledges it? Christ. If you're going to spout the propaganda, update it for 2007, please. If you're going to compare OSes, compare the *current* version of Windows with the *current* version of OS X and Linux.
1) You can (almost) always clean up a XP install quicker than re-installing it. The one except I came across was one infected by a bastard virus named Vundo that was a huge-ass pain to deal with-- by the time I had finally excised it, it would have been quicker to just reinstall XP.
2) Vista doesn't have that problem like XP did. My Vista install is over 2 years old now, closer to 2.5, and I haven't even seen a hint of slowdown on it. I've never defragged it, either... I'm not sure if Vista auto-defrags as files as accessed like OS X, or if they've done some kind of re-org, but no problems there.
The problem with a lot of the anti-Microsoft ranting on Slashdot is that it's horribly out-of-date.
How is that any worse than installing Windows for someone and then telling them the steps required to fix DLL Hell and virus infections?
It's not any worst, except that the average Windows users won't have any problems with "DLL Hell" or virus infections, and the average Linux user will almost certainly run into something that doesn't work without requiring an insane amount of computer knowledge to fix.
Make sure you update your anti-Microsoft screed for the newest versions, ok? "DLL Hell" has been a complete non-issue for a very, very long time.
how is designing software to do more things badly superior to focusing on creating software thatdoes its one and only job better?
And what's the "one thing" a web browser is doing, exactly? In the last week, I've used a web browser to: * RSVP to a event invite * Send/receive email * Watch TV shows * Share photos with relatives
A "do one thing and one thing only" philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with the web. Unless you define your "one thing" as "view the web," which is so all-encompassing as to be useless.
When I get time, I will be turning off all the fancy-dancy eye candy. I want the CPU to work on my applications, now how they are presented.
You do realize that Windows runs faster and uses less memory (well, less RAM), with those "fancy-dancy eye candy" features turned on, right?
I mean, turn them of if you want, but don't deluded yourself into thinking you're freeing-up CPU time and memory for your other apps, because you're not. (Except possibly video games that would saturate your video card's memory normally; but they usually run full-screen anyway, so Windows swaps-out the window images.)
On the other hand, the entire *point* of the University system is to promote new and unique ideas, and these students aren't willing to even listen to a viewpoint not identical to their own. How can they possibly consider new ideas if they refuse to even listen to them? Do you think the University's mission statement includes diversity as a sticking point? Do you think shouting down people with alternate opinions promotes diversity?
So while the students are legally in the right, they're certainly philosophically in the wrong.
I'm not going to dig up all the proof you're looking for, but I will say this:
For bonus points, show that American firms don't actually deserve the 'abuse' by committing more crimes than their European counterparts.
Most of these American companies were getting burned at the stake by the EU for things that weren't *crimes* before they started getting burned by the stake by the EU. To cite Microsoft alone, was shipping Windows Media Player with Windows a crime? Was not providing a tool out-of-the-box to choose which browser the user wants a crime? And I won't even get started on Intel's persecution, that was simply ridiculous.
I will give the EU this: it has a lot of apologists like you. I have no idea where they come from, or why they think that behavior is acceptable.
Re:Surely Slashdot can get cracker vs hacker right
on
How To Hire a Hacker
·
· Score: 1
Usage is language. If the majority of people use the word to mean X, it means X.
If you can't cope with this fact, go learn a language nobody else cares about, like Esperanto, then you can have the run of the place. But if you're going to speak a language that other people also speak, then you'll just have to cope with change. Sorry.
I'd just be happy if they adopted some old-as-dirt "innovations", like the ability to split scrollbars and look at two parts of the document at once. Word's had that since, what, 1995 or something and we *still* don't have it in *any* web browser?
Options are bad. The more options there are, the greater the odds that your particular combination of options was never QAed, meaning the application as a whole is much more quirky and buggy than an application with fewer options.
Anyway, if you want Firefox 2 just run Firefox 2. I'm not a big fan of people who are so set in their ways they refuse to even *attempt* to learn a new software interface.
I recently bought a book called "The 5000 Year Leap" which made this same logical error.
The authors started the book with the premise that the first colonists to land in the Americas had the same technological level as the Greeks had 4500 years previously, i.e. animal-drawn carts with wheels and swords I guess. The book is about how the US' particular philosophy drove pretty much all technological improvement ever, with a heavy dose of "BTW God is awesome."
Needless to say, I'm not much of a fan of the book. I never bothered to finish it.
But even the first chapter, I was like, "whoa, hold up there, if the Greeks had the same technology as Columbus, then why didn't the Greeks land in the Americas and colonize it?" The answer is, of course: because the author of the book was an idiot. The Spanish ships that allows Columbus to make his journey in relative were dozens of times better than the oar-driven ships the Greeks had access to. Not to mention the steel armor/weapons and gunpowder that made conquest of the natives possible-- the technology difference between the Greeks and 15th century Spain is actually really significant, when you think about it.
