No, he'll probably turn a lot of people off if he does that. I'm a tech-inclined guy myself, and that sounds boring as hell, so I can only imagine what someone without a predisposition toward the subject matter will think.
I remember hearing this about Vista, pre-launch as well.
Well, not only was that true, but Vista was not (and is not) even 1/4 as bad as the anti-fanboys proclaim. I've been using it on my new computer I built around the time I came out, and while it definitely isn't worth upgrading to at all, there's nothing actually wrong with it. It works fine.
It sank into the swamp, so I built a second one. That sank into the swamp, so I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp! But the fourth one stayed up!!
The fact that some immoral acts are tolerated by society doesn't mean that we should tolerate all immoral acts. It means we should strive to outlaw the immoral acts which are tolerated.
Furthermore, I'd love to see abortions prosecuted, but since a lot of people feel we should place the arbitrary transition of "no rights" to "has rights" at birth, I don't think it'll happen any time soon, if it happens in my lifetime at all. But that's getting off onto an off-topic tangent.
No, you merely have to participate in a war. However, I never suggested the telcos should stand trial for war crimes. I'm suggesting that they should stand trial for crimes of the mundane variety, and also suggesting that even if the actions they took were wholly legal, they were still immoral as hell, thus, their actions are not excusable no matter how legal.
"Not only is this illegal, but its also wrong to invade privacy like that. No." Government definitely doesn't listen and/or just ignores what the telecoms want from the FCC later down the road. Public gets mad when government is all like "Hey, we asked for help against these terrorists but [BIG TELCO] said 'No.'" Telcos are bad guys.
So, when someone might make me look bad if I don't murder someone for them, that absolves me of murder? No. Illegal is illegal, wrong is wrong, despite whatever cost it may have if you uphold those standards. No matter what kind of pressure they were under, the telcos are still responsible for their actions.
The Nuremberg example has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with morality. The actions of the Nazis were legal in Germany at the time, but they were still heinous and wrong. Similarly, while the government may have told the telecoms that their acts were legal (which they may not even have been, because although IANAL, I would say that widespread warrantless wiretapping is in violation of the Constitution), that does not necessarily have bearing on whether the acts were wrong and should be punished.
That's a form of protecting your data, dude. Look, I'm not saying RAID is the only step you need to take, but let's not sell it shorter than we need to. It does protect your data, just not in every possible scenario.
I don't know what you're talking about. MacOS 9 context switches the menus just the same as OSX...
Huh? I guess maybe they fixed it in Mac OS 9 then, but I know for a fact that there was a version of Mac OS where you switched the active menu with a drop-down menu on the right side of the menu bar. It might not have been in 9 (although I could've swore it was), but it drove me insane, especially because I had to support that badly designed GUI at work.
At any rate, Mac OS 9 wasn't a contemporary of Windows 3.0, it was a contemporary of Windows 9x... and yes, I do hold those versions of Windows in much higher regard (well, as far as UI design goes anyway) due to the menu bar difference.
That, and it has the worst user interface ever to grace an OS. I don't know whose idea it was to not only have a single menu bar for the entire system (a UI mistake Apple insists on carrying on to this day), but also have the menu that is up be unrelated to the window which has focus. At least in OS X, though I still disagree with the one-menu philosophy, they have the good sense to switch the menu to that of whichever window is being used. Whoever put that drop-down menu-bar-switch menu in OS 9 (and predecessors, I imagine... I only single out OS 9 because it's the earliest I used) has a special place in hell.
But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.
Bzzzzt. Wrong! In fact, I think that what the government did to Turing was detestable and wrong. And it would have some meaning to apologize, if the apology came from the men/women who wronged him. It's meaningless for someone who did no wrong to apologize for something someone else did. It's even more meaningless when the apology is to someone who is dead, and therefore won't care a bit if the apology is ever rendered. The apology isn't even a valid one. You have to at least have done wrong to apologize for it. If I apologize to a murder victim's family for the murder, it is utterly without meaning. The man who did the murder has to apologize for it. Similarly, the men and women who wronged Turing are the ones who must apologize, not an innocent third party.
Further, even if it was a valid apology, symbols are highly overrated at best. Dr. Manhattan put it well in the Watchmen movie when he remarked that a symbolic doomsday clock had as much value as a picture of air given to a drowning man. Symbols change nothing. They never have, and never will (the idea that is symbolized can be very powerful, and change much... but the idea would have done so with or without the symbol).
Games could always get away without having a decent plot, just as they can today, so I don't think much has changed there. I mean, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Doom, or Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros had great plots, and those were all classic games.
I also wouldn't say that there's a lack of plot in games today. Lots of games are still about telling a great story (RPGs, Heavy Rain, the Halo series, Bioshock) just as much as they are about fun gameplay. There are still both games with and without great plot, just as there were in years gone by.
I get so tired of the extra effort it takes to keep her system running. Damnit, we paid *extra* for Microsoftt software, we paid *extra* for many of the programs she depends on. My workstations are so much less labor-intensive and get so much more work done...
