Who cares about getting it right? That's like telling people they need to masturbate a different way. Hell, it's not even "like" it, it is that exactly.
You could argue that since you learned to optimize pissing by moving your pants out of the way of your dick before you started, that's prior art as well. It would be just as meaningful an argument, and far more entertaining.
Facts have nothing to do with patent discussions on Slashdot. The point is for everyone to get together and have a giant circle jerk with how clever they can be repeating the same prior art jokes 90 fucking times in a row, while clapping themselves on the back about how they have the high moral ground for wanting to share the hard work of other people that they contributed nothing towards.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You aren't thinking in terms of absolute control of the experience, making as much money as possible from the consumer, and trying to indoctrinate users into the Apple lifestyle.
What would Steve Jobs do, basically.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
Then the dude in the office next door would greatly appreciate the change, because so far that's his biggest complaint.
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You couldn't possibly use the iPad as your only computer. Much like the iPhone, it requires a computer running iTunes for setup and syncing.
Re:Officially?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Aside from that, they still sell regular old personal computers. I guess that's a conveniently forgotten fact here?
None of the updates are forced, so your entire comment is invalidated by its own premise.
Of course you'd probably argue that you are entitled to continuing support from console manufacturers on your terms. I have no answer to that, just like there is no way to stop a five year old from screaming "I NEED CANDY." Reality disagrees, so there's no point in bothering with it.
I do know the difference between needs and wants. I understand the idea between surviving and living in relative luxury. I also support the idea that the FCC should regulate the Internet.
I simply hate the sloppy thinking of the entitled legions who "need" everything and "need" it provided to them.
Are you confusing the speculative bubble driven by Internet stocks with Bill Clinton actually doing something economically? His timing really was wonderful.
The bureaucracy isn't some mysterious 4th branch of government, it's the Executive branch. The real problem, as it has been for some time, is that the Executive is power hungry. Notice all these military actions with no Congressional declaration of war, for instance?
Where are the figures? Show the payments. Show how much was paid. Show the methods of money transfer. If the government did this, the numbers are all public information, so you should be able to make a clear case.
I suspect you'll get a nasty surprise when you dig into it, though.
It's not too likely things would have advanced anyway. The computerization of everything wasn't going to happen during that time frame regardless of AT&T's role. The manufacturing efficiencies didn't really come into play until the 90s. The only thing that advanced for phones before that was stylistic touches, which, while nice, are hardly advances in the true sense.
If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere, one of the tradeoffs is that you have less in the way of conveniences. There is no right to city living in the country.
Incidentally, everything in your list is, right now, provided privately in the US in various locales.
I'm no conservative. I am also not terribly interested in a powerful central government. I am definitely not interested in a nanny, because I am a grown man and do not want someone "taking care of me."
I would like to note that the network was partially paid with tax credits and various other incentives, but that is hardly the same thing as saying the government built it for private companies to exploit. That particular truth never goes down well here. I really enjoy the argument that tax credits are equivalent to getting tax money, though. It's cute.
How is the fact that it could be copied easily justification that it should be provided for free? I can easily copy your bank account numbers, should I have the right to access your money? I see no substantive difference between the concepts at all, since all property whether tangible or intellectual exists only as a mutual agreement to respect the right to own the property. If I refuse to respect your right to keep a store of money, why should I be beholden to the idea that what is yours is also mine?
Why do that when common sense just says give huge amounts of power to the federal government and trust them to do the right thing? After all, the US has demonstrated its trustworthiness for years.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about getting it right? That's like telling people they need to masturbate a different way. Hell, it's not even "like" it, it is that exactly.
You could argue that since you learned to optimize pissing by moving your pants out of the way of your dick before you started, that's prior art as well. It would be just as meaningful an argument, and far more entertaining.
Facts have nothing to do with patent discussions on Slashdot. The point is for everyone to get together and have a giant circle jerk with how clever they can be repeating the same prior art jokes 90 fucking times in a row, while clapping themselves on the back about how they have the high moral ground for wanting to share the hard work of other people that they contributed nothing towards.
