Their drug abuse versus his are completely different. It's like being an alcoholic versus drinking too many protein shakes.
Excuses, excuses. The law's the law, right? Isn't that the Limbaugh way? Personally, I agree that there are subjective differences, but the violation itself, the abuse, is essentially the same. He's even gone deaf because of it.
You have encountered this? Really. Interesting, and probably lying, or just overstated.
Have I encountered what? Limbaugh's lies and hypocrisies? Yes. Drug (ab)users? Yes. Go fuck yourself for calling me liar.
I will take your word for it? Or I'll just assume you copy MS software and probably do drugs.
Funny, the question never came up, not even in context, so what's the point in making such foolish and irrelevant assumptions?
The IP violation would have merits if this turns out to be intentional. Otherwise, I would to see you say this about some arbitrary package in Linux.
You miss my point entirely.
The issue isn't that MS "pirated" a program. I don't care. The issue is that if *you* "pirate" an MS program, woah boy, watch out. But if MS does it, somehow it's like, no big deal.
I don't know the circumstances of the gay stuff, and I strongly doubt the whole case was stated here.
No shit the whole case wasn't stated. Rush went on for days about it, how can I state the whole case? The point is that he held the position that they *should* be jailed because the law's the law, and that the argument they used regarding the right to privacy was bogus because, according to the horribly ignorant Limbaugh, the Constitution does not protect the right to privacy!
Emotional pain is physical pain? Really
No, moron, I said the reverse. That *all* physical pain is actualy emotion. I'll explain it for you: If you cut your finger, do you really thing your finger hurts? It doesn't. Your mind is where the pain is. Now, simply "sensing" that you've been cut or burnt, etc, wouldn't necessarily have to be emotion, but it hurting is.
I realize I am playing devil's advocate and someone is likely in the wrong in this MS case, but it is very unlikely that it is MS in the wrong. On the contrary, it is some dimwitted sound file guy and probably an intern.
And that imaginary intern, while working for Microsoft, *IS* part of Microsoft. What do you think a corporation is?
Do you think MS is going to say, "oh, your 'illegal' MS Exchange server is just the fault of some consultant you paid to set up your company e-mail, so no biggie, carry on". Or that the RIAA will say, "oh, that MP3 server that your executives knew nothing about is the fault of your 10 employees who used it?" etc?
Let me drill the point home to you: IT'S NOT THE SINGLE ACT THAT IS NEWS, IT'S THE FACT THAT THE TORQUEMADAS OF THE IP INQUISITION ARE, THEMSELVES, GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THEY CONDEMN (FINE, JAIL, OR FORCE INTO COSTLY CONTRACTS) OTHERS FOR.
The frame rate of the movie we downloaded was 15 frames per second, we'll export the same in QuickTime.
15 FPS. Not 30.
Next.
The quicktime file is 30fps. Check it for yourself. The guy exported the photos at 15fps to the iPod (going by what you typed), but when he thumbed through, sometimes he was at or beyond 30fps.
You are a moron. Look at the QuickTime movie. It is a 30fps movie, and there are parts where the iPod's display changes in each frame. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that means, it does, however, take a non-retard.
Who knows what happened? It could be files they bought from somewhere else for all we know.
What's that got to do with it? Has somehow MS not violated IP laws in that case?
How will they make this error right? Spend $350 on a license. Voila.
$350 (or whatever) times each infringing copy. But it's worse than that. There is punative damages. Otherwise why would anyone license a product if all you had to do was pay what you'd pay anyway?
The thing about Limbaugh is that his drug abuse made the news because the prosecutors against him got a hold of his medical records through currently "questionable" or even illegal means.
That was never what made it newsworthy. It *is* what Limbaugh wants us to think is the issue (duh). The thing is, not two months before the story broke, he was going on about the gay guys arrested in Texas for having sex in their own home. He was saying that the law's the law, and there's no right to privacy in the Constitution (even though it's right there in the fourth amendment, what an asshole). Now that his privacy has been violated, he's crying foul. Fuck him, either send him up river or fix the law.
That is the news in that case. Otherwise, if you look into his problem, it is not something he did to have fun or simply because he could. Rather (not Dan Rather...), it was an addiction to pain killers for guess what, pain!? TONS of people get hooked to medicine. There is a huge difference between that and your local crackheads.
There is no difference in the human factor (which you are addressing). When some ghetto teen gets hooked on crack, what's the difference? They have pain (emotional pain. btw, all physical pain is actually emotion), and they are taking what is essentially a pain killer.
I have never heard of huge problems with MS when one license was found in question, but I have heard of cases where hundreds of licenses were in question.
Windows Source Code Seller Arrested This guy is guilty of far less infringement than MS has been in the past, and is currently, according to the article.
Do you have a specific example of Limbaugh condeming drug use? Actually, I think he has always been mute on the subject, which may be telling in and of itself.
I have no quotes. Do you know of a Limbaugh transcript archive?
He has ragged on Mayor Marion Berry and Robert Downey, Jr. for their drug use. He's a huge hypocrite. He defends marriage against gays due to the rationale that marriage is devised to raise children, ignoring gays *with* children, and the fact that he's been married 3 times (and is either in the middle of, or over with, his third divorce), and has no kids.
This is the problem with legislating morals. You can get anyone to say, "yeah, sure, people shouldn't do that" (like "people shouldn't copy MS software"), but when the loudest proponents of laws enforcing morals (like Limbaugh or MS) break those laws (which is inevitably going to happen), they hoot and holler reasons why they are immune.
It's one of the most disgusting things I've ever encountered. How many people have been heavily fined, or have been put in jail for personal drug use? For violating IP laws (including against MS)? Now when MS (or Rush) violates the laws, they should be subject to the exact same harsh punishment (actually, the entire laws should be wiped from the books, or at least rewritten more rationally and prisoners granted clemency).
Otherwise, you are just using "conservative" stereotypes.
end government subsidies for various big businesses (airlines come to mind)
Then say goodbye to air travel. Some things aren't profitable, but are still desirable. Roads, schools, libraries and fire departments come to mind.
I don't disagree with you in general, corporations are granted too much artificial power, but some artificial is necessary by definition (all corporations are sanctioned by the state). The flaw with pure libertarianism is that is sacrifices a better world for a free world, and a truly free world is a myth. We should certainly strive for maximum freedom, but a dogmatic adherence to "freedom at all costs" is doomed to failure.
To bring this back to the subject at hand, MS is granted far too much power and the individual is burdened with too much responsibility. You did touch on the reason when you mentioned conservatism. Conservatives (specifically neocons) worship the corporation--all must sacrifice at the alter of business. Some actually believe this makes the world better. It doesn't. You want to know why people work longer hours for less pay, in spite of all this technology that is supposed to make life easier? It's because we (as ordained and legislated by the neocons) must serve the economy first. The folly is that what good is a strong economy if you're too busy to enjoy it?
