It's not that stupid or simple, though... by being black and getting such incredible support he's shown not that he is a good candidate for being black, he's shown that the US has grown up in the way it looks at races.
Even if Obama isn't good for the individuals inside the country, he's iconic to the rest of the world. By having him as president, it could be the US's chance to gain some favor back in the world.
It's not about being black or any 'superficial factors' making him better or worse, it's the fact that it does effect the way some people see him and exactly because so many of us see the color of his skin as irrelevant is monumental.
It's mostly the same with Hillary being a woman, it may be some evidence of how far the US has really progressed if people are more willing to vote for a black person than a woman when so many of their policies where consequentially the same or similar.
I find it interesting that everything involved with a politician is the politician. I'm very doubtful he writes the website himself and he might not really have much of a say on what happens on that web site.
An editor might have, probably have come along and saw "This looks bad, let's make it look better." and since it's not an image that was a little too big to fit right or formatting that just didn't fit with the page, it's seen as 'Obama said this' and not 'supporters glossing things over'.
I guess you can say that the kind of people who support someone else does reflect on what kind of person they are, but it's the same logical fallacy that happens over and over again.
Obama did what he did, and even though it went against his former statements to some degree, he didn't say "Oh, that? That was nothing.", he said exactly what he did and why he did it.
He didn't break any promises, he made a compromise he really seems to believe is important and he did make assurances that his fight for the interests is not over yet. He didn't undo anything, he just delayed (for that WHOLE SINGLE VOTE out of quite a majority) what's going to happen later.
He probably knew this would happen, too. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up making nobody happy.
I'm voting Obama, He's not the golden ticket to the perfect country but asking for a perfect person is always asking too much. His positions do involve change, but it's not such an incredible change that all the corporations will be out to stop him no matter what it takes.
We need universal healthcare, but we won't have it in 4 years. No nationwide change happens that fast (unless an explosion is involved). What we need now is to take the steps towards changing people's expectations in the system.
There's hundreds of issues we need to consider in three months, is it really so responsible to throw Obama away for one?
I mean, Christ, was everyone planning on voting for him in the first place because he was going to stick it to the telecom man?
I think you are having an ontological hissy fit, which is quite strange to watch. I will agree though upon further review, that I used the word incorrectly, or too vaguely to be precise.
I like you, and I have a lot of ontological hissy fits.
My beef with the word is entirely how it is often used not to describe what something is but to make something seem far more complex or innovative than it really is.
I suppose a better example would be, suppose there was designed a mouse with a speaker on it, and software for it that would make the speaker play things in certain events, like double clicking.
This is kind of clever and plenty of people might buy it for novelty alone. It's an interesting way to apply two other devices.
This alone may be a technology, but it's an unnamed technology. Any instance of technology simply occurs, it doesn't have to have a name. There are many ways to start a fire, and that starting a fire can be said all sorts of way, like "Starting a fire" or "Setting something on fire".
Eventually the lighter came along, and it's usefulness could not possibly be argued, no one had to call it 'Flame-producing technology'.
As interesting as this mouse-with-a-speaker-on-it may be, some asshole in marketing would come along and add something to that to make it sound new and revolutionary. They can call it all sorts of things, but it doesn't matter what it's called because it clearly does what it does, regardless if it has 'MouseSpeak technology' or 'SqueekClick technology'.
The only time this has any purpose is when another product comes along that also employs this so-phrased 'technology', and by then the phrase has already for surpassed my threshold on tolerable.
I know it's senseless, and I really should chill out about that kind of thing, but it's exactly that kind of garbage that makes it very hard for me to watch broadcast television anymore. All those commercials trying to sell me their useless shit! GRAH I'M GETTING ANGRY JUST THINKING ABOUT IT DX
Well, it's good you can tell I was being an ass but I wasn't really trying to talk about grammar or and stuff, I just really hate how 'technology' has been used to God-ify everything so every instance of it inspires me to, like, be mean and stuff. It is the devil word used liberally for marketing and like, stuff.
