NOBODY got ANY excuse WHATSOEVER for not using shell scripting & co like normal people.
Right O! I'll tell my grandpa to stop being such a pussy straight away! It's about time he learned how to use a computer properly, like the rest of us!
Oh shut up, you are just trying to dodge my point. Everyone who has seen a tape deck knows that it is easer to cheaply make a copy of something than copy the tape deck itself. There is a slight difference between copying a tape from a friend, or waiting till he's asleep and walking off with his stereo [please update scenario as applicable]
Therefore, in 90% of the world, copies are made in back rooms and sold in market stalls, and everyone seems to be happy with this. Note that this always includes a tiny minority of foreign offerings next to a vast majority of local ones, because despite what people think, not everyone speaks English in China. Yet we in the west have to endure a state sponsored celebrity cult that makes a tiny minority of people punch-you-in-the-cunt-ingly rich, under the guise of supporting the livelyhood poor starving unknown artists. Which one is helping themselves to more ferraris, me, or these over privileged fucks? Do you understand?
Er... actually I was using both Bill Gates and Kanye West as examples of people that actually make me sick, was that not obvious enough? And indeed I do use software and music produced for free - I even enjoy the benefit of being able to modify it, even though it is not my profession (I am in catering). Do you have some kind of point to your rant or should I just feel beaten?
I have to laugh at the copyright fundamentalist viewpoint, having seen with my own eyes that outside of western Europe and north America, it is taken about as seriously as a Lada full of Clowns trying to qualify for a formula one race... In some places even the idea that you could have 60 quid to waste on a computer game to begin with! But carry on living in your bubble, it is obviously our god given duty to ensure that imaginary property remains obscenely over valued, so that we can continue to produce the Bill Gates'es and Kanye Wests we all so heavily depend upon in society. It must be fun to imagine how much richer you would be if everyone just played fair...
This is a point that I think is very under-represented. I imagine a vast majority of the work people do on computers is really indifferent to the operating system being used. Most people do actual real life(tm) work, that is simply supported by a computer, where it serves the function of a glorified typewriter for purposes of simple communication. Mac, windows, linux, who cares?
The only trouble is that the people that actually are dependent on a particular system seem to be the ones that shout the loudest, sowing the seeds of uncertainty in people that would not really be that affected by a change. People are prone to waiting to see how other people fare before they jump in to anything themselves, and so no one actually changes, and Microsoft win again at charging people for something that the other guys are giving away for free!
It makes about as much sense to me as jerks who drink bottled water, but then that's another rant...(hint: you have been able to boil your own since the invention of that thing called fire)
The problem with the c5, is that it does look genuinely ugly. It looks like you are riding around in an over-sized ladies shoe. Shallow a reason it may be, no one is going to buy anything in mass numbers if it happens to make you look like a girly man. Combine that with the top speed of 15 mph and you have a recipe for complete failure that Sir Clive should have really not been stupid enough to not see.
Velomobiles on the other hand, thanks to their racing pedigree, have a bit more prestige and can actually look quite cool, at least in my opinion. It isn't all about practicality, the marketing of things like this is all in the sport. People say that they prefer cars because they are more practical, well they often seem very practical to me for keeping you comfortable in traffic jams whenever I am going past them! It is only because of car chases on tv, formula 1, nascar, rally races, and good old fashioned unattainable sports car porn like ferraris lamborghinis and porsches that cars have such an iron grip on peoples minds.
And then there is always the terrorism aspect of "what do you do when you are hit by a truck", as if it isn't the truck drivers responsibility to, you know, not frigging murder you. Make it an automatic life sentence to run over anyone on a bicycle and see how many accidents you get then!
Where is the other half of the vid and what the fuck is the point in splitting it into two halves you utter prick? Did you have to go wee wee' s halfway through talking to Richard Dawkins or something? Are you unable to absorb information without some pretentious form of artificial suspense, and therefore busy working on the recap of the first half in order to pad the second half out, to reflect the fact that your attention span has been calibrated specifically to follow the rhythm of the show Jersey Shore?
