...If the engine in your '57 Chevy blows up, you can still get it repaired and replaced...
Well, yes, but Chevy's not currently making engines for it or offering warranty support. Are you saying I should be able to take my 56 year old automobile back to the manufacturer and have them replace the carb with a fuel injection system?
No, what he's saying is that Chevy shouldn't be able to prevent you from installing a new engine in your '57 just because they no longer support the platform.
Which is why car analogies often turn goofy when talking about software and licenses - cars are treated as tangible, durable goods, whereas software (which, if you have a CD, is a tangible, durable good) is not treated in the same manner.
Seriously, what on earth do its shortcomings have to do with whether the government needs to take action?
The fact that a company can take something that you paid for from you, without just cause or fiscal reciprocity, is something the government should definitely take action against.
If you or I did that to someone, we would be called "thieves;" why would Amazon be considered any differently?
Because they are actively selling goods they must know to be unfit for purpose.
What if a retailer sold you something they said was wine when it was simply water? Would you not think that was an issue even if they did it thousands of times and refused to stop when the problem was pointed out to them?
Personally, I'd be far more concerned when they came to repo the "wine" they sold me, not for non-payment, but for some arbitrary reason they made up to justify said repossession without refund.
Seriously, why is that not the bigger focus here? Amazon can repossess your digital stuff without refund or recourse!
See, shit like this is why I only spend money on tangible goods.
Just a heads up - any argument that relies on "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because tradition, that's why", is not being properly explained. Those are *not* valid reasons for *anything*. I'm not saying your point isn't correct, but that sure as hell isn't the right way to make the point to others.
The more the waters are muddied about the differences between the two operating systems, the larger the potential launch volume.
So, If I've got what you're saying right, they want people to be confused... because it will make them more likely to buy both types?
And then you have a bunch of people out there who already own the product and are trying to make it work, giving additional motivation to vendors to port to it.
Huh? ^ Fails to parse.
It's genius, although the kind of genius you pour out of a bottle.
If that's what passes for genius these days, I'll stick to being completely batty, thankyouverymuch.
I presume this research has Congressional approval, as the technology would finally provide politicians with an effective method of finding their own dicks.
Why would having gas stations equipied with such a plant and generating gas on site be any worse than having charging stations that they charge electric cars at?
Better question: Assuming this device is compact enough to fit in the footprint of the average gas station, why wouldn't we each have one of our own, and thus eliminate the dependence on oil cartels?
Dawkins usually is snarky, humorous and witty. I never really have seen him scream, shout or froth from the mouth.
That seems to be the standard reaction of those on the opposite of the table. I would SERIOUSLY suggest that you look up his TED talks since they seem to be quite representative of the man.
Representative of how you think he should be viewed. Your statement is akin to saying, "Watch the presidential debates to see what kind of man Obama/Romney really is." The problem is, as we should all know as it is our nature, people act differently when they know they're being scrutinized. You get a much better idea of what really drives a person when you catch them off-guard, like (again using the presidential candidates as fodder) when Obama was caught making snide remarks about Bibi to the French president, or Romney's candid "47%" gaffe.
Whatever the case we have in the past been non-confrontational and that got us into this ID mess.
No, the human propensity for defending belief, no matter how wrong it is, is what "got us in this mess."
Face it, nobody likes being told their wrong, with few exceptions. And the bigger a dick you are about telling someone they're wrong, the more firmly they'll fight to maintain what they believe in. I've heard that when someone like a religious zealot is defending something they believe strongly about, their brain has a similar chemical reaction as a junkie getting his heroin fix, and it can becomes an addiction.
Science is NOT a democratic process. You do NOT get a vote on what we found. It simply doesn't work this way. The popular press also isn't very helpful since it tries to present both sides of the argument as having merit and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Again, this is NOT a political process where this might apply.
That's why I highly question a lot of what passes for 'science' these days - seems entirely too much 'research' is just a means to an end, intentionally skewed in order to achieve a desired result. It's pretty sad how human progression takes a back seat to private profit more often than not.
Not to say there's no merit in modern scientific study, but you have to admit, a lot of what's reported in the media isn't real science. OTOH, perhaps that's by design...
From a scientific standpoint Creationism and ID has no merit whatsoever. And frankly the time we spend arguing about it could be better spent by drinking a pint, taking the dog for a walk or search for a cure fro cancer.
ID* I can almost see the merit of (hey, if it gets crazy fundies to stop hamstringing scientific discovery, let them think whatever they want!), but yea, Creationism is pure unadulterated nonsense.
We argue about this because we just escaped the dark ages and we have no inclination to be dragged back again.
No, you argue about it because, as I stated before, it's human nature to A) "know" you're right, and B) fight to defend that "knowledge." We have the sciences of psychology and sociology to thank for allowing us to see that behavior within ourselves; emotional appeal need not apply.
I congratulate you on positing a reasonable argument without resorting to ad hominems, as you had previously.
