Arguing that software has rights is even more delusional than Romney's believe that corporations are people,
I think that depends on what you consider to be "rights" and where you believe the rights lie. We routinely declare objects to be historical or natural landmarks and that designation includes protection from vandalism, destruction, exploitation and so forth. The object has effectively been given a right to continued existence. Is it delusional of us to have done that?
The majority of the US also believes that books shouldn't be banned or burned. Not only that, but we generally believe they should be available for free to those who seek them out (which is why we have libraries). Books have effectively been given not only the right to exist, but the right to be read. Is that delusional?
I'm not sure just what rights RMS thinks software should have because I hate his writing style and can never finish reading any of his diatribes, but it's not entirely out of the question to say that an object effectively has some rights. I would probably disagree with RMS about what those rights are, but I wouldn't say that arguing that software has rights is delusional.
Get used to it. The field of journalism has been gutted by news being freely available on the internet. Ads don't pay enough to pay for the level of journalism and editorial oversight that you want and people are increasingly less willing to pay for higher quality news. Grammar errors aren't going to go away or become less frequent.
Hint: I wasn't being literal. I was pointing out that what's most popular tends to be the lowest common denominator. Look at top 40 radio if you need further evidence.
One of those is more concise, more informative and doesn't attempt to exaggerate by increasing the first digit (which people pay the most attention to) for no reason.
With the quoted battery rage of 200 km/125 miles per charge, you'd have 12 stops in that 1500 miles just to swap batteries out. With stops that frequent, I doubt there would ever be a need for an on-board bathroom.
Except the US government hasn't banned all exports to Iran. Certain exports are restricted (mostly the obvious... weapons, military technology, oil production technology), but you can export food, clothing, stuffed animals, furniture, cars, iPads and thousands of other products to Iran.
Apple's corporate policy is to not sell anything, not even a mouse pad, into Iran without explicit government approval. It's a stjupid, generic CYA policy which does not reflect the actual trade limitations against Iran. My own company sells products to Iran and, amazingly, we know which products can be sold to Iran and which cannot because we did the basic research. Apple didn't want to bother so they banned sales of everything.
The employee was following corporate policy, not US government policy. If you're going to be mad at someone, be mad at Apple since they wrote that policy.
Nutria is a good match for creole recipes. It's got a strong flavor not unlike the dark meat from a turkey that can still be tasted when used in spicy recipes like this one and it does taste good.
The problem is it looks a bit too much like a giant rat, even though it's closer to a beaver. People in the US have a psychological issue with the thought of eating rats, so it's not likely that it will ever be a popular ingredient.
Facebook has 500 million users and approximately half of those play games. The Wii U has a number of features, including video chat, that they're hoping will attract those social network gamers to the platform.
You have to remember, Nintendo isn't courting the hardcore gaming market. The Wii was a huge success among casual gamers and outsold every other available console. Naturally they're going to try to repeat and expand on that success.
Freaks and pervs aren't outside in public being social, they're inside on their PC and Wii
Statistically, over 90% of the freaks and pervs are people the children trust and interact with on a regular basis... close relatives, teachers, babysitters, family friends and so forth. They aren't inside on their PC/Wii, they're already in the children's lives and have no need to risk easily recorded communications like online chat.
The scientific method is based on the idea that you create theories, present them to the world who tear the theory apart and examine it, then create better theories if they can. Putting forward a new theory that gets challenged, argued over and torn apart is not pseudoscience.
Dahmer was impaling dogs and cats on sticks at the age of 8, without any alcohol involved. You can't really argue that alcohol had much to do with him becoming a serial killer when all the signs were there in his childhood and he'd already started killing things long before he started drinking.
Show once incidence where alcohol has resulted in someone eating someone else's face off.
No? Then there's no rational reason to ban alcohol because we think an unrelated drug might have caused someone to go nuts and eat another person's face off.
As I said in my post, "There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever." The fact that some guy went nuts (possibly due to bath salts, but no evidence has been released) and ate another person's face off is absolutely not a reason to argue that alcohol should be banned.
I was in a hurry when I typed up my post (went to MIB II, very good) and overlooked alcohol in my previous post. Consider it taken care of and have a nice day.
