Many environmentalists are not the wealthy type because they are closet slackers.
Would you kindly point us to your sources, or are you just psychic? Or does "closet slacker" mean "not greedy enough to make a few bucks poisoning the planet"? I guess I must be full of jealously too.
Their beef with the United States is the culture of consumption, the notion of of consumer capitalism.
That's a bit empty for a culture, but it would only arouse pity if it wasn't so retarded for a long-term strategy; the planet just can't support permanent growth of the economy because it is finite. And consumer capitalism is not privative of the USA, but I have to admit it's there where it's most extreme.
Environmentalists just hate people too much for people to trust their advice.
If that was the case, why would they be fighting to ensure our continuity as a species? They could just sit and watch the show, as we blithely kill the planet off. I admit they get carried away in places, but by and large I'd have less hedonism and more chances of survival as a species.
Precisely. I'm not telling you about this in order to continue business as usual. And coal isn't particularly renewable either, and biomass just doesn't yield enough energy to continue, even if we cover the planet in biomass-yielding crops. We have to start using energy rationally; even if it is -gasp- bad for the economy, our civilization will be in deep shit very soon if we don't cut back on wasting energy like we are now.
After all, the one main reason we get spam is that spamming is profitable. If people stop ordering Viagra and cable descrambles from strangers who email them, there will be no point in keeping it up. Maybe we should make it easier for ppl to have anonymous access to sleaze, which seems to be the major selling point of spam.
In an ideal world, discussion would be the only tool needed, and we could move on by building consensus, as rational beings that we are. Isn't it ironic? Even specifying the 'greater good' we all should strive for is a chore; many people will find a specification, given some time, and many, many, many will be so wildly different as to be incompatible. Even after you root out vested interests, particular tastes, religious beliefs, and kooks (another chore of course). And there's those who don't give a flying fuck about the greater good; I'm very afraid they have gotten a lot more than their fair chunk of power, and reasoning with them is a pipe dream. Oh well.
He he, that's the point, where you count the majority. I would say that whatever candidate gets the most votes gets the seat. The KISS principle, you know.
Yes, requiring 50% for a yes/no vote seems unfair when a new candidate will win with only 15%. We should only require 15% for recall Davis. Then it is even, right?
It is if the 'keep him' votes are counted as votes in his favor. In fact, that's not half bad; have the list of candidates in case of recall include him, so the people who don't want him out can still re-vote for him and show how utterly stupid the system is by making the State and the candidates/parties/whoever waste mindnumbing amounts of cash for basically nothing.
Bullshit. I'd be REALLY surprised if as much as 0.05% of the downloads were by people who have a legal right to the files, and it's not the point anyway. The point is whether it's legitimate to keep the current content distribution channels as they are. I say we do it like with software: their content, their license. Let other providers sell their stuff however they like, and let the market decide.
>I've been other places, and I know how good we have it here.
True.
>I also know that our lifestyle and freedoms terrify some people
It's more like your Army and foreign policy. (Although Jerry Springer is pretty terrifying) Anyway, with the current wonderful people in govt, you can kiss your freedom, your lifestyle and your pension goodbye. Just so you know.
> - those people who have no desire to see an end to despotism and oppression -
Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? China? They're all on good terms with the Good Ole USA...
> and that America, like every other nation on the planet, needs to defend itself from those people.
Yeah, like with Iraq, right? Good luck if your task is to find those pesky WMDs...
If you want to know what there *is* to fear about the US, I suggest you check out ZNet. Wake up and smell the depleted uranium.
I was with you(well, almost) up to that point. I think of FreeCraft as a homage, as a "let's see if we can do something THIS cool". What are they going to "cash" in, anyway? It's not that the game was for sale, was it. I do wish Blizzard would have warned them, and earlier; they would have more to show for their efforts, and maybe direct them to something less trademark-endangering.
It's simple, really. SCO can keep their cards close to their chest all they want, but... IBM has probably looked into it long ago (they have TFS) So next thing we'll hear is something like: CHOMP!!!
