"Logically", your error is in supposing that "creating the Internet" was a single event rather than an ongoing process. Al Gore helped create the modern form of the Internet, as did Vint Cerf, as did Tim Berners-Lee, as did countless others.
That's one definition of agnosticism, and probably the most popular. The original, superior definition has it holding that the ultimate nature of the universe cannot be known with certainty. For instance, you could die and meet someone claiming to be the God Of All Creation, but there'd be no way for you to know whether he were telling the truth -- and what's more, there'd be no way for him to know that there wasn't something above and beyond himself.
This sense of agnosticism is opposite of what you're saying; unlike theism or atheism, this agnosticism is provably true.
That's where your logic breaks down. For someone to be "penalized" for making more than $X would imply a marginal tax rate of over 100% on income beyond $X. We obviously do not have such a system.
The only long term effect of the tax brackets is to increase the separation between upper and lower class.
This is 100% backwards, and it's not funny either.
There's the problem with this analysis: the cost of the print head is relatively insignificant in TCO calculations because it needs replacement far less often. Come on, this is common-sense stuff. Price gouging being equal (and don't try to suggest that HP gouges less than Canon), TCO for a printer that throws away both tank and print head on every ink change is going to be much higher than on one that just throws away the tank.
As usual buying the cheap stuff will cost you more.
As usual, that mindset exposes its owner to being ripped off.
Unfortunately, there's a major downside to having a plethora of news outlets: each ends up catering to a narrow target audience, and people tend to gravitate towards those outlets which slant the news in keeping with their own personal biases. Why bother confronting uncomfortable issues when you can switch to a blog that spins them your way or ignores them altogether?
No longer will it be easy to mislead the masses
The greatest fault, dear trufflemage, is not in our stars, but in ourselves....
This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative.
Defensible so far.
No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side.
Now you've fallen into a straw-man understanding. Moral relativism does not deny the existence of evil, it simply defines evil in relative terms rather than absolute.
Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil. Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?
Given that it's a political faux pas to call your rivals "evil", listening to Bush's "staunchest political opponents" call him a "good person" is meaningless, just par for the course. Politicans abandon such pretenses only when talking about people outside their system. If you want an assessment that isn't tainted by politics, ask someone who's neither a politician nor otherwise involved in the political game.
If you truly believe all of the Republicans voted out of crass politics and all of the Democrats voted out of law, truth, and purity of heart, I have a business deal I'd like to discuss with you involving a Nigerian businessman I know.
They didn't, of course, but the effects were the same as if they had. There was a right side and a wrong side; the 4 were in the right, and the 5 were in the wrong. A shame, but it happens all the time.
FFs are not plot-driven, they're character-driven and setting-driven. The plots are almost invariably crap -- though this becomes harder to notice when the development is dragged out over a few dozen hours.
"smart" != "high working memory capacity", but hey, it's easier to write.
That said, the study's methodology is crap too. Wow, "smart" people are more sensitive to academic pressure, what a surprise! A "dumb" person isn't likely to care that "an improved score would earn the team a cash reward" if he knows he won't be able to contribute anyway, nor is he likely to care that his performance will be "evaluated by math professors". Try using stressors that aren't confounded with what you're studying, people.
To see what makes the headline most egregiously stupid, note also that the "smart" group never underperformed the "dumb" group. What the study really seems to be saying (true or not) is that smart people crack under pressure, but dumb people are always cracked!
Everything's playable offline, huh? Where's this coming from, then?
"Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam login information stored on this computer."
Bullshit, Valve. I was running in offline mode happily until one day you stopped me and started spewing this crap. The only obvious reason I can see is if you lost the fucking information. Regardless, I'm not going to be tethered to my internet connection to play offline, nor am I going to sit through a damn popup warning me that Steam is starting in offline mode even when things are working "correctly". That's the mode I want by default, you pricks! You should've given me a "don't prompt again" checkbox.
Oh well. I gave you a chance, Valve, and you failed. I'm not buying another game that uses Steam. If I want to buy games over an internet content-delivery system, I'll stick with the likes of Stardock; they at least have some inklings of respect for their users.
Bush, for better or worse, is actually doing something about it.
The problems is that he may indeed be doing something "for worse" -- that these actions may promote militant Islam rather than discouraging it. There is no question that the motives you provide are in large part the motives of the neoconservatives; there is also no question that these ambitions are broad and grand. The question is whether their methods will succeed. Time will tell.
And even still, I will weep at the lives lost when a mushroom cloud rises over Paris or Madrid because they chose to do nothing.
I suspect, rather, that you shall use them as just another grand rhetorical flourish when that day comes, should it come. But what will you do if that mushroom cloud instead rises over the United States because neoconservatives chose to do "something"? Will you weep for the errors of their ways, or will you take it as more evidence to support the position you already hold? What evidence would disprove that position in your eyes?
The truest measure of generosity is not what a person is willing to give, but what he retains for himself. Though Bill Gates donates millions of dollars, he retains the standard of living of a billionaire. His generosity is less than that of a middle-class man dropping a dollar in a Salvation army kettle, which in turn is less than that of a homeless man doing the same with his last dollar. It is certainly worthy of respect, but no more than these.