* I presume a lot of people who don't spend much time around fundies probably think Creationism and ID are the same thing - they are not. In the most basic terms, Creationism is the rejection of scientific evidence, replacing research with "God did it." Intelligent Design accepts scientific evidence, with the additional caveat of "God made it possible." I see nothing wrong with the latter.
Mr. Dawkins - Are you going to insist on continuing to be an uncompromising asshat to those who disagree with your opinions and beliefs, or have you finally recognized both the irony of such a tactic, and the fact that it's far easier to attract flies with honey...
Indeed; calling an M.A., D.Sc, Oxford emeritus fellow an 'asshat' certainly does drip with the honey of cordiality.
Considering my current laptop-form-factor machine (it's a laptop:P) has almost a half-ter of storage, it's a gargantuan step down... unless the Chromebook isn't designed to replace my laptop?
Here's a question: if you broke the price of a Chromebook down to components, how much do you think Google is charging for that 16 gig? I can get a flash drive of the same capacity for about $20 right now, less if I buy in bulk.
I have an EEE 701 with a 4 GB SSD, and it's still quite usable. That is shit for local storage.
Yea, that's pretty bad. Personal data kept on flash drives, I presume?
The economist is an example of a magazine that is expensive but worth it...proving that people will pay for solid information. The economist circulation has actually risen 50% in the last 12 years.
Right on, that's far less draconian than I was expecting.
My only experience with NDAs is a bad one - one place my wife used to work made her sign an NDA that stated she couldn't say one word about any aspect of her job to anyone, ever - supposedly, she wasn't even allowed to list it on job applications or her resume.
A judge has subsequently determined the agreement illegal and thus void, but the experience definitely left a bad taste.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, but Chevy's not currently making engines for it or offering warranty support. Are you saying I should be able to take my 56 year old automobile back to the manufacturer and have them replace the carb with a fuel injection system?
No, what he's saying is that Chevy shouldn't be able to prevent you from installing a new engine in your '57 just because they no longer support the platform.
Which is why car analogies often turn goofy when talking about software and licenses - cars are treated as tangible, durable goods, whereas software (which, if you have a CD, is a tangible, durable good) is not treated in the same manner.
Pictures
Hideous Contraption 1
Head Crab 1
Heavy Crap 1
Horrifying Cranium 1
Headborn Casheater 1?
Seriously, what on earth do its shortcomings have to do with whether the government needs to take action?
The fact that a company can take something that you paid for from you, without just cause or fiscal reciprocity, is something the government should definitely take action against.
If you or I did that to someone, we would be called "thieves;" why would Amazon be considered any differently?
Because they are actively selling goods they must know to be unfit for purpose. What if a retailer sold you something they said was wine when it was simply water? Would you not think that was an issue even if they did it thousands of times and refused to stop when the problem was pointed out to them?
Personally, I'd be far more concerned when they came to repo the "wine" they sold me, not for non-payment, but for some arbitrary reason they made up to justify said repossession without refund.
Seriously, why is that not the bigger focus here? Amazon can repossess your digital stuff without refund or recourse!
See, shit like this is why I only spend money on tangible goods.
Just a heads up - any argument that relies on "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because tradition, that's why", is not being properly explained. Those are *not* valid reasons for *anything*. I'm not saying your point isn't correct, but that sure as hell isn't the right way to make the point to others.
How about, "If it isn't broken, don't fix it?"
The more the waters are muddied about the differences between the two operating systems, the larger the potential launch volume.
So, If I've got what you're saying right, they want people to be confused... because it will make them more likely to buy both types?
And then you have a bunch of people out there who already own the product and are trying to make it work, giving additional motivation to vendors to port to it.
Huh? ^ Fails to parse.
It's genius, although the kind of genius you pour out of a bottle.
If that's what passes for genius these days, I'll stick to being completely batty, thankyouverymuch.
Royal Turd
FTFY
I presume this research has Congressional approval, as the technology would finally provide politicians with an effective method of finding their own dicks.
No, they are instead moving them to smaller airports
Modern election politics has shown that "crazy" sells.
FTFY.
While FOX is well known for their... interesting and creative interpretations, they by no means have monopoly on irrational, bullshit fluff pieces.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
The cocaine must have gotten to your head.
It is a hell of a drug.
Shut up with your sciencey talk.
Sorry.
Shoulda just stuck to the Blackjack and hookers...
They need the windmills to cool down the solar cells, which get hot in the sun.
Wouldn't Sterling engines and Peltier coolers be more efficient?
Better question: Assuming this device is compact enough to fit in the footprint of the average gas station, why wouldn't we each have one of our own, and thus eliminate the dependence on oil cartels?
Dawkins usually is snarky, humorous and witty. I never really have seen him scream, shout or froth from the mouth. That seems to be the standard reaction of those on the opposite of the table. I would SERIOUSLY suggest that you look up his TED talks since they seem to be quite representative of the man.