It's like... noise-cancelling technology, it's not technology, it's speakers inside of earplugs. It's clever, it's a clever use of existing technologies, but it's not technology, it's... speakers inside of earplugs.
And software technology. Close button technology, scroll bar technology address bar technology. It's code, it does things, it does useful things, but each and every thing it does is not a separate and individually unique and incredible piece of technology.
But that's not a point about your post or anything, I'm just like, cranky. And stuff. And things. It's Impatience Technology.
To anybody that has even the most basic understanding of how technology works, that sounds downright RETARDED.
I certainly accept and agree with your rant, but I feel I must share my opinion that anyone who uses 'technology' loosely enough to interchange it with, perhaps, 'computers' and thinks retardation is something you can hear needs their gigabytes RAMmed with a CPU degausser.
I'm worried someone will use this to attack reverse-engineered servers for MMO's, trainers (the legitimate ones, that is, the ones for games you play by yourself or cheat consensually with friends), cracks or many other technically useful ways of manipulating existing software.
I don't see the meaning to their 'copyright infringement' by being loaded into memory. Routers don't infringe copyrights when they buffer packets, people don't infringe copyrights by remembering what happened in a story (even reading the story in a bookstore).
I hate bots as much as anyone else, but this is a bullshit way to deal with the problem.
I have asthma, while the heat isn't instant death for me, it gets more and more uncomfortable and harder to breath. Also, the air conditioner dries out the air for me, giving me further relief.
It's a better option for me to use nothing else at all than to turn off my air conditioner, which I've been practicing better lately, along with a blanket under the door.
I really don't see the problem here. It's an MMO, they can and it's expected that they add this content later and much more.
I also don't see what the purpose of a release date, it's just marketing bullshit. The game could have been 'released' a long time ago, and if they honestly let people know that it wasn't ready for typical gameplay then anyone who felt hurt was expecting the wrong thing.
They could have just arbitrarily chosen any point in it's development to say, "Hey, this is good enough, let's stick it in a box."
I hate terms like 'alpha' and 'beta' and 'release' things like, especially when they're used so glamorously. Do you really ever want to call something a finished product? When something's 'out of beta' it's probably not going to get the same attention it had before. If something's still being called beta, someone's actively working on it, and it already kicks ass, then what wouldn't I have to look forward to?
It's just philosophical ideas made official, and it's useless. All that matters are version number. It's not like software becomes perfect when it's released or there's some magical point where it's instantly ready to be marketed.
Release dates are also stupid. It's more marketing bullshit about holidays and stuff. What's so bad about "We're working on it, it'll be done when we say it is and if you care you'll know when we say it."
If it wasn't for that kind of garbage, no one would have any reason to squeal over bugs in the 'final product'. The problems are there and they're expected to be there, and it's getting about time for the idea of software as a tangible object to come to an end.
I have a hard time believing this, honestly. I can't help but wonder if this study was conveniently produced just to make the telecoms look less irresponsible in providing rural users with broadband.
I also can't help but wonder if they were very selective about who they were talking to. Most of the people I've known who were in charge of a family's internet access, mothers and fathers, didn't really use the internet while the people who actually used the internet, the sons and daughters, were the ones pleading for better connections.
If it were just MySpace and Facebook, I wouldn't really be concerned about what the children and young adults want, but schools (especially community colleges) seem to be relying more and more on internet access to get anything done, and with everyone wanting to 'go green' it's getting easier to get left behind.
You have to bend over backwards to get a paper form for the FAFSA now that you don't have to end up turning in online. It's much easier to get parents to sign a sheet of paper than register a federal PIN number, and you have to be 25 before you don't need your parents input, regardless of if you live with them.
Again, I don't trust this study. Too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Well. Okay. I suppose I blundered into assuming I knew more about how people lived their lives than I really did. Personally, and as evidence of my haste, I open up my blinds right away to get some light in the house, but I live on a second story so privacy is only a concern at night when the sun won't be reflecting too much light off the windows to make them difficult to see into.
