In the end, no. If the heroin addict really wants to be treated let them, if not, they continue to buy heroin and keep pumping money into the economy and the world continues.
You mean "useless" people that are the foundation for every economy? You mean "useless" people who invent stuff? "Useless" people who make music? Really, all boot camp does is tell you to follow orders. In the end, when you have a bunch of people following orders, you have basically useless people. In the end it is always the free thinking and creative people who change and alter the world that will make it a better place.
Rights are an important part of humanity. Depriving people of that deprives them of their humanity. If we can't judge the Chinese government for depriving citizens of rights, then thats no different then allowing waterboarding in the US (its part of our culture) or cannibalism (theres nothing wrong with cannibalism, its part of their culture).
There is a difference between excessive to one person and excessive to another. I know plenty of people who don't get very much activity, eat things loaded in sugar and fat, yet are incredibly skinny and healthy looking. I know other people who exercise a ton, eat extremely healthy food choices, yet are very, very large. There are some reasons for obesity that go way beyond just what you eat. Some bodies have a natural tendency to be large, others have a natural tendency to be very skinny. You should not punish parents for something they can't really control.
Spending 6 hours a day doing something does not make it an addiction. Suffering from depression because you aren't spending 6 hours a day doing something makes it an addiction (outside of sleeping and autonomous functions)
...So someone really likes something. I know a lot of people who suffer from depression from something that they weren't exactly addicted to. Is someone addicted to their job if they get depressed if they get laid off? Is someone addicted to their wife/husband if they get depressed after they get divorced, move away or die? By your definition the average person is addicted to a bunch of stuff.
Spending time talking to people in Azeroth is not as socially healthy as talking to people face to face.
How many people can actually though on a daily basis talk to a good amount of friends face to face? Very few. There are a good deal of friends who either have strange schedules where we can't really meet (like one has a job a night so he has off when I'm working and when I'm done with work he is at work) so we use e-mail/social networking to communicate. Others simply live too far away to see on a regular basis. Aside from students who see a bunch of people they can really be friends with on a daily basis, most people have very few friends they can really meet face to face and so they communicate either via e-mail, texting or phone calls. Or is it just "unhealthy" to talk to people you haven't physically met?
This is China though. Who is to say that the parents are really sending their kids there or is it the government prodding the parents to send their kids there?
The addiction is hurting their intellectual and social progress. Is that their choice? Not while they are dependents.
How? I'd imagine that a ton more people are more severely addicted to TV, sports, books and activities considered "normal" than are "addicted" to MMOs. I'd imagine the guy who spends 6 hours a day playing WoW is better off then the guy who goes to the gym for 6 hours a day. As for social progress, its a lot more social to fire up a game of WoW and chat than it is to go to the gym. And intellectual? With WoW you are constantly reading and writing and doing math.
...Except for the fact that I consider it a right to use what you payed for so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This "boot camp" takes away those rights (anyone else find it just a bit suspicious that its located on an army base?).
Exactly, the navigation on the iPhone is simply crap compared to my ancient Garman GPS. The iPhone is good for walking, but as for driving, I put in an address and it had me going through non-existant roads (!).
You had a simi-convincing troll until that. Anyone who has used Office 2007 knows that you can't turn off the ribbon and go back to working (you can minimize it, but you still have to go through the ribbon to do anything, you can't go back to the older style).
In case you didn't notice, the failure of Vista lead almost every major computer manufacturer to put Linux in some form on one or more of their products. This would have been unheard of back in the days of XP.
Its safe to say that if 7 turns out to be another Vista sized failure, more companies will put more machines out running Linux.
Yes, the WII is so much more powerful than the XBOX. That's why all the newest, latest, greatest games only come out for the Wii.
Games are a matter of opinion, but there are more Wii consoles sold than 360 consoles. Plus Wii consoles make Nintendo a sizable $50 profit for each one sold. Any company would want their product to be in such high demand that it constantly was sold out of stock for not one but two Christmas seasons.
Never heard of any complaints about the "ribbon UI" before, but I'm sure if MS was changing it you'd be the first they'd notify.
You obviously don't work in an office where they use Office 2007. Where everyone has to get retrained and such.
Office has stagnated and people hate it because of the new UI? Doesn't that kind of contradict itself?
Firefox has not stagnated in the least, yet the UI is about the same as in previous versions of Firefox.
Bing is really just another MSN/Live search engine with a few extra features. If their past is anything to go by, MS just can't make search engines and so Bing will go the way that MSN and Live search are today. Natal is really just MS's way of jumping on the "lets attempt to emulate the Wii" bandwagon.
