Assuming that you're a U.S. citizen, you live in a country that (thank the deity of your choice) has never been, nor (hopefully) ever will be, a democracy. How did you come to that conclusion? The US is a Constitutional Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy. The founding fathers were aware of the potential "mob rule" pitfall of a pure direct democracy, so they built in safeguards.
First, we have the Constitution, which has a Bill of Rights intended to protect liberty from mob rule, with rules that make it really hard to modify.
And second, we have three co-equal branches of government, to keep their power in check. The only significant mistake, in my mind, is that the founding fathers designed an election system which favors a two-party system, which does not represent the will of the people nearly as well as newer systems do.
Since you are against democracy (where power comes from the people, which can take many forms, including direct democracy (which we are not) and representative democracy (where the people choose their government, which we are)), what alternative do you propose? Monarchy? Fascism? Dictatorship? Feudalism?
I know of no governmental system superior to Democracy, but if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. There are definitely drawbacks to democracy (one of which you noted), but they are not insurmountable, and for all its flaws, all other known systems are worse.
But perhaps I'm just being cynical when I don't think that `thinking, for a little while, that you might die very soon' is worse than, say, losing a leg. Or an arm. Or actually dying. No shit it's not "worse than" those. Where did you get the idea that that's what people were thinking? What kind of thinking is that, where so long as you can think of something worse, you can dismiss some other bad thing?
It's pretty sick that you seem to be trivializing scaring children half to death. How would *you* feel if you were having a family picnic (ie, in a public setting) and some pranksters decided to fake a gunman attack, and *your* children were crying and screaming for their lives?
Definitely not as bad as actually being shot, maimed, or murdered (what a stupid metric), but something that should definitely put the pranksters legally vulnerable to criminal charges and/or punitive damages.
You just don't get it. The presidential election system in the US strongly favors two parties. It takes a lot of turmoil to create a viable third-party candidate, and once that turmoil is over with, you end up with two parties again (although not necessarily the same two as before--look into the birth of the Republican Party for precedent).
On the local level, things are different, but on the national level, third parties are spoilers and symbolic standard-bearers. That's not because they are any less legitimate, or because they are not superior candidates/parties, but BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST THEM.
You are right that the Democratic Party is, on average, very centrist. There are also very liberal elements in the Democratic Party. If you want to make actual change, you've got to change the party itself, from within. Fighting them from without is a fool's errand. By fighting them from without, you become an ally of their enemies, and in our two party system, that makes you an unwitting ally of the Republicans. Congratulations.
Fighting them from without means they have to not only fight the right-wing nutjobs, but also you outsider left-wingers, who should be our allies. Certainly, Bill Clinton pulled some major bone-headed mistakes, but in no way is the DMCA or the bombing of Iraq anywhere near as bad as the bullshit the Republicans have pulled for the past 6 years, or a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bill Clinton was far better for America, even with all his flaws, than George W. Bush has been.
What you want is a mythical candidate who does not exist. A candidate who will faithfully promote liberal ideals, who will not make any but the most forgivable of mistakes, and who has a chance of winning. I want that candidate as well, but I, unlike fantasy-land simpletons like yourself, whose hearts are in the right place, but their brains are nowhere to be found, have a firm grasp on reality.
Your last paragraph is absolutely astounding:
Still, better to piss away your vote so you can have a spineless do-nothing sleazebucket in office and feel powerful and righteous 'cause your team won, rather than, you know, vote for any sort of positive change. It's sure worked out in your Earnest Student Democrat favor the past two Presidential elections. Good going with that. And you've done better? All you done is *thwarted* any of the attempts at bettering the world that *actually have a chance of happening*. Instead of progress one-step-at-a-time, you want progress in one big step. The primary difference is one-step-at-a-time can actually happen.
Fuck that shit - you're assholes, shitheads, and need to change the way you view the world, before you all choke to death on the noxious fumes of your elected leader-of-the-moment's horseshit. And, somehow, *SPLITTING* the progressive/liberal vote between the Democratic candidate and the top third-party leftist candidate is going to work out better?
Coming in second and third doesn't mean shit. Only first place matters.