I salvage all sorts of stuff, but not really to save money as much as spare the costs I don't have the money for.
I'm saving money using a laptop instead of my desktop which uses about 2.3 times as much power. It's not to go green, I just almost had a heart attack when I saw my electric bill was 173 dollars for the month and I'm still past due putting me at 368.
I didn't think one computer, one air conditioner, and 2 lightbulbs that are hardly on would have cost so much. Oh, and a fridge. And two ceiling fans. And a microwave... and my alarm clock and cell phone charger and all the things I keep plugged in even though I know I'm still using electricity... and... and...
Who, tell me, who thought this was a good idea? Why curtains? Why not something that's, you know, outside where the sun can get it. Glass blocks light, light that can't be seen. Windows face one direction and it's unlikely they'll see any more than half the day in sunlight.
And why put it on something that moves, but not to move in order to keep up with the sun?
It could have been anything between the team responsible for the software and the server that distributes it.
Dual bios surely could have been implemented and for all the things I can appreciate about the PS3 regardless of my limited exposure to it, in retrospect it's kind of stupid of Sony to not take this step to safeguard consumers.
PS3 sucks and is cool. Xbox 2 sucks and is cool. Wii sucks less but sucks in other ways, and it's cool less but it's cool in other ways so it sucks and it's cool.
There, all fixed. Now you're ready for show business.
For a number of reasons, these operating systems are treated like firmware because they're embedded into a single image onto an IC. It's not (safely) possible to reflash portions of the image on the fly so the whole thing is written over for each change.
Some UMPC's and handheld media players and stuff, usually working off GNU/Linux, do this too, then save configuration and stuff on hard drives or other storage.
This is generally cheaper, faster, and less vulnerable to user error.
"But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away."
Maybe you're looking at the GPL from the wrong end of the tree. Businesses aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own, as you already seem to agree.
That is exactly why it is perfectly moral to put a restriction of redistribution. Since they aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own or use someone else's. If your code is the best and they don't agree with your terms, then they can't have the best code unless they write it themselves.
The GPL isn't for your benefit, the GPL isn't for the corporate benefit. The GPL was written with the purpose for the benefit of everyone. Even if you don't care about what you get out of someone using your software, maybe you should take a moment to think about what someone else does.
Hah! Another reason to tell people to give me their old stuff instead of me having to pay to get new things myself.
Really though, even when I do have lots of money I don't like to go out and buy every piece of crap. Some things make me really angry to see how wasteful they are, like specialty cooking things. Eggwave, cake pans that are shaped like a little house, fondu pots, anything that is meant to make one kind of thing you can buy at Wal Mart and you'll have fun making a whole bunch of onion blossoms or waffles but it'll just be one more thing to collect dust on the shelf and eventually get stuffed into the crawl space.
It's insane that corporations are gobbling up these materials so liberally and making all this garbage from iphones to 16 different crappy cellphones to make this 1 other cell phone sell better. USB missile launchers to poisonous love toys. Microsoft mice you'll just have to replace in a year because it's sure to have something go horribly wrong with it. The next hot new game console of the decade.
It's this bullshit that makes think away from my desire for privacy and free market and human rights to yearning for a unified, almighty world government where every thought and piece of material is debated over and eventually ruled down with an iron fist the size of Nebraska.
When you turn things into an intricate piece of electronics, they're stuck that way. It's just not possible to mass dissect integrated circuits for their raw elements, especially with any purity. We're never, ever going to have Star Trekesque replicators, there's no reason to believe we'll ever have a way to pulverize something neetly into the hundreds of elements that makes it up.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of my 'ontological hissy fit' about alphas, betas and releases.
At what point do you arbitrarily select the surge as a success? At what point is the war out of beta? At what point is Obama at his release candidate?
It's not that stupid or simple, though... by being black and getting such incredible support he's shown not that he is a good candidate for being black, he's shown that the US has grown up in the way it looks at races.
Even if Obama isn't good for the individuals inside the country, he's iconic to the rest of the world. By having him as president, it could be the US's chance to gain some favor back in the world.
