Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
What software has improved your health the most?
.NET Framework 9%
Windows XP 19%
Windows Update 6%
MSN.com 2%
Notepad 39%
nbtstat.exe 5%
WSH 0%
Q319733 (MS02-018) 11%
Index Server 2%
RDS 1%

Votes: 236

 New medical study: Microsoft products better for your health

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Apr 19, 2002
 Comments:

You may be surprised to learn that the software you use affects your health. A group of medical researchers in the Midwest have discovered proof that the effect of using quality, reliable software on human health is undeniable.

science

More stories about Science
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
Eugenics: The choice for a superior generation
Knowledge Containment: A Tradition Under Attack
Caffeinated Mints: A Comparative Review
We Need Creationism In Our Schools
Sigmund Freud, Linux and The Narcissism of Minor Difference
The Treason of Creationism
We need more toxins
Which is the best way to predict the future ?
Debunking the Holocaust Hoax
Amateur Psychology
Humans: Murderous Freaks of Nature?

An unbiased medical study was recently completed which included blood tests, double-blind placebo-controlled user tests, heart monitors and urine samples, among other techniques. The study was led by Dr. Robert Wilkes and his assistant Dr. Li Huang, both of whom have a strong background in computer software. The details have not yet been made available to the public, however Drs. Wilkes and Huang have asked that the public be provided with a summary of their findings as soon as possible.

This study was conducted over a period of two years, and the results will be published shortly in a major medical journal. The subjects for the study were 235 computer users and programmers, of varying skill levels, selected at random from major cities in the U.S., and carefully monitored on a periodic basis for software-related stress, illness, injury and other ailments. They also performed psychological evaluations to determine the effect of various software brands on the users' mental health.

Below is a brief summary of the results of their findings.

Users of Microsoft Windows, Office and Internet Explorer have a significantly lower incidence of stomach ulcers, colonic gas, redness of the eyes, and stress-related high blood pressure than their Unix & Linux counterparts -- particularly the users of Solarus, Red Hat, NOME, KDE and Netscape, among others. It was believed that the ocular redness was related to the high percentage of marijuana abusers in the Linux community, and urinalysis confirmed this to be the case. Further study and psychoanalysis showed that the stress and ulceration (found in the Unix & Linux users) were primarily caused by the following factors:

  1. Uncertainty about the future of their operating system.
  2. The perceived need to "fight the system", or a sort of internal struggle against large corporations (such as Microsoft).
  3. The necessity of posturing oneself as "reet" in order to gain the respect of colleagues. (These users failed to inform Dr. Wilkes as to the meaning of this obscure term. If anyone here can provide a definition, that would be appreciated.)
  4. Feelings of fear or paranoia concerning illegal hacking, cracking and "where's" smuggling activities. (Such feelings were quite widespread among this group, and tend to also cause the flatus which was mentioned earlier.)

The Unix & Linux users also had a greater incidence of carpal-tunnel syndrome, due to the greater necessity of typing at the command line. Examination of the wrist muscles in this group of users found numerous cases of inflammation and irreparable injury caused by their incessant command-line usage, whereas the majority of Microsoft users, who primarily use the mouse and seldom type, had healthy wrist muscles.

The Microsoft users exhibited tranquility, good mental and physical health, and balanced emotional well-being. They tend to spend more time at the gym, visit family and friends more often, and are more outgoing and social. Dr. Huang found that this is due to the fact that their operating system doesn't require them to spend long hours studying Mann pages in order to perform simple maintenance tasks. Their primary reasons for feeling secure were as follows:

  1. Their choice of software is friendly and colorful, plays interesting sounds when they start up, shut down, or click on certain pictures, and Microsoft provides plenty of hotfixes such as Windows Update to keep their computer safe from hackers.
  2. They feel secure about the future of Microsoft, partly because its founder is the richest man on the planet. As one user noted, "Bill Gates is one smart cookie. He knows how to make computers easy for people like me. I trust him with the future of my computer, because he always comes up with nifty ways to make computers fun. Plus he's darn rich, so they won't be going bankrupt anytime soon! LOL!"
  3. User enjoyed the catchphrase "Where do you want to go today?" because it made them feel as though Microsoft were catering to their wishes and needs, which does in fact appear to be true.

Among the focus groups examined were numerous programmers, of various software persuasions. The programmers using Visual Basic, ASP and .NET technologies were the healthiest overall, and Dr. Wilkes found that this was directly related to the security they felt in their careers. The .NET programmers were especially well-adjusted, partly due to their sense of pride and being on the cutting edge of technology. "Microsoft is the biggest game in town," one engineer raved, "and those who miss the .NET bandwagon are getting left by the wayside. Nobody in the industry has produced a virtual-machine-based, object-oriented language like Microsoft's C# until now."

The Unix & Linux programmers using Java, J2EE, JSP and PHP were found to have the lowest health ratings. Upon further analysis, it was determined that this was due to the following primary factors:

  1. Lack of drag-and-drop interfaces which automatically generate source code. In comparison to the Microsoft-based developers, this group spent a lot of extra time writing code from scratch. This led to less time spent with family and friends, which led to ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders and high levels of stress.
  2. A feeling of being "left behind" or "out of the loop" with regard to Microsoft's revolutionary new technologies in the .NET family of products. These users have an unwritten "anarchic" rule that they will not install Microsoft's products on their PCs, thus they often wonder what new, exciting features they are missing. Some develop psychological complexes based on their high levels of curiosity.
  3. Uneasiness about being involved in illegal hacking activities, or in many cases, the need to be perceived as "reet" among peers.

Keep in mind that this study was performed without prejudice, and with the strictest adherence to the guidelines set forth by the profession for clinical trials of this nature. Dr. Wilkes and his colleagues are educated professionals of the highest degree, and their vast research in medicine and the field of computer software allows them to speak with authority on these issues.

Please take this opportunity to reevaluate your choice of software, and be aware that it can drastically affect your physical and mental health.



       
Tweet

I'm astonished. (none / 0) (#4)
by because it isnt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 09:44:28 AM PST
That no-one, as of yet, has commented on the outrageous racist slur contained in this article.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

what it is? (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 11:23:30 AM PST



YHBT (0.00 / 1) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 03:04:55 PM PST
HTH YHL HAND

and so on. HAH HAH HAH LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!

k thx bye


Not so. (none / 0) (#64)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:35:06 AM PST
I was alluding to 'The necessity of posturing oneself as "reet"', which is highly offensive to either Asians or Geordies, or both.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Common Knowledge (4.00 / 4) (#6)
by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 11:58:39 AM PST
Anyone who has been paying attention to the saga of Open Source should know this information already. Linux (and Open Source in general) is a curious thing, the reality of it all does not fit with the squeaky clean 'help the average J03' image they put forth.

Here is the dirt on the Linux industry:

Linux began as a hobbyist OS. About 5 years ago a handful of unscrupulous corporations began to assimilate themselves into the industry, they could smell some money somewhere in it I suppose.

Generally, corporations make money by selling some product or service that the public wants. This is impossible with Linux, because it has no value, which is why it appealed to hobbyists and why people just gave it away back in the old days. These Linux corporations did a little research and ran across the perfect way to build the little hobbyist OS into a money making titan. Think about it. If you had a product that was bad, maybe even harmful to people, and you wanted to turn a profit off of it, who could show you the way?

That's right, the Linux corporations borrowed a page from Big Tobbacco.

These corporations rapidly threw together a handful of web sites to promote Linux as a fashion statement. Fake news sites, coding sites, rah-rah mags, they had it all. Just like the cigarette companies they aimed their product at the most impressionable market segment of them all, young people. Idealistic and ignorant, the youth jumped on the Linux bandwagon in droves, artificially inflating the value of the Linux corporations. The executives knew what was going on so they typically jumped ship soon after the stock price skyrocketed, usually screwing their underlings in the process. How fitting.

Essentially, the question comes down to this: Which is more harmful to your health, Big Tobbacco, or Microsoft? Any reasonable person knows the answer to that. Only unreasonable geeks could possibly screw it up.


Microsoft vs Big Tobacco (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:51:49 PM PST
Microsoft is now more harmful than Big Tobacco.

There are all sorts of laws and regulations to protect people from passive smoking.

However there are no regulations that would protect the innocents from the harm inflicted by being on the receiving end of documents in incompatible file formats (which in case of Microsoft are frequently incompatible even between their own versions).

