I'd like to e-buy you an e-drink. Perhaps on E-Bay? (Sorry, friday, plus i'm a little hyped up today. The B-Flat song on NPR this morning put me in a goofy mood)
You're completely right. I use the "Administrative Stuff" dialog box in OSX all the time. As you know, "Administrative Stuff" is a very complex field of stuff that, surprisingly, is Administered.
I disagree, though, about Windows. Windows has an excellent "Administrative Stuff" control panel. It qualifies in both regards. It is both administrative, and stuff.
I'm proud that you learned something from Wikipedia, but you should probably go read the article again. A straw-man is a specific type of fallacious attack. The comment I posted does not, in fact, qualify.
What I _love_ is that if I posted this same comment but f/r "vista" with "OSX," My karma would be burned to the ground and I'd be run out of town with a screaming mob of fanboys with pitchforks and torches, heaving exploding sony batteries at me....Just an observation...
Contracts covered under the Uniform Commercial Code are not subject to contract common-law provisions such as mutual consideration and/or detriment-benefit consideration.
But again, IANAL. If you are, then you'd certainly be more informed about this stuff than I am.
"it can be argued that the customer agreed to pay for one of those boxed sets."
Well, it could be argued that Jeff Bezos was the second gunman on the grassy knoll but that doesn't mean it's actually true.
In reality, though, every shopping cart that I've ever used or developed has a step, after shipping and tax is calculated, where the user is asked to confirm their purchase and authorize the sale. A similar step occurs in offline-processing, where the full amount is shown on the screen and you are asked to confirm, by either swiping your card and entering your pin, or by signing the receipt.
THIS is the step where you agree to the price and accept the terms. You couldn't possible agree and confirm a price before this step because it wouldn't include shipping/taxes.
And while IANAL, I believe that at this step, Amazon is responsible for their own mistake. They showed the user a price. The user was given a chance to say confirm his order and authorize charges. He did so.
This is a contract, it's been digitally signed.
Amazon is trying to make it so their mistake costs them nothing. That's certainly a nice fuzzy warm thing to think about, but in the real world, there is a price to pay for mistakes.
1. Non-Telco-ISPs and cable companies are not, and never have been, Common Carriers 2. Non-Telco-ISPs and cable companies DO NOT WANT TO BE common carriers. 3. ISPs are protected by the Good Samaritan provisions of the Communications Decency Act. THIS is what protects them from liability, NOT common carrier status.
1. I've never been on Second Life, I don't know much about it, I don't care about it, but 650k people isn't exactly tiny. New Hampshire has just over 1MM, for example.
2. The whole brouhaha about "OMG Edwards Is a Millionaire" is just ridiculously stupid. Here's a clue: Every Presidential Candidate that ran since Truman, or maybe Eisenhower, was a Millionaire. Yes, being a millionaire makes it more likely you'd know the kind of people you need to know to finance a run for President, but also, the type of people that are qualified to be President are smart and savvy enough to make money in our economy.
3. What you can hope for is that they weren't RAISED a millionaire. That they've lived a life closer to that of an average American. Edwards qualifies here. So does Obama. And actually, we've had a lot of people from humble beginnings make it to the White House in the last century. Including Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, and Truman.
This is long past due. I'm very liberal but I also think that a government shouldn't make laws that encroach personal freedom unless it's something that's affecting the personal freedoms of others.
I used to use my cell while driving and I used to balk at the idea of legislating it.
But over the past 5 years--as cell phones have exploded--I have noticed a remarkable correlation between drivers that, as i approach them, I think "what the fuck is this guy doing?" and, as I pass them, I notice they're using the cell phone.
This phenomena manifests itself in 3 basic ways:
1. A left-lane-Roadblock who's moving nicely along takes a call and, within the first minute or two, slows from 10+ MPH over the limit down to the limit or even BELOW the limit, without necessarily realizing it, getting over, or noticing the line of pissed off people behind him.
2. The Last-Minute-Switcher that, despite being a lifelong resident, drives like a tourist. He realizes at the last possible second that he needs to cross 5 lines of traffic and exit.
3. The Pace-Car, very similar to the Left-Lane-Roadblock, except the Pace Car Driver can be in any lane and, sometimes, more than one lane at a given time.
And I'm sure they'd just jump at your request..... Oh please. I wish I had your life where worrying about a custom DNS error message was worth so much of my time.
1. You basically agreed to my point in your first post. I quote:
<quote><p><blockquote> <div><i>Declaring a winner based on a single months' worth of statistics (especially at this early point when both formats are in their infancy) is utterly idiotic</i></div> </blockquote>True.
