My intention wasn't Post Quote->Win Argument. It was Post-Quote->Cause Argument. Trollish? Maybe. But it succeeded in bringing out critiques of Rand, which is great for those unfamiliar. Success! Relax your knees now.
The beauty of Rand is that the diction used can be taken any which way and generally have countless interpretations, so while being flex in literal content, it provides a springboard for other lines of thought, as you have just demonstrated. She was more of a confusing-Confucius of sorts than a poignant societal analyst. Not trying to convince people of anything, just promoting thought.
Phrases like "polarizing reactionary dipshit", " 99.9% of the things she said are utter crap", and "make yourself look like an idiot." are far more polarizing and reactionary than what I quoted. Not to sound condescending, but employing the literary methods you vehemently oppose in your own argument tend to dilute and nullify it completely.
It is in your own best interest to let the local and national govt. know as much about the people they represent as possible.
While this is true, from a reelection / campaign standpoint the representatives seem only to care about the racial / financial distributions in a region, so they game the best rhetoric to spew to their constituents hitting the ballots. I am not undermining the importance of the census, just pointing out the twisted use of its data. Racism is much alive, and so is segregation, but alive in respect to how political parties "treat" demographics. The sooner the media drops labels based on biology, to sooner we can actually get past all this punditting bullshit about class-isms.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. -Ayn Rand
What does this say about America? Read this for a good overview of technology's intertwined relationship with the failings of geopolitical advancement of privacy. Basic summary: it isn't technologies fault for privacy lost, its the people who regulate it.
To quote: "The attacks of 9-11 challenged our country in new ways. But perhaps the biggest challenge was whether we would safeguard both our country and our Constitutional heritage or whether we would have weak leaders who were unable to protect the country without sacrificing our freedoms.
Regrettably, we found that our political leaders lacked the ability to uphold our laws. For electronic surveillance, they pushed aside the judiciary and asserted the President's authority to intercept the private communications of American citizens within the United States. Even with the broad powers of the Patriot Act, the White House grew impatient and colluded with the telephone companies to disclose private customer records without legal basis or judicial review."
Re:Gosh, I wonder what THAT will be used for....
on
ISS To Get Man Cave
·
· Score: 2, Funny
That also happens to be the resonant frequency of Columbia's foam insulation. It explains the investigator's mental masturbation of the disaster, after all.
If you market to people's hopes & dreams, you will always find suckers for your hollow ploys.
Cosmetics are generally useless from a utilitarian standpoint, and yet mass marketing pushes that shit out to the female demographic as if they would evaporate without it, and now we're stuck with the fucking Barbie generation. Give somebody the hope that you can fulfill their dream, and you will have their wallet.
50 years out of 13.75 ±0.17 billion years? People need to study orders of magnitude before they get on SETI's case about not finding anything exciting. As with most scientific institutions of our day, the general populace/government's don't seem to care unless they see whizbangpops REAL-SOON-NOW.
I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures. Instead of this flat 2D table mentality, imagine n-dimensional matrices of data, scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts.
I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table' model, and did a couple inner-joins and unions, you could rip space-time wide-open!
Let this be a warning to all you rig builders wearing blindfolds! Hopefully those fakes are casted with a cheap, non-conducting alloy, otherwise break out the popcorn.
Thats what I was implying, couldn't tell if you were. If people are unwilling to invest in research and it lends to their misfortune, then its their own damn fault and there should be no intervening body, read, no browser selection screen. The shame is that the majority doesn't understand that they have choice or don't care to look into it, and that because of that lack of knowledge, the Microsoft is forced to pay the price.
If I choose not to invest my time in automotive research, should I have the government come down and force the largest automobile manufacturer to hand out a 'these are your automotive options' because I am unwilling to do the research?
So because something may not be integral, it is a requirement that it be made explicitly optional?
And to play devil's advocate, if agreeing with your argument that the browser is not an integral part of the OS, if Ford was the only manufacturer of automobiles, would you suggest litigating Ford into offering different sun-visors from different manufacturers? Hell, what if Ford decided to use tires that were required at $5000 dollars extra per tire? You either buy a car or you don't. Eventually somebody else will come along and make another one, and if its a superior product, people will switch to it. But along your logic, if they are forced to offer a tire/sun-visor choice, then why would anybody bother creating and selling another car, if the market leader will be forced by law to 'do the right thing', removing incentive to create new car companies, and removing the incentive for people to consider switching.