You can choose to not attend places where other people smoke. But I wish you good luck convincing others to send you documents in anything that isn't their pre-set default format.


Unreasonable Geek (n/t) (none / 0) (#9)
by Icebox on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:04:26 PM PST



 
Once again, (3.00 / 2) (#10)
by derek3000 on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 01:10:28 PM PST
you show your utter contempt for humanity. Let me put this in terms you can understand:

Receiving a file you can't read != dying from lung cancer you ultimate-frisbee playing fuck

Or something like that.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

You must understand, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:23:09 PM PST
It takes a certain level of physchological development to fully realize what death is all about; certain mentally underdeveloped people have a very difficult time with this concept -- they, subconsciously, belive that dying isn't "for real", that it's in fact some sort of long and unpleasant sleep.


--
Peace and much love...




Whoa! Why didn't I think of it? (none / 0) (#18)
by gzt on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 08:18:12 PM PST
I mean, I knew that, but I just didn't make the connection. This explains why that fella thought people who made fun of other people ought to die.


Making fun... (none / 0) (#25)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:31:26 AM PST
...of other people is acceptable and can be enjoyable for both sides.

However, there is a continual transition between mere fun and open hostility.

An act of attack can be interpreted as attacker's voluntary waiving of the right to live.

Besides, what's so bad on death from the subjective point? Either there is no further subject's existence after its death, then it has no meaning for the subject anymore (as the subject itself doesn't exist anymore), only for other related subjects. Or there is a "life after life", then the death is a form of "phase transition". I am not afraid of death itself, only of dying.


Correct. (none / 0) (#26)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 12:36:24 PM PST
So why don't you go kill yourself right now?

Huh? Scary, no?

I guess you're not as "rational" as you claimed to be...


--
Peace and much love...




On first glance, yes. (none / 0) (#27)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 01:24:57 PM PST
So why don't you go kill yourself right now?

Because I can do it only once and I can't undo it and there is no real reason to yet.

Rule of thumb: If there is no reason to do nor to not do something, and you can't undo it once you do it, don't do it.

Huh? Scary, no?

Not as much. I had some suicidal thoughts some time ago.

I guess you're not as "rational" as you claimed to be...

Sometimes it may seem so.


dude. you saved my life. (none / 0) (#136)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 23rd, 2002 at 07:30:10 PM PST
i had the blade to my wrists, really.


 
Act of Attack != Waiving Right to Live (none / 0) (#29)
by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:21:16 PM PST
I don't mind your philosophy of your own death; I have a similar one about your extinction.

However, I don't see how being on the receiving edge of a wedgie gives you the right to decapitate Bob the Bully.

In fact, why do you think you are able to continue the cycle of violence at all? Why does his sin excuse yours, whether it's returning the wedgie or giving a swirlie or setting fire to his severed tongue?

Cheers,
Geoff


How American. (none / 0) (#30)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 03:48:48 PM PST
I don't mind your philosophy of your own death; I have a similar one about your extinction.

Come on.

However, I don't see how being on the receiving edge of a wedgie gives you the right to decapitate Bob the Bully.

Ever been on the receiving edge of wedgies for longer than year? Even figured out that breaking a glass frame over his head when you finally lose your patience will not only get you problems with your teachers - especially for not showing any remorse - but also buys you couple weeks of being left alone? Actually, enough to rehash the situation and "buy" a bodyguard (with help with homework and cheating the tests)?

In fact, why do you think you are able to continue the cycle of violence at all?

Why got Kissinger his Nobel Prize of Peace, when he came up with the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine?

Why does his sin excuse yours, whether it's returning the wedgie or giving a swirlie or setting fire to his severed tongue?

How American, denying the victims the right to defend themselves, when the current sympathies lie with the stronger (or more popular) ones. Being it Afghans, or the class geeks. Why should his aggression prevent me to defend myself and my personal space, even if it means use of force? Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. If enough bullies will get taught this simple rule, regardless of cost, the world will be better place to live.

Sometimes the hunter becomes the hunted. Which is a very good thing. Makes me feel the justice works both ways.


I fail to see... (none / 0) (#31)
by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:40:12 PM PST
how violence on your part makes it right.

Come now, Mr. Rational, how is your violence justified? So you experience pain and probably will continue to. Why does that justify your causing somebody else to receive pain, or even die? Your self-defense is possibly the end of another self. Why should your existence continue instead of somebody else's?

Please don't bring justice (vengeance) into this. These numinous, religious concepts have no place in rational discourse.

Why should I care if you think my questions aren't "American"?


Wipe your glasses. (none / 0) (#32)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:00:04 PM PST
how violence on your part makes it right.

Violence against third party isn't right. Violence against the one who started first is called self-defense.

Mutual Assured Destruction, ever heard about this doctrine? If it worked for keeping nuclear superpowers in their respective bays, why it shouldn't work on lower levels?

Come now, Mr. Rational, how is your violence justified? So you experience pain and probably will continue to. Why does that justify your causing somebody else to receive pain, or even die?

Because it is the one who causes the pain to me, it is my way - apparently the only working one - to show him I don't like it. I am strong advocate of fighting back by less dramatic means than outright killing, though. You can call it cognitive behavioral therapy; cause pain to others, and the others will cause pain to you.

Your self-defense is possibly the end of another self. Why should your existence continue instead of somebody else's?

It's my existence. I have the right to defend it by all means, if I will desire to do so. Why should the other party continue to exist if they willingly cause me pain? Besides, they can quite easily preemptively defend themselves; the top-secret method is to just leave me alone.

Please don't bring justice (vengeance) into this. These numinous, religious concepts have no place in rational discourse.

Religious is to offer the other face and hope the attacker will get bored. The disadvantages are that it hurts and you run out of faces soon.

Why should I care if you think my questions aren't "American"?

Your questions *are* American. Read me better.


Yes, and you're not thinking about my questions (none / 0) (#34)
by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:17:50 PM PST
What I'm asking is what makes self-defense right. All you're doing is saying it's self-defense.

So you don't like being picked on. Why do you have the right to defend your existence by all means? You exist for a while, and then maybe you don't. So what?

You're claiming you may kill somebody if they, say, punch you. Why does pain on your part justify the cessation of their existence?

Yes, I read you too well: I assumed you mis-spoke. If you claim my questions are American you aren't a very good thinker.


Re: (none / 0) (#35)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 07:05:41 PM PST
What I'm asking is what makes self-defense right. All you're doing is saying it's self-defense.

Okay. Is there anything that makes it wrong? From my side it looks perfectly right to pursue happiness. How you will handle me is what rules I will apply on you; behaving as a "mirror" as far works well for me.

So you don't like being picked on. Why do you have the right to defend your existence by all means? You exist for a while, and then maybe you don't. So what?

So I want to keep the short time of my existence somehow better. Anything wrong with that?

You're claiming you may kill somebody if they, say, punch you. Why does pain on your part justify the cessation of their existence?

The pain on my part justifies the means to eliminate that pain. If you push me to the point of killing you, it is a clear sign you went too far.

Yes, I read you too well: I assumed you mis-spoke. If you claim my questions are American you aren't a very good thinker.

How could I have expected that a citizen of the world's biggest international bully will understand that comment.


I'm curious (none / 0) (#36)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 10:02:41 PM PST
When you were at school, did you ever actually fight back against the people who were tormenting you? You've managed to come off as someone who is terrified of an honest fistfight, so I'm assuming you didn't get into many as a boy. Most people who have been in a schoolyard scrap or two have realised that a few bruises aren't anything to be afraid of.

Of course, bullying is a slightly different case. Bullies never give their targets much of a chance, but it must be remembered that bullies tend to pick on the boys who they know are incapable of fighting back.

It seems to me that the best way to overcome bullying, whether in the schoolyard or the real world, is to try not to be a such a sissy. If you'd learned to defend yourself and stand your ground early on, you wouldn't be a repeat target for bullies. They'd find someone else to torture.

The real victim here is the safety of the other students of the school. Bullies may be an unpleasant reality for many children, but they aren't the ones who bring knives and guns to school. It is the victims, in a misguided attempt to "defend" themselves who consistently overreact, to the detriment of the school system itself.

If victims of bullying would just learn to stand up for themselves like men, rather than getting so emotionally bent out of shape that a killing spree seems logical to them, we wouldn't need metal detectors and security guards at our high schools.


Fight back (none / 0) (#45)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:11:12 AM PST
When you were at school, did you ever actually fight back against the people who were tormenting you?

