The problem is that most people can't "supertask." Taking away one distraction (to some) accomplishes nothing. People can still talk while they drive, change the song on their iPod, eat lunch, shave their bikini area, etc.
So you were gonna buy an older PS3 model to upgrade from 360? Other OS hasn't been on the current production models since about September.
No, I wasn't even aware the feature was removed until this article. I had been considering switching to the PS line again, but as a result of the removal of the Other OS "feature," I won't. It would be awesome to play video games on a console, play DVDs, and then boot into a Linux distro and surf the web and such.
I moved years ago off of the PS platform, and onto the Xbox platform. Lately I've been glancing at the PS3, and I've had thoughts about purchasing one. I'm sick of paying for XBL, and many of the PS3's features were exciting to me. The ability to install Linux on a PS3 on a partition while still maintaining the other capabilities of the PS3 (the PSN for starters) was one of the most attractive features to me. Sure, I might not be your typical user. But I'm a gamer who still has decades of playing time left, and Sony will likely never see any dollars from those decades. I dislike Microsoft and Sony, but the former seems better than the latter.
I used to live in the county that man was in. The jail system is so messed up down there. First off the prisons are all private which means they get their paycheck from the state for every inmate they hold for over 24 hours. This might be OK for the state for economical reasons but its the judges that are the owners of the jails. I did some research after sitting in jail for 57 hours for a speeding ticket also my mother practices law down there and tells me this is true. They find lots of ways to keep people around for as long as possible. Its in the best interest of the whole judicial system down there to have as many inmates as possible.
Oh god. I had always thought that privatized prisons were certainly going to lead to increased incarcerations, but now we can see the proof. These "Wars on X" are really just wars on the people.
I assumed that intellectuals refrained from ad hominem arguments. You win though! I'm just the lowest common denominator who can actually debate without employing fallacies left and right!
I've never been a fan of the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" school of thinking, but for governments, it's rather necessary to say where the limits are, as the situations arise.
See:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm a pretty big pirate, and I have spent money to pirate things before. I've bought Rapidshare accounts, and such, so clearly my pirating isn't derived from my lack of will to pay anything. However, due to ridiculously high prices, DRM, and other annoying things that occur during my purchase (or as someone wittily noted, my "rental"), I am encouraged to pirate. I spend roughly $100 a year on tickets to movies at various theaters. I LOVE going to the movies. But I'm a college student with somewhat limited funds. I can't afford to get a ticket whenever I want to see a movie. So for some movies, I pirate and stay home. Does this take away money from the studios? Maybe, but I suspect my piracy has lead to a net gain for many producers and artists. If a better method of seeing movies was introduced, I would pirate less and spend more money that would go towards the creators and publishers (movies are expensive to make!). I would like to see some sort of membership at movie theaters that would allow me to see more movies without depleting all my funds. I would be happy to spend much more on media if the experience was better. I remember downloading some tracks from iTunes years ago, and after noticing how long it took to download individual tracks, I pirated them instead. The iTunes tracks came encumbered with DRM. The pirated tracks were DRM free and higher quality. I don't care if the big music studios go under. A microphone, a guitar, etc don't need big studios to reach large audiences these days (hell, even in the past really). Movies, on the other hand, aren't easily produced (especially movies like Avatar) and are often costly. Instead of treating me like a criminal, treat me like a goddamn aggrieved customers and I'll open my wallet to you again, and more often.
Your signature explains your viewpoints. You're not an American. We're not the same. The Constitution that is the supreme law of the land should not be ignored, or "interpreted" to justify legislation or any actions by the other two branches, UNLESS there is an immediate threat to the state. An example would be the Patriot Act. It brought many unconstitutional changes, and legalized previously unlawful surveillance that had been conducted by the NSA and various government agencies for decades leading up to 9-11. Immediately after 9-11, parts of the Patriot Act COULD be justified. However, as 9-11 occurred nearly a decade ago, the Patriot Act should no longer be law. Instead, the Constitution should be amended, or the law revoked and all executive actions permitted under it should immediately stop. I can't understand any American who believes that unconstitutional government action is appropriate under circumstances that are not dire. I believe there are some parts of the Constitution that should be amended, largely for clarification purposes, but until that is done, it is the supreme law of the land. Health care is arguably none of the business of the Federal government. The Federal government is responsible for regulating interstate and international commerce. This is their justification for the War on Drugs, and disallowing medical use of marijuana and inhibiting its research. There are many other injustices committed in the name of the Commerce Clause, but that is just one example. The Federal government CLEARLY has no right to mandate insurance coverage. Without that mandate, the bill as it exists would crumble. Either amend the Constitution, or abide by it and quit bitching.
