Slashdot posting a link within the context of a discussion for its readers is not malice or negligence.
Probably not malice, but why not negligence? If the massive volume of traffic from a Slashdot link overloads my little server and either runs up a large bill from my provider or causes a denial of service to the people who need it, wouldn't that be a form of negligence on the part of Slashdot? Of course it would. But it would be as ludicrous to sue Slashdot over that as it is to sue Nike over this.
This lawsuit is certainly frivolous. The ISP is out some cash, so they want to sue someone. The actual perpetrator is either inaccessable or not worth sueing, so Nike gets sued because they have deep pockets.
Try to look at it from his perspective: He sees NT as a perhaps buggy but certainly reliable system; a familiar quantity which he is somewhat knowledgable about. He sees Linux as an unfamiliar, mildly rebellious system which appears to be responsible for all of the problems in his way. The people who use Linux are elitists who are openly hostile to criticisms of Linux or any suggestion of using systems he is familiar with.
Clearly you're not going to win your battle for Linux by calling him a dope and trying to undermine his credibility with your research. Instead of being a snob and contributing to the universally bad image of Linux users, listen to what he says. Ask him real, non-hostile questions about his decision to use NT until either you are convinced that he has a good idea or he has discovered the faults in his logic.
Do you genuinely have no idea what I'm talking about, or are you just a troll? Carpooling is not the issue here at all! Re-read my last post and see if you can figure out what the issue actually is.
You still missed the point. Carpooling is just an example. If you can't carpool, you can't carpool. But if you don't carpool because it adds an extra 20 minutes to your trip or you don't like the way one of your coworkers smells, you're clearly choosing convenience over supporting the cause of energy efficiency. Since you don't seem to like this example let's try another: Most people will throw a glass bottle in a recycling bin if one is placed right next to a trash can, but a lot of people (myself included) will choose to just throw the bottle away if no recycling bin is provided. Of course we could hold onto it and throw it away when we find one, but environmentalism just isn't worth that.
O, and and I know another one: try shouting move left, jump and shoot at the same time to your computer when playing UT. That'll teach you... something.
You forget that a keyboard is also a suboptimal control system for computer games. Joystics and similar specifically designed controls provide a much easier to use interface than the kludge job of setting up a keyboard to control your gameplay.
If we have super-intelligent robots to do our programming for us, they won't be our slaves; they'll be our masters. Not that that will necessarily be a bad thing.
If you really cared about the environment, not just when it was convenient for you, you would quit whining and just deal with the problems inherrent in carpooling. You are living proof of the original poster's point.
The point here isn't carpooling specifically; it's that causes such as environmentalism and open source (radically different but similar in this respect) are, to most of us, only worth supporting when it's convenient. Recycling garbage takes a few minutes a week, but when you're talking about having to wake up half an hour earlier and share your car with other people, convenience is worth more than environmentalism. This is perfectly natural. After all, convenience is a strong motivator of invention.
There's nothing wrong with choosing convenience over a cause, but it's important to remember this part of human nature when looking at things like the open source movement. Of course a lot of people think that software should be open source, but does that mean they're going to drop their highly profitable closed-source programming jobs and start giving away code?
Yes, but like I said, the quote indicates strongly that they are merely recognizing the national, not international, aspects of the internet. For one thing, US law only applies in US territory, so the standards of godless foreign states would be moot.
Slashdot Mirror
Personal Dead-tree Assistant
That's why I skip breakfast and go directly to lunch.
No, it was a Tootsie Roll. Well, actually it was a Tootsie gob, but it was made of exactly the same substance.
Slashdot posting a link within the context of a discussion for its readers is not malice or negligence.
Probably not malice, but why not negligence? If the massive volume of traffic from a Slashdot link overloads my little server and either runs up a large bill from my provider or causes a denial of service to the people who need it, wouldn't that be a form of negligence on the part of Slashdot? Of course it would. But it would be as ludicrous to sue Slashdot over that as it is to sue Nike over this.