A precious few times. In most cases I lost, except special circumstances. It was quite a surprise for everyone when I jumped at him, and I don't remember much of it except that he ran away bleeding a lot and that if he wouldn't retreat I would probably killed him.

If your target stops caring about its own defense, seems to not feel pain anymore, and goes to full attack only, run away to save your life. I think it is called berserk.

Of course, bullying is a slightly different case. Bullies never give their targets much of a chance, but it must be remembered that bullies tend to pick on the boys who they know are incapable of fighting back.

Quite true. Each time I flipped and became violent bought me some time. What ultimately helped, though, was when I got fists-for-hire.

If you'd learned to defend yourself and stand your ground early on, you wouldn't be a repeat target for bullies. They'd find someone else to torture.

If you have some chance in an eventual fight, yes. However, there are people that prefer to spend their time in a library instead of training fighting.

The real victim here is the safety of the other students of the school. Bullies may be an unpleasant reality for many children, but they aren't the ones who bring knives and guns to school.

No, but they are the *cause* why the knives and guns are brought.

Hey - even a keyring on a chain, when spinned, has quite an intimidating effect. Especially when it is heavy with keys. Besides, if you need a weapon, there is plenty of things anywhere that can serve as one.

It is the victims, in a misguided attempt to "defend" themselves who consistently overreact, to the detriment of the school system itself.

Any attempt to defend yourself is good enough.

If victims of bullying would just learn to stand up for themselves like men, rather than getting so emotionally bent out of shape that a killing spree seems logical to them, we wouldn't need metal detectors and security guards at our high schools.

If bullies would be identified and kicked out of the school, the same will apply. Meanwhile we will have to go along with killing sprees. And I will not feel any pity for their victims, at least the ones who deserved it.

Face it, not everyone is fistfight-happy.


Heh. (none / 0) (#46)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:19:37 AM PST
Do you realize that in the "real world" people like you get beaten and raped almost immediately?

Are you at all familiar with prison "culture"? Ver sobering, I suggest you do some reading on the topic.


--
Peace and much love...




Heh. (none / 0) (#48)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:35:57 AM PST
Do you realize that in the "real world" people like you get beaten and raped almost immediately?

If they don't have position protected by fists of others. Knowledge is a form of power and can be exchanged for physical power in quite good exchange rate. If you have at least a little luck. As far, worked for me, in several settings.

A weapon can shift the balance of power quite neatly, too.

Are you at all familiar with prison "culture"? Ver sobering, I suggest you do some reading on the topic.

Depends on the level. At least here, if you get between the white-collar criminals, it's similar to be locked in a worse overcrowded hotel with lousy kitchen and the biggest problem is boredom. A friend got there.

If we talk about the higher-security prisons, though, you are right.


 
Pursue happiness? (none / 0) (#37)
by gzt on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:21:40 PM PST
Thank you, you almost seem to have answered my questions. Pursuit of happiness, avoid pain, better existence, yada yada. I can understand what's going on in there. It all seems rather arbitrary to me.

A slight problem: punching Jack back won't alleviate your pain or make your existence "happier", whatever that means. The level of your response is based on how far you were pushed, ie, how pissed you are. This is rather dangerous, dude. It's completely arbitrary and does not respect the lives of others. Dude, your method of justification is your *feelings*. Your feelings are providing a guide to your moral conduct, man. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

I understood it quite well, but you don't realize that most of the rhetoric I see regarding American foreign policy is based on self-defense. And what makes you think my comments don't apply to bullies, as well?


Yes. (none / 0) (#43)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 09:52:21 AM PST
It all seems rather arbitrary to me.

Yes. Any reason why it is wrong? Or are you not pursuing happiness yourself?

A slight problem: punching Jack back won't alleviate your pain or make your existence "happier", whatever that means.

It is a way how to make him think twice and then not punching me next time. As far, it works.

The level of your response is based on how far you were pushed, ie, how pissed you are. This is rather dangerous, dude.

Yes. It *is* dangerous. It is *bloody* dangerous. It's the principle of its function.

It's completely arbitrary and does not respect the lives of others.

It respects the lives of others as long as they respect me. It takes a while of conscious effort to get me pissed enough to act. And I give warnings.

Dude, your method of justification is your *feelings*.

Yes. Anything wrong with it?

Your feelings are providing a guide to your moral conduct, man.

Anything wrong with it?

Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd?

Why? It was empirically proven it works, including fairly critical situations. I never had any remorses for anything I done that was based on my feelings.


Ego boy (none / 0) (#88)
by hauntedattics on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:46:18 PM PST
I'd get into a whole discussion with you here about morality, but we've already been through a fairly useless argument about laws and their importance.

Basically, what you're saying in the above thread is that anyone who attacks you/your ego/your precious sense of self deserves more-than-equivalent punishment and/or complete destruction. Are you that insecure in who you are and your worth as a human being? And, as a corollary, are you that egomaniacal? That's quite a frightening thought.

(And before you respond that everyone is that insecure and that egomaniacal...they aren't. Really.)




Hi (none / 0) (#90)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:14:23 PM PST
Basically, what you're saying in the above thread is that anyone who attacks you/your ego/your precious sense of self deserves more-than-equivalent punishment and/or complete destruction.

Single, statistically insignificant attacks should be considered as meaningless incidents.

The punishment clause applies to clear, prolonged intent to harass.

If applied symmetrically to all related parties, greatly reduces both the long-time harassment problems (by eliminating the harassers and/or providing a counterincentive to them) and eliminates the overreactions caused by simple misinterpretations.

Are you that insecure in who you are and your worth as a human being?

Maybe. However, I found good compensation factors. Now I am pretty stable.

I got some means to let people have accidents. I also developed a well-scaled tolerance to people. You will need to show real, clear and prolonged intention to make me mad at you seriously enough to act; even then, most likely I will only find some data about you and identify your weak spots, then stopping there if you will be just annoying instead of seriously threatening. In last 10 years, only one such case almost happened, and he retreated (amusingly quickly) in the middle of the data collection phase, after being warned. You can't piss me off by mere mistake.

And, as a corollary, are you that egomaniacal? That's quite a frightening thought.

Wanna find out?


there's only one flaw in might makes right (none / 0) (#95)
by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:11:38 PM PST
You have to make sure that the good guys have all the might, and the evil bastard retards don't have any.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

So because... (none / 0) (#96)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:41:48 PM PST
...the definition of who is good and who is bad is strongly dependent on what side are you on (I never seen any side claiming it is the bad one), you have to get all the power available.


 
Egomania (none / 0) (#103)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:42:42 AM PST
Do I want to find out whether you are egomaniacal? I think your last post spelled it out quite clearly, thank you.




 
Smokers are a minority. (1.00 / 1) (#28)
by aoc on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:47:57 PM PST
We are restricting their rights for the benefit of the majority.

Most people have enough sense to use industry-standard Microsoft products (and enough sense to keep those products all up to date). Users of non-Microsoft products are a (dangerous, ignorant) minority. We should be restricting their right to use "alternative" systems to protect the majority's ability to universal user-friendly computing. This UNIX nonsense (and the derivative Lunix (L33t-UNIX)) has got to go. There ought to be a law.


 
Poorly designed study (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by First Incision on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 12:05:43 PM PST
There are several large problems with this study. I expect the good doctors will have to make many edits before the paper is finally accepted for publication.

How can the researchers make these claims while failing to use proper controls? At the very least, they need a third group of non-computer using controls.

They also make wild claims such as x was "due to" y. Ulcers are "due to" a lack of drag-and-drop programming? Might they want to analyze eating habits and rates of H. Pylori infection before making such claims?

"Examination of the wrist muscles in this group of users found numerous cases of inflammation"


What were the real causes of the wrist muscle inflammation in Unix/Linux group? It surely wasn't carpal-tunnel syndrome. Maybe the researches had forgotten the portion of their medical education where they learned carpal tunnel syndrome is caused by inflammation of the tunnel's connective tissue (there is no muscle in the tunnel) and the subsequent compression of the median nerve. This leads to atrophy (not inflammation) of the muscles of the thumb.


"Microsoft is the biggest game in town," one engineer raved,
Why were these Microsoft sponsored raves never addressed in the study? Were members of the Microsoft group taking MDMA (also known as ecstasy)? Missing important points such as this severely compromises the credibility of this study
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

.. GARBAGE (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:19:50 AM PST
I read the garbage above and then I read some of the peoples comments.

What a load of horse droppings is all I can say, and trust me thats the polite version.