Let's be fair. The problem (no offense) is just as much your wife as it is her system, if not more. If you were using the same system, you would have few issues, if any, because you'd be more conscious of what you do on there. The many techies who successfully run clean Windows installs (of which I am one) are living proof of this. The biggest security flaw in every system is the user, and even in an OS with perfect security, there will still be virus-laden machines. We'll never see the day where all users care enough to learn to tell when something is a legit program, and when it's malware posing as a legit program.
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
Why is a game where the main strategy is "pray I get the roll I need" considering such a great game by American?
Because people (gasp!) enjoy it.
People buy a new edition, play it once, remember how much it sucks and put it on the shelf for the cycle to repeat in 5-10 years.
Or not. I play games of Monopoly with friends and family reasonably often, and we always have fun. Remember, just because you think it sucks, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Well said, thank you. I'm not myself Christian, but I am endlessly frustrated with the cesspool of intolerance that exists both in secular and Christian circles. It is completely possible to be very opposed to a belief someone holds, yet still maintain a genuinely positive relationship with them. My brother is a very big believer in Christianity, and as a result, we accept that there are things which we simply do not see eye to eye on, and never will. However, we maintain a close relationship by setting aside our differences, focusing on our common points, and treating each other with respect in spite of the fact that each of us believes the other to be wrong.
As you so succinctly said: "It's called tolerance, and it's really not that hard."
The Bible actually very pointedly says that anyone who breaks any of its commands, even the smallest, is considered by God to be guilty of breaking all the commands. In other words, we're all equally guilty in the eyes of God. Many Christians seem to either not know or not care about this, but it is there.
That corporation is still on the hook as an organization, even though none of the individuals within it was responsible.
I completely disagree. An organization is only responsible for an act to the extent that a) the act is still ongoing, and b) those who perpetrated the act are still part of the organization. An organization is merely a group of people... saying they are somehow magically responsible for things those people didn't do is nonsense.
Broadband isn't anything like those other two categories. Indoor plumbing doesn't need any infrastructure, as it's entirely within your house. Electricity is one of those things which is so crucial that we'd be subsidizing the shit out of it to get it to those who don't have it (much like we did with basic phone lines). Broadband is neither self-contained, nor in any way critical. It isn't in the same ballpark, the same league, or even the same sport.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he'll probably turn a lot of people off if he does that. I'm a tech-inclined guy myself, and that sounds boring as hell, so I can only imagine what someone without a predisposition toward the subject matter will think.
I remember hearing this about Vista, pre-launch as well.
Well, not only was that true, but Vista was not (and is not) even 1/4 as bad as the anti-fanboys proclaim. I've been using it on my new computer I built around the time I came out, and while it definitely isn't worth upgrading to at all, there's nothing actually wrong with it. It works fine.
You mean 1 in base pi, or 10 in base sqrt(pi).
</wetblanket>
Their houseboat *burned down then sank*.
It sank into the swamp, so I built a second one. That sank into the swamp, so I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp! But the fourth one stayed up!!
The fact that some immoral acts are tolerated by society doesn't mean that we should tolerate all immoral acts. It means we should strive to outlaw the immoral acts which are tolerated.
Furthermore, I'd love to see abortions prosecuted, but since a lot of people feel we should place the arbitrary transition of "no rights" to "has rights" at birth, I don't think it'll happen any time soon, if it happens in my lifetime at all. But that's getting off onto an off-topic tangent.
Whoosh!
No, you merely have to participate in a war. However, I never suggested the telcos should stand trial for war crimes. I'm suggesting that they should stand trial for crimes of the mundane variety, and also suggesting that even if the actions they took were wholly legal, they were still immoral as hell, thus, their actions are not excusable no matter how legal.
"Not only is this illegal, but its also wrong to invade privacy like that. No." Government definitely doesn't listen and/or just ignores what the telecoms want from the FCC later down the road. Public gets mad when government is all like "Hey, we asked for help against these terrorists but [BIG TELCO] said 'No.'" Telcos are bad guys.
So, when someone might make me look bad if I don't murder someone for them, that absolves me of murder? No. Illegal is illegal, wrong is wrong, despite whatever cost it may have if you uphold those standards. No matter what kind of pressure they were under, the telcos are still responsible for their actions.
The Nuremberg example has nothing to do with legality. It has to do with morality. The actions of the Nazis were legal in Germany at the time, but they were still heinous and wrong. Similarly, while the government may have told the telecoms that their acts were legal (which they may not even have been, because although IANAL, I would say that widespread warrantless wiretapping is in violation of the Constitution), that does not necessarily have bearing on whether the acts were wrong and should be punished.
That's a form of protecting your data, dude. Look, I'm not saying RAID is the only step you need to take, but let's not sell it shorter than we need to. It does protect your data, just not in every possible scenario.
I don't know what you're talking about. MacOS 9 context switches the menus just the same as OSX...
Huh? I guess maybe they fixed it in Mac OS 9 then, but I know for a fact that there was a version of Mac OS where you switched the active menu with a drop-down menu on the right side of the menu bar. It might not have been in 9 (although I could've swore it was), but it drove me insane, especially because I had to support that badly designed GUI at work.
