...to protect the ignorant and foolish we need to deny everyone.
Well not deny everyone exactly. You can always go out and buy an android tablet and tinker to your hearts content. PLUS it seems that jailbreaking iwhatsits isn't exactly challenging, and it certainly much easier than the 'hacking your microwave' example.
ps. Well I imagine that initial jailbreak is tricky enough, but they seem to package it up pretty nicely.
Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all that effectively
From your comments it seems that while this statement isn't detailed, it certainly isn't wrong.
So I'm not sure where you saw me revising history.
I'll tell you what I understand. People are human beings, and looking after people is not a bad thing. Money exists to facilitate the exchange of good and services from one human being to another. I don't believe that most people think they are owed jobs. And contrary to you I certainly don't believe that most people are idiots.
I don't know a great deal about economics, but I don't believe that anyone does. It appears to be a system quite beyond the control of any single person, or even any single country. I don't know much about the machinations of politics, but those few I know that are involved in politics are hardworking and honest people.
There is a casual throwaway cynicism in your post that I see very often in people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. This is highly unlikely to be the case.
Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all the effectively. You should try a more normal country, somewhere between the sociopathic conservatism of the US and whatever it is they actually had in the USSR. Most people in most countries in the world would consider a human right to shelter and food fairly reasonable. Or I'm just in incurable bleeding-heart liberal, which is very possible.
That may be true, but there is probably an order of magnitude fewer than there was ten or fifteen years ago. If people really want to sleep on the street there's not alot you can do about that, but for the majority who would wish a better life for themselves there is now a way out. I spoke to a homeless man a few years ago who was selling 'The Big Issue' at a railway station. I asked him his story, and it went like this: He fell asleep on a train one day, coming back from a days work as a carpenter. His tools, which were sitting at his feet, were stolen. Boom. Homeless. And I thought, there but for the grace of god, go I.
That's a bit mean. It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.
I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.
I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.
It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them.
I'm with you in general, but this statement does not bear examination. If you have a 'major' disaster then you're damn well going to need the government to come in and take care of you, or you're going to die. Clearly you should stock up food or whatever your particular area might require. But if the shit really hits the fan I don't think expecting some help from the government is all that unreasonable. After all, you've been helping them all this time by being (presumably) a good citizen and (again an assumption) paying your taxes etc.
c) Probably more dangerous because you're on the move rather than hiding under the table - which is a much safer place to be if something does happen. Especially if it's a nice solid old-school rural Italian table.
I live in Christchurch. We're pretty good with earthquakes here. And I'm telling you that the big earthquake that hit us last year and killed just over 180 people would have been just as deadly even if everyone had lived their lives by your cute little story. The reality of earthquakes is that sometimes they're heralded by a sequence of tremors, and sometimes they're not.
Christchurch is probably a good example here for another reason. We had two significant earthquakes, and I'm sure that for a while after the first one while the aftershocks were very common (multiple each day) people were very wary. But after a while you just have to get back to real life, and when six months later the deadly February earthquake struck the centre of the city was once again full of people. Many of those people died, and some of them were killed in their cars by falling masonry.
When the enquiry into what caused the collapse of so many buildings in February returns its findings, I am quite sure that some criminal action will be taken. Some of the collapsed building were declared safe but were in fact not.
My point is that living ones life by running out of the house every time you feel a tremor is a) Not an option for 90% of people . b) A complete waste of time.
People are dead in Italy because the buildings were not up to scratch. There is no other reason.
This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.
But you just burn the downloaded dmg to a dvd (before you install, because it gets deleted after) and you can install it on as many machines as you like.
What's strange is that even though I could have bought a copy & given it to all my friends, when it came to it we all bought our own copies. Maybe that was because the price was reasonable?
"I really dont see this requirement as anything different." That's because you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Don't mean to be mean, just stating a fact. There are multiple posts modded +5 informative that you need to go and read.
