And to the other assholes who say "I don't download, why should I subsidise others ?". A download tax subsidising other people is no different from the way your income taxes subsidise your healthcare system, the raods you never use but are built anyway, the pension being paid to your retired grandmother etc etc.
There is a fairly significant difference: healthcare, roads and pensions are necessities that are (generally) most efficiently provided by society acting together. Entertainment is a luxury, the consumption (or not) of which is down to individual preference.
Calling people who don't want to consume this particular luxury "assholes" seems somewhat unreasonable to me.
I've tried this recipe and it tastes *really* good (but not quite the same as the real thing) but it's a lot of hops, so a lot of $$$. My current home DIPA is a lot simpler - basically this grain bill with an ounce of Summit every 20 min of an 60 min boil (4oz), then dry hop with 2oz EKG. Doesn't have quite the depth, but saves much cash.
So because I criticise one aspect of the US you feel I criticised the whole country enough that you had to make a totally unassociated point in praise? It seems you at least verified the existence of the damaging culture I wrote about, except that suprisingly its coming from a European.
That wasn't at all the point I was trying to make. The intention was to back up your criticism by pointing out the effect this culture has had on the supply of people with my skill set, and therefore my income.
As a European who emigrated to the US, its very obvious how here in the US there is a damaging culture of PCness where it is unacceptable to speak ill or criticise anything or anyone else, no matter how bad they or it is. Consequently morbidly fat people get away with calling themselves 'large' and the bar for academic and other success is made so low that it doesn't represent any challenge just so that everyone can feel like they're a winner.
As a fellow European who emigrated to the US, I'm very happy with the consequences this culture has had for my earning potential and job security.
I would hope against all evidence to the contrary that human beings' lives will eventually be valued by society and most humans in general more than their ability to create money.
On the surface and basic emotional level, I agree.
However, remember that "money" is an abstraction for handling "value" - i.e. the ability to provide things that are needed. If we end up valuing reproduction more than the ability to provide the things needed to meet the basic needs of society, then everyone suffers.
(Of course, there's a side issue of the large number of people who attempt to create money without creating value - c.f. the current financial clusterfuck - but that's orthogonal to the core point).
(IANAL, but I've been involved in this stuff a good few times...)
Some also condition payment on being an employee at the time of the event -- filing the patent, issue date of the patent. That way you don't have the obligation to pay departed employees.
Be careful when considering this. Given the time taken for a patent to work its way through the system, making payment conditional on continued employment can be regarded badly by employees - after all, you got the work and the patent, why are you using the slowness of the process as an excuse for not paying for value received? Aside from that, there's often additional paperwork to be done later on. People who feel ripped off might just not feel like signing assignment forms, which has the potential to cost you a whole lot more than the cash bonus would have.
Looks like it's being released right now. Best wait a week or two until the reviews are out and you can compare the two before wasting your valuable beer tokens.
I should have been clearer in my phrasing - for "after the revolution" read "subsequent to the revolution", i.e. any time in the period 1776-2008, not just immediately after.
The 800AD date was from memory - doing some further checking now that you called me on it (Folio History of England, most online sources are somewhat lacking) give dates for the raids as early as 250AD. (By 800AD it was the Vikings who were doing most of the raiding).. There's also some history of slave raids from Ireland into Wales, especially in the 5th and 11th Centuries. Basically, in that part of the world, pretty much everyone has been invading everyone else since at least pre-Roman times and the tit-for-tat resentments have been building up for millenia.
Was not the English invasion of Ireland the cause of the conflict to begin with? Were the English attacked or under a threat of attack by the Irish before the illegal occupation?
Lots of history there. There has been intermittent raiding across the Irish Sea since about 800AD (in both directions), so the direct answer to your question is "yes, since before England even existed". The legality of the occupation is also not as clear-cut as some would like to believe. It's existed since Cromwell went in and brutally reconquered Ireland in 1649, so it's at least as legitimate as, say, the US occupation of the 37 (?) states which were acquired after the revolution. Whether the current British presence in the North is legitimate or not is really up to the people who live there to decide - and for every resident of the North who wants a united Ireland you can find one who wants to remain part of the UK. Not clear-cut at all, except for those who want to see complex problems in overly simple terms.