Now the book is true that there was a huge leap in technological development in the last couple of centuries since the US was founded, but I don't think the US's philosophical underpinnings has much to do with it. If anything, I'd credit the French Revolution's dedication to tossing every old idea and predujice into the trash and start form scratch.
Companies like Oracle and Siemens and IBM and others. Companies that offered intranet applications that relied on ActiveX and other IE6-only technologies. Oh, were you expecting me to say "Microsoft?" Sorry.
Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients?
Ok. ActiveX ranting.
Was ActiveX insecure? Yes. Ok? Let's get over that point right now.
Now, as to Microsoft including it in IE... HTML was originally designed to be extensible. We now (as an IT community) realize that this was a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be extensible. HTML was *designed* to have companies add a MARQUEE or BLINK tag to it. HTML was *designed* so that you could script your webpage in any programming language.
Microsoft's adding ActiveX to their browser is simply embracing that concept. There was nothing wrong with that at the time they added it. In versions released after IE 5.5, ActiveX has been restricted more and more and more in every version-- Microsoft's doing everything they can to get vendors to stop using it.
But those vendors (like Siemens, Oracle, IBM listed above) are the ones writing those lazy apps you mentioned, and they still won't get rid of it. All they do is add an item to the Read Me that says "oh BTW, go into IE settings and disable the pop-up blocker, all security warnings, our app won't work otherwise." Believe me; I've "installed" tons of these apps, the "installation" basically consisting of disabling most of IE's security features.
Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
I have no clue what you're even referring to here. The worst thing IE is guilty of, as far as I see it, is implementing CSS before the spec was finalized, and therefore getting the box model "wrong." ("Wrong" meaning in this context "correct for the version of the spec they used, but the spec changed later to make it wrong.")
If you're talking about proprietary tags/DOM commands, then Netscape added at least as many of those as IE did. And one of the ones IE came up with, XMLHttpRequest, basically re-vitalized the entire web development community and became part of the standard, so you have to chalk that one up as a "win" in their column.
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security.
Microsoft writes the software their customers demand. Customers didn't demand security, so Microsoft didn't write security.
And yes, other companies need to get the blame! If you work in a corporation using IE6 on the desktop, go talk to your IT department and say, "which intranet app requires IE6?" I can guarantee the answer is *not* any Microsoft app. It'll have come from Siemens, Oracle, IBM-- THOSE are the lazy developers you should be foaming-at-the-mouth mad at, not Microsoft.
Do you seriously think Microsoft *wants* people using IE6 when IE8 is out? Are you honestly that deluded?
If you're a web developer and you're not keeping up on web browser releases, then shame on you. Microsoft *has* come up with a better browser; it's called IE8.
Your problem is with IE6, not with IE. Unfortunately, while Microsoft has the ability to release better versions of IE, they don't have the magical ability to go back in time and remove IE6 from existence, which is I think the only thing that would make wags like you happy.
Look, Microsoft wants to upgrade people to newer versions of IE as much as you do. Don't blame Microsoft for people still using IE6, blame all the companies out there with lazy IT departments-- they are the ones holding on to IE6 for dear life.
Slashdot Mirror
As an ex-Mac user, and a video game fan, the rule is that the Mac version of the number 1 game usually comes out about 3 months after everybody else has already gotten sick of playing it to death.
KRKO only broadcast local sports, no political programming whatsoever. I feel compelled to add: "you gigantic idiot."
You could have spent 5 seconds looking that up, you know. It's not like the radio station's format is classified. Hey look, they even have a website: http://www.krko.com/
Well, it could be some combo of the two. There are definitely crazy people around here who have been opposing these radio towers for a LONG time. (I live less than 20 miles from where the towers were knocked down.) Drive down Highway 9 between Snohomish and Woodinville, and you've seen these crazy people's crazy signs.
I'm guessing that the the crazies opposing the antennas might have gone to ELF after they lost their hearing, and arranged an alliance with that group, in order to get them to claim responsibility. The real question is which group the actual guy driving the actual piece of construction equipment that downed the antennas was with... I'd wager that person was a local.]
It's also possible that ELF has people nearby who were available to do the act itself, but in either case, I'm certain that one of the crazy locals along Highway 9 planned and arranged this. Why else would ELF even slightly care about this?
That's why I buy Dell. They always provide the OS CD, and it's always a crapware-free version.
Ah, but windows (XP pre-installs) come out of the box moronically set up (default user is administrator being the biggest problem, much software assuming and requiring administrator access being the second).
The current Windows version has been Vista for TWO AND A HALF YEARS at this point. The only way to even buy XP at all at this point is to get a Netbook, and that won't be the case in another 3 months anyway.