This thread should consist of the above post, and nothing else. I work in the GPS field, and the above is 100 percent absolutely spot on - and put much better than I possibly could.
I remember some metallica vinyl that a friend had back in the day, each side had a single track on it and the grooves were *miles* apart and wobbled side to side by what looked like a few millimeters. I bet that vinyl sounded fucking awesome, but being back in the day all we had was a cheap crap plastic stereo and it sounded a bit rubbish. Shame.
Your argument is flawed since if purchased media (CDs, DVDs, etc etc) followed any of the regular rules surrounding other types of things that we might buy, then we would be well within our rights to make as many copies of the media as we like and hand them out for free to our friends.
But we can't do that, because software producers insist that they are not *selling* us the media, but rather granting us a licence to *use* the media. And hence we believe, quite fairly in my opinion, that we are entitled to another copy at a nominal fee if we lose our original. And of course plenty of companies do honour that view, including those who don't deal in media at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Crikey, is that what happened with regular TV?
*clap*
...to protect the ignorant and foolish we need to deny everyone.
Well not deny everyone exactly. You can always go out and buy an android tablet and tinker to your hearts content.
PLUS it seems that jailbreaking iwhatsits isn't exactly challenging, and it certainly much easier than the 'hacking your microwave' example.
ps. Well I imagine that initial jailbreak is tricky enough, but they seem to package it up pretty nicely.
The fine metal mesh on the scalp thing sounds like 'The Tripods' - not sure about the rest of it though.
How kind.
Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all that effectively
From your comments it seems that while this statement isn't detailed, it certainly isn't wrong.
So I'm not sure where you saw me revising history.
I'll tell you what I understand. People are human beings, and looking after people is not a bad thing. Money exists to facilitate the exchange of good and services from one human being to another. I don't believe that most people think they are owed jobs. And contrary to you I certainly don't believe that most people are idiots.
I don't know a great deal about economics, but I don't believe that anyone does. It appears to be a system quite beyond the control of any single person, or even any single country. I don't know much about the machinations of politics, but those few I know that are involved in politics are hardworking and honest people.
There is a casual throwaway cynicism in your post that I see very often in people who believe themselves smarter than everyone else. This is highly unlikely to be the case.
Well I'm not sure the USSR did socialism all the effectively. You should try a more normal country, somewhere between the sociopathic conservatism of the US and whatever it is they actually had in the USSR. Most people in most countries in the world would consider a human right to shelter and food fairly reasonable. Or I'm just in incurable bleeding-heart liberal, which is very possible.
There is no such thing as a 'right' to THINGS, including right to food, shelter, medication, nothing.
Jesus do you Americans go to sociopath school or something? Are you all really this heartless?
That may be true, but there is probably an order of magnitude fewer than there was ten or fifteen years ago. If people really want to sleep on the street there's not alot you can do about that, but for the majority who would wish a better life for themselves there is now a way out. I spoke to a homeless man a few years ago who was selling 'The Big Issue' at a railway station. I asked him his story, and it went like this:
He fell asleep on a train one day, coming back from a days work as a carpenter.
His tools, which were sitting at his feet, were stolen.
Boom. Homeless.
And I thought, there but for the grace of god, go I.
If there's two and a half of you, then you might be telling the truth.
Get into microprocessor coding if you want to relive those old days. You can have your 512bytes of RAM and eat it too!
That's a bit mean. It's not the prosecution's story either, it belongs to whomever originally told it. It's clearly 'your' story from some point of view since you used it to illustrate your point.
I do not have 'complaints' about how people survive earthquakes. People die in earthquakes because of buildings, not because of seismologists. And it is a fact that running out of your house every time the earth shakes is not practical and is most assuredly dangerous.
I am not being stubborn. I am stating facts. Buildings that fall down kill people in earthquakes. Running out of your house is a bad idea. If the earthquake is large, then you can't run fast enough. And if it's small then there's no point running.
