Re: Just Upgraded from Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10...Won't even boot....

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, so you know about the resolution -- and yet you claim that
>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>> is "zero chance of resolution." Not very convincing, WinTroll.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have used Linux since 1995. So I know a few things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are certainly good at hiding this fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you used Linux once in 1995. It would certainly
>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> rather dated view on things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I used it as my main OS since 1995 when I bought my first PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still sound like someone that hasn't used Linux since 1998.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps you should specifically avoid commenting about more
>>>>>> modern
>>>>>> forms of Linux and make sure you don't cross post in the fora for
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the man who doesnt thing multiple monitors and x screens have a
>>>>> use
>>>>
>>>> ...and assuming this, and also assuming that I have PC hardware typical
>>>> for your typical Windows user: How much money would it take in order for
>>>> me to find out?
>>>>
>>>> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>> How much money would an average Windows user need to waste in order
>>>> to dabble in this sort of thing in order to have a clue about it?
>>>>
>>>> I just realized that you didn't answer this the last time I brought
>>>> it up so I will ask again...
>>>
>>> Pretty much nothing. Why do you ask? Another monitor and dual head is so
>>> common its not funny on modern video cards.
>>>
>>> Jed, you're a clueless fossil. Wake up.
>>
>> No. You are just totally full of it.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>
>> You won't even acknowledge the cost of an extra monitor.
>
> That cost of the extra monitor is less than buying a very large monitor. Or

That's assuming that 9 out of 10 Windows user would buy the large monitor.

> to make this "simple math" for lemmings like you - one can get more
> resolution and screen real estate for less by using two cheaper monitors
> than one very expensive monitor.

...assuming that is your intent.

...assuming that's the intent of 9 or 10 actual Windows users.

>
>
>> Nevermind your obvious lack of touch with reality when it comes to typical
>> PC hardware.
>
> If anyone is out of touch it's the lemmings like you.

Out of touch with what exactly? The latest in conspicous consumption or
the latest in what real people actually do with computers?

>
>
>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>
> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of 455
> video cards in stock.

This is a geek computing store. What any random number extracted from
it may or may not have any particular significance.

What I asked about was cost relative to what you can expect the typical
Windows user to have. The fact that there a lot of upgrades available if you
know what you are doing and try real hard really doesn't say much and doesn't
answer the original question.

>
> 302 have single DVI.
> 148 have dual DVI.
> 5 have quad DVI.
>
> Roughly 1 out of every 3 video cards is dual headed. Yet idiots like you
> claim that these are not common.

You have no clue what those numbers mean.


--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On 2010-01-25, Dabbler <dabbler@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> "Ignoramus12856" <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:KvmdnV7ObMcL_8HWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> For me, Linux takes less time to manage than Windows. I manage Linux
>>> at home and at work with scripts instead of GUI, and it takes no
>>> time. For example, if I find a package that I like and want to add it,
>>> I append it to a certain list of packages and it is installed at night
>>> automatically on all boxes that I manage that have a proper
>>> "role". Works out great, especially if a computer needs a complete
>>> reinstall, for example.
>>
>> But you just admitted that you were not a typical desktop user. You know
>> scripting, package management, and are a sys admin at work. This is not
>> what a typical windows desktop user is. You are an expert, they are not.
>>
>
> Sys admin is not my job description (though I do administer Linux
> servers).
>
> That said, yes, I am not a typical desktop user and the less
> experienced people have more problems.

The less experienced have more problems with EVERYTHING.

This even includes dealing with the toilet.

OTOH, you have as much problems as the n00bs to and you really should
not be giving them advice on how to use Linux until you sort yourself out
and perhaps develop some empathy for that sort of user.

--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[Ezekiel]

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnhlrc6s.8t6.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>

>>
>>> You won't even acknowledge the cost of an extra monitor.
>>
>> That cost of the extra monitor is less than buying a very large monitor.
>> Or
>
> That's assuming that 9 out of 10 Windows user would buy the large
> monitor.

What 9 out of 10 Windows users would or wouldn't do has never been the issue
until you just randomly introduced it into this thread.



>> to make this "simple math" for lemmings like you - one can get more
>> resolution and screen real estate for less by using two cheaper monitors
>> than one very expensive monitor.


