If I hadn't spoken to so many people over the years to totally fail to grok basic issues regarding nuclear weapons, I'd say you were right. I'm inclined to think that the AC is sans clue, as that's considerably more likely to be the case than a keen sarcastic wit. The keen wits around here usually post under a login.
Suppose a records keeping error might be the first step in an elaborate plot to steal not one but six nuclear warheads.
Suppose a few months after they went missing, five of them blew up in major cities.
New York.
Washington D.C.
Chicago.
Los Angeles.
San Francisco.
Suppose one were held back to make you wonder if it was going off in your home town tomorrow.
Yeah, so it seems like a minor bookeeping error, compounded by accidental transport. However, the error also implies that they were transported by a crew that didn't know they had nukes on board, landing at a base that wasn't prepared to handle the nukes securely, since they didn't know they were receiving nukes.
It's not a minor thing. It's a big, big story. It's a bigger story than will ever be admitted.
Suppose this wasn't the first time this happened, only the missing nukes were not detected because they were removed from the cruise missiles before the receiving crew noticed they had warheads. This terrifying scenario is why a full inventory is being conducted right now.
The problem is that a file with the BSD license removed cannot be shared back with the BSD project, from whence it came in the discussion before us. Removing the BSD license makes the code less free, it binds it in the shackles of the GPL, so the code can flow only one way, out of BSD to GNU/Linux. All Theo is saying is give peace a chance.
The difference is that commercial entities which modify BSD code, compile it, and distribute binary-only distributions are not pretending to own the share and share alike happy friendly community open source high ground. The Linux community does try to own this high ground, really to the point where BSD gets no credit for having the less restrictive (more "open" and more "free") license. What Theo is saying is that if the Linux community wants to maintain its hold on this high ground, they should play fair with code they get from BSD, and share back with that project. Good in the world would be reduced if this turned into a war. Imagine BSD projects getting relicensed as a lever against Linux, say some sort of clause which prohibits dual licensing, and requires non-commercial entities to share code back to BSD. It could get uglier than that, but it probably won't, since the BSD camp has a long history of being the most open and free of free open source licenses, it's unlikely they would start using their license as a weapon at this point.
Since you haven't made much effort to persuade me otherwise, I maintain that there exists a design philosophy difference between Apple and the rest of the cell phone industry, and that this philosophy is a carry over from their PC design philosophy. Honestly, I didn't really expect the address book example to be contentious. Programmers (like bjourne) who understand the relative horse power requirements of different storage and search solutions should know that most phones on the market in the past several years had enough horse power to solve this problem, and there has been plenty of time. For crying out loud, iPhone was in development for three years. Apple designed a new phone from scratch. Surely Nokia or Motorola could have built a decent address book in all that time? The fact that they did not should tell you something. Furthermore, you don't need to be a programmer to get this. Anybody who has ever filled up their address book should know the frustration of being forced to pick which ones to carry with you on your phone. I chose this example, rather than others, because quite honestly it's not really controversial and it's pretty easy to understand.
There are counter examples, of course, perhaps there will soon be another, ring tones, which we are likely to discover next week will be absurdly restricted on iPhone: you'll be able to pay to use any section of a song you like as a ringtone, but you might not be able to use your own audio files as ringtones. If that happens, it will be an interesting counter example to my argument. Note, however, other music related restrictions that people didn't like about iTunes (e.g. DRM) turned out to be due to the requirements of industry partners, and Apple has been quietly working in the background to move the industry away from excessively restrictive DRM, at signifiant risk to Apple's own business model, I might add, as evidenced by today's announcement regarding NBC Universal. (DRM is only one factor in that negotiation, of course, but it is a factor.)