I can see where you are arguing from, but the answer to the problem is more travel, not less travel, and your opinion paints an unreasonably bleak outlook. People only become tribal when they don't know any other way. It only takes one toxic person to poison the opinion of hundreds in a stagnant pool.
I visited Australia once, and I could not believe that it was mandatory to wear a helmet. Even after I got doored on the motorway. To me it is just another way for jumped up coppers to make a quick buck, and they seem to do that with delight. Cycling is supposed to be casual and safe and helmets are the antithesis of that. I should have a right to be able to get on my bike at any time of day and go anywhere without worrying if I am going to end up in hospital by some fluke, and yet everyone seems to argue that if I get run over and die, it is my fault for not having some shitty polystyrene hat on. If there are problems that make it advisable to wear a helmet, then we need to fix those problems, not just force people to wear a head condom and sweep it all under the carpet.
Thats not up to Branson you muppet, it would be up to the son. Just like it would be up to the people who would volunteer for such a job... You know, like the people who volunteered to discover America and to go to the poles and to fly space rockets to the moon and such. Nobody held a gun at their heads!
Africans are the pre humans who stayed in africa essentially.
As evidenced by South Africa, if you take white people and put them in Africa long enough they generally become arseholes too. My theory is that zebras are influencing the behaviour of the more powerful humans negatively using some form of as yet unresearched ultrasonic pulse emanating from inside their nasal cavity, in a bid to distract them from the the ubiquitous availability of tasty zebra meat by causing them to kill each other. Those silly zebras didn't count on the fact that humans tend to just bury each other, rather than eat the tasty human meat. If you don't believe me, you are another fucking sheep.
This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating.
You've missed the down-side to this... The old theory was wrong... Any decision making or thought-processes based on it are invalidated... All the school-children taught this theory as a fact have been indoctrinated with misinformation. There's no reason to believe the new theory isn't going to be invalidated down the road. It's perpetually a "best guess" getting passed off as fact, no matter how incomplete the evidence.
Yes, and the whole point is that we should be intelligent enough to accept that we might have to re-evaluate our understanding of the world in the face of new evidence, and that any information presented to us may not be 100 % accurate. Does that help?
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
Well, I just call it dumbing it down. Yes we know the earth isnt literally defending itself like a cute little soldier. But the consequence of us taking more than we put in is our own death one way or another, and only an idiot won't accept that.
What are you talking about? In the original example, obviously Louis CK is going to pay. With the money that he earns from his stand up. Whether the old fashioned ticket way, or via donations. Is this complicated somehow? Is there some kind of genetic predisposition to need a middle man? Are you the middle man by any chance?
Personally, I can't stand ANY multiplayer games. Not sure exactly why, I guess I prefer to compete against fixed challenges and at my own pace. I am probably in the minority, but I certainly can't be alone.
I think I may be able to add to your point of view, in the unlikely event that any game devs are reading:
There is abslolutely no reward or interest in fighting against/being beaten by anonymous opponents which have otherwise no personal connection to the player. I love quake, command and conquer, etcetera, but only in the same way as I love chess, and I would never even contemplate playing chess against someone I had never met in person, because that would be boring; a soulless challenge, so pointless that I may as well play against a computer.
Some people become obsessed with online games, and perhaps I can see why it would be a diversion, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people are only interested in playing games against the people in their own existing social circle, and could not give a damn about massively multiplayer, always online bullshit - and that to lump every gamer in that crowd would be a disastrous folly. Networked games are a beautiful thing, when they are combined with a social, friendly and close knit group of friends, where all players are in hearing distance and it resembles something like a sporting event; but when exposed to the stark, impersonal world of the internet, they are about as good as a kick in the face!
Slashdot Mirror
So why are the hordes of actual pirate bay clones not blocked, and this apparently fair and legal one is?
What the hell? How many writing systems with unique symbols are there? Just say Chinese Glyphs...
NOBODY got ANY excuse WHATSOEVER for not using shell scripting & co like normal people.
Right O! I'll tell my grandpa to stop being such a pussy straight away! It's about time he learned how to use a computer properly, like the rest of us!