However, it can be used as a tool to gage the trend to try to predict WHERE the winning format will fall.</quote>
2. The article you're quoting is actually the article attached to ANOTHER slashdot post that's linked to from this one. Furthermore, the quote you posted "After over six months of head-to-head combat, we finally have an all-inclusive independent yardstick..." DOES NOT SAY that six months of data have been released. It merely says that after six months WITHOUT data, we have been given some. If you'd have read ANYTHING but the lede, you'd have realized that the "data" was only TWO WEEKS WORTH.
Now, since I just completely owned your ass, I'm certain you won't reply, but keep yawning moron.
In other words, it said "Upgrade and you won't have to sit thru any of this shit!"
I saw it, too. it's for HD.
The bitch is that you KNOW they could do that with standard DVD. Like the extra 30GB of storage somehow unlocks the ability to immediately begin playing the move as soon as you spin the disk.
OK, I'm done with this. No offense, but you're making circular arguments.
I got as far as your first line, then I had to stop.
How, exactly, are you separating "Commander in Chief" from "President?" You've essentially made my point for me, even if you don't think you have. The President _is_ the Commander in Chief. It's the entire package--Commander in Chief included--that makes him, as I've said a dozen times, the most powerful 'legislator' in the federal government. Your opening sentence is basically "Ooohh, wait, it's not the PRESIDENT that's so important that Congress will capitulate to him, it's the COMMANDER IN CHIEF." _ITS THE SAME GUY_ I know that you know that, but, as I've said, you've departed from your original point and now it seems like you're just spinning wheels to avoid conceding anything. Yawn.
It used to be a running joke whenever anyone would predict that Apple would go out of business in the next 6/12/18/etc months. It was predicted so many times that it became a gag.
Funny thing is that such predictions are made about Microsoft daily at/. without even the hint of irony.
I'm not staking a claim on either side of the debate, but the whole "X will be a MSFT Killer" is a huge/. cliche.
Well, as I've said, in theory, you're right, but in practice, not so much.
Look at the reality of things. Right now we have the weakest President since post-watergate Nixon. And even now, neither house of Congress has passed a resolution against his incredibly unpopular war. Why do you think that is? The kindness of their hearts? It's the political power of the presidency.
Furthermore, the anecdote i mentioned--sitting 12 hours for a photo-op with Bush--happens every year, and it also happened this year. He's got basically NO approval of the people, yet many congressmen still literally LINE UP just for a chance to be seen with him on national television.
The power of the presidency is far greater than you give it credit for. You may "wish" that were not the case, but wishing doesn't make it so. There are times when the Executive branch and the Legislative branch engage in a game of political chicken, but those tactics are far from common.
You still seem to equate the power of a legislator to be his single vote. This is silly. Furthermore, you claim that a Representative can "force an issue to the floor" It should be noted that, technically, you're wrong there as well. An individual SENATOR can, but not a Representative. But that's really beside the point. An individual vote in congress is usually meaningless. It's the power of persuasion, coaltion building, and mandate.
And come on, if the legislature cannot censure an unpopular president for a wildly unpopular war, where do you draw your belief that the Legislature is so powerful and willing to buck the wishes of the Executive?
Furthermore, your contention in your OP was that the President is less powerful than even a single legislator. This is what I found laughable and that is the idea that started this debate.
And I don't mean to make this personal, but when you say things like "constituents will judge their choices as their representation to the republic" it just makes you look hopelessly naive. It's honestly like you took a Government Theory class and thought it was actually The Way Things Work. Have you not been following American politics for the past, say, 20 years?
The argument you're making in this post--and I one that I agree with--is that the President is not more powerful than ALL of the congressmen combined. This is a departure from your original point that the President is less powerful than a SINGLE congressmen. And it's also different than my point that the President is more powerful than any SINGLE legislator.
And it's inside the space created by your two different view points that I agree with you. That is why Bush had is Social Security agenda dropped. That is why Clinton had his healthcare agenda dropped. And that is why it was such a big deal when the Democrats took control of the congress.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to e-buy you an e-drink. Perhaps on E-Bay? (Sorry, friday, plus i'm a little hyped up today. The B-Flat song on NPR this morning put me in a goofy mood)
I'm sorry you feel it's condescending that I pointed out that you were wrong.
But you were.
I'm not here to coddle you.
Or is this another "straw man?"
You're completely right. I use the "Administrative Stuff" dialog box in OSX all the time. As you know, "Administrative Stuff" is a very complex field of stuff that, surprisingly, is Administered.
I disagree, though, about Windows. Windows has an excellent "Administrative Stuff" control panel. It qualifies in both regards. It is both administrative, and stuff.
No, I merely made two observations. You ask my point. I didn't try to make one.
You're the one that's gotten rabid, using foul language, and, ironically, straw-man'ing ME.
You've got serious negativity issues. I'd work on that.