So, by your way of thinking, every parent who's ever had a kid commit a crime, should be arrested to the full extent of the law.
That makes no sense. I'm not talking about arrested and punished to the fullest extent of the law, I'm talking about reciprocity--if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Also, I'm talking about adults and corporations, not parents and kids (where we rationally give leniency to kids because they are, by definition, immature).
It must be terribly hard to oversee the daily activities of an organization--the size of MS--down to the level of individual employees.
That's their problem, not mine. If they want to benefit from IP laws, they will have to submit to those same laws. If they *can't* (or won't), then why should I respect their (so-called) IP rights?
Are you saying they should bend over backwards to help people with stolen software?
Your powers of reasoning are flawed. Nowhere did I say MS should help anyone, let alone that they bend over backwards to help people with stolen (sic) software.
Why is it that you believe MS should be allowed to do this, but that they are allowed to fine or have imprisoned people who violate MS's rights?
MS stole code, they've done it before, and they're doing it now. Given how Ballmer likes to pretend he's some sort of champion of individual IP-holder's rights, he shouldn't have a problem making this "error" right.
Instead, it's more likely this will take a lawsuit.
What makes this newsworthy is the same thing that makes Limbaugh's drug use news. It's not so much that he's a druge addict (although there is a group of the public who likes public scandal), but it's that he condemns other drug users to jail, but demands leniency for himself.
If MS wants a pass on this, then they should lighten up, remove XP activation bullshit, whatever. Otherwise, to hell with them.
They change at the rate they are driven by the scroll wheel - neither you nor I have any evidence at all as to how fast they are actually changing and whether frames are being dropped
Press the left arrow on your keyboard. Each press is one frame. Watch the little video on the iPod. There are places it changes each time you press the arrow. Thus it can change photos at least at 30 fps.
You're either a complete moron or a troll. Either way you've got a problem.
Because there's no such thing as a raw AVI, MOV, or MPG file?
Like hell there isn't. Take an avi, mov or mpg, and look at the bits. That's the raw file. AVI and movs are wrappers, mpg is not. Regardless, it doesn't matter unless you mean to imply you can't transcode them? Learn to address the relevant facts.
Whatever you want though, I'm done here. I suggest you look into your innate lack of intelligence or your sociopathic trollness. Whatever your problem, you could benefit from a little help.
TFA appears that the iPod Photo can work as a flipbook at some undetermined framerate. This does not equate to 'can play video'.
That's *exactly* what 'can play video means'. The QuickTime on TFA plays at 30fps. The photos on the iPod Photo change at the same rate as the QuickTime video.
That's it, end of story. It doesn't have to play DV video for 2+ hours, it just has to play back stored images with sound. iTunes already transcodes jpegs, why not, if it can't play back raw AVI/MOV/MPG files (that even a 386 can, and cell phones for that matter), transcode them as well to.podav files if it has to?
Also, you are morally bankrupt and intellectually bereft, you smell like hamsters, and your father was a rodent with no incisors, because that's pretty much where this argument is headed.
You're the one who decided to go there. I actually have evidence you are being an obtuse moron.
Cases in point (paraphrased): "It can only act as a flipbook, that's nothing like a movie" or "Sony's battery is smaller than the iPod's and it can only run (an lcd, tape drive, record head, optics system, video processor and DV encoder) for 2 hours!"
You've gone mad. My whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the iPod Photo can play videos. TFA appears to indicate that it can.
*IF* it can, all of your technical and cost arguments are moot. If it can't, then I no longer hold my position. Get it? I'll concede if my premises are wrong. You should look into the same.
Your argument about "no one wants it" doesn't stand up. The fact that people are asking about it shows they do. If they can add it (ie: the power is already there, how hard is it to support the *3* video formats that cameras use?), why not? It's like the little games. Few people were really begging for them, and they garner less attention than video is right now. Who cares, toss it in, it's a nice little feature. Their reason is not technical, it's political. Apple would rather poo-poo all video (to make fun of Creative and MS and pals). Putting even limited video support legitimizes the competitors.
You mention OGG, which is a good point. The old iPods can't decode OGG Vorbis in realtime (some seem to think the CPU actually can, but no one actually has done it, while this guy has done a video). iTunes has an OGG icon in the.app bundle. Think about what that means. (hint: it means Apple has OGG support in house for iTunes (or at least has done some work on it), and that the likliest hold-up (the iPod) is keeping it out). Maybe we'll see OGG Vorbis support soon. Like showing video files (and like importing WMAs) what does it hurt to add OGG Vorbis to the supported playback formats?
Here's a news flash: Humane labor practices != socialism. Jackass.
Enforcing humane labor practices is, however, socialism.
Before the capitalist trolls ascend, it helps to realize that the forms of capitalism that most people defend are really capitalism tempered by socialism. 40 hour work weeks? Socialism. No child labor? Socialism. Bathrooms and lunch breaks and safety mechanisms? Socialism, socialism, socialism.
Without socialism, all those third world labor practices we find so abhorrent would be commonplace here at home.
The part about the guy being a jackass is 100% correct though.:-)
You're right that Apple owes me nothing (actually they do as I've purchased many of their products...)
Yes you did.
Is English a second language of yours? First lesson in reading comprehension is context. When taken in context, what I've said is clearly not a contradiction.
But my guess is you are being a little prick who finds it funny to note literal contradictions (even if the meaning isn't contradictory). If you want to play that game, I *literally* never said Apple should care about my opinion. I did say they owe me something due to my purchasing of their products (they owe me warranty type obligations).
So go crawl back into your little hole and think about what you've done, and keep your pedantic neuroticism to yourself lest you ever say something that is literally false, but which is to any human speaker of the language understandable and rational.
Digression - you CANNOT directly relate compute-intensity on a CPU to power consumption of a codec ASIC.
Who said I was? Fact: The iPod Photo *can* show frames fast enough for video. After that it becomes a moot point. Whatever format the iPod Photo uses for images it can use for video. END OF STORY.
Digression - Whatever sort of technology the Sony DV cam uses, the iPod Photo can use. The details (which you are arguing over) have already been solved by others. Whether Apple chooses to use them is up to Apple, but your insistance that there are technical hurdles IS FALSE.
Next, the smallest available battery pack for a Sony DVcam that I could find is a 680 mAh pack. My iPod's battery is a 850 mAh pack. That 680 mAh pack? It'll run the smallest, most efficient Sony miniDV camera for 2 hours, max, if you're lucky.
2 hours eh? Sounds like plenty of time for showing those dopey videos you get from a digicam.
Conclusion - significantly larger than the iPod's battery.
Didn't you just say Sony's smallest battery is a lower capacity than the iPod's battery? Sounds like you are ignoring all but the conclusions which support your stance?
They are dumpy, but I wouldn't call them fun.
That's your issue. People have them, people want to use them. The iPod Photo (or iPod AV) would be a good place to show them.
Why not make it take a whole bunch of crappy pictures real fast and make a crappy movie out of it? But adding that to the iPod would require adding on to the core function of the device, and I'm afraid I see neither the desire nor the need.
Dude, you are so being purposefully obtuse it's humoruous. "A digicam takes photos, so why not take a bunch real quick, but the iPod Photo is different?" Think about it, an iPod Photo shows photos, so why not show a bunch real fast, eh?
Sorry, but I have to go with Apple here - there isn't really a good reason to add video to the iPod. The extra cost would drive away more customers than the feature would attract.
You're just making shit up to either 1) hold onto a point that you were wrong about or 2) to keep from saying something bad about Apple. I don't know, nor care, which it is, you're still wrong. The only point you have is that *you* don't want video support. I'm cool with that, to each his own, just don't pretend like it's some huge technical hurdle that Apple can't surmount--especially when the current iPod Photo can show pictures faster than a standard video file while decoding an AAC.
Adding video capability to the iPod Photo would be a very simple thing. Just have it play silly little mpeg/avi/mov's that digicams take.
But no, Steve Jobs says you don't want to watch a whole movie on an iPod, plus there are no movies you can legally put on an iPod, so they won't even let you watch your little digicam flics.
Think whatever you want. Don't let facts get in the way of your happy delusion.
No, they don't owe you anything. Get over yourself. You have the free speech to criticize, but getting mad when they (any company) ignore it for real world things like actually technological and market limitations is laughable.
So I should be happy? Or be entirely dispassionate? I absolutely *HATE* the Windows taskbar/startmenu abomination. I openly share my opinions when appropirate (and probably often when not), and if MS ever asked, I'd let them know as well. You're acting as if I'm wrong to do so?
Ah, then you've obviously submitted your opinions to Apple. Or just bought a competitor that already does what you want.Or something...anything more productive than getting mad a company for not making what you, node 3, desire.
As we've already covered, I don't owe Apple my input. Sometimes I do let them know my opinion by sending feedback. It's entirely my choice when to do so, not yours. Video support is not something that makes a difference to me on the iPod, but my opinion still stands--I'd rather it have it than it not. Apple can seek out my wisdom here on Slashdot or not, I really don't care.
If this was an important issue, then your criticism would make more sense (that I shouldn't just piss and moan about it, but do something to change it). Do you follow your own advice? Or like most moralists, do you just like to blow hot air? For example, do you complain to a department store about their choice in ambient music, or do you just (like me) vent your frustration with the person you're with (ie: "god damn I hate N*Sync, it's even worse as muzak!")?
Your comparison is faulty.
Good job. You spotted the sarcasm.
Sarcasm is irony meant to insult. If it was sarcasm, then you meant the opposite, so you were insulting me by pretending to disagree? It doesn't quite follow.
Unfortunately, it appears that you insist on thinking markets are driven by wishing and whining. Markets are driven by people who spend money, not the ones who say what it would take to make them buy things.
When did I *ever* state anything about how markets work? Aside from your lack of understanding if you believe your two sentences sum up how markets work, you are making the implicit assumption that my post on Slashdot is meant to change the iPod market or some such.
Let me help clear it up for you: I'm saying that the iPod Photo *can* support video and that it should, but for Apple's (SJ's) aversion to adding video to the iPod, and that I wish they weren't so pig-headed. Oh well, c'est la vie.
And just to save time, if you plan to take the opinion that if it's not a big deal to me, then why should Apple care? 1. I never said they should care about my opinion, but 2. I'm still less likely to buy an iPod, however so slightly, because of this, and on the grander scheme, I'm more likely to be critical of Apple in the long run. This is similar to people not liking MS's tactics in the market. They certainly will get away with (for example) stealing code from some competitor in the short run, but it will put them forever under more scrutiny even when they *aren't* raping and pillaging the marketplace.
You have oficially been sucked in. You are equating the rights granted by copyright/patents/trademarks [delete as appropriate] with physical property.
Like hell. Read what I wrote. The original poster was taking the amoralist view. Specifically, that if something can be done, then it's allowed (parenthetically, he said the morality of the action is another issue).
What I'm saying is that the issue is *entirely* moral. No one doubts that it *can* be done, but should it? I never implied that it should or should not, but that the moral question *is* the question.
More specifically, Google *can* (technically and perhaps legally) ignore robots.txt. But if I put up a site and use a robots.txt to state "Index my site but please do not index these pages", should Google abide my wishes?
The answer (I believe) isn't so clear. For example, what am I excluding? Am I excluding a dynamic database that will bog down my server if it's spidered, or a dynamic set of pages that are unique each time and if they are spidered will just link to dead urls? Or am I hiding financial reports that I might wish to later change without notice?
Or maybe it's some personal info that I don't mind making publicly available but that I don't want cached for eternity?
Or are you saying all data should be freely copiable for any reason that does not include physical damage? If so, why not type your credit card number, pin, security code, home address, sexual history and fingerprints into google?
I assume that you are not saying this data should be freely available (although I understand the idea that if it was available equally from everyone, it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue).
On the other hand, if we are talking about a business or government site, or a robots.txt that's just trying to enforce copyright on publicly available pages, I agree with the notion of screw 'em. If they put it up, it's out there.
They are not the same.
I never said they were.
Enjoy your time in 1984, but try to drag me there and I'll fight your stupid ass till you have me shot as a terrorist.
I follow your logic, but you've taken a huge leap in the wrong direction here. I'm always on the giving end of a sentence like that, not the receiving end.
No. There are these little chips, called coprocessors. It is quite possible that the iPod has a chip designed to do AAC coprocessing. Thus, it may not have the horsepower to playback compressed video. If anyone is storing DV on their iPod Photo and then getting upset they can't watch it on the screen, well, tough luck.
Who said DV? Who said some high CPU codec? Battery has *nothing* to do with their decision on playing video. It is probably one of four reasons for not playing DVD quality video (the other three being screen size, not having a video store, and wanting to be able to criticize the players that *do* play video).
How large is the battery for a Sony DV Camera which runs a tape drive, a write head, an LCD, optics, *and* a DV *encoder* compared to the iPod battery?
What I don't understand is why not play those stupid little 15s videos you can take with every digicam?
Because they are stupid. F'real.
If the "they" you are referring to are the little video clips (and not Apple), I disagree with that as being a valid reason. They are dumpy, but fun. They are also less stupid than the games Apple has added to the iPod.
Apple is just afraid of putting any video onto the iPod. I can understand their reasoning, but I disagree it very much--it helps Apple by actively *not* helping me (the consumer).
I say this because on my site I have had a lot of traffic from all three, and my site is not a popular, or even an important one but I seen a lot of traffic from them. Not just once a week or a few times a week but every day. There are big updates coming.
And so it begins...
OK, what begins I don't know. It just sounded dramatic.
I can write a search bot today that completely ignores it and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable)
"Ethically" is the whole point.
You could just as well have said, "I can code an RFID key that will gain me access to your hotel room and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable)"
Hell yeah it's arguable, that's exactly what this story is all about!
I've got a pretty decent camera. It doesn't use CF. How many readers you gonna pack in and keep the form factor desirable?
All formats are smaller than CF, so just make adaptors (like a PCMCIA adaptor that takes MemoryStick or xD, etc).
As for video, if you've got a battery fashioned out of pixie dust and dreams that can power video for a reasonable amount of time (and keep the form factor down), I'm sure Apple would love to hear from you.
Battery has nothing to do with it. If the iPod Photo can play photo slideshows and AAC, then it can do video. What I don't understand is why not play those stupid little 15s videos you can take with every digicam?
Everybody wants, wants, wants. "Won't but one until it has _____!". There are other options or devices out there (including waiting for technology to catch up). Criticizing people or companies who owe you nothing is such a habit of this board, that I don't think a lot of people step back to look at how absurd it is when they get bent out of shape because _____ isn't catering to their specific checklist of desires.
Far less absurd than the notion that you aren't supposed to criticize a company or product for not meeting your desires or expectations.
You're right that Apple owes me nothing (actually they do as I've purchased many of their products, but that wasn't your point), but likewise I don't owe them allegience. If I don't like their actions or their products, I will criticize them as I see fit.
And to your point, if the fact people are doing it means that 'demand' demands it, then Apple must be way behind on adding LEDs and neon ground effects shit to their cases. Or adding wheels to the bottom. Or adding rubber cases to the iPod. Or...
These are add-ons (and Apple is keeping up with case mods by making stunning cases). You can't "add-on" video playback (not reasonably), and the add-on card reader is extremely lame. You can't compare the criticism.
Your comparison is faulty. This is especially illuminating due to the fact that no one is making the criticisms you made up. You were able to show them as ridiculous because they are. But that does not make all criticism ridiculous.
Yeah, sure mankind will benefit from a lack of weapons in space, until the next dinosaur killer comes along and wipes us all out. Dammit we NEED those weapons in space!
If we are putting those weapons in space to defend against asteroids, and we are doing in a way that makes sense for fighting asteroids and not for attacking Earth targets, and the international community isn't put on edge by the system, then it makes sense.
You know what else can be done? We could, in concert with other nations, prepare nuclear missles that can be deployed against an incoming asteroid. Keeping them in space only saves a few minutes at best. On the other hand, keeping them in silos here on Earth keeps tensions down, which goes a long way towards averting wars.
As far as KE weapons go, at least they don't have the long-term nastyness of nukes. Even if we kill off half the human race because of those weapons (3+ billion people) if they prevent the death of the Human race (6+ billion people) then I'm going to count it as a good.
Why do you assume that weaponizing space will kill half of the human population? Why not all of us? Additionally, how long will they be there, waiting for an asteroid that won't come for ten thousand years? In the intervening time, we may have a nuclear holocaust and then be wiped out by an asteroid because we no longer have the ability to knock it down, where instead we could have had no weapons in space, and when the ten thousand years-from-now asteroid comes we'll have an orbital asteroid-defense system which takes it out in one shot.
You are just using an asteroid as an excuse for putting kick-ass bombs in space. Pretending your rationale is legit is not only disingenuous, but it's dangerous. If space military dominance makes sense, it needs to make sense for Earthly war based reasons.
Peace does not spring from treaties. Hitler said that his agreements were just worthless pieces of paper, and he was exactly right
This point makes absolutely no sense the way you present it. Treaties in fact do stop nations from doing things they otherwise would. Just because a treaty can be broken doesn't mean it will be broken.
History has shown that peace has sprung from (and has been promoted and maintained by) treaties. The theory isn't that treaties are iron-clad protection against war, in which case your Hitler example would disprove it.
Any lasting peace, then, is only attainable when people no longer view war as being an attractive option.
Again you are making the mistake of confusing the issue as an absolute. Sometimes peace is had on a day-by-day basis. A peace doesn't have to be "lasting" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it's good enough to just be here and now. Treaties can work beyond the here and now, looking towards the future.
PS: I'd refrain from using terms like "moron" or "fool",
Why? If what you are saying is moronic or foolish...
especially since your reading skills are in obvious need of work.
Way to lose any pretense at the moral high ground.
I'll be keeping an eye on you for a while, so I'd recommend developing a more civil tone.
A threat? Or just a failed attempt at congenial humor?
What is moronic (and again, if this is your view, then you are by definition a moron) is to think that just because something can happen, and can even be reasonably assumed that it will eventually happen, doesn't mean you can just say, "oh well, it happens, so why fight it?", which is essentially what you are saying.
It's reasonable to assume that even after all outstanding wars and other pressing issues are resolved, the US will again go to war. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work against that eventuality. Such anti-war activities include joining into treaties and avoiding the temptation of reaching for new means of military supremacy.
Your house might eventually burn down, that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher. Sure, that extinguisher won't stop all fires (or maybe not even 90% of fires), but it's damned foolish to not even do it if you can.
Now, I did make allowance for the potential that you aren't a moron, just a fool. Specifically, that you are holding the position that war is inevitable, so you are not going to be surprised by nations doing war-like things. The part of that stance which is foolish is where you seem to use that as a reason to not pass judgement. Something of a "well, countries will be countries, y'know." It's rational to accept the fact that wars will happen, but it's foolish to use that as a reason not to condemn war.
So, are you a moron, a fool, or have I still missed your point?
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Just because we've done it before (not in space, but on Earth) doesn't mean we have to do it again.
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Treaties codify and institutionalize peace. Otherwise we just tool up for a while, then blow each other up for a while, repeat.
You might be a moron who thinks that's inevitable, so let's embrace it, but a rational and moral being would seek to extend the length of peace time and minimize the length (and horror) of war time.
Personally, I don't think you're moronic enough to desire war, but I do think you are fool enough to justify and support the morons who not only desire war, but have the ability to escalate and wage it.
It's like you're saying, "well, rivers flood, whatyagonna do, eh? just how it goes, y'know." While an intelligent person might build dams and dikes, prepare boats and sand bags, etc.
So what, exactly, are you saying? All you've done is stated the obvious--those in power want to strengthen their hold.
What you've failed to do is pass any judgement. Yes, of course, nations will want to militarize space, but all of mankind benefits from not militarizing space. That's why we need those treaties and why they must be honored.
Saying, "Oh, well, the treaties won't stop them, they'll just do it anyway," is to give up, and is very immoral.
Don't you think there's a difference between putting nukes and kinetic energy bombs in space and a GPS satellite?
The weaponization of space of some amount may be inevitable, but the all-out no-holds-barred weaponization of space is most certainly not inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Their drug abuse versus his are completely different. It's like being an alcoholic versus drinking too many protein shakes.
Excuses, excuses. The law's the law, right? Isn't that the Limbaugh way? Personally, I agree that there are subjective differences, but the violation itself, the abuse, is essentially the same. He's even gone deaf because of it.
You have encountered this? Really. Interesting, and probably lying, or just overstated.
Have I encountered what? Limbaugh's lies and hypocrisies? Yes. Drug (ab)users? Yes. Go fuck yourself for calling me liar.
I will take your word for it? Or I'll just assume you copy MS software and probably do drugs.
Funny, the question never came up, not even in context, so what's the point in making such foolish and irrelevant assumptions?
The IP violation would have merits if this turns out to be intentional. Otherwise, I would to see you say this about some arbitrary package in Linux.
You miss my point entirely.
The issue isn't that MS "pirated" a program. I don't care. The issue is that if *you* "pirate" an MS program, woah boy, watch out. But if MS does it, somehow it's like, no big deal.
I don't know the circumstances of the gay stuff, and I strongly doubt the whole case was stated here.
No shit the whole case wasn't stated. Rush went on for days about it, how can I state the whole case? The point is that he held the position that they *should* be jailed because the law's the law, and that the argument they used regarding the right to privacy was bogus because, according to the horribly ignorant Limbaugh, the Constitution does not protect the right to privacy!
Emotional pain is physical pain? Really
No, moron, I said the reverse. That *all* physical pain is actualy emotion. I'll explain it for you: If you cut your finger, do you really thing your finger hurts? It doesn't. Your mind is where the pain is. Now, simply "sensing" that you've been cut or burnt, etc, wouldn't necessarily have to be emotion, but it hurting is.
I realize I am playing devil's advocate and someone is likely in the wrong in this MS case, but it is very unlikely that it is MS in the wrong. On the contrary, it is some dimwitted sound file guy and probably an intern.
And that imaginary intern, while working for Microsoft, *IS* part of Microsoft. What do you think a corporation is?
Do you think MS is going to say, "oh, your 'illegal' MS Exchange server is just the fault of some consultant you paid to set up your company e-mail, so no biggie, carry on". Or that the RIAA will say, "oh, that MP3 server that your executives knew nothing about is the fault of your 10 employees who used it?" etc?
Let me drill the point home to you: IT'S NOT THE SINGLE ACT THAT IS NEWS, IT'S THE FACT THAT THE TORQUEMADAS OF THE IP INQUISITION ARE, THEMSELVES, GUILTY OF THE CRIMES THEY CONDEMN (FINE, JAIL, OR FORCE INTO COSTLY CONTRACTS) OTHERS FOR.
From the article, jackass.
The frame rate of the movie we downloaded was 15 frames per second, we'll export the same in QuickTime.
15 FPS. Not 30.
Next.
The quicktime file is 30fps. Check it for yourself. The guy exported the photos at 15fps to the iPod (going by what you typed), but when he thumbed through, sometimes he was at or beyond 30fps.
You are a moron. Look at the QuickTime movie. It is a 30fps movie, and there are parts where the iPod's display changes in each frame. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that means, it does, however, take a non-retard.
Who knows what happened? It could be files they bought from somewhere else for all we know.
What's that got to do with it? Has somehow MS not violated IP laws in that case?
How will they make this error right? Spend $350 on a license. Voila.
$350 (or whatever) times each infringing copy. But it's worse than that. There is punative damages. Otherwise why would anyone license a product if all you had to do was pay what you'd pay anyway?
The thing about Limbaugh is that his drug abuse made the news because the prosecutors against him got a hold of his medical records through currently "questionable" or even illegal means.
That was never what made it newsworthy. It *is* what Limbaugh wants us to think is the issue (duh). The thing is, not two months before the story broke, he was going on about the gay guys arrested in Texas for having sex in their own home. He was saying that the law's the law, and there's no right to privacy in the Constitution (even though it's right there in the fourth amendment, what an asshole). Now that his privacy has been violated, he's crying foul. Fuck him, either send him up river or fix the law.
That is the news in that case. Otherwise, if you look into his problem, it is not something he did to have fun or simply because he could. Rather (not Dan Rather...), it was an addiction to pain killers for guess what, pain!? TONS of people get hooked to medicine. There is a huge difference between that and your local crackheads.
There is no difference in the human factor (which you are addressing). When some ghetto teen gets hooked on crack, what's the difference? They have pain (emotional pain. btw, all physical pain is actually emotion), and they are taking what is essentially a pain killer.
I have never heard of huge problems with MS when one license was found in question, but I have heard of cases where hundreds of licenses were in question.
Windows Source Code Seller Arrested This guy is guilty of far less infringement than MS has been in the past, and is currently, according to the article.
Do you have a specific example of Limbaugh condeming drug use? Actually, I think he has always been mute on the subject, which may be telling in and of itself.
I have no quotes. Do you know of a Limbaugh transcript archive?
He has ragged on Mayor Marion Berry and Robert Downey, Jr. for their drug use. He's a huge hypocrite. He defends marriage against gays due to the rationale that marriage is devised to raise children, ignoring gays *with* children, and the fact that he's been married 3 times (and is either in the middle of, or over with, his third divorce), and has no kids.
This is the problem with legislating morals. You can get anyone to say, "yeah, sure, people shouldn't do that" (like "people shouldn't copy MS software"), but when the loudest proponents of laws enforcing morals (like Limbaugh or MS) break those laws (which is inevitably going to happen), they hoot and holler reasons why they are immune.
It's one of the most disgusting things I've ever encountered. How many people have been heavily fined, or have been put in jail for personal drug use? For violating IP laws (including against MS)? Now when MS (or Rush) violates the laws, they should be subject to the exact same harsh punishment (actually, the entire laws should be wiped from the books, or at least rewritten more rationally and prisoners granted clemency).
Otherwise, you are just using "conservative" stereotypes.
Limbaugh *is* a conservative stereotype.
Oh, and if you REALLY want free economy to work,
There is no such thing as a free economy.
end government subsidies for various big businesses (airlines come to mind)
Then say goodbye to air travel. Some things aren't profitable, but are still desirable. Roads, schools, libraries and fire departments come to mind.
I don't disagree with you in general, corporations are granted too much artificial power, but some artificial is necessary by definition (all corporations are sanctioned by the state). The flaw with pure libertarianism is that is sacrifices a better world for a free world, and a truly free world is a myth. We should certainly strive for maximum freedom, but a dogmatic adherence to "freedom at all costs" is doomed to failure.
