+1 insightful (manual mod). A sad reality is a reality nonetheless. At the same time, I think that having a pet as a fashion accessory is still generally considered to be something reserved for the rich-and-famous (and still somewhat controversial); you don't see half of the shoppers in Wal-Mart with a canine hanging out of their purse.
That's not what I meant, though I understand how you could arrive at that conclusion. Hopefully I can make a little more sense out of it.
First, I in no way intend to say that one gender is superior to the other. They are different, and I believe that the differences should be celebrated, not demeaning. I never said that men were *better* leaders, but that everyone in leadership will be held accountable for it, and in the system that God put in place when He designed the family unit, that responsibility generally falls on the man. That doesn't mean that God's design for the family puts the woman in an inferior role, simply a different one. I've worked under male managers who were losers, and female managers who were great.
Since no Slashdot thread is complete without a car analogy, most 15 year olds chomp at the bit to drive, but as any good driver knows, driving is expensive, and every driver has a responsibility to ensure that both the car and the driver are safe and road worthy. Yes, there is a degree of privilege involved, but abuse of that privilege has dire consequences that I see on the side of the road almost every day.
Additionally, is a FedEx driver any more important than a taxi driver? When I go to Manhattan, I rely on taxi drivers knowing what they're doing in order to get me around, as do thousands of other people every day. eBay and Newegg purchases are nearly worthless if I pay for them and they sit in a warehouse hundreds of miles away. I can't compare the importance of a taxi driver to the guy who drives the FedEx truck because they're both important in fundamentally different ways.
There is a difference between ABILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. I had a manager who couldn't manage his way out of an ant farm. If you asked virtually anyone in the store, they'd tell you that more than half the salespeople were better qualified than this moron. My GM wouldn't "field promote" any of us to take his place (even though he secretly wanted to), because the idiot was still directly responsible to the regional manager for his job performance, whereas what the associates did would put the egg on the face of the GM. There is a sharp difference between ability and accountability, and as a general rule of the system, an incompetent husband is still accountable for his household.
Finally, my point with the babies is that I too have an "awww how cute" response, but my female friends almost instinctively know what to do, where as I'll stand there staring and guessing.
I have ZERO problem with women in leadership roles. At this very moment, I'm working under a woman for whom I have nothing but the highest regard. If I were a 'sexist pighead', I'd be looking forward to my own wedding so that I'd have a woman to control. Wanna know the truth? I'm a bit scared. I don't want to hurt her, I don't want to be a loser husband, I don't want to do anything but serve her to the best of my abilities, and I'm worried that I won't be able to do it right. I'm not just saying that to prove my point, it's something that I've genuinely wrestled with for a few years now...and I don't even know who this person is yet! I don't feel empowered by my responsibility, I feel sobered by it, just like how every time I get in my car, my prayer is that if I get into a car accident, whatever happens happens to me, and the other person can walk away.
Your comment is a bit unclear, but the way I'm taking it is "If God designed men to naturally respect, and what we see in today's society is the result of God designing men to respect, then God didn't do a very good job."
If I am correct in that interpretation, then I'd like to point out that God designing men to respect does not take away our free will. I can hear the eyes rolling about this being a cop out, but really that's the best answer I've got for you: just because men were *designed* to respect doesn't mean that they *choose* to respect when they really should do so. Same for the ladies: just because God designed women to naturally love doesn't mean that they weren't given a choice to be unloving when they engaged their will as such.
Henceforth, a better way of phrasing the quoted excerpt would be: "God *designed* men to respect their wives, and the context of the passage is God telling us to do what we weren't naturally designed to do, because He implied for men to respect their wives when He created them with that inclination." Pardon the suboptimal sentence structure as it's a bit late for me, but that's the general gist I was getting at.
The same disclaimer regarding stepping into a biblical worldview for the duration of this comment applies.
