f



Windows 7 is the same as Windows 95

So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.

OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. 


0
XX
6/26/2010 1:07:46 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

22 Replies
913 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 3

In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
 "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:

> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> 
> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. 

You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40 
years old, because it contains UNIX code.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
6/26/2010 3:10:58 PM
On Jun 26, 11:10=A0am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article <BYmVn.187$6B...@newsfe15.iad>,
>
> =A0"XX" <dose...@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
> > So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>
> > OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>
> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>
> --
> "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exact=
ing to
> anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who h=
as it
> must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

It was mostly written by Xerox and stolen by Apple.
0
MuahMan
6/26/2010 3:22:10 PM
In article 
<98de5d11-87c6-423e-bc4e-cbcd631594d0@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 26, 11:10�am, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <BYmVn.187$6B...@newsfe15.iad>,
> >
> > �"XX" <dose...@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
> > > So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> >
> > > OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
> >
> > You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> > years old, because it contains UNIX code.
> >
> > --
> > "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and 
> > over-exacting to
> > anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has 
> > it
> > must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
> 
> It was mostly written by Xerox and stolen by Apple.

UNIX was mostly written by Xerox?

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
6/26/2010 3:46:44 PM
"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>
>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>
>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>
> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> years old, because it contains UNIX code.

So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over exaggeration?  Ten 
years is ancient enough in today's technology. 


0
XX
6/26/2010 3:47:22 PM
In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
 "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
> > In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
> > "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
> >
> >> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> >>
> >> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
> >
> > You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> > years old, because it contains UNIX code.
> 
> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over exaggeration?  Ten 
> years is ancient enough in today's technology. 

Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.

This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's 
really nothing new under the sun. UNIX had most "modern OS" features in 
1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on 
deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that 
has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the 
bugs have probably been fixed.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
6/26/2010 5:35:22 PM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
(in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):

> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>  "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
> 
>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>> 
>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>> 
>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>> 
>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over exaggeration?  
>> Ten 
>> years is ancient enough in today's technology. 
> 
> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.

And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still and 
their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such 
disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star, Amiga, 
OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These various, 
unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how they 
would work together or what the user experience based on these varied GUI 
philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and inconsistent 
styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes Windows 
NO FUN to use. 
 
> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's 
> really nothing new under the sun.

In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn policy 
of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too much in 
their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party developers are 
restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their apps. Apple 
is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the developer 
revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like OpenDoc, it 
would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and Apple 
(and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to keep up 
and especially Apple would have to follow through because most cross-platform 
Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword. Since MS 
CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs work and 
the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981. That's why 
there's nothing new under the sun.


> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in 
> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on 
> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that 
> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the 
> bugs have probably been fixed.

That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to support 
core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and whistles, 
and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in the 
layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is a 
mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, reliable and 
of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that each new 
iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. Were that 
true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think it is. 
As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows iteration 
were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they would have 
fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks 
volumes. 

0
Fa
6/26/2010 7:58:01 PM
On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
> In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>   "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
>
>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>
>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>
> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>

     It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
special code. It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic 
kernel like most Unix distros.

John
0
John
6/27/2010 2:50:57 AM
In article <60zVn.528$KT3.434@newsfe13.iad>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
> > In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
> >   "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
> >
> >> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> >>
> >> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
> >
> > You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40 
> > years old, because it contains UNIX code.
> >
> 
>      It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
> special code.

It contains BSD code. It contains no Linux code.

> It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic kernel like most Unix 
> distros.

Yes, but you read a Wikipedia article you don't understand.

And I thought you claimed to have killfiled me a couple of days ago.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
0
ZnU
6/27/2010 5:14:17 AM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:50:57 -0700, John Slade wrote
(in article <60zVn.528$KT3.434@newsfe13.iad>):

> On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
>> In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>> "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
>> 
>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>> 
>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>> 
>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>> 
> 
>      It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
> special code. It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic 
> kernel like most Unix distros.
> 
> John

Every time you post that piece of misinformation, you show more and more how 
little you understand the subject, Slade. Even though it's been explained to 
you more than once.