It's not about being black or any 'superficial factors' making him better or worse, it's the fact that it does effect the way some people see him and exactly because so many of us see the color of his skin as irrelevant is monumental.
It's mostly the same with Hillary being a woman, it may be some evidence of how far the US has really progressed if people are more willing to vote for a black person than a woman when so many of their policies where consequentially the same or similar.
I find it interesting that everything involved with a politician is the politician. I'm very doubtful he writes the website himself and he might not really have much of a say on what happens on that web site.
An editor might have, probably have come along and saw "This looks bad, let's make it look better." and since it's not an image that was a little too big to fit right or formatting that just didn't fit with the page, it's seen as 'Obama said this' and not 'supporters glossing things over'.
I guess you can say that the kind of people who support someone else does reflect on what kind of person they are, but it's the same logical fallacy that happens over and over again.
Obama did what he did, and even though it went against his former statements to some degree, he didn't say "Oh, that? That was nothing.", he said exactly what he did and why he did it.
He didn't break any promises, he made a compromise he really seems to believe is important and he did make assurances that his fight for the interests is not over yet. He didn't undo anything, he just delayed (for that WHOLE SINGLE VOTE out of quite a majority) what's going to happen later.
He probably knew this would happen, too. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up making nobody happy.
I'm voting Obama, He's not the golden ticket to the perfect country but asking for a perfect person is always asking too much. His positions do involve change, but it's not such an incredible change that all the corporations will be out to stop him no matter what it takes.
We need universal healthcare, but we won't have it in 4 years. No nationwide change happens that fast (unless an explosion is involved). What we need now is to take the steps towards changing people's expectations in the system.
There's hundreds of issues we need to consider in three months, is it really so responsible to throw Obama away for one?
I mean, Christ, was everyone planning on voting for him in the first place because he was going to stick it to the telecom man?
I think you are having an ontological hissy fit, which is quite strange to watch. I will agree though upon further review, that I used the word incorrectly, or too vaguely to be precise.
I like you, and I have a lot of ontological hissy fits.
My beef with the word is entirely how it is often used not to describe what something is but to make something seem far more complex or innovative than it really is.
I suppose a better example would be, suppose there was designed a mouse with a speaker on it, and software for it that would make the speaker play things in certain events, like double clicking.
This is kind of clever and plenty of people might buy it for novelty alone. It's an interesting way to apply two other devices.
This alone may be a technology, but it's an unnamed technology. Any instance of technology simply occurs, it doesn't have to have a name. There are many ways to start a fire, and that starting a fire can be said all sorts of way, like "Starting a fire" or "Setting something on fire".
Eventually the lighter came along, and it's usefulness could not possibly be argued, no one had to call it 'Flame-producing technology'.
As interesting as this mouse-with-a-speaker-on-it may be, some asshole in marketing would come along and add something to that to make it sound new and revolutionary. They can call it all sorts of things, but it doesn't matter what it's called because it clearly does what it does, regardless if it has 'MouseSpeak technology' or 'SqueekClick technology'.
The only time this has any purpose is when another product comes along that also employs this so-phrased 'technology', and by then the phrase has already for surpassed my threshold on tolerable.
I know it's senseless, and I really should chill out about that kind of thing, but it's exactly that kind of garbage that makes it very hard for me to watch broadcast television anymore. All those commercials trying to sell me their useless shit! GRAH I'M GETTING ANGRY JUST THINKING ABOUT IT DX
I should be institutionalized u.u
How depressing.
GOD DAMNIT WHY?! *cries*
Eheh. Ehehehehh. Hee.
Well, it's good you can tell I was being an ass but I wasn't really trying to talk about grammar or and stuff, I just really hate how 'technology' has been used to God-ify everything so every instance of it inspires me to, like, be mean and stuff. It is the devil word used liberally for marketing and like, stuff.
It's like... noise-cancelling technology, it's not technology, it's speakers inside of earplugs. It's clever, it's a clever use of existing technologies, but it's not technology, it's... speakers inside of earplugs.
