Not for the ultra-conservatives in the US. The current nonsense floating around in those circles is that Joe McCarthy was correct, the Red Scare was a much bigger danger than history books would have us believe, and that the left's attack on the HUAC and anti-communism and McCarthy in particular was horrible and shameful.
Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry
There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history. What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?
I'll respond, even though this is a two week article (I was on vacation..)
I feel this moment is defining not due to the actual results of the Samsung case but due to the type of precedent it sets. It represents a clear shift, showing that the courts are happy to protect this sort of thing now, while they didn't back in the 80s when Apple and others were filing (and losing) their "Look and Feel" lawsuits. It opens the door for far more litigation over interface patents.
Whether Samsung has to change the interface or design of some phones... meh, that's not really historic. It's the precedent that this sets that matters.
Oh, damn. One of the "God wouldn't let us damage the Earth, so whatever we -can- do must be all right" types. I suppose his version of the Bible just glosses over the "free will" part.
Are you saying that when Romney promises 4% unemployment, he's full of shit?
I don't appreciate your debasing the level of this discussion by calling Mitt Romney a lying piece of shit. Shame on you.
The reality that often doesn't come up in political debates is that the President isn't king of the county, and his power to affect the economy is greatly overstated. George Bush and Barack Obama get too much flack for the state of the economy today. Reagan and Clinton get too much credit for the state of the economy during their presidencies. The answers are much more complex, but we shy away from a discussion of complex issues.
Also, the incumbent is at a huge disadvantage, because a challenger can promise all sorts of things he can't possibly affect or count on (like Romney's 4% number) while the incumbent is more beholden to reality -- we can see exactly what happened during his first term.
Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy. Unless you think he is an idiot you don't really believe that either. Mormons are a distinct minority with a history of persecution, on religious grounds
Actually the United States has a history of just that very thing. Our pilgrims and puritans were religious extremists who couldn't find a foot-hold in Europe, so they came to North America to set up theocracies. Most of New England was set up that way.
We have a long history of the oppressed desiring to be the oppressors.
Many Mormons are quite happy with religious oppression only as long as it's their religious oppression. Religious conservatives don't learn from being oppressed by a majority. They simply say, "we are the ones who are right. We must persevere, for some day it will be our turn."
His exact words: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
My exact response above: "Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business."
Ugh. I'm not an Obama partisan, but even I know the word 'that' in Obama's statement did not refer to "if you've got a business," you liar.
I wouldn't tar nearly all Republicans with that brush, but I'm seeing an increasing tendency to this sort of magical thinking there. We're not going to get a good answer to what makes a person do that. I had a boss once who had an increasing touch of talking like that, and he went on to kill the 15 year old he was cheating with, when she told him she was pregnant. Then he shot most of his family and tried to commit suicide by cop, and chickened out. He's in Supermax for life plus, and I don't think we will ever understand it, and knowing he really hammered at the self made man myth towards the end of his free life doesn't tell us anything useful about why he was the way he became.
Maybe he came to realize it was a myth and when it crumbled to dust, he had nothing, nothing left.
With all due respect to context, Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business. He, instead, places the sole focus and credit on the roll of the government in providing infrastructure and public education. Those of use who take issue with his statement see this great infrastructure as an enabler, but not an acting agent in building a successful company. If the opposite were true, we'd all be CEOs.
It's a response to the people who feel they owe no obligation to society under the mistaken belief that they did everything themselves.
My grandma talked about how the neighbors and her would get together to make "hobo soup" so that those traveling the rails would have a bite to eat when they stopped in their little town, and in return, without asking mind you, she never had to split a single rick of wood and every chore that needed doing would be done by a hobo. The entire town looked after each other and if someone got sick or hurt the others would come round to help them get back on their feet again.
These days your typical "hobo" has severe mental problems, and treatment for such now is the street. They're not riding the rails looking for work, they're drifters stuck in one city sitting and asking for handouts all day. You can pick up day laborers easily enough still (though you'll often get illegal immigrants) but you don't want to do that with hobos. Not anymore.
Manning released content he wasn't authorized to. It wasn't his role/place to do what he did and he did so knowingly. He deserves the book be thrown at him simply because when you agree to the dictates of an oath, you are bound by them. He shouldn't have entered the military if he wasn't going to live up to its requirements upon him.
So you say there is no role out there for whistleblowers? That only outsiders can attempt to uncover because insiders have some sort of loyalty oath?
As I pointed out - why not go against those with the most design patents? Because they are not Apple? Fanboy alert.
I don't believe in them in general, but I push back against the most public offenders at the time. Right now, no one comes close to Apple in their abuse of 'design patents.' A year ago at this time, I rather liked Apple, despite my dislike for the walled garden approach. Tomorrow it may be someone else.
I appreciated Apple for role they played with the iPod, iPad, and iPhone. When they started using the legal system to try to shut out competitors with bullshit patents, I lost my interest.
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Supposedly that is what, say, the Supreme Court is for, to say "But our basic documents say you cannot have that tyranny." Of course, they are still free to, say, hold constitutional conventions or propose amendments to the Constitution, and if the majority actually believe in what is requested, then the constitution will be amended to follow the will of the majority. It was written with just that idea in mind, that if the basic documents that form the system of government fail, they can be changed or replaced in an orderly manner.
Of course, "interpretation" about whether this tyranny is constitutional or not muddies the waters a bit.
Yep, I'm sure it's a problem with bad programming, because good programmers never produce serious bugs, right? It's not like quality control is actually really hard, especially with large and complex software under a single unyielding deadline. Forgive me, but it seems like you've never done professional software development in your life.
Back before "always on Internet" and patching became common, game companies had to make the best games possible with the technology available and those games had to work and be relatively bug-free. Now any company that doesn't care about quality control can rush titles out because the penalties for rushing aren't as severe as they used to be. Instead of a game that people can't play and they demand a refund for, they can release a post-ship patch. Glorious.
I think it's better for gaming too. I use the mouse with my left hand, and am just as good with it as with the right hand. Then, I have all my various hotkeys bound to the numeric keypad. Tap-Tap-Clack.
"First it's called the free market, not capitalism. The free market requires all participants to engage within the same set of rules and to engage fairly."
I agree completely. What I find most galling is that Apple won a court case accusing Samsung of doing the same thing that Apple has done in years past: take someone else's product and find better ways to improve upon it.
Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison.
Haha, what a silly argument.
Don't you remember? The US closed almost all of its mental institutions. Apparently it's better to have our mentally ill folks panhandling in the gutters in the street than in an institution.
Pi owner here as well. I'm genuinely disappointed at how closed that Broadcom chip actually is, compared to the open/hackable machine I thought I was getting.
Every time I hear of a new 'open,' 'hey, you can run linux on it!' platform I end up being disappointed. I felt the same about the Playstation 3, thinking I could run linux on it, set up some old game emulators, make it into a real console to replace all my others. Unfortunately the hardware was almost totally locked off from the Yellowdog Linux image. You had the CPUs (some of them), but not the GPUs. It was intentionally crippled so that it would be useless for game-playing.
Not only was your first post eventually modded up to 5, but your second post, which did nothing but the quote the first in its entirety, is also sitting at Score: 5! It's 2 for 1 karma!
Lance is (or was) doping. Every top athlete is doping. Bolt, Phelps; they're dopers too (and I don't mean marijuana). That's just what it takes to be at that level unless you're a genetic freak.
Why would you assume they aren't genetic freaks? Wouldn't guys with a genetic advantage rise to the top?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously...? Red Scare is so last century
Not for the ultra-conservatives in the US. The current nonsense floating around in those circles is that Joe McCarthy was correct, the Red Scare was a much bigger danger than history books would have us believe, and that the left's attack on the HUAC and anti-communism and McCarthy in particular was horrible and shameful.
No TRUE Scotsman is a mass-murderer, either.
First, No True Scotsman is a bullshit fallacy. Please don't use it.
Second, McVeigh was raised as a Catholic by identified himself as agnostic.
Personally I do also believe we are at a defining moment in the modern computing industry
There have been many "defining" moments in modern computer history.
What's so defining about this particular moment with its clone army of touchscreen phones?
I'll respond, even though this is a two week article (I was on vacation..)
I feel this moment is defining not due to the actual results of the Samsung case but due to the type of precedent it sets. It represents a clear shift, showing that the courts are happy to protect this sort of thing now, while they didn't back in the 80s when Apple and others were filing (and losing) their "Look and Feel" lawsuits. It opens the door for far more litigation over interface patents.
Whether Samsung has to change the interface or design of some phones... meh, that's not really historic. It's the precedent that this sets that matters.
Oh, damn. One of the "God wouldn't let us damage the Earth, so whatever we -can- do must be all right" types. I suppose his version of the Bible just glosses over the "free will" part.
Are you saying that when Romney promises 4% unemployment, he's full of shit?
I don't appreciate your debasing the level of this discussion by calling Mitt Romney a lying piece of shit. Shame on you.
The reality that often doesn't come up in political debates is that the President isn't king of the county, and his power to affect the economy is greatly overstated. George Bush and Barack Obama get too much flack for the state of the economy today. Reagan and Clinton get too much credit for the state of the economy during their presidencies. The answers are much more complex, but we shy away from a discussion of complex issues.
Also, the incumbent is at a huge disadvantage, because a challenger can promise all sorts of things he can't possibly affect or count on (like Romney's 4% number) while the incumbent is more beholden to reality -- we can see exactly what happened during his first term.
Kinda doubt that Romney wants a theocracy. Unless you think he is an idiot you don't really believe that either. Mormons are a distinct minority with a history of persecution, on religious grounds
Actually the United States has a history of just that very thing. Our pilgrims and puritans were religious extremists who couldn't find a foot-hold in Europe, so they came to North America to set up theocracies. Most of New England was set up that way.
We have a long history of the oppressed desiring to be the oppressors.
Many Mormons are quite happy with religious oppression only as long as it's their religious oppression.
Religious conservatives don't learn from being oppressed by a majority. They simply say, "we are the ones who are right. We must persevere, for some day it will be our turn."
His exact words: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
My exact response above: "Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business."
Ugh. I'm not an Obama partisan, but even I know the word 'that' in Obama's statement did not refer to "if you've got a business," you liar.
I wouldn't tar nearly all Republicans with that brush, but I'm seeing an increasing tendency to this sort of magical thinking there. We're not going to get a good answer to what makes a person do that. I had a boss once who had an increasing touch of talking like that, and he went on to kill the 15 year old he was cheating with, when she told him she was pregnant. Then he shot most of his family and tried to commit suicide by cop, and chickened out. He's in Supermax for life plus, and I don't think we will ever understand it, and knowing he really hammered at the self made man myth towards the end of his free life doesn't tell us anything useful about why he was the way he became.
Maybe he came to realize it was a myth and when it crumbled to dust, he had nothing, nothing left.
With all due respect to context, Obama's statement completely discounts the effort, innovation, hard work and, oftentimes, personal risk that goes into building a business. He, instead, places the sole focus and credit on the roll of the government in providing infrastructure and public education. Those of use who take issue with his statement see this great infrastructure as an enabler, but not an acting agent in building a successful company. If the opposite were true, we'd all be CEOs.
It's a response to the people who feel they owe no obligation to society under the mistaken belief that they did everything themselves.
Good job removing the context. Because hey, context isn't important, right?
The problem is that would require a constitutional amendment too, and I can't see such a thing ever gaining popular support.
My grandma talked about how the neighbors and her would get together to make "hobo soup" so that those traveling the rails would have a bite to eat when they stopped in their little town, and in return, without asking mind you, she never had to split a single rick of wood and every chore that needed doing would be done by a hobo. The entire town looked after each other and if someone got sick or hurt the others would come round to help them get back on their feet again.
These days your typical "hobo" has severe mental problems, and treatment for such now is the street. They're not riding the rails looking for work, they're drifters stuck in one city sitting and asking for handouts all day. You can pick up day laborers easily enough still (though you'll often get illegal immigrants) but you don't want to do that with hobos. Not anymore.
Manning released content he wasn't authorized to. It wasn't his role/place to do what he did and he did so knowingly. He deserves the book be thrown at him simply because when you agree to the dictates of an oath, you are bound by them. He shouldn't have entered the military if he wasn't going to live up to its requirements upon him.
So you say there is no role out there for whistleblowers? That only outsiders can attempt to uncover because insiders have some sort of loyalty oath?
As I pointed out - why not go against those with the most design patents? Because they are not Apple? Fanboy alert.
I don't believe in them in general, but I push back against the most public offenders at the time. Right now, no one comes close to Apple in their abuse of 'design patents.' A year ago at this time, I rather liked Apple, despite my dislike for the walled garden approach. Tomorrow it may be someone else.
I appreciated Apple for role they played with the iPod, iPad, and iPhone. When they started using the legal system to try to shut out competitors with bullshit patents, I lost my interest.
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Supposedly that is what, say, the Supreme Court is for, to say "But our basic documents say you cannot have that tyranny." Of course, they are still free to, say, hold constitutional conventions or propose amendments to the Constitution, and if the majority actually believe in what is requested, then the constitution will be amended to follow the will of the majority. It was written with just that idea in mind, that if the basic documents that form the system of government fail, they can be changed or replaced in an orderly manner.
Of course, "interpretation" about whether this tyranny is constitutional or not muddies the waters a bit.
It'd be really interesting to see what a Bethesda QA person says the game looks like BEFORE release...
If you can understand what he's saying through the frustrated sobbing.
Yep, I'm sure it's a problem with bad programming, because good programmers never produce serious bugs, right? It's not like quality control is actually really hard, especially with large and complex software under a single unyielding deadline. Forgive me, but it seems like you've never done professional software development in your life.
Back before "always on Internet" and patching became common, game companies had to make the best games possible with the technology available and those games had to work and be relatively bug-free. Now any company that doesn't care about quality control can rush titles out because the penalties for rushing aren't as severe as they used to be. Instead of a game that people can't play and they demand a refund for, they can release a post-ship patch. Glorious.
Right... indiscriminate disease is punishment from a deity.
Sounds like an asshole to me.
God moves in mysterious, often dickish, ways.
I think it's better for gaming too. I use the mouse with my left hand, and am just as good with it as with the right hand.
Then, I have all my various hotkeys bound to the numeric keypad. Tap-Tap-Clack.
"First it's called the free market, not capitalism. The free market requires all participants to engage within the same set of rules and to engage fairly."
I agree completely. What I find most galling is that Apple won a court case accusing Samsung of doing the same thing that Apple has done in years past: take someone else's product and find better ways to improve upon it.
Um, yes, quite a few though we don't know actual numbers yet. The US Government was recently found to be putting people in to mental institutions after arresting them, instead of prison.
Haha, what a silly argument.
Don't you remember? The US closed almost all of its mental institutions.
Apparently it's better to have our mentally ill folks panhandling in the gutters in the street than in an institution.
Pi owner here as well. I'm genuinely disappointed at how closed that Broadcom chip actually is, compared to the open/hackable machine I thought I was getting.
Every time I hear of a new 'open,' 'hey, you can run linux on it!' platform I end up being disappointed. I felt the same about the Playstation 3, thinking I could run linux on it, set up some old game emulators, make it into a real console to replace all my others. Unfortunately the hardware was almost totally locked off from the Yellowdog Linux image. You had the CPUs (some of them), but not the GPUs. It was intentionally crippled so that it would be useless for game-playing.
Problem is that Android phones are cheap plastic junk. They slow to a crawl, need to be restarted,
Damn, Samsung copied EVERYTHING from Apple's iPhone!
Not only was your first post eventually modded up to 5, but your second post, which did nothing but the quote the first in its entirety, is also sitting at Score: 5! It's 2 for 1 karma!
Lance is (or was) doping. Every top athlete is doping. Bolt, Phelps; they're dopers too (and I don't mean marijuana). That's just what it takes to be at that level unless you're a genetic freak.
Why would you assume they aren't genetic freaks? Wouldn't guys with a genetic advantage rise to the top?