0
Fa
6/27/2010 7:45:26 AM
In article <60zVn.528$KT3.434@newsfe13.iad>,
 John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
> > In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
> >   "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
> >
> >> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> >>
> >> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
> >
> > You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
> > years old, because it contains UNIX code.
> >
> 
>      It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
> special code. It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic 
> kernel like most Unix distros.

This statement hasn't become more correct than the last time it was 
shown to you how wrong you are.



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
6/27/2010 8:01:26 AM
In article <znu-301BE7.01141727062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <60zVn.528$KT3.434@newsfe13.iad>,
>  John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
> > > In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
> > >   "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
> > >
> > >> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
> > >>
> > >> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
> > >
> > > You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40 
> > > years old, because it contains UNIX code.
> > >
> > 
> >      It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
> > special code.
> 
> It contains BSD code. It contains no Linux code.
> 
> > It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic kernel like most Unix 
> > distros.
> 
> Yes, but you read a Wikipedia article you don't understand.
> 
> And I thought you claimed to have killfiled me a couple of days ago.

Slade "killfiles" anyone that he can't argue with, but his killfiles 
seems a bit... "loose" :)

I don't know how many times he has claimed to have killfiled me :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
Sandman
6/27/2010 8:02:09 AM
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:02:09 -0700, Sandman wrote
(in article <mr-07ADAA.10020927062010@News.Individual.NET>):

> In article <znu-301BE7.01141727062010@Port80.Individual.NET>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> In article <60zVn.528$KT3.434@newsfe13.iad>,
>> John Slade <hhitman86@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/26/2010 8:10 AM, ZnU wrote:
>>>> In article<BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>> "XX"<dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>> 
>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40 
>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> It contains Linux code as well as well as Apple's own 
>>> special code.
>> 
>> It contains BSD code. It contains no Linux code.
>> 
>>> It's a hybrid kernel rather than a monolithic kernel like most Unix 
>>> distros.
>> 
>> Yes, but you read a Wikipedia article you don't understand.
>> 
>> And I thought you claimed to have killfiled me a couple of days ago.
> 
> Slade "killfiles" anyone that he can't argue with, but his killfiles 
> seems a bit... "loose" :)

If you win an argument with Slade, you can count on going in his killfile. I 
think he can't stand the embarrassment of being wrong (and he almost always 
is).  That's why there are so many souls in his killfile. Look on it as a 
badge of honour. 
 
> I don't know how many times he has claimed to have killfiled me :)

At the moment, I'm in his "hard" kilfile. That doesn't stop me from calling 
him on his nonsense. But it does stop him from arguing with my criticisms of 
him though 8^)

Not a bad place to be, all told. 

0
Fa
6/27/2010 4:36:56 PM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>
>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>  "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>
>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>
>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>
>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over exaggeration?
>>> Ten
>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>
>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>
> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still and
> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star, Amiga,
> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These 
> various,
> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how 
> they
> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied GUI
> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and 
> inconsistent
> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes 
> Windows
> NO FUN to use.
>
>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's
>> really nothing new under the sun.
>
> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn 
> policy
> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too much 
> in
> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party developers 
> are
> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their apps. 
> Apple
> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the developer
> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like OpenDoc, it
> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and 
> Apple
> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to keep 
> up
> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most 
> cross-platform
> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword. Since 
> MS
> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs work 
> and
> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981. That's 
> why
> there's nothing new under the sun.
>
>
>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that
>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>
> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to support
> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and 
> whistles,
> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in the
> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is a
> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, reliable 
> and
> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that each 
> new
> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. Were 
> that
> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think it 
> is.
> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows 
> iteration
> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they would 
> have
> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
> volumes.
>

You Moronic Imbecile,

Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of 
bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off yourself. 
You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable of 
education. The biggest joke on this group.

Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave 
happiness behind;

Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be nice.
Light yourself on fire.
Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
Drink rat poison.
Drink any poison.
Eat poison mushrooms.
Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep water.
OD on sleeping pills.
Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
Electrocute yourself.
Put your head into a plastic bag.
Hang yourself.
Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a hose 
connected from the tail pipe into the car.
Commit Seppuku.
Stop eating.
Stop drinking.
Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, *I'M 
GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on fire 
with you in it.