Sure, back before the mid '90s Microsoft was an ok company. Sure, most of their software was unstable, but it kinda got the job done. But you are forgetting the browser wars, you forgot the end product of them which was IE6, the browser that made the web effectively unchanged for many years. The browser that opened the world up to every sort of malware out there. Or what about the pain of Windows 9X that bluescreened for no reason? MS in its early days did a lot to help out the computer industry in some ways, however, they also hurt a lot of computer industries. Today, they are very little helpful and a whole lot more harmful.
No, I don't think MS has changed, but the world has. The iPhone has changed the smartphone market to where even with the best hardware Windows Mobile just isn't wanted much anymore. The 360 is still falling behind the Wii despite MS's attempts to beat it with the "New Xbox Experience" and with the development of the Natal controller. MS though has finally realized that unless Windows 7 is a hit, Linux/OS X/Now ChromeOS is going to kill them in the OS market. Office has stagnated and has had a popular revolt going on because of the "ribbon" UI that a lot of people hate, and I don't see a new version remedying that in the future. MS as a whole has remained the same, however the world is changing and they don't seem to realize that.
...So you are defending a crappy product with a crappier product? Well, Windows ME didn't make my computer burst into flames whenever I loaded it on a computer, so it must be a great OS! Seriously, SiriusXM has few stations and no less DJ chatter/radio spam then terrestrial radio, and honestly, if I was paying for the service (the only time I ever used it was when I got a like 3 month trial with a car) I would rather it be much more like an iPod or CD, music non-stop. But again, just because a product is better then a terrible product, doesn't mean that the product is good.
I'd like to see how you think a WMG lawyer would defeat reliance on a CC license.
Simply by taking them to court you can crush a lot of small stations. When given the option of A) shutting down and WMG will waive the fee B) paying some sort of large (but not huge) fee like $5000 or C) being sued for $50000+. Most stations, especially those ran by individuals in their spare time would simply choose to shut down. The fee could cause a sharp increase in operating costs so the "ad free" station suddenly has more ads then terrestrial radio. If they go to court, they might keep operating for some time, but eventually the court costs could drain their operating costs budget to where they can't afford it. Even if the internet radio people win, they still lose.
...Thats what you think. Until your favorite radio station plays a song that might be part of there. Then cue the money-sucking drawn out trial where your favorite station will die even if they are found not to be infringing.
Or are you talking about their attitude? They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.
Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased
Lets see, he is cheering on this that will save Pandora and perhaps a few more stations but crush the rest. It reminds me of a certain operating system vendor....
Thats not to mention their reduction in skips, inclusion of audio ads, etc.
Because the other trade industries don't build on suing individuals? I mean, you could really tick off the publishers/authors guild and they would sue you, but I haven't seen them going through P2P records and suing people for downloading books when not for profit. The various entertainment software people don't really care too much if your an individual pirating stuff. Etc. Movies are sort of a non-issue because of the huge paper trail. From where I am sitting I can plug in a microphone and record a song and with enough editing it could sound similar to a really terrible RIAA artist (I'm no good singer). On the other hand, I can't make a real movie that could be confused with a current or (recent-ish) older film. It simply requires a lot more people and a lot more specialized equipment.
But there would be still no proof that you were playing the CC licensed one rather then the Warner licensed one because they are the same product. Its similar to having two identical books one published in January and one published in February and determining which is which when nothing has changed in the books themselves and they are mixed together in a large box.
Pandora is basically in the pocketbooks of the RIAA. Pandora is no longer the small "fight for your rights to listen to music as you wish" radio station, but rather the MS of internet radio. What Pandora calls a win for internet radio, is the same as Ballmer calling something a win for operating systems. They only see themselves and one competitor. Pandora wants all the small stations (and Last.FM) to die as much as Ballmer wants Linux and OS X to die.
What about an artist who released things under a CC or similar license terms that you met, you used that, then the artist gets signed and releases the same song under a different label? Sure, you still should be able to use the CC licensed one, but you have no proof and good luck fighting the RIAA in court. It sure could cause a ton of pain in the short term.
Sure, but that still could be a minefield. Lets say a small band in 2009 releases music that isn't covered by this. You play it thinking its safe or you had an agreement reached with the band or something. 2010 rolls around and they get signed on by Warner. Now, because Warner owns all their songs, you have little proof that the songs you play were released before then because its the same song. So you get sued. The problem with indie bands is they don't stay indie if they are decent enough.
Re:How much does a "full" HDD weigh vs. an empty H
on
How Heavy Is a Petabyte?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?
Depends on the shoe they are wearing. On a boot, no, its a large amount, on sneakers, yes it might be a tiny amount.
The problem isn't just getting the hydrogen, its storing and using it safely. This might make hydrogen dirt cheap, but it still doesn't really solve the problems that make hydrogen cars unworkable.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end, no. If the heroin addict really wants to be treated let them, if not, they continue to buy heroin and keep pumping money into the economy and the world continues.
