That would explain a lot about how the two different Voltrons never met up.
[starts flame war] I'm one of the few people that thought the non-lion Voltron was cooler, because it was made up of smaller, more interchangeable parts.
Um, I hate to tell you this, but your 14-year-old child is probably going to the movies with someone who is old enough to get into R-rated films. That's what we all did when I was a kid, anyway.
You pretty much have to understand that you can only protect them so far - once they're mobile, have friends, and are out with them for extended periods of time, the only guide that they'll have is any values that you gave them when they were younger. 14 is much too late to be inculcating your values about obscenity, violence, etc. into your children. At that age they'd already rather listen to their friends.
My question to you is: Is it more important to have the best election you can, or is it more
important to give the illusion of fairness with a recount that is inherently more unfair than the
original count?
Good question. I think it would be reasonable to give the candidates standing to sue over the fairness of the recount process, so that if the process is unfair, it can be fixed. But I don't think it's fair to deny one candidate the right to a recount in a contested election just because the citizens of Florida couldn't get their voting system in order. If the system fails, it should be because we tried as hard as we could to determine what really happened and failed, rather than because we saw that it was an intractable problem from the beginning, and just gave up on the whole thing. When Florida's screwed-up system affects the votes of the whole nation, then I don't think it's fair to the rest of America to say that "Florida's recount system is too b0rken to work, so no recount can be done".
My answer is this: The people who were too fucking stupid to vote properly shouldn't be counted,
and I feel that way regardless if it was Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed voting. If you're too dumb
to punch a ballot, I'd prefer your vote not count.
I'll agree with that to some degree - the people voting for Buchanan were pretty clueless. "Do you write the name in the dots? Maybe you lick the dots - the ballot doesn't say":)
But when you get into "hanging chads", etc. then I think you can make a pretty clear case that if I knocked out two or three out of four chad corners, the voter's intent was clear. We've had the same chad-based system here in IL, and there are cases where if you don't check you have hanging chads. Is it because I don't know how to punch a ballot? No. It's just because the little stylus doesn't always work right, people hold it at different angles, etc., etc. When you're dealing with bits of paper and inaccurately machined mechanical devices (lowest bidder, remember?) then there are going to be situations where things like this happen. Normally such problems are lost in the noise of the overall election result (thanks to a previous poster for this great analogy), but in this case those ballots become significant.
So I would say that the standard should be "clear and unambiguous voter intent" (because after all that's really what the election is about), and if we have to get in election observers from other states, other parties, or even other countries, let's do it in order to make sure that the will of the American electorate is heard as clearly as possible.
See, when you're replying to a post that mentions the "popular vote", and you happen to also mention the "popular vote", it doesn't actually make you a "tardball" to have said those words. So you really should be replying to about one post up.
The ends (having the same person in the White House as would have ended up there anyway) don't justify the means (halting the recounts before they were complete). In a situation like this, you're going to have people that want a recount. If their positions were reversed, W would have done the same thing. I don't see any shame in requesting a recount if you thought that you legitmately would have won, especially in light of the allegations of poll improprieties for minority citizens which surfaced almost immediately.
So the only criterion is whether the recounts were carried out in a fair and open manner. As I said, it would have been more fair for the Democrats to have requested a recount for the whole state. But it also would have been more fair for the Supreme Court to allow some sort of complete recount to be finished, before making a ruling on the topic.
You are absolutely correct. However, the original poster was saying that "if enough voters agree with you, you'll get your way". I was demonstrating that this is not true, by providing an example where the largest plurality did not win. You have provided another reason why his or her statement is not true, but that doesn't mean that my example is not also relevant. In fact, I would say that it's exactly because of the electoral college that it follows that the person with the most votes doesn't always win.
It's true that the Gore camp should have asked for a state-wide recount from the beginning; that would have been the only ethical thing to do. But on the other hand, the cost of such a recount would have been so large as to make that an unpalatable option to start with. So really, in a situation like that the challenger is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Even knowing what we know now, I'm not sure if I would advise a challenger in this situation to act much differently.
Who would have won in the recount is, of course, immaterial, because no one knew that at the time. You can't say "well, Bush would have won anyway" and somehow have that excuse procedural irregularities on any side of the election. The ends do not justify the means.