Hope this helps. Here's hoping!








0
2x
6/27/2010 6:40:58 PM
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 09:07:46 -0400, "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net>
wrote:

>So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>
>OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. 
>

Well, it has a start button and a registry.

Then again OS X has the Apple menu and Finder.  So, using that logic
OS X is the same as OS 9, 6, 7...
0
Tommy
6/27/2010 6:56:00 PM
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
(in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):

> 
> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>> 
>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>> 
>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over exaggeration?
>>>> Ten
>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>> 
>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>> 
>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still and
>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star, Amiga,
>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These 
>> various,
>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how 
>> they
>> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied GUI
>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and 
>> inconsistent
>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes 
>> Windows
>> NO FUN to use.
>> 
>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's
>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>> 
>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn 
>> policy
>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too much 
>> in
>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party developers 
>> are
>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their apps. 
>> Apple
>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the developer
>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like OpenDoc, it
>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and 
>> Apple
>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to keep 
>> up
>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most 
>> cross-platform
>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword. Since 
>> MS
>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs work 
>> and
>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981. That's 
>> why
>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>> 
>> 
>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that
>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>> 
>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to support
>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and 
>> whistles,
>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in the
>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is a
>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, reliable 
>> and
>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that each 
>> new
>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. Were 
>> that
>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think it 
>> is.
>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows 
>> iteration
>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they would 
>> have
>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
>> volumes.
>> 
> 
> You Moronic Imbecile,
> 
> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of 
> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off yourself. 
> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable of 
> education. The biggest joke on this group.
> 
> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave 
> happiness behind;
> 
> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be nice.
> Light yourself on fire.
> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
> Drink rat poison.
> Drink any poison.
> Eat poison mushrooms.
> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep water.
> OD on sleeping pills.
> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
> Electrocute yourself.
> Put your head into a plastic bag.
> Hang yourself.
> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a hose 
> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
> Commit Seppuku.
> Stop eating.
> Stop drinking.
> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, *I'M 
> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on fire 
> with you in it.
> 
> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!

Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch of ways 
for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to say.  
This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a basement 
somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but vent 
his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that he/she/it 
doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a classic 
case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who should be 
pitied. 

0
Fa
6/27/2010 9:47:14 PM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>
>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over 
>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>> Ten
>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>
>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>
>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still 
>>> and
>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star, 
>>> Amiga,
>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>> various,
>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how
>>> they
>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied 
>>> GUI
>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>> inconsistent
>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>> Windows
>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>
>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's
>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>> policy
>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too 
>>> much
>>> in
>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party developers
>>> are
>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their apps.
>>> Apple
>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the 
>>> developer
>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like OpenDoc, 
>>> it
>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and
>>> Apple
>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to keep
>>> up
>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>> cross-platform
>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword. 
>>> Since
>>> MS
>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs work
>>> and
>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981. 
>>> That's
>>> why
>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>
>>>
>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that
>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>
>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to 
>>> support
>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>> whistles,
>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in 
>>> the
>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is a
>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, reliable
>>> and
>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that each
>>> new
>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. Were
>>> that
>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think it
>>> is.
>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>> iteration
>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they would
>>> have
>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
>>> volumes.
>>>
>>
>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>
>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of
>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off 
>> yourself.
>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable of
>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>
>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>> happiness behind;
>>
>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be nice.
>> Light yourself on fire.
>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>> Drink rat poison.
>> Drink any poison.
>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep 
>> water.
>> OD on sleeping pills.
>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
>> Electrocute yourself.
>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>> Hang yourself.
>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a 
>> hose
>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>> Commit Seppuku.
>> Stop eating.
>> Stop drinking.
>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, *I'M
>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on fire
>> with you in it.
>>
>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>
> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch of 
> ways
> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to say.
> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a basement
> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but vent
> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that he/she/it
> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a classic
> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who should 
> be
> pitied.


It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so 
wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa. 