It would be amusing to run style (1) comparing a large sample of Anonymous Coward postings to those by logged in users. If you really think the words I use are too big, please consider that you came to Slashdot, not ZDNet, and presumably nobody forced you. Didn't you know that Paul Murphy uncovered the astounding truth that Slashdot posts have an average reading grade level higher than some other tech industry rag forums (see: Are Mac Users Smarter Than PC Users? )? The Macintouch crowd put us Slashdot geeks to shame, though, so we can't get too smug. Yeah, I'm perhaps a bit of a geek, since I really do read the dictionary for fun sometimes. And Dude... uh... like, did you fail to notice that I'm posting a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition, logged in using my real true name no less, while you are calling me names as an anonymous coward? I'm definitely not worried about being perceived as the friendless geek with no social skills in this conversation. Since I don't care what you think, try calling me a sociopath next. You'll still be wrong, but you'll get to use a big word and I won't be much affected by your tantrum. Heck, maybe you're not a pedant, you only play one on Slashdot. Perhaps I give you insufficient credit for a fine sarcastic wit.
The last time he was in the headlines was a few years ago. The SkyCar was going to go on sale soon. What the press release and news articles didn't say was that it was *the* one and only prototype SkyCar that was going to go on sale, in the Nieman Marcaus catalog. This guy comes out with a press release every few years to raise cash for toys. Last time I looked at his web page he was also selling some kind of diet supplement pills, right on the same page with the SkyCar info! Scam scam scam scam scammity-scam scammity-scam! Can I have his scam? I like scam!
I didn't say consumers were stupid, although in the Dilbert Principle sense of the term, they are. Consumer electronics are so complicated that people really don't know what they are buying, and don't realize when they are getting ripped off. If I had made this same argument about Windows vs. Linux, nobody here would have noticed because the argument is The Norm around here. Apply it to an Apple product, however, and suddenly I'm a New Labour / Apple fan boy. Good grief. Get your meds checked.
Yours is an interesting counter argument. I tend to disagree, however, since this problem has been extant for several years, and is employed in the same tactical sense by several cell phone vendors. Customer have complained to them vociferously for years. The problem doesn't get fixed. All of these vendors make phones with larger address books, so they do know how to solve the issue, and yet choose not to do it. There was plenty of time to solve this issue. Apple spent three years designing a phone that, among many other things, solves this problem. It was a problem three years ago. It's still a problem. Why do you think that is? Yes, there is some technical and managerial incompetence in these companies, but some of these misfeatures are marketing tools, too. This one might have started as a misfeature many years ago, but it has long since passed the time when it should have been solved, if customer demand had any effect on the outcome.
I feel sorry for you. You misplaced your identity and must post A/C. Don't feel sorry for me. I'm not absurdly pedantic and I'm fully capable of abstract reasoning, which enabled me to use a single example, from among many, to illustrate a difference in the design philosophy between Apple and Nokia, really between Apple and the rest of the cell phone industry.
"No product, especially something as personal as your phone, is going to satisfy everyone, and they're not designed to, which is why there are so many to choose from."
That is not the whole story. Take a look at Nokia's product lineup, a really close look, and you discover something very curious. They have dozens of phones at any given time, and dozens of features, all mixed around in ways that don't make sense to consumers. I know, I tried for two years prior to iPhone to find a phone that would annoy me less than the high end GSM phones that I already owned. I couldn't find one. This model has a web browser, but the address book is limited to 500 entries. That phone has a larger address book, but the quality of the LCD sucks. This other phone has a nice LCD, but it's slower than molasses in January. And thats just the tip of the Nokia iceberg. (Other vendors are also guilty of this.) What the f$%&, Nokia?
People don't want forty different phones to chose from, they don't want to have to learn this lesson the hard way by purchasing an expensive product that is critically lacking in mysterious ways. Consider one very common mis-feature. The address book limitations on phones with many MB of memory exist for one reason and one reason only: as a lever to up-sell people to a more expensive phone model. Heck, I was willing to pay, but the top of the line phones have weird differences, too. For two years they didn't make a phone that I was willing to pay for, and I was highly motivated by dissatisfaction with my current phones.
iPhone has many interesting features that a whole bunch of people were looking for in a phone, in a single phone, in a single model of phone. This is a design philosophy that Apple carries through multiple product lines. Additional models of iPhone will undoubtedly emerge as technology marches on, but you will see something like the iPod and Macintosh lines. When more than one model emerges, it won't be arbitrary unbridled proliferation of models, it will be a reasonable and relatively rational set of models, addressing different price points or market segments. The obvious and simple price point differentiation in the coming years will be the amount of flash memory. Perhaps a 3G model with a camera on the front for video chat and video phone calls, but the current iPhone model stays around a while at a lower price point. You will never see forty different iPhone models for sale at one time, like you do from Nokia.