I don't think that it's impossible for women to lead. In fact, there are examples in the Bible of God calling women to be leaders. Deborah, Esther, and Miriam immediately come to mind. The difference relates to the principle that God works in systems. (reminder: entertain creationism for a moment) He created the weather systems, tides, physics, and all the different systems in the human body. It's not that there aren't exceptions to these systems; we see the story of when the sun stopped in Joshua 10 and the parting of the Red Sea as obvious examples of exceptions to the systems that God demonstrated. Similarly, the concept of a family unit is a system that God put in place. It's not that women can't be in charge of a household (or in other leadership positions, but I'm getting to that), but like the sun standing still, it is a specific, God-sanctioned exception to a system put in place. I also believe that God has a calling placed on each of our lives, and for some women, that call *is* in a leadership position, and given that calling, they will be held accountable to God for what they do in that leadership role. But as a general rule, according to the systems that God put in place, God gave men the responsiblity of leadership and the accountability therefore. I realize that my point comes across as being limiting or chauvanist or limiting to one gender over another. I don't really know how to word it to counter this conclusion, but that's not my point. I guess to sum it up would be like this: God works in systems, the systems He set in place involve men generally having one set of responsibilities and women having another set, and while sometimes God will call individuals (like Deborah and Esther) to do something contrary to the general system, that doesn't negate the existence and purpose of that system.
With regards to men naturally respecting, I can understand your hesitance given the examples cited. At the same time, respecting the earth and respecting other people are two different things. Yes, the sweatshop example represents disrespecting a large group of people, but take it to a smaller level for a moment. "Bro code" dictates that if my friend is dating a girl that I don't make a move on her, out of respect for him. Respect is when a basketball player passes the game-winning shot to a better player in order to win the game, and in a related example, why coaches of male sports teams are generally tougher on the players than coaches of female teams. Respect is a large part of why men communicate less verbally than women do. Respect is holding the door for someone who's holding a heavy box while you've got a free hand. I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that mankind suffers from the problem whereby morality nearly always takes a back seat to profit (nearly every action listed is either directly or indirectly profitable for a company to take). It really can go both ways, but I agree that more respect on a higher level is an inescapable prerequisite to solving many of the world's bigger problems, but what you're discussing here is a bit beyond the scope of a single marriage.
I don't have all the answers, but I will say this:
I don't know whether it was intentional or not by the GGP to specify that men should love their wife sacrificially independently of wives having the same obligation, but my point is that it works both ways. Men are just as guilty of intentionally saying and doing things that hurt their wives. I see it in my own parents all the time. I'm saying that it's the responsibility of BOTH spouses to love the other unconditionally and sacrificially. It *isn't* fair to one if they love sacrificially while the other takes advantage, regardless of which gender is on which side. The concept of one gender taking advantage of the other's unconditional love is foreign to the principles the Bible sets in place.
For the sake of sticking on topic here, I will limit my response to that. However, if you'd like to discuss your other grievances in further detail, you are welcome to correspond with me via e-mail about it. I always appreciate a genuine discussion regarding faith.
The GP left out a few details which help this to make more sense. Obviously you have a negative view of Christianity, but I'm going to ask that you please entertain a few ideas here for the purposes of this making sense.
First off, assume with me for a moment that when God created mankind, He also established social systems in place to make the concept of a family work. God knew that there are many different responsibilities in a family unit, and He designed both men and women different responsibilities. While society has made it like doing household work is demeaning or derogatory, and men are all on a power trip when they make decisions, ultimately everything needs to get done. There is no "better than" or "less than" in God's eyes. God gave both men and women natural inclinations. Every one of my female friends goes all mushy when the new mom comes in with her baby. My female friends make a better babysitter than I ever could, and my grandmother sewed some of the most amazing linens that are still in use nearly 50 years later. This isn't derogatory or demeaning; on the contrary I admire these skills in the women surrounding me. God designed men to protect and to lead. I will be the first in line to say that many men have been remiss in this regard and have abused their power, but every man to whom God has given the responsibility of leading a household will be held accountable to Him for how they ran it. Personally, I find that to be sobering and a solid reason to avoid going on a power trip.
The second note is related to the first: God *designed* men to respect naturally, so having to explicitly tell them to respect their wives is unnecessary. God *designed* women to love naturally, so telling them to love their husbands is unnecessary. The purpose of the Biblical passage that the GP posted was instructing guys to love their wife when it's hard and we don't feel she deserves it. It's easy to be unloving when loving is a skill that doesn't come naturally and we don't feel that she earned the added effort. Same for the ladies: respect doesn't come naturally, so it's easy to be disrespectful when she feels that he hasn't earned it and thus she doesn't feel that he's worth the added effort.
The Bible (and the GP) aren't saying for guys to 'whimper for attention like a dog while she throws your money out the window'. That's not the intent here, because in this example, he's not being loving (being loving and being a pansy are two different things), and if she's wastefully spending the money he earned, then she is being disrespectful while he is being a poor leader of his household. You're correct - it *doesn't* work, but don't for a second believe that what you described is an example of the Biblical concept of marriage.