0
Dosexxes
6/27/2010 10:10:59 PM
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
(in article <R%PVn.1622$cO.676@newsfe09.iad>):

> 
> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
>> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over 
>>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>>> Ten
>>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>> 
>>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still 
>>>> and
>>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
>>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star, 
>>>> Amiga,
>>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>>> various,
>>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how
>>>> they
>>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied 
>>>> GUI
>>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>>> inconsistent
>>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>>> Windows
>>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>> 
>>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, there's
>>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>> 
>>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>>> policy
>>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too 
>>>> much
>>>> in
>>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party developers
>>>> are
>>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their apps.
>>>> Apple
>>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the 
>>>> developer
>>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like OpenDoc, 
>>>> it
>>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and
>>>> Apple
>>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to keep
>>>> up
>>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>>> cross-platform
>>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword. 
>>>> Since
>>>> MS
>>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs work
>>>> and
>>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981. 
>>>> That's
>>>> why
>>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code that
>>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>> 
>>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to 
>>>> support
>>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>>> whistles,
>>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in 
>>>> the
>>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is a
>>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, reliable
>>>> and
>>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that each
>>>> new
>>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. Were
>>>> that
>>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think it
>>>> is.
>>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>>> iteration
>>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they would
>>>> have
>>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
>>>> volumes.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>> 
>>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of
>>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off 
>>> yourself.
>>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable of
>>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>> 
>>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>>> happiness behind;
>>> 
>>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be nice.
>>> Light yourself on fire.
>>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>>> Drink rat poison.
>>> Drink any poison.
>>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep 
>>> water.
>>> OD on sleeping pills.
>>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
>>> Electrocute yourself.
>>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>>> Hang yourself.
>>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a 
>>> hose
>>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>>> Commit Seppuku.
>>> Stop eating.
>>> Stop drinking.
>>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, *I'M
>>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on fire
>>> with you in it.
>>> 
>>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>> 
>> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch of 
>> ways
>> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to say.
>> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a basement
>> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but vent
>> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that he/she/it
>> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a classic
>> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who should 
>> be pitied.
> 
> 
> It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so 
> wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa. 

Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it drives a 
Ferrari of some kind. 

Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever. 

0
Fa
6/27/2010 10:36:02 PM
In article <0001HW.C84D206200163274F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
> > 
> > It just can't help itself. The biggest, stupidest fish here. And so 
> > wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa. 
> 
> Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it drives a 
> Ferrari of some kind. 
> 
> Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever. 

That is how things are in La La Land with zara. Meanwhile, things are 
dandy here in Nutwood.
0
Cedric
6/27/2010 10:42:14 PM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C84D206200163274F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
> (in article <R%PVn.1622$cO.676@newsfe09.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
>>> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over
>>>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>>>> Ten
>>>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still
>>>>> and
>>>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
>>>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star,
>>>>> Amiga,
>>>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>>>> various,
>>>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how
>>>>> they
>>>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied
>>>>> GUI
>>>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>>>> Windows
>>>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, 
>>>>>> there's
>>>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>>>> policy
>>>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too
>>>>> much
>>>>> in
>>>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party 
>>>>> developers
>>>>> are
>>>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their 
>>>>> apps.
>>>>> Apple
>>>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the
>>>>> developer
>>>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like 
>>>>> OpenDoc,
>>>>> it
>>>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and
>>>>> Apple
>>>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to 
>>>>> keep
>>>>> up
>>>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>>>> cross-platform
>>>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword.
>>>>> Since
>>>>> MS
>>>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs 
>>>>> work
>>>>> and
>>>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981.
>>>>> That's
>>>>> why
>>>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>>>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>>>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to
>>>>> support
>>>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>>>> whistles,
>>>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in
>>>>> the
>>>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is 
>>>>> a
>>>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, 
>>>>> reliable
>>>>> and
>>>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that 
>>>>> each
>>>>> new
>>>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. 
>>>>> Were
>>>>> that
>>>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think 
>>>>> it
>>>>> is.
>>>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>>>> iteration
>>>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they 
>>>>> would
>>>>> have
>>>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
>>>>> volumes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of
>>>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off
>>>> yourself.
>>>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable 
>>>> of
>>>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>>>> happiness behind;
>>>>
>>>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>>>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be 
>>>> nice.
>>>> Light yourself on fire.
>>>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>>>> Drink rat poison.
>>>> Drink any poison.
>>>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>>>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>>>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>>>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>>>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep
>>>> water.
>>>> OD on sleeping pills.
>>>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
>>>> Electrocute yourself.
>>>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>>>> Hang yourself.
>>>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a
>>>> hose
>>>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>>>> Commit Seppuku.
>>>> Stop eating.
>>>> Stop drinking.
>>>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, 
>>>> *I'M
>>>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>>>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>>>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on 
>>>> fire
>>>> with you in it.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>>>
>>> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch of
>>> ways
>>> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to say.
>>> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a 
>>> basement
>>> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but vent
>>> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that he/she/it
>>> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a 
>>> classic
>>> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who should
>>> be pitied.
>>
>>
>> It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so
>> wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa.
>
> Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it drives 
> a
> Ferrari of some kind.
>
> Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever.
>