In other words:
In your unqualified opinion, some OS used by about 38 people worldwide is much better than the competition.
Very compelling, really.
Any more ground-breaking pronouncements for us?
I'm proud that you learned something from Wikipedia, but you should probably go read the article again. A straw-man is a specific type of fallacious attack. The comment I posted does not, in fact, qualify.
Sorry. Try again.
What I _love_ is that if I posted this same comment but f/r "vista" with "OSX," My karma would be burned to the ground and I'd be run out of town with a screaming mob of fanboys with pitchforks and torches, heaving exploding sony batteries at me. ...Just an observation...
Contracts covered under the Uniform Commercial Code are not subject to contract common-law provisions such as mutual consideration and/or detriment-benefit consideration.
But again, IANAL. If you are, then you'd certainly be more informed about this stuff than I am.
"it can be argued that the customer agreed to pay for one of those boxed sets."
Well, it could be argued that Jeff Bezos was the second gunman on the grassy knoll but that doesn't mean it's actually true.
In reality, though, every shopping cart that I've ever used or developed has a step, after shipping and tax is calculated, where the user is asked to confirm their purchase and authorize the sale. A similar step occurs in offline-processing, where the full amount is shown on the screen and you are asked to confirm, by either swiping your card and entering your pin, or by signing the receipt.
THIS is the step where you agree to the price and accept the terms. You couldn't possible agree and confirm a price before this step because it wouldn't include shipping/taxes.
And while IANAL, I believe that at this step, Amazon is responsible for their own mistake. They showed the user a price. The user was given a chance to say confirm his order and authorize charges. He did so.
This is a contract, it's been digitally signed.
Amazon is trying to make it so their mistake costs them nothing. That's certainly a nice fuzzy warm thing to think about, but in the real world, there is a price to pay for mistakes.
1. Non-Telco-ISPs and cable companies are not, and never have been, Common Carriers
2. Non-Telco-ISPs and cable companies DO NOT WANT TO BE common carriers.
3. ISPs are protected by the Good Samaritan provisions of the Communications Decency Act. THIS is what protects them from liability, NOT common carrier status.
1. I've never been on Second Life, I don't know much about it, I don't care about it, but 650k people isn't exactly tiny. New Hampshire has just over 1MM, for example.
2. The whole brouhaha about "OMG Edwards Is a Millionaire" is just ridiculously stupid. Here's a clue: Every Presidential Candidate that ran since Truman, or maybe Eisenhower, was a Millionaire. Yes, being a millionaire makes it more likely you'd know the kind of people you need to know to finance a run for President, but also, the type of people that are qualified to be President are smart and savvy enough to make money in our economy.
3. What you can hope for is that they weren't RAISED a millionaire. That they've lived a life closer to that of an average American. Edwards qualifies here. So does Obama. And actually, we've had a lot of people from humble beginnings make it to the White House in the last century. Including Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, and Truman.
This is long past due. I'm very liberal but I also think that a government shouldn't make laws that encroach personal freedom unless it's something that's affecting the personal freedoms of others.
I used to use my cell while driving and I used to balk at the idea of legislating it.
But over the past 5 years--as cell phones have exploded--I have noticed a remarkable correlation between drivers that, as i approach them, I think "what the fuck is this guy doing?" and, as I pass them, I notice they're using the cell phone.
This phenomena manifests itself in 3 basic ways:
1. A left-lane-Roadblock who's moving nicely along takes a call and, within the first minute or two, slows from 10+ MPH over the limit down to the limit or even BELOW the limit, without necessarily realizing it, getting over, or noticing the line of pissed off people behind him.
2. The Last-Minute-Switcher that, despite being a lifelong resident, drives like a tourist. He realizes at the last possible second that he needs to cross 5 lines of traffic and exit.
3. The Pace-Car, very similar to the Left-Lane-Roadblock, except the Pace Car Driver can be in any lane and, sometimes, more than one lane at a given time.
And I'm sure they'd just jump at your request..... Oh please. I wish I had your life where worrying about a custom DNS error message was worth so much of my time.
And I want to add two things:
1. You basically agreed to my point in your first post. I quote:
<quote><p><blockquote> <div><i>Declaring a winner based on a single months' worth of statistics (especially at this early point when both formats are in their infancy) is utterly idiotic</i></div> </blockquote>True.
However, it can be used as a tool to gage the trend to try to predict WHERE the winning format will fall.</quote>
2. The article you're quoting is actually the article attached to ANOTHER slashdot post that's linked to from this one. Furthermore, the quote you posted "After over six months of head-to-head combat, we finally have an all-inclusive independent yardstick..." DOES NOT SAY that six months of data have been released. It merely says that after six months WITHOUT data, we have been given some. If you'd have read ANYTHING but the lede, you'd have realized that the "data" was only TWO WEEKS WORTH.
