While one certainly can discuss Apple and/or Microsoft in terms of usability and market or impact on culture and such, using them are still about engaging in the sucking of satans cock, figuratively speaking.
(Last time this comment was modded troll. Let's see how it fares now.)
The solution to the problem of getting food on the tables of starving artists and roofs over their heads, is to get everyone food and roofs. Throw in clothes, public transportation and Internet, and any real artist will happily feed the worlds minds with their talent.
The free market can't provide basic sustenance for everyone, but a little socialism could.
This may come off as trollish or flammatory, but bare with me...
While one certainly can discuss Apple and/or Microsoft in terms of usability and market or impact on culture and such, using them are still about engaging in the sucking of satans cock, figuratively speaking. Just a perspective. Peace.
Honest question: How subsidized are "subsidized" phones in the US, really?
Here in Sweden you can get phones locked to an operator too and you can get them with a commitment to stay the course of one year, for example, but looking at the increased monthly cost and/or cost/minutes, it seems they're not subsidized, but it's more like an instalment (hire-purchase) plan.
I don't mean they'd be an oppressor, just that it would at some point become necessary to have an open and free alternative to move things forward, kind of like I believe that to get the best kind of OS, it will have to be Free and open source (and I'm not saying we're there yet when it comes to OS:s, but that proprietary and non-free is not the future).
...to have progress, the people of earth will have to start owning the search and everything else that Google is into nowadays. Today most people probably think Google is doing a good job (and I'm not saying they aren't), but Google will become a middle man that we'd be better off without. The surfers should be in control of the means of searching. I hope the transition will go smoothly and painlessly.
In Italy one man only has kept the domination of the image over three entire decades. As a TV-magnate and then as Presidente, Silvio Berlusconi has created a perfect system of TV-entertainment and politics. [...]...a remarkable story, born out of the scary reality of TV-republic Italy, a country where the step from TV-showgirl to Minister for Gender Equality is only natural.
in fact, this would make you fail in the Elementary School Science Fair of your choice. The sad truth seems to be that, while Science concerns itself with discovering truth, these scientists have concerned themselves only with discovering funding and prestige.
Really? You have to wait decades to pass elementary school science? Or do you first pass, then decades later they fail you, if you don't have the data any longer?
And how does that lead to this sad truth that you speak of? Your conclusion seems a bit unscientific to a layman such as myself.
I'll agree that this kind of crap shouldn't happen, but I think there seems to be other more plausible explanations than that they only are in it for the money and chics.
Granted, that was a bit of a strange thing to write. I often don't make myself clear. What I was imagining that I was saying in my head, was something along the lines of "Wikipedia has all these millions of articles and (if there are copies) they aren't going anywhere.
Cool. Come to think of it, my university gives students access to loads of databases of research papers, newspapers, scientific journals and whatnot. Probably even Britannica online and other "pay for" encyclopedias...
Maybe I should check those out more often. I don't much look up that much serious stuff, though. I use those databases and things mostly to get inspiration and background and viewpoints for school-stuff.
I do utilize the library, but I often choose not to go there, but use the internet (and often wikipedia) instead for looking up things I encounter that peak my interest.
Sounds interesting. And that BetterPedia might be sweet for someone with more money, or someone who uses an encyclopedia more (allthough I do use wikipedia just about daily), but I can think of many things I'd rather spend that money on. Paying for an encyclopedia is so far down my list of priorities that I don't even bother thinking about exactly how far down it is.
Yes, someone else pays for the internet I use. If I didn't use this connection, the bill would still be paid. But even if I did pay for the internet connection, I'd still prioritize internet right after food, cigarettes and beer.
I'm not saying wikipedia great, just that it's the best. My guess (this isn't any kind of rigorous quantitative study I've done here) is that wikipedia is the most useful encyclopedia for the most people. It certainly is for me. Do tell what encyclopedias y'all use, though.
I can't because I won't... and "can't". In reality that's just priorities, of course. Yes I'm allergic to capitalism. Also, I don't have any money. I'll check out that library thingie you speak of. I do like Free-as-in-freedom. Peace.
Slashdot Mirror
Darpa schmarpa!
Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have? Losers.
Ok. I see it's 2 for 2. I think a rewording is in order.
While one certainly can discuss Apple and/or Microsoft in terms of usability and market or impact on culture and such, using them are still about engaging in the sucking of satans cock, figuratively speaking.
