True or not, they're still giving the Linux community exactly what they've been asking for: documentation to write good drivers for their devices. It's win-win for everyone.
Who clicks buttons and menus? I honestly couldn't say.
Um... normal people?
To clarify: people who need to do odd formatting or add different things to their word document than just straight up text, but also aren't Computer Scientists from the 1980s, and so don't use keyboard shortcuts for most things.
It can become pretty productivity-killing when there's a particular function you need and can't remember where the damned thing is because it's buried in layers and layers of menus. The ribbon works out far better on average.
How does it not follow? If you're categorizing people by one aspect, such as income, it's not such a huge stretch to categorize them by another, such as religion. The government could decide tomorrow that it feels morally obligated to send my tax dollars to Baptist families because they are more religiously 'righteous', if that was their opinion.
Also, what does it being unconstitutional have to do with anything? If you trust your government to never do anything illegal ever, you're doing it wrong.
Without the society they are in they would not be able to get where they are. Contributing back (yes, forced contributions in the form of tax) is not immoral in that light.
I fail to see how giving away money to people whose very existence raises the cost of living for everyone, and contribute NOTHING back to society, can be considered "contributing back" to said society.
And don't even get me started on the people who purposely stay below the poverty line to avoid having to work for a living. If you don't think they exist, come to Michigan sometime
Actually, if we were totally alone with no people, we could work the land we wanted, hunt what we wanted, and maintain ourselves, with no other responsibilities or consequences.. Nobody would starve in that situation. Quit trying to spread that fallacy.
You can say whatever sensationalist snippet you want to try and make yourself look morally superior, but the fact of the matter is that "taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial. I'd rather the government didn't have the ability to seize something from one group of people to give them to another; today it could be financially based, tomorrow it could be racially, or religiously.
Yes, it's quite easy to delude yourself into believing you have the moral upper-hand when you cut off a quote right before the "unless", don't you agree?
No, if a German soldier in WW2 had refused to fight, they would have been arrested or possibly worse by the other soldiers, and the Nazi civilian population would have cast them out. That's reality, above any pretentious idealistic sense of morality that you can throw out.
For what you're suggesting to be even remotely possible, every soldier would have to refuse simultaneously. As it is, every single soldier who refuses has to deal with the backlash from both his comrades and his leaders. Some of these soldiers are getting their education through military funding, and some of them are supporting families. How can you say that they are supposed to refuse orders and damn the consequences, and still consider yourself human?
For the record, I am not the AC, and I agree with you that maintaining a police force in another country is wrong. But if you honestly think the soldiers deserve scorn for not refusing their orders, I would say you're the one acting irrationaly. The problem is with the people at the top, not the bottom.
Yeah, my post said nothing about Bush or Vietnam. When you're done with your little tantrum, please point out to me when it became appropriate to accuse anonymous soldiers of shooting at random civilians just because you disagree with Bush. It's not their fault that they're in this situation.
Slashdot Mirror
And I haven't had a BSOD from an ATI driver ever... can you say PEBKAC?
True or not, they're still giving the Linux community exactly what they've been asking for: documentation to write good drivers for their devices. It's win-win for everyone.
Who clicks buttons and menus? I honestly couldn't say.
Um... normal people?
To clarify: people who need to do odd formatting or add different things to their word document than just straight up text, but also aren't Computer Scientists from the 1980s, and so don't use keyboard shortcuts for most things.
You know. Normal people.
"Utterly infuriating"? I've never met anyone who got THAT emotional about a Microsoft product. Except on Slashdot, of course.
Do you understand the concept of "context"?
It can become pretty productivity-killing when there's a particular function you need and can't remember where the damned thing is because it's buried in layers and layers of menus. The ribbon works out far better on average.
Ah yes, the classic it's-intuitive-once-you-learn-it approach to Microsoft's GUI.
Except that the guy you quoted didn't say that. Grow up.
Let's see... a bit glowing orb in the top-left corner... right where the file menu used to start... hmmmm....
\In fact other than worthless bloat what does OO.o lack period?
Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. OO.o has plentiful amounts of worthless bloat.
Which has exactly what to do with what your parent said?
It also looks suspiciously like Mac OS X's Dock. Hmm, single icon per application, where I have I seen that before?...
Quick Launch bar, circa Windows 98?
Not really, although I'm betting that's your whole point.
That's funny, because I've never met anyone who bought a Mac for the OS X integration with the hardware. And this is in fucking Flint, MI.
Only if you're an idiot...
How does it not follow? If you're categorizing people by one aspect, such as income, it's not such a huge stretch to categorize them by another, such as religion. The government could decide tomorrow that it feels morally obligated to send my tax dollars to Baptist families because they are more religiously 'righteous', if that was their opinion.
Also, what does it being unconstitutional have to do with anything? If you trust your government to never do anything illegal ever, you're doing it wrong.
Without the society they are in they would not be able to get where they are. Contributing back (yes, forced contributions in the form of tax) is not immoral in that light.
I fail to see how giving away money to people whose very existence raises the cost of living for everyone, and contribute NOTHING back to society, can be considered "contributing back" to said society.
And don't even get me started on the people who purposely stay below the poverty line to avoid having to work for a living. If you don't think they exist, come to Michigan sometime
.
Actually, if we were totally alone with no people, we could work the land we wanted, hunt what we wanted, and maintain ourselves, with no other responsibilities or consequences.. Nobody would starve in that situation. Quit trying to spread that fallacy.
Taxing profit is not taking possessions from people.
But not giving away your money to poor people is stealing? Your logic is so circular I could play baseball with it.
You can say whatever sensationalist snippet you want to try and make yourself look morally superior, but the fact of the matter is that "taxing corporations in order to feed the poor sectors" is inherently prejudicial. I'd rather the government didn't have the ability to seize something from one group of people to give them to another; today it could be financially based, tomorrow it could be racially, or religiously.
Yes, it's quite easy to delude yourself into believing you have the moral upper-hand when you cut off a quote right before the "unless", don't you agree?
No, if a German soldier in WW2 had refused to fight, they would have been arrested or possibly worse by the other soldiers, and the Nazi civilian population would have cast them out. That's reality, above any pretentious idealistic sense of morality that you can throw out.
For what you're suggesting to be even remotely possible, every soldier would have to refuse simultaneously. As it is, every single soldier who refuses has to deal with the backlash from both his comrades and his leaders. Some of these soldiers are getting their education through military funding, and some of them are supporting families. How can you say that they are supposed to refuse orders and damn the consequences, and still consider yourself human?
For the record, I am not the AC, and I agree with you that maintaining a police force in another country is wrong. But if you honestly think the soldiers deserve scorn for not refusing their orders, I would say you're the one acting irrationaly. The problem is with the people at the top, not the bottom.
Convicted? What is this, some sort of crazy bizarro reversed Nazi Germany?
Yeah, my post said nothing about Bush or Vietnam. When you're done with your little tantrum, please point out to me when it became appropriate to accuse anonymous soldiers of shooting at random civilians just because you disagree with Bush. It's not their fault that they're in this situation.