Interesting. I'm currently re-evauluating my position. Wonder where I'll land (I'll probably find some way to vilify MS even more for this, but who knows).
The difference is between deliberately making changes to kill things and not putting in the money to make something run.
MS should be brought up on anti trust charges for all the stuff they've done with impeding Java installation on their machines, the whole MS Explorer "we can't take it out" BS, every open standard they try to mess with, and probably a dozen things I'm not even aware of.
Anti-competitive behavior is bad. Consumer freedom is good. Unfortunately, Microsoft is in bed with the democrats and republicans think consumer freedom can only be achieved by unregulated monopolies.
It's not some fundamental right that when you buy something you should be able to do anything you want with it. There are plenty of licenses that make sense. Number of seats, length of time, support contract, etc. Anti-competitive behavior is much more subtle.
Apple writes an operating system. Good.
Apple sells hardware software packages. Good.
Apple demands that to use their software you also have to use their hardware for no other reason than they want money. Bad.
The fact that the EULA includes a limitation on which companies hardware you can install the software on is anti-competitive (by the very definition of the phrase. They are doing things to keep themselves in an artificial monopoly on hardware that can run their OS. It's not necessarily anti-competitive by current legal logic).
Well, considering how many people I see buy chocolate right after I tell them it was made by slave children in the Ivory Coast... Probably close to zero.
I am writing this letter you notify you that we here at Straw Man Inc. have chosen to cordially accept your application to Straw Man Inc. As a professional lawyer for Straw Man Inc. you will be trained in the art of straw man and making woooshing noises until your people on the internet give up and log off. Everyone knows that making a WOOOSHING noise on the internet shows of your intellect and immediately ends the argument in your favor.
Sincerely,
Straw Man Inc. Management.
One might assume you're suggesting the poster above me was sarcastic... If that was your suggestion, you need to actually read more of the books/webpages that global warming deniers put out, you'd stop assuming that speaking idiocy means someone's joking.
If you think I'm just wrong... WHOOOOOOOSH x 2.:-P
Apple should be smacked for Anti-trust violations for blocking Atoms. I like OS X, but I wish our courts were more interested in smacking people for anti-competitive behavior. Consumer freedom my ass.
One of the other ways the media companies are turning paying customers into non-paying customers is by offending the content consumers who are also casual pirates.
I've stopped purchasing albums from artists who release their work through the RIAA. I used to purchase about a hundred dollars of albums per year. I didn't stop because I discovered Kazaa, Napster, or PirateBay (actually, those things helped me grow an interest in music that I hadn't had before). I stopped because Jamie Thomas (dumb & guilty as she is) was the last straw. Fuck the RIAA.
But when you have fewer car companies, the existing companies will be making more profit on worse cars due to lack of competition. Would you really expect Ford to close it's doors when it had a monopoly and could make cars that got 15 mpg and trucks that got 2 mpg?
Nah, then they'd enjoy their money and we'd all be worse off for it.
We shouldn't be encouraging companies to stop making cars, we should encourage people to stop buying cars. Fix demand, not supply. There will always be supply for anything that has demand.
Did anyone notice that 10km per year is pretty tame for driving? At my old job I commuted less than 30 minutes and was still putting on a lot more than that per year, by about 2-4 times as much actually.
I find each blanket I put on in winter makes me extra cozy. One blanket, okay. Two blankets, yay. Three blankets, toasty. Four blankets, warm snuggly bliss. Five blankets, okay, that's too hot.
We have the right number of blankets on the bed, we don't need to add any more.
Microsoft could get away with doing it. No one else could. Now if Microsoft wants to do it, Apple will be making double profit (1) switching users (2) royalties.
I meant more simulators, but the same image was running through my head. By the time you can test in a simulator cars will be better drivers than humans though (I'd bet).
I agree that one of the issues is that you can't really test the dangerous conditions.
That being said, I see so many drivers who will start gassing when they were going to need to break in 5 seconds. In my opinion, those people likely should not be driving. They simply are not processing all the information available to them all of the time.
Do I think that the tests could be harder? Yes. Do I think they could actually throw pedestrians at you? Not with current technology.
**Actually most aren't, the extremist feminists are a fiction created by the moderate feminists enemies to try to diminish the power of the word feminism (as it's clearly working since both you and the poster two levels up avoid the word because the right has distorted it)
False. Many young earth creationists are pentecostalist (and most pentecostalists are young earth creationists).
Perhaps a better example would be general christians?
As you say, loud and crazy. And also prone to band in groups, and represent themselves as distinctly related group; young-earth creationists are distinctly Christian, but 99.99% of Christians are not young-earth creationists and don't think you're going to hell for thinking the earth is more than 5000 years old.
They get pedestrians to jump out at you? They have idiots pull out of parking lots forcing you to choose between jamming breaks and swerving? Or have someone follow you in your blind spots while doing navigation that requires lane changes?
Of course not. But those things happen in the real world. Testing someone under ideal conditions is going to let people pass who aren't going to successfully avoid threats like this. Those people will get in accidents, risking the safety of others.
the "oh you poor brainwashed thing, staying home to mother the kids... you should have a real job, don't let those men be all elite on you!" ones are a straw man made up by conservatives to rag on women's lib.
There is not a serious group of people that says that. The people who do that are like any other wacky group (like flat earthers), loud and crazy. But every self identifying feminist I have ever met has no problem with women choosing domestic roles.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I'm currently re-evauluating my position. Wonder where I'll land (I'll probably find some way to vilify MS even more for this, but who knows).
You know what else cheeses me off?
Websites that deliberately block Linux users... Those are bad too.
The difference is between deliberately making changes to kill things and not putting in the money to make something run.