The study was seriously floored. For a start how many linux users are not technical compared to the number of windows users? As the study looked at users and programmers was it fair to compare a typest to a c programmer?

Also, some of the people that posted comments. Go read some thing and learn because one of these I-Love-MS people really should go read the history of linux. The L dosn't stand for Leet you gimp!

Typeing can course problems, but I think that people type a fair amount in windows to. All them urls that need to be types, emails, documents.... can't do it all with the mouse.

I don't know, its all stupid.

Oh, I can't be bothered to comment more, but in parting I will say I use windows far more then linux, I am a programmer and not some user.




 
Heh (none / 0) (#12)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:10:43 PM PST
"Lack of drag-and-drop interfaces which automatically generate source code."
Well it depends what you want. If you're after speed in your programs its best to avoid drag-and-drop language environments like VB.

All the games in the shops are written in C or C++ because they all require fastest speeds possible. Obviously a drag and drop environment would be balmy for developing games anyway.
Im sure Windows DLL's are written in C or C++ too.
VB just isn't dynamic enough. Often you are forced to do something inefficiently because there isnt a means to do it another way in VB. VB is a bit of an amateur language - there are so many things you are "protected" from doing. Such not being able to create memory pointers which are very useful but Microsoft obviously considers them too dangerous to implement in VB.

However, for applications that don't require fast speed and efficiency it is a lot easier to use VB.

A mixture of C and VB is the best solution for an application imo
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

And your point is... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Uncanny Vortex on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:24:00 PM PST
How dare you insult the collective intelligence of the site members by providing a nearly incoherent rant on rudimentary programming concepts?

Those who didn't already know the difference between VB and C++ can find that information elsewhere. Somehow I can't picture Adequacy functioning as a source for developer tutorials.

-- Uncanny Vortex




OffTop (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by tkatchev on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:44:01 PM PST
The recent gtk+ developments really, really interested me. (Please don't kick me.)

They have this really neat dynamic GUI generator that works off of an XML front-end; there is even a fairly usable visual development thingy for generating the said XML files.

Very interesting. IMO, this is how GUI development should be done in the future.


--
Peace and much love...




Gtk (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by GhostDog on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 02:40:34 AM PST
That sounds really cool, but I'm a little wary of gtk because of its ties with terrorists like Eric Raymond and Linus Torvan. If Microsoft were to implement similar functionality for Windows, I'd be all about using that.


I know what you mean. (1.00 / 1) (#24)
by tkatchev on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 11:16:56 AM PST
But, at a closer inspection, gtk seems to be a brainchild of some sort of Berkley graduate students and a Mexican guy.

Not that it's much better, but at least it makes me feel good that RMS was not involved in any way.


--
Peace and much love...




More than likely communists (1.00 / 1) (#38)
by GhostDog on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:00:55 AM PST
Most Mexicans are communists, and corrupt ones at that. I don't think I'd trust a toolkit designed by LSD crazed Berkely students and Mexican communists, would you? God knows what kind of back doors are built into a system like that.


Backdoors (none / 0) (#41)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 09:22:55 AM PST
I don't think I'd trust a toolkit designed by LSD crazed Berkely students and Mexican communists, would you? God knows what kind of back doors are built into a system like that.

So you trust more a tool designed by money-hungry corporate drones, with who knows what under-the-table deals with their Government and/or related Agencies, do you? God knows what kind of backdoors are built into a system like that.

And you can't audit the code.


In a word, (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 09:46:34 AM PST
yes.

Although amateur basement psychedelia has its own quaint charms.


--
Peace and much love...




Your fault. (none / 0) (#47)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:29:06 AM PST
yes.

Your fault. Your risk.


Face it, (1.00 / 1) (#49)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:47:20 PM PST
Professional software houses objectively make better software.

Linux is interesting only from an artistic, romantic sort of point of view -- using Linux is much like going for a vacation to a third-world country because it is more "exciting".


--
Peace and much love...




And? (none / 0) (#51)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 02:14:02 PM PST
Professional software houses objectively make better software.

Oracle, yes. Microsoft, no. I will take Oracle over PostgreSQL anytimes if the required db engine load will warrant the costs. I will take Apache over IIS any day.

Linux is interesting only from an artistic, romantic sort of point of view -- using Linux is much like going for a vacation to a third-world country because it is more "exciting".

So go BSD. Linux is a piece of crap (but evolving, and looks much better than last year). (Windows are expensive piece of crap and the colorful wrapping doesn't it make stink any less.)

A piece of crap, but as far pretty stable. Works for me and withstood quite a lot of abuse, and the last stability woe I had was solved too.


Actually, (none / 0) (#54)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:27:41 PM PST
NT (read Win2000) is very stable. At least as stable as Linux; the problem is that the quality of drivers for NT is extremely low.


--
Peace and much love...




I agree on that one (none / 0) (#58)
by DG on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:58:14 PM PST
it's like are the hardware companys sat back twiddling thier collective thumbs till everyone goes nuts waiting for drivers, then the companys put out crash prone buggy drivers, that make IT rip thier hair out, i agree 2k is the most stable windows OS if you get good solid drivers and well working hardware.. i don't like xp becuse, i am a gamer and lots of games say xp and don't run well on it
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

really!? We'd never have guessed. (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 11:08:51 PM PST
i don't like xp becuse, i am a gamer

What is that, Lunix jargon for computer scientist? Ha ha ha. Once again, I have managed to slay me.


what ever (1.00 / 1) (#60)
by DG on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 11:12:24 PM PST
nice out of context quoting there bud, get a real account and maybe i'll give a shit about you, other wise go back to slashdot where your kind are wanted
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Let me get this straight.. (none / 0) (#70)
by elby on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:18:34 AM PST
Linux is a piece of crap (but evolving, and looks much better than last year).
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that all the mindless zealotry we've heard in the last 5 years is unwarranted, however the mindless zealotry we'll hear this year will be well-reasoned advocacy?

-lb


Comments (none / 0) (#81)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:43:58 AM PST
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that all the mindless zealotry we've heard in the last 5 years is unwarranted, however the mindless zealotry we'll hear this year will be well-reasoned advocacy?

Until about an year ago I was walking the One Microsoft Way - and was desperately looking around for something less lousy. I was watching unixes, with impatient hope. Now, for about last year, I run both Linux and Windows on machines here, and coadmin a FreeBSD server. Both me and my friends have better experiences with non-MS operating systems (more accurately, Linux and BSD), and migrated (or are migrating) all mission-critical services to them.

My employer now runs a pilot program in one facility in order to test the feasibility of Linux-only office in real-world settings. The results are as far pretty hopeful (I just got an situational update mail), the biggest problems are caused by the dreaded file format compatibility. Otherwise it seems to be easier to maintain, more stable, and more cost-effective. I am now quoting a seasoned, gray-haired CEO, and the site admin.

I am impatiently watching the developments.


 
Apple? (none / 0) (#15)
by anti filidor on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 02:35:28 PM PST
Were the researchers wary of including Apple products in the study because of the daunting prospect of trying to explain the associated onset of frothy psychosis known as "Mac Zealotry?"

Even still, Apple clearly straddles the fence on many of the hot issues in the survey. It would have been wise to include them for context, and to aid in drawing conclusions about the two extremes.


An Apple a day keeps the doctor away (none / 0) (#17)
by PotatoError on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 04:19:35 PM PST
Didn't you know that?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
McMac (none / 0) (#76)
by gohomeandshoveit on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:45:08 PM PST
I agree with anti filidor on the point that it would be wise to include Apple in the discussion of various software and operating platforms. I would like to go farther and include the fact that Apple's new Mac OS X is Unix-based, and is still much better than Windows Anything. Therefore, both Apple and Unix are better than Microsoft.

Addressing the point of "frothy psychosis known as 'Mac Zealotry'," I would like to tell anti filidor that Mac Zealotry is often confused with Mac Fanaticism and rabies. Mac Zealotry involves the usage of many curse words associated with the word "Microsoft." Mac Fanaticism involves the usage of only Apple computers and a lack of any Microsoft programs on the computer besides "Word" because everybody uses it. Rabies is caused by the bite of infected mammals that induces frothing at the mouth in some instances and is not related to Mac users. In fact, PC users are more likely to contract rabies simply because there are more of you. All are various forms of psychosis, some are more treatable than others.