Owning a computer is not a constitutionally derived right, it is a decision-purchase, and as with automobiles, is up to the manufacturers what and what they don't package with their products. Its the FREE MARKET. The moment you intervene is the moment things slide down the slippery slope and destroy competition incentive.
"If you want an OS for your commodity x86 hardware, you can't go buy OSX" -And that failing by Apple to open up to independent builders will keep Microsoft happily on top.
" Brakes are also not a good example, as they are an integral part of a car, and always have been." -To the average consumer, brakes are as important to the car as the browser is as important to the OS. How else would they access Facebook?
And to your Holden argument, well, you are suggesting that because a manufacturer is the 'only' one in the playing field, they have to accommodate other companies in on their revenue stream because its 'unfair' to default to their built-in features.
The more market intervention by governments, the less incentive there is for folks to create and sell (or even distribute) better operating systems. If Microsoft is continually nitpicked to make all these 3rd party company's happy, in effect making consumers-rights groups happy, to the point that everybody is just 'satisfied' with Windows, why even try making a better operating system? Why even bother developing Linux, if everytime Microsoft makes a sale they have to accomodate choice. The more choice that is litigated into the operating system, the less incentive there will be to choose a different operating systems in the first place, cascading into less developer drive to even work on other operating systems.
Moby Dick isn't the only book in the library. Is Charles Dickens to be blamed writing above the average reading level? Or is it the library's fault for pushing the book to hard on the ignorant masses?
It is a shame it takes this sort of spelling out to make people understand. Instead of spreading computer literacy, lets just continually dumb down our systems. Idiocracy, here we come!
Slashdot Mirror
My intention wasn't Post Quote->Win Argument. It was Post-Quote->Cause Argument. Trollish? Maybe. But it succeeded in bringing out critiques of Rand, which is great for those unfamiliar. Success! Relax your knees now.
The beauty of Rand is that the diction used can be taken any which way and generally have countless interpretations, so while being flex in literal content, it provides a springboard for other lines of thought, as you have just demonstrated. She was more of a confusing-Confucius of sorts than a poignant societal analyst. Not trying to convince people of anything, just promoting thought.
Phrases like "polarizing reactionary dipshit", " 99.9% of the things she said are utter crap", and "make yourself look like an idiot." are far more polarizing and reactionary than what I quoted. Not to sound condescending, but employing the literary methods you vehemently oppose in your own argument tend to dilute and nullify it completely.
It is in your own best interest to let the local and national govt. know as much about the people they represent as possible.
While this is true, from a reelection / campaign standpoint the representatives seem only to care about the racial / financial distributions in a region, so they game the best rhetoric to spew to their constituents hitting the ballots. I am not undermining the importance of the census, just pointing out the twisted use of its data. Racism is much alive, and so is segregation, but alive in respect to how political parties "treat" demographics. The sooner the media drops labels based on biology, to sooner we can actually get past all this punditting bullshit about class-isms.
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.
-Ayn Rand
What does this say about America? Read this for a good overview of technology's intertwined relationship with the failings of geopolitical advancement of privacy. Basic summary: it isn't technologies fault for privacy lost, its the people who regulate it.
To quote:
"The attacks of 9-11 challenged our country in new ways. But perhaps the biggest challenge was whether we would safeguard both our country and our Constitutional heritage or whether we would have weak leaders who were unable to protect the country without sacrificing our freedoms. Regrettably, we found that our political leaders lacked the ability to uphold our laws. For electronic surveillance, they pushed aside the judiciary and asserted the President's authority to intercept the private communications of American citizens within the United States. Even with the broad powers of the Patriot Act, the White House grew impatient and colluded with the telephone companies to disclose private customer records without legal basis or judicial review."
+5 Sexist Hilarity
That also happens to be the resonant frequency of Columbia's foam insulation. It explains the investigator's mental masturbation of the disaster, after all.
Age old product, sold via a new channel. Interesting, but not unexpected.
True. I don't think vaporware can be classified as a concrete noun. Grammar Nazi's?
Is that you Amway?