Finally, I'll throw the Biblical definition of love out there. Love is not infatuation, it's not lust, it's not greed or coveteous. Love, as demonstrated throughout the Bible, is an unconditional, sacrificial concern for the well-being of the other person. Honestly, would you desire to be in a relationship with someone who only helped you when you helped them, who only loved you when they felt you loved them, and who only respected you when they felt you respected them? Or would you rather someone who is so concerned with your well-being that they would love you even when you were being unloving, respect you when you were being disrespectful, and help you even when you were being unhelpful? If both of you had that mindset of putting the other person's needs above your own, you'd be surprised how solid a relationship could be built from that. You're spot on when you state that it doesn't work when only half the people involved love unconditionally and sacrifically. It only works when *both* sides desire to do so.
So that's my corollary to the GP. The mods may do what they will.
you mention a very important distinction. There is a huge difference between marketing the modding service to simply run unsigned code, even for legal uses (XBMC comes to mind), and telling people that his for-profit service will allow them to play pirated games. I wouldn't want to be him if the plaintiffs decide to call his customers to the stand and ask why they wanted their xboxes modded.
To continue with the jailbroken iPhone analogy, there is a world of difference between jailbreaking with the intent of running SwirlyMMS or Winterboard, and jailbreaking to run Crackulus. The former are simply unsigned apps that Apple won't let me run. The latter is designed to simplify the pirating of official apps. The former are officialy distributed via Cydia directly from the writers, the latter is not. Pirating applications using crackulus is and should be illegal. Making jailbreaking illegal because of this is pointless, because iPhone app pirates are already committing an illegal act, thus adding another to the list isn't likely to dissuade them.
Ultimately I hope you'll all forgive my skepticism. The classics are required reading in most high schools for a reason - there is some degree of cultural significance to the works. Still, written classics have the problem of being written stories designed to be passively consumed by the viewer, while video games require a world in which the audience participates. Linear stories don't work extremely well for this. If what I do doesn't "matter", why would I bother doing it? I remember playing "Deadly Tide" a few years back, and it sucked because it was basically a rail shooter. There was no real point to it except to get through the game without dying and take down as many enemies as possible in the process. I was bored with it in about half an hour. Conversely, take Mass Effect, a game where choices you make throughout the game will always have some sort of affect on what happens. I played through that game twice, and am working on a third.
If one were to make a video grame out of "Pride and Prejudice" for example, it would take some serious ingenuity to figure out a way of designing it such that the game stays true to the book and gives the player something to do besides just running around and talking to everyone (which essentially makes it an interactive movie, and very minimally so at that), has the player participating in the story whereby they have some sort of effect on the outcome, yet can stay true to the book. If it stays too true to the book then everything is predetermined and it doesn't make for much of a game, and if it doesn't then there is little point in tying it to a piece of classic literature.
BIOS chips were rote ROM for a long time before writable BIOS was commonplace. Henceforth, I'm wondering if going old-school on this would be the best way to go.
What about read-only, removable, replaceable BIOS chips? If there's a sufficiently serious bug in the firmware, the OEM mails BIOS chips to registered users. If it's just feature or performance or hardware enhancements, then the OEM charges a nominal fee for it.
Alternatively, what about having twin BIOS chips and a USB BIOS reader? The removable BIOS chip could have a few extra pins used for flashing the BIOS that the motherboard physically doesn't have, but the USB reader does. Pop out BIOS #1, flash, replacce, pop out BIOS #2, flash, replace.
Finally, what about some kind of dip switch on the motherboard?
There are several ways to achieve the goal of allowing for BIOS updates while maintaining security at the physical level, which really is the best place for it given the circumstances.
Microsoft is in a place right now where they've got a nontrivial amount of competition from OSX and Linux. As a Windows using slashdotter myself, I'll say that there are two basic things keeping me on the platform: I know where everything is and how to get Windows to do what I want it to do, and I've got thousands of dollars invested in applications that are Windows-only. Certain apps are take-it-or-leave-it (i.e. DirectDVD is nice, but VLC would perform essentially the same tasks without the prettiness), others are useful-but-i-probably-could-manage-to-work-around-them (Microsoft Office, Nero, Sound Forge Studio, Delorme Street Atlas), and if-these-don't-work-then-I'm-not-using-the-system-no-matter-who-makes-it-or-how-cheap-it-is (Mixmeister, Torq, Premiere/Encore/Photoshop/After Effects CS4, Mediashout).