I hope you learned something. If not, then you can just (look at my screen name).


 
silly rabbit photosynthesis is for plants (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 08:26:53 PM PST



 
Once again, Science tells us something obvious (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 04:38:20 AM PST
so im trying to install gcc 3.0-whatever and it keeps hitting this parse error and exiting during the config and im all like "argh!" so I drink some jolt and hit usenet and read up and next time i set all the config flags *just so* and run it again and i get the SAME @*$&@* ERROR this time in make bootstrap and now im really upset so i crawl the net some more and smoke four cigaretes and on this one gcc group theres this comment like "oh yeah there's a bug in the code we're fixing it for the new release" and by this point my blood pressures so high its taking flyby photos of neptune and im ready to have a heart attack im so pissed and NOW these science guys are saying Lunix shortens your lifespan? fuckin a thanks i could have told you that three years ago


I question... (none / 0) (#22)
by detikon on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 09:06:07 AM PST
your post. It always seems that anyone insisting on spelling it Lunix usually just pulled some random phrases out of the air and did a crude search on google.

Funny how people like Yoshi can claim they attempted the same thing (then of course say they've never used OSS then say they tried it, back and forth back and forth).




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

As someone who has (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by walwyn on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 01:09:44 PM PST
installed GNU software on a number different UNIX systems, ported GNU software to a hybrid UNIX lookalike system, the parent post certainly rings true.

When the configuration script screws up, as it fequently does, your down to examining include files, and messing about with awk and sed scripts.


 
An information leaked... (none / 0) (#23)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 10:23:22 AM PST
...that someone (namely Dr. Huang) got paid to give the Windows group participants phone numbers of the Unix group participants as their techsupport.

Which explains both the ulcers and red eyes and all stress-related symptoms of the unix group, and the confidence feelings of Windows group.

There were also two different explanations of the results, but the second one, that covered the influence of help calls and added responsibilities for the geberally more knowledgeable unix group, got "mysteriously" lost just before the publication date.


WTF do Gerbils have to do with it. (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 06:16:21 AM PST
OMG... your not a gerbil abuser are you. That wasn't a freudian slip was it?


Likewise, Anonymous Reader, (none / 0) (#63)
by because it isnt on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 06:43:52 AM PST
I don't see how "geberally" could be read as "gerbilly" unless you already had a hamster rammed up your drainpipe.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Win2k Pro (none / 0) (#33)
by cowdeth on Sat Apr 20th, 2002 at 06:07:19 PM PST
Best Microsoft OS ever.
Period.


ahhh I see (none / 0) (#39)
by detikon on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 12:47:04 AM PST
So Windows application suite, Windows 1.0-3.11, 9x-Me, Windows NT-NT4 (SP1-I lost count), Windows 2000 Server, Advanced Server, Datacenter, XP Home Edition and Professional are all shit?




Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script.

well (none / 0) (#57)
by DG on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:44:15 PM PST
i disagree, 2000 is shit too, lets go back to dos it doesn't crash
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
That's not really an accolade is it? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 09:14:43 AM PST
That's like calling something 'best turd ever'..


 
If this was supposed to be a joke... (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 07:16:19 AM PST
its definately not a good one.

First of all - if it's not a flamebait, why can't I find any real data in it, even something as basic as the name of the university that the researchers are from. The only Dr. Robert Wilkes I was able to find teaches marketing in Texas Tech. What contrasts with:
"Dr. Wilkes and his colleagues are educated professionals of the highest degree, and their vast research in medicine and the field of computer software allows them to speak with authority on these issues."

Secondly - there is nothing on methodology of this research - was there a control group, were the people using computers in their homes or in the lab, how were the results collected. Without that, it cannot be said whether the results are biased or not.On a side note - what exactly would be a "placebo-controlled" test in a research like this? Putting some of the people in front of white boxes that hum, but are not actual computers?

Next thing - whoever wrote this doesn't know much about medicine. What do stomach ulcers have to do with stress? Since when marijuana causes permanent (or lasting more than a day) eye redness?

No knowledge of computers whatsoever is also visible: its GNOME not NOME and Solaris not Solarus. Someone as knowledgable as Dr. whats-his-name wouldn't have made a mistake like that. Also, the scientists are comparing apples with oranges here: Windows + MS Office + MSIE should be compared with GNOME + Star Office + Galeon or with KDE + KOffice + Konqueror. Distribution name doesn't matter, as the interface stays the same, be it Red Hat or Debian.

Possible explanation for this is that poster of this flame didn't himself know anything about non-M$ programs, so he made a list of a few he heard of hoping that it will do.

Netscape is not an open-source program, so I don't see the point of putting it on the list. It is not Unix specific either.

No serious scientist would also use all of the variables together. He should keep everything the same and change only one factor at the time - i.e. compare Windows + Office + MSIE users with Windows + Office + Netscape users. Otherwise, we can't really be sure what is causing the negative effects.

Had this research really occured, it would also include Mac's, since they are known for their superb UI, and are 4 times as popular as Linux (according to Google's Zeitgeist).

Everything else in this text is bollocks too:

1. Uncertainty about the future of their operating system

For Linux and Unix users? My not yet meeting single one Linux user uncertain of his OS's future aside, why would a Unix user be afraid of the future? This OS is the longest surviving one on the market, supported by numerous companies, and if it has a contender, that would be Linux.

"reet"

Never seen this word in my life. Google search returns only 63,000 webpages, most of which are not even in english. reet+linux returns 586, so we can safely assume that the author just made this one up.

4. Feelings of fear or paranoia concerning illegal hacking, cracking and "where's" smuggling activities.

ROTFL. There are virtually no cracked programs for Linux/Unix as opposed to tons of Warezzz for M$ systems.

The Unix & Linux users also had a greater incidence of carpal-tunnel syndrome, due to the greater necessity of typing at the command line.

Bullshit. I've been using Linux for a few years now, and there is not a single thing I had to do using command line.

1. Their choice of software is friendly and colorful, plays interesting sounds when they start up, shut down, or click on certain pictures, and Microsoft provides plenty of hotfixes such as Windows Update to keep their computer safe from hackers.

ROTFL. Please stop making me laugh so hard! Since when is Linux/Unix less colorful than windows? KDE and GNOME have been looking better than windows since their creation. And yes, all of them play sounds when you do stuff like opening, closing, shutting down or booting up.

As to the hacker protection, you must be joking. There still are 6 yet unpatched IE vulnerabilities. For any Linux browser - none.

3. User enjoyed the catchphrase "Where do you want to go today?" because it made them feel as though Microsoft were catering to their wishes and needs, which does in fact appear to be true.

And besides the fact that M$hit users are easy to manipulate, this proves what?

The .NET programmers were especially well-adjusted, partly due to their sense of pride and being on the cutting edge of technology.

Where did they find .NET programmers 2 years before, when they started this research? Another proof that the whole thing is bogus.

And the pride - again MS users are stupid and therefore easy to manipulate.

Nobody in the industry has produced a virtual-machine-based, object-oriented language like Microsoft's C# until now

Seriously, I thought this is a joke. Java, anyone? Unless "like C#" means that its crappy and Windows only. In that case, I agree.

# A feeling of being "left behind" or "out of the loop" with regard to Microsoft's revolutionary new technologies in the .NET family of products

Again, those wonderful products haven't been around 2 years ago. And now they're fortunately dying out, like Hailstorm.

Please take this opportunity to reevaluate your choice of software, and be aware that it can drastically affect your physical and mental health.

Sure. Anyone who believes what he just read should leave (in)Adequacy immiediately - after all it's a MS-free site, so its influence must be just as deadly.

I remember one post on this site about Linux user's lack of sense of irony. I must agree, it was 100% correct. I read this whole article laughing so hard I could barely breathe. Only after I read the comments I realised this was written for real... Pathetic.

Piotr Krehbiel "God is dead" - Nietsche


I Think You Got Em Scared (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:22:23 PM PST
The regular posters of this site love to pick apart point-by-point rebuttals with their own half-baked conspiracy theories that would make Chris Carter proud.

In fact, I'm suprised that they haven't even deleted your post yet.

Kudos to a spot of normalcy in a sea of idiocy.


Yeah, we're all bamboozled here (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:11:47 AM PST
He should stick around and give us the benefit of his clarity and insight some more. I assure you, we take people like him entirely seriously, and we just don't have enough regular posters with such a broad command of the minutae of desktop computing.


 
Thank you!!! (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:08:49 AM PST
Thank you for that wonderful article! It's been so long since someone got a hair in their ass to promote Microshaft and bash on Linux/Non MShaft products. I needed a good laugh, because my day isn't going all that well at the moment.