The entire Macintosh line has FireWire, ethernet, and several other useful things. You can't buy a Macintosh without them. Why not? Because they are useful things that *should* exist on every general purpose computer. You will likely never see an iPhone with a stupid arbitrary limit on the address book like you see in Nokia, Motorola, SE, Samsung, and nearly every other phone because it's a stupid game. Nokia, by harsh and desperate contrast, sought a few years ago to intentionally proliferate the number of different phone models that they create. It was a corporate strategy to try to elevate Nokia by seeming cool and hip and trendy by always changing the external package, and by mixing things up so much it was hard for people to compare. It's basically confuse-a-cat, played with the hapless consumer. It's a game they can play when nobody is out there trying to make a great phone that squeezes all the features consumers want into one package. Nokia's model proliferation games will probably continue, just as the PC world still sees useless stripped-down "bare bones PC systems foisted on hapless consumers who wind up spending more by the time they trick out their bare bones box into something they can actually use. It's a game that exists largely because consumers don't know how to assess the value of what they buy. It's a game Apple can't change, but they don't need to play, to win.
"... but if Apple didn't patent their iPhone properly, there's nothing wrong with it. If Apple did patent it properly, Nokia wouldn't have copied or would/will be facing a law suit. Note that if Nokia found a way around any relevant existing Apple patents, then: 1) Apple didn't patent properly after all, despite having their patents; 2) Nokia has been more creative in finding a way around the patents than a very first look at their phone suggests and hence should get the credit for it."
More likely, Nokia will play chicken with Apple's lawyers, and eventually agree to license whatever patents they need from Apple, perhaps a cross-license if Apple decides that anything patented by Nokia is useful or relevant. In any game with more than two possible outcomes, the having and eating a cookie expression is not appropriate, no matter how many times you say it.
The article summary posits a non-analogous argument ("using a program that could violate copyright law is about as illegal as leaving your back door unlocked") which doesn't properly reflect the plaintiff's position nor the objective facts of the dispute (a false analogy in this case, not a straw man fallacy). Setting up an anonymous file sharing device, and then not checking or knowing if illegal material has been stored there by others, is not like leaving your door unlocked. For a moment, let's assume it's not the emotionally laden and Slashdot sacred material of copyrighted music which was stored on the PC of a hapless KaZaa user. Suppose the material stored had been child pornography embedded stenographically with secret messages from Ossama bin Laden transmitted between members of Al-Qaeda. It's likely that no court would send the morons to jail, right? Probably. So the outrage might be justified.
However, the cause is not served by this fallacious argument, which appears frequently in Slashdot discussions, typically unchallenged. Transliterated from cyber to meat space, it's more like leaving the door to your house unlocked, for months, and ignoring the traffic that comes and goes while a 3rd party sets up a meth lab in your basement, or counterfeiting operation, or child pornography operation, or bomb-vest making and Al-Qaeda nut job brainwashing factory, for months. If you are an absentee landowner, you might not be held responsible, but if you're simply ignoring the fact that other people are using your property for illegal activity, then you're likely to be found liable to some degree. Hmm... it's really more like somebody set up a CD piracy print shop in your garage. It's exactly like that. You would probably go to jail.
Now, it might well be the case that copy right law run amok. I'm only speaking to a particular fallacious argument which one sees frequently on Slashdot, and now in this article summary.
No need to have heard of this strip, nor Bloom County for it to be fairly amusing. You can tell with a name like "Lola Granola" and the fact that there are references in this strip to prior spiritual quests that this character is somewhat weak minded, always adopting some new life philosophy handed to her by people who, really, seek to control her (or people in general) for whatever their own desired gain happens to be.
Cult leaders want money and blow jobs.
Various religious nut jobs want enough bodies to win the last election, the one that votes in their particular flavor of nut job theocracy (i.e. the final one, as opposed to the prior one).
Radical religious nut jobs want canon fodder, or bomb-belt fodder, or kill a doctor for Christ and spend the rest of your life behind bars fodder.