If Microsoft breaks DirectDVD, I don't care. If Nero breaks, then I might be bummed, but I might end up buying the next version when it comes out. If I can't use Torq or Premiere, then I can't upgrade. I might be just one user, but business software costs significantly more, which means that they have all the more reason to ensure that a system works with all of their apps before they start using it. Whether it's Windows 10, Ubuntu 10, or OSX, if your company has all of their customer information in Flukenflaagen, and you've spent a couple thousand dollars on a version of Flukenflaagen that only runs properly on Windows XP, then neither a pretty desktop, Steve Jobs' Keynote, or the moral rammifications of Free Software won't matter to the person signing your paycheck.
The point I'm clumsily grasping at here is that Microsoft has got tons of exclusive apps. Whether that's MS' fault or not is the subject of many-a-flamewar, but the bottom line is that it's a reality. Microsoft may end up crunching a few toes, but if they crunch enough where the next version of Windows will require users to buy their software all over again anyway, come next hardware purchasing cycle, you can count on everyone eyeballing competing platforms, and that's worse for business than having a 6-gig OS footprint.
Since they didn't release any other deskop OS version on Dreamspark (only server versions), I'd be hesitant to believe that they'd start now. I think the better question is whether they'll offer an "Ultimate Steal", where students can get the ultimate version for like $49 or something else like that.
This is a little like making a gem-encrusted toilet seat. While undoubtedly a useful interface (I use it almost every day), it is ill-suited to fast, bulk transfers, and I'm anticipating crappy performance despite the high price tag.
I find the toilet seat to be perfectly well suited to fast bulk transfers.
Napster has three different models: buying a la carte tracks (which are in 256kbps DRM-Free MP3 files; pricing mirrors Napster), streaming subscriptions (monthly, quarterly, and annually; each also including MP3 download credits as well), and Napster-To-Go (which uses the WMA-DRM you reference).
Two big things I think can be attributed to Napster's failure to make a significant dent in the market. The first is the iPod; I'm sure that most of us have friends who aren't aware that there are players beyond the iPod. Apple's bundling of a store with the player management software put it right in front of the target demographic, while Napster must be sought after. I'm not trying to start an anti-trust pissing match here, but the bottom line is that the majority of consumers aren't going to seek after an alternative solely on principle when a store is already available and integrated. The second is related: Choosing a DRM scheme that makes you the premiere music retailer to 10-20% of the MP3 player market pretty much relegated it to niche status to begin with...then making that DRM scheme the foundation of a Super Bowl ad campaign basically gave Napster the mindshare of being the incompatible iTunes wannabe.
On a general note, subscription-based music downloads is one of the few places where I think that DRM has a place. If you're renting downloads, there must be some way of 'getting them back' if the user opts to unsubscribe. By its very nature, a subscription does not transfer ownership to the user, and I don't have a problem with that being enforced in such a context.
If Napster had such an issue going legit, Kazaa is going to find an even steeper uphill battle. One of Napster's greatest strengths was that it exclusively transferred music files; swapping malware was quite the challenge when the only files that could be transferred were WAV and MP3. Kazaa installed adware to begin with; I personally credit Kazaa as being one of the apps to bring adware/spyware/malware into the public consciousness. It became such a problem that I knew plenty of people who had moved to other apps (including limewire) before Kazaa was shut down. Kazaa had a stigma around it when it was free; getting people to use a now-legal service still associated with ruining their computers when iTunes, Amazon, and Napster are already established and doing relatively well...let's just say that I don't see any smart venture capitalist throwing money their way.
The same largely holds true for girls, it's just that girls don't tend to do the same "Delinquent" things that guys do in order to prevent becoming an outcast. Girls are less likely to cause fistfights, see how well something burns, or jump off a roof onto a trampoline. Girls are more about interacting with the people around them, rather than the world around them. As such, some of the equivalent girl activities would be doing something at odds with their 'genuine loner friend' to get into the more popular group (i.e. help the group post derogatory posters about the loner friend), be manipulative towards others (both guys and girls), and spread rumors. Since the damage that boys can cause setting fire near a shed is much easier to quantify than, say, the spread of a rumor, guys tend to get more attention from authority. That's the way I figure it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
+1 insightful (manual mod). A sad reality is a reality nonetheless. At the same time, I think that having a pet as a fashion accessory is still generally considered to be something reserved for the rich-and-famous (and still somewhat controversial); you don't see half of the shoppers in Wal-Mart with a canine hanging out of their purse.