Get out of your bubble.
Oh shut up, you are just trying to dodge my point. Everyone who has seen a tape deck knows that it is easer to cheaply make a copy of something than copy the tape deck itself. There is a slight difference between copying a tape from a friend, or waiting till he's asleep and walking off with his stereo [please update scenario as applicable]
Therefore, in 90% of the world, copies are made in back rooms and sold in market stalls, and everyone seems to be happy with this. Note that this always includes a tiny minority of foreign offerings next to a vast majority of local ones, because despite what people think, not everyone speaks English in China. Yet we in the west have to endure a state sponsored celebrity cult that makes a tiny minority of people punch-you-in-the-cunt-ingly rich, under the guise of supporting the livelyhood poor starving unknown artists. Which one is helping themselves to more ferraris, me, or these over privileged fucks? Do you understand?
Er... actually I was using both Bill Gates and Kanye West as examples of people that actually make me sick, was that not obvious enough? And indeed I do use software and music produced for free - I even enjoy the benefit of being able to modify it, even though it is not my profession (I am in catering). Do you have some kind of point to your rant or should I just feel beaten?
I have to laugh at the copyright fundamentalist viewpoint, having seen with my own eyes that outside of western Europe and north America, it is taken about as seriously as a Lada full of Clowns trying to qualify for a formula one race... In some places even the idea that you could have 60 quid to waste on a computer game to begin with! But carry on living in your bubble, it is obviously our god given duty to ensure that imaginary property remains obscenely over valued, so that we can continue to produce the Bill Gates'es and Kanye Wests we all so heavily depend upon in society. It must be fun to imagine how much richer you would be if everyone just played fair...
You know, that kind of sarcasm is really useless unless you also make a token attempt to educate us all.
This is a point that I think is very under-represented. I imagine a vast majority of the work people do on computers is really indifferent to the operating system being used. Most people do actual real life(tm) work, that is simply supported by a computer, where it serves the function of a glorified typewriter for purposes of simple communication. Mac, windows, linux, who cares?
The only trouble is that the people that actually are dependent on a particular system seem to be the ones that shout the loudest, sowing the seeds of uncertainty in people that would not really be that affected by a change. People are prone to waiting to see how other people fare before they jump in to anything themselves, and so no one actually changes, and Microsoft win again at charging people for something that the other guys are giving away for free!
It makes about as much sense to me as jerks who drink bottled water, but then that's another rant...(hint: you have been able to boil your own since the invention of that thing called fire)
The problem with the c5, is that it does look genuinely ugly. It looks like you are riding around in an over-sized ladies shoe. Shallow a reason it may be, no one is going to buy anything in mass numbers if it happens to make you look like a girly man. Combine that with the top speed of 15 mph and you have a recipe for complete failure that Sir Clive should have really not been stupid enough to not see.
Velomobiles on the other hand, thanks to their racing pedigree, have a bit more prestige and can actually look quite cool, at least in my opinion. It isn't all about practicality, the marketing of things like this is all in the sport. People say that they prefer cars because they are more practical, well they often seem very practical to me for keeping you comfortable in traffic jams whenever I am going past them! It is only because of car chases on tv, formula 1, nascar, rally races, and good old fashioned unattainable sports car porn like ferraris lamborghinis and porsches that cars have such an iron grip on peoples minds.
And then there is always the terrorism aspect of "what do you do when you are hit by a truck", as if it isn't the truck drivers responsibility to, you know, not frigging murder you. Make it an automatic life sentence to run over anyone on a bicycle and see how many accidents you get then!
Where is the other half of the vid and what the fuck is the point in splitting it into two halves you utter prick? Did you have to go wee wee' s halfway through talking to Richard Dawkins or something? Are you unable to absorb information without some pretentious form of artificial suspense, and therefore busy working on the recap of the first half in order to pad the second half out, to reflect the fact that your attention span has been calibrated specifically to follow the rhythm of the show Jersey Shore?
Lots of love, The United Kingdom
I can see where you are arguing from, but the answer to the problem is more travel, not less travel, and your opinion paints an unreasonably bleak outlook. People only become tribal when they don't know any other way. It only takes one toxic person to poison the opinion of hundreds in a stagnant pool.
