I would certainly try this argument. I don't know if it would work. I would imagine it would turn on whether the tattoo artist and Mike Tyson thought he was paying for a design that nobody else would be allowed to have. If Tyson picked the design out of a book of similar designs, he'd likely be s.o.l.
You don't understand terrorism, do you? The idea isn't to do real damage to the target, but to generate a lot of fear with very public (but relatively harmless) shows of violence. The events of 9/11 were unusually harmful for a terrorist action, but even then it's the psychological damage that has taken a toll on America, not the 0.083% of Americans who died that day. It's actually good strategy for a terrorist group to take credit for things they didn't do, because they get a bump upward in publicity (and thus fear in the target) without having to put themselves at more than minimal risk. One should never take anything a terrorist says as the truth, at least without independent, corroborating evidence. In fact the best strategic response to terrorism is to either ignore it or appear to ignore it while quietly searching them out.
Terrorists very much know what they're doing when they claim credit for actions they never did; don't you think it behooves us to 1) not help them along by believing in their propaganda and 2) make damn sure that you punish the right people for crimes they actually did?
Admitting guilt doesn't necessarily make you guilty. There are plenty of examples of false confessions being given, and it's not uncommon for terrorist groups to try to take credit for activities that they didn't actually do, to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are. Terror is about branding, after all.
As it happens I am probably in the fan-boi camp myself, given how much Apple gear I own, but I'm also a cynic about any large corporation's strategies and motives. Just because a potential strategy is completely stupid and unreasonable, doesn't mean that a corporation won't try to pursue that strategy if they see dollar signs. On the whole, I agree with you, actually, I don't think it's very likely that Apple would try to close off the desktop completely. But I've been wrong before, and it makes me anxious cautious.
"I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens."
I'm not really interested in arguing whether OS X is or is not getting more closed all the time. It was a throw-away line addressed at someone who does believe this, not meant as a serious argument. On the one hand, I think it would be very stupid for Apple to close off the OS, and on the other hand, they've made it work very well with the iPod/Phone/Pad, and it would be foolish to ignore that success and wonder if it couldn't be transferred to the desktop line.
I should have written "Mac OS X may be getting more closed all the time..." the conditional would have better reflected my opinion and made no difference at all to my point, but fuck it - I'm not proofreading each post I make for perfect accuracy on the off chance that someone will jump out of nowhere and flame me for it. My time is more valuable than that. My point was that even if OS X gets closed, I'll probably go back to it, because the alternatives, though open, consume too much of my time to tinker with or fix, and thus are worse (for me).
This is in fact my problem; I use Apple computers in the home exclusively now, and I can't say that the Mac App Store makes me happy. I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens. On the other hand, every time I decide to expand my options with an eye to the future, I'm forcefully reminded why I switched to Macs from Windows and linux boxen in the first place; linux, after all these years, still requires too much tinkering to make it work unobtrusively, and with major recent/upcoming upgrades to the main desktop environments, guarantees me configuration/learning curve headaches for years to come. As for Windows, well all I have to do is get asked to work on one of my extended family's computers to remember all the things I loathe about windows. It will suffice to say that I do not want an OS that causes me to gnash my teeth and rend my clothes on a daily basis.
Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time, but it's still better for me (at getting the hell out of my way and letting me enjoy my computer) than all the other options. So, what do?
Who better to evangelize for Open Shaving! With a safety razor, an optional support plan, and a freshly shaven mug, who wouldn't be convinced? It might even make him a more credible spokesman for Open Source Software, outside of geek circles of course.
All the more reason why he needs to get involved with Open Shaving! We can give the man a safety razor, sell him a support contract to go with it, and in a year or two, he'll be ready to evangelize for Free/Libre Shaving and will have some kick-ass before/after pics! I see wins all around!
Clearly we need Open Source Shaving to free us from the grasp of proprietary shaving solutions that are designed to take control of our razors away from us. A Free/Libre razor solution would ensure that shaving people everywhere can enjoy choice and power in their shaving life. One might even say that Free Shaving is a fundamental human right.
Seriously, everyone needs to shut up about the presentation and go read the Taubes article It's more reasonable, less scare tactics, calls the presentation out on the suggestive results that the presenter thinks are conclusive.
The Taubes article linked above is much much better about the science. It's worth a read. Gary Taubes is a true believer in the suger=poison theory, but he's also a lot more rigorous and calls out Lustig's more egregious exaggerations.
Re:Are all forms of sugar equally toxic?
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
Well, people choose their programming all the time, with the remote control. I don't think it's that much of a leap from channel surfing to on-demand programming.