And software technology. Close button technology, scroll bar technology address bar technology. It's code, it does things, it does useful things, but each and every thing it does is not a separate and individually unique and incredible piece of technology.
But that's not a point about your post or anything, I'm just like, cranky. And stuff. And things. It's Impatience Technology.
To anybody that has even the most basic understanding of how technology works, that sounds downright RETARDED.
I certainly accept and agree with your rant, but I feel I must share my opinion that anyone who uses 'technology' loosely enough to interchange it with, perhaps, 'computers' and thinks retardation is something you can hear needs their gigabytes RAMmed with a CPU degausser.
I'm sure people could get around the problem by just taking the RAM out of their computer.
I have known many people to play WoW, I mean, it's insane.
The judge probably plays WoW.
The plaintiff's lawyers probably play WoW.
The defendant's lawyers probably play WoW.
I'm worried someone will use this to attack reverse-engineered servers for MMO's, trainers (the legitimate ones, that is, the ones for games you play by yourself or cheat consensually with friends), cracks or many other technically useful ways of manipulating existing software.
I don't see the meaning to their 'copyright infringement' by being loaded into memory. Routers don't infringe copyrights when they buffer packets, people don't infringe copyrights by remembering what happened in a story (even reading the story in a bookstore).
I hate bots as much as anyone else, but this is a bullshit way to deal with the problem.
I have asthma, while the heat isn't instant death for me, it gets more and more uncomfortable and harder to breath. Also, the air conditioner dries out the air for me, giving me further relief.
It's a better option for me to use nothing else at all than to turn off my air conditioner, which I've been practicing better lately, along with a blanket under the door.
I really don't see the problem here. It's an MMO, they can and it's expected that they add this content later and much more.
I also don't see what the purpose of a release date, it's just marketing bullshit. The game could have been 'released' a long time ago, and if they honestly let people know that it wasn't ready for typical gameplay then anyone who felt hurt was expecting the wrong thing.
They could have just arbitrarily chosen any point in it's development to say, "Hey, this is good enough, let's stick it in a box."
I hate terms like 'alpha' and 'beta' and 'release' things like, especially when they're used so glamorously. Do you really ever want to call something a finished product? When something's 'out of beta' it's probably not going to get the same attention it had before. If something's still being called beta, someone's actively working on it, and it already kicks ass, then what wouldn't I have to look forward to?
It's just philosophical ideas made official, and it's useless. All that matters are version number. It's not like software becomes perfect when it's released or there's some magical point where it's instantly ready to be marketed.
Release dates are also stupid. It's more marketing bullshit about holidays and stuff. What's so bad about "We're working on it, it'll be done when we say it is and if you care you'll know when we say it."
If it wasn't for that kind of garbage, no one would have any reason to squeal over bugs in the 'final product'. The problems are there and they're expected to be there, and it's getting about time for the idea of software as a tangible object to come to an end.
I have a hard time believing this, honestly. I can't help but wonder if this study was conveniently produced just to make the telecoms look less irresponsible in providing rural users with broadband.
I also can't help but wonder if they were very selective about who they were talking to. Most of the people I've known who were in charge of a family's internet access, mothers and fathers, didn't really use the internet while the people who actually used the internet, the sons and daughters, were the ones pleading for better connections.
If it were just MySpace and Facebook, I wouldn't really be concerned about what the children and young adults want, but schools (especially community colleges) seem to be relying more and more on internet access to get anything done, and with everyone wanting to 'go green' it's getting easier to get left behind.
You have to bend over backwards to get a paper form for the FAFSA now that you don't have to end up turning in online. It's much easier to get parents to sign a sheet of paper than register a federal PIN number, and you have to be 25 before you don't need your parents input, regardless of if you live with them.
Again, I don't trust this study. Too much anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
Well. Okay. I suppose I blundered into assuming I knew more about how people lived their lives than I really did. Personally, and as evidence of my haste, I open up my blinds right away to get some light in the house, but I live on a second story so privacy is only a concern at night when the sun won't be reflecting too much light off the windows to make them difficult to see into.
Well. That is pretty cool. Are the windows still transparent?
I salvage all sorts of stuff, but not really to save money as much as spare the costs I don't have the money for.
I'm saving money using a laptop instead of my desktop which uses about 2.3 times as much power. It's not to go green, I just almost had a heart attack when I saw my electric bill was 173 dollars for the month and I'm still past due putting me at 368.
I didn't think one computer, one air conditioner, and 2 lightbulbs that are hardly on would have cost so much. Oh, and a fridge. And two ceiling fans. And a microwave... and my alarm clock and cell phone charger and all the things I keep plugged in even though I know I'm still using electricity... and... and...
Oh damnit I'm stupid DX
Who, tell me, who thought this was a good idea? Why curtains? Why not something that's, you know, outside where the sun can get it. Glass blocks light, light that can't be seen. Windows face one direction and it's unlikely they'll see any more than half the day in sunlight.
And why put it on something that moves, but not to move in order to keep up with the sun?
It could have been anything between the team responsible for the software and the server that distributes it.
Dual bios surely could have been implemented and for all the things I can appreciate about the PS3 regardless of my limited exposure to it, in retrospect it's kind of stupid of Sony to not take this step to safeguard consumers.
Imagine how I feel. I read it.
I both admire you and resent you for it.
As if anything can be so bi-polar.
PS3 sucks and is cool.
Xbox 2 sucks and is cool.
Wii sucks less but sucks in other ways, and it's cool less but it's cool in other ways so it sucks and it's cool.
There, all fixed. Now you're ready for show business.
For a number of reasons, these operating systems are treated like firmware because they're embedded into a single image onto an IC. It's not (safely) possible to reflash portions of the image on the fly so the whole thing is written over for each change.
Some UMPC's and handheld media players and stuff, usually working off GNU/Linux, do this too, then save configuration and stuff on hard drives or other storage.
This is generally cheaper, faster, and less vulnerable to user error.
"But it is immoral for me to force them to give it away."
Maybe you're looking at the GPL from the wrong end of the tree. Businesses aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own, as you already seem to agree.
That is exactly why it is perfectly moral to put a restriction of redistribution. Since they aren't forced to use your code, they can write their own or use someone else's. If your code is the best and they don't agree with your terms, then they can't have the best code unless they write it themselves.
The GPL isn't for your benefit, the GPL isn't for the corporate benefit. The GPL was written with the purpose for the benefit of everyone. Even if you don't care about what you get out of someone using your software, maybe you should take a moment to think about what someone else does.
Hah! Another reason to tell people to give me their old stuff instead of me having to pay to get new things myself.
Really though, even when I do have lots of money I don't like to go out and buy every piece of crap. Some things make me really angry to see how wasteful they are, like specialty cooking things. Eggwave, cake pans that are shaped like a little house, fondu pots, anything that is meant to make one kind of thing you can buy at Wal Mart and you'll have fun making a whole bunch of onion blossoms or waffles but it'll just be one more thing to collect dust on the shelf and eventually get stuffed into the crawl space.
It's insane that corporations are gobbling up these materials so liberally and making all this garbage from iphones to 16 different crappy cellphones to make this 1 other cell phone sell better. USB missile launchers to poisonous love toys. Microsoft mice you'll just have to replace in a year because it's sure to have something go horribly wrong with it. The next hot new game console of the decade.
It's this bullshit that makes think away from my desire for privacy and free market and human rights to yearning for a unified, almighty world government where every thought and piece of material is debated over and eventually ruled down with an iron fist the size of Nebraska.
When you turn things into an intricate piece of electronics, they're stuck that way. It's just not possible to mass dissect integrated circuits for their raw elements, especially with any purity. We're never, ever going to have Star Trekesque replicators, there's no reason to believe we'll ever have a way to pulverize something neetly into the hundreds of elements that makes it up.