I think perhaps you're a little mistaken. Nike isn't being sued for "negligence". Nike is being sued for "having deep pockets".
This lawsuit is certainly frivolous. The ISP is out some cash, so they want to sue someone. The actual perpetrator is either inaccessable or not worth sueing, so Nike gets sued because they have deep pockets.
I remember eating them all the time!
Obviously not or you'd remember that Tootsie pops had Tootsie rolls in the center.
Try to look at it from his perspective: He sees NT as a perhaps buggy but certainly reliable system; a familiar quantity which he is somewhat knowledgable about. He sees Linux as an unfamiliar, mildly rebellious system which appears to be responsible for all of the problems in his way. The people who use Linux are elitists who are openly hostile to criticisms of Linux or any suggestion of using systems he is familiar with.
Clearly you're not going to win your battle for Linux by calling him a dope and trying to undermine his credibility with your research. Instead of being a snob and contributing to the universally bad image of Linux users, listen to what he says. Ask him real, non-hostile questions about his decision to use NT until either you are convinced that he has a good idea or he has discovered the faults in his logic.
t's amazing that there wasn't anything worse than the Apollo 13 accident
Unless you count Apollo 1, which burned up during a launch pad test, killing the entire crew.
It's called Nanodot - what would you expect them to use?
Wouldn't Yahoo users be more likely to use Yahoo mail than Hotmail?
Well. I can't think of a single reason for me to go on living.
Being number two and number three is a spectacular achievement, but your work here won't really be over until you get to number one!
so TLDs really aren't a part of it.
If not, the secret to domain squatting would be changing your name.
Wouldn't work. Someone would leak a simplified version.
Do you genuinely have no idea what I'm talking about, or are you just a troll? Carpooling is not the issue here at all! Re-read my last post and see if you can figure out what the issue actually is.
Name one useful feature that Word has that can't be done on Unix.
.doc files.
Word reads
Real programmers use sed.
Actually, real programmers use pif or mek. Only imaginary programmers use sed.
You still missed the point. Carpooling is just an example. If you can't carpool, you can't carpool. But if you don't carpool because it adds an extra 20 minutes to your trip or you don't like the way one of your coworkers smells, you're clearly choosing convenience over supporting the cause of energy efficiency. Since you don't seem to like this example let's try another: Most people will throw a glass bottle in a recycling bin if one is placed right next to a trash can, but a lot of people (myself included) will choose to just throw the bottle away if no recycling bin is provided. Of course we could hold onto it and throw it away when we find one, but environmentalism just isn't worth that.
What about holographic display? Virtual reality? Fractal video? After all, we are talking about the future...
O, and and I know another one: try shouting move left, jump and shoot at the same time to your computer when playing UT. That'll teach you... something.
You forget that a keyboard is also a suboptimal control system for computer games. Joystics and similar specifically designed controls provide a much easier to use interface than the kludge job of setting up a keyboard to control your gameplay.
If we have super-intelligent robots to do our programming for us, they won't be our slaves; they'll be our masters. Not that that will necessarily be a bad thing.
If you really cared about the environment, not just when it was convenient for you, you would quit whining and just deal with the problems inherrent in carpooling. You are living proof of the original poster's point.
The point here isn't carpooling specifically; it's that causes such as environmentalism and open source (radically different but similar in this respect) are, to most of us, only worth supporting when it's convenient. Recycling garbage takes a few minutes a week, but when you're talking about having to wake up half an hour earlier and share your car with other people, convenience is worth more than environmentalism. This is perfectly natural. After all, convenience is a strong motivator of invention.
There's nothing wrong with choosing convenience over a cause, but it's important to remember this part of human nature when looking at things like the open source movement. Of course a lot of people think that software should be open source, but does that mean they're going to drop their highly profitable closed-source programming jobs and start giving away code?
Yes, but like I said, the quote indicates strongly that they are merely recognizing the national, not international, aspects of the internet. For one thing, US law only applies in US territory, so the standards of godless foreign states would be moot.