There are lots of different kinds of nut jobs, these are just some examples which will be familiar.
The punch line includes an element of irony. Steve's girlfriend will be submissive, and he likes that idea, until he realizes that he's also probably not going to get laid. It's a slapstick punch line to cap off what is really a more sophisticated sarcasm.
Of course, if you don't realize that this happens all the time, perhaps it's not so amusing. Stories of completely insipid "spiritual quests" like that of Lola Granola appear from time to time in the infotainment media. They always seem to be stories of weak minded people who must have a life philosophy handed to them on a platter, but somehow manage to reject one or two or three in a row before finding "the right one". The infotainment media inevitably dishes out these stories deadpan, like we're supposed to learn something from these people who clearly have demonstrated one overarching trait, which is a militant refusal to think critically.
Every time I see a story like this, I'm amazed that nobody ever points this out. Rational analysis, basic logic, and skepticism are not taught, and most people don't manage to acquire it on their own.
Here's the most recent example of a Lola Granola-style spiritual quest trumpeted as heroic in the media: Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross ). Note the headline, then read the story. This dude didn't reject radical islam, he wandered aimlessly through major religions and dangerous philosophies, trying each on like a new shirt. Now he's apparently working for the FBI. I hope that this guy is closely and carefully supervised by somebody with stronger pro-democracy, free-thinking, free-living convictions. And for freedom's sake, don't give him a gun or access to any important secrets.
So, if you're aware that this stuff can happen in real life, the strip is really very amusing, subtle, and funny.
No, all "works" packages sucked. All of them. This one may have sucked a little less, but it still sucked. You know, deep in your heart of hearts, that it sucked, and you hated it. It might take many years of therapy, but, one day, you'll be able to admit this to yourself. The sky will look more blue and somehow more cheerful on that day. You might look for a group of recovering Lotus Notes addicts for advice and support through this, uh, difficult time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are overjoyed.
Most of the Apple resellers killed themselves by being incompetent. Those that didn't are still around. New ones even crop up now and then, like Best Buy.
Uhm... iMovie... iDVD... Final Cut Pro... MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM... I'm pretty sure that Apple is already a major player in the sex industry. There will be an explosion of... uhm... home movies with the new iMovie in iLife 08. The best way to participate financially in the industry's coming transition is to buy AAPL, I'd guess.
Uh... on a real operating system that's called a "process". The only reason they need to think in these terms at all is because there is so much broken design in the basic OS. If everything wasn't welded inextricably from everything else, apps wouldn't take down other apps, nor the system when they misbehave, and you wouldn't need to "virtualize just the app! OMG! What a concept!"
Here's a little concept I've been working on. Why don't we use a real OS?
There's a button on the trackpad on the MacBook? Oh, yeah, there it is... Dude. Tap to click. Get with the program. It's in your system preferences. Turn it on and use it for a few minutes, you'll forget all about the mouse button on the trackpad.
Slashdot Mirror
Or hadn't you heard?
If I hadn't spoken to so many people over the years to totally fail to grok basic issues regarding nuclear weapons, I'd say you were right. I'm inclined to think that the AC is sans clue, as that's considerably more likely to be the case than a keen sarcastic wit. The keen wits around here usually post under a login.
No, the worst thing that could have happened is that they could have been stolen.
Suppose a records keeping error might be the first step in an elaborate plot to steal not one but six nuclear warheads.
Suppose a few months after they went missing, five of them blew up in major cities.
New York.
Washington D.C.
Chicago.
Los Angeles.
San Francisco.
Suppose one were held back to make you wonder if it was going off in your home town tomorrow.
Yeah, so it seems like a minor bookeeping error, compounded by accidental transport. However, the error also implies that they were transported by a crew that didn't know they had nukes on board, landing at a base that wasn't prepared to handle the nukes securely, since they didn't know they were receiving nukes.
It's not a minor thing. It's a big, big story. It's a bigger story than will ever be admitted.
Suppose this wasn't the first time this happened, only the missing nukes were not detected because they were removed from the cruise missiles before the receiving crew noticed they had warheads. This terrifying scenario is why a full inventory is being conducted right now.