If you market to people's hopes & dreams, you will always find suckers for your hollow ploys.
Cosmetics are generally useless from a utilitarian standpoint, and yet mass marketing pushes that shit out to the female demographic as if they would evaporate without it, and now we're stuck with the fucking Barbie generation. Give somebody the hope that you can fulfill their dream, and you will have their wallet.
"Do you honestly expect this to lead to a whole bunch of Jedi...UNGUARD PADAWAN
50 years out of 13.75 ±0.17 billion years? People need to study orders of magnitude before they get on SETI's case about not finding anything exciting. As with most scientific institutions of our day, the general populace/government's don't seem to care unless they see whizbangpops REAL-SOON-NOW.
My dealer's girlfriend has nice tweets.
A simpler simpler solution
I imagine with the continual growth of these social networks, high performance DB methodologies will experience tremendous growth, and perhaps even paradigm shifts in the way we logically think and design database architectures. Instead of this flat 2D table mentality, imagine n-dimensional matrices of data, scaling dimensions instead of table and rowcounts.
I bet if you converted Facebook to this n-dimensional 'table' model, and did a couple inner-joins and unions, you could rip space-time wide-open!
Let this be a warning to all you rig builders wearing blindfolds! Hopefully those fakes are casted with a cheap, non-conducting alloy, otherwise break out the popcorn.
Thats what I was implying, couldn't tell if you were. If people are unwilling to invest in research and it lends to their misfortune, then its their own damn fault and there should be no intervening body, read, no browser selection screen. The shame is that the majority doesn't understand that they have choice or don't care to look into it, and that because of that lack of knowledge, the Microsoft is forced to pay the price.
If I choose not to invest my time in automotive research, should I have the government come down and force the largest automobile manufacturer to hand out a 'these are your automotive options' because I am unwilling to do the research?
So because something may not be integral, it is a requirement that it be made explicitly optional? And to play devil's advocate, if agreeing with your argument that the browser is not an integral part of the OS, if Ford was the only manufacturer of automobiles, would you suggest litigating Ford into offering different sun-visors from different manufacturers? Hell, what if Ford decided to use tires that were required at $5000 dollars extra per tire? You either buy a car or you don't. Eventually somebody else will come along and make another one, and if its a superior product, people will switch to it. But along your logic, if they are forced to offer a tire/sun-visor choice, then why would anybody bother creating and selling another car, if the market leader will be forced by law to 'do the right thing', removing incentive to create new car companies, and removing the incentive for people to consider switching.
Owning a computer is not a constitutionally derived right, it is a decision-purchase, and as with automobiles, is up to the manufacturers what and what they don't package with their products. Its the FREE MARKET. The moment you intervene is the moment things slide down the slippery slope and destroy competition incentive.
"If you want an OS for your commodity x86 hardware, you can't go buy OSX"
-And that failing by Apple to open up to independent builders will keep Microsoft happily on top.
" Brakes are also not a good example, as they are an integral part of a car, and always have been."
-To the average consumer, brakes are as important to the car as the browser is as important to the OS. How else would they access Facebook?
And to your Holden argument, well, you are suggesting that because a manufacturer is the 'only' one in the playing field, they have to accommodate other companies in on their revenue stream because its 'unfair' to default to their built-in features.
The more market intervention by governments, the less incentive there is for folks to create and sell (or even distribute) better operating systems. If Microsoft is continually nitpicked to make all these 3rd party company's happy, in effect making consumers-rights groups happy, to the point that everybody is just 'satisfied' with Windows, why even try making a better operating system? Why even bother developing Linux, if everytime Microsoft makes a sale they have to accomodate choice. The more choice that is litigated into the operating system, the less incentive there will be to choose a different operating systems in the first place, cascading into less developer drive to even work on other operating systems.
Educate the masses.
Moby Dick isn't the only book in the library. Is Charles Dickens to be blamed writing above the average reading level? Or is it the library's fault for pushing the book to hard on the ignorant masses?
Neither. Same applies to Microsoft.
Is my tinfoil hat that shiny?
I guess I didn't wax eloquent enough about Apple for the iSlashvertisement team.
It is a shame it takes this sort of spelling out to make people understand. Instead of spreading computer literacy, lets just continually dumb down our systems. Idiocracy, here we come!