It seems they simply charge outrageous markup on generic, mediocre Intel systems.
Heh... when you put it that way, it makes it sound like you're talking about Apple.
Anyway, to answer your question, what's special is that they're standing up to Apple's bullshit. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with their software (once I've paid for it), and it's about time their antics are put to a stop.
Well, is there any example of something coming out of nothing? Not as far as I know, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm under the impression that one of the fundamental rules of the universe is that you can never get something from nothing. It may come from very close to nothing, but is there an example that would lead us to believe that so much as one particle could come into being in a vacuum?
OK, but consider: if the point at the beginning is the furthest back, then that point existed forever. I'm not trying to say one must assume a prime mover, I'm saying either you assume that, or you assume the universe itself has existed forever. It obviously couldn't have come out of nothing, after all, so it must be eternal. But, if the universe is eternal, then it didn't begin with the big bang, it existed before that. Or do you feel that there's a third possibility in between "prime mover always was", and "universe always was"?
My point is that trying to pinpoint the origins of the universe falls apart, as at some point, you have to assume that something was always around. Either a deity who created it, or the universe itself... pick your poison, you still have to reach outside the realm of nice, concrete stuff. It's something which is firmly outside the scope of our understanding, so a question about how the universe began is a rather poor question.
I'm not trying to take a stab at the origins of the universe (honestly, I feel such a question is superfluous... we're here, that's what matters), merely saying why I feel the question is faulty.
Also, it's a terrible question. Let's just set aside all the debate above, and assume that the universe as we know it was set in motion by a big space boom. Even if that's true beyond a doubt, that isn't how the universe began. Something had to account for the universe being there, ready to explode. God? I don't know, I guess it's possible. The universe is eternal? Also possible, I guess. But all this shit can't have come out of nowhere, so the beginning of the universe was not with the big bang, but something outside our scope of understanding.
I would have refused to answer that question on the basis that it's extremely poorly worded.
I fail to see why we should be able to name the speaker of the house. I can't, but I know who my elected representatives are, and hold them accountable for their actions. Knowing who holds some position in Congress (that you have no control over, I might add) has nothing to do with being a responsible voter.
They do have little need to do any testing, but their difficulty in keeping it secret is no excuse whatsoever for not testing their shit. Your cult fanbase backfires sometimes? Oh, cry me a river. You still have to test your shit if you want happy customers, just like every other company on earth.
I most certainly am, and can personally attest that there is a very large portion of FUD in the anti-Vista hype. I even game on Vista, with no problems. People are pretty full of shit about Vista, in general.
The unnecessary communism remark aside, he's right. Some software company provided you the fruits of their labor under certain terms. Not violating those terms should obviously be normal, and a tool which makes it easier for you to ensure you're playing fair is, in fact, helpful. If you're agreeing to play by their rules, you have to make sure you aren't breaking them accidentally.
If I had to guess, I'd say this would be a perfectly acceptable use of the five interlocking rings: parody. IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.
You were doing something wrong with your Windows box then. I have almost never (either with my own machines or at work) seen a BSOD that wasn't caused by faulty hardware. It happens, but it's something that happens maybe once every couple of years per computer.
Yes, it does. I can't prove you wrong, but until we have evidence either way, we must concede that they may exist, even if we think it's likely that those entities don't exist. A negative assertion requires proof just as a positive assertion does. To claim otherwise is egregious intellectual dishonesty.
Goddamn it! For the last time, I do not believe in God! I am not trying to disprove your disbelief. I'm saying that putting forward either belief or disbelief requires proof if you expect others to accept your views. That's all!
First: I'm not telling you that Christianity is right in their view on disobedience to government, merely telling you that you're off-base. Second: I understand that the claim that there is a god must be proved, I'm just saying that, since the non-existence of a god must similarly be proved, I hold that the agnostics (which I count myself as) have the right idea here. You're allowed to believe in the nonexistence of God, just as Christians are allowed to believe in his existence. It's when one tries to spread their ideas to others that the burden of proof kicks in.
And you'd be surprised as to your qualifications compared to mine. I used to be a Christian (I stopped believing due to personal events which showed me that my belief was ill-placed), and I have a pretty good grasp of what Christians (or at least the ones I have associated with) believe and teach as a result. You may have better qualifications than me, I don't know, but if they are better, they aren't better by a lot.