The problem is that a file with the BSD license removed cannot be shared back with the BSD project, from whence it came in the discussion before us. Removing the BSD license makes the code less free, it binds it in the shackles of the GPL, so the code can flow only one way, out of BSD to GNU/Linux. All Theo is saying is give peace a chance.
The difference is that commercial entities which modify BSD code, compile it, and distribute binary-only distributions are not pretending to own the share and share alike happy friendly community open source high ground. The Linux community does try to own this high ground, really to the point where BSD gets no credit for having the less restrictive (more "open" and more "free") license. What Theo is saying is that if the Linux community wants to maintain its hold on this high ground, they should play fair with code they get from BSD, and share back with that project. Good in the world would be reduced if this turned into a war. Imagine BSD projects getting relicensed as a lever against Linux, say some sort of clause which prohibits dual licensing, and requires non-commercial entities to share code back to BSD. It could get uglier than that, but it probably won't, since the BSD camp has a long history of being the most open and free of free open source licenses, it's unlikely they would start using their license as a weapon at this point.
No, it simply implies that the BSD license is less restrictive (more "free") than the GPL.
Since you haven't made much effort to persuade me otherwise, I maintain that there exists a design philosophy difference between Apple and the rest of the cell phone industry, and that this philosophy is a carry over from their PC design philosophy. Honestly, I didn't really expect the address book example to be contentious. Programmers (like bjourne) who understand the relative horse power requirements of different storage and search solutions should know that most phones on the market in the past several years had enough horse power to solve this problem, and there has been plenty of time. For crying out loud, iPhone was in development for three years. Apple designed a new phone from scratch. Surely Nokia or Motorola could have built a decent address book in all that time? The fact that they did not should tell you something. Furthermore, you don't need to be a programmer to get this. Anybody who has ever filled up their address book should know the frustration of being forced to pick which ones to carry with you on your phone. I chose this example, rather than others, because quite honestly it's not really controversial and it's pretty easy to understand.
There are counter examples, of course, perhaps there will soon be another, ring tones, which we are likely to discover next week will be absurdly restricted on iPhone: you'll be able to pay to use any section of a song you like as a ringtone, but you might not be able to use your own audio files as ringtones. If that happens, it will be an interesting counter example to my argument. Note, however, other music related restrictions that people didn't like about iTunes (e.g. DRM) turned out to be due to the requirements of industry partners, and Apple has been quietly working in the background to move the industry away from excessively restrictive DRM, at signifiant risk to Apple's own business model, I might add, as evidenced by today's announcement regarding NBC Universal. (DRM is only one factor in that negotiation, of course, but it is a factor.)
It would be amusing to run style (1) comparing a large sample of Anonymous Coward postings to those by logged in users. If you really think the words I use are too big, please consider that you came to Slashdot, not ZDNet, and presumably nobody forced you. Didn't you know that Paul Murphy uncovered the astounding truth that Slashdot posts have an average reading grade level higher than some other tech industry rag forums (see: Are Mac Users Smarter Than PC Users? )? The Macintouch crowd put us Slashdot geeks to shame, though, so we can't get too smug. Yeah, I'm perhaps a bit of a geek, since I really do read the dictionary for fun sometimes. And Dude... uh... like, did you fail to notice that I'm posting a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition, logged in using my real true name no less, while you are calling me names as an anonymous coward? I'm definitely not worried about being perceived as the friendless geek with no social skills in this conversation. Since I don't care what you think, try calling me a sociopath next. You'll still be wrong, but you'll get to use a big word and I won't be much affected by your tantrum. Heck, maybe you're not a pedant, you only play one on Slashdot. Perhaps I give you insufficient credit for a fine sarcastic wit.
--
For kicks, I ran
The last time he was in the headlines was a few years ago. The SkyCar was going to go on sale soon. What the press release and news articles didn't say was that it was *the* one and only prototype SkyCar that was going to go on sale, in the Nieman Marcaus catalog. This guy comes out with a press release every few years to raise cash for toys. Last time I looked at his web page he was also selling some kind of diet supplement pills, right on the same page with the SkyCar info! Scam scam scam scam scammity-scam scammity-scam! Can I have his scam? I like scam!
