Always used Mac OS X? Windows? My first computer was a Macintosh LC running Mac OS 6 and I'm far from being considered an old fart around these parts. I think it's safe to say the average /. user started out on a system that predates those listed in the poll.

The first time I used a computer I was two years old. I destroyed the floppy drive on my father computer by shoving a picture slide into it in a failed attempt to mimic his activities. I can't remember exactly what type of computer it was, but I think it was a TRS. I'm really surprised that 'none of the above' isn't the most frequent answer. The 80s weren't that long ago. . .

The assault weapons ban only lasted ten years. So much for only having to win once. Also, calling your political opponents 'bad guys' is childish. They may be wrong, but people don't want to ban guns out of malice. Hell, for the longest time I wanted handguns and assault rifles banned because they really are terrible things. I didn't change my mind because I stopped seeing them as terrible, I changed my mind because I realized that banning such things is impractical in this country. Too many already exist and the technology is too basic to stop enthusiasts. My contempt for tools designed exclusively to kill human beings is still as fervent as ever despite the fact that I no longer support weapon bans.

The way I look at it, owning an assault rifle is like owning a guillotine. Sure, I could use it on an animal, but that wouldn't really be practical as there are many other better tools for the job. It only does one thing well: kill people.

I sympathize with those who want to ban such things, it's pretty easy considering I once felt the same way, but I recognize legislation as a poor solution. I think the main appeal of such weapons to most people is their taboo nature. We'd probably have a lot less handguns and assault rifles in this country is no one was trying to ban them. It's like when you tell a child that something is bad. They immediately want it.

This doesn't seem very logical to me. My guess is that most laws that are proposed in the legislature 1) are bad 2) die quickly 3) die without those pushing them giving up. What ever made you say such a thing?

Maybe they were just trying to recreate the magic of the original series.

What on earth gave you this idea? Most shows, if they don't hit their stride by the end of the pilot, there isn't a season two. I don't remember the first season of Star Trek: TNG (been waaayyyy too long), but that was riding on the Star Trek name and fanbase. I don't think that show is indicative of greater trends in television.

My understanding is that the Wachowskis were still the ones who wrote the abomination that was the final Matrix movie. Studios will always meddle, but few writers/directors are given as much artistic license as the Wachowskis were given. It's obvious that Warner Bros. didn't meddle enough -- they have interns that could have identified the Revolutions screenplay as crap.

I'm sure that's why they hired the Wachowskis, they need shows to appeal to those with no taste. It's too bad they couldn't land Michael Bay for you.

If you want to trivialize the word 'enslave' in such a manner, then one could say "civilization enslaves." Lord of the Flies. . .

Being a part of any society comes at the cost of restrictions upon one's freedom. The question is, "which restrictions are good?" Not, "are restrictions good?" It's the restrictions we place upon ourselves and enforce through government that allow us to transcend the greater restrictions nature imposes on us. Only through discipline can we be free.

It sounds like you were paraphrasing Adria Richards.

https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/6039856858

I'm sure Red Hat is grateful. But I'm sure Microsoft has seen this coming for a long time. Linux is approaching the point of being functional enough for the common business user. It's long been functional in the server space, where it's done quite well. Once it becomes accepted in more corporate environments as a desktop OS -- which I think it already would have if not for the MS Office lock-in -- that's when Microsoft's going to have to find a new cash cow.

So they're looking at the cash cows for other companies and looking to copy. Google's use of information, Apple's hardware market, Sony/Nintendo's gaming market. Remember, while Microsoft has been publicly dismissive of Linux and other open-source technologies, in private they consider these to be their greatest threat. The funny thing is that Microsoft seems to have a greater belief in the inevitable 'year of the Linux desktop' than most Linux enthusiasts.

Are they conceding their desktop monopoly? I think so. But I think they're also trying to morph it into consumer products -- Surface, Windows Phone, XBox, etc. -- so they can use it to compete with iOS and Android. They probably assume that by the time Windows 10 or whatever comes out, Linux will have already taken over traditional desktops and laptops, so Windows has to find a new home or die. Windows 8/9 seems to be the transition OSes, like how Mac OS 9 was mostly just created to transition over to OS X. For at least the last fifteen years they've been aware that unless they could successfully dole out some ridiculous shenanigans, Windows would eventually fall to Linux. Free is tough to compete with.

Why don't you just run Wine on Linux? That way you can stay up to date and run those pesky few Windows apps you need. If you can get away with relying on an outdated version of Windows for the work you do then you can probably do it on Linux.

This isn't how it works. You are grossly simplifying the amazingly complex and nuanced reality that is human existence. This became apparent when you used the word 'bully' in your first sentence. 'Bully' is a concept so abstract it's practically meaningless.

What is 'expressing oneself honestly' to one is 'bullying' to another. Good-natured humor is often perceived as bullying by those who lack a sense of humor or are obsessively politically correct or are intimidated by debate. According to some, just being an extrovert makes one a bully.

It seems to me that the concept of a bully can only be understood in relativistic terms. A person isn't intrinsically a bully the way they're portrayed in crappy 80s movies. They're only a bully when they're perceived as a bully by someone who also perceives himself to be a victim. Interestingly, we don't have a neat name for the person who perceives himself to be a victim. So I just use 'pussy.'

Yeah, people are pretty fucking dumb, and being a dumb lunk is glorified in the U.S. But I find your bullies vs. smart quiet ones assessment to be way off the mark. There are a lot of extroverted assholes who are brilliant and equally as many quiet gentlemen who are stupid as shit.

You criticize those who pursue the things they want, and maybe justifiably so, but they wouldn't be 'bullies' if there weren't pussies who let themselves be pushed around. I have more respect for someone who will assert his will onto the world than one who will be pushed around out of cowardice, ineptitude, or lethargy. If I had to blame America's decline on one of these groups of people it would be the passive ones rather than those who assert their will.

You have a very low standard for evil if being an annoying twat qualifies.

I don't know, I never say that.

It's a shell company. There probably is no office. It's probably just a P.O. Box.

You and the people who modded you up have no idea what this story is about. Try reading it next time.

This isn't about copyright holders suing people for infringement. This is about lawyers partaking in fraud and/or extortion by representing fictitious copyright holders.

It's a scam. One could argue that the big media copyright holders are also engaged in a scam, but their scam is (perhaps unfortunately) legal. What these lawyers are doing isn't legal -- they create shell companies and to act as clients they can sue on behalf of to scare people into coughing up money.

What big media copyright holders do is legal, however unfortunate that may be. This isn't about the validity of our copyright system, this is about a criminal organization that has just been caught red-handed. The copyright absolutists have as much reason to detest these guys as the anti-copyrightists. These guys are making judges re-examine the process and how easy it is to manipulate, which in the long run will be very bad for the copyright absolutists you complain about.

You would have every reason to be optimistic if you read the fucking story!