...Although in this case, enough voters did vote for the other guy. Those voters aren't a minority (well, OK technically they're the largest plurality - no one got a majority of the national vote. Of the minorities represented in the election, the largest minority didn't win). Which is why there's some legitimate dispute about the outcome.
Bush's approval rating since the election is immaterial, since it's almost entirely based on the "War on Terrorism", and Americans tend to rate the President fairly highly at the beginning of any sort of armed conflict.
Actually, everyone but McDonald's already served their coffee at a non-maiming temperature, because there really was no point to serve it at close to boiling. McDonald's was the only company that had to change.
It's not really "evolution in action" either if an 81-year-old injures herself; she's already done all the breeding she was going to, I imagine.
Hmmm. Although I disagree with many of your points, I'm a little short on time to rebut them at the moment. But I will point out that:
And to belittle the man's contributions to charity by saying he "stole" that
money, and therefore took it from others who would have given it to charity (which is about the damn
stupidest thing I've read today) is false.
is incorrect. Microsoft has profited more than a normal software company due to their monopoly status. This is not in question - just look at their profit margins, compared to your average Microsoft competitor (remember to look at the competitor before Microsoft either swallows them up or drives them out of business, though). This is economic highway robbery. It is stealing by distorting the market. If it weren't harming consumers, it wouldn't be against the law.
And contrary to your belief, it's also highly unlikely that ANY
of the $139 I spent on Windows XP Pro (or any other software or hardware product for that matter)
would have gone to charity.
So basically you're not principled enough to give to charity, but you're OK with Big Daddy Bill taking the money from the rest of us, and giving our money to charity? Charity's great when it's other people's money, is that it? Pretty sick and twisted, I say.
Oh well, should have thought of that before they broke the law:) I see no problem with having major consequences for major lawbreakers. Hopefully nobody's raising kids on the theory of "I can't punish them that much, it'll just make them too unhappy".
Although I will admit that removing the browser would probably be a counterproductive remedy at this point, since mostly that battle is lost. The remedy should be more punitive to Microsoft, something that they won't soon forget. Like splitting up the company, or taking 50% of their $36 billion cash hoard and writing checks to all of their users.
Your SUV shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. Your coffee shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. "Spilling coffee on yourself" is sometimes a normal parameter of use - liquids spill, especially in an automotive environment. By your logic, you could have avoided your SUV's tires blowing out by just not driving an SUV (which would make sense to me - I don't have much sympathy for people that drive them, and it seems to me that driving such a vehicle at highway speeds (at least the way people drive around here) shouldn't be considered "normal operation":)
There's personal responsibility, and then there's deliberate and sustained recklessness on the part of the product's manufacturer. I'm just pointing out that if a manufacturer knows that a product is unsafe in the normal circumstances of use, and they know that people are getting hurt by it, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to make some changes to that product and not continue on with business as usual. This is just like the exploding Ford Pinto - the manufacturer knew there was a defect that was causing injury, and did nothing to fix it because it was cheaper to just settle the case every time. Large punitive damages are designed to send the message that such a course of action isn't as cheap as it looks. In fact, McDonald's made up the amount of the fine in the next three days of selling coffee.
"Lady was stupid with coffee, confused a jury, and made out like a bandit" is the urban legend, but it's not really all of the facts in this particular case.
I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.
I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.
Hmmm, I think I'd confuse that with other similar words if I heard someone say that. Or it could already be the case that I've heard someone say that, and didn't know what the hell they were talking about:)
I somehow don't think the people that received these funds would have benefitted more if Outlook
or MS-Word was a better product, or if Microsoft was more competitive.
Possibly true. The question is rather: what would be the overall benefit to society of a healthier software industry that was not eternally kowtowing to Microsoft. For example, if there was actually market competition, then prices would be lower and people wouldn't need to spend as much for software. Then the consumer would get to keep more money and spend it for their charities of choice (exactly the conservative argument for lowering taxes, BTW). If you consider the profits that Microsoft has made ($36 billion in the bank IIRC?) and think about the potential for charitable contributions if some part of those profits remained in the customer's pockets instead, you begin to understand that $1.3 billion isn't really that much when you're talking about one of the biggest companies in the world.
The fact that Bill Gates can give away $1.3 billion to various charities just means that there was $1.3 billion that Microsoft's customers couldn't contribute to charity, because Microsoft got their money instead. So, Bill Gates' vast charitable contributions are only laudatory if you think that his choices of charities are better than the average person's, and you don't believe that the average person deserves the right to decide their own charitable giving.
