Unfortunately, windows 8 also defeats 85% of users who attempt to use it do actually do something useful (as opposed to just oohing and aahing over the pretty tiles)
For the love of god what do you bloody fucking hippies want? Want us to shut it all down so we can go back to the god damn stone age? How about we all sit around the camp fire, smoke weed, and eat what ever nuts we can find?
Do you have any idea how dangerous and polluting wood fires are? People get burned all the time, and the smoke from them causes asthma in small children. The soot blackens everything in sight, and the carbon released contributes to global warming. Clearly campfires are WAY too dangerous to be used as a power source!
Precisely. An "entitlement" is a service someone is required to provide to you. A right is generally defined in the negative: No one is permitted to do X to you. No one is permitted to prevent you from doing Y.
Right to life - not allowed to kill you.
Freedom from torture - not allowed to torture you.
Freedom from slavery - not allowed to require work from you.
Right to a fair trial - not allowed to penalize absent a fair trial.
Freedom of speech - may not prevent you from speaking your mind.
One of these things is not like the others!
The right to a fair trial IS a "positive" right, in that it implies that other people (judges, jurors, witnesses, etc) can be compelled to stop what they'd otherwise be doing and conduct a trial instead.
Some parts make sense: At infinite velocity, a particle would necessarily pass through every point in the universe.
Actually that happens at the speed of light: to a photon moving at the speed of light, time has stopped completely and the universe is forsehortened from a 3D volume to a 2D plane - so effectively the photon is at every point along it's path "at once", at least from it's point of view.
You have to laugh... I once actually had to argue about how a microwave was not a necessity with some slashdotter once. So let's "grant" the Bushmen of the Kalihari free broadband so they can rent videos and stick it in some wildebeest's butthole for entertainment.
It's truly amazing we lived for a million or two years without microwaves OR video rentals. I honestly can't imagine how people survived!
Can you really not see the difference between the right to own a car (or use the internet) vs the right to have someone else (typically "the gov't", which really means "the taxpayers") pay for it so you can have it for free?
If smoking is so great and such a valuable right that others shouldn't be able to stop you doing it whenever and wherever you please, why do cigarette companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to keep convincing people they need to keep doing it?
And if exercise and eating right is so good for you, why does the gov't spend millions trying to get people to start and/or continue such practices?
Come on - you can't deduce anything one way or the other from the existence of advertising. Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is a nasty habit and I wish people would stop doing it, for everyone's sake. Similarly, I think using bad logic is a nasty habit, and I wish people would stop doing that, too.
However, your smoking does has an effect on me - if nothing but for financial reasons if you truly do smoke in a vacuum.
It's not physically possible to smoke in a vacuum, is it? There's nothing to support combustion, unless maybe your cigarettes contain a built-in oxidizer of some sort.
Oh wait, I get it - you mean like in a vacuum cleaner! Of course. But be careful in there - those dust bunnies are surprisingly flammable!
Simple enough, actually. Take, for instance, abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. DON'T try to get legislation banning abortion passed to keep everybody from having an abortion just because you don't like it for reasons I'm sure you have every right to have.
I agree completely, and I think this simple logical principle should be extended to other areas. For example, if you don't like armed robbery, don't rob anyone. But don't go passing legislation to keep other people from engaging in armed robbery - that's a private decision between a man and his gun dealer, and it's really no one else's business.
Have you ever seen an actual Apollo spacecraft? Live and up close? They're amazingly rickety and primitive looking; I'd be afraid to take one out on the highway, never mind all the way to the moon.
When I saw the Apollo 16 (in Huntsville AL), I thought of that scene in star wars where they rescue the princess from the death star and she sees the millennium falcon and says "You came here in that? You're braver than I thought!".
Factors like, say, how much the non-lowest-bidder was willing to contribute to the selection committee's re-election campaigns?
Of course, the selection committee will say the contributions had nothing to do with picking that vendor - they looked at the company's skills and track record, and decided that, all things considered, this really is the best overall value even if it's not the lowest bid.
The difference is that google is very forgiving and will do a decent job of finding stuff no matter what you type in. A CLI requires a very specific (typically very unforgiving) format, which you can't figure out without using another unforgiving CLI ("man pages", anyone?) to explain the first one. And sometimes you have to use a 3rd CLI command ("more" or "less", depending on how clever your devs think they are) to slow down the instructions being displayed by the 2nd CLI so that you can learn how to use the 1st CLI.
Yes, that's exactly like google.
Just because something uses the keyboard doesn't make it a CLI.
None of those are really command lines... A real google CLI would be more like:
$ google --type=images --keywords="cats" --image-size=medium --safesearch=off
...and I hope we can all see that while linux people might feel right at home, the average user would go to bing or yahoo or whatever in a matter of seconds.