How long does Vista have to be current before Slashdot acknowledges it? Christ. If you're going to spout the propaganda, update it for 2007, please. If you're going to compare OSes, compare the *current* version of Windows with the *current* version of OS X and Linux.
First of all,
1) You can (almost) always clean up a XP install quicker than re-installing it. The one except I came across was one infected by a bastard virus named Vundo that was a huge-ass pain to deal with-- by the time I had finally excised it, it would have been quicker to just reinstall XP.
2) Vista doesn't have that problem like XP did. My Vista install is over 2 years old now, closer to 2.5, and I haven't even seen a hint of slowdown on it. I've never defragged it, either... I'm not sure if Vista auto-defrags as files as accessed like OS X, or if they've done some kind of re-org, but no problems there.
The problem with a lot of the anti-Microsoft ranting on Slashdot is that it's horribly out-of-date.
How is that any worse than installing Windows for someone and then telling them the steps required to fix DLL Hell and virus infections?
It's not any worst, except that the average Windows users won't have any problems with "DLL Hell" or virus infections, and the average Linux user will almost certainly run into something that doesn't work without requiring an insane amount of computer knowledge to fix.
Make sure you update your anti-Microsoft screed for the newest versions, ok? "DLL Hell" has been a complete non-issue for a very, very long time.
how is designing software to do more things badly superior to focusing on creating software thatdoes its one and only job better?
And what's the "one thing" a web browser is doing, exactly? In the last week, I've used a web browser to:
* RSVP to a event invite
* Send/receive email
* Watch TV shows
* Share photos with relatives
A "do one thing and one thing only" philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with the web. Unless you define your "one thing" as "view the web," which is so all-encompassing as to be useless.
I asked the British government, but unfortunately they told me you don't actually exist. Sorry.
Why don't people throw Linux parties instead?
Because you want people to come to the party?
Given, you might have trouble with that for the Windows 7 one, too. Unless you do a Windows 7 TOGA party!
When I get time, I will be turning off all the fancy-dancy eye candy. I want the CPU to work on my applications, now how they are presented.
You do realize that Windows runs faster and uses less memory (well, less RAM), with those "fancy-dancy eye candy" features turned on, right?
I mean, turn them of if you want, but don't deluded yourself into thinking you're freeing-up CPU time and memory for your other apps, because you're not. (Except possibly video games that would saturate your video card's memory normally; but they usually run full-screen anyway, so Windows swaps-out the window images.)
You're technically right.
On the other hand, the entire *point* of the University system is to promote new and unique ideas, and these students aren't willing to even listen to a viewpoint not identical to their own. How can they possibly consider new ideas if they refuse to even listen to them? Do you think the University's mission statement includes diversity as a sticking point? Do you think shouting down people with alternate opinions promotes diversity?
So while the students are legally in the right, they're certainly philosophically in the wrong.
I'm not going to dig up all the proof you're looking for, but I will say this:
For bonus points, show that American firms don't actually deserve the 'abuse' by committing more crimes than their European counterparts.
Most of these American companies were getting burned at the stake by the EU for things that weren't *crimes* before they started getting burned by the stake by the EU. To cite Microsoft alone, was shipping Windows Media Player with Windows a crime? Was not providing a tool out-of-the-box to choose which browser the user wants a crime? And I won't even get started on Intel's persecution, that was simply ridiculous.
I will give the EU this: it has a lot of apologists like you. I have no idea where they come from, or why they think that behavior is acceptable.
Usage is language. If the majority of people use the word to mean X, it means X.
If you can't cope with this fact, go learn a language nobody else cares about, like Esperanto, then you can have the run of the place. But if you're going to speak a language that other people also speak, then you'll just have to cope with change. Sorry.
You mean because they haven't learned about the 4-sided TimeCube yet?
Seriously, you sound like that guy. Stop being an asshole, and write paragraphs like normal people.
and avoid Sony like the plague.
I embrace the plague, and *still* avoid Sony. That's how much I hate that company.
Now you'll have to excuse me, I have some itching boils and should probably go lie down.
I'd just be happy if they adopted some old-as-dirt "innovations", like the ability to split scrollbars and look at two parts of the document at once. Word's had that since, what, 1995 or something and we *still* don't have it in *any* web browser?
Options are bad. The more options there are, the greater the odds that your particular combination of options was never QAed, meaning the application as a whole is much more quirky and buggy than an application with fewer options.
Anyway, if you want Firefox 2 just run Firefox 2. I'm not a big fan of people who are so set in their ways they refuse to even *attempt* to learn a new software interface.
"Flight" was invented by two bicycle repairmen in their spare time. The flight projects the government funded were all huge failures. Just FYI.
I recently bought a book called "The 5000 Year Leap" which made this same logical error.
The authors started the book with the premise that the first colonists to land in the Americas had the same technological level as the Greeks had 4500 years previously, i.e. animal-drawn carts with wheels and swords I guess. The book is about how the US' particular philosophy drove pretty much all technological improvement ever, with a heavy dose of "BTW God is awesome."