The bottom line, Loser, I live on Jupiter Island - and you live in an 
industrial park.



0
Two
6/27/2010 11:41:50 PM
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:41:50 -0700, Two X's wrote
(in article <1lRVn.1628$cO.713@newsfe09.iad>):

> 
> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C84D206200163274F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
>> (in article <R%PVn.1622$cO.676@newsfe09.iad>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
>>>> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 40
>>>>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over
>>>>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>>>>> Ten
>>>>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older still
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from such
>>>>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star,
>>>>>> Amiga,
>>>>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>>>>> various,
>>>>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of how
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these varied
>>>>>> GUI
>>>>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture, 
>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>>>>> policy
>>>>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party 
>>>>>> developers
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their 
>>>>>> apps.
>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the
>>>>>> developer
>>>>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like 
>>>>>> OpenDoc,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat and
>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to 
>>>>>> keep
>>>>>> up
>>>>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>>>>> cross-platform
>>>>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword.
>>>>>> Since
>>>>>> MS
>>>>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs 
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981.
>>>>>> That's
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies on
>>>>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of the
>>>>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>>>>> whistles,
>>>>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix is 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable, 
>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that 
>>>>>> each
>>>>>> new
>>>>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat. 
>>>>>> Were
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls think 
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>>>>> iteration
>>>>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they 
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't speaks
>>>>>> volumes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases of
>>>>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable 
>>>>> of
>>>>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>>>>> happiness behind;
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>>>>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be 
>>>>> nice.
>>>>> Light yourself on fire.
>>>>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>>>>> Drink rat poison.
>>>>> Drink any poison.
>>>>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>>>>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>>>>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>>>>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>>>>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep
>>>>> water.
>>>>> OD on sleeping pills.
>>>>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or steamroller.
>>>>> Electrocute yourself.
>>>>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>>>>> Hang yourself.
>>>>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a
>>>>> hose
>>>>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>>>>> Commit Seppuku.
>>>>> Stop eating.
>>>>> Stop drinking.
>>>>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting, 
>>>>> *I'M
>>>>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>>>>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>>>>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on 
>>>>> fire
>>>>> with you in it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch of
>>>> ways
>>>> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to say.
>>>> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a 
>>>> basement
>>>> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but vent
>>>> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that he/she/it
>>>> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a 
>>>> classic
>>>> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who should
>>>> be pitied.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so
>>> wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa.
>> 
>> Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it drives 
>> a
>> Ferrari of some kind.
>> 
>> Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever.
>> 
> 
> The bottom line, Loser, I live on Jupiter Island - and you live in an 
> industrial park.
> 
> 
> 

There aren't any industrial parks in Mill Valley CA, zara. I can't imagine 
what you are talking about. Marin County is one of the wealthiest counties in 
the USA. 