I didn't say consumers were stupid, although in the Dilbert Principle sense of the term, they are. Consumer electronics are so complicated that people really don't know what they are buying, and don't realize when they are getting ripped off. If I had made this same argument about Windows vs. Linux, nobody here would have noticed because the argument is The Norm around here. Apply it to an Apple product, however, and suddenly I'm a New Labour / Apple fan boy. Good grief. Get your meds checked.
Yours is an interesting counter argument. I tend to disagree, however, since this problem has been extant for several years, and is employed in the same tactical sense by several cell phone vendors. Customer have complained to them vociferously for years. The problem doesn't get fixed. All of these vendors make phones with larger address books, so they do know how to solve the issue, and yet choose not to do it. There was plenty of time to solve this issue. Apple spent three years designing a phone that, among many other things, solves this problem. It was a problem three years ago. It's still a problem. Why do you think that is? Yes, there is some technical and managerial incompetence in these companies, but some of these misfeatures are marketing tools, too. This one might have started as a misfeature many years ago, but it has long since passed the time when it should have been solved, if customer demand had any effect on the outcome.
You shoot, you miss. Of course, you won't know this for two years, and by then you won't remember.
I feel sorry for you. You misplaced your identity and must post A/C. Don't feel sorry for me. I'm not absurdly pedantic and I'm fully capable of abstract reasoning, which enabled me to use a single example, from among many, to illustrate a difference in the design philosophy between Apple and Nokia, really between Apple and the rest of the cell phone industry.
People don't want forty different phones to chose from, they don't want to have to learn this lesson the hard way by purchasing an expensive product that is critically lacking in mysterious ways. Consider one very common mis-feature. The address book limitations on phones with many MB of memory exist for one reason and one reason only: as a lever to up-sell people to a more expensive phone model. Heck, I was willing to pay, but the top of the line phones have weird differences, too. For two years they didn't make a phone that I was willing to pay for, and I was highly motivated by dissatisfaction with my current phones.
iPhone has many interesting features that a whole bunch of people were looking for in a phone, in a single phone, in a single model of phone. This is a design philosophy that Apple carries through multiple product lines. Additional models of iPhone will undoubtedly emerge as technology marches on, but you will see something like the iPod and Macintosh lines. When more than one model emerges, it won't be arbitrary unbridled proliferation of models, it will be a reasonable and relatively rational set of models, addressing different price points or market segments. The obvious and simple price point differentiation in the coming years will be the amount of flash memory. Perhaps a 3G model with a camera on the front for video chat and video phone calls, but the current iPhone model stays around a while at a lower price point. You will never see forty different iPhone models for sale at one time, like you do from Nokia.
The entire Macintosh line has FireWire, ethernet, and several other useful things. You can't buy a Macintosh without them. Why not? Because they are useful things that *should* exist on every general purpose computer. You will likely never see an iPhone with a stupid arbitrary limit on the address book like you see in Nokia, Motorola, SE, Samsung, and nearly every other phone because it's a stupid game. Nokia, by harsh and desperate contrast, sought a few years ago to intentionally proliferate the number of different phone models that they create. It was a corporate strategy to try to elevate Nokia by seeming cool and hip and trendy by always changing the external package, and by mixing things up so much it was hard for people to compare. It's basically confuse-a-cat, played with the hapless consumer. It's a game they can play when nobody is out there trying to make a great phone that squeezes all the features consumers want into one package. Nokia's model proliferation games will probably continue, just as the PC world still sees useless stripped-down "bare bones PC systems foisted on hapless consumers who wind up spending more by the time they trick out their bare bones box into something they can actually use. It's a game that exists largely because consumers don't know how to assess the value of what they buy. It's a game Apple can't change, but they don't need to play, to win.
