This seems to be exactly what the OP was warning us of.
"Why'd you buy that?" - "IT'S JUST BETTER - SHUT UP!"
seems to be pretty analogs to "Apple's being sued because they're screwing over customers" - "You are an idiot".
"You are an idiot" and other name calling responses are what illogical people resort to when they have no response to an argument they're presented with.
I asked a guy in my office who owns one and XBox. He said his doesn't do that, but he doesn't doubt that it could or might be doing it under users' noses.
It won't need to do an eye scan. There was a story a few days ago http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/15/1347205/Exciting-Kinect-Stuff-Already-Coming-Out about things people are using the hacked kinect for. One guy is showing how it can be used for object recognition. I'm sure the tech will eventually be good enough to actually recognize a specific person with out the eye scan.
I'm sure we all know why the video was taken down.
*tinfoil hat on* The TSA doesn't need a video of a 3 year old girl being molested at a security check point out there for millions to see. That would completely discredit much their initial "Think of the children" rhetoric they were spouting for this kind of crap in the first place. Most likely the video alone would lead to much of the population questioning the TSA. *tinfoil hat off*
Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend
on
LimeWire Lives Again
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Yet file sharing lives on beyond Rusty n Edie's BBS.
I have to agree with the original statement.
the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet
Word of mouth is advertising. If a Sony said the PS3 had the capability to run another OS in a TV commercial, an interview, a magazine article or otherwise. That's advertising the feature.
I bought my PS3 partly because I could run Linux on it. However, it doesn't matter anymore, I kept my Other OS and I'm not buying anything else from Sony.
>>>My wife is my best friend, she's hot, I enjoy her company and the sex is great...
Fast forward 10-20 years and this will become, "My wife used to be my best friend but now she's constantly grumpy, she's no longer hot (she's fat), and we haven't had sex in a year..."
I've already been with her for 8 years. So do we fast forward 2-12 years, or will it still be 10-20? I guess it really doesn't matter, women will age the same whether their married or not. For that matter so will men and you and me by extension. Maybe my wife won't be as good looking in 20 years as she is now, but neither will I. I'd rather be developing a long term relationship so I have someone to be with when I'm in my 80's then to be in my 80's, lonely and still trying to chase after 20 year olds.
As for sex: (1) it often stops being fun when the wife is demanding it after you just worked a 12 hour day and not in the mood, and (2) single people do have regular sex - remember college?
I remember University and College. Yes I was able to find attractive girls who were up for casual encounters, but it was kind of a luck of the draw thing. I wasn't into the bar scene so I met most of my flings at friends parties, after which I usually found out that said fling was some psycho bitch from hell hence why she was single in the first place for said fling. Once I did sleep with a girl who had a boyfriend, which I found out later, good thing he was reasonable and decided not to pound the crap out of me, that would have been good (computer geek vs. rugby player).
The way I have observed women is the good ones are taken, the damaged ones move from relationship to relationship leaving a trail of destruction wherever they go. Another observation is single women of my age rage (27-37) tend to go for guys whom are already in a relationship. Once they screw that up for him, the guy is expendable. To my knowledge they don't get better as they get older. Neither do single men for that matter.
It all boils down to investing. Short term with lots of risk or a safer long term. I try to avoid short term; it's how most people lose everything they have.
And by that you really mean your bitter that your Mother/girl friend/wife/female boss/little sister orders you around and instead of seeing an successful/assertive women, you'd prefer to do what you're told and bitch about them behind their backs?
My wife does what I ask her because I respect her and do what she asks. Relationships are a two way street. Good luck getting in one.
Better to be married, having regular sex and be happy then to be single and happy.:)
My wife is very good to me for the most part. Sometimes she does get on my nerves when she pesters me to get things done and I wish she'd spend more time doing whatever it is she's spending the time insisting I need to do, but for the most part she gives me time to do my own thing, and really is only asking/reminding me to do my part. I get distracted and often put off doing chores so I can program, draw, work on a 3D model, do some word working, etc...
