Seeing as how Slashdot is shamelessly leeching off of NYT's hard work, I don't see why ANYBODY feels they have the right to complain that Slashdot posts registration-req links.
It would be better if they'd just stop using the NYT as a source. Any idiot could find other articles about the same topic.
Now, this being a technical school of sorts, you probably have other enlightened persons hanging around. Polish your CD up a bit, make a funky logo to print on it and start handing it out to your fellow rebels.
Let's face it: these "technical" schools aren't the best place to find people who want more than to learn how to use computers enough to find themselves a comfortable job; that's what these schools are for. He may be able to find a few of these people at his school, but I wouldn't count on it.
Well, not quite. However, when I last bought stuff from those companies (mid-90s), the shipping was $6 for one, IIRC. (When getting multiple ones at a time, the extras might have been as "little" as $3 apiece.) Things might be a little more sane now.
It turned out that the "12 for 1" deal got you CDs for something like eight or nine dollars apiece. If you wanted twelve albums, then it was a decent deal; that's how I filled out my record collection as a teenager. However, it's obvious that they make a pretty decent profit by overcharging for shipping; it's not the great deal that they lead you to believe.
Of course, the strange part was that they charged so much that only a fool would buy the CDs at regular price. You'd think that the amount of customer turnover that must have caused would eventually hurt the company. (But maybe I just don't think like a marketer.)
QWERTY was not supposed to slow people down... Think "side-effect", rather than "goal."
Not quite. As a matter of fact, qwerty's layout actually helped improve typing speed as a side effect of moving common letter combinations apart. QWERTY makes it more likely that when typing, you alternate hands, which is faster than typing with just one hand.
because Amazon et al., like any *sane* entity, assumed the patent was total BS. Which it is, in my opinion.
A "sane" entity doesn't ignore patents and hope they'll go away. They might try to get the patent invalidated, but assuming that nothing will happen would be pretty stupid.
I refer you to the post where I pointed out that your argument was a textbook slippery slope fallacy. Your "support" for one event leading to another was, essentially, because you think it will happen that way. Incidentally, since you accuse me of not proving my point -- my point doesn't need proving, because it was a statement of fact: that this is not the same as 1984, because these cameras are only placed in public places. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue that placing cameras in public places will lead to a 1984 situation. Supporting this requires some form of proof; I simply pointed out that the proof you provided is unsound.
By the way, you're being much too defensive. My last post was an attempt to end the argument in a gentlemanly way by agreeing that we can have a difference of opinion. (And now I'm done on this thread, whether or not you accept that.)
I do, however, feel that I applied it in appropriate context, backed with enough logic, to support my claims.
You are, of course, entitled to feel whatever you want. However, you shouldn't be too surprised that someone who doesn't hold the same opinions as you doesn't agree on the inevitibility (or probability) of those steps, when you don't show it.
Definition: "The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question."
Your argument:
You start with a camera here, and a camera there.
then you install more...
and later add the face recognition software...
then you put the cameras in old people's homes "for their protection"...
and then sell them to parents to make sure their billy isn't going to burn down the house.
you sell Subscriptions for this "Service".
Once it's common place, you legislate these being required for buisnesses
This is a textbook fallacious slippery slope argument, because no "argument for the inevitability of the event" is provided.
The only way that such an argument becomes logically valid is when you show that inevitability -- and then, it's not a slippery slope.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
What causes a brutal dictatorship to be overthrown by the people? When enough of them realize they are getting screwed over by The Man and getting nothing in return for their toils. Sound about right?
If you knew history, you'd know that governments masquerading as religion get overthown just as easily as secular states. Which renders the rest of your post moot. (You also failed to note the distinction between government and religion.) It's easy to follow party line and claim that religion is at fault for all the world's ills, but everyone who tries just comes off sounding like a bigot.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
I would not be suprised to find that Christianity has been used to justify more killing than any other religion in human history...
This is a popular attitude, but it's nonsense. Christianity (or any other major religion today) doesn't kill anyone, and those who try to blame atrocities of the past on religion is just displaying their ignorance. You're confusing religion with the actions of governments (who professed to uphold Christianity) trying to gain more power. History has shown that people are always fighting and killing each other, regardless of religion.
Re:Personally, I would go one step further.
on
Game with God
·
· Score: 1
What is worse is the fact that most games put out by christians fall into one of two categories; blatant propaganda which is more concerned with pushing a message than with providing an enjoyable gaming experience, and "fluff" mostly written for children.
Wait a second. Do you have any evidence that those who create other games are predominantly non-christian? Of course those are the primary types of games that you see as being created by christians -- because, otherwise, how would you know whether or not they were religious?
Although I'm in full agreement with your post, I wanted to point out the biggest difference between surveillance in 1984 and this: in 1984, the cameras were everywhere, including people's homes and personal space. These cameras are always in public places, where you have no reason to expect privacy. In my opinion, that's the most important distinction between the two, and why the endless Big Brother claims we see on slashdot are unfounded.
Maybe it's just a difference between Canadians and Americans that we don't sweat these kinds of things while Americans are (by comparison) more paranoid. Who knows?
Maybe it's just that Americans are more likely to be doing something wrong?
Actually, I doubt that the typical American has any problem with cameras in public places. It's mostly just the Slashbots that care.
First off, hiring somebody's son does not neccessarily indicate a conflict of interest. (I'm assuming that it's true, but I can't find any evidence with a google search -- so I remain doubtful.) His son is an adult, and has the right to work for whoever he wants. If you want to claim that there is a conflict of interest, you have to show a stronger connection. Vague claims won't cut it.
Secondly, I still don't see a connection between anything Senator Hatch has done and this deal. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, which is what this is supposed to help prevent, was illegal long before he came on the scene.
Hosed computer.... I seriously would worry about letting a noob loose on something that has you play with fdisk, mkfs et al.
Although I've never installed Gentoo, every Linux distro I have installed warns you to back up important data before starting. A newbie who could follow instructions would have had no problems. (And perhaps your friend learned a valuable lesson about following instructions next time.)
Look at this way. Animation technology has come a LONG way, but does the anime industry rely exclusively on 3D computer generated images? Nope. Sure, 2D shaders are applied to some 3D objects then blended in with the 2D animation. And most 2D animation is done on a computer now. BUT it still *feels* like what came before it.
Would you consider Shrek or the Pixar films to be "over-engineered," because they rely on 3D computer-generated animation? Sure, we all know that pretty graphics don't make a game "good" or "bad," but having them certainly isn't a black mark.
Slashdot Mirror
It turned out that the "12 for 1" deal got you CDs for something like eight or nine dollars apiece. If you wanted twelve albums, then it was a decent deal; that's how I filled out my record collection as a teenager. However, it's obvious that they make a pretty decent profit by overcharging for shipping; it's not the great deal that they lead you to believe.
Of course, the strange part was that they charged so much that only a fool would buy the CDs at regular price. You'd think that the amount of customer turnover that must have caused would eventually hurt the company. (But maybe I just don't think like a marketer.)
I'm not in agreement that modchips should be illegal, but comparing a mod chip to car parts is somewhat dishonest.
By the way, you're being much too defensive. My last post was an attempt to end the argument in a gentlemanly way by agreeing that we can have a difference of opinion. (And now I'm done on this thread, whether or not you accept that.)
The only way that such an argument becomes logically valid is when you show that inevitability -- and then, it's not a slippery slope.
Although I'm in full agreement with your post, I wanted to point out the biggest difference between surveillance in 1984 and this: in 1984, the cameras were everywhere, including people's homes and personal space. These cameras are always in public places, where you have no reason to expect privacy. In my opinion, that's the most important distinction between the two, and why the endless Big Brother claims we see on slashdot are unfounded.
Actually, I doubt that the typical American has any problem with cameras in public places. It's mostly just the Slashbots that care.
Secondly, I still don't see a connection between anything Senator Hatch has done and this deal. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, which is what this is supposed to help prevent, was illegal long before he came on the scene.