(Last time this comment was modded troll. Let's see how it fares now.)
The solution to the problem of getting food on the tables of starving artists and roofs over their heads, is to get everyone food and roofs. Throw in clothes, public transportation and Internet, and any real artist will happily feed the worlds minds with their talent.
The free market can't provide basic sustenance for everyone, but a little socialism could.
This may come off as trollish or flammatory, but bare with me...
While one certainly can discuss Apple and/or Microsoft in terms of usability and market or impact on culture and such, using them are still about engaging in the sucking of satans cock, figuratively speaking. Just a perspective. Peace.
It's as if you're fishing for the answer "N900"...
Honest question: How subsidized are "subsidized" phones in the US, really?
Here in Sweden you can get phones locked to an operator too and you can get them with a commitment to stay the course of one year, for example, but looking at the increased monthly cost and/or cost/minutes, it seems they're not subsidized, but it's more like an instalment (hire-purchase) plan.
The people of earth are the people of earth. We could come together using the Internet and Free/Open Source software.
I don't mean they'd be an oppressor, just that it would at some point become necessary to have an open and free alternative to move things forward, kind of like I believe that to get the best kind of OS, it will have to be Free and open source (and I'm not saying we're there yet when it comes to OS:s, but that proprietary and non-free is not the future).
...to have progress, the people of earth will have to start owning the search and everything else that Google is into nowadays. Today most people probably think Google is doing a good job (and I'm not saying they aren't), but Google will become a middle man that we'd be better off without. The surfers should be in control of the means of searching. I hope the transition will go smoothly and painlessly.
On my to-watch-list, there's a recent-ish documentary about Berlusconis Italy, titled "Videocracy". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1500516/
http://www.atmo.se/film-and-tv/videocracy/ :
Coming soon to a festival (or internet) near you!
Then this must be lies, since it refutes the claims that random data makes a hockey stick: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
Where's the refutation of the refutation?
Really? You have to wait decades to pass elementary school science? Or do you first pass, then decades later they fail you, if you don't have the data any longer?
And how does that lead to this sad truth that you speak of? Your conclusion seems a bit unscientific to a layman such as myself.
I'll agree that this kind of crap shouldn't happen, but I think there seems to be other more plausible explanations than that they only are in it for the money and chics.
Granted, that was a bit of a strange thing to write. I often don't make myself clear. What I was imagining that I was saying in my head, was something along the lines of "Wikipedia has all these millions of articles and (if there are copies) they aren't going anywhere.
I'm imagining someone selling the Navy fake ships.
Thanks for the insight. I will use those resources more.
ok. thanks.
Cool. Come to think of it, my university gives students access to loads of databases of research papers, newspapers, scientific journals and whatnot. Probably even Britannica online and other "pay for" encyclopedias...
Maybe I should check those out more often. I don't much look up that much serious stuff, though. I use those databases and things mostly to get inspiration and background and viewpoints for school-stuff.
Yes. I also am considering the size of it.
I do utilize the library, but I often choose not to go there, but use the internet (and often wikipedia) instead for looking up things I encounter that peak my interest.
Sounds interesting. And that BetterPedia might be sweet for someone with more money, or someone who uses an encyclopedia more (allthough I do use wikipedia just about daily), but I can think of many things I'd rather spend that money on. Paying for an encyclopedia is so far down my list of priorities that I don't even bother thinking about exactly how far down it is.
Yes, someone else pays for the internet I use. If I didn't use this connection, the bill would still be paid. But even if I did pay for the internet connection, I'd still prioritize internet right after food, cigarettes and beer.
I'm not saying wikipedia great, just that it's the best. My guess (this isn't any kind of rigorous quantitative study I've done here) is that wikipedia is the most useful encyclopedia for the most people. It certainly is for me. Do tell what encyclopedias y'all use, though.
I don't have acces to a library and the content of the books in the library on the internet.
I can't because I won't... and "can't". In reality that's just priorities, of course. Yes I'm allergic to capitalism. Also, I don't have any money. I'll check out that library thingie you speak of. I do like Free-as-in-freedom. Peace.
What is a better encyclopedia, in your opinion? (Don't forget to factor in price. I can't use any that cost anything.)
Wikipedia is what it is. Even if all the contributors dropped dead right now, it'd be the best encyclopedia around for quite some time yet.