Re:A physics card is just dual-core for the idiot
on
NVIDIA To Buy AGEIA
·
· Score: 1
would you care to tell us what is illegal about it?
I don't know about the OP, but my argument would be that they're advertising an "Internet" connection, but violating RFCs left right and centre. If I purchase Internet service I expect it to behave as advertised - i.e. comply with the protocols which define how the Internet behaves. Anything else seems like fraud to me.
It seems to me that this Eula transfer restriction is similar in theory to the GPLx restrictions on what may be done with the software after downloading.
This is a common misconception, so let me clarify.
Before you agree to the EULA, you have certain legal rights with regard to the software. After you agree to the EULA you have less rights than you did before (assuming the EULA is legally binding, of course), in this specific case the right of resale.
After agreeing to the GPL, you have more rights than you did before. Before GPL acceptance, copyright law denies you the right to distribute work which someone else holds the copyright to. After GPL acceptance, you now have a partial right to do so under certain circumstances.
Learn some manners. This is my last post on this topic, as you don't seem to be capable of behaving in a polite manner.
What you did with nicotine and 'that's exactly what you said' is exactly what I was saying people were doing with 'doctors smoke more'.
Except that I immediately accepted and apologised for my error, which is what reasonable people do when discussing things. I would also say that there is a difference between the two statements, but would waste even more time, so I'll give you that point.
How could I make this more clear? They were misleading people into thinking that doctors were saying it's healthy,
I agree entirely.
and you reply by a) proving my point by exhibiting that exact behavior
Most of my posts were not about that point, you seemed to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else that I said.
and b) insisting that it didn't happen.
No, I never said that, and at several points I said that I was aware of the tobacco industry's previous behaviour.
I haven't got any more time to waste on this, as it is a complete tangent to my original point, which was to say that it's up to the restaurant owner what is allowed or not in his/her restaurant.
For the record, I'll close this particular thread by saying that I believe that anyone who became addicted to cigarettes in the last 30 years (which includes myself) has no-one but themselves to blame. Prior to that, the tobacco industry bears a large part of the responsiblity.
You don't seem to be able to see the difference between (a) making a single mistake and apologising for it, and (b) consistently exhibiting a particular behaviour. My mistake had no substantive effect on the debate (any universal statement about a group can be applied to all members of that group), however you have consistently avoided the core topics and poked around at the edges - as you have done here. Maybe you're more interested in "winning" than discussion? That's not very interesting.
"And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?"
I apologise. I remembered it in the singular, second-person form, but your quote was in the plural, abstract form. Your claim was not phrased the way I remembered it, but you did explicitly say "nicotine" and "good for your health".
They avoided the word nicotine. Never mentioned it.
This statement disagrees with your earlier one.
The fact that you claim that nicotine does no physical harm
I never claimed that. My statement was about small doses having some positive benefits, which is not the same as saying that it has no negative effects. The quantity in cigarette smoke is so small as to do a statistically insignificant amount of harm compared to the other components of the smoke. If you extract it then concentrate it, then the effects are different, but that has nothing to do with any statement I have made.
you are beyond ignorant, you are so stupid as to be a danger to yourself and to others.
I ignored your previous insulting comment, but this is the second one, so I feel entitled to reply in kind.
Maybe if you achieved a high enough level of literacy to read what people have actually written, rather than what you think they have written, then we would be having a more rational debate. So far, you've ignored the majority of what I have said each time (remember - this started off as a reply to your misinterpretation of my original comment about restaurants) and focused on replying to your own private, inaccurate understanding of what I have said. Your tone has been far from reason-able (hyphenation deliberate) and I think I would be far happier getting back to work than continuing this conversation further.
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance? It'll better for everyone.
None of the sources you have given make the claim that "nicotine is good for you", which is the phrase you used earlier. What they claim is that cigarettes are not bad for you. There is a huge difference between claiming a positive effect and claiming no evidence of negative effects, which seems to be lost on both you and on the people providing titles for the videos.