Apple is selling unlocked iPhones in the US these days
[citation needed]
...it was a really bad play on words. Loosen up!
common sense by Sony in its tracks.
As in abolishing ATRAC-3 for audio TRACKS?
*ducks*
Are you a Nigerian Prince?
What ever will they think of next?
Why, they'll think of disguising integrated obsolescence as a feature next, but they'll call it a Data Relocation Mechanism (DRM).
from the take-out-the-tash dept.
Is "tash" a play on words regarding SSD's, or does the taking-out-the-TRASH department have a job opening for a grammar nazi?
That's not what I meant, though I understand how you could arrive at that conclusion. Hopefully I can make a little more sense out of it.
First, I in no way intend to say that one gender is superior to the other. They are different, and I believe that the differences should be celebrated, not demeaning. I never said that men were *better* leaders, but that everyone in leadership will be held accountable for it, and in the system that God put in place when He designed the family unit, that responsibility generally falls on the man. That doesn't mean that God's design for the family puts the woman in an inferior role, simply a different one. I've worked under male managers who were losers, and female managers who were great.
Since no Slashdot thread is complete without a car analogy, most 15 year olds chomp at the bit to drive, but as any good driver knows, driving is expensive, and every driver has a responsibility to ensure that both the car and the driver are safe and road worthy. Yes, there is a degree of privilege involved, but abuse of that privilege has dire consequences that I see on the side of the road almost every day.
Additionally, is a FedEx driver any more important than a taxi driver? When I go to Manhattan, I rely on taxi drivers knowing what they're doing in order to get me around, as do thousands of other people every day. eBay and Newegg purchases are nearly worthless if I pay for them and they sit in a warehouse hundreds of miles away. I can't compare the importance of a taxi driver to the guy who drives the FedEx truck because they're both important in fundamentally different ways.
There is a difference between ABILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY. I had a manager who couldn't manage his way out of an ant farm. If you asked virtually anyone in the store, they'd tell you that more than half the salespeople were better qualified than this moron. My GM wouldn't "field promote" any of us to take his place (even though he secretly wanted to), because the idiot was still directly responsible to the regional manager for his job performance, whereas what the associates did would put the egg on the face of the GM. There is a sharp difference between ability and accountability, and as a general rule of the system, an incompetent husband is still accountable for his household.
Finally, my point with the babies is that I too have an "awww how cute" response, but my female friends almost instinctively know what to do, where as I'll stand there staring and guessing.
I have ZERO problem with women in leadership roles. At this very moment, I'm working under a woman for whom I have nothing but the highest regard. If I were a 'sexist pighead', I'd be looking forward to my own wedding so that I'd have a woman to control. Wanna know the truth? I'm a bit scared. I don't want to hurt her, I don't want to be a loser husband, I don't want to do anything but serve her to the best of my abilities, and I'm worried that I won't be able to do it right. I'm not just saying that to prove my point, it's something that I've genuinely wrestled with for a few years now...and I don't even know who this person is yet! I don't feel empowered by my responsibility, I feel sobered by it, just like how every time I get in my car, my prayer is that if I get into a car accident, whatever happens happens to me, and the other person can walk away.
Your comment is a bit unclear, but the way I'm taking it is "If God designed men to naturally respect, and what we see in today's society is the result of God designing men to respect, then God didn't do a very good job."
If I am correct in that interpretation, then I'd like to point out that God designing men to respect does not take away our free will. I can hear the eyes rolling about this being a cop out, but really that's the best answer I've got for you: just because men were *designed* to respect doesn't mean that they *choose* to respect when they really should do so. Same for the ladies: just because God designed women to naturally love doesn't mean that they weren't given a choice to be unloving when they engaged their will as such.
Henceforth, a better way of phrasing the quoted excerpt would be: "God *designed* men to respect their wives, and the context of the passage is God telling us to do what we weren't naturally designed to do, because He implied for men to respect their wives when He created them with that inclination." Pardon the suboptimal sentence structure as it's a bit late for me, but that's the general gist I was getting at.
The same disclaimer regarding stepping into a biblical worldview for the duration of this comment applies.
