Africa at changing the hearts of millions and bringing them to a point where they can build peaceful, stable societies.
They're in their honeymoon period. When that's over, it not inconceivable that religion may bring the same chaos, pain, and human suffering that it has throughout history. All it takes is a religious disagreement, and either or both sides claiming that their way is god's way.
You find the Microsoft Office interface "more intuitive" than the OO.o interface because you've had training on the Microsoft Office interface? Not to mention the obvious, but that goes without saying. The mark of "intuitiveness" isn't related to training...it defines how easily a user can figure out what to do just by looking at what's in front of them.
Anybody using Firefox or Chrome has Google as their default home.
I think you mean, "most people using Firefox or Chrome..." - The first thing *I* do when I install a new browser is to set the home page to "blank". I visit Google when I need to, not because it's a default browser setting.
I regretfully disagree. Amazon is the McDonald's of online retailers. It's a reasonable experience for most people. Above all, it's convenient, what with their patented (and truly innovative) "one-click" shopping experience. If Americans are about anything, it's convenience- even to the point that it renders us completely incapable of exercising our voice in the market (as consumers) when it comes to the general douche-baggery of those to whom we give our hard-earned money.
I'm speaking of a situation where someone taps into a cable line with a de-scrambler. Or where someone conveniently dumps their garbage into someone else's dumpster. In both situations, the fixed costs to the provider are already covered.
Much like most government programs...it's a place to throw other peoples' money so that certain interests can keep some of it for themselves. All the while, the elected "representative" that was responsible scores points with said interest so that they'll have a fallback when they're finally voted out of office.
I totally agree - I've gotten exposure to artists I may never have known about if it weren't for hearing them in a YouTube video. I've purchased the music I've liked. That's what they want, isn't it? Warner Music ought to be paying YouTube, not the other way around. It's free advertising.
As along as you're not doing with property that belongs to me (or any other artist), has value to you, and yet you've refused to pay for (because you think you're entitled for some strange reason), then you're absolutely right - it is none of anyone's business.
Actually, what real reason is there why people SHOULDN'T have 8000 songs? Let me answer that for you: there isn't any.
Let me get this straight - you're suggesting that people are entitled to anything they can take merely because it exists? I write a song, and suddenly I've created an entitlement that will benefit anyone who thinks they ought to have it? What moral imperative do I have for involuntarily contributing to anyone else's well-being?...But songs? Why not?
Because you derive value from them, just as you derive value from the car that you actually paid for. Why should you expect to get something for nothing merely because it's a song?
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it? Nothing, you say? I thought so. While I understand the gripes people have about paying good money for games that suck, I don't think piracy is justified. If companies are motivated enough, they will figure out a way to let prospective customers make educated buying decisions. But to suggest that people have entitlement to copyrighted works is utter nonsense.
Obviously there's some subjectivity there, but if an adult woman was in the same pose with her genitals only just hidden by a photoshop trick, I expect that many people would agree that it is a "sexual pose".
So it's "sexual" just because the subject has no clothes on? I don't see this as anything too different than what one might see in a gymnastics dance routine. Should we outlaw pictures of that stuff too?
In the current market getting a job without a degree is almost impossible.
I disagree. For any company that's worth working for, it's not what you have, it's what you can do - and the enlightened ones know this. I've seen both sides of the coin - and based on what I've seen from people with degrees, most of the time it's nothing to write home about. Many people get degrees in IT not because of a passion they're after, but because that's where the money is.
Slashdot Mirror
Africa at changing the hearts of millions and bringing them to a point where they can build peaceful, stable societies.
They're in their honeymoon period. When that's over, it not inconceivable that religion may bring the same chaos, pain, and human suffering that it has throughout history. All it takes is a religious disagreement, and either or both sides claiming that their way is god's way.
You find the Microsoft Office interface "more intuitive" than the OO.o interface because you've had training on the Microsoft Office interface? Not to mention the obvious, but that goes without saying. The mark of "intuitiveness" isn't related to training...it defines how easily a user can figure out what to do just by looking at what's in front of them.