In fact, small doses of nicotine have been found to have some positive benefits. It's the other components of cigarette smoke that do the physical damage.
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance?
I am aware of how cigarettes were marketed in the past, and stand by my earlier claim. If you meant to say "cigarettes were marketed as not unhealthy" instead of "nicotine was marketed as good for you" then you should have done so. Cigarettes are not nicotine and "not unhealthy" does not mean "good for you". That's a semantic slip as sloppy as the one carried out by Prius drivers who drive their hybrid because "it's good for the environment".
And, for what it's worth, I do regard the cigarette manufacturers as partly responsible for addicting smokers during that period of time. That, however, is a very small minority of the people currently smoking.
You are talking about your supposed "right" to use an addictive drug that affects, or at least bothers, others around you.
I agree with your later paragraph that the emphasis on smoking is misplaced, but there's one thing missing from the above statement. I would suggest that a more accurate version would be:
"You are talking about your supposed "right" to use an addictive drug that affects, or at least bothers, others around you, without their consent."
(I hope you can agree that it's OK to smoke around people who've told you that it's OK to smoke.)
The argument then becomes - from my standpoint at least - "does entering private property where the owner says that smoking is permitted constitute consent?"
I would say "yes", unless that business provides an essential service (hospital, school, etc). You may disagree, but I hope you understand the alternative characterisation of the debate I've given above.
How can you claim you have a choice to smoke, when the very nature of the product takes choice away from you at the biochemical level?
My understanding was that the smoking-in-a-restaurant debate was more about the non-smoker's right not to have to breathe second-hand smoke. As far as the smoker choosing to smoke, as I said in a post elsewhere, the very first cigarette I ever smoked came from a packet clearly marked with a warning as to the consequences, and it was 20 years before I quit, but I don't hold anyone but myself responsible.
And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?
In that paragraph I was not referring to cigarette manufacturers, but to restaurants. I don't think that it was at all unclear.
However, to address your point even though it has nothing to do with my post: (1) I don't believe that anyone ever claimed that nicotine was good for people's health - if you can find a specific instance, I would be very interested; (2) for quite some time now in most of the world, cigarette packets have been clearly labeled with their health effects - anyone who became addicted after that point has no claim that it was anyone's fault but their own.
I'm speaking as an ex-smoker here who did it for 20 years, so I do know how difficult it is to quit, but the first cigarette I ever smoked came from a packet clearly marked with words to the effect of "these are *really* bad for you", so I have no-one to blame but myself.
Which "they" are you referring to? There are many libertarians who think that the Libertarian Party are a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth extremists (myself, for one, though I'm probably better labeled a minarchist). As with most political philosophies, there are multiple interpretations of libertarian thought. Many would believe that accurate and independent labeling of food is compatible. Even the most extreme would accept a system where some food is labeled "OK"/"Not OK" by an independent body and some is unlabeled so you take your chances. (If you think this is extreme, consider how many restaurants display reviews).
P.S. Not libertarian because I want a system that keeps food safety inspectors around to make sure no one is running a get-rich-quick scheme involving tainted food and an open ticket to Aruba for when the bodies start piling up.
Libertarianism generally regards fraud as equivalent to force, as both effectively negate an individual's ability to make choices.
Generally, where the service the business provides is a necessity, the choice does exist. Restaurants and bars provide a luxury, and - by definition - luxuries are something that are not yours by right. If someone wants to offer you the luxury service of cooking your dinner for you and cleaning up afterwards, they can set terms, and you are free to accept or reject those terms. You are free to buy food at the (non-smoking) grocery store and cook it yourself in your (non-smoking) home.
Slashdot Mirror
They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.
And to the other assholes who say "I don't download, why should I subsidise others ?". A download tax subsidising other people is no different from the way your income taxes subsidise your healthcare system, the raods you never use but are built anyway, the pension being paid to your retired grandmother etc etc.
There is a fairly significant difference: healthcare, roads and pensions are necessities that are (generally) most efficiently provided by society acting together. Entertainment is a luxury, the consumption (or not) of which is down to individual preference.
Calling people who don't want to consume this particular luxury "assholes" seems somewhat unreasonable to me.
A GPL-licensed module that allows proprietary plugins to talk to GCC over a socket from a different process space. ... oops ...
I've tried this recipe and it tastes *really* good (but not quite the same as the real thing) but it's a lot of hops, so a lot of $$$. My current home DIPA is a lot simpler - basically this grain bill with an ounce of Summit every 20 min of an 60 min boil (4oz), then dry hop with 2oz EKG. Doesn't have quite the depth, but saves much cash.
The brewer posted the recipe online some time ago (Free as in Beer Speech) so you can always make your own:
All Grain Recipe - Pliny the Elder ::: 1.074/1.012 (6 Gal)
Grain Bill
Hop Schedule
Yeast
Mash/Sparge/Boil
Just in case you hadn't heard - Pliny the Elder is now available in bottles. Yay!
So because I criticise one aspect of the US you feel I criticised the whole country enough that you had to make a totally unassociated point in praise? It seems you at least verified the existence of the damaging culture I wrote about, except that suprisingly its coming from a European.
That wasn't at all the point I was trying to make. The intention was to back up your criticism by pointing out the effect this culture has had on the supply of people with my skill set, and therefore my income.
As a European who emigrated to the US, its very obvious how here in the US there is a damaging culture of PCness where it is unacceptable to speak ill or criticise anything or anyone else, no matter how bad they or it is. Consequently morbidly fat people get away with calling themselves 'large' and the bar for academic and other success is made so low that it doesn't represent any challenge just so that everyone can feel like they're a winner.
As a fellow European who emigrated to the US, I'm very happy with the consequences this culture has had for my earning potential and job security.
I would hope against all evidence to the contrary that human beings' lives will eventually be valued by society and most humans in general more than their ability to create money.
On the surface and basic emotional level, I agree.
However, remember that "money" is an abstraction for handling "value" - i.e. the ability to provide things that are needed. If we end up valuing reproduction more than the ability to provide the things needed to meet the basic needs of society, then everyone suffers.
(Of course, there's a side issue of the large number of people who attempt to create money without creating value - c.f. the current financial clusterfuck - but that's orthogonal to the core point).
(IANAL, but I've been involved in this stuff a good few times...)
Some also condition payment on being an employee at the time of the event -- filing the patent, issue date of the patent. That way you don't have the obligation to pay departed employees.
Be careful when considering this. Given the time taken for a patent to work its way through the system, making payment conditional on continued employment can be regarded badly by employees - after all, you got the work and the patent, why are you using the slowness of the process as an excuse for not paying for value received? Aside from that, there's often additional paperwork to be done later on. People who feel ripped off might just not feel like signing assignment forms, which has the potential to cost you a whole lot more than the cash bonus would have.
Looks like it's being released right now. Best wait a week or two until the reviews are out and you can compare the two before wasting your valuable beer tokens.
Inquirer camping outside the NDA session.I should have been clearer in my phrasing - for "after the revolution" read "subsequent to the revolution", i.e. any time in the period 1776-2008, not just immediately after. The 800AD date was from memory - doing some further checking now that you called me on it (Folio History of England, most online sources are somewhat lacking) give dates for the raids as early as 250AD. (By 800AD it was the Vikings who were doing most of the raiding).. There's also some history of slave raids from Ireland into Wales, especially in the 5th and 11th Centuries. Basically, in that part of the world, pretty much everyone has been invading everyone else since at least pre-Roman times and the tit-for-tat resentments have been building up for millenia.
Was not the English invasion of Ireland the cause of the conflict to begin with? Were the English attacked or under a threat of attack by the Irish before the illegal occupation?
Lots of history there. There has been intermittent raiding across the Irish Sea since about 800AD (in both directions), so the direct answer to your question is "yes, since before England even existed". The legality of the occupation is also not as clear-cut as some would like to believe. It's existed since Cromwell went in and brutally reconquered Ireland in 1649, so it's at least as legitimate as, say, the US occupation of the 37 (?) states which were acquired after the revolution. Whether the current British presence in the North is legitimate or not is really up to the people who live there to decide - and for every resident of the North who wants a united Ireland you can find one who wants to remain part of the UK. Not clear-cut at all, except for those who want to see complex problems in overly simple terms.