I don't think that it's impossible for women to lead. In fact, there are examples in the Bible of God calling women to be leaders. Deborah, Esther, and Miriam immediately come to mind. The difference relates to the principle that God works in systems. (reminder: entertain creationism for a moment) He created the weather systems, tides, physics, and all the different systems in the human body. It's not that there aren't exceptions to these systems; we see the story of when the sun stopped in Joshua 10 and the parting of the Red Sea as obvious examples of exceptions to the systems that God demonstrated. Similarly, the concept of a family unit is a system that God put in place. It's not that women can't be in charge of a household (or in other leadership positions, but I'm getting to that), but like the sun standing still, it is a specific, God-sanctioned exception to a system put in place. I also believe that God has a calling placed on each of our lives, and for some women, that call *is* in a leadership position, and given that calling, they will be held accountable to God for what they do in that leadership role. But as a general rule, according to the systems that God put in place, God gave men the responsiblity of leadership and the accountability therefore. I realize that my point comes across as being limiting or chauvanist or limiting to one gender over another. I don't really know how to word it to counter this conclusion, but that's not my point. I guess to sum it up would be like this: God works in systems, the systems He set in place involve men generally having one set of responsibilities and women having another set, and while sometimes God will call individuals (like Deborah and Esther) to do something contrary to the general system, that doesn't negate the existence and purpose of that system.
With regards to men naturally respecting, I can understand your hesitance given the examples cited. At the same time, respecting the earth and respecting other people are two different things. Yes, the sweatshop example represents disrespecting a large group of people, but take it to a smaller level for a moment. "Bro code" dictates that if my friend is dating a girl that I don't make a move on her, out of respect for him. Respect is when a basketball player passes the game-winning shot to a better player in order to win the game, and in a related example, why coaches of male sports teams are generally tougher on the players than coaches of female teams. Respect is a large part of why men communicate less verbally than women do. Respect is holding the door for someone who's holding a heavy box while you've got a free hand. I'll wholeheartedly agree with you that mankind suffers from the problem whereby morality nearly always takes a back seat to profit (nearly every action listed is either directly or indirectly profitable for a company to take). It really can go both ways, but I agree that more respect on a higher level is an inescapable prerequisite to solving many of the world's bigger problems, but what you're discussing here is a bit beyond the scope of a single marriage.
I don't know whether it was intentional or not by the GGP to specify that men should love their wife sacrificially independently of wives having the same obligation, but my point is that it works both ways. Men are just as guilty of intentionally saying and doing things that hurt their wives. I see it in my own parents all the time. I'm saying that it's the responsibility of BOTH spouses to love the other unconditionally and sacrificially. It *isn't* fair to one if they love sacrificially while the other takes advantage, regardless of which gender is on which side. The concept of one gender taking advantage of the other's unconditional love is foreign to the principles the Bible sets in place.
For the sake of sticking on topic here, I will limit my response to that. However, if you'd like to discuss your other grievances in further detail, you are welcome to correspond with me via e-mail about it. I always appreciate a genuine discussion regarding faith.
The GP left out a few details which help this to make more sense. Obviously you have a negative view of Christianity, but I'm going to ask that you please entertain a few ideas here for the purposes of this making sense.
First off, assume with me for a moment that when God created mankind, He also established social systems in place to make the concept of a family work. God knew that there are many different responsibilities in a family unit, and He designed both men and women different responsibilities. While society has made it like doing household work is demeaning or derogatory, and men are all on a power trip when they make decisions, ultimately everything needs to get done. There is no "better than" or "less than" in God's eyes. God gave both men and women natural inclinations. Every one of my female friends goes all mushy when the new mom comes in with her baby. My female friends make a better babysitter than I ever could, and my grandmother sewed some of the most amazing linens that are still in use nearly 50 years later. This isn't derogatory or demeaning; on the contrary I admire these skills in the women surrounding me. God designed men to protect and to lead. I will be the first in line to say that many men have been remiss in this regard and have abused their power, but every man to whom God has given the responsibility of leading a household will be held accountable to Him for how they ran it. Personally, I find that to be sobering and a solid reason to avoid going on a power trip.
The second note is related to the first: God *designed* men to respect naturally, so having to explicitly tell them to respect their wives is unnecessary. God *designed* women to love naturally, so telling them to love their husbands is unnecessary. The purpose of the Biblical passage that the GP posted was instructing guys to love their wife when it's hard and we don't feel she deserves it. It's easy to be unloving when loving is a skill that doesn't come naturally and we don't feel that she earned the added effort. Same for the ladies: respect doesn't come naturally, so it's easy to be disrespectful when she feels that he hasn't earned it and thus she doesn't feel that he's worth the added effort.