>>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>>
>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>> 455
>> video cards in stock.
>
> This is a geek computing store. What any random number extracted from
> it may or may not have any particular significance.
>
> What I asked about was cost relative to what you can expect the
> typical
> Windows user to have. The fact that there a lot of upgrades available if
> you
> know what you are doing and try real hard really doesn't say much and
> doesn't
> answer the original question.
>
>>
>> 302 have single DVI.
>> 148 have dual DVI.
>> 5 have quad DVI.
>>
>> Roughly 1 out of every 3 video cards is dual headed. Yet idiots like you
>> claim that these are not common.
>
> You have no clue what those numbers mean.

I know *exactly* what those numbers mean. What those numbers mean is that
somewhere between 1/3rd to 1/2 of video cards being manufactured today have
dual-head capability. It also means that as usual you and your idiotic
clueless claim of "dual headed cards are not typical" are completely wrong
and out of touch with reality.

Go back to your green-screen CRT Jed - the real world is too scary for you.

 

[Ignoramus29432]

On 2010-01-25, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2010-01-25, Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2010-01-25, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> I have used Linux since 1995. So I know a few things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are certainly good at hiding this fact. Perhaps you used
>>>>>> Linux once in 1995. It would certainly explain your rather dated
>>>>>> view on things.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I used it as my main OS since 1995 when I bought my first PC.
>>>
>>> You still sound like someone that hasn't used Linux since 1998.
>>
>> You have a preconceived notion as to how a "linux user" should sound
>> like.
>>
>> It is that notion of yours that needs to be corrected.
>
> My notion is fine. You're the idiot that should not be giving any
> advice or any comments that are relevant to desktop users. You simply
> don't understand the tools well enough and can't be bothered to find
> out. Nevermind how long you say you've used Linux or what you say you
> use.

It would appear to me, that you are resorting to insults in place of a
rational discussion.

You alleged that I am not really a Linux user.

I have proven to you that I am and demonstrated the duration on my
use.

And now you have nothing other than to resort to insults?

>>
>> I released my first GPLed program (GNU Stump) in 1996, one more
>> (Net::eBay perl module) in 2005. My linux based website algebra.com
>> has been operational since 2000.
>>
>>> Perhaps you should specifically avoid commenting about more modern
>>> forms of Linux and make sure you don't cross post in the fora for them.
>>
>> I use those "modern forms" and hate the bugs.
>
> Yes, those "bugs" that don't even include accurate nomenclature in the
> description and involve "mental blocks" that are so obvious to navigate
> around that it boggles the mind.
>

What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
and firefox not even exiting when asked?

It is, as I say, a bug in Ubuntu, a very annoying one and a perplexing
bug for new users.

I would like you to now acknowledge that I am right. Thanks

i

 

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
> news:hjk4bk$2ee$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856
>>>>>>>>>> <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:

[deletia]

>>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>>
>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>> 455 video cards in stock.
>>
>> 302 have single DVI.
>> 148 have dual DVI.
>> 5 have quad DVI.

Yes. Because what is available at NewEgg of course corresponds to
actual marketshare.

[rolls eyes]

[deletia]

--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hjk8t5$3s6$2@hadron.eternal-september.org...
>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> writes:
>>
>>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hjk4bk$2ee$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:

[deletia]

>>>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>>>> 455 video cards in stock.
>>>>
>>>> 302 have single DVI.
>>>> 148 have dual DVI.
>>>> 5 have quad DVI.
>>>>
>>>> Roughly 1 out of every 3 video cards is dual headed. Yet idiots like you
>>>> claim that these are not common.
>>>
>>> And if you eliminate the older video cards (PCI, AGP, etc) and just look
>>> at
>>> modern video cards - the number of dual-headed cards is closer to 50%.
>>>
>>> Just because you're still stuck using an 80-column green screen CRT
>>> doesn't
>>> mean that the rest of us haven't moved forward.
>>
>> Jed is clueless. Once more he makes amazing statements with ZERO clue as
>> to the real world. One can only hope he is nothing to do with SW design
>> or implementation.
>
> I can't help but wonder how many times JED is going to make these idiotic
> claims about dual-head video only to be proven wrong each and every time.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that some list of what's
available at NewEgg disproves my point? You Lemmings really are trapped
in a fantasy world of your own making.

> Even the dumbest of the dumb will eventually learn their mistake and STFU.
> But this guy seems to have memory retention of only a few days before he
> comes back and repeats his same stupid claims all over again.

So again. What will it cost the average Windows user to get themselves
a multi-head capable system? And no I won't buy your assinine claim that they
already have it. 9 out of 10 Windows users don't even know they can do such
a thing and very likely don't have a capable system.