Now, since I just completely owned your ass, I'm certain you won't reply, but keep yawning moron.
Are you seriously that stupid?
Or did you think I am?
The article headline -- the fact that Blu-Ray beat HD -- was ONLY TALKING ABOUT JANUARY.
Next time _read_, don't skim.
The thing is that laws, unlike the tooth fairy, exist even if you DON'T believe in them.
In other words, it said "Upgrade and you won't have to sit thru any of this shit!"
I saw it, too. it's for HD.
The bitch is that you KNOW they could do that with standard DVD. Like the extra 30GB of storage somehow unlocks the ability to immediately begin playing the move as soon as you spin the disk.
Well, no, the TRENDS do not show that. One or two data points do not a trend make.
Besides, his point was: "It's the volume of title sales over 6 months. RTFA and maybe... just MAYBE click the links."
Which clearly shows that if he DID "click the links" he DIDN'T actually read them.
And for what it's worth, every benefit of namespaces can be had using the scope resolution operator:
class myClass
{
function someMethod() {
}
}
x = myClass::someMethod();
What article are YOU reading, bro?
I think _YOU_ ought to click on the link.
The article clearly says, many places, it's talking about JANUARY.
And it doesn't say so directly in the article, but if you do a little homework, you'll find that HD has outsold Blu-Ray (in units) so far.
So really, you want to try that again?
So let me get this straight:
A single data point can be used as a "tool" to gage the trend?
No shit?
OK, I'm done with this. No offense, but you're making circular arguments.
I got as far as your first line, then I had to stop.
How, exactly, are you separating "Commander in Chief" from "President?" You've essentially made my point for me, even if you don't think you have. The President _is_ the Commander in Chief. It's the entire package--Commander in Chief included--that makes him, as I've said a dozen times, the most powerful 'legislator' in the federal government. Your opening sentence is basically "Ooohh, wait, it's not the PRESIDENT that's so important that Congress will capitulate to him, it's the COMMANDER IN CHIEF." _ITS THE SAME GUY_ I know that you know that, but, as I've said, you've departed from your original point and now it seems like you're just spinning wheels to avoid conceding anything. Yawn.
It used to be a running joke whenever anyone would predict that Apple would go out of business in the next 6/12/18/etc months. It was predicted so many times that it became a gag.
/. without even the hint of irony.
/. cliche.
Funny thing is that such predictions are made about Microsoft daily at
I'm not staking a claim on either side of the debate, but the whole "X will be a MSFT Killer" is a huge
Well, as I've said, in theory, you're right, but in practice, not so much.
Look at the reality of things. Right now we have the weakest President since post-watergate Nixon. And even now, neither house of Congress has passed a resolution against his incredibly unpopular war. Why do you think that is? The kindness of their hearts? It's the political power of the presidency.
Furthermore, the anecdote i mentioned--sitting 12 hours for a photo-op with Bush--happens every year, and it also happened this year. He's got basically NO approval of the people, yet many congressmen still literally LINE UP just for a chance to be seen with him on national television.
The power of the presidency is far greater than you give it credit for. You may "wish" that were not the case, but wishing doesn't make it so. There are times when the Executive branch and the Legislative branch engage in a game of political chicken, but those tactics are far from common.
You still seem to equate the power of a legislator to be his single vote. This is silly. Furthermore, you claim that a Representative can "force an issue to the floor" It should be noted that, technically, you're wrong there as well. An individual SENATOR can, but not a Representative. But that's really beside the point. An individual vote in congress is usually meaningless. It's the power of persuasion, coaltion building, and mandate.
And come on, if the legislature cannot censure an unpopular president for a wildly unpopular war, where do you draw your belief that the Legislature is so powerful and willing to buck the wishes of the Executive?
Furthermore, your contention in your OP was that the President is less powerful than even a single legislator. This is what I found laughable and that is the idea that started this debate.
And I don't mean to make this personal, but when you say things like "constituents will judge their choices as their representation to the republic" it just makes you look hopelessly naive. It's honestly like you took a Government Theory class and thought it was actually The Way Things Work. Have you not been following American politics for the past, say, 20 years?
So your argument has changed.
The argument you're making in this post--and I one that I agree with--is that the President is not more powerful than ALL of the congressmen combined. This is a departure from your original point that the President is less powerful than a SINGLE congressmen. And it's also different than my point that the President is more powerful than any SINGLE legislator.
And it's inside the space created by your two different view points that I agree with you. That is why Bush had is Social Security agenda dropped. That is why Clinton had his healthcare agenda dropped. And that is why it was such a big deal when the Democrats took control of the congress.