The Bible (and the GP) aren't saying for guys to 'whimper for attention like a dog while she throws your money out the window'. That's not the intent here, because in this example, he's not being loving (being loving and being a pansy are two different things), and if she's wastefully spending the money he earned, then she is being disrespectful while he is being a poor leader of his household. You're correct - it *doesn't* work, but don't for a second believe that what you described is an example of the Biblical concept of marriage.
Finally, I'll throw the Biblical definition of love out there. Love is not infatuation, it's not lust, it's not greed or coveteous. Love, as demonstrated throughout the Bible, is an unconditional, sacrificial concern for the well-being of the other person. Honestly, would you desire to be in a relationship with someone who only helped you when you helped them, who only loved you when they felt you loved them, and who only respected you when they felt you respected them? Or would you rather someone who is so concerned with your well-being that they would love you even when you were being unloving, respect you when you were being disrespectful, and help you even when you were being unhelpful? If both of you had that mindset of putting the other person's needs above your own, you'd be surprised how solid a relationship could be built from that. You're spot on when you state that it doesn't work when only half the people involved love unconditionally and sacrifically. It only works when *both* sides desire to do so.
So that's my corollary to the GP. The mods may do what they will.
you mention a very important distinction. There is a huge difference between marketing the modding service to simply run unsigned code, even for legal uses (XBMC comes to mind), and telling people that his for-profit service will allow them to play pirated games. I wouldn't want to be him if the plaintiffs decide to call his customers to the stand and ask why they wanted their xboxes modded.
To continue with the jailbroken iPhone analogy, there is a world of difference between jailbreaking with the intent of running SwirlyMMS or Winterboard, and jailbreaking to run Crackulus. The former are simply unsigned apps that Apple won't let me run. The latter is designed to simplify the pirating of official apps. The former are officialy distributed via Cydia directly from the writers, the latter is not. Pirating applications using crackulus is and should be illegal. Making jailbreaking illegal because of this is pointless, because iPhone app pirates are already committing an illegal act, thus adding another to the list isn't likely to dissuade them.
this youtube video is spot on and makes about 99% of the points that apply to this discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0
Ultimately I hope you'll all forgive my skepticism. The classics are required reading in most high schools for a reason - there is some degree of cultural significance to the works. Still, written classics have the problem of being written stories designed to be passively consumed by the viewer, while video games require a world in which the audience participates. Linear stories don't work extremely well for this. If what I do doesn't "matter", why would I bother doing it? I remember playing "Deadly Tide" a few years back, and it sucked because it was basically a rail shooter. There was no real point to it except to get through the game without dying and take down as many enemies as possible in the process. I was bored with it in about half an hour. Conversely, take Mass Effect, a game where choices you make throughout the game will always have some sort of affect on what happens. I played through that game twice, and am working on a third.
If one were to make a video grame out of "Pride and Prejudice" for example, it would take some serious ingenuity to figure out a way of designing it such that the game stays true to the book and gives the player something to do besides just running around and talking to everyone (which essentially makes it an interactive movie, and very minimally so at that), has the player participating in the story whereby they have some sort of effect on the outcome, yet can stay true to the book. If it stays too true to the book then everything is predetermined and it doesn't make for much of a game, and if it doesn't then there is little point in tying it to a piece of classic literature.
BIOS chips were rote ROM for a long time before writable BIOS was commonplace. Henceforth, I'm wondering if going old-school on this would be the best way to go.
What about read-only, removable, replaceable BIOS chips? If there's a sufficiently serious bug in the firmware, the OEM mails BIOS chips to registered users. If it's just feature or performance or hardware enhancements, then the OEM charges a nominal fee for it.
Alternatively, what about having twin BIOS chips and a USB BIOS reader? The removable BIOS chip could have a few extra pins used for flashing the BIOS that the motherboard physically doesn't have, but the USB reader does. Pop out BIOS #1, flash, replacce, pop out BIOS #2, flash, replace.
Finally, what about some kind of dip switch on the motherboard?
There are several ways to achieve the goal of allowing for BIOS updates while maintaining security at the physical level, which really is the best place for it given the circumstances.