The links posted from NewEgg only suggest possible answers to the
question. So what's that dollar amount. What will it take for the friends,
family and neighbors to bask in the glow of 2 monitors like all of you
Lemming gamer/developer posers?

--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[Alias]

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

>
> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
> and firefox not even exiting when asked?

I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.

>
> It is, as I say, a bug in Ubuntu, a very annoying one and a perplexing
> bug for new users.

Maybe it's a bug for you but my Firefox works flawlessly.

>
> I would like you to now acknowledge that I am right. Thanks
>
> i

I can't, in good conscience, do that.

--
Alias

 

[Ezekiel]

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnhlrdsv.unq.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
>> news:hjk4bk$2ee$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856
>>>>>>>>>>> <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>>>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>>>
>>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>>> 455 video cards in stock.
>>>
>>> 302 have single DVI.
>>> 148 have dual DVI.
>>> 5 have quad DVI.
>
> Yes. Because what is available at NewEgg of course corresponds to
> actual marketshare.
>
> [rolls eyes]
>

Which is orders of magnitude better than your little fantasy world where you
make empty claims without any sort of proof or evidence what-so-ever and
think your BS corresponds to actual marketshare.

ROFLMAO!!!!

 

[Hadron]

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
>> news:hjk4bk$2ee$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856
>>>>>>>>>>> <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>>>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>>>
>>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>>> 455 video cards in stock.
>>>
>>> 302 have single DVI.
>>> 148 have dual DVI.
>>> 5 have quad DVI.
>
> Yes. Because what is available at NewEgg of course corresponds to
> actual marketshare.
>
> [rolls eyes]
>
> [deletia]

You think it doesn't somehow relate? My god, you're denser than I first
surmised.

Hint : they sell things that people want to buy.

 

[Hadron]

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Hadron" <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hjk8t5$3s6$2@hadron.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> "Ezekiel" <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hjk4bk$2ee$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>
>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>>>>> news:slrnhlq7ci.nes.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 16:127 -0600, Ignoramus12856 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, Ignoramus12856
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:56:19 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2010-01-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 009:51 -0600, Ignoramus27518 wrote:
>
> [deletia]
>
>>>>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>>>>> 455 video cards in stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> 302 have single DVI.
>>>>> 148 have dual DVI.
>>>>> 5 have quad DVI.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roughly 1 out of every 3 video cards is dual headed. Yet idiots like you
>>>>> claim that these are not common.
>>>>
>>>> And if you eliminate the older video cards (PCI, AGP, etc) and just look
>>>> at
>>>> modern video cards - the number of dual-headed cards is closer to 50%.
>>>>
>>>> Just because you're still stuck using an 80-column green screen CRT
>>>> doesn't
>>>> mean that the rest of us haven't moved forward.
>>>
>>> Jed is clueless. Once more he makes amazing statements with ZERO clue as
>>> to the real world. One can only hope he is nothing to do with SW design
>>> or implementation.
>>
>> I can't help but wonder how many times JED is going to make these idiotic
>> claims about dual-head video only to be proven wrong each and every time.
>
> Are you actually stupid enough to think that some list of what's
> available at NewEgg disproves my point? You Lemmings really are trapped
> in a fantasy world of your own making.
>
>> Even the dumbest of the dumb will eventually learn their mistake and STFU.
>> But this guy seems to have memory retention of only a few days before he
>> comes back and repeats his same stupid claims all over again.
>
> So again. What will it cost the average Windows user to get themselves
> a multi-head capable system? And no I won't buy your assinine claim that they
> already have it. 9 out of 10 Windows users don't even know they can do such
> a thing and very likely don't have a capable system.

You have no idea how wrong you are. Even if 1 in ten Windows users have
it it's still more than us Linux users. Why you in such denial? You
sound like a lunatic.

>
> The links posted from NewEgg only suggest possible answers to the
> question. So what's that dollar amount. What will it take for the friends,
> family and neighbors to bask in the glow of 2 monitors like all of you
> Lemming gamer/developer posers?

Huh?

Most people already have a TV with s-video in for example. Thats how I
use it. So it cost, err, nothing using my Debian and NVIdia card. Its
the same for Windows users. had I wanted another monitor again no issue
as I have a HDI output there too. Cheap 17" lcd on ebay? What? 50 quid?

You must stop lashing out when you're shown, once more, to be a clueless
wanker.