You aren't thinking in terms of absolute control of the experience, making as much money as possible from the consumer, and trying to indoctrinate users into the Apple lifestyle.
What would Steve Jobs do, basically.
Then the dude in the office next door would greatly appreciate the change, because so far that's his biggest complaint.
You couldn't possibly use the iPad as your only computer. Much like the iPhone, it requires a computer running iTunes for setup and syncing.
Aside from that, they still sell regular old personal computers. I guess that's a conveniently forgotten fact here?
None of the updates are forced, so your entire comment is invalidated by its own premise.
Of course you'd probably argue that you are entitled to continuing support from console manufacturers on your terms. I have no answer to that, just like there is no way to stop a five year old from screaming "I NEED CANDY." Reality disagrees, so there's no point in bothering with it.
I do know the difference between needs and wants. I understand the idea between surviving and living in relative luxury. I also support the idea that the FCC should regulate the Internet.
I simply hate the sloppy thinking of the entitled legions who "need" everything and "need" it provided to them.
Are you confusing the speculative bubble driven by Internet stocks with Bill Clinton actually doing something economically? His timing really was wonderful.
Yeah, the Venezuelans are so brilliant that they leave him in charge of the country. Obviously it's Americans who are dumb.
The bureaucracy isn't some mysterious 4th branch of government, it's the Executive branch. The real problem, as it has been for some time, is that the Executive is power hungry. Notice all these military actions with no Congressional declaration of war, for instance?
Where are the figures? Show the payments. Show how much was paid. Show the methods of money transfer. If the government did this, the numbers are all public information, so you should be able to make a clear case.
I suspect you'll get a nasty surprise when you dig into it, though.
Everyone hates the filibuster when their party is the one in power. It's such a fucking cliche.
I don't see these price fluctuations at all. It may be that I'm smart enough to negotiate instead of just accepting the advertised price.
There is always a better deal waiting for you if you're willing to walk away. Fools forget that, then bitch that they pay too much.
It's not too likely things would have advanced anyway. The computerization of everything wasn't going to happen during that time frame regardless of AT&T's role. The manufacturing efficiencies didn't really come into play until the 90s. The only thing that advanced for phones before that was stylistic touches, which, while nice, are hardly advances in the true sense.
Do you know the difference between necessity and convenience? Do you think wanting something really really badly turns it into a need?
If you want to live out in the middle of nowhere, one of the tradeoffs is that you have less in the way of conveniences. There is no right to city living in the country.
Incidentally, everything in your list is, right now, provided privately in the US in various locales.
I'm no conservative. I am also not terribly interested in a powerful central government. I am definitely not interested in a nanny, because I am a grown man and do not want someone "taking care of me."
I would like to note that the network was partially paid with tax credits and various other incentives, but that is hardly the same thing as saying the government built it for private companies to exploit. That particular truth never goes down well here. I really enjoy the argument that tax credits are equivalent to getting tax money, though. It's cute.
How many times does that have to be said?
I'm not sure how excessive repetition will make your falsehoods true. You could probably assume you've tried enough, it'll never actually work.
Are you talking about some country that isn't the US? Here, we have a representative democracy, so there is no direct say.
Also, with corporations, you have the ability to not use their service, which is much more direct a vote than you get with the government.
So wait, do the incumbents charge too much or too little? I can't figure out which is the bigger problem.
How is the fact that it could be copied easily justification that it should be provided for free? I can easily copy your bank account numbers, should I have the right to access your money? I see no substantive difference between the concepts at all, since all property whether tangible or intellectual exists only as a mutual agreement to respect the right to own the property. If I refuse to respect your right to keep a store of money, why should I be beholden to the idea that what is yours is also mine?
And who gets the power then, exactly?
Why do that when common sense just says give huge amounts of power to the federal government and trust them to do the right thing? After all, the US has demonstrated its trustworthiness for years.