It's as bad as people who expect the government to come in after a major disaster and take care of them.
I'm with you in general, but this statement does not bear examination. If you have a 'major' disaster then you're damn well going to need the government to come in and take care of you, or you're going to die. Clearly you should stock up food or whatever your particular area might require. But if the shit really hits the fan I don't think expecting some help from the government is all that unreasonable. After all, you've been helping them all this time by being (presumably) a good citizen and (again an assumption) paying your taxes etc.
c) Probably more dangerous because you're on the move rather than hiding under the table - which is a much safer place to be if something does happen. Especially if it's a nice solid old-school rural Italian table.
I live in Christchurch. We're pretty good with earthquakes here. And I'm telling you that the big earthquake that hit us last year and killed just over 180 people would have been just as deadly even if everyone had lived their lives by your cute little story. The reality of earthquakes is that sometimes they're heralded by a sequence of tremors, and sometimes they're not.
Christchurch is probably a good example here for another reason. We had two significant earthquakes, and I'm sure that for a while after the first one while the aftershocks were very common (multiple each day) people were very wary. But after a while you just have to get back to real life, and when six months later the deadly February earthquake struck the centre of the city was once again full of people. Many of those people died, and some of them were killed in their cars by falling masonry.
When the enquiry into what caused the collapse of so many buildings in February returns its findings, I am quite sure that some criminal action will be taken. Some of the collapsed building were declared safe but were in fact not.
My point is that living ones life by running out of the house every time you feel a tremor is
a) Not an option for 90% of people .
b) A complete waste of time.
People are dead in Italy because the buildings were not up to scratch. There is no other reason.
This is a strange idea. Do you really thing people would have been sleeping in their cars if they'd been told that their houses were potentially unsafe? How long do you think they would do that for? A week? A year? That earthquake could have taken a decade to arrive, and unless someone is going to spend the billions of dollars required to re-inforce every weak building in the country, the problem isn't going anywhere. Also, sleeping in your car outside an unreinforced masonry building during an earthquake is just as much of a death-trap as sleeping inside.
By being default-enabled
Which improves security. App-store provided apps are less likely to contain malware.
requiring admin privileges to change
Which you'll have if you own the computer.
and no doubt coming with scary warnings about how you'll get hacked if you disable it.
Which is an unwarranted assumption.
But you just burn the downloaded dmg to a dvd (before you install, because it gets deleted after) and you can install it on as many machines as you like.
What's strange is that even though I could have bought a copy & given it to all my friends, when it came to it we all bought our own copies. Maybe that was because the price was reasonable?
"Never attribute to conspiracy that which may be explained by stupidity"
Look up correlation. You're not being dim, but you do have some (extremely interesting) things to learn about.
"I really dont see this requirement as anything different."
That's because you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. Don't mean to be mean, just stating a fact.
There are multiple posts modded +5 informative that you need to go and read.
This thread should consist of the above post, and nothing else. I work in the GPS field, and the above is 100 percent absolutely spot on - and put much better than I possibly could.
Only because you burnt everything down / blew everything up.
I remember some metallica vinyl that a friend had back in the day, each side had a single track on it and the grooves were *miles* apart and wobbled side to side by what looked like a few millimeters. I bet that vinyl sounded fucking awesome, but being back in the day all we had was a cheap crap plastic stereo and it sounded a bit rubbish. Shame.
Your argument is flawed since if purchased media (CDs, DVDs, etc etc) followed any of the regular rules surrounding other types of things that we might buy, then we would be well within our rights to make as many copies of the media as we like and hand them out for free to our friends.
But we can't do that, because software producers insist that they are not *selling* us the media, but rather granting us a licence to *use* the media. And hence we believe, quite fairly in my opinion, that we are entitled to another copy at a nominal fee if we lose our original. And of course plenty of companies do honour that view, including those who don't deal in media at all.
Shed analogy. Good call.
But what if you have the keys, but lose the shed? What then?