 

[Ignoramus29432]

On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>
>>
>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>
> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.

Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?

Does sound still work?

i

 

[Alias]

Ignoramus29432 wrote:
> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>
>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>
> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>
> Does sound still work?
>
> i

No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
with FF, I close it. Do you get the sound back if you reboot? Have you
installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?

--
Alias

 

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ignoramus29432 <ignoramus29432@NOSPAM.29432.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> On 2010-01-25, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2010-01-25, Ignoramus12856 <ignoramus12856@NOSPAM.12856.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2010-01-25, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-24, Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have used Linux since 1995. So I know a few things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are certainly good at hiding this fact. Perhaps you used
>>>>>>> Linux once in 1995. It would certainly explain your rather dated
>>>>>>> view on things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used it as my main OS since 1995 when I bought my first PC.
>>>>
>>>> You still sound like someone that hasn't used Linux since 1998.
>>>
>>> You have a preconceived notion as to how a "linux user" should sound
>>> like.
>>>
>>> It is that notion of yours that needs to be corrected.
>>
>> My notion is fine. You're the idiot that should not be giving any
>> advice or any comments that are relevant to desktop users. You simply
>> don't understand the tools well enough and can't be bothered to find
>> out. Nevermind how long you say you've used Linux or what you say you
>> use.
>
> It would appear to me, that you are resorting to insults in place of a
> rational discussion.

I already detailed your ignorance.

[deletia]

Don't give advice to Windows refugees. You're simply out of your depth
and clearly unwilling to acknowlege this fact or remedy it.

Stick to giving advice to SunOS users.

--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnhlrc6s.8t6.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2010-01-25, Ezekiel <not-zeke@the-zeke.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>>> You won't even acknowledge the cost of an extra monitor.
>>>
>>> That cost of the extra monitor is less than buying a very large monitor.
>>> Or
>>
>> That's assuming that 9 out of 10 Windows user would buy the large
>> monitor.
>
> What 9 out of 10 Windows users would or wouldn't do has never been the issue
> until you just randomly introduced it into this thread.

I said typical.

Obviously that wasn't clear enough.


>>> to make this "simple math" for lemmings like you - one can get more
>>> resolution and screen real estate for less by using two cheaper monitors
>>> than one very expensive monitor.
>
>
>>>> No, dual headed cards are not typical.
>>>
>>> Easily proven to be false. Got to NewEgg.com where they have a total of
>>> 455
>>> video cards in stock.
>>
>> This is a geek computing store. What any random number extracted from
>> it may or may not have any particular significance.
>>
>> What I asked about was cost relative to what you can expect the
>> typical
>> Windows user to have. The fact that there a lot of upgrades available if
>> you
>> know what you are doing and try real hard really doesn't say much and
>> doesn't
>> answer the original question.
>>
>>>
>>> 302 have single DVI.
>>> 148 have dual DVI.
>>> 5 have quad DVI.
>>>
>>> Roughly 1 out of every 3 video cards is dual headed. Yet idiots like you
>>> claim that these are not common.
>>
>> You have no clue what those numbers mean.
>
> I know *exactly* what those numbers mean. What those numbers mean is that
> somewhere between 1/3rd to 1/2 of video cards being manufactured today have
> dual-head capability. It also means that as usual you and your idiotic

Nope. You don't understand math either.

> clueless claim of "dual headed cards are not typical" are completely wrong
> and out of touch with reality.
>
> Go back to your green-screen CRT Jed - the real world is too scary for you.

Repeating a lie won't make it true. It doesn't matter how much you
repeat it.

...and for the record: I am not the one that keeps on dredging this
crap up. It's you Lemmings that dredge this crap up with your lame attempt
at weak potshots.

--
If some college kid can replicate your "invention" without seeing |||
any of the details of your patent then you have been granted a patent / | \
on the "idea" and not the actual implementation.

 

[Ignoramus29432]

On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>
>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>
>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>
>> Does sound still work?
>
> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
> with FF, I close it.

That explains it.

I keep my computers on for months.

So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
problem or not.

> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?

Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
"killall firefox".

> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?

I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.

i

 

[Alias]

Ignoramus29432 wrote:
> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>>
>>> Does sound still work?
>> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
>> with FF, I close it.
>
> That explains it.
>
> I keep my computers on for months.
>
> So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
> not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
> problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
> problem or not.

I assume most people don't want to pay for electricity they aren't
using. I assumed wrongly in your case.