My wife is my best friend, she's hot, I enjoy her company and the sex is great... And she's a massage therapist so it's not hard to forgive her when she's being a "Mother Hen". Besides pretty soon we'll have kids and she can use all that time, energy and training she spent on me to pester them instead.
I agree with him. If he was doing a chore, such as dishes, and she started bitching that he wasn't doing them right. Then I'd have to go with the "then do it yourself" attitude too. I have plenty of other things to do with my time and don't need to be constantly interrupted by little chores my wife wants done, but doesn't appreciate the fact that she didn't have to do them.
As an example I'm building a set of night stands, at her request. I have all the pieces rough cut now and Saturday, after I made and helped clean up breakfast, I started planing them down for joining. No sooner had I started my wife asked me to vacuum while she did some yard work. Fine. I did the vacuuming, it only took about 20 min, and go back to the night stands. After just getting started again she comes in and tells me we need to go get groceries. So I put my planer down and go with her.
After a trip to Staples for printer ink, the wine and beer store for fresh beer kits (I brew my own), Canadian Tire, Home Depo, Kent, WalMart and a the dollar store. We went for groceries. We come back and put everything away, then I helped her chop up stuff for our spaghetti sauce, help clean up the mess, made a late lunch for us and cleaned up after that.
So by that time I was feeling pretty tired and not really up to working on the night stands anymore. I can guarantee you if she complained about anything I had done, I'd tell her she could do it herself from then on.
Fortunately for me, my wife is very grateful that I'm willing to help out. So I don't mind.
Now if she'd just stop nagging me to finish the night stands.
Sure compromise is good but what difference does it make whether I take the trash out "RIGHT NOW honey!" or if I wait until tomorrow morning as I'm headed-out to work?
The difference is if I take it out "Right Now honey!", she can clean up the mess the raccoons, stray dogs and crows make of it over night.
That gets me out of having to take it out until the next morning.
Normally my wife and I don't argue about stuff, but when she becomes overly insistent something needs to be done right away, or in a very specific way, I'll either give her the yes dear and do it my way anyway or I'll do it her way and make her deal with the consequences. Sometimes she's right and I'm wrong or she's just lucky, but she's pretty well learned if she's going to argue with me instead of doing something herself she had better have a logical argument for it. Like wise, I've learned most of the time it's not worth arguing with her.
I still wouldn't tell her if I was on the run. She'd probably turn me in for not taking the trash out when she told me to.
Going out on a limb here. I would assume it's because Sony doesn't get a cut of money for homebrew games and it would suck for some random guy playing around to make a homebrew game that 1) out does a game people are paying $60+ for and 2) have it become more popular than commercial games. That aside I imagine the commercial developers wouldn't be too happy with Sony if any random person could get a dev kit the developers probably play thousands for initially plus huge licensing fees.
Lots of good points, but still if I'm being charged a tax that goes to the music industry for every blank CD I buy (I live in Canada) or downloading music (which I don't think I do, yet), then I'm still paying the licensing fees for the music that I may or may not be downloading. I can't infringe on copyrights because I'm paying for the license through my taxes.
Good question, how can you "steal" or infringe on something you've already paid for. Someone being sued by the *IAA should bring up that point. I'd like to see the out come.
Unless that nerd belongs to a union. Then he does nothing and you can't do smack. If you try he'll gets his nerdy union buddies to kick the crap out of you, or they'll really mess up your computer.
You should really think hard about that. I live in Canada and the Snow can be a real pain sometimes.
This was really meant to be a joke.
Complaining about the snow being a pain as opposed to taxes.
I guess I should have spelled it out, this being/. and all.
I think you just have a misunderstanding of how the Canadian Health Care system works. I follow a bit of American news and have seen how they compare "Obama care" to the Canadian system and how it's going to bankrupt the country. True the Canadian system isn't cheap, but it works. Everyone, including the bums on the street, are covered for most things, which is pretty great if you ever end up going through a rough period (I.E. and economic depression) and lose your job for whatever reason.
We do have the option to get additional insurance, which most working class get through employers. There is no need for insurance companies to try and "compete" with the government system. Maybe it is illegal, I've personally never heard that before, but I would say if it was allowed that would mean the government would have to give everyone who could get full private coverage the option to opt-out of the government plan. Anyone with a decent job would most likely do that, which wouldn't leave a large enough base to cover all the other people that for whatever reason don't have jobs. I and others have also mentioned it before, but another issue would be having insurance companies lobbying the government' to have public coverage cut down to nothing so they could rake in more money from anyone with two cents to rub together.
I use to live in the states and still have family there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I do find the "I look out for number 1" attitude very common. The media in the states plays off that to make people think that by pooling money to help others you'll be the only one working while the rest of society just leaches off you. Although people living off welfare (social assistance) can be a problem, it mostly isn't true and people tend to pull their weight.
Government supply's our basic insurance... Why would we need anything besides supplemental?
In some respects I'm glad private insurance is illegal. The last thing we need is a bunch of private insurance companies lobbying the government to reduce the already bare bones health insurance we have now so they can charge more for their "premium" plans that would basically be what we already have. Aside from numerous other arguments that could fill a book.
It might be nice for people that do have extra money to be able to get private health care. In theory that would reduce waiting lists in the public health care system. That being said, why would a doctor or nurse work for the public system, for what they would consider peanuts, when they could be working for the private system hacking peoples limbs off for payment? IMHO, what we'd end up seeing is a major shortage (far worse then at present) of Doctors and Nurses in the public system.
subsidize education (at all levels), military (we do have one, I think the navy's rubber dingy is tied up in Halifax this year), health care (I think that was mentioned), parks, business subsidies, research (Ocean, weather, geographic, 20ft killing robots...) and road care and signs. Aside from that I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
Just to pose the question to anyone still reading.
Would you rather pay > $6000 in property taxes to support the people on Social Assistance whom couldn't get an affordable education because tax dollars weren't being used to subsidize an education?
More low income earners or people on SA means the government needs more money from the people who are working to pay for SA, a good chunk of which comes from middle working class people.
More educated people with jobs means the tax burden can be spread out over a larger population and would overall reduce the amount the working class would have to contribute.
And that comes from the biggest tomboy in the bunch, someone who probably would have made all the boy scouts in her year in school look like the wusses they were given the opportunity. But I didn't want the opportunity. I can be what I want to be and do what I want to do without ruining the boys' chance to be boys. They need their clubhouse with "No girls allowed" tacked on the side and they should have it!
(And as an aside, ALL parents, whether your troop is integrated or not, are a royal pain in the ass anymore. You're just another babysitter. Makes me sick.)
I am glad you agree.
Honestly the situation isn't the fault of the girls. The fault lies squarely with the parents, if even one of the mothers who wants their daughter in scouts instead of guides were to step up and go camping and/or hiking for the weekend the whole problem would be a non issue. Too bad my wife wouldn't go. She hates bugs and trees, sometimes I wonder about her.
I don't mind being a "babysitter". I get to have just as much fun as the kids. I probably learn just as much from them as I do for anyone else.
I kind of thought you might be joking, but I wanted to make sure I was clear on my position.
Anyway, I agree with you. I see no problem with letting Women participate in Male clubs/events and vice verse, but we shouldn't have to make special accommodations to do so. To me it seems in my situation the parents want their daughters to be treated as equals, but don't want them treated equally. The only solution is to not treat the girls like the boys, but to treat the boys like the girls.
I.E. no one gets to go camping because the girls can't go.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with girls joining the club. What is wrong is the club can't do the things it use to / people expect because the issue is adult Women will not volunteer (even when asked) to chaperon things like camping trips, but the parents complain heavily if we exclude the girls from said events.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why'd you buy that?" - "IT'S JUST BETTER - SHUT UP!"
seems to be pretty analogs to "Apple's being sued because they're screwing over customers" - "You are an idiot".
"You are an idiot" and other name calling responses are what illogical people resort to when they have no response to an argument they're presented with.
I asked a guy in my office who owns one and XBox. He said his doesn't do that, but he doesn't doubt that it could or might be doing it under users' noses.
It won't need to do an eye scan. There was a story a few days ago http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/15/1347205/Exciting-Kinect-Stuff-Already-Coming-Out about things people are using the hacked kinect for. One guy is showing how it can be used for object recognition. I'm sure the tech will eventually be good enough to actually recognize a specific person with out the eye scan.
I'm sure we all know why the video was taken down.
*tinfoil hat on* The TSA doesn't need a video of a 3 year old girl being molested at a security check point out there for millions to see. That would completely discredit much their initial "Think of the children" rhetoric they were spouting for this kind of crap in the first place. Most likely the video alone would lead to much of the population questioning the TSA. *tinfoil hat off*
I have to agree with the original statement.
the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet
Word of mouth is advertising. If a Sony said the PS3 had the capability to run another OS in a TV commercial, an interview, a magazine article or otherwise. That's advertising the feature.
I bought my PS3 partly because I could run Linux on it. However, it doesn't matter anymore, I kept my Other OS and I'm not buying anything else from Sony.
>>>My wife is my best friend, she's hot, I enjoy her company and the sex is great...
Fast forward 10-20 years and this will become, "My wife used to be my best friend but now she's constantly grumpy, she's no longer hot (she's fat), and we haven't had sex in a year..."
I've already been with her for 8 years. So do we fast forward 2-12 years, or will it still be 10-20? I guess it really doesn't matter, women will age the same whether their married or not. For that matter so will men and you and me by extension. Maybe my wife won't be as good looking in 20 years as she is now, but neither will I. I'd rather be developing a long term relationship so I have someone to be with when I'm in my 80's then to be in my 80's, lonely and still trying to chase after 20 year olds.
As for sex: (1) it often stops being fun when the wife is demanding it after you just worked a 12 hour day and not in the mood, and (2) single people do have regular sex - remember college?
I remember University and College. Yes I was able to find attractive girls who were up for casual encounters, but it was kind of a luck of the draw thing. I wasn't into the bar scene so I met most of my flings at friends parties, after which I usually found out that said fling was some psycho bitch from hell hence why she was single in the first place for said fling. Once I did sleep with a girl who had a boyfriend, which I found out later, good thing he was reasonable and decided not to pound the crap out of me, that would have been good (computer geek vs. rugby player).
The way I have observed women is the good ones are taken, the damaged ones move from relationship to relationship leaving a trail of destruction wherever they go. Another observation is single women of my age rage (27-37) tend to go for guys whom are already in a relationship. Once they screw that up for him, the guy is expendable. To my knowledge they don't get better as they get older. Neither do single men for that matter.
It all boils down to investing. Short term with lots of risk or a safer long term. I try to avoid short term; it's how most people lose everything they have.
More proof men are turning into submissive women.
And by that you really mean your bitter that your Mother/girl friend/wife/female boss/little sister orders you around and instead of seeing an successful/assertive women, you'd prefer to do what you're told and bitch about them behind their backs?
My wife does what I ask her because I respect her and do what she asks. Relationships are a two way street. Good luck getting in one.
Better to be married, having regular sex and be happy then to be single and happy. :)
My wife is very good to me for the most part. Sometimes she does get on my nerves when she pesters me to get things done and I wish she'd spend more time doing whatever it is she's spending the time insisting I need to do, but for the most part she gives me time to do my own thing, and really is only asking/reminding me to do my part. I get distracted and often put off doing chores so I can program, draw, work on a 3D model, do some word working, etc...
My wife is my best friend, she's hot, I enjoy her company and the sex is great... And she's a massage therapist so it's not hard to forgive her when she's being a "Mother Hen". Besides pretty soon we'll have kids and she can use all that time, energy and training she spent on me to pester them instead.
I agree with him. If he was doing a chore, such as dishes, and she started bitching that he wasn't doing them right. Then I'd have to go with the "then do it yourself" attitude too. I have plenty of other things to do with my time and don't need to be constantly interrupted by little chores my wife wants done, but doesn't appreciate the fact that she didn't have to do them.
As an example I'm building a set of night stands, at her request. I have all the pieces rough cut now and Saturday, after I made and helped clean up breakfast, I started planing them down for joining. No sooner had I started my wife asked me to vacuum while she did some yard work. Fine. I did the vacuuming, it only took about 20 min, and go back to the night stands. After just getting started again she comes in and tells me we need to go get groceries. So I put my planer down and go with her.
After a trip to Staples for printer ink, the wine and beer store for fresh beer kits (I brew my own), Canadian Tire, Home Depo, Kent, WalMart and a the dollar store. We went for groceries. We come back and put everything away, then I helped her chop up stuff for our spaghetti sauce, help clean up the mess, made a late lunch for us and cleaned up after that.
So by that time I was feeling pretty tired and not really up to working on the night stands anymore. I can guarantee you if she complained about anything I had done, I'd tell her she could do it herself from then on.
Fortunately for me, my wife is very grateful that I'm willing to help out. So I don't mind.
Now if she'd just stop nagging me to finish the night stands.
Sure compromise is good but what difference does it make whether I take the trash out "RIGHT NOW honey!" or if I wait until tomorrow morning as I'm headed-out to work?
The difference is if I take it out "Right Now honey!", she can clean up the mess the raccoons, stray dogs and crows make of it over night.
That gets me out of having to take it out until the next morning.
Normally my wife and I don't argue about stuff, but when she becomes overly insistent something needs to be done right away, or in a very specific way, I'll either give her the yes dear and do it my way anyway or I'll do it her way and make her deal with the consequences. Sometimes she's right and I'm wrong or she's just lucky, but she's pretty well learned if she's going to argue with me instead of doing something herself she had better have a logical argument for it. Like wise, I've learned most of the time it's not worth arguing with her.
I still wouldn't tell her if I was on the run. She'd probably turn me in for not taking the trash out when she told me to.
Going out on a limb here. I would assume it's because Sony doesn't get a cut of money for homebrew games and it would suck for some random guy playing around to make a homebrew game that 1) out does a game people are paying $60+ for and 2) have it become more popular than commercial games. That aside I imagine the commercial developers wouldn't be too happy with Sony if any random person could get a dev kit the developers probably play thousands for initially plus huge licensing fees.
Lots of good points, but still if I'm being charged a tax that goes to the music industry for every blank CD I buy (I live in Canada) or downloading music (which I don't think I do, yet), then I'm still paying the licensing fees for the music that I may or may not be downloading. I can't infringe on copyrights because I'm paying for the license through my taxes.
I agree with everything else you've said.
I'd hate to see them in the afternoon.
Good question, how can you "steal" or infringe on something you've already paid for. Someone being sued by the *IAA should bring up that point. I'd like to see the out come.
Unless that nerd belongs to a union. Then he does nothing and you can't do smack. If you try he'll gets his nerdy union buddies to kick the crap out of you, or they'll really mess up your computer.
You should really think hard about that. I live in Canada and the Snow can be a real pain sometimes.
This was really meant to be a joke. /. and all.
Complaining about the snow being a pain as opposed to taxes.
I guess I should have spelled it out, this being
I think you just have a misunderstanding of how the Canadian Health Care system works. I follow a bit of American news and have seen how they compare "Obama care" to the Canadian system and how it's going to bankrupt the country. True the Canadian system isn't cheap, but it works. Everyone, including the bums on the street, are covered for most things, which is pretty great if you ever end up going through a rough period (I.E. and economic depression) and lose your job for whatever reason.
We do have the option to get additional insurance, which most working class get through employers. There is no need for insurance companies to try and "compete" with the government system. Maybe it is illegal, I've personally never heard that before, but I would say if it was allowed that would mean the government would have to give everyone who could get full private coverage the option to opt-out of the government plan. Anyone with a decent job would most likely do that, which wouldn't leave a large enough base to cover all the other people that for whatever reason don't have jobs. I and others have also mentioned it before, but another issue would be having insurance companies lobbying the government' to have public coverage cut down to nothing so they could rake in more money from anyone with two cents to rub together.
I use to live in the states and still have family there. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I do find the "I look out for number 1" attitude very common. The media in the states plays off that to make people think that by pooling money to help others you'll be the only one working while the rest of society just leaches off you. Although people living off welfare (social assistance) can be a problem, it mostly isn't true and people tend to pull their weight.
Government supply's our basic insurance... Why would we need anything besides supplemental?
In some respects I'm glad private insurance is illegal. The last thing we need is a bunch of private insurance companies lobbying the government to reduce the already bare bones health insurance we have now so they can charge more for their "premium" plans that would basically be what we already have. Aside from numerous other arguments that could fill a book.
It might be nice for people that do have extra money to be able to get private health care. In theory that would reduce waiting lists in the public health care system. That being said, why would a doctor or nurse work for the public system, for what they would consider peanuts, when they could be working for the private system hacking peoples limbs off for payment? IMHO, what we'd end up seeing is a major shortage (far worse then at present) of Doctors and Nurses in the public system.
subsidize education (at all levels), military (we do have one, I think the navy's rubber dingy is tied up in Halifax this year), health care (I think that was mentioned), parks, business subsidies, research (Ocean, weather, geographic, 20ft killing robots...) and road care and signs. Aside from that I can't think of anything else off the top of my head.
You should really think hard about that. I live in Canada and the Snow can be a real pain sometimes.
Just to pose the question to anyone still reading.
Would you rather pay > $6000 in property taxes to support the people on Social Assistance whom couldn't get an affordable education because tax dollars weren't being used to subsidize an education?
More low income earners or people on SA means the government needs more money from the people who are working to pay for SA, a good chunk of which comes from middle working class people.
More educated people with jobs means the tax burden can be spread out over a larger population and would overall reduce the amount the working class would have to contribute.
As a woman...
I agree with you.
And that comes from the biggest tomboy in the bunch, someone who probably would have made all the boy scouts in her year in school look like the wusses they were given the opportunity. But I didn't want the opportunity. I can be what I want to be and do what I want to do without ruining the boys' chance to be boys. They need their clubhouse with "No girls allowed" tacked on the side and they should have it!
(And as an aside, ALL parents, whether your troop is integrated or not, are a royal pain in the ass anymore. You're just another babysitter. Makes me sick.)
I am glad you agree.
Honestly the situation isn't the fault of the girls. The fault lies squarely with the parents, if even one of the mothers who wants their daughter in scouts instead of guides were to step up and go camping and/or hiking for the weekend the whole problem would be a non issue. Too bad my wife wouldn't go. She hates bugs and trees, sometimes I wonder about her.
I don't mind being a "babysitter". I get to have just as much fun as the kids. I probably learn just as much from them as I do for anyone else.
I kind of thought you might be joking, but I wanted to make sure I was clear on my position.
Anyway, I agree with you. I see no problem with letting Women participate in Male clubs/events and vice verse, but we shouldn't have to make special accommodations to do so. To me it seems in my situation the parents want their daughters to be treated as equals, but don't want them treated equally. The only solution is to not treat the girls like the boys, but to treat the boys like the girls.
I.E. no one gets to go camping because the girls can't go.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with girls joining the club. What is wrong is the club can't do the things it use to / people expect because the issue is adult Women will not volunteer (even when asked) to chaperon things like camping trips, but the parents complain heavily if we exclude the girls from said events.