0
Fa
6/28/2010 2:56:23 AM
"Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
news:0001HW.C84D5D6700247FA0F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:41:50 -0700, Two X's wrote
> (in article <1lRVn.1628$cO.713@newsfe09.iad>):
>
>>
>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C84D206200163274F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
>>> (in article <R%PVn.1622$cO.676@newsfe09.iad>):
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
>>>>> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>>>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 
>>>>>>>>>> 40
>>>>>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over
>>>>>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>>>>>> Ten
>>>>>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older 
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from 
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star,
>>>>>>> Amiga,
>>>>>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>>>>>> various,
>>>>>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of 
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these 
>>>>>>> varied
>>>>>>> GUI
>>>>>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture,
>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party
>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their
>>>>>>> apps.
>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the
>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like
>>>>>>> OpenDoc,
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>>>>>> cross-platform
>>>>>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword.
>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981.
>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>>>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies 
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>>>>>> whistles,
>>>>>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly 
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix 
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable,
>>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that
>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat.
>>>>>>> Were
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls 
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>>>>>> iteration
>>>>>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't 
>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>> volumes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off
>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>>>>>> happiness behind;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>>>>>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be
>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>> Light yourself on fire.
>>>>>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>>>>>> Drink rat poison.
>>>>>> Drink any poison.
>>>>>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>>>>>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>>>>>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>>>>>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>>>>>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep
>>>>>> water.
>>>>>> OD on sleeping pills.
>>>>>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or 
>>>>>> steamroller.
>>>>>> Electrocute yourself.
>>>>>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>>>>>> Hang yourself.
>>>>>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a
>>>>>> hose
>>>>>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>>>>>> Commit Seppuku.
>>>>>> Stop eating.
>>>>>> Stop drinking.
>>>>>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting,
>>>>>> *I'M
>>>>>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>>>>>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>>>>>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on
>>>>>> fire
>>>>>> with you in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch 
>>>>> of
>>>>> ways
>>>>> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to 
>>>>> say.
>>>>> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a
>>>>> basement
>>>>> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but 
>>>>> vent
>>>>> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that 
>>>>> he/she/it
>>>>> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a
>>>>> classic
>>>>> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who 
>>>>> should
>>>>> be pitied.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so
>>>> wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa.
>>>
>>> Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it 
>>> drives
>>> a
>>> Ferrari of some kind.
>>>
>>> Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever.
>>>
>>
>> The bottom line, Loser, I live on Jupiter Island - and you live in an
>> industrial park.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There aren't any industrial parks in Mill Valley CA, zara. I can't imagine
> what you are talking about. Marin County is one of the wealthiest counties 
> in
> the USA.

Yeah - you're a power allright.  What's the name of the homeless shelter you 
live in?  Maybe I'll send a donation for Thanksgiving.

So you Killfiled zara, and XX and 2X's and Dosexxes and Two X's because you 
claim they're the same sock?  And now you read this one also?  Looks like 
you're to stupid to "connect the dots" eh?  Do you think the lightbulb is 
going to go off this time? You can't compete here, Loser.

I don't expect an answer this time, even you must realize how stupid you are 
by now.

FYI: your shitbox Alfa is worth little more than scrap. 


0
DoubleX
6/28/2010 11:04:26 AM
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 04:04:26 -0700, DoubleX wrote
(in article <Yk%Vn.2419$oN4.35@newsfe04.iad>):