So...your story goes from "I asked a simple question and they told me they didn't have the answer and sent me away" to "I asked a simple question about some software, but my setup is non-standard so they couldn't test it in store, so the person I talked to tried a simulation, and gave me his best opinion, but I ignored it because the guy didn't try to upsell me stuff."
Bit of a stretch there, don't you think?
And worse, you forgot to tro- I mean post anonymously, so anyone who sees this would be perfectly justified in never believing a word you write here. Well done.
No, their claim is that a "journalist" shouldn't rig a test to produce undesireable results only to make a more "entertaining" show, and present false results as true ones.
And incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if the TG legal team avoid even using the word "journalist" like the plague. Journalists have professional standards the court would measure them up against. TG doesn't want that, one little bit.
Also, just about everything is a money bill. The definitions of what constitutes a money bill are loose, and the government (any government) exploits this to the fullest.
That's not strictly true. If the PM decides a bill is a confidence bill, then government side will have to vote the party line, at least. Most bills are confidence bills.
Well, since inflation does usually have negative impacts on the rest of us, there is some justification for the notion of allowing some "structural unemployment" (about 5%, I believe). Wages are "sticky", they don't tend to keep pace the rising prices in an inflationary economy, which means that for the average person, inflation generally means a drop in real spending power. One makes the same wages he always did, but now it buys him less.
The problem right now is that core inflation has pretty much bottomed out, along with interest rates. The bankers still fear the scourge of high inflation, but a little inflation would be a good thing right now, as the interest rates would also rise, to cool the economy, and thus the people and corps holding back their capital would be more inclined to spend it, and get good money back into the system. More stimulus money from the government, judiciously applied, would also accomplish this, but again, the inflation-hawks won't have it, because they're also scared of a declining dollar (which would be good for workers - more exports, but bad for dollar investors). Also, fears about the admittedly large debt are stopping the federal government from really doing anything effective. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that if the gov doesn't spend more and accumulate more debt, the debt will never get paid off because the economy will never recover sufficiently.
Slashdot Mirror
I would certainly try this argument. I don't know if it would work. I would imagine it would turn on whether the tattoo artist and Mike Tyson thought he was paying for a design that nobody else would be allowed to have. If Tyson picked the design out of a book of similar designs, he'd likely be s.o.l.
You don't understand terrorism, do you? The idea isn't to do real damage to the target, but to generate a lot of fear with very public (but relatively harmless) shows of violence. The events of 9/11 were unusually harmful for a terrorist action, but even then it's the psychological damage that has taken a toll on America, not the 0.083% of Americans who died that day. It's actually good strategy for a terrorist group to take credit for things they didn't do, because they get a bump upward in publicity (and thus fear in the target) without having to put themselves at more than minimal risk. One should never take anything a terrorist says as the truth, at least without independent, corroborating evidence. In fact the best strategic response to terrorism is to either ignore it or appear to ignore it while quietly searching them out.
Terrorists very much know what they're doing when they claim credit for actions they never did; don't you think it behooves us to 1) not help them along by believing in their propaganda and 2) make damn sure that you punish the right people for crimes they actually did?
Admitting guilt doesn't necessarily make you guilty. There are plenty of examples of false confessions being given, and it's not uncommon for terrorist groups to try to take credit for activities that they didn't actually do, to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are. Terror is about branding, after all.
Yes, but it requires a different type of reactor. CANDU reactors can do it.
It's still relevant for me. I've got a copy open right now, writing a letter. You'll pry my copy of Wordperfect from my cold dead hands.
As it happens I am probably in the fan-boi camp myself, given how much Apple gear I own, but I'm also a cynic about any large corporation's strategies and motives. Just because a potential strategy is completely stupid and unreasonable, doesn't mean that a corporation won't try to pursue that strategy if they see dollar signs. On the whole, I agree with you, actually, I don't think it's very likely that Apple would try to close off the desktop completely. But I've been wrong before, and it makes me anxious cautious.
I think you put too much weight in this:
"Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time"
And not enough weight in this:
"I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens."
I'm not really interested in arguing whether OS X is or is not getting more closed all the time. It was a throw-away line addressed at someone who does believe this, not meant as a serious argument. On the one hand, I think it would be very stupid for Apple to close off the OS, and on the other hand, they've made it work very well with the iPod/Phone/Pad, and it would be foolish to ignore that success and wonder if it couldn't be transferred to the desktop line.
I should have written "Mac OS X may be getting more closed all the time..." the conditional would have better reflected my opinion and made no difference at all to my point, but fuck it - I'm not proofreading each post I make for perfect accuracy on the off chance that someone will jump out of nowhere and flame me for it. My time is more valuable than that. My point was that even if OS X gets closed, I'll probably go back to it, because the alternatives, though open, consume too much of my time to tinker with or fix, and thus are worse (for me).