The original post said "The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice." and and the person I responded to said that you might as well use the same argument to ban cigarettes and gasoline. That's a stupid argument because cigarettes and gasoline haven't ever been implicated in violent, cannibalistic assaults.
Nothing in my post had anything to do with the war on drugs, just the stupidity of the argument presented by the person I responded to, so why the hell are you launching into a tirade about the war on drugs?
You're replying to some imagined viewpoint that can't possibly be extrapolated from what I posted. I think the proper term would normally be "strawman", but your reply is so completely unrelated to what I said that I think it really deserves a term that's more derogatory. Unfortunately, I can't think of one right now, so "strawman" will have to do.
Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?
The post this responded to said "The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice." That was obviously not about marijuana, so you're the launching off into a non sequitur.
And the other part of your post? Cars are made with iron, steel, aluminum, fiberglass and dozens of other materials. It would be just as idiotic to ban those materials due to car accidents harming people as it would be to ban gasoline due to car accidents. There are many great reasons to get rid of fossil fuels. Car accidents aren't one of them since solar, electric, propane and every other type of automobile will still cause the same types of accidents even if gas is banned.
I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguing that software has rights is even more delusional than Romney's believe that corporations are people,
I think that depends on what you consider to be "rights" and where you believe the rights lie. We routinely declare objects to be historical or natural landmarks and that designation includes protection from vandalism, destruction, exploitation and so forth. The object has effectively been given a right to continued existence. Is it delusional of us to have done that?
The majority of the US also believes that books shouldn't be banned or burned. Not only that, but we generally believe they should be available for free to those who seek them out (which is why we have libraries). Books have effectively been given not only the right to exist, but the right to be read. Is that delusional?
I'm not sure just what rights RMS thinks software should have because I hate his writing style and can never finish reading any of his diatribes, but it's not entirely out of the question to say that an object effectively has some rights. I would probably disagree with RMS about what those rights are, but I wouldn't say that arguing that software has rights is delusional.
Get used to it. The field of journalism has been gutted by news being freely available on the internet. Ads don't pay enough to pay for the level of journalism and editorial oversight that you want and people are increasingly less willing to pay for higher quality news. Grammar errors aren't going to go away or become less frequent.
Hint: I wasn't being literal. I was pointing out that what's most popular tends to be the lowest common denominator. Look at top 40 radio if you need further evidence.
"found nearly 30"
"found 28"
One of those is more concise, more informative and doesn't attempt to exaggerate by increasing the first digit (which people pay the most attention to) for no reason.
I look forward to seeing the first games featuring Pedobear and/or Goatse.
With the quoted battery rage of 200 km/125 miles per charge, you'd have 12 stops in that 1500 miles just to swap batteries out. With stops that frequent, I doubt there would ever be a need for an on-board bathroom.
None of them. The video is embedded in the page. The links are all to stuff that's related to the story.
Luvaglio's market share is 100% for all personal computers sold for more than $X and Apple's is 0%.
X being quite a large number, mind you.
Market share comparisons don't mean a damn thing when you cut out broad portions of the overall market.
Except the US government hasn't banned all exports to Iran. Certain exports are restricted (mostly the obvious... weapons, military technology, oil production technology), but you can export food, clothing, stuffed animals, furniture, cars, iPads and thousands of other products to Iran.
Apple's corporate policy is to not sell anything, not even a mouse pad, into Iran without explicit government approval. It's a stjupid, generic CYA policy which does not reflect the actual trade limitations against Iran. My own company sells products to Iran and, amazingly, we know which products can be sold to Iran and which cannot because we did the basic research. Apple didn't want to bother so they banned sales of everything.
The employee was following corporate policy, not US government policy. If you're going to be mad at someone, be mad at Apple since they wrote that policy.
We need a moderation option for "+1 Sad Reality"
"What we really want is something MacBook Air-like but not nearly as expensive."
I don't think he's going to find a MacBook Air that's not nearly as expensive as a MacBook Air.
Nutria is a good match for creole recipes. It's got a strong flavor not unlike the dark meat from a turkey that can still be tasted when used in spicy recipes like this one and it does taste good.
