Slashdot fails at unicode, you think it's going to pass your irony tags?
Slashdot fails at unicode, you think it's going to pass your irony tags?
It's fantasy role play. It doesn't mean they actually believe or would act in real life on that stuff. At least I hope not. Not all of them anyway.
There's both kinds among the Goreans. And on a personal, anecdotal level, all the Gorean men I've met were complete assholes, but that doesn't prove anything. Maybe I just met the worst ones, right? Ha ha ha.
It is certainly possible to engage in BDSM in ways which are not harmful, and determining which kind someone is doing remotely is nontrivial. On the other hand, equality is a tenet of all modern civilizations with good reason. And I've known people who were into BDSM who were definitely not healthy. Like, people who harmed themselves or even killed themselves eventually because they felt unwanted or unfulfilled. Were these people ever participating in a healthy way, or were they just lying to themselves?
I'm not trying to draw a line beyond which things are definitely unhealthy, but if it looks and smells and in all other ways seems unhealthy, odds are good. I've known people in long-term relationships to be pushed way beyond what they actually wanted simply because they didn't know how to say no, and there's no shortage of scrupulous fuckers out there who claim to be responsible members of the scene but are neither safe, sane, nor obtaining informed consent.
Except that the proposal was to build a new system with a 2TB disk, not to migrate one from an older system.
Your proposed case might make sense.
It's the "just make it simple" approach which is good.
But you're adding a whole disk, and also using spinning rust. How is that making it simple?
That's a neat trick, unless they mean their IDEA of their computer rather than the physical hardware.
If it rendered the computer unusable, then that's the same thing from the user's point of view, who then has to spend money to have someone fix their computer — money they may not have.
Windows is shitty, not malicious.
Uh, no. It's spyware which cannot be disabled. That's not the same as eating your data, but it is malicious.
Contrast that with an ATM where you have to hunt for your bank's machine or face an extortionate $2 charge to withdraw from a rival bank's machine.
My credit union belongs to an ATM co-op, you insensitive clod! I can deposit or withdraw money all over the place without any fees. Lately all the ATMs take cash without an envelope and count it for you while you wait, so I have no qualms about doing so, either. Maybe your bank is just shit.
If you think Vista was bad you're not old enough to remember NT 4.0.
I remember the sound system crashing on my Vista laptop, sending a horrible, unstoppable screeching through the speakers. Basically it was an audio snow crash. Yet everything else worked normally; I was able to save my work and shut the system down. And I remember thinking, "that was horrible, but so much less horrible than it could have been."
>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???
Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.
Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.
Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.
What was the software running on it? Or did it crash without any non-IBM supplied hardware or software?
I'm trying to think of any Windows software I actually bothered to run. It was on a Novell network, I was sitting at it. I was in IT and we didn't have any fruity groupware or anything (this was before that crap was popular) so I really just ran ordinary applications, and tried to stick with the utilities and accessories that came with the OS. We didn't have budget for a bunch of OS/2 apps, though.
Did Mossad break into your home and steal your shoes, as well?
No. They didn't even steal my Casio terrist watch.
Well, who was the BIOS manufacturer and is it a 486-66 that can be fitted nasally? Even the constraint 8MB 486-66 involves a wide variety of 3rd party elements in the hardware/software stack.
It was an IBM PS/Valuepoint. IBM doesn't get to deliver a PC that OS/2 won't run on while they are shipping OS/2.
Or were simply running it under different constraints than you were.
There is no version of OS/2 (except perhaps those which are too old) which should not run properly on a 486SLC2-66 with 8MB of RAM.
Let me put it this way: if I had to use systemd/Linux or OS/2, I'd choose OS/2. Being able to boot properly is an important trait for any OS. OS/2 has this ability. Systemd/Linux often does not.
As much as I hate systemd, it really has no place in this conversation. You can get Linux without systemd, so you're presenting a false dichotomy in any case.
I've also had OS/2 corrupt itself on an unclean shutdown and fail to boot. I haven't had this with Linux since the early days of xfs.
OS/2 was a very stable and reliable operating system
What? Who told you that? I ran 2.1, 3.0 and 4.0 and they were all unremittingly unreliable pieces of shit. Not just that but I ran them on a fucking PS/Valuepoint 486, so there was absolutely no excuse for incompatibility. Linux makes OS/2 look like Windows 3.1. The system was especially likely to explode when you ran Windows programs, too, and Windows compatibility was absolutely the only reason many people bought it.
I was actually running OS/2 for evaluation at a site that was ALL IBM, every single PC, every single piece of networking equipment, and OS/2 was still a horrible pain in the asshole. People remembering it fondly have memory problems.
My quote emphasizes the need for distinguishing between police and army.
Your quote fails to recognize that it doesn't matter who's policing you if their goal is not to do the will of the people, because the people have thrown up their hands and said fuck it and given up even trying to keep them in check.
The police behave just like the military, except with shittier muzzle and trigger discipline.
Seem to recall articles here on
There must be a subset of the 4chan-esque crowd which will do the job they are paid to do faithfully in spite of being shitlords. Hire them, their eyeballs can withstand anything.
Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad. -- Rob Pike