MS should be brought up on anti trust charges for all the stuff they've done with impeding Java installation on their machines, the whole MS Explorer "we can't take it out" BS, every open standard they try to mess with, and probably a dozen things I'm not even aware of.
Anti-competitive behavior is bad. Consumer freedom is good. Unfortunately, Microsoft is in bed with the democrats and republicans think consumer freedom can only be achieved by unregulated monopolies.
It's not some fundamental right that when you buy something you should be able to do anything you want with it. There are plenty of licenses that make sense. Number of seats, length of time, support contract, etc. Anti-competitive behavior is much more subtle.
Apple writes an operating system. Good.
Apple sells hardware software packages. Good.
Apple demands that to use their software you also have to use their hardware for no other reason than they want money. Bad.
The fact that the EULA includes a limitation on which companies hardware you can install the software on is anti-competitive (by the very definition of the phrase. They are doing things to keep themselves in an artificial monopoly on hardware that can run their OS. It's not necessarily anti-competitive by current legal logic).
Well, considering how many people I see buy chocolate right after I tell them it was made by slave children in the Ivory Coast... Probably close to zero.
Nah, just got scrambled due to the double thousand units. They really should have just used metric like it's suppose to roll: 10Mm.
Nah, just off by a few powers. The thousand thousand (or thousand k) thing mixed me up.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing this letter you notify you that we here at Straw Man Inc. have chosen to cordially accept your application to Straw Man Inc. As a professional lawyer for Straw Man Inc. you will be trained in the art of straw man and making woooshing noises until your people on the internet give up and log off. Everyone knows that making a WOOOSHING noise on the internet shows of your intellect and immediately ends the argument in your favor.
Sincerely,
Straw Man Inc. Management.
One might assume you're suggesting the poster above me was sarcastic... If that was your suggestion, you need to actually read more of the books/webpages that global warming deniers put out, you'd stop assuming that speaking idiocy means someone's joking.
If you think I'm just wrong... WHOOOOOOOSH x 2. :-P
Apple should be smacked for Anti-trust violations for blocking Atoms. I like OS X, but I wish our courts were more interested in smacking people for anti-competitive behavior. Consumer freedom my ass.
One of the other ways the media companies are turning paying customers into non-paying customers is by offending the content consumers who are also casual pirates.
I've stopped purchasing albums from artists who release their work through the RIAA. I used to purchase about a hundred dollars of albums per year. I didn't stop because I discovered Kazaa, Napster, or PirateBay (actually, those things helped me grow an interest in music that I hadn't had before). I stopped because Jamie Thomas (dumb & guilty as she is) was the last straw. Fuck the RIAA.
But when you have fewer car companies, the existing companies will be making more profit on worse cars due to lack of competition. Would you really expect Ford to close it's doors when it had a monopoly and could make cars that got 15 mpg and trucks that got 2 mpg?
Nah, then they'd enjoy their money and we'd all be worse off for it.
We shouldn't be encouraging companies to stop making cars, we should encourage people to stop buying cars. Fix demand, not supply. There will always be supply for anything that has demand.
Also, I don't drive 10km per year. I drive like 30-40km per year.
Did anyone notice that 10km per year is pretty tame for driving? At my old job I commuted less than 30 minutes and was still putting on a lot more than that per year, by about 2-4 times as much actually.
I find each blanket I put on in winter makes me extra cozy. One blanket, okay. Two blankets, yay. Three blankets, toasty. Four blankets, warm snuggly bliss. Five blankets, okay, that's too hot.
We have the right number of blankets on the bed, we don't need to add any more.
The numbers of CO2 increase we're talking about is not something like 2%. It's something like 33%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
A refrigerator that inventories your food and advertises custom tailored ads based on what you like to eat?
Microsoft could get away with doing it. No one else could. Now if Microsoft wants to do it, Apple will be making double profit (1) switching users (2) royalties.
LOL
I meant more simulators, but the same image was running through my head. By the time you can test in a simulator cars will be better drivers than humans though (I'd bet).
I agree that one of the issues is that you can't really test the dangerous conditions.
That being said, I see so many drivers who will start gassing when they were going to need to break in 5 seconds. In my opinion, those people likely should not be driving. They simply are not processing all the information available to them all of the time.
Do I think that the tests could be harder? Yes. Do I think they could actually throw pedestrians at you? Not with current technology.
**Actually most aren't, the extremist feminists are a fiction created by the moderate feminists enemies to try to diminish the power of the word feminism (as it's clearly working since both you and the poster two levels up avoid the word because the right has distorted it)
False. Many young earth creationists are pentecostalist (and most pentecostalists are young earth creationists).
Perhaps a better example would be general christians?
As you say, loud and crazy. And also prone to band in groups, and represent themselves as distinctly related group; young-earth creationists are distinctly Christian, but 99.99% of Christians are not young-earth creationists and don't think you're going to hell for thinking the earth is more than 5000 years old.
Aaah... Natural selection.
They get pedestrians to jump out at you? They have idiots pull out of parking lots forcing you to choose between jamming breaks and swerving? Or have someone follow you in your blind spots while doing navigation that requires lane changes?
Of course not. But those things happen in the real world. Testing someone under ideal conditions is going to let people pass who aren't going to successfully avoid threats like this. Those people will get in accidents, risking the safety of others.
Because it is?
I think some waxed boys in those skirts and knee socks would look pretty cute.
the "oh you poor brainwashed thing, staying home to mother the kids... you should have a real job, don't let those men be all elite on you!" ones are a straw man made up by conservatives to rag on women's lib.
There is not a serious group of people that says that. The people who do that are like any other wacky group (like flat earthers), loud and crazy. But every self identifying feminist I have ever met has no problem with women choosing domestic roles.