Funny how our supposedly christian laws in the USA don't let you choose the 'devil made me do it' option when pleading before the courts.
I'm not even a Christian, but you obviously don't know much about Christianity. The New Testament explicitly says somewhere that you are accountable not only to God, but to the earthly authorities, because God put them there over you. I'm not trying to get into a lengthy argument about religion, but saying they don't believe in justice in our lifetime is ignorant. When the government's directives conflict with those of God's, that's the only time you're allowed to disobey the government. Until that point, you are obligated to obey both.
Until then, keep praying for me bro' because I know you need a hobby.
Did you even read this dude's post? He said he's agnostic. He doesn't believe in the existence or nonexistence of God. And for the record, he's right. Either side positively asserting their beliefs fails, because they lack proof. Saying that there is a God requires proof, but so does saying there definitely is no God.
In fact, they often like to play the game "hard to get" for a reason.
Yes: they're bitches. Nothing against women in general, but if you're not being honest about your intentions for a relationship (including whether to have one at all), you're just being cruel to the person on the other end.
I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination.
That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.
I don't want to run Apple's OS. I run either Windows or Linux, the superior operating systems on the market. That doesn't mean I don't think Apple is being a bunch of pricks by trying to dictate what machines their stuff can and can't be run on. Just because I think it's douchebaggery for someone to do something, doesn't mean I'm negatively affected by said douchebaggery.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems they simply charge outrageous markup on generic, mediocre Intel systems.
Heh... when you put it that way, it makes it sound like you're talking about Apple.
Anyway, to answer your question, what's special is that they're standing up to Apple's bullshit. They have no right to tell me what I can and can't do with their software (once I've paid for it), and it's about time their antics are put to a stop.
Well, is there any example of something coming out of nothing? Not as far as I know, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm under the impression that one of the fundamental rules of the universe is that you can never get something from nothing. It may come from very close to nothing, but is there an example that would lead us to believe that so much as one particle could come into being in a vacuum?
OK, but consider: if the point at the beginning is the furthest back, then that point existed forever. I'm not trying to say one must assume a prime mover, I'm saying either you assume that, or you assume the universe itself has existed forever. It obviously couldn't have come out of nothing, after all, so it must be eternal. But, if the universe is eternal, then it didn't begin with the big bang, it existed before that. Or do you feel that there's a third possibility in between "prime mover always was", and "universe always was"?
My point is that trying to pinpoint the origins of the universe falls apart, as at some point, you have to assume that something was always around. Either a deity who created it, or the universe itself... pick your poison, you still have to reach outside the realm of nice, concrete stuff. It's something which is firmly outside the scope of our understanding, so a question about how the universe began is a rather poor question.
I'm not trying to take a stab at the origins of the universe (honestly, I feel such a question is superfluous... we're here, that's what matters), merely saying why I feel the question is faulty.
Also, it's a terrible question. Let's just set aside all the debate above, and assume that the universe as we know it was set in motion by a big space boom. Even if that's true beyond a doubt, that isn't how the universe began. Something had to account for the universe being there, ready to explode. God? I don't know, I guess it's possible. The universe is eternal? Also possible, I guess. But all this shit can't have come out of nowhere, so the beginning of the universe was not with the big bang, but something outside our scope of understanding.
I would have refused to answer that question on the basis that it's extremely poorly worded.
I fail to see why we should be able to name the speaker of the house. I can't, but I know who my elected representatives are, and hold them accountable for their actions. Knowing who holds some position in Congress (that you have no control over, I might add) has nothing to do with being a responsible voter.
No. The fanbase merely got divided. That doesn't mean the franchise was lost.
They do have little need to do any testing, but their difficulty in keeping it secret is no excuse whatsoever for not testing their shit. Your cult fanbase backfires sometimes? Oh, cry me a river. You still have to test your shit if you want happy customers, just like every other company on earth.
I most certainly am, and can personally attest that there is a very large portion of FUD in the anti-Vista hype. I even game on Vista, with no problems. People are pretty full of shit about Vista, in general.