Representative of how you think he should be viewed. Your statement is akin to saying, "Watch the presidential debates to see what kind of man Obama/Romney really is." The problem is, as we should all know as it is our nature, people act differently when they know they're being scrutinized. You get a much better idea of what really drives a person when you catch them off-guard, like (again using the presidential candidates as fodder) when Obama was caught making snide remarks about Bibi to the French president, or Romney's candid "47%" gaffe.
Whatever the case we have in the past been non-confrontational and that got us into this ID mess.
No, the human propensity for defending belief, no matter how wrong it is, is what "got us in this mess."
Face it, nobody likes being told their wrong, with few exceptions. And the bigger a dick you are about telling someone they're wrong, the more firmly they'll fight to maintain what they believe in. I've heard that when someone like a religious zealot is defending something they believe strongly about, their brain has a similar chemical reaction as a junkie getting his heroin fix, and it can becomes an addiction.
Science is NOT a democratic process. You do NOT get a vote on what we found. It simply doesn't work this way. The popular press also isn't very helpful since it tries to present both sides of the argument as having merit and the truth lies somewhere inbetween. Again, this is NOT a political process where this might apply.
That's why I highly question a lot of what passes for 'science' these days - seems entirely too much 'research' is just a means to an end, intentionally skewed in order to achieve a desired result. It's pretty sad how human progression takes a back seat to private profit more often than not.
Not to say there's no merit in modern scientific study, but you have to admit, a lot of what's reported in the media isn't real science. OTOH, perhaps that's by design...
From a scientific standpoint Creationism and ID has no merit whatsoever. And frankly the time we spend arguing about it could be better spent by drinking a pint, taking the dog for a walk or search for a cure fro cancer.
ID* I can almost see the merit of (hey, if it gets crazy fundies to stop hamstringing scientific discovery, let them think whatever they want!), but yea, Creationism is pure unadulterated nonsense.
We argue about this because we just escaped the dark ages and we have no inclination to be dragged back again.
No, you argue about it because, as I stated before, it's human nature to A) "know" you're right, and B) fight to defend that "knowledge." We have the sciences of psychology and sociology to thank for allowing us to see that behavior within ourselves; emotional appeal need not apply.
I congratulate you on positing a reasonable argument without resorting to ad hominems, as you had previously.
* I presume a lot of people who don't spend much time around fundies probably think Creationism and ID are the same thing - they are not. In the most basic terms, Creationism is the rejection of scientific evidence, replacing research with "God did it." Intelligent Design accepts scientific evidence, with the additional caveat of "God made it possible." I see nothing wrong with the latter.
Mr. Dawkins - Are you going to insist on continuing to be an uncompromising asshat to those who disagree with your opinions and beliefs, or have you finally recognized both the irony of such a tactic, and the fact that it's far easier to attract flies with honey...
Indeed; calling an M.A., D.Sc, Oxford emeritus fellow an 'asshat' certainly does drip with the honey of cordiality.
Education does not preclude asshattery.
Shit for local storage? 16 GB is luxurious.
Considering my current laptop-form-factor machine (it's a laptop :P) has almost a half-ter of storage, it's a gargantuan step down... unless the Chromebook isn't designed to replace my laptop?
Here's a question: if you broke the price of a Chromebook down to components, how much do you think Google is charging for that 16 gig? I can get a flash drive of the same capacity for about $20 right now, less if I buy in bulk.
I have an EEE 701 with a 4 GB SSD, and it's still quite usable. That is shit for local storage.
Yea, that's pretty bad. Personal data kept on flash drives, I presume?
The economist is an example of a magazine that is expensive but worth it...proving that people will pay for solid information. The economist circulation has actually risen 50% in the last 12 years.
As a long time subscriber, I must agree!
Right on, that's far less draconian than I was expecting.
My only experience with NDAs is a bad one - one place my wife used to work made her sign an NDA that stated she couldn't say one word about any aspect of her job to anyone, ever - supposedly, she wasn't even allowed to list it on job applications or her resume.
A judge has subsequently determined the agreement illegal and thus void, but the experience definitely left a bad taste.
ALWAYS!
Windows 8 would like to have a word with you
They're going to have to get in line; Wal-Mart already served me with a subpoena for infringing on their advertising copyright.
Overall, probably not. Now, the guys who run the Chromebook division, they might be wise to take notice.
Are these comments not the same as when the iPod was announced a decade ago?
Maybe...
I never bought an iPod, either.
You just have to look at the numbers they present. Apple makes its money from selling hardware to people.
And the media they sell on iTunes.
And the fees they charge developers to be included in the appstore.
And from software like iLife.
Selling the Snow Leopard retail disk for only $30 was cool, but far from altruistic.
No touchscreen, shit for local storage, locked in to Google web apps...
Nah, I'll save my next disposable $250 for a Nexus 7.