> 
> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message 
> news:0001HW.C84D5D6700247FA0F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:41:50 -0700, Two X's wrote
>> (in article <1lRVn.1628$cO.713@newsfe09.iad>):
>> 
>>> 
>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C84D206200163274F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:10:59 -0700, Dosexxes wrote
>>>> (in article <R%PVn.1622$cO.676@newsfe09.iad>):
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:0001HW.C84D14F200138434F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 11:40:58 -0700, 2x's wrote
>>>>>> (in article <_WMVn.4652$0A5.3260@newsfe22.iad>):
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Fa-groon" <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:0001HW.C84BA9D9000D1002F01846D8@news.giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:35:22 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>>>>>> (in article <znu-59FD50.13352226062010@Port80.Individual.NET>):
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> In article <fipVn.2017$wm1.1603@newsfe01.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:znu-F4276C.11105826062010@Port80.Individual.NET...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <BYmVn.187$6B.32@newsfe15.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "XX" <dosexes@dsahiuargd.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> So say the MacFreaks - BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> OSX is ten years old - BWAHAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> You're doing this wrong. You're supposed to accuse OS X of being 
>>>>>>>>>>> 40
>>>>>>>>>>> years old, because it contains UNIX code.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> So you want me to embrace the MacFreak philosophy of over
>>>>>>>>>> exaggeration?
>>>>>>>>>> Ten
>>>>>>>>>> years is ancient enough in today's technology.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1. NT is _17_ years old.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And its GUI is based on Win 3.1 and Win 95 which are both older 
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> their GUI elements, look and feel, were stolen, at the time, from 
>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>> disparate and unrelated sources as The original Mac OS, Xerox Star,
>>>>>>>> Amiga,
>>>>>>>> OS2, and a concept GUI demonstrated by DEC in the late '80's. These
>>>>>>>> various,
>>>>>>>> unrelated elements were combined in Windows without any thought of 
>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> would work together or what the user experience based on these 
>>>>>>>> varied
>>>>>>>> GUI
>>>>>>>> philosophies would be. The result is a jumble of conflicting and
>>>>>>>> inconsistent
>>>>>>>> styles that are with us to this day. It one of the things that makes
>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>> NO FUN to use.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This is all pretty silly, as when it comes to OS architecture,
>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>> really nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, this is mostly Microsoft's fault. With their stubborn
>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>> of not leaving legacy software behind, they are afraid to change too
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> their OS. With their OS' paradigm cast in stone, third-party
>>>>>>>> developers
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> restricted in how much they can change the look and feel of their
>>>>>>>> apps.
>>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>>> is too small to force a paradigm change on anybody (remember the
>>>>>>>> developer
>>>>>>>> revolt when OpenDoc was unveiled?). If MS tried something like
>>>>>>>> OpenDoc,
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> would have been adopted by the developer community in a heartbeat 
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>>> (and perhaps  Linux) would have had to institute similar changes to
>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>> and especially Apple would have to follow through because most
>>>>>>>> cross-platform
>>>>>>>> Mac apps are ports from Windows versions. It's a double-edged sword.
>>>>>>>> Since
>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>> CAN'T change the way Windows works, Apple can't change the way Macs
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the tail can't wag the dog. We're stuck with computing circa 1981.
>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>> why
>>>>>>>> there's nothing new under the sun.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> UNIX had most "modern OS" features in
>>>>>>>>> 1969. If it's cleanly written, doesn't have external dependencies 
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> deprecated technologies, and does what you need it to do, old code
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> has been in active use is _better_ than new code, because more of 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> bugs have probably been fixed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's true. Besides, the underlying "bones" of an OS only need to
>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>> core technologies. As long as a root system has all the bells and
>>>>>>>> whistles,
>>>>>>>> and is extendible, the way an OS works, looks, and feels is mostly 
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> layers above core system anyway (like the GUI, for instance). Unix 
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> mature technology. Any OS based upon it is going to be stable,