Opt-out copyright has the very important benefit of providing coverage to all individual creators without requiring registration or meaningless copyright notices. Contrast this to the patent system, where only corporate entities can regularly handle the legal hassle and expense of registration. If we go back to an opt-in system, expect to see corporations claiming ownership of every scrap of paper they produce on the one hand while on the other ripping off any material they can find that isn't legally nailed down.
If you want fair use exemptions for archiving, fight for that. If you want shorter copyright terms, fight for that. Don't push for a change toward a system that pollutes the world with even more useless copyright filings and notices than we have already while punishing those who don't have a legal department to handle the issue.
Escape. Rest until 4 AM. Go to rich man's home and kill him in his sleep. If this is difficult, track and kill rich man's hired help instead. Repeat as necessary until trust in / fear of government erodes past the point of no return. (This part will probably take quite a few cells of 15 friends, natch.)
Bringing down a despotic government by force is far from impossible. Much harder is seeing it replaced by something better.
They do, in fact, use 50% of tax dollars. Those tax dollars support the socioeconomic system which raised them to the top 5%, and without which most of them would either a) never have reached that level or b) had their throats cut.
so are you saying that it's GWB's fault that we did nothing before 9/11 (like a response to the first WTC bombing, the African embassies bombings or the Cole bombing)?
Is the loophole in the law, or is it simply an invention of the courts? When a person's property is "accused" of a crime, that person is consequently deprived of property without due process for themselves. Any lawyers out there mind explaining how the courts explain this away?
Under 5 MP "barely acceptible" onscreen? What resolution is your monitor, 2560x1920? Somebody better tell Nikon to recall the D2H. If you're not getting excellent onscreen images and 300 dpi 4x6 prints out of 3 MP, it's not the megapixel count that's the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"Logically", your error is in supposing that "creating the Internet" was a single event rather than an ongoing process. Al Gore helped create the modern form of the Internet, as did Vint Cerf, as did Tim Berners-Lee, as did countless others.
That's one definition of agnosticism, and probably the most popular. The original, superior definition has it holding that the ultimate nature of the universe cannot be known with certainty. For instance, you could die and meet someone claiming to be the God Of All Creation, but there'd be no way for you to know whether he were telling the truth -- and what's more, there'd be no way for him to know that there wasn't something above and beyond himself.
This sense of agnosticism is opposite of what you're saying; unlike theism or atheism, this agnosticism is provably true.
If you penalize people for making more money
That's where your logic breaks down. For someone to be "penalized" for making more than $X would imply a marginal tax rate of over 100% on income beyond $X. We obviously do not have such a system.
The only long term effect of the tax brackets is to increase the separation between upper and lower class.
This is 100% backwards, and it's not funny either.
Then we factor in the print head.
There's the problem with this analysis: the cost of the print head is relatively insignificant in TCO calculations because it needs replacement far less often. Come on, this is common-sense stuff. Price gouging being equal (and don't try to suggest that HP gouges less than Canon), TCO for a printer that throws away both tank and print head on every ink change is going to be much higher than on one that just throws away the tank.
As usual buying the cheap stuff will cost you more.
As usual, that mindset exposes its owner to being ripped off.
Unfortunately, there's a major downside to having a plethora of news outlets: each ends up catering to a narrow target audience, and people tend to gravitate towards those outlets which slant the news in keeping with their own personal biases. Why bother confronting uncomfortable issues when you can switch to a blog that spins them your way or ignores them altogether?
No longer will it be easy to mislead the masses
The greatest fault, dear trufflemage, is not in our stars, but in ourselves....
This is a standard liberal idea. Everything is relative.
Defensible so far.
No one is truly a bad person, they just appear bad from one side.
Now you've fallen into a straw-man understanding. Moral relativism does not deny the existence of evil, it simply defines evil in relative terms rather than absolute.
Now, you and many liberals that don't know him at all refer to him as evil. Out of those two groups of people, which do you think has the better vantage point on Bush, relatively speaking?
Given that it's a political faux pas to call your rivals "evil", listening to Bush's "staunchest political opponents" call him a "good person" is meaningless, just par for the course. Politicans abandon such pretenses only when talking about people outside their system. If you want an assessment that isn't tainted by politics, ask someone who's neither a politician nor otherwise involved in the political game.
If you truly believe all of the Republicans voted out of crass politics and all of the Democrats voted out of law, truth, and purity of heart, I have a business deal I'd like to discuss with you involving a Nigerian businessman I know.
They didn't, of course, but the effects were the same as if they had. There was a right side and a wrong side; the 4 were in the right, and the 5 were in the wrong. A shame, but it happens all the time.
FFs are not plot-driven, they're character-driven and setting-driven. The plots are almost invariably crap -- though this becomes harder to notice when the development is dragged out over a few dozen hours.
"smart" != "high working memory capacity", but hey, it's easier to write.