At any rate, Mac OS 9 wasn't a contemporary of Windows 3.0, it was a contemporary of Windows 9x... and yes, I do hold those versions of Windows in much higher regard (well, as far as UI design goes anyway) due to the menu bar difference.
That, and it has the worst user interface ever to grace an OS. I don't know whose idea it was to not only have a single menu bar for the entire system (a UI mistake Apple insists on carrying on to this day), but also have the menu that is up be unrelated to the window which has focus. At least in OS X, though I still disagree with the one-menu philosophy, they have the good sense to switch the menu to that of whichever window is being used. Whoever put that drop-down menu-bar-switch menu in OS 9 (and predecessors, I imagine... I only single out OS 9 because it's the earliest I used) has a special place in hell.
But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.
Bzzzzt. Wrong! In fact, I think that what the government did to Turing was detestable and wrong. And it would have some meaning to apologize, if the apology came from the men/women who wronged him. It's meaningless for someone who did no wrong to apologize for something someone else did. It's even more meaningless when the apology is to someone who is dead, and therefore won't care a bit if the apology is ever rendered. The apology isn't even a valid one. You have to at least have done wrong to apologize for it. If I apologize to a murder victim's family for the murder, it is utterly without meaning. The man who did the murder has to apologize for it. Similarly, the men and women who wronged Turing are the ones who must apologize, not an innocent third party.
Further, even if it was a valid apology, symbols are highly overrated at best. Dr. Manhattan put it well in the Watchmen movie when he remarked that a symbolic doomsday clock had as much value as a picture of air given to a drowning man. Symbols change nothing. They never have, and never will (the idea that is symbolized can be very powerful, and change much... but the idea would have done so with or without the symbol).
Games could always get away without having a decent plot, just as they can today, so I don't think much has changed there. I mean, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Doom, or Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros had great plots, and those were all classic games.
I also wouldn't say that there's a lack of plot in games today. Lots of games are still about telling a great story (RPGs, Heavy Rain, the Halo series, Bioshock) just as much as they are about fun gameplay. There are still both games with and without great plot, just as there were in years gone by.
I get so tired of the extra effort it takes to keep her system running. Damnit, we paid *extra* for Microsoftt software, we paid *extra* for many of the programs she depends on. My workstations are so much less labor-intensive and get so much more work done...
Let's be fair. The problem (no offense) is just as much your wife as it is her system, if not more. If you were using the same system, you would have few issues, if any, because you'd be more conscious of what you do on there. The many techies who successfully run clean Windows installs (of which I am one) are living proof of this. The biggest security flaw in every system is the user, and even in an OS with perfect security, there will still be virus-laden machines. We'll never see the day where all users care enough to learn to tell when something is a legit program, and when it's malware posing as a legit program.
Exactly like those, in fact. Meaningless, useless, and arguably immoral.
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
Why is a game where the main strategy is "pray I get the roll I need" considering such a great game by American?
Because people (gasp!) enjoy it.
People buy a new edition, play it once, remember how much it sucks and put it on the shelf for the cycle to repeat in 5-10 years.
Or not. I play games of Monopoly with friends and family reasonably often, and we always have fun. Remember, just because you think it sucks, doesn't mean everyone else does.
Well said, thank you. I'm not myself Christian, but I am endlessly frustrated with the cesspool of intolerance that exists both in secular and Christian circles. It is completely possible to be very opposed to a belief someone holds, yet still maintain a genuinely positive relationship with them. My brother is a very big believer in Christianity, and as a result, we accept that there are things which we simply do not see eye to eye on, and never will. However, we maintain a close relationship by setting aside our differences, focusing on our common points, and treating each other with respect in spite of the fact that each of us believes the other to be wrong.
As you so succinctly said: "It's called tolerance, and it's really not that hard."
The Bible actually very pointedly says that anyone who breaks any of its commands, even the smallest, is considered by God to be guilty of breaking all the commands. In other words, we're all equally guilty in the eyes of God. Many Christians seem to either not know or not care about this, but it is there.
That corporation is still on the hook as an organization, even though none of the individuals within it was responsible.
I completely disagree. An organization is only responsible for an act to the extent that a) the act is still ongoing, and b) those who perpetrated the act are still part of the organization. An organization is merely a group of people... saying they are somehow magically responsible for things those people didn't do is nonsense.
You haven't actually seen a septic system, have you? They drain away from your yard for a reason.
Not by magic, but there is such a thing as a well, and a septic system. You don't need a sewer, or city-run water to have indoor plumbing.
Most WoW players don't spend 40+ hours a week in the game.
Broadband isn't anything like those other two categories. Indoor plumbing doesn't need any infrastructure, as it's entirely within your house. Electricity is one of those things which is so crucial that we'd be subsidizing the shit out of it to get it to those who don't have it (much like we did with basic phone lines). Broadband is neither self-contained, nor in any way critical. It isn't in the same ballpark, the same league, or even the same sport.