> To argue otherwise would be akin to arguing that we should be able to demand that Sony (for example) open up development of the buttons, knobs and dials for their stereo equipment.
I don't believe Sony has a legal statement claiming that you can't replace the knobs and buttons on the Sony device you have purchased.
> you've never had a situation where something baffles you and you call in the help of some colleagues?
If I call in colleagues and they all agree they they don't know what the hell is going on, we try to find someone who does instead of standing around staring at a computer.
> The average person has two legs. Some people have fewer than this. A very rare few have more.
I posit that there are quite a few more people with no legs than those with three or more. Therefore the average number of legs per person is less than two. However, the average person does, in fact, have two legs -- barring an overly-broad definition of legs, the existence of other dimensions (where you may actually have fifty seven legs of which you are not currently aware), and the denial of a physical reality.
> Maybe they aren't really interested in christianity, but only want to push their own theory?
Well, since Satan is supposed to be The Great Deceiver (not George Bush, contrary to popular belief), they must be agents of the devil, trying to deceive Christians into believing that God created Earth.
When suffering from depression, even if you consider seeing professional help it can still be a major hurdle just to make an appointment, let along making it. Even ignoring that, one or two sessions (short of a miracle) will not solve anything. It takes a long time and many sessions, and continuing to go is difficult. Especially if it takes a while: "Man, I'm so messed up, even a professional can't help me. Screw this..." And (to bring this more on-topic) if you are prescribed drugs that don't work, it makes it all the more difficult: "if the drugs don't work, maybe it's not a clinical thing and my life really just sucks really bad, so I'm just wasting money on pills and therapy."
I have had problems with depression, and still do (although it's not as bad as it was some years ago). I started taking Paxil, and all it did was make me shaky. "Great, now I'm depressed and nervous." In my case, the problem was (is) with state of mind, and if drugs would help, I think it would only be covering over the symptoms and not treating the problem so I am working it out on my own. I am getting better, but it is a very long process and just saying "stop this" is not always as easy as it seems... if only it was.
There are some who don't necessarily feel sorry for themselves, but instead are mad at themselves for not being able to overcome their depression. The same psychology still comes into play, but it's not like all depressed people sit around thinking "I'm so sad and everyone should pity me."
Yes, every freedom does have a value. Not the same value, granted, but a value nonetheless. And again, not taking advantage of a freedom doesn't mean you shouldn't have that freedom. I do wear a seatbelt, but it's not my (or the US government's) place to force me to do it.
In what way would I not consider it safe to call GIMP a PSP competitor? That sounds like a geek koan: like what's the sound of an unconnected relay switching.
But anyway, I was incorrect in the way I approached that. It's not that it's not a competitor, but it's my opinion that it is not on the same level of usability for most people. Which is not the same thing.
> some addictive items are rather good at helping you bypass the inhibition you would have for otherwise dangerous activities. Example: cigarettes.
"I was just fine until I smoked a cigarette. All of the sudden I wanted to go rock climbing, skydiving, and started shooting smack." I think Alcohol is a better example, as I have never, ever heard that smoking cigarettes lowers your inhibitions in any way.
> > this argument only makes sense if society already works under the presumption that The State is required to pay for people's bills when they can't afford them. > It's not a presumption so much as (to a large degree) the current reality.
In the given argument, the state (in the US) does NOT pay for those bills -- at least medical ones. The hospital they went to has to eat the losses for the ER visit if the person cannot pay and doesn't have insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
> isn't it logical that you should pay extra for every extra person who's watching it?
Erm... no, not really.
> that theory holds water only if everyone on the planet can code in the language the software was written in
No: only if everyone on the planet (who uses that product) trusts someone who knows that language.
> "If you were born in August, you are stubborn."
Why, I was born in August... and I'm stubborn... YOU HAVE "THE SIGHT!"
> Why can't Apple dictate how their software is used?
Why can't Sony (or whoever owns it now) dictate what kind of music people make with Acid Pro?
> To argue otherwise would be akin to arguing that we should be able to demand that Sony (for example) open up development of the buttons, knobs and dials for their stereo equipment.
I don't believe Sony has a legal statement claiming that you can't replace the knobs and buttons on the Sony device you have purchased.
> you've never had a situation where something baffles you and you call in the help of some colleagues?
If I call in colleagues and they all agree they they don't know what the hell is going on, we try to find someone who does instead of standing around staring at a computer.
> If you want to read fan-cruft about WWE, then the internet isn't short of websites.