I'll take 4, 8, 12, whatever I can get, years of people who "*think* about bringing back the draft, who make extraordinary rendition *possible*" over even just four years of someone who puts us in a constant state of war, who makes extraordinary rendition and outright torture standard operating procedure, who uses their office to not only steal our money today, but steal, today, the money we'll be making for the rest of our lives, who packs the Supreme Court with people who will be fucking us over for decades to come, and so on.
When your choice is between asshole A, and mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B, only an idiot would vote for impossible-to-win-but-super-nice saint C, if there *any chance whatsoever* that mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B might win in a close race.
4. Do nothing because X feature isn't important enough to interrupt your quest for survival (this doesn't apply if you're living in your parent's basement and they handle the survival part). It's possible to provide for one's own "survival" (what strange verbiage) and work on Open Source software at the same time, without relying on charity from others.
If you refuse to ever vote for someone you don't think will do a good job, and instead vote for someone who is more pandering to the poll averages Where did you get the idea that those where my criteria? In the overwhelming majority of US Presidential elections (and all of the elections I cited to in my post), there are only two tickets which have any hope of actually winning. Only a fool would vote for a third party in such cases if the outcome of the actual election (the one between the *two* tickets) is in doubt. If, however, it's pretty well set in stone (ie, you live in a solidly "blue" or "red" state), then going for a third party can send a message.
You've been gamed, man. Wake up. That is not how democracy works. In America, that's *exactly* how democracy works. The way our presidential election system is designed, it *strongly* favors two parties. It takes extremely unusual circumstances for a third party to have a shot at the White House, and when those circumstances are in place, it's very obvious (see: Abraham Lincoln).
and why have you decided to make your own with improved physics rather than use the code for torcs or rars and change its physics? Because in the end torcs & rars physics engine are unsalvageable crap (for what you want the program to do, I'm sure they're beautiful physics engines for what the torcs and rars people want) I got absolutely no indication whatsoever from mangu's post that he looked at their code and decided they were "unsalvageable crap". Quite the contrary. He just wants to do it his own way.
To some extent, you're not competing with torcs or rars, because you're producing a physics simulation with cars, rather than a racing simulation with half-plausible physics (again, I assume). No, he wants to make another racing car simulation, and his project will compete with the two he mentioned (if his project gets up to speed, so to speak).
Your original post was flawed. You provided a pretty solid list of options for a certain scenario, and stated that no one would ever pick the first option, and mangu provided a counter-example. In fact, there are so many existing counter-examples in the OSS world, that your defense is silly. Of *course* there will be people who will decide to go their own way, regardless of whether another project's code is deemed "unsalvageable crap".
Your candidate might not win but at least you will be able to walk with your head held high and know you don't bear responsibility for the evils beings committed while they are in office. Bullshit. If you vote for a party that has no expectation of actually winning in an election where your bloc may be able to sway the vote between someone like Bush and Kerry, you are just as responsible as you would be if you didn't vote at all.
On the other hand, when the outcome of the election isn't really at stake, becoming a voice for the smaller party that you truly prefer can be a better use of your vote.
Take two worlds: One in which Gore won in '00, and our present world. In our present world, third parties, while having no chance for the presidency, have gotten media attention. In the alternate world, some things would be the same, but others (Iraq, "War on Terror", No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative, etc and so on) would be *very* different.
*That's* what your choice actually was. And you can't claim ignorance as an excuse. You *knew* the polls had a close election, yet you still made the choice that promoting your favorite third-party candidate was more important than keeping the neo-cons out of power (2000), or kicking them out (2004).
What do yo plan do in 2008? Leave the country on its current course in order to make noise for your third-party? Or attempt to keep the worst candidate from taking power?
It might be unpleasant to think that way. It definitely insults those patriotic, democracy-loving ideals we learned in school, but at least it accepts reality as it is, and has some *actual* potential to affect the world for the better.
Ok, fair enough. "Comes off as a rambling kook," weren't my words, they were what I was responding to.
Wording aside, however, the context was about actual kooks, not just people who are being falsely labeled as kooks. Specifically, lumping honest, rational environmentalists (like Al Gore) with the whack-o nutjobs who want the human species extinct (not that I've ever actually heard of any legitimate environmentalist say this, but that was the meme that started this whole thread).
To start with, Greenpeace isn't a kook, it's not a person. This is an important distinction because the topics was about how specific kooks taint the rest of us.
Greenpeace got it wrong. That doesn't make them kooks.
ELF is a borderline terrorist organization. To lump them in with mainstream environmentalism is dishonest. PeTA is an animal rights organization, not an environmentalist organization.
Calling Al Gore a kook is insane. Your evidence? (your words) "Appearing to be a hypocrite". Not *actually* being a hypocrite (which, in and of itself isn't being a kook anyway), but merely the *appearance*? In fact, he doesn't even appear like one, he's being *portrayed* as one. And to do so, the detractors are severely misrepresenting his actions. Buying green energy *does* make a difference. Buying carbon offsets *does* help. If his house puts out a billion tons of CO2 a day, and he pays to plant enough trees to convert a billion tons of CO2 a day, HIS NET EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS COMPLETELY NEUTRAL. How is this kooky, even in the slightest?
What are you on about? How is Greenpeace getting it wrong with regards to Apple (they did) justification for the claim that they want the human species extinct? Your reply has absolutely zero relevance to my post.
That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped. Who? I know of no outspoken proponents of environmentalism that come off like "rambling kooks".
For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was... Why is it that the right seems to think all they have to do is say "Democrats do it too!" to justify any and all manner of abject behavior? The answer is clear--it's meant to distract from the actual matter at hand.
Let's answer your innuendo. If you said you were Republican, I would say you were... what? What exactly did you have in mind? I would stereotype you in with all the "outspoken rambling kook" Republicans? No. Just saying you were a Republican would not be enough to warrant that. And here's the difference.
It's not until you start spouting kooky notions that you'd get lumped in with the other kooks. Merely being a Republican does not mean you are against environmentalism. But once you start going on about how environmentalists want the human species extinct, or how carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or how mercury from a single compact fluorescent bulb is a toxic travesty, but the mercury from a coal plant is A-OK, you aren't being unfairly lumped in with the kooks, you *are* a kook.
I'm not saying you promote any of those things, this was just your "what if?".
This is just like the Intelligent Design nonsense. It's not that we're oppressing their theory, they don't *have* a theory. Same with anti-environmentalism. They *are* kooks.
Apple can do whatever they want to turn green, but some environmentalist won't be satisfied until every single human being on this planet is extinct. One might say that the anti-environmentalists actually *will* lead us closer to that end.
I don't, however, know of any significant environmental organization, environmental advocate, or environmentalism leader that promotes the extinction of the human species.
Mischaracterizations such as yours are much more of a problem than the few insignificant idiots that you are basing your impression on.
Eventually, everyone will have HDTVs. This is not a contestable point. However, "eventually" can be a long time from now. As you aptly noted, it's entirely possible that by the time we hit "eventually" Bluray and HD-DVD will be obsolete anyway. Right. None of which supports the notion that Blu-ray is already dead.
Instead, it supports my assertion that it's too early to proclaim defeat for Blu-ray, simply due to the fact that the market is still growing.
"Eventually" may indeed be a long time. I don't think the criteria should be "everyone having HDTVs", but instead a sufficient market size to keep Blu-ray healthy (ie. that every major film released on DVD is also released on BD). Certainly, sufficient HDTV market saturation will happen in less than 30 years.
But even though uptake is slow (but growing), and even though there's current-gen competition from HD-DVD, eventual next-gen competition from whatever comes next, and potential, but as yet woefully unrealized, competition from HD downloads, it's far, far too early to count BD out, which was the entire point of my post. None of your (correct) observations change that.
I suspect that what Mac has is the notion that by buying the 2% solution, you are smarter than us dolts in the 98%. If you can convince your customers that they are a member of an elite, you can sell them anything. If that's why you bought your Mac, then you did the right thing by switching back to Windows.
You're the first person I've ever heard seriously state that's why they bought a Mac, and it's quite interesting that you're now justifying your PC purchase the same way (ie, Mac users are just cult members who've been tricked into *thinking* they're smart).
People buy Macs because they judge them to be a better product for their purposes.
That "something special" that Macs have, which you seem to be unable to define, is that a single company is responsible for the OS, the hardware, and most of the bundled software. This facilitates them being able to make a truly great computer. That's the secret ingredient Apple has, which all other PC makers lack.
That's not to say other PC makers do not have secret ingredients of their own. They surely do (and many have had great success with it). Simply, it's to point out that thing that Apple has which no other PC maker on the planet still has, and why it's the key to Apple's success.
I don't care if they charge $3 for whatever the #1 pop single is... more power to them.. that's what a free market is about... Except we're talking about the music industry, which is pretty much as close to being the opposite of a free market as you can get.
Price-fixing, monopolies, artificial-scarcity, coercive tactics... How many of these a proper to a free market?
Blu-ray has been out less than a year. A year after DVD was introduced, I'm certain VHS sales absolutely *dwarfed* DVD sales.
As time passes, more and more people will be buying HDTVs. Not necessarily 5' plasmas, but HDTVs nonetheless. As they do, they will want their movies in high def as well.
People only have so much money, and space to deal with. I don't even remotely understand what you are trying to say here. People have *always* "only had so much money", and they bought TVs, computers, video players, etc. in the past. I don't see why they'll stop any time soon. As for space, a similarly sized non-CRT HDTV takes up much less space than a CRT.
The only way I can see HD-DVD or BD failing is if their uptake is so slow that a downloadable HD format overtakes them (this *should* happen, but you know how the movie industry is). But at this point, it's far too early to count either format out (although I wouldn't bet on HD-DVD, the adoption rate of both are still so low that either could win overall).
We also have vivid imaginations and have been play-acting since we were little kids, many of us leave the TV on in the background or listen to story-telling on the radio. Music is no more "special" than all the variety of forms of story telling, including movies. Music is not a form of story telling. Music can tell a story, but that's not a requisite. Music is an exceptionally unique aspect of being human. There is nothing else like it whatsoever.
Music is so completely different from film (and I don't just mean one is A/V while the other is just A), that I have to wonder if you meant to say something completely different. I'm just as confused as if someone had to said there's no difference between B&W and color film.
His methods were hamfisted because there were no good answers. There still are no good answers. That doesn't make him the devil. Correct. Of course, no one called him the devil, but don't let that stop you from thoroughly decimating that straw man. He created a system of injustice. For that he's not some mythical being of pure evil, but he's definitely someone whose passing deserves to be greeted with a cheer. Not necessarily out of malice (although malice towards the man is understandable), but out of relief that at least now he can no longer act to make things worse.
The hyperbole you advocates can summon to make your cause look even then tiniest bit worthwhile (and you guys really need it, because people do understand that paying for movies isn't really a problem) is astonishing. I want very much to pay for movies. I also want to be able to rip my DVD collection like I have my CD collection. If the content producers wish to make it technically difficult (via encryption), while I may not like it, I can accept their attempt. To make doing so a criminal, or even civil, offense, however, is where I draw the line. He, and others, have taken a legitimate business and turned it into a racket. RIAA and MPAA stories are tagged MAFIAA for a reason.
You keep using that word [sociopath]. I do not think it means what you think it means. What do you think I think it means?
I think it means, for example, anyone who thinks that screwing over society for personal gain is something that should be applauded.
I've used that term solely to refer to people who've made the argument, "hey, don't blame *him*, he's just using the system to his greatest advantage! The consequences of his actions have absolutely no bearing since he did it fully within the law".
In other words, extreme selfishness without any regard whatsoever for the effects on others. I can hardly think of a *better* word for that than sociopath. Any ideas?
And to pre-empt any nonsense replies, no I don't think people should not strive to make money or that they should sacrifice themselves for the collective. I'm just saying that causality must be honored. If someone makes a fortune providing a product or service to the benefit of others, hooray. If they make a fortune harming others (who do not themselves deserve it), then for shame, whether it's legal or not, for shame.
The man was a lobbiest. The poeple who should be hung are the legislators who accepted his bribes in exchange for our liberties. If you're going to let him off the hook simply because he was a lobbyist (the "he was just using the system for his advantage" defense), then why doesn't it apply to the politicians (accepting his bribes is certainly in using the system to their advantage)?
The problem is that corporate lobbyists can exist in the first place. Corporations should have no right whatsoever to exert influence in government. Corporations are great as economic entities, but are atrocious as political entities.
And no, I definitely do not give the politicians a pass, but neither will I do so for Valenti. They've all made the world a worse place by their actions in the matter of copyright.
Re:Now there's the Slashdot I know and love!
on
Jack Valenti, Dead at 85
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
to consider him vermin for taking a different stand than you on an issue(he isn't a public official, it isn't his job to try and do what will make the majority happy) is basically the mindset of dictators and mass murderers, not participants in a democracy He's not considered vermin for simply "taking a different stand", but for having an active role in screwing over the American people (and indirectly, the entire world). Disliking the man (and celebrating his eternal absence from our lives) has little comparison to a dictator or a mass murderer. I find your attempt to paint people who actually *wish* well for We The People as similar to dictators and mass murderers disgusting.
Your stance, on the other hand, is patently sociopathic (and that's *not* hyperbolic vitriol, unlike your abject comparison of dictators and mass murderers). Just because his actions were entirely within the rules of the system, that does not mean his actions or his character are beyond reproach.
Is that all it takes to get mod-points here at slashdot, saying Bush=Bad? No reasons, no explanation, nothing but "Bush. Worst. President. Ever." Perhaps. Here's another "all it takes" for you: All it takes to divert attention away from any horrible action by Bush & co. is to bring up a past Democratic US President.
How many people even remember the topic of this Slashdot story at this point?
Slashdot Mirror
First, we have the Constitution, which has a Bill of Rights intended to protect liberty from mob rule, with rules that make it really hard to modify.
And second, we have three co-equal branches of government, to keep their power in check. The only significant mistake, in my mind, is that the founding fathers designed an election system which favors a two-party system, which does not represent the will of the people nearly as well as newer systems do.
Since you are against democracy (where power comes from the people, which can take many forms, including direct democracy (which we are not) and representative democracy (where the people choose their government, which we are)), what alternative do you propose? Monarchy? Fascism? Dictatorship? Feudalism?
I know of no governmental system superior to Democracy, but if you have any ideas, I'm all ears. There are definitely drawbacks to democracy (one of which you noted), but they are not insurmountable, and for all its flaws, all other known systems are worse.
It's pretty sick that you seem to be trivializing scaring children half to death. How would *you* feel if you were having a family picnic (ie, in a public setting) and some pranksters decided to fake a gunman attack, and *your* children were crying and screaming for their lives?
Definitely not as bad as actually being shot, maimed, or murdered (what a stupid metric), but something that should definitely put the pranksters legally vulnerable to criminal charges and/or punitive damages.
On the local level, things are different, but on the national level, third parties are spoilers and symbolic standard-bearers. That's not because they are any less legitimate, or because they are not superior candidates/parties, but BECAUSE THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED AGAINST THEM.
You are right that the Democratic Party is, on average, very centrist. There are also very liberal elements in the Democratic Party. If you want to make actual change, you've got to change the party itself, from within. Fighting them from without is a fool's errand. By fighting them from without, you become an ally of their enemies, and in our two party system, that makes you an unwitting ally of the Republicans. Congratulations.
Fighting them from without means they have to not only fight the right-wing nutjobs, but also you outsider left-wingers, who should be our allies. Certainly, Bill Clinton pulled some major bone-headed mistakes, but in no way is the DMCA or the bombing of Iraq anywhere near as bad as the bullshit the Republicans have pulled for the past 6 years, or a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq. Bill Clinton was far better for America, even with all his flaws, than George W. Bush has been.
What you want is a mythical candidate who does not exist. A candidate who will faithfully promote liberal ideals, who will not make any but the most forgivable of mistakes, and who has a chance of winning. I want that candidate as well, but I, unlike fantasy-land simpletons like yourself, whose hearts are in the right place, but their brains are nowhere to be found, have a firm grasp on reality.
Your last paragraph is absolutely astounding: Still, better to piss away your vote so you can have a spineless do-nothing sleazebucket in office and feel powerful and righteous 'cause your team won, rather than, you know, vote for any sort of positive change. It's sure worked out in your Earnest Student Democrat favor the past two Presidential elections. Good going with that. And you've done better? All you done is *thwarted* any of the attempts at bettering the world that *actually have a chance of happening*. Instead of progress one-step-at-a-time, you want progress in one big step. The primary difference is one-step-at-a-time can actually happen.
Coming in second and third doesn't mean shit. Only first place matters.
I'll take 4, 8, 12, whatever I can get, years of people who "*think* about bringing back the draft, who make extraordinary rendition *possible*" over even just four years of someone who puts us in a constant state of war, who makes extraordinary rendition and outright torture standard operating procedure, who uses their office to not only steal our money today, but steal, today, the money we'll be making for the rest of our lives, who packs the Supreme Court with people who will be fucking us over for decades to come, and so on.
When your choice is between asshole A, and mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B, only an idiot would vote for impossible-to-win-but-super-nice saint C, if there *any chance whatsoever* that mega-fucking-nuclear-holocaust-asshole B might win in a close race.
Your original post was flawed. You provided a pretty solid list of options for a certain scenario, and stated that no one would ever pick the first option, and mangu provided a counter-example. In fact, there are so many existing counter-examples in the OSS world, that your defense is silly. Of *course* there will be people who will decide to go their own way, regardless of whether another project's code is deemed "unsalvageable crap".
On the other hand, when the outcome of the election isn't really at stake, becoming a voice for the smaller party that you truly prefer can be a better use of your vote.
Take two worlds: One in which Gore won in '00, and our present world. In our present world, third parties, while having no chance for the presidency, have gotten media attention. In the alternate world, some things would be the same, but others (Iraq, "War on Terror", No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies Initiative, etc and so on) would be *very* different.
*That's* what your choice actually was. And you can't claim ignorance as an excuse. You *knew* the polls had a close election, yet you still made the choice that promoting your favorite third-party candidate was more important than keeping the neo-cons out of power (2000), or kicking them out (2004).
What do yo plan do in 2008? Leave the country on its current course in order to make noise for your third-party? Or attempt to keep the worst candidate from taking power?
It might be unpleasant to think that way. It definitely insults those patriotic, democracy-loving ideals we learned in school, but at least it accepts reality as it is, and has some *actual* potential to affect the world for the better.
Ok, fair enough. "Comes off as a rambling kook," weren't my words, they were what I was responding to.
Wording aside, however, the context was about actual kooks, not just people who are being falsely labeled as kooks. Specifically, lumping honest, rational environmentalists (like Al Gore) with the whack-o nutjobs who want the human species extinct (not that I've ever actually heard of any legitimate environmentalist say this, but that was the meme that started this whole thread).
To start with, Greenpeace isn't a kook, it's not a person. This is an important distinction because the topics was about how specific kooks taint the rest of us.
Greenpeace got it wrong. That doesn't make them kooks.
ELF is a borderline terrorist organization. To lump them in with mainstream environmentalism is dishonest. PeTA is an animal rights organization, not an environmentalist organization.
Calling Al Gore a kook is insane. Your evidence? (your words) "Appearing to be a hypocrite". Not *actually* being a hypocrite (which, in and of itself isn't being a kook anyway), but merely the *appearance*? In fact, he doesn't even appear like one, he's being *portrayed* as one. And to do so, the detractors are severely misrepresenting his actions. Buying green energy *does* make a difference. Buying carbon offsets *does* help. If his house puts out a billion tons of CO2 a day, and he pays to plant enough trees to convert a billion tons of CO2 a day, HIS NET EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT IS COMPLETELY NEUTRAL. How is this kooky, even in the slightest?
What are you on about? How is Greenpeace getting it wrong with regards to Apple (they did) justification for the claim that they want the human species extinct? Your reply has absolutely zero relevance to my post.
Let's answer your innuendo. If you said you were Republican, I would say you were... what? What exactly did you have in mind? I would stereotype you in with all the "outspoken rambling kook" Republicans? No. Just saying you were a Republican would not be enough to warrant that. And here's the difference.
It's not until you start spouting kooky notions that you'd get lumped in with the other kooks. Merely being a Republican does not mean you are against environmentalism. But once you start going on about how environmentalists want the human species extinct, or how carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, or how mercury from a single compact fluorescent bulb is a toxic travesty, but the mercury from a coal plant is A-OK, you aren't being unfairly lumped in with the kooks, you *are* a kook.
I'm not saying you promote any of those things, this was just your "what if?".