Yeah, so that justifies taking it. Totally. Just like when I go to Wal-Mart, and see goods I feel are overpriced, I'm justified in taking them too!
The unnecessary communism remark aside, he's right. Some software company provided you the fruits of their labor under certain terms. Not violating those terms should obviously be normal, and a tool which makes it easier for you to ensure you're playing fair is, in fact, helpful. If you're agreeing to play by their rules, you have to make sure you aren't breaking them accidentally.
The Chinese government would do better by its citizens by massacring these bastards. ... I wish our society was as evolved.
Yes. Massacring people is an extremely enlightened and evolved thing to do. Idiot.
If I had to guess, I'd say this would be a perfectly acceptable use of the five interlocking rings: parody. IANAL, of course... but if what these guys did isn't protected, it damn well should be. The IOC can go fuck themselves if they don't like it.
You were doing something wrong with your Windows box then. I have almost never (either with my own machines or at work) seen a BSOD that wasn't caused by faulty hardware. It happens, but it's something that happens maybe once every couple of years per computer.
I pay Apple alot of money to ensure no BSODs.
No, you pay them a lot of money for "ooh shiney".
Jeez. MS apologists always trot out that one.
No, people who are reasonable and levelheaded always trot out that one.
Yes, it does. I can't prove you wrong, but until we have evidence either way, we must concede that they may exist, even if we think it's likely that those entities don't exist. A negative assertion requires proof just as a positive assertion does. To claim otherwise is egregious intellectual dishonesty.
And what, exactly, is your point?
Goddamn it! For the last time, I do not believe in God! I am not trying to disprove your disbelief. I'm saying that putting forward either belief or disbelief requires proof if you expect others to accept your views. That's all!
First: I'm not telling you that Christianity is right in their view on disobedience to government, merely telling you that you're off-base. Second: I understand that the claim that there is a god must be proved, I'm just saying that, since the non-existence of a god must similarly be proved, I hold that the agnostics (which I count myself as) have the right idea here. You're allowed to believe in the nonexistence of God, just as Christians are allowed to believe in his existence. It's when one tries to spread their ideas to others that the burden of proof kicks in.
And you'd be surprised as to your qualifications compared to mine. I used to be a Christian (I stopped believing due to personal events which showed me that my belief was ill-placed), and I have a pretty good grasp of what Christians (or at least the ones I have associated with) believe and teach as a result. You may have better qualifications than me, I don't know, but if they are better, they aren't better by a lot.
Funny how our supposedly christian laws in the USA don't let you choose the 'devil made me do it' option when pleading before the courts.
I'm not even a Christian, but you obviously don't know much about Christianity. The New Testament explicitly says somewhere that you are accountable not only to God, but to the earthly authorities, because God put them there over you. I'm not trying to get into a lengthy argument about religion, but saying they don't believe in justice in our lifetime is ignorant. When the government's directives conflict with those of God's, that's the only time you're allowed to disobey the government. Until that point, you are obligated to obey both.
Until then, keep praying for me bro' because I know you need a hobby.
Did you even read this dude's post? He said he's agnostic. He doesn't believe in the existence or nonexistence of God. And for the record, he's right. Either side positively asserting their beliefs fails, because they lack proof. Saying that there is a God requires proof, but so does saying there definitely is no God.
In fact, they often like to play the game "hard to get" for a reason.
Yes: they're bitches. Nothing against women in general, but if you're not being honest about your intentions for a relationship (including whether to have one at all), you're just being cruel to the person on the other end.
I don't know how many people I've seen get knocked down at work, or turned down by women and not get back up. It's the people who throw themselves at things against the odds and keeps fighting that truly captures the imagination.
That's giving up hope. Learning from your mistakes would be getting turned down by a woman, analyzing what might have led to that outcome, and trying to fix it.
Click on the "Score: 1" link. They were both modded both up and down. I consider that fair, because both are amusing, but also flamebait. ;)
I don't want to run Apple's OS. I run either Windows or Linux, the superior operating systems on the market. That doesn't mean I don't think Apple is being a bunch of pricks by trying to dictate what machines their stuff can and can't be run on. Just because I think it's douchebaggery for someone to do something, doesn't mean I'm negatively affected by said douchebaggery.