The problem is it looks a bit too much like a giant rat, even though it's closer to a beaver. People in the US have a psychological issue with the thought of eating rats, so it's not likely that it will ever be a popular ingredient.
We're fixing the problem with your chemistry books.
No, the book isn't changing. India will soon have Krispy Kreme doughnuts, which will make the reference a sensible one.
Lifelock CEO here. My social security number is 457-55-5462.!
You get a lot of links to news stories about the two dumbasses who killed the cute blond chick.
Damn straight! I refuse to play Pong in anything less than 1920 x 1280 with full surround sound!
Who are they trying to attract with video chat?
Facebook has 500 million users and approximately half of those play games. The Wii U has a number of features, including video chat, that they're hoping will attract those social network gamers to the platform.
You have to remember, Nintendo isn't courting the hardcore gaming market. The Wii was a huge success among casual gamers and outsold every other available console. Naturally they're going to try to repeat and expand on that success.
Freaks and pervs aren't outside in public being social, they're inside on their PC and Wii
Statistically, over 90% of the freaks and pervs are people the children trust and interact with on a regular basis... close relatives, teachers, babysitters, family friends and so forth. They aren't inside on their PC/Wii, they're already in the children's lives and have no need to risk easily recorded communications like online chat.
I wish I could mod this up to +6: insightful
The scientific method is based on the idea that you create theories, present them to the world who tear the theory apart and examine it, then create better theories if they can. Putting forward a new theory that gets challenged, argued over and torn apart is not pseudoscience.
Dahmer was impaling dogs and cats on sticks at the age of 8, without any alcohol involved. You can't really argue that alcohol had much to do with him becoming a serial killer when all the signs were there in his childhood and he'd already started killing things long before he started drinking.
Show once incidence where alcohol has resulted in someone eating someone else's face off.
No? Then there's no rational reason to ban alcohol because we think an unrelated drug might have caused someone to go nuts and eat another person's face off.
As I said in my post, "There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever." The fact that some guy went nuts (possibly due to bath salts, but no evidence has been released) and ate another person's face off is absolutely not a reason to argue that alcohol should be banned.
I was in a hurry when I typed up my post (went to MIB II, very good) and overlooked alcohol in my previous post. Consider it taken care of and have a nice day.
Note that I didn't claim that bath salts were found (or anything even close to that).
I said you can't argue that cigarettes and gasoline should be banned as a result of the effects of some other completely unrelated drug.
You called me an idiot, then made the exact same argument that I made and provided a similar example to the one that I provided. Nice.
The problem is that you aren't paying attention.
The original post said "The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice." and and the person I responded to said that you might as well use the same argument to ban cigarettes and gasoline. That's a stupid argument because cigarettes and gasoline haven't ever been implicated in violent, cannibalistic assaults.
Nothing in my post had anything to do with the war on drugs, just the stupidity of the argument presented by the person I responded to, so why the hell are you launching into a tirade about the war on drugs?
You're replying to some imagined viewpoint that can't possibly be extrapolated from what I posted. I think the proper term would normally be "strawman", but your reply is so completely unrelated to what I said that I think it really deserves a term that's more derogatory. Unfortunately, I can't think of one right now, so "strawman" will have to do.
Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?
The post this responded to said "The problem is that people using this stuff are killing innocents. Look at the Florida cannibal (repotedly on bath salts) and the guy a mile from my house in Farmington Hills, MI who killed his adoptive father and beat his adoptive mother & brother to within an inch of their lives on K2/Spice." That was obviously not about marijuana, so you're the launching off into a non sequitur.
And the other part of your post? Cars are made with iron, steel, aluminum, fiberglass and dozens of other materials. It would be just as idiotic to ban those materials due to car accidents harming people as it would be to ban gasoline due to car accidents. There are many great reasons to get rid of fossil fuels. Car accidents aren't one of them since solar, electric, propane and every other type of automobile will still cause the same types of accidents even if gas is banned.
I don't think anyone has ever eaten some guy's face after smoking a cigarette or filling up their car with gas, so no... the same reason shouldn't be used to ban cigarettes and fossil fuels.
There are rational arguments for why you might want to ban either (and arguments for why you shouldn't), but the one you're presenting here makes no sense whatsoever.