Same kind of problem, same solution: Refuse to buy the products until the companies which make them either make the licensing conditions clear before purchase or return your money in case you don't agree with its terms. Maybe a website could be put up by consumer organizations explaining the different EULAs to normal people, and perhaps commenting on them. People don't usually wake up on their own, but some can be helped. It just takes a few very determined individuals to start, and it can become a steamroller. People in the Open Source movement should know that already...
All this would not happen if consumers rejected all this crap. If the EULA asks you to drop your pants, why do you buy the product? In fact, what people should do is actively boycott these things, and also tell their friends why they should too, and to spread the voice. You probably wouldn't have to do it for very long, you know; if after a couple million dollars in advertising the product stays in the shelves, you'll see the company try some other things first, but eventually(you have to be strong) capitulate. The consumers these companies so despise can strangle them if only they woke up.
Why, they're stiff all over! It's something called 'Vigor Mortis'...
Experience, education and prestige
on
IANAL
·
· Score: 1
Yes, "experts" are needed. But not for everything. And sometimes it is the experienced uneducated who keep those experts from hurting themselves. Why is it that the former get nearly all the prestige?
It's a matter of availability: if there were ten engineers for every welder, guess who would be the star? Availability itself is dependent of many factors, but I think you {know|can guess} most of them yourself.
New? QNX was the underdog in '94 already... It was completely wonderful, amazing, extraordinary, beautiful, only the company got their market strategy all wrong. I mean, it was technically ages ahead of anything Microsoft had, and the multitasking was unbelievably slick, but the company would not give copies to universities, either away or for a reduced price, and the licensing was per-computer. I worked doing industrial automation then, and loved the thing. Of course, I had Linux at home: it was not so slick at the time, but it was Free: speech and beer. Also they(QNX Software) lacked office software: who needs it? Maybe they just wanted the industrial automation niche: the OS was certainly perfect for that, but, you know, senior management has always been Office-dependant. By the time I left that company, there was a lot of pressure to install NT in the factory computers. Good that I left...
Slashdot Mirror
Many environmentalists are not the wealthy type because they are closet slackers.
Would you kindly point us to your sources, or are you just psychic? Or does "closet slacker" mean "not greedy enough to make a few bucks poisoning the planet"? I guess I must be full of jealously too.
Their beef with the United States is the culture of consumption, the notion of of consumer capitalism.
That's a bit empty for a culture, but it would only arouse pity if it wasn't so retarded for a long-term strategy; the planet just can't support permanent growth of the economy because it is finite. And consumer capitalism is not privative of the USA, but I have to admit it's there where it's most extreme.
Environmentalists just hate people too much for people to trust their advice.
If that was the case, why would they be fighting to ensure our continuity as a species? They could just sit and watch the show, as we blithely kill the planet off. I admit they get carried away in places, but by and large I'd have less hedonism and more chances of survival as a species.
Sorry about the link: it's www.dieoff.org (well you *can* figure it out on your own, but anyway)
Precisely. I'm not telling you about this in order to continue business as usual. And coal isn't particularly renewable either, and biomass just doesn't yield enough energy to continue, even if we cover the planet in biomass-yielding crops. We have to start using energy rationally; even if it is -gasp- bad for the economy, our civilization will be in deep shit very soon if we don't cut back on wasting energy like we are now.
...there isn't nearly enough oil left to do the damage. See dieoff.org
Silly environmentalists, there's a lot more money to be done selling out to corporations to tell dying people they have nothing to worry about.
After all, the one main reason we get spam is that spamming is profitable. If people stop ordering Viagra and cable descrambles from strangers who email them, there will be no point in keeping it up. Maybe we should make it easier for ppl to have anonymous access to sleaze, which seems to be the major selling point of spam.
Check out dieoff.org and have a look at the future.
Better start saving for that supersize dynamo...
In an ideal world, discussion would be the only tool needed, and we could move on by building consensus, as rational beings that we are. Isn't it ironic? Even specifying the 'greater good' we all should strive for is a chore; many people will find a specification, given some time, and many, many, many will be so wildly different as to be incompatible. Even after you root out vested interests, particular tastes, religious beliefs, and kooks (another chore of course). And there's those who don't give a flying fuck about the greater good; I'm very afraid they have gotten a lot more than their fair chunk of power, and reasoning with them is a pipe dream. Oh well.
He he, that's the point, where you count the majority. I would say that whatever candidate gets the most votes gets the seat. The KISS principle, you know.
Yes, requiring 50% for a yes/no vote seems unfair when a new candidate will win with only 15%. We should only require 15% for recall Davis. Then it is even, right?
It is if the 'keep him' votes are counted as votes in his favor. In fact, that's not half bad; have the list of candidates in case of recall include him, so the people who don't want him out can still re-vote for him and show how utterly stupid the system is by making the State and the candidates/parties/whoever waste mindnumbing amounts of cash for basically nothing.
Bullshit.
I'd be REALLY surprised if as much as 0.05% of the downloads were by people who have a legal right to the files, and it's not the point anyway. The point is whether it's legitimate to keep the current content distribution channels as they are. I say we do it like with software: their content, their license. Let other providers sell their stuff however they like, and let the market decide.
>I've been other places, and I know how good we have it here.
True.
>I also know that our lifestyle and freedoms terrify some people
It's more like your Army and foreign policy. (Although Jerry Springer is pretty terrifying) Anyway, with the current wonderful people in govt, you can kiss your freedom, your lifestyle and your pension goodbye. Just so you know.
> - those people who have no desire to see an end to despotism and oppression -
Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? China? They're all on good terms with the Good Ole USA...
> and that America, like every other nation on the planet, needs to defend itself from those people.
Yeah, like with Iraq, right? Good luck if your task is to find those pesky WMDs...
If you want to know what there *is* to fear about the US, I suggest you check out ZNet. Wake up and smell the depleted uranium.
You're in the Army? /.?
And you read
Come ON...
It has a LOT to do with nerds. Some day your parents will demand that you work for a living, and then you'll see.
I was with you(well, almost) up to that point. I think of FreeCraft as a homage, as a "let's see if we can do something THIS cool". What are they going to "cash" in, anyway? It's not that the game was for sale, was it. I do wish Blizzard would have warned them, and earlier; they would have more to show for their efforts, and maybe direct them to something less trademark-endangering.
Juan
It's simple, really. SCO can keep their cards close to their chest all they want, but... IBM has probably looked into it long ago (they have TFS) So next thing we'll hear is something like:
CHOMP!!!
Yeah, he's Mr Aznar's inspiration and role model. I hear there are quite a few busts of him in PP locales...
...will it evolve?
Same kind of problem, same solution: Refuse to buy the products until the companies which make them either make the licensing conditions clear before purchase or return your money in case you don't agree with its terms. Maybe a website could be put up by consumer organizations explaining the different EULAs to normal people, and perhaps commenting on them. People don't usually wake up on their own, but some can be helped. It just takes a few very determined individuals to start, and it can become a steamroller. People in the Open Source movement should know that already...
Wake up.
Why, they're stiff all over! It's something called 'Vigor Mortis'...
It's a matter of availability: if there were ten engineers for every welder, guess who would be the star? Availability itself is dependent of many factors, but I think you {know|can guess} most of them yourself.
> Ahhh, I get it now: idiot moderator.
Or troll moderator. But I repeat yourself.
The above sentence is not gramatically correct. So sue me.
Don't FUD the trolls...
New? QNX was the underdog in '94 already... It was completely wonderful, amazing, extraordinary, beautiful, only the company got their market strategy all wrong. I mean, it was technically ages ahead of anything Microsoft had, and the multitasking was unbelievably slick, but the company would not give copies to universities, either away or for a reduced price, and the licensing was per-computer. I worked doing industrial automation then, and loved the thing. Of course, I had Linux at home: it was not so slick at the time, but it was Free: speech and beer. Also they(QNX Software) lacked office software: who needs it? Maybe they just wanted the industrial automation niche: the OS was certainly perfect for that, but, you know, senior management has always been Office-dependant. By the time I left that company, there was a lot of pressure to install NT in the factory computers. Good that I left...