I hope every prick who whips out his iPhone in movie theaters and talks endlessly gets this SMS... ha ha it sure would be karma.....
you're just jealous because my other job gets me attention from the ladies :D
I'm a network admin AND a DJ you insensitive clod!
If Microsoft breaks DirectDVD, I don't care. If Nero breaks, then I might be bummed, but I might end up buying the next version when it comes out. If I can't use Torq or Premiere, then I can't upgrade. I might be just one user, but business software costs significantly more, which means that they have all the more reason to ensure that a system works with all of their apps before they start using it. Whether it's Windows 10, Ubuntu 10, or OSX, if your company has all of their customer information in Flukenflaagen, and you've spent a couple thousand dollars on a version of Flukenflaagen that only runs properly on Windows XP, then neither a pretty desktop, Steve Jobs' Keynote, or the moral rammifications of Free Software won't matter to the person signing your paycheck.
The point I'm clumsily grasping at here is that Microsoft has got tons of exclusive apps. Whether that's MS' fault or not is the subject of many-a-flamewar, but the bottom line is that it's a reality. Microsoft may end up crunching a few toes, but if they crunch enough where the next version of Windows will require users to buy their software all over again anyway, come next hardware purchasing cycle, you can count on everyone eyeballing competing platforms, and that's worse for business than having a 6-gig OS footprint.
Since they didn't release any other deskop OS version on Dreamspark (only server versions), I'd be hesitant to believe that they'd start now. I think the better question is whether they'll offer an "Ultimate Steal", where students can get the ultimate version for like $49 or something else like that.
I find the toilet seat to be perfectly well suited to fast bulk transfers.
...and crappy performance.
Where are my mod points when I need them...+65535 insightful
Napster has three different models: buying a la carte tracks (which are in 256kbps DRM-Free MP3 files; pricing mirrors Napster), streaming subscriptions (monthly, quarterly, and annually; each also including MP3 download credits as well), and Napster-To-Go (which uses the WMA-DRM you reference).
Two big things I think can be attributed to Napster's failure to make a significant dent in the market. The first is the iPod; I'm sure that most of us have friends who aren't aware that there are players beyond the iPod. Apple's bundling of a store with the player management software put it right in front of the target demographic, while Napster must be sought after. I'm not trying to start an anti-trust pissing match here, but the bottom line is that the majority of consumers aren't going to seek after an alternative solely on principle when a store is already available and integrated. The second is related: Choosing a DRM scheme that makes you the premiere music retailer to 10-20% of the MP3 player market pretty much relegated it to niche status to begin with...then making that DRM scheme the foundation of a Super Bowl ad campaign basically gave Napster the mindshare of being the incompatible iTunes wannabe.
On a general note, subscription-based music downloads is one of the few places where I think that DRM has a place. If you're renting downloads, there must be some way of 'getting them back' if the user opts to unsubscribe. By its very nature, a subscription does not transfer ownership to the user, and I don't have a problem with that being enforced in such a context.
If Napster had such an issue going legit, Kazaa is going to find an even steeper uphill battle. One of Napster's greatest strengths was that it exclusively transferred music files; swapping malware was quite the challenge when the only files that could be transferred were WAV and MP3. Kazaa installed adware to begin with; I personally credit Kazaa as being one of the apps to bring adware/spyware/malware into the public consciousness. It became such a problem that I knew plenty of people who had moved to other apps (including limewire) before Kazaa was shut down. Kazaa had a stigma around it when it was free; getting people to use a now-legal service still associated with ruining their computers when iTunes, Amazon, and Napster are already established and doing relatively well...let's just say that I don't see any smart venture capitalist throwing money their way.
The same largely holds true for girls, it's just that girls don't tend to do the same "Delinquent" things that guys do in order to prevent becoming an outcast. Girls are less likely to cause fistfights, see how well something burns, or jump off a roof onto a trampoline. Girls are more about interacting with the people around them, rather than the world around them. As such, some of the equivalent girl activities would be doing something at odds with their 'genuine loner friend' to get into the more popular group (i.e. help the group post derogatory posters about the loner friend), be manipulative towards others (both guys and girls), and spread rumors. Since the damage that boys can cause setting fire near a shed is much easier to quantify than, say, the spread of a rumor, guys tend to get more attention from authority. That's the way I figure it anyway.
"And if you continue copying, you'll soon live with a wife and kids in a suburb and have no time for computers anymore"
that sounds like a good premise for a video game
It's called "The Sims".