I realize this has gone seriously off topic, but I had to respond to your comment.
You moron. When did I say we lived in an Orwellian world? Oh, I didn't? Way to put words in my mouth. And you made me your foe. Really? What, are you twelve years old?
to believe that fear, and fear alone is what motivates man, whether individually or in groups, is pure fail on your part. it is a stunted broken empty cynicism, devoid of intelligence or experience, and destroys your ability to thrive in the social sphere of life
I did not say that. I said their honesty is derived almost entirely from their fear. In fact, there was a/. story recently on how politicians are better liars. Let's face it: people who obtain positions of power are not the most moral people. I'm guessing you support the recent Health Care Bill. Am I right?
and then every other word you say boils down to "the only thing that motivates government decision making is fear"
so you're answer is currently incoherent
answer my question: is fear the ONLY THING that motivates government decision making
yes or no
No, my answer is perfectly coherent. The government is not a being. The government is made up of people. People are motivated by many things. Fear is one of these things. If the individuals who make up the government had no fear of the People, then they would cease to act in the People's interests. Their decisions are motivated by many factors, but their honesty is derived almost from their fear.
the idea that the only thing that motivates government decision making is fear
do you agree with that idea or not?
No, the parent is just saying that fear is what keeps government officials honest. The lower officials want to move up, and they want to keep their jobs. Their fear of being laid off or their careers stagnating is what encourages them to do well. Higher officials (Congressmen, presidents, etc) are afraid of losing their power. When their fear of their constituents' power dissipates, their attitudes and decisions are adjusted. Bush was not afraid of the American people after 9-11, as Americans were very supportive of him and wanted revenge. As a result, he invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq. I can give numerous examples; the fact is, people act out of fear. Fear of being lonely, fear of the future, fear of immigrants, fear of the unknown. Without fear, our government will quickly turn against us. The Second Amendment provides SOME protection in the face of a tyrannical government. Until guns are taken out of American hands, our government will always have SOME fear of the public. The Framers knew this, and defense against tyranny was what empowered the antifederalists and the compromise that resulted was the Constitution of the United States of America with a Bill of Rights. Don't think that the Bill of Rights was just a part of the Constitution. Without it, the Constitution as we know it probably would have never been implemented.
In all likelihood, what we'll begin to see is an increase of "domestic terrorism." Where it will go from there is questionable. A crackdown, as history shows, would likely result in more violence.
The NSA's policy notwithstanding, isn't it actually against the law for them to gather intelligence domestically? I know, I know, here I go with my pre-9/11 thinking again.
They've been spying on Americans for decades now. The Patriot Act just legitimized it.
The FCC should be more interested in protecting consumers. Requiring standards that allow phones to easily move from network to network would be a good start.
What about the government paying independent companies to build infrastructure, such as towers, throughout the nation, and then allow mobile carriers to use the infrastructure? The carriers could pay some sort of rent, or tax, and it could be used by multiple carriers. The FCC could hire a company to maintain the infrastructure, while developing new infrastructure, and they could oversee it to make sure everything is properly maintained. The government is inefficient, but is supposed to be working on our behalf. Companies are efficient (the ones that survive anyway), and are working towards profit. If the FCC did this, and watched over all the companies involved, this could be beneficial. Does this sound like a decent idea?
I have a Facebook account that I signed up with bogus information to check something out once, but I don't remember which email I used to sign up or my password. However, I do happen to have a brother in college who extensively uses Facebook to connect to his campus' "scene." He is not one of those [mean adjective] people who plays stupid Facebook games and spams everyone with them. I think he'll enjoy knowing about this, and I know many of his college friends despise the annoying Facebook games. So, as a result of their attack on this developer who is breaking no laws, I am reading this/. post and my word of this wondrous script will be heard directly, and indirectly, but many Facebook users. Congratulations Facebook, you just shot yourself in the foot to spite your face (that's how it goes right?).
He's right. America could easily invade and overthrow him. Obviously we have no right to do so, and we should not, but we CAN. YES WE CAN YES WE CAN YES WE CA-
Make live CDs available, and give some sort of reward to your customers when they use it. They can tell what kind of system you are running when you connect. One possible benefit would be reduced fees or more interest or something. People are lazy, but people largely like to save/make money. Give people a monetary incentive and you'll see lots of people learning. Of course, all that would take money; the end goal is to reduce credit fraud and theft.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU JUST DON'T GET IT MAN.
The problem is that most people can't "supertask." Taking away one distraction (to some) accomplishes nothing. People can still talk while they drive, change the song on their iPod, eat lunch, shave their bikini area, etc.
So you were gonna buy an older PS3 model to upgrade from 360? Other OS hasn't been on the current production models since about September.
No, I wasn't even aware the feature was removed until this article. I had been considering switching to the PS line again, but as a result of the removal of the Other OS "feature," I won't. It would be awesome to play video games on a console, play DVDs, and then boot into a Linux distro and surf the web and such.
I moved years ago off of the PS platform, and onto the Xbox platform. Lately I've been glancing at the PS3, and I've had thoughts about purchasing one. I'm sick of paying for XBL, and many of the PS3's features were exciting to me. The ability to install Linux on a PS3 on a partition while still maintaining the other capabilities of the PS3 (the PSN for starters) was one of the most attractive features to me. Sure, I might not be your typical user. But I'm a gamer who still has decades of playing time left, and Sony will likely never see any dollars from those decades. I dislike Microsoft and Sony, but the former seems better than the latter.
I used to live in the county that man was in. The jail system is so messed up down there. First off the prisons are all private which means they get their paycheck from the state for every inmate they hold for over 24 hours. This might be OK for the state for economical reasons but its the judges that are the owners of the jails. I did some research after sitting in jail for 57 hours for a speeding ticket also my mother practices law down there and tells me this is true. They find lots of ways to keep people around for as long as possible. Its in the best interest of the whole judicial system down there to have as many inmates as possible.
Oh god. I had always thought that privatized prisons were certainly going to lead to increased incarcerations, but now we can see the proof. These "Wars on X" are really just wars on the people.
I assumed that intellectuals refrained from ad hominem arguments. You win though! I'm just the lowest common denominator who can actually debate without employing fallacies left and right!
I've never been a fan of the "if it doesn't say you can, you can't" school of thinking, but for governments, it's rather necessary to say where the limits are, as the situations arise.
See:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm a pretty big pirate, and I have spent money to pirate things before. I've bought Rapidshare accounts, and such, so clearly my pirating isn't derived from my lack of will to pay anything. However, due to ridiculously high prices, DRM, and other annoying things that occur during my purchase (or as someone wittily noted, my "rental"), I am encouraged to pirate. I spend roughly $100 a year on tickets to movies at various theaters. I LOVE going to the movies. But I'm a college student with somewhat limited funds. I can't afford to get a ticket whenever I want to see a movie. So for some movies, I pirate and stay home. Does this take away money from the studios? Maybe, but I suspect my piracy has lead to a net gain for many producers and artists. If a better method of seeing movies was introduced, I would pirate less and spend more money that would go towards the creators and publishers (movies are expensive to make!). I would like to see some sort of membership at movie theaters that would allow me to see more movies without depleting all my funds. I would be happy to spend much more on media if the experience was better. I remember downloading some tracks from iTunes years ago, and after noticing how long it took to download individual tracks, I pirated them instead. The iTunes tracks came encumbered with DRM. The pirated tracks were DRM free and higher quality. I don't care if the big music studios go under. A microphone, a guitar, etc don't need big studios to reach large audiences these days (hell, even in the past really). Movies, on the other hand, aren't easily produced (especially movies like Avatar) and are often costly. Instead of treating me like a criminal, treat me like a goddamn aggrieved customers and I'll open my wallet to you again, and more often.
Your signature explains your viewpoints. You're not an American. We're not the same. The Constitution that is the supreme law of the land should not be ignored, or "interpreted" to justify legislation or any actions by the other two branches, UNLESS there is an immediate threat to the state. An example would be the Patriot Act. It brought many unconstitutional changes, and legalized previously unlawful surveillance that had been conducted by the NSA and various government agencies for decades leading up to 9-11. Immediately after 9-11, parts of the Patriot Act COULD be justified. However, as 9-11 occurred nearly a decade ago, the Patriot Act should no longer be law. Instead, the Constitution should be amended, or the law revoked and all executive actions permitted under it should immediately stop. I can't understand any American who believes that unconstitutional government action is appropriate under circumstances that are not dire. I believe there are some parts of the Constitution that should be amended, largely for clarification purposes, but until that is done, it is the supreme law of the land. Health care is arguably none of the business of the Federal government. The Federal government is responsible for regulating interstate and international commerce. This is their justification for the War on Drugs, and disallowing medical use of marijuana and inhibiting its research. There are many other injustices committed in the name of the Commerce Clause, but that is just one example. The Federal government CLEARLY has no right to mandate insurance coverage. Without that mandate, the bill as it exists would crumble. Either amend the Constitution, or abide by it and quit bitching.
I realize this has gone seriously off topic, but I had to respond to your comment.
You moron. When did I say we lived in an Orwellian world? Oh, I didn't? Way to put words in my mouth. And you made me your foe. Really? What, are you twelve years old?