Anybody using Firefox or Chrome has Google as their default home.
I think you mean, "most people using Firefox or Chrome..." - The first thing *I* do when I install a new browser is to set the home page to "blank". I visit Google when I need to, not because it's a default browser setting.
Unfortunately, Apple is about selling product, not necessarily providing value.
Aren't they both models of convenience for the American consumer?
Err...not all sex offenders are men.
You sure got that right...visit a website called dumbassdaily.com - many of the stories pertain to women teachers molesting their male students.
Amazon is increasingly a house of cards.
I regretfully disagree. Amazon is the McDonald's of online retailers. It's a reasonable experience for most people. Above all, it's convenient, what with their patented (and truly innovative) "one-click" shopping experience. If Americans are about anything, it's convenience- even to the point that it renders us completely incapable of exercising our voice in the market (as consumers) when it comes to the general douche-baggery of those to whom we give our hard-earned money.
There are, of course, a few exceptions. Windows, for example.
I'm speaking of a situation where someone taps into a cable line with a de-scrambler. Or where someone conveniently dumps their garbage into someone else's dumpster. In both situations, the fixed costs to the provider are already covered.
...theft of service? It's quite real, yet quite intangible.
Much like most government programs...it's a place to throw other peoples' money so that certain interests can keep some of it for themselves. All the while, the elected "representative" that was responsible scores points with said interest so that they'll have a fallback when they're finally voted out of office.
I'd love to try it. But I can't, because I'll never install that DRM-infested mess on my computer.
3) Money talks. If you aren't a part of the "system" then chances are you don't have any.
Who pays for internet service? The internet wasn't always here.
I totally agree - I've gotten exposure to artists I may never have known about if it weren't for hearing them in a YouTube video. I've purchased the music I've liked. That's what they want, isn't it? Warner Music ought to be paying YouTube, not the other way around. It's free advertising.
It's not just "copying" if you use it and derive benefit from it. At that point it's piracy.
I think I might buy this one in place of GTA IV, which I consider a defective product.
As along as you're not doing with property that belongs to me (or any other artist), has value to you, and yet you've refused to pay for (because you think you're entitled for some strange reason), then you're absolutely right - it is none of anyone's business.
Actually, what real reason is there why people SHOULDN'T have 8000 songs? Let me answer that for you: there isn't any.
Let me get this straight - you're suggesting that people are entitled to anything they can take merely because it exists? I write a song, and suddenly I've created an entitlement that will benefit anyone who thinks they ought to have it? What moral imperative do I have for involuntarily contributing to anyone else's well-being? ...But songs? Why not?
Because you derive value from them, just as you derive value from the car that you actually paid for. Why should you expect to get something for nothing merely because it's a song?
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it? Nothing, you say? I thought so. While I understand the gripes people have about paying good money for games that suck, I don't think piracy is justified. If companies are motivated enough, they will figure out a way to let prospective customers make educated buying decisions. But to suggest that people have entitlement to copyrighted works is utter nonsense.
..and one or two holes: point, set, and match.
That's pretty much it. When you remove the means of sustenance (money), it will eventually die.
I guess this is one of those "eye of the beholder" things.
Obviously there's some subjectivity there, but if an adult woman was in the same pose with her genitals only just hidden by a photoshop trick, I expect that many people would agree that it is a "sexual pose".
So it's "sexual" just because the subject has no clothes on? I don't see this as anything too different than what one might see in a gymnastics dance routine. Should we outlaw pictures of that stuff too?
Exactly. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
In the current market getting a job without a degree is almost impossible.
I disagree. For any company that's worth working for, it's not what you have, it's what you can do - and the enlightened ones know this. I've seen both sides of the coin - and based on what I've seen from people with degrees, most of the time it's nothing to write home about. Many people get degrees in IT not because of a passion they're after, but because that's where the money is.