>The problem with that is... they don't get the binaries, they can't try out the software and learn how good it is.
Sure they can. They can compile it their own damn selves.
...and this attitude is precisely why it will NEVER be "the year of Linux on the desktop".
I know it's hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there (a majority, in fact) who use computers to get a job done, and have no interest in picking up the skills to "compile it there own damn selves" - just as there are people who drive a car but have no interest in the details of an internal combustion engine. You can diss them all you want (and I'm sure you will), but unless there's a realistic way for these people to use the software, they're just going to keep buying windows. And companies are going to keep writing software for windows. And hardware manufacturers are going to keep writing drivers for windows. And linux is never going to replace windows.
Dunno if you've noticed, but even "permanent" ends to wars aren't really permanent. WWI ended definitively with the Treaty of Versailles (not some "temporary cease fire"), but that didn't stop WWII from happening.
All wars that aren't actively being pursued have "ended" in some sense, and any war that has "ended" (in any sense) can restart at any time. The various types of "ends" to wars may be of interest to people who publish dictionaries, but they have no real-world significance.
This is starting to sound like the "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" or "is a virus alive?" type questions, which are incredibly stupid because people act like they're talking about actual things, when in fact they're just arguing over definitions of words ("sound" and "alive", respectively).
The question isn't "can war exist without nation-states"; the question is whether hostilities between non-nation-states should be called war or not. The answer doesn't change the fact that group A is trying to kill group B, and you can reasonably expect group B to try to prevent that.
Now possibly it has legal ramifications because the word "war" has been used sloppily in treaties, etc, but none of that changes the reality of people killing and/or defending. Besides, there isn't a clear definition of "nation-state", so even if we can't redefine "war" we'll just re-define "nation-state" to mean whatever we need it to mean in order to fit the offensive / defensive actions we think are appropriate into whichever subset of the treaties we'd like to continue to pretend matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, windows 8 also defeats 85% of users who attempt to use it do actually do something useful (as opposed to just oohing and aahing over the pretty tiles)
For the love of god what do you bloody fucking hippies want? Want us to shut it all down so we can go back to the god damn stone age? How about we all sit around the camp fire, smoke weed, and eat what ever nuts we can find?
Do you have any idea how dangerous and polluting wood fires are? People get burned all the time, and the smoke from them causes asthma in small children. The soot blackens everything in sight, and the carbon released contributes to global warming. Clearly campfires are WAY too dangerous to be used as a power source!
Precisely. An "entitlement" is a service someone is required to provide to you. A right is generally defined in the negative: No one is permitted to do X to you. No one is permitted to prevent you from doing Y.
Right to life - not allowed to kill you.
Freedom from torture - not allowed to torture you.
Freedom from slavery - not allowed to require work from you.
Right to a fair trial - not allowed to penalize absent a fair trial.
Freedom of speech - may not prevent you from speaking your mind.
One of these things is not like the others!
The right to a fair trial IS a "positive" right, in that it implies that other people (judges, jurors, witnesses, etc) can be compelled to stop what they'd otherwise be doing and conduct a trial instead.
All "rights" have an implied responsibility. Usually, it's for everyone else to respect that right. That's why you don't have a right to your opinion
Wait, I don't have a right to my opinion??? Well, I guess that's your opinion - but by your own logic you can't have it.
Yeah, those bastards who want everyone to have a good standard of living. I hate those guys.
Yeah, those bastards who want someone else to pay for everyone's good standard of living. I hate those guys.
There, FTFY.
As Buzz Lightyear - he's been beyond infinity!
Some parts make sense: At infinite velocity, a particle would necessarily pass through every point in the universe.
Actually that happens at the speed of light: to a photon moving at the speed of light, time has stopped completely and the universe is forsehortened from a 3D volume to a 2D plane - so effectively the photon is at every point along it's path "at once", at least from it's point of view.
You have to laugh... I once actually had to argue about how a microwave was not a necessity with some slashdotter once. So let's "grant" the Bushmen of the Kalihari free broadband so they can rent videos and stick it in some wildebeest's butthole for entertainment.
It's truly amazing we lived for a million or two years without microwaves OR video rentals. I honestly can't imagine how people survived!
Can you really not see the difference between the right to own a car (or use the internet) vs the right to have someone else (typically "the gov't", which really means "the taxpayers") pay for it so you can have it for free?
What's the difference between the two cases? Is there any?
If smoking is so great and such a valuable right that others shouldn't be able to stop you doing it whenever and wherever you please, why do cigarette companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to keep convincing people they need to keep doing it?
And if exercise and eating right is so good for you, why does the gov't spend millions trying to get people to start and/or continue such practices?