This is just like the Intelligent Design nonsense. It's not that we're oppressing their theory, they don't *have* a theory. Same with anti-environmentalism. They *are* kooks.
I don't, however, know of any significant environmental organization, environmental advocate, or environmentalism leader that promotes the extinction of the human species.
Mischaracterizations such as yours are much more of a problem than the few insignificant idiots that you are basing your impression on.
Instead, it supports my assertion that it's too early to proclaim defeat for Blu-ray, simply due to the fact that the market is still growing.
"Eventually" may indeed be a long time. I don't think the criteria should be "everyone having HDTVs", but instead a sufficient market size to keep Blu-ray healthy (ie. that every major film released on DVD is also released on BD). Certainly, sufficient HDTV market saturation will happen in less than 30 years.
But even though uptake is slow (but growing), and even though there's current-gen competition from HD-DVD, eventual next-gen competition from whatever comes next, and potential, but as yet woefully unrealized, competition from HD downloads, it's far, far too early to count BD out, which was the entire point of my post. None of your (correct) observations change that.
You're the first person I've ever heard seriously state that's why they bought a Mac, and it's quite interesting that you're now justifying your PC purchase the same way (ie, Mac users are just cult members who've been tricked into *thinking* they're smart).
People buy Macs because they judge them to be a better product for their purposes.
That "something special" that Macs have, which you seem to be unable to define, is that a single company is responsible for the OS, the hardware, and most of the bundled software. This facilitates them being able to make a truly great computer. That's the secret ingredient Apple has, which all other PC makers lack.
That's not to say other PC makers do not have secret ingredients of their own. They surely do (and many have had great success with it). Simply, it's to point out that thing that Apple has which no other PC maker on the planet still has, and why it's the key to Apple's success.
After all, some people like to be peed on, and, most of the time, using Windows isn't as bad as *that*, so it stands to reason.
Price-fixing, monopolies, artificial-scarcity, coercive tactics... How many of these a proper to a free market?
As time passes, more and more people will be buying HDTVs. Not necessarily 5' plasmas, but HDTVs nonetheless. As they do, they will want their movies in high def as well. People only have so much money, and space to deal with. I don't even remotely understand what you are trying to say here. People have *always* "only had so much money", and they bought TVs, computers, video players, etc. in the past. I don't see why they'll stop any time soon. As for space, a similarly sized non-CRT HDTV takes up much less space than a CRT.
The only way I can see HD-DVD or BD failing is if their uptake is so slow that a downloadable HD format overtakes them (this *should* happen, but you know how the movie industry is). But at this point, it's far too early to count either format out (although I wouldn't bet on HD-DVD, the adoption rate of both are still so low that either could win overall).
Music is so completely different from film (and I don't just mean one is A/V while the other is just A), that I have to wonder if you meant to say something completely different. I'm just as confused as if someone had to said there's no difference between B&W and color film.
I think it means, for example, anyone who thinks that screwing over society for personal gain is something that should be applauded.
I've used that term solely to refer to people who've made the argument, "hey, don't blame *him*, he's just using the system to his greatest advantage! The consequences of his actions have absolutely no bearing since he did it fully within the law".
In other words, extreme selfishness without any regard whatsoever for the effects on others. I can hardly think of a *better* word for that than sociopath. Any ideas?
And to pre-empt any nonsense replies, no I don't think people should not strive to make money or that they should sacrifice themselves for the collective. I'm just saying that causality must be honored. If someone makes a fortune providing a product or service to the benefit of others, hooray. If they make a fortune harming others (who do not themselves deserve it), then for shame, whether it's legal or not, for shame.
The problem is that corporate lobbyists can exist in the first place. Corporations should have no right whatsoever to exert influence in government. Corporations are great as economic entities, but are atrocious as political entities.
And no, I definitely do not give the politicians a pass, but neither will I do so for Valenti. They've all made the world a worse place by their actions in the matter of copyright.
Your stance, on the other hand, is patently sociopathic (and that's *not* hyperbolic vitriol, unlike your abject comparison of dictators and mass murderers). Just because his actions were entirely within the rules of the system, that does not mean his actions or his character are beyond reproach.
How many people even remember the topic of this Slashdot story at this point?
The Matrix so completely has you...
You're hired!