How you can even
compare the importance of people's health and education to the quality of a software product is
beyond me.
So, it's OK with you if I ship you some poorly-performing code, and use the development costs saved to adopt a 3rd-world child? You can't really compare your business' needs for functional software at a good price against somebody's life, can you? I bet you also contribute all of your tax refund to the various charities that are options on your state's income tax form too, right - after all, you can't compare "you having money" with "somebody's life", can you? Because that's the argument that you're making here.
And to compare Al Capone giving money to a prostitute to BG giving money to
charity just preposterous.
But it is exactly the same situation - money extracted from someone by extortion and illegal activities is being put to a use that the extortee did not choose. Just because Bill Gates happens to pick more socially responsible outlets for his ill-gotten gains doesn't somehow justify his illegal actions.
The question is whether the teacher owns the paper (technically, the copyright thereof) or not. If the teacher doesn't own the paper, then they can't give up your rights to it (otherwise all copyrights on mp3s would no longer exist once they had been shared a couple of times...). If the teacher does own the paper, then this would be legal, but I wonder if the school system would always want to be doing this.
I'm betting that the teacher doesn't own the paper, except perhaps in very special circumstances that qualify as "work for hire". But for the average term paper, the student wrote it, and what you write is automatically (c) you.
Unfortunately for you (and Bill), people only want to pay for it once and then use it forever after, no matter what you call it. Nobody wants to pay and pay and pay, which is why "software == service" isn't going to fly very well in the consumer sphere.
Next time they call, ask them about Complete Software. If it doesn't come with the source code,
it's incomplete, and your company has no intention of paying full price for only part of the
software.
Y'know, that's the best Microsoft meme I think I've heard, at least since the "it's not a computer worm/virus, it's a Microsoft worm/virus" one. Bravo!
Speak for yourself, I guess. None of the users of any of the software that I've written have run it on Windows. Heck, most of them don't even think of it as a "computer" or "software" at all. You have to realize that the real world is not just slapping together pretty GUIs with Visual Whatever.
You can learn Visual Whatever pretty quickly on the job if you already know how to design and implement software. You can't learn to properly design and implement software quickly on the job if all you know is how to paste things together in Visual Whatever. And that is why the Microsoft "look, we make it easy for you!" method is the wrong way to go for your education as a computing professional.
Slashdot Mirror
That would explain a lot about how the two different Voltrons never met up.
[starts flame war] I'm one of the few people that thought the non-lion Voltron was cooler, because it was made up of smaller, more interchangeable parts.
Um, I hate to tell you this, but your 14-year-old child is probably going to the movies with someone who is old enough to get into R-rated films. That's what we all did when I was a kid, anyway.
You pretty much have to understand that you can only protect them so far - once they're mobile, have friends, and are out with them for extended periods of time, the only guide that they'll have is any values that you gave them when they were younger. 14 is much too late to be inculcating your values about obscenity, violence, etc. into your children. At that age they'd already rather listen to their friends.
Sure, sure, and *BSD is dying too. I'll believe it when I see it :)
Good question. I think it would be reasonable to give the candidates standing to sue over the fairness of the recount process, so that if the process is unfair, it can be fixed. But I don't think it's fair to deny one candidate the right to a recount in a contested election just because the citizens of Florida couldn't get their voting system in order. If the system fails, it should be because we tried as hard as we could to determine what really happened and failed, rather than because we saw that it was an intractable problem from the beginning, and just gave up on the whole thing. When Florida's screwed-up system affects the votes of the whole nation, then I don't think it's fair to the rest of America to say that "Florida's recount system is too b0rken to work, so no recount can be done".
I'll agree with that to some degree - the people voting for Buchanan were pretty clueless. "Do you write the name in the dots? Maybe you lick the dots - the ballot doesn't say" :)
But when you get into "hanging chads", etc. then I think you can make a pretty clear case that if I knocked out two or three out of four chad corners, the voter's intent was clear. We've had the same chad-based system here in IL, and there are cases where if you don't check you have hanging chads. Is it because I don't know how to punch a ballot? No. It's just because the little stylus doesn't always work right, people hold it at different angles, etc., etc. When you're dealing with bits of paper and inaccurately machined mechanical devices (lowest bidder, remember?) then there are going to be situations where things like this happen. Normally such problems are lost in the noise of the overall election result (thanks to a previous poster for this great analogy), but in this case those ballots become significant.