To bring this back to the subject at hand, MS is granted far too much power and the individual is burdened with too much responsibility. You did touch on the reason when you mentioned conservatism. Conservatives (specifically neocons) worship the corporation--all must sacrifice at the alter of business. Some actually believe this makes the world better. It doesn't. You want to know why people work longer hours for less pay, in spite of all this technology that is supposed to make life easier? It's because we (as ordained and legislated by the neocons) must serve the economy first. The folly is that what good is a strong economy if you're too busy to enjoy it?
So, by your way of thinking, every parent who's ever had a kid commit a crime, should be arrested to the full extent of the law.
That makes no sense. I'm not talking about arrested and punished to the fullest extent of the law, I'm talking about reciprocity--if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. Also, I'm talking about adults and corporations, not parents and kids (where we rationally give leniency to kids because they are, by definition, immature).
It must be terribly hard to oversee the daily activities of an organization--the size of MS--down to the level of individual employees.
That's their problem, not mine. If they want to benefit from IP laws, they will have to submit to those same laws. If they *can't* (or won't), then why should I respect their (so-called) IP rights?
Are you saying they should bend over backwards to help people with stolen software?
Your powers of reasoning are flawed. Nowhere did I say MS should help anyone, let alone that they bend over backwards to help people with stolen (sic) software.
Why is it that you believe MS should be allowed to do this, but that they are allowed to fine or have imprisoned people who violate MS's rights?
MS stole code, they've done it before, and they're doing it now. Given how Ballmer likes to pretend he's some sort of champion of individual IP-holder's rights, he shouldn't have a problem making this "error" right.
Instead, it's more likely this will take a lawsuit.
What makes this newsworthy is the same thing that makes Limbaugh's drug use news. It's not so much that he's a druge addict (although there is a group of the public who likes public scandal), but it's that he condemns other drug users to jail, but demands leniency for himself.
If MS wants a pass on this, then they should lighten up, remove XP activation bullshit, whatever. Otherwise, to hell with them.
No, its a 15 FPS video.
No, it's 30. Command-i (control-i in Windows).
Movie FPS: 30
They change at the rate they are driven by the scroll wheel - neither you nor I have any evidence at all as to how fast they are actually changing and whether frames are being dropped
Press the left arrow on your keyboard. Each press is one frame. Watch the little video on the iPod. There are places it changes each time you press the arrow. Thus it can change photos at least at 30 fps.
You're either a complete moron or a troll. Either way you've got a problem.
Because there's no such thing as a raw AVI, MOV, or MPG file?
Like hell there isn't. Take an avi, mov or mpg, and look at the bits. That's the raw file. AVI and movs are wrappers, mpg is not. Regardless, it doesn't matter unless you mean to imply you can't transcode them? Learn to address the relevant facts.
Whatever you want though, I'm done here. I suggest you look into your innate lack of intelligence or your sociopathic trollness. Whatever your problem, you could benefit from a little help.
TFA appears that the iPod Photo can work as a flipbook at some undetermined framerate. This does not equate to 'can play video'.
.podav files if it has to?
That's *exactly* what 'can play video means'. The QuickTime on TFA plays at 30fps. The photos on the iPod Photo change at the same rate as the QuickTime video.
That's it, end of story. It doesn't have to play DV video for 2+ hours, it just has to play back stored images with sound. iTunes already transcodes jpegs, why not, if it can't play back raw AVI/MOV/MPG files (that even a 386 can, and cell phones for that matter), transcode them as well to
Also, you are morally bankrupt and intellectually bereft, you smell like hamsters, and your father was a rodent with no incisors, because that's pretty much where this argument is headed.
You're the one who decided to go there. I actually have evidence you are being an obtuse moron.
Cases in point (paraphrased): "It can only act as a flipbook, that's nothing like a movie" or "Sony's battery is smaller than the iPod's and it can only run (an lcd, tape drive, record head, optics system, video processor and DV encoder) for 2 hours!"
You've gone mad. My whole argument is predicated on the assumption that the iPod Photo can play videos. TFA appears to indicate that it can.
.app bundle. Think about what that means. (hint: it means Apple has OGG support in house for iTunes (or at least has done some work on it), and that the likliest hold-up (the iPod) is keeping it out). Maybe we'll see OGG Vorbis support soon. Like showing video files (and like importing WMAs) what does it hurt to add OGG Vorbis to the supported playback formats?
*IF* it can, all of your technical and cost arguments are moot. If it can't, then I no longer hold my position. Get it? I'll concede if my premises are wrong. You should look into the same.
Your argument about "no one wants it" doesn't stand up. The fact that people are asking about it shows they do. If they can add it (ie: the power is already there, how hard is it to support the *3* video formats that cameras use?), why not? It's like the little games. Few people were really begging for them, and they garner less attention than video is right now. Who cares, toss it in, it's a nice little feature. Their reason is not technical, it's political. Apple would rather poo-poo all video (to make fun of Creative and MS and pals). Putting even limited video support legitimizes the competitors.
You mention OGG, which is a good point. The old iPods can't decode OGG Vorbis in realtime (some seem to think the CPU actually can, but no one actually has done it, while this guy has done a video). iTunes has an OGG icon in the
Here's a news flash: Humane labor practices != socialism. Jackass.
:-)
Enforcing humane labor practices is, however, socialism.
Before the capitalist trolls ascend, it helps to realize that the forms of capitalism that most people defend are really capitalism tempered by socialism. 40 hour work weeks? Socialism. No child labor? Socialism. Bathrooms and lunch breaks and safety mechanisms? Socialism, socialism, socialism.
Without socialism, all those third world labor practices we find so abhorrent would be commonplace here at home.
The part about the guy being a jackass is 100% correct though.
Yes you did.
Is English a second language of yours? First lesson in reading comprehension is context. When taken in context, what I've said is clearly not a contradiction.
But my guess is you are being a little prick who finds it funny to note literal contradictions (even if the meaning isn't contradictory). If you want to play that game, I *literally* never said Apple should care about my opinion. I did say they owe me something due to my purchasing of their products (they owe me warranty type obligations).
So go crawl back into your little hole and think about what you've done, and keep your pedantic neuroticism to yourself lest you ever say something that is literally false, but which is to any human speaker of the language understandable and rational.
Digression - you CANNOT directly relate compute-intensity on a CPU to power consumption of a codec ASIC.
Who said I was? Fact: The iPod Photo *can* show frames fast enough for video. After that it becomes a moot point. Whatever format the iPod Photo uses for images it can use for video. END OF STORY.
Digression - Whatever sort of technology the Sony DV cam uses, the iPod Photo can use. The details (which you are arguing over) have already been solved by others. Whether Apple chooses to use them is up to Apple, but your insistance that there are technical hurdles IS FALSE.
Next, the smallest available battery pack for a Sony DVcam that I could find is a 680 mAh pack. My iPod's battery is a 850 mAh pack. That 680 mAh pack? It'll run the smallest, most efficient Sony miniDV camera for 2 hours, max, if you're lucky.
2 hours eh? Sounds like plenty of time for showing those dopey videos you get from a digicam.
Conclusion - significantly larger than the iPod's battery.
Didn't you just say Sony's smallest battery is a lower capacity than the iPod's battery? Sounds like you are ignoring all but the conclusions which support your stance?
They are dumpy, but I wouldn't call them fun.
That's your issue. People have them, people want to use them. The iPod Photo (or iPod AV) would be a good place to show them.
Why not make it take a whole bunch of crappy pictures real fast and make a crappy movie out of it? But adding that to the iPod would require adding on to the core function of the device, and I'm afraid I see neither the desire nor the need.
Dude, you are so being purposefully obtuse it's humoruous. "A digicam takes photos, so why not take a bunch real quick, but the iPod Photo is different?" Think about it, an iPod Photo shows photos, so why not show a bunch real fast, eh?
Sorry, but I have to go with Apple here - there isn't really a good reason to add video to the iPod. The extra cost would drive away more customers than the feature would attract.
You're just making shit up to either 1) hold onto a point that you were wrong about or 2) to keep from saying something bad about Apple. I don't know, nor care, which it is, you're still wrong. The only point you have is that *you* don't want video support. I'm cool with that, to each his own, just don't pretend like it's some huge technical hurdle that Apple can't surmount--especially when the current iPod Photo can show pictures faster than a standard video file while decoding an AAC.
Adding video capability to the iPod Photo would be a very simple thing. Just have it play silly little mpeg/avi/mov's that digicams take.
But no, Steve Jobs says you don't want to watch a whole movie on an iPod, plus there are no movies you can legally put on an iPod, so they won't even let you watch your little digicam flics.
Think whatever you want. Don't let facts get in the way of your happy delusion.
So I should be happy? Or be entirely dispassionate? I absolutely *HATE* the Windows taskbar/startmenu abomination. I openly share my opinions when appropirate (and probably often when not), and if MS ever asked, I'd let them know as well. You're acting as if I'm wrong to do so?
Ah, then you've obviously submitted your opinions to Apple. Or just bought a competitor that already does what you want.Or something...anything more productive than getting mad a company for not making what you, node 3, desire.
As we've already covered, I don't owe Apple my input. Sometimes I do let them know my opinion by sending feedback. It's entirely my choice when to do so, not yours. Video support is not something that makes a difference to me on the iPod, but my opinion still stands--I'd rather it have it than it not. Apple can seek out my wisdom here on Slashdot or not, I really don't care.
If this was an important issue, then your criticism would make more sense (that I shouldn't just piss and moan about it, but do something to change it). Do you follow your own advice? Or like most moralists, do you just like to blow hot air? For example, do you complain to a department store about their choice in ambient music, or do you just (like me) vent your frustration with the person you're with (ie: "god damn I hate N*Sync, it's even worse as muzak!")?
Good job. You spotted the sarcasm.
Sarcasm is irony meant to insult. If it was sarcasm, then you meant the opposite, so you were insulting me by pretending to disagree? It doesn't quite follow.
Unfortunately, it appears that you insist on thinking markets are driven by wishing and whining. Markets are driven by people who spend money, not the ones who say what it would take to make them buy things.
When did I *ever* state anything about how markets work? Aside from your lack of understanding if you believe your two sentences sum up how markets work, you are making the implicit assumption that my post on Slashdot is meant to change the iPod market or some such.
Let me help clear it up for you: I'm saying that the iPod Photo *can* support video and that it should, but for Apple's (SJ's) aversion to adding video to the iPod, and that I wish they weren't so pig-headed. Oh well, c'est la vie.
And just to save time, if you plan to take the opinion that if it's not a big deal to me, then why should Apple care? 1. I never said they should care about my opinion, but 2. I'm still less likely to buy an iPod, however so slightly, because of this, and on the grander scheme, I'm more likely to be critical of Apple in the long run. This is similar to people not liking MS's tactics in the market. They certainly will get away with (for example) stealing code from some competitor in the short run, but it will put them forever under more scrutiny even when they *aren't* raping and pillaging the marketplace.
You have oficially been sucked in. You are equating the rights granted by copyright/patents/trademarks [delete as appropriate] with physical property.
Like hell. Read what I wrote. The original poster was taking the amoralist view. Specifically, that if something can be done, then it's allowed (parenthetically, he said the morality of the action is another issue).
What I'm saying is that the issue is *entirely* moral. No one doubts that it *can* be done, but should it? I never implied that it should or should not, but that the moral question *is* the question.
More specifically, Google *can* (technically and perhaps legally) ignore robots.txt. But if I put up a site and use a robots.txt to state "Index my site but please do not index these pages", should Google abide my wishes?
The answer (I believe) isn't so clear. For example, what am I excluding? Am I excluding a dynamic database that will bog down my server if it's spidered, or a dynamic set of pages that are unique each time and if they are spidered will just link to dead urls? Or am I hiding financial reports that I might wish to later change without notice?
Or maybe it's some personal info that I don't mind making publicly available but that I don't want cached for eternity?
Or are you saying all data should be freely copiable for any reason that does not include physical damage? If so, why not type your credit card number, pin, security code, home address, sexual history and fingerprints into google?
I assume that you are not saying this data should be freely available (although I understand the idea that if it was available equally from everyone, it probably wouldn't be as much of an issue).
On the other hand, if we are talking about a business or government site, or a robots.txt that's just trying to enforce copyright on publicly available pages, I agree with the notion of screw 'em. If they put it up, it's out there.
They are not the same.
I never said they were.
Enjoy your time in 1984, but try to drag me there and I'll fight your stupid ass till you have me shot as a terrorist.
I follow your logic, but you've taken a huge leap in the wrong direction here. I'm always on the giving end of a sentence like that, not the receiving end.
Who said DV? Who said some high CPU codec? Battery has *nothing* to do with their decision on playing video. It is probably one of four reasons for not playing DVD quality video (the other three being screen size, not having a video store, and wanting to be able to criticize the players that *do* play video).
How large is the battery for a Sony DV Camera which runs a tape drive, a write head, an LCD, optics, *and* a DV *encoder* compared to the iPod battery?
Because they are stupid. F'real.
If the "they" you are referring to are the little video clips (and not Apple), I disagree with that as being a valid reason. They are dumpy, but fun. They are also less stupid than the games Apple has added to the iPod.
Apple is just afraid of putting any video onto the iPod. I can understand their reasoning, but I disagree it very much--it helps Apple by actively *not* helping me (the consumer).
I say this because on my site I have had a lot of traffic from all three, and my site is not a popular, or even an important one but I seen a lot of traffic from them. Not just once a week or a few times a week but every day. There are big updates coming.
And so it begins...
OK, what begins I don't know. It just sounded dramatic.
I can write a search bot today that completely ignores it and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable)
"Ethically" is the whole point.
You could just as well have said, "I can code an RFID key that will gain me access to your hotel room and there is nothing wrong with that (except perhaps ethically but even that is arguable)"
Hell yeah it's arguable, that's exactly what this story is all about!
I've got a pretty decent camera. It doesn't use CF. How many readers you gonna pack in and keep the form factor desirable?
All formats are smaller than CF, so just make adaptors (like a PCMCIA adaptor that takes MemoryStick or xD, etc).
As for video, if you've got a battery fashioned out of pixie dust and dreams that can power video for a reasonable amount of time (and keep the form factor down), I'm sure Apple would love to hear from you.
Battery has nothing to do with it. If the iPod Photo can play photo slideshows and AAC, then it can do video. What I don't understand is why not play those stupid little 15s videos you can take with every digicam?
Everybody wants, wants, wants. "Won't but one until it has _____!". There are other options or devices out there (including waiting for technology to catch up). Criticizing people or companies who owe you nothing is such a habit of this board, that I don't think a lot of people step back to look at how absurd it is when they get bent out of shape because _____ isn't catering to their specific checklist of desires.
Far less absurd than the notion that you aren't supposed to criticize a company or product for not meeting your desires or expectations.
You're right that Apple owes me nothing (actually they do as I've purchased many of their products, but that wasn't your point), but likewise I don't owe them allegience. If I don't like their actions or their products, I will criticize them as I see fit.
And to your point, if the fact people are doing it means that 'demand' demands it, then Apple must be way behind on adding LEDs and neon ground effects shit to their cases. Or adding wheels to the bottom. Or adding rubber cases to the iPod. Or...
These are add-ons (and Apple is keeping up with case mods by making stunning cases). You can't "add-on" video playback (not reasonably), and the add-on card reader is extremely lame. You can't compare the criticism.
Your comparison is faulty. This is especially illuminating due to the fact that no one is making the criticisms you made up. You were able to show them as ridiculous because they are. But that does not make all criticism ridiculous.
Yeah, sure mankind will benefit from a lack of weapons in space, until the next dinosaur killer comes along and wipes us all out. Dammit we NEED those weapons in space!
If we are putting those weapons in space to defend against asteroids, and we are doing in a way that makes sense for fighting asteroids and not for attacking Earth targets, and the international community isn't put on edge by the system, then it makes sense.
You know what else can be done? We could, in concert with other nations, prepare nuclear missles that can be deployed against an incoming asteroid. Keeping them in space only saves a few minutes at best. On the other hand, keeping them in silos here on Earth keeps tensions down, which goes a long way towards averting wars.
As far as KE weapons go, at least they don't have the long-term nastyness of nukes. Even if we kill off half the human race because of those weapons (3+ billion people) if they prevent the death of the Human race (6+ billion people) then I'm going to count it as a good.
Why do you assume that weaponizing space will kill half of the human population? Why not all of us? Additionally, how long will they be there, waiting for an asteroid that won't come for ten thousand years? In the intervening time, we may have a nuclear holocaust and then be wiped out by an asteroid because we no longer have the ability to knock it down, where instead we could have had no weapons in space, and when the ten thousand years-from-now asteroid comes we'll have an orbital asteroid-defense system which takes it out in one shot.
You are just using an asteroid as an excuse for putting kick-ass bombs in space. Pretending your rationale is legit is not only disingenuous, but it's dangerous. If space military dominance makes sense, it needs to make sense for Earthly war based reasons.
Peace does not spring from treaties. Hitler said that his agreements were just worthless pieces of paper, and he was exactly right
This point makes absolutely no sense the way you present it. Treaties in fact do stop nations from doing things they otherwise would. Just because a treaty can be broken doesn't mean it will be broken.
History has shown that peace has sprung from (and has been promoted and maintained by) treaties. The theory isn't that treaties are iron-clad protection against war, in which case your Hitler example would disprove it.
Any lasting peace, then, is only attainable when people no longer view war as being an attractive option.
Again you are making the mistake of confusing the issue as an absolute. Sometimes peace is had on a day-by-day basis. A peace doesn't have to be "lasting" (whatever that is supposed to mean), it's good enough to just be here and now. Treaties can work beyond the here and now, looking towards the future.
PS: I'd refrain from using terms like "moron" or "fool",
Why? If what you are saying is moronic or foolish...
especially since your reading skills are in obvious need of work.
Way to lose any pretense at the moral high ground.
I'll be keeping an eye on you for a while, so I'd recommend developing a more civil tone.
A threat? Or just a failed attempt at congenial humor?
What is moronic (and again, if this is your view, then you are by definition a moron) is to think that just because something can happen, and can even be reasonably assumed that it will eventually happen, doesn't mean you can just say, "oh well, it happens, so why fight it?", which is essentially what you are saying.
It's reasonable to assume that even after all outstanding wars and other pressing issues are resolved, the US will again go to war. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work against that eventuality. Such anti-war activities include joining into treaties and avoiding the temptation of reaching for new means of military supremacy.
Your house might eventually burn down, that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a fire extinguisher. Sure, that extinguisher won't stop all fires (or maybe not even 90% of fires), but it's damned foolish to not even do it if you can.
Now, I did make allowance for the potential that you aren't a moron, just a fool. Specifically, that you are holding the position that war is inevitable, so you are not going to be surprised by nations doing war-like things. The part of that stance which is foolish is where you seem to use that as a reason to not pass judgement. Something of a "well, countries will be countries, y'know." It's rational to accept the fact that wars will happen, but it's foolish to use that as a reason not to condemn war.
So, are you a moron, a fool, or have I still missed your point?
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Just because we've done it before (not in space, but on Earth) doesn't mean we have to do it again.
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Treaties codify and institutionalize peace. Otherwise we just tool up for a while, then blow each other up for a while, repeat.
You might be a moron who thinks that's inevitable, so let's embrace it, but a rational and moral being would seek to extend the length of peace time and minimize the length (and horror) of war time.
Personally, I don't think you're moronic enough to desire war, but I do think you are fool enough to justify and support the morons who not only desire war, but have the ability to escalate and wage it.
It's like you're saying, "well, rivers flood, whatyagonna do, eh? just how it goes, y'know." While an intelligent person might build dams and dikes, prepare boats and sand bags, etc.
So what, exactly, are you saying? All you've done is stated the obvious--those in power want to strengthen their hold.
What you've failed to do is pass any judgement. Yes, of course, nations will want to militarize space, but all of mankind benefits from not militarizing space. That's why we need those treaties and why they must be honored.
Saying, "Oh, well, the treaties won't stop them, they'll just do it anyway," is to give up, and is very immoral.
Don't you think there's a difference between putting nukes and kinetic energy bombs in space and a GPS satellite?
The weaponization of space of some amount may be inevitable, but the all-out no-holds-barred weaponization of space is most certainly not inevitable.