Come on - you can't deduce anything one way or the other from the existence of advertising. Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is a nasty habit and I wish people would stop doing it, for everyone's sake. Similarly, I think using bad logic is a nasty habit, and I wish people would stop doing that, too.
I totally agree with you to an extent.
However, your smoking does has an effect on me - if nothing but for financial reasons if you truly do smoke in a vacuum.
It's not physically possible to smoke in a vacuum, is it? There's nothing to support combustion, unless maybe your cigarettes contain a built-in oxidizer of some sort.
Oh wait, I get it - you mean like in a vacuum cleaner! Of course. But be careful in there - those dust bunnies are surprisingly flammable!
Simple enough, actually. Take, for instance, abortion. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. DON'T try to get legislation banning abortion passed to keep everybody from having an abortion just because you don't like it for reasons I'm sure you have every right to have.
I agree completely, and I think this simple logical principle should be extended to other areas. For example, if you don't like armed robbery, don't rob anyone. But don't go passing legislation to keep other people from engaging in armed robbery - that's a private decision between a man and his gun dealer, and it's really no one else's business.
Title says it all (sorry, I couldn't resist)
Have you ever seen an actual Apollo spacecraft? Live and up close? They're amazingly rickety and primitive looking; I'd be afraid to take one out on the highway, never mind all the way to the moon.
When I saw the Apollo 16 (in Huntsville AL), I thought of that scene in star wars where they rescue the princess from the death star and she sees the millennium falcon and says "You came here in that? You're braver than I thought!".
Factors like, say, how much the non-lowest-bidder was willing to contribute to the selection committee's re-election campaigns?
Of course, the selection committee will say the contributions had nothing to do with picking that vendor - they looked at the company's skills and track record, and decided that, all things considered, this really is the best overall value even if it's not the lowest bid.
The difference is that google is very forgiving and will do a decent job of finding stuff no matter what you type in. A CLI requires a very specific (typically very unforgiving) format, which you can't figure out without using another unforgiving CLI ("man pages", anyone?) to explain the first one. And sometimes you have to use a 3rd CLI command ("more" or "less", depending on how clever your devs think they are) to slow down the instructions being displayed by the 2nd CLI so that you can learn how to use the 1st CLI.
Yes, that's exactly like google.
Just because something uses the keyboard doesn't make it a CLI.
I bet 90% of google users don't know about "site:" etc. And they manage just fine without it.
None of those are really command lines... A real google CLI would be more like:
...and I hope we can all see that while linux people might feel right at home, the average user would go to bing or yahoo or whatever in a matter of seconds.
$ google --type=images --keywords="cats" --image-size=medium --safesearch=off
>The problem with that is... they don't get the binaries, they can't try out the software and learn how good it is.
Sure they can.
They can compile it their own damn selves.
...and this attitude is precisely why it will NEVER be "the year of Linux on the desktop".
I know it's hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there (a majority, in fact) who use computers to get a job done, and have no interest in picking up the skills to "compile it there own damn selves" - just as there are people who drive a car but have no interest in the details of an internal combustion engine. You can diss them all you want (and I'm sure you will), but unless there's a realistic way for these people to use the software, they're just going to keep buying windows. And companies are going to keep writing software for windows. And hardware manufacturers are going to keep writing drivers for windows. And linux is never going to replace windows.
Did you know that "strap-on" spelled backwards is "no parts"? Seems appropriate, eh?
Dunno if you've noticed, but even "permanent" ends to wars aren't really permanent. WWI ended definitively with the Treaty of Versailles (not some "temporary cease fire"), but that didn't stop WWII from happening.
All wars that aren't actively being pursued have "ended" in some sense, and any war that has "ended" (in any sense) can restart at any time. The various types of "ends" to wars may be of interest to people who publish dictionaries, but they have no real-world significance.
This is starting to sound like the "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" or "is a virus alive?" type questions, which are incredibly stupid because people act like they're talking about actual things, when in fact they're just arguing over definitions of words ("sound" and "alive", respectively).
The question isn't "can war exist without nation-states"; the question is whether hostilities between non-nation-states should be called war or not. The answer doesn't change the fact that group A is trying to kill group B, and you can reasonably expect group B to try to prevent that.
Now possibly it has legal ramifications because the word "war" has been used sloppily in treaties, etc, but none of that changes the reality of people killing and/or defending. Besides, there isn't a clear definition of "nation-state", so even if we can't redefine "war" we'll just re-define "nation-state" to mean whatever we need it to mean in order to fit the offensive / defensive actions we think are appropriate into whichever subset of the treaties we'd like to continue to pretend matter.
You know the best part about having a philosophy degree?
You don't just ask people "Would you like fries with that?" - you ask "Why would you like fries with that?"
Pls explain your logic.
Just to be clear, I don't believe in god, but I don't see how logic can disprove god.