So I would say that the standard should be "clear and unambiguous voter intent" (because after all that's really what the election is about), and if we have to get in election observers from other states, other parties, or even other countries, let's do it in order to make sure that the will of the American electorate is heard as clearly as possible.
See, when you're replying to a post that mentions the "popular vote", and you happen to also mention the "popular vote", it doesn't actually make you a "tardball" to have said those words. So you really should be replying to about one post up.
The ends (having the same person in the White House as would have ended up there anyway) don't justify the means (halting the recounts before they were complete). In a situation like this, you're going to have people that want a recount. If their positions were reversed, W would have done the same thing. I don't see any shame in requesting a recount if you thought that you legitmately would have won, especially in light of the allegations of poll improprieties for minority citizens which surfaced almost immediately.
So the only criterion is whether the recounts were carried out in a fair and open manner. As I said, it would have been more fair for the Democrats to have requested a recount for the whole state. But it also would have been more fair for the Supreme Court to allow some sort of complete recount to be finished, before making a ruling on the topic.
You are absolutely correct. However, the original poster was saying that "if enough voters agree with you, you'll get your way". I was demonstrating that this is not true, by providing an example where the largest plurality did not win. You have provided another reason why his or her statement is not true, but that doesn't mean that my example is not also relevant. In fact, I would say that it's exactly because of the electoral college that it follows that the person with the most votes doesn't always win.
It's true that the Gore camp should have asked for a state-wide recount from the beginning; that would have been the only ethical thing to do. But on the other hand, the cost of such a recount would have been so large as to make that an unpalatable option to start with. So really, in a situation like that the challenger is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Even knowing what we know now, I'm not sure if I would advise a challenger in this situation to act much differently.
Who would have won in the recount is, of course, immaterial, because no one knew that at the time. You can't say "well, Bush would have won anyway" and somehow have that excuse procedural irregularities on any side of the election. The ends do not justify the means.
...Although in this case, enough voters did vote for the other guy. Those voters aren't a minority (well, OK technically they're the largest plurality - no one got a majority of the national vote. Of the minorities represented in the election, the largest minority didn't win). Which is why there's some legitimate dispute about the outcome.
Bush's approval rating since the election is immaterial, since it's almost entirely based on the "War on Terrorism", and Americans tend to rate the President fairly highly at the beginning of any sort of armed conflict.
Actually, everyone but McDonald's already served their coffee at a non-maiming temperature, because there really was no point to serve it at close to boiling. McDonald's was the only company that had to change.
It's not really "evolution in action" either if an 81-year-old injures herself; she's already done all the breeding she was going to, I imagine.
Hmmm. Although I disagree with many of your points, I'm a little short on time to rebut them at the moment. But I will point out that:
is incorrect. Microsoft has profited more than a normal software company due to their monopoly status. This is not in question - just look at their profit margins, compared to your average Microsoft competitor (remember to look at the competitor before Microsoft either swallows them up or drives them out of business, though). This is economic highway robbery. It is stealing by distorting the market. If it weren't harming consumers, it wouldn't be against the law.
So basically you're not principled enough to give to charity, but you're OK with Big Daddy Bill taking the money from the rest of us, and giving our money to charity? Charity's great when it's other people's money, is that it? Pretty sick and twisted, I say.
Whew! For a minute there I thought we were going into one of those "*BSD^WMicrosoft is dead" riffs...
Oh well, should have thought of that before they broke the law :) I see no problem with having major consequences for major lawbreakers. Hopefully nobody's raising kids on the theory of "I can't punish them that much, it'll just make them too unhappy".
Although I will admit that removing the browser would probably be a counterproductive remedy at this point, since mostly that battle is lost. The remedy should be more punitive to Microsoft, something that they won't soon forget. Like splitting up the company, or taking 50% of their $36 billion cash hoard and writing checks to all of their users.
Your SUV shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. Your coffee shouldn't seriously injure you if operated within normal parameters. "Spilling coffee on yourself" is sometimes a normal parameter of use - liquids spill, especially in an automotive environment. By your logic, you could have avoided your SUV's tires blowing out by just not driving an SUV (which would make sense to me - I don't have much sympathy for people that drive them, and it seems to me that driving such a vehicle at highway speeds (at least the way people drive around here) shouldn't be considered "normal operation" :)
There's personal responsibility, and then there's deliberate and sustained recklessness on the part of the product's manufacturer. I'm just pointing out that if a manufacturer knows that a product is unsafe in the normal circumstances of use, and they know that people are getting hurt by it, then it's not unreasonable to expect them to make some changes to that product and not continue on with business as usual. This is just like the exploding Ford Pinto - the manufacturer knew there was a defect that was causing injury, and did nothing to fix it because it was cheaper to just settle the case every time. Large punitive damages are designed to send the message that such a course of action isn't as cheap as it looks. In fact, McDonald's made up the amount of the fine in the next three days of selling coffee.
"Lady was stupid with coffee, confused a jury, and made out like a bandit" is the urban legend, but it's not really all of the facts in this particular case.
I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.
I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.
Hmmm, I think I'd confuse that with other similar words if I heard someone say that. Or it could already be the case that I've heard someone say that, and didn't know what the hell they were talking about :)
Possibly true. The question is rather: what would be the overall benefit to society of a healthier software industry that was not eternally kowtowing to Microsoft. For example, if there was actually market competition, then prices would be lower and people wouldn't need to spend as much for software. Then the consumer would get to keep more money and spend it for their charities of choice (exactly the conservative argument for lowering taxes, BTW). If you consider the profits that Microsoft has made ($36 billion in the bank IIRC?) and think about the potential for charitable contributions if some part of those profits remained in the customer's pockets instead, you begin to understand that $1.3 billion isn't really that much when you're talking about one of the biggest companies in the world.
The fact that Bill Gates can give away $1.3 billion to various charities just means that there was $1.3 billion that Microsoft's customers couldn't contribute to charity, because Microsoft got their money instead. So, Bill Gates' vast charitable contributions are only laudatory if you think that his choices of charities are better than the average person's, and you don't believe that the average person deserves the right to decide their own charitable giving.
So, it's OK with you if I ship you some poorly-performing code, and use the development costs saved to adopt a 3rd-world child? You can't really compare your business' needs for functional software at a good price against somebody's life, can you? I bet you also contribute all of your tax refund to the various charities that are options on your state's income tax form too, right - after all, you can't compare "you having money" with "somebody's life", can you? Because that's the argument that you're making here.
But it is exactly the same situation - money extracted from someone by extortion and illegal activities is being put to a use that the extortee did not choose. Just because Bill Gates happens to pick more socially responsible outlets for his ill-gotten gains doesn't somehow justify his illegal actions.
Where I work, we have a "War on Talent".
No, I'm not kidding.
In fact, if you're not buying stuff, you're letting down the side so that the Terrorists Win!
Yes, this is pretty much what the President said. In America, Consumer == Patriotic anymore.
The question is whether the teacher owns the paper (technically, the copyright thereof) or not. If the teacher doesn't own the paper, then they can't give up your rights to it (otherwise all copyrights on mp3s would no longer exist once they had been shared a couple of times...). If the teacher does own the paper, then this would be legal, but I wonder if the school system would always want to be doing this.
I'm betting that the teacher doesn't own the paper, except perhaps in very special circumstances that qualify as "work for hire". But for the average term paper, the student wrote it, and what you write is automatically (c) you.
Unfortunately for you (and Bill), people only want to pay for it once and then use it forever after, no matter what you call it. Nobody wants to pay and pay and pay, which is why "software == service" isn't going to fly very well in the consumer sphere.
Y'know, that's the best Microsoft meme I think I've heard, at least since the "it's not a computer worm/virus, it's a Microsoft worm/virus" one. Bravo!
That's what I like about you, Bill - you're always so cheerful, always smiling and tenting your fingers. And you think everything's excellent!
Windows Nebraska? So they've gone back to code-naming them after geography, is that it?
Speak for yourself, I guess. None of the users of any of the software that I've written have run it on Windows. Heck, most of them don't even think of it as a "computer" or "software" at all. You have to realize that the real world is not just slapping together pretty GUIs with Visual Whatever.
You can learn Visual Whatever pretty quickly on the job if you already know how to design and implement software. You can't learn to properly design and implement software quickly on the job if all you know is how to paste things together in Visual Whatever. And that is why the Microsoft "look, we make it easy for you!" method is the wrong way to go for your education as a computing professional.