That said, the study's methodology is crap too. Wow, "smart" people are more sensitive to academic pressure, what a surprise! A "dumb" person isn't likely to care that "an improved score would earn the team a cash reward" if he knows he won't be able to contribute anyway, nor is he likely to care that his performance will be "evaluated by math professors". Try using stressors that aren't confounded with what you're studying, people.
To see what makes the headline most egregiously stupid, note also that the "smart" group never underperformed the "dumb" group. What the study really seems to be saying (true or not) is that smart people crack under pressure, but dumb people are always cracked!
Of course, the people are getting hurt indirectly, as they are thus deprived of a choice in the marketplace.
So, you do understand!
(By the way, the "infringing company" employs a few of "the people", too.)
Everything's playable offline, huh? Where's this coming from, then?
"Unable to connect to the Steam network. 'Offline mode' is unavailable because there is no Steam login information stored on this computer."
Bullshit, Valve. I was running in offline mode happily until one day you stopped me and started spewing this crap. The only obvious reason I can see is if you lost the fucking information. Regardless, I'm not going to be tethered to my internet connection to play offline, nor am I going to sit through a damn popup warning me that Steam is starting in offline mode even when things are working "correctly". That's the mode I want by default, you pricks! You should've given me a "don't prompt again" checkbox.
Oh well. I gave you a chance, Valve, and you failed. I'm not buying another game that uses Steam. If I want to buy games over an internet content-delivery system, I'll stick with the likes of Stardock; they at least have some inklings of respect for their users.
Bush, for better or worse, is actually doing something about it.
The problems is that he may indeed be doing something "for worse" -- that these actions may promote militant Islam rather than discouraging it. There is no question that the motives you provide are in large part the motives of the neoconservatives; there is also no question that these ambitions are broad and grand. The question is whether their methods will succeed. Time will tell.
And even still, I will weep at the lives lost when a mushroom cloud rises over Paris or Madrid because they chose to do nothing.
I suspect, rather, that you shall use them as just another grand rhetorical flourish when that day comes, should it come. But what will you do if that mushroom cloud instead rises over the United States because neoconservatives chose to do "something"? Will you weep for the errors of their ways, or will you take it as more evidence to support the position you already hold? What evidence would disprove that position in your eyes?
The truest measure of generosity is not what a person is willing to give, but what he retains for himself. Though Bill Gates donates millions of dollars, he retains the standard of living of a billionaire. His generosity is less than that of a middle-class man dropping a dollar in a Salvation army kettle, which in turn is less than that of a homeless man doing the same with his last dollar. It is certainly worthy of respect, but no more than these.
Opt-out copyright has the very important benefit of providing coverage to all individual creators without requiring registration or meaningless copyright notices. Contrast this to the patent system, where only corporate entities can regularly handle the legal hassle and expense of registration. If we go back to an opt-in system, expect to see corporations claiming ownership of every scrap of paper they produce on the one hand while on the other ripping off any material they can find that isn't legally nailed down.
If you want fair use exemptions for archiving, fight for that. If you want shorter copyright terms, fight for that. Don't push for a change toward a system that pollutes the world with even more useless copyright filings and notices than we have already while punishing those who don't have a legal department to handle the issue.
Explain to me exactly what you'd do.
Escape. Rest until 4 AM. Go to rich man's home and kill him in his sleep. If this is difficult, track and kill rich man's hired help instead. Repeat as necessary until trust in / fear of government erodes past the point of no return. (This part will probably take quite a few cells of 15 friends, natch.)
Bringing down a despotic government by force is far from impossible. Much harder is seeing it replaced by something better.
"Greater" means both "better" and "higher". In cases where these meanings are in opposition, as in golf scores, the word should not be used.
The incentives for take control of a typical end-user machine is far outweighed by the incentives to take control of a typical server.
The defining characteristic of a pyramid scheme is pyramid structure, not the use of dollars to pay into it. Consider this a "barter pyramid".
They do, in fact, use 50% of tax dollars. Those tax dollars support the socioeconomic system which raised them to the top 5%, and without which most of them would either a) never have reached that level or b) had their throats cut.
It is an unacceptable answer, but for a different reason: the need for a good estimate is far in excess of the cost of producing one.
Ah, but where are you putting your hands?
so are you saying that it's GWB's fault that we did nothing before 9/11 (like a response to the first WTC bombing, the African embassies bombings or the Cole bombing)?
Nah, but what I'm saying is that you're full of shit.
Is the loophole in the law, or is it simply an invention of the courts? When a person's property is "accused" of a crime, that person is consequently deprived of property without due process for themselves. Any lawyers out there mind explaining how the courts explain this away?
TfTs, since members of the population can work together. Hawks have the advantage only when this option is removed.
Under 5 MP "barely acceptible" onscreen? What resolution is your monitor, 2560x1920? Somebody better tell Nikon to recall the D2H. If you're not getting excellent onscreen images and 300 dpi 4x6 prints out of 3 MP, it's not the megapixel count that's the problem.