You mean "useless" people that are the foundation for every economy? You mean "useless" people who invent stuff? "Useless" people who make music? Really, all boot camp does is tell you to follow orders. In the end, when you have a bunch of people following orders, you have basically useless people. In the end it is always the free thinking and creative people who change and alter the world that will make it a better place.
Rights are an important part of humanity. Depriving people of that deprives them of their humanity. If we can't judge the Chinese government for depriving citizens of rights, then thats no different then allowing waterboarding in the US (its part of our culture) or cannibalism (theres nothing wrong with cannibalism, its part of their culture).
There is a difference between excessive to one person and excessive to another. I know plenty of people who don't get very much activity, eat things loaded in sugar and fat, yet are incredibly skinny and healthy looking. I know other people who exercise a ton, eat extremely healthy food choices, yet are very, very large. There are some reasons for obesity that go way beyond just what you eat. Some bodies have a natural tendency to be large, others have a natural tendency to be very skinny. You should not punish parents for something they can't really control.
Spending 6 hours a day doing something does not make it an addiction. Suffering from depression because you aren't spending 6 hours a day doing something makes it an addiction (outside of sleeping and autonomous functions)
Spending time talking to people in Azeroth is not as socially healthy as talking to people face to face.
How many people can actually though on a daily basis talk to a good amount of friends face to face? Very few. There are a good deal of friends who either have strange schedules where we can't really meet (like one has a job a night so he has off when I'm working and when I'm done with work he is at work) so we use e-mail/social networking to communicate. Others simply live too far away to see on a regular basis. Aside from students who see a bunch of people they can really be friends with on a daily basis, most people have very few friends they can really meet face to face and so they communicate either via e-mail, texting or phone calls. Or is it just "unhealthy" to talk to people you haven't physically met?
The addiction is hurting their intellectual and social progress. Is that their choice? Not while they are dependents.
How? I'd imagine that a ton more people are more severely addicted to TV, sports, books and activities considered "normal" than are "addicted" to MMOs. I'd imagine the guy who spends 6 hours a day playing WoW is better off then the guy who goes to the gym for 6 hours a day. As for social progress, its a lot more social to fire up a game of WoW and chat than it is to go to the gym. And intellectual? With WoW you are constantly reading and writing and doing math.
...Except for the fact that I consider it a right to use what you payed for so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This "boot camp" takes away those rights (anyone else find it just a bit suspicious that its located on an army base?).
Anytime you have knowledge you have bias. That is the nature of humans. No one can be very knowledgeable about a topic yet not have a bias.
Exactly, the navigation on the iPhone is simply crap compared to my ancient Garman GPS. The iPhone is good for walking, but as for driving, I put in an address and it had me going through non-existant roads (!).
or simply turned it off and went on working.
You had a simi-convincing troll until that. Anyone who has used Office 2007 knows that you can't turn off the ribbon and go back to working (you can minimize it, but you still have to go through the ribbon to do anything, you can't go back to the older style).
Yay, is it the year of Linux again/already!?
In case you didn't notice, the failure of Vista lead almost every major computer manufacturer to put Linux in some form on one or more of their products. This would have been unheard of back in the days of XP.
Its safe to say that if 7 turns out to be another Vista sized failure, more companies will put more machines out running Linux.
Yes, the WII is so much more powerful than the XBOX. That's why all the newest, latest, greatest games only come out for the Wii.
Games are a matter of opinion, but there are more Wii consoles sold than 360 consoles. Plus Wii consoles make Nintendo a sizable $50 profit for each one sold. Any company would want their product to be in such high demand that it constantly was sold out of stock for not one but two Christmas seasons.
Never heard of any complaints about the "ribbon UI" before, but I'm sure if MS was changing it you'd be the first they'd notify.
You obviously don't work in an office where they use Office 2007. Where everyone has to get retrained and such.
Office has stagnated and people hate it because of the new UI? Doesn't that kind of contradict itself?
Firefox has not stagnated in the least, yet the UI is about the same as in previous versions of Firefox.
Bing is really just another MSN/Live search engine with a few extra features. If their past is anything to go by, MS just can't make search engines and so Bing will go the way that MSN and Live search are today. Natal is really just MS's way of jumping on the "lets attempt to emulate the Wii" bandwagon.
Sure, back before the mid '90s Microsoft was an ok company. Sure, most of their software was unstable, but it kinda got the job done. But you are forgetting the browser wars, you forgot the end product of them which was IE6, the browser that made the web effectively unchanged for many years. The browser that opened the world up to every sort of malware out there. Or what about the pain of Windows 9X that bluescreened for no reason? MS in its early days did a lot to help out the computer industry in some ways, however, they also hurt a lot of computer industries. Today, they are very little helpful and a whole lot more harmful.