Needless to say, I'm not much of a fan of the book. I never bothered to finish it.
But even the first chapter, I was like, "whoa, hold up there, if the Greeks had the same technology as Columbus, then why didn't the Greeks land in the Americas and colonize it?" The answer is, of course: because the author of the book was an idiot. The Spanish ships that allows Columbus to make his journey in relative were dozens of times better than the oar-driven ships the Greeks had access to. Not to mention the steel armor/weapons and gunpowder that made conquest of the natives possible-- the technology difference between the Greeks and 15th century Spain is actually really significant, when you think about it.
Now the book is true that there was a huge leap in technological development in the last couple of centuries since the US was founded, but I don't think the US's philosophical underpinnings has much to do with it. If anything, I'd credit the French Revolution's dedication to tossing every old idea and predujice into the trash and start form scratch.
Anyway, sorry to ramble, just agreeing.
Wow. Foam at the mouth, much?
Who sold those IT departments IE6 as the panacea?
Companies like Oracle and Siemens and IBM and others. Companies that offered intranet applications that relied on ActiveX and other IE6-only technologies. Oh, were you expecting me to say "Microsoft?" Sorry.
Which company wrote lazy software that assumed a completely open, no security, no check, ActiveX enabled all the way to hell and back IE6 as the front end to corporate clients?
Ok. ActiveX ranting.
Was ActiveX insecure? Yes. Ok? Let's get over that point right now.
Now, as to Microsoft including it in IE... HTML was originally designed to be extensible. We now (as an IT community) realize that this was a bad idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be extensible. HTML was *designed* to have companies add a MARQUEE or BLINK tag to it. HTML was *designed* so that you could script your webpage in any programming language.
Microsoft's adding ActiveX to their browser is simply embracing that concept. There was nothing wrong with that at the time they added it. In versions released after IE 5.5, ActiveX has been restricted more and more and more in every version-- Microsoft's doing everything they can to get vendors to stop using it.
But those vendors (like Siemens, Oracle, IBM listed above) are the ones writing those lazy apps you mentioned, and they still won't get rid of it. All they do is add an item to the Read Me that says "oh BTW, go into IE settings and disable the pop-up blocker, all security warnings, our app won't work otherwise." Believe me; I've "installed" tons of these apps, the "installation" basically consisting of disabling most of IE's security features.
Which company was so blinded by Netscape's rise that it did despo things just to kill Netscape and in that process created a mess that it can not clean up?
I have no clue what you're even referring to here. The worst thing IE is guilty of, as far as I see it, is implementing CSS before the spec was finalized, and therefore getting the box model "wrong." ("Wrong" meaning in this context "correct for the version of the spec they used, but the spec changed later to make it wrong.")
If you're talking about proprietary tags/DOM commands, then Netscape added at least as many of those as IE did. And one of the ones IE came up with, XMLHttpRequest, basically re-vitalized the entire web development community and became part of the standard, so you have to chalk that one up as a "win" in their column.
It was the shortsightedness of Microsoft that spawned this monster IE6. Microsoft could not tell the difference between ease of use and lack of security.
Microsoft writes the software their customers demand. Customers didn't demand security, so Microsoft didn't write security.
And yes, other companies need to get the blame! If you work in a corporation using IE6 on the desktop, go talk to your IT department and say, "which intranet app requires IE6?" I can guarantee the answer is *not* any Microsoft app. It'll have come from Siemens, Oracle, IBM-- THOSE are the lazy developers you should be foaming-at-the-mouth mad at, not Microsoft.
Do you seriously think Microsoft *wants* people using IE6 when IE8 is out? Are you honestly that deluded?
I have seen the end of supersonic passenger aircraft (for the time being, with no resumption in sight).
People who lament about this usually couldn't have afforded a Concorde ticket anyway.
"OH NOES! Super-rich people can't buy a ticket for the exclusive airliner anymore!!!"
Fuck supersonic flight, is what I'm saying.
If you're a web developer and you're not keeping up on web browser releases, then shame on you. Microsoft *has* come up with a better browser; it's called IE8.
Your problem is with IE6, not with IE. Unfortunately, while Microsoft has the ability to release better versions of IE, they don't have the magical ability to go back in time and remove IE6 from existence, which is I think the only thing that would make wags like you happy.
Look, Microsoft wants to upgrade people to newer versions of IE as much as you do. Don't blame Microsoft for people still using IE6, blame all the companies out there with lazy IT departments-- they are the ones holding on to IE6 for dear life.
Microsoft is on the committee, too.
You know, you could check these things before posting them. You'd sound less stupid.
Yes. You are the only one left in the US that doesn't want everyone to know your every move. You are in no way setting up a strawman argument.