The classic description of this process is the Wheel Of Reincarnation.
would you care to tell us what is illegal about it?
I don't know about the OP, but my argument would be that they're advertising an "Internet" connection, but violating RFCs left right and centre. If I purchase Internet service I expect it to behave as advertised - i.e. comply with the protocols which define how the Internet behaves. Anything else seems like fraud to me.
It seems to me that this Eula transfer restriction is similar in theory to the GPLx restrictions on what may be done with the software after downloading.
This is a common misconception, so let me clarify.
Before you agree to the EULA, you have certain legal rights with regard to the software. After you agree to the EULA you have less rights than you did before (assuming the EULA is legally binding, of course), in this specific case the right of resale.
After agreeing to the GPL, you have more rights than you did before. Before GPL acceptance, copyright law denies you the right to distribute work which someone else holds the copyright to. After GPL acceptance, you now have a partial right to do so under certain circumstances.
Listen, you idot:
Learn some manners. This is my last post on this topic, as you don't seem to be capable of behaving in a polite manner.
What you did with nicotine and 'that's exactly what you said' is exactly what I was saying people were doing with 'doctors smoke more'.
Except that I immediately accepted and apologised for my error, which is what reasonable people do when discussing things. I would also say that there is a difference between the two statements, but would waste even more time, so I'll give you that point.
How could I make this more clear? They were misleading people into thinking that doctors were saying it's healthy,
I agree entirely.
and you reply by a) proving my point by exhibiting that exact behavior
Most of my posts were not about that point, you seemed to focus on it to the exclusion of everything else that I said.
and b) insisting that it didn't happen.
No, I never said that, and at several points I said that I was aware of the tobacco industry's previous behaviour.
I haven't got any more time to waste on this, as it is a complete tangent to my original point, which was to say that it's up to the restaurant owner what is allowed or not in his/her restaurant.
For the record, I'll close this particular thread by saying that I believe that anyone who became addicted to cigarettes in the last 30 years (which includes myself) has no-one but themselves to blame. Prior to that, the tobacco industry bears a large part of the responsiblity.
'Do as I say, not as I do'
You don't seem to be able to see the difference between (a) making a single mistake and apologising for it, and (b) consistently exhibiting a particular behaviour. My mistake had no substantive effect on the debate (any universal statement about a group can be applied to all members of that group), however you have consistently avoided the core topics and poked around at the edges - as you have done here. Maybe you're more interested in "winning" than discussion? That's not very interesting.
Quote me, jackass.
"And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?"
I apologise. I remembered it in the singular, second-person form, but your quote was in the plural, abstract form. Your claim was not phrased the way I remembered it, but you did explicitly say "nicotine" and "good for your health".
They avoided the word nicotine. Never mentioned it.
This statement disagrees with your earlier one.
The fact that you claim that nicotine does no physical harm
I never claimed that. My statement was about small doses having some positive benefits, which is not the same as saying that it has no negative effects. The quantity in cigarette smoke is so small as to do a statistically insignificant amount of harm compared to the other components of the smoke. If you extract it then concentrate it, then the effects are different, but that has nothing to do with any statement I have made.
you are beyond ignorant, you are so stupid as to be a danger to yourself and to others.
I ignored your previous insulting comment, but this is the second one, so I feel entitled to reply in kind.
Maybe if you achieved a high enough level of literacy to read what people have actually written, rather than what you think they have written, then we would be having a more rational debate. So far, you've ignored the majority of what I have said each time (remember - this started off as a reply to your misinterpretation of my original comment about restaurants) and focused on replying to your own private, inaccurate understanding of what I have said. Your tone has been far from reason-able (hyphenation deliberate) and I think I would be far happier getting back to work than continuing this conversation further.
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance? It'll better for everyone.