Anyway, keep it up, yiou guys crack me up... HAHAHAHAHA Thanks MR. Barkto!!!!!!!


 
True word (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 04:33:31 PM PST
Yes, and here is another gloriously-hilarious article that just increased my life span for at least a week. You're the greatest, people, keep it up! (I'm just worried about one thing; do you ever stop to think what happens/would happen if someone mistook this article for a serious thing? Not that I believe there are such people in the world, but one can never be sure...)

J.R.


Sir, (none / 0) (#55)
by tkatchev on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:29:26 PM PST
I sense you have tremendous self-esteem problems.


--
Peace and much love...




prolly (none / 0) (#56)
by nathan on Sun Apr 21st, 2002 at 10:38:17 PM PST
Something about his father?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Elenchos Elenchos Elenchos (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by elby on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:10:28 AM PST
No, you fool, you'll invoke him!

-lb


I sense hostility. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by nathan on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 07:55:50 PM PST
Elby, is something bothering you? Perhaps you should now tell me about your mother.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Really? (none / 0) (#92)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:17:54 PM PST
And why would you say that? Because I refuse to believe that such a "study" exists? (And that only due to the fact that I am absolutely convinced that people with a title of Dr. are highly intelligent and as such would not even think about performing such a study).

Besides, I don't know what your problem is, it's not like I was complaining? This was a wonderfully put together joke and I just tried to express my gratitude and admiration towards the writer. What's wrong with that? People should get credit for good work.

J.R.


 
agreed (none / 0) (#65)
by astrix on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:38:37 AM PST
yes, go back home and swim with the mackrel in the bearing straight you boffo waffle sniffer.


"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson

Lern too spel, moreon (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by budlite on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 12:28:00 PM PST



yuo fashits (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 01:15:25 PM PST
liek dood grammer adn speling dos'nt mater rite?? u shoud look at teh thots in teh pots 'cauze if u have some thng 2 saye it dosn't mater how u xpress them teh reder will undertand what u r trieing 2 saye anyway. its teh idea that maters not lerning to spel words rite, 'cauze speling is'nt that impotant anywayz whn u have some thing to saye. grow up u dumass. lol


--
Peace and much love...




Ideas and spelling (none / 0) (#78)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:24:00 AM PST
its teh idea that maters not lerning to spel words rite

True.

One of my friends consultants can't spell to save his life (dyslexia). Does it makes his ideas/arguments any worse? Yes, it is a bit difficult to read what he writes on chat, but it's usually well worth of the effort. As added benefit I learn phonetic English.

Spelling is important though, but more because of search engines than because of Tkatchev.


Demagoguery is no way to win friends... (none / 0) (#87)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 12:45:29 PM PST
...and influence people.

Deslexia is a medical condition, and isn't in any way related to illiterate, dyseducated schoolkids.


--
Peace and much love...




 
hmmm (none / 0) (#97)
by nathan on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 08:24:32 PM PST
Why is it OK to be a poor speller, but not OK to be poor with computers?

On another note, I had no idea this site had so many dyslexic users!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Lies awake at night wondering if there is a dog. (none / 0) (#99)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 02:37:42 AM PST
Why is it OK to be a poor speller, but not OK to be poor with computers?

To be honest, I'd have poor spellers shot at birth, but I suppose that in an argument involving computers (like this one, for example) then being poor with computers harms your argument, being a poor speller is irrelevant.

Mind you, if you participate in the next argument about spelling, I imagine spelling ability will be everything, and computer knowledge will be irrelevant.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

computer knowledge (none / 0) (#109)
by nathan on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:33:11 AM PST
Mind you, if you participate in the next argument about spelling, I imagine spelling ability will be everything, and computer knowledge will be irrelevant.

I don't mind even g**k hubris as much as I mind linguistic terrorism.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You know, (none / 0) (#110)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:41:06 AM PST
with [O,U]sama b[i,e]n Lad[i,e]n and all that, "linguistic terrorism" pretty much sums up the romanisation of Urdu.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Urdu? (none / 0) (#111)
by nathan on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:49:24 AM PST
Since when did they speak Urdu in Yemen?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I thought they all spoke the same thing. (none / 0) (#112)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 10:56:54 AM PST
Sounds like it, at least.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

in any case (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by nathan on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 11:23:52 AM PST
I'm sure that the Yemenis can spell their own swarthy foreigner language. In that respect they're several up on the g**ks.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
What are you attempting to convey? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Dr Edwin R Goodwin MD on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 08:43:34 AM PST
Mr. J.R.,

I wish to inform you that the content of my article is indeed true. Further details will be made available as soon as I am able to compile them from the materials provided to me. As I mentioned in the article, we also intend to publish the results. Once they are published, you may debate their usefulness with the entire medical profession if you like.

I find it odd that anyone would question the veracity of my report. My colleagues are distinguished in their profession, as am I, and we are not accustomed to anonymous individuals casting aspersions on our life's work.

If you wish to dispute our claims, please do so in point-by-point rebuttal form, or not at all. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Dr. Edwin R. Goodwin, M.D.



Point by point (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 03:10:53 PM PST
I suggest you read the comment titled " If this was supposed to be a joke..." if you are after point by point rebuttals.

I notice you make comments against post that are simple and easy to dismiss, but you seem to shy away from trying to argue a stop case against you. In fact 'doctor', no one has bother to ague against such a well written rebuttal as was posted under the title " If this was supposed to be a joke..."

You have your wish of a point by point rebuttal, now what are you going to do with it?

"and we are not accustomed to anonymous individuals casting aspersions on our life's work" I have to thank you for that comment, it made me laugh particularly loud. You poor baby, you mean someone has the audacity to not believe you AND to tell you so, SHOCK HORROR! Call the national guard! Have this heretic arrested! What is the world coming too!


 
Point to Point Rebuttal to the post (none / 0) (#84)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:34:04 AM PST
Hello Mr. ER Goodwin

This is my rebuttal to the post. I'm a postgraduate PhDing student, and so far i work everyday with the scientific style of argueing hypothesis. Before i go, just one reply to the comment you did to your post:

>>I find it odd that anyone would question the veracity of my report

Do you really believe whatever your partner passes you? You're lost in a sea full of mistakes and fakes then, worse of all, you can't disguise what is true from what is not. I do never believe anything i haven't done myself....UNLESS...

A) I'll wait until those reports pass through any international scientific journal peer review process (which all of them do before publication). I don't believe anything about science not published that way, or if i do, i keep it inside my "Faith" folder.

B)>> we are not accustomed to anonymous individuals casting aspersions on our life's work

Again, you're wrong. It doesn't matter WHO says what (for instance, this post will be posted as by an anonymous reader) but WHAT does he say. If you don't care about "anonymous" opinions, then you're not doing research AT ALL.

Research (of any kind) is based on published articles on scientific journals. On those journals, there is NO PROOF that the so said "author" is really the person he claims to be, at all, because they're solved either by snail-mail or email. So i could publish using a fake name on a scientific journal, and if what i publish goes through the peer's review, it would be published anyway.

So, if you can't really be sure of the real identity of the author of published papers, i guess you don't read them neither, as you say.

As most times the author doesn't knows the identity of the reviewer of their proposed articles, but instead only his opinions given by the journal editor, i guess that explains why there is NOT EVEN one article published by Wilkes R and Huang L in the scientific articles world known and used PubMed...And when searched alone, there are only TWO from Wilkes R, one back in 77 and the other from 95...That's not a bleeding edge researcher, i would say.

I will end here, i can also smash the design of the experiment (maybe only your skills to describe it...doesn't matter) as it lacks the proper controls and so on...But i won't waste more time, i've already had a nice laugh at reading it, and writing this.

See ya !!

P.D. I hope your colleagues won't look themselves as a real researchers...They would be laugh at on their faces by most people who ARE, or more politely, their results wouldn't be published on any international scientific journal.


Post-doc (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:45:36 AM PST
I strenously hope that you are not a PhD or post-doctoral student in the U.S., because if that is the case, the quality of American graduate education has gone right down the crapper.




 
I thought it is a little late for April fools (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 09:41:58 AM PST
What kind of foolish study is this.

Next I guess, will be study that shows that persons who don't pay Microsoft at least $500 per year are lousy lovers.


 
Important question (none / 0) (#68)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 10:44:12 AM PST
Can microsoft products help cure strange sexual orientation diseases ?