I visited Australia once, and I could not believe that it was mandatory to wear a helmet. Even after I got doored on the motorway. To me it is just another way for jumped up coppers to make a quick buck, and they seem to do that with delight. Cycling is supposed to be casual and safe and helmets are the antithesis of that. I should have a right to be able to get on my bike at any time of day and go anywhere without worrying if I am going to end up in hospital by some fluke, and yet everyone seems to argue that if I get run over and die, it is my fault for not having some shitty polystyrene hat on. If there are problems that make it advisable to wear a helmet, then we need to fix those problems, not just force people to wear a head condom and sweep it all under the carpet.
So make a token effort not to run them over then!
So, the first way you know you are fucked, the second way you can enjoy a relative ignorance?
Thats not up to Branson you muppet, it would be up to the son. Just like it would be up to the people who would volunteer for such a job... You know, like the people who volunteered to discover America and to go to the poles and to fly space rockets to the moon and such. Nobody held a gun at their heads!
Africans are the pre humans who stayed in africa essentially.
As evidenced by South Africa, if you take white people and put them in Africa long enough they generally become arseholes too. My theory is that zebras are influencing the behaviour of the more powerful humans negatively using some form of as yet unresearched ultrasonic pulse emanating from inside their nasal cavity, in a bid to distract them from the the ubiquitous availability of tasty zebra meat by causing them to kill each other. Those silly zebras didn't count on the fact that humans tend to just bury each other, rather than eat the tasty human meat. If you don't believe me, you are another fucking sheep.
This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating.
You've missed the down-side to this... The old theory was wrong... Any decision making or thought-processes based on it are invalidated... All the school-children taught this theory as a fact have been indoctrinated with misinformation. There's no reason to believe the new theory isn't going to be invalidated down the road. It's perpetually a "best guess" getting passed off as fact, no matter how incomplete the evidence.
Yes, and the whole point is that we should be intelligent enough to accept that we might have to re-evaluate our understanding of the world in the face of new evidence, and that any information presented to us may not be 100 % accurate. Does that help?
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
Well, I just call it dumbing it down. Yes we know the earth isnt literally defending itself like a cute little soldier. But the consequence of us taking more than we put in is our own death one way or another, and only an idiot won't accept that.
Yawn.
Try leaving the house. Puts internet politics in perspective.
Was that the subject? WAS IT?
What are you talking about? In the original example, obviously Louis CK is going to pay. With the money that he earns from his stand up. Whether the old fashioned ticket way, or via donations. Is this complicated somehow? Is there some kind of genetic predisposition to need a middle man? Are you the middle man by any chance?
Well, no amount of coercion will encourage me to drink pepsi, so I think there may be a flaw in this logic..
If you are going to have something different, it may as well be well... different or what is the point?
Sorry, rather be raped and murdered than be falsely accused :P
Personally, I can't stand ANY multiplayer games. Not sure exactly why, I guess I prefer to compete against fixed challenges and at my own pace. I am probably in the minority, but I certainly can't be alone.
I think I may be able to add to your point of view, in the unlikely event that any game devs are reading:
There is abslolutely no reward or interest in fighting against/being beaten by anonymous opponents which have otherwise no personal connection to the player. I love quake, command and conquer, etcetera, but only in the same way as I love chess, and I would never even contemplate playing chess against someone I had never met in person, because that would be boring; a soulless challenge, so pointless that I may as well play against a computer.
Some people become obsessed with online games, and perhaps I can see why it would be a diversion, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people are only interested in playing games against the people in their own existing social circle, and could not give a damn about massively multiplayer, always online bullshit - and that to lump every gamer in that crowd would be a disastrous folly. Networked games are a beautiful thing, when they are combined with a social, friendly and close knit group of friends, where all players are in hearing distance and it resembles something like a sporting event; but when exposed to the stark, impersonal world of the internet, they are about as good as a kick in the face!
A fifth minus 3 hundredths of a penny saved is...