This is in fact my problem; I use Apple computers in the home exclusively now, and I can't say that the Mac App Store makes me happy. I don't know if Apple will completely close off the desktop platform or not; I think it could still go either way, but I get nervous when stuff like this happens. On the other hand, every time I decide to expand my options with an eye to the future, I'm forcefully reminded why I switched to Macs from Windows and linux boxen in the first place; linux, after all these years, still requires too much tinkering to make it work unobtrusively, and with major recent/upcoming upgrades to the main desktop environments, guarantees me configuration/learning curve headaches for years to come. As for Windows, well all I have to do is get asked to work on one of my extended family's computers to remember all the things I loathe about windows. It will suffice to say that I do not want an OS that causes me to gnash my teeth and rend my clothes on a daily basis.
Mac OS X is getting more closed all the time, but it's still better for me (at getting the hell out of my way and letting me enjoy my computer) than all the other options. So, what do?
Who better to evangelize for Open Shaving! With a safety razor, an optional support plan, and a freshly shaven mug, who wouldn't be convinced? It might even make him a more credible spokesman for Open Source Software, outside of geek circles of course.
All the more reason why he needs to get involved with Open Shaving! We can give the man a safety razor, sell him a support contract to go with it, and in a year or two, he'll be ready to evangelize for Free/Libre Shaving and will have some kick-ass before/after pics! I see wins all around!
Clearly we need Open Source Shaving to free us from the grasp of proprietary shaving solutions that are designed to take control of our razors away from us. A Free/Libre razor solution would ensure that shaving people everywhere can enjoy choice and power in their shaving life. One might even say that Free Shaving is a fundamental human right.
RMS should get on this.
Seriously, everyone needs to shut up about the presentation and go read the Taubes article It's more reasonable, less scare tactics, calls the presentation out on the suggestive results that the presenter thinks are conclusive.
Personally, I think aspartame is to sugar as methadone is to heroin. Still pretty harmful, but not quite as addictive.
The Taubes article linked above is much much better about the science. It's worth a read. Gary Taubes is a true believer in the suger=poison theory, but he's also a lot more rigorous and calls out Lustig's more egregious exaggerations.
Or insufficient quantities.
Well, people choose their programming all the time, with the remote control. I don't think it's that much of a leap from channel surfing to on-demand programming.
Well, for people smart enough not to have kids,
Nice.
Thankfully, if you're smart enough, the rest of us won't have to worry about you polluting the gene pool.
So...your story goes from "I asked a simple question and they told me they didn't have the answer and sent me away" to "I asked a simple question about some software, but my setup is non-standard so they couldn't test it in store, so the person I talked to tried a simulation, and gave me his best opinion, but I ignored it because the guy didn't try to upsell me stuff."
Bit of a stretch there, don't you think?
And worse, you forgot to tro- I mean post anonymously, so anyone who sees this would be perfectly justified in never believing a word you write here. Well done.
[Droopy Dog Voice] Yes. [/Droopy Dog Voice]
No, their claim is that a "journalist" shouldn't rig a test to produce undesireable results only to make a more "entertaining" show, and present false results as true ones.
And incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if the TG legal team avoid even using the word "journalist" like the plague. Journalists have professional standards the court would measure them up against. TG doesn't want that, one little bit.
Also, just about everything is a money bill. The definitions of what constitutes a money bill are loose, and the government (any government) exploits this to the fullest.
That's not strictly true. If the PM decides a bill is a confidence bill, then government side will have to vote the party line, at least. Most bills are confidence bills.
Wordperfect Lives.
Sadly, only available for Windows.
That does sound like a great idea. I bet the company that did this could cell a lot of units.
Well, since inflation does usually have negative impacts on the rest of us, there is some justification for the notion of allowing some "structural unemployment" (about 5%, I believe). Wages are "sticky", they don't tend to keep pace the rising prices in an inflationary economy, which means that for the average person, inflation generally means a drop in real spending power. One makes the same wages he always did, but now it buys him less.
The problem right now is that core inflation has pretty much bottomed out, along with interest rates. The bankers still fear the scourge of high inflation, but a little inflation would be a good thing right now, as the interest rates would also rise, to cool the economy, and thus the people and corps holding back their capital would be more inclined to spend it, and get good money back into the system. More stimulus money from the government, judiciously applied, would also accomplish this, but again, the inflation-hawks won't have it, because they're also scared of a declining dollar (which would be good for workers - more exports, but bad for dollar investors). Also, fears about the admittedly large debt are stopping the federal government from really doing anything effective. It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that if the gov doesn't spend more and accumulate more debt, the debt will never get paid off because the economy will never recover sufficiently.