Definitely yes. (none / 0) (#71)
by tkatchev on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 11:45:55 AM PST
But only if your name is Anonymous Coward.


--
Peace and much love...




 
i aM reet!!1 gIv3 m3 where's d000dz!! (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by KingAzzy on Mon Apr 22nd, 2002 at 02:50:41 PM PST
Over the years, I have made several attempts to switch to Linux as a desktop OS but always lost interest extremely quickly and went back to Windows for my workstation.

Linux is just way too industrial and geeky for me to be able to use 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Even with KDE and Enlightenment, it is still ugly, cludgy, and difficult to work with. There are no set standards for UI behavior. Its an unpleasant use experience, regardless of the distro.

Microsoft DOES cater to user desires. They are a business and to survive they must keep convincing users to shell out $$$ for the latest mousetrap they are offering. They understand that to do this they must continuously inject new features into their software products that will appeal to as broad a userbase as possible.

This the Linux zealots cannot seem to figure out. I ascribe this to the fact that most of them have very little aesthetic taste.

As Picasso said, "its clever, but is it art?"



But... (none / 0) (#79)
by budlite on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:35:02 AM PST
There are no set standards for UI behavior. Its an unpleasant use experience, regardless of the distro.

That's the point. The idea is that it caters for the user desires exactly, at least in the GUI department. You can make it look exactly how you want. No-one except the most hardcore anti-Microsoft zealot is going to criticise you for wanting to use a Windows-alike GUI - I use KDE for exactly that reason.

most of them have very little aesthetic taste

That's a theory I can ascribe to.


I want it to look good (none / 0) (#80)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:41:00 AM PST
Can we swing that? How about consistent? Yes? No?


 
Listen, bud, (5.00 / 2) (#82)
by because it isnt on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 03:55:18 AM PST
There are no set standards for UI behavior. Its an unpleasant use experience, regardless of the distro.

That's the point. The idea is that it caters for the user desires exactly, at least in the GUI department. You can make it look exactly how you want.


I'll tell you something for free; how a user interface looks is the least important part of a user interface. How a user interface allows itself to be used is the most important. And one of the important things about usability is coherence.

The problem with X-Windows, that cannot be fixed by inventing anything new, is that applications have been released throughout the years with no standard user interface guidelines. I'm not talking about 'rounded edge windows' or 'window manager's close-window button in the top left corner', those things are actually part of user preference. I'm talking about all configuration windows, options windows and settings windows being called "preference windows" (consistency in naming), and all having "Save", "Use" and "Cancel" buttons at the bottom of the window, where Save does, in fact, save the preferences to disk, Use only uses them without saving, and Cancel really does set all the preferences back to exactly what they were before the preferences window was opened, even if that's difficult.

You cannot say to me that X-Windows is coherent, where an X-Term scrollbar has no arrows, and makes you left-click on it to scroll up, right-click on it to scroll down and middle-click to set exact position, whereas I can have a K-Term right next this X-Term on the screen, and it prefers that I click and drag the scrollbar with the left-mouse button, or roll the mouse-wheel in the main frame. These are two applications performing an identical task in a non-identical way!

At the end of the day, you just have to admit that X-Windows is a license to stamp out bad user interfaces. I put up with it because I need and love applications that run using it, but don't pretend to me that it's actually any good.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
A configurable free GUI for budlite (none / 0) (#94)
by walwyn on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:59:02 PM PST
/*
       GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
       Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

          Preamble
....
*/
/**/

Now all you have to do is configure it.



If only... (none / 0) (#100)
by budlite on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 05:59:34 AM PST
...I knew something about X programming, I'd probably already have written my own window manager. It wouldn't be anything special, but it might have been better than half of the alternatives - to me, at least.


No point. (none / 0) (#101)
by because it isnt on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:13:28 AM PST
Just learn to program in LISP, and then you can program sawfish to look and feel like any other window manager.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Suppose so... (none / 0) (#102)
by budlite on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 06:28:55 AM PST
...but there are times when doing utterly pointless things seems less abhorrent to me than doing things that DO have a point.


 
You have been given (none / 0) (#105)
by walwyn on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:03:58 AM PST
a fully configurable GUI that will work in java, X, etc. Now go make pappa proud.


 
In reply to the statement above (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Apr 28th, 2002 at 07:11:45 PM PST
YOu have never put in the effort to learn in the first place. Wake up kid !!! Your ideas of linux are way out of date


 
What funny nonsense (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 06:53:02 AM PST
Thanks for the laugh this morning, I needed it. Wait, it's not April fools. Why the funny joke then? Oh well, anyone with half a brain should know that this is not a real study by real scientists!

Thanks for the laugh.


 
Wow... this guy is NOT a doctor... (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 07:47:25 AM PST
"where's"?? how about "warez"?

"reet"?? how about "leet"?!


"Uncertainty about the future of their operating system." - WHAT? except that UNIX is the oldest operating system for PCs in the world...

"A feeling of being "left behind" or "out of the loop" with regard to Microsoft's revolutionary new technologies in the .NET family of products. " - microsoft has NEVER done ANYTHING revolutionary... .NET and C# are just ripped off from the rest of the industry... C# is a brain-dead version of Java...


This guy didn't do his homework... his "findings" are an embarrassment.. I hope publishers realize this...

This summary is full of horrible leaps of logic and lies.. these people were obviously paid by microsoft. People like this ruin the internet for the rest of us...



The Future! (none / 0) (#107)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Apr 24th, 2002 at 08:27:47 AM PST
Uncertainty about the future of their operating system." - WHAT? except that UNIX is the oldest operating system for PCs in the world...

Can you think of any operating systems that are older than unix? What does their future hold? Inferring from the fact that no operating systems predating linux have survived in the market place, we can safely assume that unix's days are also numbered. The pattern seems to be that older operating systems are inevitably replaced by newer, more innovative ones. This appears to be taking place right now, as Windows 2000 is currently gaining momentum in the server market, driving linux further into its core demographic of devoted hobbyists. The hobbyist market is traditionally where obselete operating systems finish up, and is analogous to the junk heap in software terms.


 
Link discovered between OS advocacy (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:54:27 AM PST
This just in:

A pilot study suggests that there may be a link between one-eyed Operating System advocacy (known to pscychologists as "cylcopic autoutilitic monomania") and humour impairment.

An article was written containing many clear factual errors as well as obviosly knowing lampooning of the stereotypical behaviour of a unix enthusiast. This was published on a website with clear satirical content (other titles include "Liberalists celebrate Hitler's Birthday" and "God save America's Gangs").

Despite the fact that there were a number of comments posted that subtly and not-so-subtly indicated the whole thing was a farce, many subjects showing clear signs of monomania still posted vitriolic defences of their besieged fetish.

A fuller study is being devised, with a range of stimuli from subtle irony to shots of large studio audiences carried away on gales of laughter in order to determine the "oh, it's a joke" threshold of CAM sufferers.





 
Can't you reconize a prank when you see it? (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 02:33:35 PM PST
Guys,

I really don't know what is more hilarious: the article itself or the passionate irational responses it got. People even got angry about it and others seemed to understand it. Some M$ idiots are even backing on the "study".

I think that was one of the most hilarious pranks this year, even better than first April jokes.


You are more clever than most zealots. (none / 0) (#115)
by JoePain on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 10:31:46 AM PST
But you're still a zealot. While I cannot speak for the author of the article, I do have a problem Lunix zealots. Especially when they claim they and theirs are superior to the 90% of other people and their operating systems. I cannot believe you would call these reasonable people idiots. This leads me to believe you are a zealot.


reasonable people (none / 0) (#116)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 01:31:10 PM PST
Ok, so he was wrong for calling them idiots...but if they bought this thing so easily how can you say that they are reasonable?


idiots (none / 0) (#126)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 05:57:32 PM PST
of course they're idiots. donating money to Microsoft is extremely stupid.


 
Hey, just wondering (3.00 / 2) (#93)
by nexzus on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 04:35:09 PM PST
Are you a descendant of the Dr. Edwin Goodwin that tried to set the value of pi to 3?

http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node18.html

http://www.inwit.com/inwit/writings/indianapilaw.html


 
OS advocacy related to humour impairment (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by arcus on Tue Apr 23rd, 2002 at 11:23:27 PM PST
This just in:
A pilot study has just indicated that one-eyed operating system fanaticism (known in the field as autoutilic cyclopic monomania, or ACM) may in fact be linked to humour impairment.