The article summary posits a non-analogous argument ("using a program that could violate copyright law is about as illegal as leaving your back door unlocked") which doesn't properly reflect the plaintiff's position nor the objective facts of the dispute (a false analogy in this case, not a straw man fallacy). Setting up an anonymous file sharing device, and then not checking or knowing if illegal material has been stored there by others, is not like leaving your door unlocked. For a moment, let's assume it's not the emotionally laden and Slashdot sacred material of copyrighted music which was stored on the PC of a hapless KaZaa user. Suppose the material stored had been child pornography embedded stenographically with secret messages from Ossama bin Laden transmitted between members of Al-Qaeda. It's likely that no court would send the morons to jail, right? Probably. So the outrage might be justified.
However, the cause is not served by this fallacious argument, which appears frequently in Slashdot discussions, typically unchallenged. Transliterated from cyber to meat space, it's more like leaving the door to your house unlocked, for months, and ignoring the traffic that comes and goes while a 3rd party sets up a meth lab in your basement, or counterfeiting operation, or child pornography operation, or bomb-vest making and Al-Qaeda nut job brainwashing factory, for months. If you are an absentee landowner, you might not be held responsible, but if you're simply ignoring the fact that other people are using your property for illegal activity, then you're likely to be found liable to some degree. Hmm... it's really more like somebody set up a CD piracy print shop in your garage. It's exactly like that. You would probably go to jail.
Now, it might well be the case that copy right law run amok. I'm only speaking to a particular fallacious argument which one sees frequently on Slashdot, and now in this article summary.
Unless one is referring to a mute. Then it would be just a space, not a hyphen.
There are lots of different kinds of nut jobs, these are just some examples which will be familiar.
The punch line includes an element of irony. Steve's girlfriend will be submissive, and he likes that idea, until he realizes that he's also probably not going to get laid. It's a slapstick punch line to cap off what is really a more sophisticated sarcasm.
Of course, if you don't realize that this happens all the time, perhaps it's not so amusing. Stories of completely insipid "spiritual quests" like that of Lola Granola appear from time to time in the infotainment media. They always seem to be stories of weak minded people who must have a life philosophy handed to them on a platter, but somehow manage to reject one or two or three in a row before finding "the right one". The infotainment media inevitably dishes out these stories deadpan, like we're supposed to learn something from these people who clearly have demonstrated one overarching trait, which is a militant refusal to think critically.
Every time I see a story like this, I'm amazed that nobody ever points this out. Rational analysis, basic logic, and skepticism are not taught, and most people don't manage to acquire it on their own.
Here's the most recent example of a Lola Granola-style spiritual quest trumpeted as heroic in the media: Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey (Daveed Gartenstein-Ross ). Note the headline, then read the story. This dude didn't reject radical islam, he wandered aimlessly through major religions and dangerous philosophies, trying each on like a new shirt. Now he's apparently working for the FBI. I hope that this guy is closely and carefully supervised by somebody with stronger pro-democracy, free-thinking, free-living convictions. And for freedom's sake, don't give him a gun or access to any important secrets.
So, if you're aware that this stuff can happen in real life, the strip is really very amusing, subtle, and funny.
No, all "works" packages sucked. All of them. This one may have sucked a little less, but it still sucked. You know, deep in your heart of hearts, that it sucked, and you hated it. It might take many years of therapy, but, one day, you'll be able to admit this to yourself. The sky will look more blue and somehow more cheerful on that day. You might look for a group of recovering Lotus Notes addicts for advice and support through this, uh, difficult time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are overjoyed.
Set up a web site and take donations via Pay Pal for a new keyboard.
Most of the Apple resellers killed themselves by being incompetent. Those that didn't are still around. New ones even crop up now and then, like Best Buy.
The converse of my claim is not necessarily true, so no, that's not my reasoning, its yours. And it's wrong.
Uh... on a real operating system that's called a "process". The only reason they need to think in these terms at all is because there is so much broken design in the basic OS. If everything wasn't welded inextricably from everything else, apps wouldn't take down other apps, nor the system when they misbehave, and you wouldn't need to "virtualize just the app! OMG! What a concept!"
Here's a little concept I've been working on. Why don't we use a real OS?
There's a button on the trackpad on the MacBook? Oh, yeah, there it is... Dude. Tap to click. Get with the program. It's in your system preferences. Turn it on and use it for a few minutes, you'll forget all about the mouse button on the trackpad.
OMG! WTF! Ruuuuuuu-un!