No, I don't think MS has changed, but the world has. The iPhone has changed the smartphone market to where even with the best hardware Windows Mobile just isn't wanted much anymore. The 360 is still falling behind the Wii despite MS's attempts to beat it with the "New Xbox Experience" and with the development of the Natal controller. MS though has finally realized that unless Windows 7 is a hit, Linux/OS X/Now ChromeOS is going to kill them in the OS market. Office has stagnated and has had a popular revolt going on because of the "ribbon" UI that a lot of people hate, and I don't see a new version remedying that in the future. MS as a whole has remained the same, however the world is changing and they don't seem to realize that.
...So you are defending a crappy product with a crappier product? Well, Windows ME didn't make my computer burst into flames whenever I loaded it on a computer, so it must be a great OS! Seriously, SiriusXM has few stations and no less DJ chatter/radio spam then terrestrial radio, and honestly, if I was paying for the service (the only time I ever used it was when I got a like 3 month trial with a car) I would rather it be much more like an iPod or CD, music non-stop. But again, just because a product is better then a terrible product, doesn't mean that the product is good.
I'd like to see how you think a WMG lawyer would defeat reliance on a CC license.
Simply by taking them to court you can crush a lot of small stations. When given the option of A) shutting down and WMG will waive the fee B) paying some sort of large (but not huge) fee like $5000 or C) being sued for $50000+. Most stations, especially those ran by individuals in their spare time would simply choose to shut down. The fee could cause a sharp increase in operating costs so the "ad free" station suddenly has more ads then terrestrial radio. If they go to court, they might keep operating for some time, but eventually the court costs could drain their operating costs budget to where they can't afford it. Even if the internet radio people win, they still lose.
...Thats what you think. Until your favorite radio station plays a song that might be part of there. Then cue the money-sucking drawn out trial where your favorite station will die even if they are found not to be infringing.
Or are you talking about their attitude? They are a business and want to make some profit to continue to operate, but they hardly seem anything like the homogonizing, profit maximizing, soul crushing folks at CC.
Pandora founder Tim Westergren proclaims that 'the royalty crisis is over!', and other large broadcasters are equally pleased
Lets see, he is cheering on this that will save Pandora and perhaps a few more stations but crush the rest. It reminds me of a certain operating system vendor....
Thats not to mention their reduction in skips, inclusion of audio ads, etc.
Because the other trade industries don't build on suing individuals? I mean, you could really tick off the publishers/authors guild and they would sue you, but I haven't seen them going through P2P records and suing people for downloading books when not for profit. The various entertainment software people don't really care too much if your an individual pirating stuff. Etc. Movies are sort of a non-issue because of the huge paper trail. From where I am sitting I can plug in a microphone and record a song and with enough editing it could sound similar to a really terrible RIAA artist (I'm no good singer). On the other hand, I can't make a real movie that could be confused with a current or (recent-ish) older film. It simply requires a lot more people and a lot more specialized equipment.
But there would be still no proof that you were playing the CC licensed one rather then the Warner licensed one because they are the same product. Its similar to having two identical books one published in January and one published in February and determining which is which when nothing has changed in the books themselves and they are mixed together in a large box.
Pandora is basically in the pocketbooks of the RIAA. Pandora is no longer the small "fight for your rights to listen to music as you wish" radio station, but rather the MS of internet radio. What Pandora calls a win for internet radio, is the same as Ballmer calling something a win for operating systems. They only see themselves and one competitor. Pandora wants all the small stations (and Last.FM) to die as much as Ballmer wants Linux and OS X to die.
What about an artist who released things under a CC or similar license terms that you met, you used that, then the artist gets signed and releases the same song under a different label? Sure, you still should be able to use the CC licensed one, but you have no proof and good luck fighting the RIAA in court. It sure could cause a ton of pain in the short term.
Sure, but that still could be a minefield. Lets say a small band in 2009 releases music that isn't covered by this. You play it thinking its safe or you had an agreement reached with the band or something. 2010 rolls around and they get signed on by Warner. Now, because Warner owns all their songs, you have little proof that the songs you play were released before then because its the same song. So you get sued. The problem with indie bands is they don't stay indie if they are decent enough.
Oh, and BTW, when a person dies does the body weigh a tiny amount less after the sole leaves?
Depends on the shoe they are wearing. On a boot, no, its a large amount, on sneakers, yes it might be a tiny amount.
The problem isn't just getting the hydrogen, its storing and using it safely. This might make hydrogen dirt cheap, but it still doesn't really solve the problems that make hydrogen cars unworkable.