A fake article was published on a website which clearly carried satirical content (other articles were entitled "Liberalists celebrate Hitler's birthday" and "God Bless America's Gangs"). The article made some extremely obvious factual errors, and followed them up with some knowing lampooning of the sterotypical users of a particular Operating System. A number of comments hinted or stated outright that it was a joke. Even with all these indications, a number of respondents showing clear monomaniacal tendencies posted frothing defences of their besieged fetish.
Some of them presented point-by-point rebuttals, showing that clearly the entire article *had* been read.

What was most suprising, though, is that none of them actually attacked the article's supposed clinical findings or methodology, but rather the perceived misrepresentation of the operating system in question or enganged in ad hominem attacks against the researchers

This seems to indicate that the ACM sufferers actually care less about their own image than the image of their favoured OS. Experts have been bandying about the term "ego replacement".

A follow up study is planned with a better range of humour cues, ranging from subtle irony all the way up to video footage of audiences wetting themselves with hilarity.


 
Do you know nothing about Linux? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 06:28:42 PM PST
Linux isn't that bad. Do you not realize that at least three forths of the worlds servers run linux. It is just more stable if you are a good programmer and know how to keep it running like a well oiled machine. I would almost bet that most of the people that visit this site have their internet browser's home page set to something ran by a Linux server. Just trying to let out a little positive information about Linux... but most of you probably assume that I'm a hacker because I defend Linux. I run windows but that doesn't mean I need to hate everything else.


Deletion Notice (none / 0) (#119)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 09:56:31 AM PST
A comment by user "Uncanny Vortex" entitled "You have got to be kidding" has been deleted for Copyright Violation. Original content by user Uncanny Vortex is quoted below:

" 'Bad' doesn't even begin to describe how abysmal and pathetic it is. Linux is horribly difficult to use; I have seen many an educated man in the depths of despair as he tried in vain to decipher the source codes and man pages. It's simply futile to attempt.

That's a skewed statistic if I ever heard one. Where do you get these numbers from, Charlie? Everybody knows that Windows NT amd 2000 are the industry standard for running a secure, reliable server. That debate ended years ago -- so catch up already.

So you have to be a "good programmer" to even use the operating system? That's a sad commentary. Linux is more like an ancient, rickety old machine if you ask me -- like an old boiler engine which has to be kick-started. That's a better analogy.

Well, are you a hacker? If not, then you have nothing to fear -- nobody here wants to accuse you unfairly. However, if you are defending Linux because you think "h4x0rz" are "k3wl", then you had better reconsider before you end up on the wrong side of the law. You may not be aware of the new laws being passed by this administration, which will provide very harsh sentences for acts of cyber-terrorism. Your fascination with Linux won't seem so wise from behind bars."

-- Uncanny Vortex



© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

What in the name of all that is stupid? (none / 0) (#120)
by Uncanny Vortex on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:09:19 PM PST
You piece of motherfisting fecal matter. What the hell is this?

I quoted his message, and so you delete mine. Really funny for you, I suppose.

Upon whom else did you exact this ludicrous punishment? All the other site members may go on, quoting one another's posts, continuing their enjoyment of the site, and you have to single me out. This site can be fun, unless spending my time to write and post a comment could mean it gets deleted or mangled by a loose-cannon power-hungry admin for no adequate reason.

I am so pissed off at you right now.

That is all.

-- Uncanny Vortex



Oh, yes. It's all about you. (none / 0) (#121)
by RobotSlave on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:37:20 PM PST
Yes, you, Uncanny Vortex. You really, really are that important.

Never mind the fact that you brutally violated Anonymous Reader's copyright, in wanton defiance of the plainly declared War On Copyright Violation.

If you are angry, then I think it is clear enough that you have only yourself to blame.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

your lame (5.00 / 2) (#122)
by Uncanny Vortex on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 12:52:24 PM PST
pls die thx


You're really quick, aren't you? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by tkatchev on Tue Apr 30th, 2002 at 01:35:14 PM PST
It took you that long to figure it out?

Anyways, don't mind RobotSlave, he simply really likes the feel of his own hot air.


--
Peace and much love...




 
I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 05:31:17 PM PST
You delete a comment, yet you post it's content.
And at the bottom, you have your "Copyright" notice, yet with all the hypocrisy of a typical Adequacy poster, you just copied someone elses'.


Who doesn't get it? (1.00 / 1) (#128)
by RobotSlave on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 04:15:39 PM PST
OK, smarty, how do you know that the republished work is identical to the deleted comment? You don't, and it isn't. Material in violation of copyright was removed. That being the whole point of the Deletion Notice, you see.

There is a world of difference between a an Adequacy reader submitting copyright-violating material for publication, and an Adequacy editor republishing that comment, duly attributed, with the illegal material excised.

Many people new to Adequacy make the fundamental error of assuming that we are somehow interested in adhereing to democratic ideals in the administration of this site. We are not. In fact, the tendency toward suppression of controversy under democracy was one of the most important reasons for putting the Adequacy under the stewardship of a select assembly of learned, accomplished, and highly respected editors of widely varying political outlook.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

You Said... (1.00 / 1) (#129)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 2nd, 2002 at 06:27:11 PM PST
to the effect of "Original message by poster Uncanny Vortex is displayed below:" (Don't want to violate your 'copyright', after all)

Nowhere did you say that that that any copyrighted material was removed. You could have said that the message was displayed with the offending material removed.

Now, after the fact, you said it was. Hmmm.

Don't forget the stop the three Billy Goats Gruff when they cross your bridge.


No. (none / 0) (#130)
by RobotSlave on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 01:05:32 AM PST
My exact words, as I'm sure you can see, were 'original content by user "Uncanny Vortex'"

Original content. Not comment, see?

No, obviously not. I wouldn't be explaining this to you if you were bright enough to pick up on little things like that. I'd break out the small words for you, but it's late, and I haven't the patience for children at this hour. So I'll have to use some longer words. Feel free to move your lips as you read.

What is a user's "original content?" Why, that would be content authored by the user! As opposed to unoriginal content, authored by someone else, then copied and and submitted for publication in violation of copyright law.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Hence The words... (none / 0) (#131)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 10:50:36 AM PST
"to the effect of" Both your phrase and mine have the same meaning. But if I had exactly copied what you had said, you would have replied with some nonsense about your 'copyright'. And what exactly is the difference between "content" and a comment? Is this message content, or is it a comment? Geez, I don't even know why I bother.


 
Hence The words... (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 10:51:17 AM PST
"to the effect of" Both your phrase and mine have the same meaning. But if I had exactly copied what you had said, you would have replied with some nonsense about your 'copyright'.

And what exactly is the difference between "content" and a comment? Is this message content, or is it a comment?

Geez, I don't even know why I bother.


I think I'm done here. (none / 0) (#133)
by RobotSlave on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 12:12:24 PM PST
If you can't figure out the difference between comment and content, even after it's been pointed out and explained, then I don't have anything left to tell you.

Furthermore, if you don't know why you bother, then I suggest you don't bother at all. It will be better for everyone, I'm sure.

Have a nice day, and please refrain from experimenting with the "HTML Formatted/Plain Text" selector in the future. It's really not that interesting.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Enlighten Me with your wisdom... (none / 0) (#134)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 03:54:27 PM PST
When I click "Post A Comment" at the bottom of the story, what I am posting? A comment, like it says, or content?

Which brings up another point. Above the forms for posting a 'comment', it says that any comment may be deleted by a site admin.

Since you said that Uncanny Vortex's content was removed, why delete his comment, if there is such a huge difference between a comment and content?


Snore. (none / 0) (#135)
by RobotSlave on Sat May 4th, 2002 at 11:00:25 PM PST
You still don't get it. Or at least, you pretend you don't.

If you look at the deletion notice again, you will see that user Uncanny Vortex's comment was deleted, and that his original content was quoted.

I've already explained this.

Any further refusal or feigned inability to understand the very simple concepts involved here will be considered trolling, and treated accordingly.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Don't Bother... (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 05:34:32 PM PST
The regular posters of this site won't listen to your comments. They are afraid of clicking links and they believe that Netcraft surveys are some "Open Sores" conspiracies.


dear idiot (none / 0) (#127)
by nathan on Wed May 1st, 2002 at 09:16:49 PM PST
As the very existence of this site ought to convince you, the Adequacy editors are folks of unusual technical sophistication. Why should I trust you and not them, your not having demonstrated comparable ability?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.