None of the sources you have given make the claim that "nicotine is good for you", which is the phrase you used earlier. What they claim is that cigarettes are not bad for you. There is a huge difference between claiming a positive effect and claiming no evidence of negative effects, which seems to be lost on both you and on the people providing titles for the videos.
In fact, small doses of nicotine have been found to have some positive benefits. It's the other components of cigarette smoke that do the physical damage.
The fact that you didn't know that cigarettes were marketed as healthy in the past is quite telling about your opinion in all of this. Why don't you go find out more on your own instead of arguing out of ignorance?
I am aware of how cigarettes were marketed in the past, and stand by my earlier claim. If you meant to say "cigarettes were marketed as not unhealthy" instead of "nicotine was marketed as good for you" then you should have done so. Cigarettes are not nicotine and "not unhealthy" does not mean "good for you". That's a semantic slip as sloppy as the one carried out by Prius drivers who drive their hybrid because "it's good for the environment".
And, for what it's worth, I do regard the cigarette manufacturers as partly responsible for addicting smokers during that period of time. That, however, is a very small minority of the people currently smoking.
You are talking about your supposed "right" to use an addictive drug that affects, or at least bothers, others around you.
I agree with your later paragraph that the emphasis on smoking is misplaced, but there's one thing missing from the above statement. I would suggest that a more accurate version would be:
"You are talking about your supposed "right" to use an addictive drug that affects, or at least bothers, others around you, without their consent."
(I hope you can agree that it's OK to smoke around people who've told you that it's OK to smoke.)
The argument then becomes - from my standpoint at least - "does entering private property where the owner says that smoking is permitted constitute consent?"
I would say "yes", unless that business provides an essential service (hospital, school, etc). You may disagree, but I hope you understand the alternative characterisation of the debate I've given above.
How can you claim you have a choice to smoke, when the very nature of the product takes choice away from you at the biochemical level?
My understanding was that the smoking-in-a-restaurant debate was more about the non-smoker's right not to have to breathe second-hand smoke. As far as the smoker choosing to smoke, as I said in a post elsewhere, the very first cigarette I ever smoked came from a packet clearly marked with a warning as to the consequences, and it was 20 years before I quit, but I don't hold anyone but myself responsible.
And the society that became addicted to nicotine choose to do so based on valid information, not lied to by the pushers who told them it was good for their health?
In that paragraph I was not referring to cigarette manufacturers, but to restaurants. I don't think that it was at all unclear.
However, to address your point even though it has nothing to do with my post: (1) I don't believe that anyone ever claimed that nicotine was good for people's health - if you can find a specific instance, I would be very interested; (2) for quite some time now in most of the world, cigarette packets have been clearly labeled with their health effects - anyone who became addicted after that point has no claim that it was anyone's fault but their own.
I'm speaking as an ex-smoker here who did it for 20 years, so I do know how difficult it is to quit, but the first cigarette I ever smoked came from a packet clearly marked with words to the effect of "these are *really* bad for you", so I have no-one to blame but myself.
They still want to abolish regulatoy bodies,
Which "they" are you referring to? There are many libertarians who think that the Libertarian Party are a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth extremists (myself, for one, though I'm probably better labeled a minarchist). As with most political philosophies, there are multiple interpretations of libertarian thought. Many would believe that accurate and independent labeling of food is compatible. Even the most extreme would accept a system where some food is labeled "OK"/"Not OK" by an independent body and some is unlabeled so you take your chances. (If you think this is extreme, consider how many restaurants display reviews).
P.S. Not libertarian because I want a system that keeps food safety inspectors around to make sure no one is running a get-rich-quick scheme involving tainted food and an open ticket to Aruba for when the bodies start piling up.
Libertarianism generally regards fraud as equivalent to force, as both effectively negate an individual's ability to make choices.
You assume that option exists.
Generally, where the service the business provides is a necessity, the choice does exist. Restaurants and bars provide a luxury, and - by definition - luxuries are something that are not yours by right. If someone wants to offer you the luxury service of cooking your dinner for you and cleaning up afterwards, they can set terms, and you are free to accept or reject those terms. You are free to buy food at the (non-smoking) grocery store and cook it yourself in your (non-smoking) home.