>
>> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?
>
> Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
> "killall firefox".
>
>> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?
>
> I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
> fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
> out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
>
> i

I've noticed the sound is better since the update.
--
Alias

 

[Hadron]

Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:

> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>>>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>>>
>>>> Does sound still work?
>>> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
>>> with FF, I close it.
>>
>> That explains it.
>>
>> I keep my computers on for months.
>>
>> So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
>> not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
>> problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
>> problem or not.
>
> I assume most people don't want to pay for electricity they aren't
> using. I assumed wrongly in your case.
>
>>
>>> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?
>>
>> Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
>> "killall firefox".
>>
>>> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?
>>
>> I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
>> fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
>> out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
>>
>> i
>
> I've noticed the sound is better since the update.

In what way "better"? Or how was it worse before the update? Please be
specific. You sound like a bullshitter fanboi like Marti to me.

 

[Alias]

Hadron wrote:
> Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>>>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>>>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>>>>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does sound still work?
>>>> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
>>>> with FF, I close it.
>>> That explains it.
>>>
>>> I keep my computers on for months.
>>>
>>> So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
>>> not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
>>> problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
>>> problem or not.
>> I assume most people don't want to pay for electricity they aren't
>> using. I assumed wrongly in your case.
>>
>>>> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?
>>> Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
>>> "killall firefox".
>>>
>>>> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?
>>> I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
>>> fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
>>> out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
>>>
>>> i
>> I've noticed the sound is better since the update.
>
> In what way "better"? Or how was it worse before the update? Please be
> specific. You sound like a bullshitter fanboi like Marti to me.
>

It sounds better. It's louder. I can't hear your sorry ass, though,
which is a good thing.

--
Alias

 

[Hadron]

Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:

> Hadron wrote:
>> Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>>>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>>>>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>>>>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>>>>>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does sound still work?
>>>>> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
>>>>> with FF, I close it.
>>>> That explains it.
>>>>
>>>> I keep my computers on for months.
>>>>
>>>> So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
>>>> not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
>>>> problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
>>>> problem or not.
>>> I assume most people don't want to pay for electricity they aren't
>>> using. I assumed wrongly in your case.
>>>
>>>>> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?
>>>> Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
>>>> "killall firefox".
>>>>
>>>>> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?
>>>> I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
>>>> fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
>>>> out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
>>>>
>>>> i
>>> I've noticed the sound is better since the update.
>>
>> In what way "better"? Or how was it worse before the update? Please be
>> specific. You sound like a bullshitter fanboi like Marti to me.
>>
>
> It sounds better. It's louder. I can't hear your sorry ass, though,
> which is a good thing.

How does it sounds better? Please define "better". Was it bad before?

 

[Alias]

Hadron wrote:
> Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2010-01-25, Alias <Alias@nospam.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ignoramus29432 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What exactly is the mental block about sound not working in firefox,
>>>>>>>>> and firefox not even exiting when asked?
>>>>>>>> I don't have that problem and I'm running Karmic.
>>>>>>> Do you ever leave your browser for an extended period of time, with
>>>>>>> sound from Flash having been used, and come back after, say, 24 hours?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does sound still work?
>>>>>> No, I never leave my computers on for that long and when I'm finished
>>>>>> with FF, I close it.
>>>>> That explains it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I keep my computers on for months.
>>>>>
>>>>> So when you say "I do not have that problem", keep in mind that you do
>>>>> not even use your system in the way that makes you exposed to this
>>>>> problem. In other words, you do not really know if you have that
>>>>> problem or not.
>>>> I assume most people don't want to pay for electricity they aren't
>>>> using. I assumed wrongly in your case.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you get the sound back if you reboot?
>>>>> Yes, in fact, I usually get the sound back if I kill firefox with
>>>>> "killall firefox".
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you installed the pulse audio updates that came out today?
>>>>> I am installing now, but I have not tried them yet. I hope that they
>>>>> fix this annoying issue. I will do a full reboot today and will try it
>>>>> out. I am skeptical, but hopeful.
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>> I've noticed the sound is better since the update.
>>> In what way "better"? Or how was it worse before the update? Please be
>>> specific. You sound like a bullshitter fanboi like Marti to me.
>>>
>> It sounds better. It's louder. I can't hear your sorry ass, though,
>> which is a good thing.
>
> How does it sounds better? Please define "better". Was it bad before?
>
>

No, it was fine before. Now it's better.

--
Alias