I can understand you a little better after reading what you think about that "tired fairly tale." I envy your blissful ignorance. Good day.
Keep living in your own world, bud.
to believe that fear, and fear alone is what motivates man, whether individually or in groups, is pure fail on your part. it is a stunted broken empty cynicism, devoid of intelligence or experience, and destroys your ability to thrive in the social sphere of life
I did not say that. I said their honesty is derived almost entirely from their fear. In fact, there was a /. story recently on how politicians are better liars. Let's face it: people who obtain positions of power are not the most moral people. I'm guessing you support the recent Health Care Bill. Am I right?
Optimist, meet realist.
and then every other word you say boils down to "the only thing that motivates government decision making is fear"
so you're answer is currently incoherent
answer my question: is fear the ONLY THING that motivates government decision making
yes or no
No, my answer is perfectly coherent. The government is not a being. The government is made up of people. People are motivated by many things. Fear is one of these things. If the individuals who make up the government had no fear of the People, then they would cease to act in the People's interests. Their decisions are motivated by many factors, but their honesty is derived almost from their fear.
the idea that the only thing that motivates government decision making is fear
do you agree with that idea or not?
No, the parent is just saying that fear is what keeps government officials honest. The lower officials want to move up, and they want to keep their jobs. Their fear of being laid off or their careers stagnating is what encourages them to do well. Higher officials (Congressmen, presidents, etc) are afraid of losing their power. When their fear of their constituents' power dissipates, their attitudes and decisions are adjusted. Bush was not afraid of the American people after 9-11, as Americans were very supportive of him and wanted revenge. As a result, he invaded Afghanistan, and then Iraq. I can give numerous examples; the fact is, people act out of fear. Fear of being lonely, fear of the future, fear of immigrants, fear of the unknown. Without fear, our government will quickly turn against us. The Second Amendment provides SOME protection in the face of a tyrannical government. Until guns are taken out of American hands, our government will always have SOME fear of the public. The Framers knew this, and defense against tyranny was what empowered the antifederalists and the compromise that resulted was the Constitution of the United States of America with a Bill of Rights. Don't think that the Bill of Rights was just a part of the Constitution. Without it, the Constitution as we know it probably would have never been implemented.
In all likelihood, what we'll begin to see is an increase of "domestic terrorism." Where it will go from there is questionable. A crackdown, as history shows, would likely result in more violence.
do you go around thinking the only reason people interact with you cooperatively is due to fear of what you will do if they don't cooperate?
you have some sort of psychological problem. human nature is not this stunted. believe it or not, there are other motivations in this world
at best, you're paranoid. at worst, you're psychotic
He must be familiar with history, psychology, sociology, and basically the study of anything related to humans.
The NSA's policy notwithstanding, isn't it actually against the law for them to gather intelligence domestically? I know, I know, here I go with my pre-9/11 thinking again.
They've been spying on Americans for decades now. The Patriot Act just legitimized it.
What about the government paying independent companies to build infrastructure, such as towers, throughout the nation, and then allow mobile carriers to use the infrastructure? The carriers could pay some sort of rent, or tax, and it could be used by multiple carriers. The FCC could hire a company to maintain the infrastructure, while developing new infrastructure, and they could oversee it to make sure everything is properly maintained. The government is inefficient, but is supposed to be working on our behalf. Companies are efficient (the ones that survive anyway), and are working towards profit. If the FCC did this, and watched over all the companies involved, this could be beneficial. Does this sound like a decent idea?
I have a Facebook account that I signed up with bogus information to check something out once, but I don't remember which email I used to sign up or my password. However, I do happen to have a brother in college who extensively uses Facebook to connect to his campus' "scene." He is not one of those [mean adjective] people who plays stupid Facebook games and spams everyone with them. I think he'll enjoy knowing about this, and I know many of his college friends despise the annoying Facebook games. So, as a result of their attack on this developer who is breaking no laws, I am reading this /. post and my word of this wondrous script will be heard directly, and indirectly, but many Facebook users. Congratulations Facebook, you just shot yourself in the foot to spite your face (that's how it goes right?).
You not a fan of skinny broads?
THEY'RE STARVING!
Damn catchy chant.
Make live CDs available, and give some sort of reward to your customers when they use it. They can tell what kind of system you are running when you connect. One possible benefit would be reduced fees or more interest or something. People are lazy, but people largely like to save/make money. Give people a monetary incentive and you'll see lots of people learning. Of course, all that would take money; the end goal is to reduce credit fraud and theft.
Can we now laugh at all that silliness that smoking cigarettes leads to death? I can't wait till Camel gets in on the cancer killin' business.