>>>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> of mission-critical quality. The Windroids here keep insisting that
>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> iteration of Windows is "all new" and that OSX is the same old hat.
>>>>>>>> Were
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> true, it certainly wouldn't be the advantage that our Wintrolls 
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>> As you point out, new code equals new bugs. Also, if each Windows
>>>>>>>> iteration
>>>>>>>> were "all new" as our Winfriends insist, one would think that they
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> fixed many of Windows' original shortcomings. That they haven't 
>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>> volumes.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You Moronic Imbecile,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Do you think that writing thousands of authoritive sounding phrases 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> bullshit makes it true?  You should do the world a favor and off
>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>> You are a useless, worthless POS. A babbling, ignorant fool incapable
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> education. The biggest joke on this group.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here are some methods you should try, choose one or a few and leave
>>>>>>> happiness behind;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Jump off a very high structure surrounded by concrete.
>>>>>>> Blow your brains out with a larger caliber gun, a 12 gauge would be
>>>>>>> nice.
>>>>>>> Light yourself on fire.
>>>>>>> Light yourself on fire and then shoot yourself while you're burning.
>>>>>>> Drink rat poison.
>>>>>>> Drink any poison.
>>>>>>> Eat poison mushrooms.
>>>>>>> Slit your wrists or throat or femoral artery.
>>>>>>> Find a poisonous snake and allow it to bite you.
>>>>>>> Drive your shitbox Alfa into a concrete abutment at very high speed.
>>>>>>> Tie a heavy weight to your neck and jump off a boat or dock into deep
>>>>>>> water.
>>>>>>> OD on sleeping pills.
>>>>>>> Jump in front of a fast moving train, bus, truck, car, or 
>>>>>>> steamroller.
>>>>>>> Electrocute yourself.
>>>>>>> Put your head into a plastic bag.
>>>>>>> Hang yourself.
>>>>>>> Sit in your car with the motor running and the windows closed  with a
>>>>>>> hose
>>>>>>> connected from the tail pipe into the car.
>>>>>>> Commit Seppuku.
>>>>>>> Stop eating.
>>>>>>> Stop drinking.
>>>>>>> Find a cop and point a large caliber handgun at him while shouting,
>>>>>>> *I'M
>>>>>>> GOING TO KILL YOU MOTHERFUCKER*.
>>>>>>> Go to LA and find a bunch of Crips or Bloods and do the above.
>>>>>>> Hire someone to tie you up in a chair in your house and light it on
>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>> with you in it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hope this helps. Here's hoping!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Isn't zara just the nicest person? He/she/it has volunteered a bunch 
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> ways
>>>>>> for me to kill myself because He/she/it doesn't like what I have to 
>>>>>> say.
>>>>>> This is what happens when one is a loser like zara. Sitting in a
>>>>>> basement
>>>>>> somewhere with no money, no friends, no hopes and nothing to do but 
>>>>>> vent
>>>>>> his/her/its hate on a newsgroup that advocates a product that 
>>>>>> he/she/it
>>>>>> doesn't use (obviously because he/she/it can't afford one). It's a
>>>>>> classic
>>>>>> case of sour grapes and zara is really a pathetic little shit who 
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be pitied.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It just can't help itself.  The biggest, stupidest fish here.  And so
>>>>> wealthy that it's forced to drive an old, shitbox Alfa.
>>>> 
>>>> Zara drives an Alpha? I thought he/she/it maintains that he/she/it 
>>>> drives
>>>> a
>>>> Ferrari of some kind.
>>>> 
>>>> Zara you're so transparent that you aren't even vaguely clever.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The bottom line, Loser, I live on Jupiter Island - and you live in an
>>> industrial park.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> There aren't any industrial parks in Mill Valley CA, zara. I can't imagine
>> what you are talking about. Marin County is one of the wealthiest counties 
>> in
>> the USA.
> 
> Yeah - you're a power allright.  What's the name of the homeless shelter you 
> live in?  Maybe I'll send a donation for Thanksgiving.
> 
> So you Killfiled zara, and XX and 2X's and Dosexxes and Two X's because you 
> claim they're the same sock?  And now you read this one also?  Looks like 
> you're to stupid to "connect the dots" eh?  Do you think the lightbulb is 
> going to go off this time? You can't compete here, Loser.
> 
> I don't expect an answer this time, even you must realize how stupid you are 
> by now.
> 
> FYI: your shitbox Alfa is worth little more than scrap. 
> 
> 

Zara, I don't killfile you because you're zara. I killfile you because my 
tolerance of your constant lies and general nastiness runs out after a bit.

And for (hopefully) the last time (not that it will do any good) I do not own 
an Alfa, have never owned an Alfa, and to my recollection, I've only ridden 
in one ONCE, and that was from London to Geneva and back with one of my 
fellow band members for a gig. That was in 1974. 

And the reason I haven't killfiled this sock, you miserable little worm, is 
because you'll just pop-up later today with another. So I'll just let you 
spew for the time being. After all, you've nothing else to do. 

0
Fa
6/28/2010 7:29:19 PM
Reply: