Are you advocating that individuals ought to be able to own atom bombs? After all, maybe they just want to pretend to ride them in their garage.
Dumbest argument ever. If I have my own nuclear arsenal, you and what army are going to take it away from me? I obviously consider myself above the law at that point, just as common street thugs consider themselves "above" gun-control laws.
You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.
You skipped the part that describes how that's not 100% true.
I own an early iPhone, and I'm a pretty damn happy camper. Don't know about you.
When buying gadgets, you have to evaluate the value proposition as of the moment when you hand over the money. Holy shit, has this been a nice phone. When the 3G model is released, I will be lining up like a stereotypical fanboy, because the 1.0 hardware's ownership experience has been an exceptionally good one.
why do you trust the government to behave so upstanding and forthright on one hand, and then expect nothing from them but fascist harassment... all in the same thought?
The reason we developed the Rule of Law is because we recognize weaknesses in our own nature as humans, and as rulers of each other. When it comes to government, the only rational outlook is to hope for the best while anticipating the worst.
You need to hit the history and philosophy books before going any further down this path, or you'll manage to make yourself sound even more naive. You'll be surprised to learn that you're not the first to ask those rhetorical questions, and that they actually have been thought out.
you can't have it both ways friend. either the government is well-behaved, or it isn't. you can't expect good behavior (they will respect my rights) at the same time you expect bad behavior (they will rape my rights). it's one or the other
No, it isn't even remotely that simple. Governments change. "Behaviors" which were benign under one regime may not be so benign under the next, or after a particularly spectacular national trauma removes previously-accepted constraints. When you allow those behaviors to be encoded into law, they are much more difficult to remedy when they are eventually abused.
You sound like one of those Free Republic types who defend the Bush Administration's endless expansions-by-fiat of executive power. I really wish those people would have had the chance to stand aside, powerless, while the same rationalizations were employed by Hillary Clinton. Maybe then they'd have remembered why they they joined the Republican party in the first place.
While I feel obscenity laws have a place in our society
Really? Where? I've looked all through the First Amendment, and I don't see any exceptions for obscenity, indecency, profanity, pornography, or "protecting the children."
Any laws passed which regulate obscenity in publicly-funded media are explicitly unconstitutional. And no, I don't really care what the Supreme Court says; I was capable of reading plain English in the first grade.
I promote the idea that those laws should be enforced by a jury of AVERAGE citizens -- not some kind of religious ideologists that only rule (ie. judge/jury/executioner) from their perspective.
Average citizens arereligious ideologues. I have the right to be tried by a jury of my peers. Such people are not my peers.
The chair thing needs to be kept alive. There are a lot of devs at Microsoft, some of them very good ones, who haven't yet considered who and what they're actually working for.
Don't overlook Alphatronics, on Andover Park East in Tukwila. There wasn't much at Radar that's not either available at Alphatronics, or at Vetco in Bellevue (which took a lot of Radar's inventory).
There are no such laws. The fact that everyone just happily assumes there are laws behind movie, music, and game ratings is one of the more unsettling aspects of life in twenty-first century America.
You can designate your executor with the bank in advance. That's what my mom did before she died; I was able to simply walk into the bank with her key and a loaded Glock and access the deposit box with no problems.
In all seriousness, it does make life a lot easier for your survivors if you name them as heirs to your bank account(s).
The Bikeshed/Barn issue is at the heart of this problem. No single interface makes everyone happy; a good UI will allow users to take a degree of ownership by allowing basic cosmetic changes.
True in many practical cases, but not in all cases. Specifically, you will never create anything truly great that way. "Good" is the best you can hope for if you delegate that level of decision-making to the user.
Case in point: would the iPhone have been better with a configurable UI?
Re:What about the mentalty of their customers ?
on
Sony to Buy Gracenote
·
· Score: 1
Nah, I really feel that we're talking about just one corporate entity here, not two independent ones. Wall Street doesn't see two separate companies, and neither does Joe Six-Pack. Sorry.
If it'll help, I'll dedicate tomorrow's Two Minute Hate session to BMG, just for a change of pace. But after that, it'll be all about Sony again.
Re:What about the mentalty of their customers ?
on
Sony to Buy Gracenote
·
· Score: 1
At this risk of Godwinning the thread, that's just like Hitler excusing his actions by saying "B...b...b...but it was all Himmler's idea!"
Re:What about the mentalty of their customers ?
on
Sony to Buy Gracenote
·
· Score: 1
Who gives a flying rat's ass? Again, the CD case said "Sony."
As long as the revenue from selling the tainted products appears on Sony's balance sheet, it's their responsibility.
Re:What about the mentalty of their customers ?
on
Sony to Buy Gracenote
·
· Score: 1
Because the part of Sony that makes the PS3 has nothing to do with the part of Sony that sues people for making mp3 files?
This line of reasoning cracks me up. The legal papers say "Sony" on them, don't they -- or at least RIAA, of which Sony's a member. The rootkit was distributed with CDs that said "Sony BMG," correct? The PS3 says "Sony" on it, doesn't it?
That means they are using the same corporate goodwill to sell you all three products -- lawsuits, rootkits, and shiny baubles. The name "Sony" carries value above and beyond what's on the balance sheet, and the reputation of the entire corporation depends on it. All you're doing when you make excuses for their behavior is insulating the entity called "Sony" from the consequences of its actions.
Why would you do them a favor like that, when they're (probably) not even paying you?
Give me a break - you can make all of the bullshit Revolutionary analogies you want, the fact is if a US single pilot were blinded by a DVD-homebrew-laser we'd all be forced to get permits for our DVD burners. For fucks sake, every air traveler in the country has to remove their shoes because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers.
Funny, I can still buy ammonium nitrate here in the admittedly-far-from-perfect US.
What is the government of Australia going to do when someone burns down a nightclub, killing a hundred people in ten minutes with a can of gasoline? Ban gasoline?
It reminds me of the bumper stickers I see every once in awhile, the ones with the photo of Osama bin Laden. "I'm still free, how about you?" The US isn't perfect, but Australia treats its people like infants. Apparently, no Australian adult is allowed to own anything that would be dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a drunken retard. (How's that working out for you, anyway?)
Slashdot Mirror
And where rats eat circuit boards?
Are you advocating that individuals ought to be able to own atom bombs? After all, maybe they just want to pretend to ride them in their garage.
Dumbest argument ever. If I have my own nuclear arsenal, you and what army are going to take it away from me? I obviously consider myself above the law at that point, just as common street thugs consider themselves "above" gun-control laws.
"Fraud" means they were lied to. When/how did that happen?
You skipped over the part about "Triggers the release of dopamine. Can increase concentration and creative output." I note that this description comes BEFORE the downside.
You skipped the part that describes how that's not 100% true.
I own an early iPhone, and I'm a pretty damn happy camper. Don't know about you.
When buying gadgets, you have to evaluate the value proposition as of the moment when you hand over the money. Holy shit, has this been a nice phone. When the 3G model is released, I will be lining up like a stereotypical fanboy, because the 1.0 hardware's ownership experience has been an exceptionally good one.
I'll second that. Clearwire == garbage. Useful only as a last-ditch backup service.
why do you trust the government to behave so upstanding and forthright on one hand, and then expect nothing from them but fascist harassment... all in the same thought?
The reason we developed the Rule of Law is because we recognize weaknesses in our own nature as humans, and as rulers of each other. When it comes to government, the only rational outlook is to hope for the best while anticipating the worst.
You need to hit the history and philosophy books before going any further down this path, or you'll manage to make yourself sound even more naive. You'll be surprised to learn that you're not the first to ask those rhetorical questions, and that they actually have been thought out.
you can't have it both ways friend. either the government is well-behaved, or it isn't. you can't expect good behavior (they will respect my rights) at the same time you expect bad behavior (they will rape my rights). it's one or the other
No, it isn't even remotely that simple. Governments change. "Behaviors" which were benign under one regime may not be so benign under the next, or after a particularly spectacular national trauma removes previously-accepted constraints. When you allow those behaviors to be encoded into law, they are much more difficult to remedy when they are eventually abused.
You sound like one of those Free Republic types who defend the Bush Administration's endless expansions-by-fiat of executive power. I really wish those people would have had the chance to stand aside, powerless, while the same rationalizations were employed by Hillary Clinton. Maybe then they'd have remembered why they they joined the Republican party in the first place.
Then how'd we get here?
While I feel obscenity laws have a place in our society
Really? Where? I've looked all through the First Amendment, and I don't see any exceptions for obscenity, indecency, profanity, pornography, or "protecting the children."
Any laws passed which regulate obscenity in publicly-funded media are explicitly unconstitutional. And no, I don't really care what the Supreme Court says; I was capable of reading plain English in the first grade.
I promote the idea that those laws should be enforced by a jury of AVERAGE citizens -- not some kind of religious ideologists that only rule (ie. judge/jury/executioner) from their perspective.
Average citizens are religious ideologues. I have the right to be tried by a jury of my peers. Such people are not my peers.
And people wonder why kids these days are on Prozac?
Beats the heck out of Haloperidol, which is what you should probably be on.
The chair thing needs to be kept alive. There are a lot of devs at Microsoft, some of them very good ones, who haven't yet considered who and what they're actually working for.
Don't overlook Alphatronics, on Andover Park East in Tukwila. There wasn't much at Radar that's not either available at Alphatronics, or at Vetco in Bellevue (which took a lot of Radar's inventory).
There are no such laws. The fact that everyone just happily assumes there are laws behind movie, music, and game ratings is one of the more unsettling aspects of life in twenty-first century America.
It was an (obviously failed) attempt at humor. See, if you bring a gun, it doesn't matter whether you're authorized to acces... aw, never mind.
You can designate your executor with the bank in advance. That's what my mom did before she died; I was able to simply walk into the bank with her key and a loaded Glock and access the deposit box with no problems.
In all seriousness, it does make life a lot easier for your survivors if you name them as heirs to your bank account(s).
They can't hold your parents responsible for your debts, so the only option would be to auction your stuff.
<shrug> Maybe he wants to do the honorable thing and not stick society at large with his debts, in the event of his death.
The Bikeshed/Barn issue is at the heart of this problem. No single interface makes everyone happy; a good UI will allow users to take a degree of ownership by allowing basic cosmetic changes.
True in many practical cases, but not in all cases. Specifically, you will never create anything truly great that way. "Good" is the best you can hope for if you delegate that level of decision-making to the user.
Case in point: would the iPhone have been better with a configurable UI?
Nah, I really feel that we're talking about just one corporate entity here, not two independent ones. Wall Street doesn't see two separate companies, and neither does Joe Six-Pack. Sorry.
If it'll help, I'll dedicate tomorrow's Two Minute Hate session to BMG, just for a change of pace. But after that, it'll be all about Sony again.
At this risk of Godwinning the thread, that's just like Hitler excusing his actions by saying "B...b...b...but it was all Himmler's idea!"
Who gives a flying rat's ass? Again, the CD case said "Sony."
As long as the revenue from selling the tainted products appears on Sony's balance sheet, it's their responsibility.
Because the part of Sony that makes the PS3 has nothing to do with the part of Sony that sues people for making mp3 files?
This line of reasoning cracks me up. The legal papers say "Sony" on them, don't they -- or at least RIAA, of which Sony's a member. The rootkit was distributed with CDs that said "Sony BMG," correct? The PS3 says "Sony" on it, doesn't it?
That means they are using the same corporate goodwill to sell you all three products -- lawsuits, rootkits, and shiny baubles. The name "Sony" carries value above and beyond what's on the balance sheet, and the reputation of the entire corporation depends on it. All you're doing when you make excuses for their behavior is insulating the entity called "Sony" from the consequences of its actions.
Why would you do them a favor like that, when they're (probably) not even paying you?
There are so many other alternatives to Paypal that I don't see why people bother with it.
Hmm, maybe because PayPal works well for 99% of the set of users who aren't trying to pull something underhanded.
Please spend some time over at the Talk.Origins FAQ. You don't sound like a howling dumbass, so there's still hope for you.
Give me a break - you can make all of the bullshit Revolutionary analogies you want, the fact is if a US single pilot were blinded by a DVD-homebrew-laser we'd all be forced to get permits for our DVD burners. For fucks sake, every air traveler in the country has to remove their shoes because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers.
Funny, I can still buy ammonium nitrate here in the admittedly-far-from-perfect US.
What is the government of Australia going to do when someone burns down a nightclub, killing a hundred people in ten minutes with a can of gasoline? Ban gasoline?
It reminds me of the bumper stickers I see every once in awhile, the ones with the photo of Osama bin Laden. "I'm still free, how about you?" The US isn't perfect, but Australia treats its people like infants. Apparently, no Australian adult is allowed to own anything that would be dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a drunken retard. (How's that working out for you, anyway?)