If you want info on ANYTHING the Internet isn't short of websites. The point of Wikipedia, unless I'm mistaken, is to consolidate that information.
> You want bad articles? Try browsing some of the professional wrestling or anime articles.
You want good articles? Rewrite them! You seem to be missing the point of Wikipedia.
> Don't misunderstand the playing field; "the admins" [...] do not have the right to remove insignificant articles
And yet they do it without repercussions... strange.
> Some guy, called J. William Fulbright, said the same here [amazon.com]
Damn, I knew amazon.com was full of dirty commies!
> The average person has two legs. Some people have fewer than this. A very rare few have more.
I posit that there are quite a few more people with no legs than those with three or more. Therefore the average number of legs per person is less than two. However, the average person does, in fact, have two legs -- barring an overly-broad definition of legs, the existence of other dimensions (where you may actually have fifty seven legs of which you are not currently aware), and the denial of a physical reality.
Dude: you are criticizing a comedian for not researching the fine mathematical details of a joke. You really need to ease up.
> Maybe they aren't really interested in christianity, but only want to push their own theory?
Well, since Satan is supposed to be The Great Deceiver (not George Bush, contrary to popular belief), they must be agents of the devil, trying to deceive Christians into believing that God created Earth.
Ouch, my logic just imploded!
When suffering from depression, even if you consider seeing professional help it can still be a major hurdle just to make an appointment, let along making it. Even ignoring that, one or two sessions (short of a miracle) will not solve anything. It takes a long time and many sessions, and continuing to go is difficult. Especially if it takes a while: "Man, I'm so messed up, even a professional can't help me. Screw this..." And (to bring this more on-topic) if you are prescribed drugs that don't work, it makes it all the more difficult: "if the drugs don't work, maybe it's not a clinical thing and my life really just sucks really bad, so I'm just wasting money on pills and therapy."
I have had problems with depression, and still do (although it's not as bad as it was some years ago). I started taking Paxil, and all it did was make me shaky. "Great, now I'm depressed and nervous." In my case, the problem was (is) with state of mind, and if drugs would help, I think it would only be covering over the symptoms and not treating the problem so I am working it out on my own. I am getting better, but it is a very long process and just saying "stop this" is not always as easy as it seems... if only it was.
Classic Nature vs. Nurture.
If you grow up hearing your parents say "life is shit" all the time, what're the chances you're going to believe it? Pretty darn good.
Which is not to suggest I know there is no genetic inheritance -- just that there's more to it.
> Stop feeling sorry for yourselves!
There are some who don't necessarily feel sorry for themselves, but instead are mad at themselves for not being able to overcome their depression. The same psychology still comes into play, but it's not like all depressed people sit around thinking "I'm so sad and everyone should pity me."
It's the Internet: No one knows you're a dog... until the pictures are already published.
> We're talking about 'enchancing' a wide-angle view and gaining detail that is below the resolution of the video signal.
You don't know that they don't have HD cameras and really crappy TVs.
Yes, talking about seat belts isn't Offtopic, but pointing out that freedoms are valuable isn't. Whoever modded this offtopic is a fucking moron.
Practical? No. It would be cheaper, but not more practical.
Yes, every freedom does have a value. Not the same value, granted, but a value nonetheless. And again, not taking advantage of a freedom doesn't mean you shouldn't have that freedom. I do wear a seatbelt, but it's not my (or the US government's) place to force me to do it.
In what way would I not consider it safe to call GIMP a PSP competitor? That sounds like a geek koan: like what's the sound of an unconnected relay switching.
But anyway, I was incorrect in the way I approached that. It's not that it's not a competitor, but it's my opinion that it is not on the same level of usability for most people. Which is not the same thing.
> some addictive items are rather good at helping you bypass the inhibition you would have for otherwise dangerous activities. Example: cigarettes.
"I was just fine until I smoked a cigarette. All of the sudden I wanted to go rock climbing, skydiving, and started shooting smack." I think Alcohol is a better example, as I have never, ever heard that smoking cigarettes lowers your inhibitions in any way.
> > this argument only makes sense if society already works under the presumption that The State is required to pay for people's bills when they can't afford them.
> It's not a presumption so much as (to a large degree) the current reality.
In the given argument, the state (in the US) does NOT pay for those bills -- at least medical ones. The hospital they went to has to eat the losses for the ER visit if the person cannot pay and doesn't have insurance.
> It's all taken off through the wonders of nature.
:P
Get off my road, you damn hippie!