I use GNU/Linux because I'm lazy and it's less work for me to use GNU/Linux than Windows. This situation means I have to do extra work, which interferes with my main reason to use GNU/Linux. Not enough to make me switch back, but enough to piss me off.
Not really. I would argue that as a general rule, GNU/Linux is easier than Windows. Also, having to take an additional step isn't exactly spoonfeeding IMO.
It means that in some contexts, although I've often seen higher numbers used as well. However, I don't think we've seen any indication of an exceptionally high IQ. His strengths were pretty much outside of what IQ tests measure.
I didn't say that he found many geniuses to work for him. I said that the label of genius was usually better applied to someone else around him. That doesn't mean those other peoples were geniuses, just closer to being geniuses than Jobs.
It doesn't put me anywhere. Where I sit on the scales of being a good person, being influential, and being a genius have nothing to do with where Jobs sits on those scales.
Let's assume for a moment that your claim that he has not accomplished anything in his life is correct. That would make his value to humanity practically zero. That puts him above those that have had negative net effects on humanity. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Edison and Jobs fit into that category.
That said, Edison and Jobs being total cunts says nothing about whether or not they were actually geniuses.
Being memorable or important doesn't make you a genius, and being a genius doesn't make you memorable or important. Also, being a genius has nothing to do with bettering humanity. A person can be malicious and still be a genius, and if I had to throw out guesses, I'd say that geniuses as a whole are less benevolent on average than other people, either tending to have a misanthropic viewpoint or often acting in their own self interest to the detriment of others.
I can dislike someone and still think they are a genius, and I can like someone and think they aren't a genius. Most of the time, Jobs wasn't even the best person in the room to apply the term 'genius' to.
Did I say it was a one man job? Did I say an editor is where one of the costs is reduced? No, I just said that the costs of publishing can be significantly dimished without sacrificing quality. I'm not sure about how contracts generally work with authors, but if they are anything like record labels, anybody who has a significant role other than distribution infrastructure is probably counted as an expense against the author's royalties, meaning that effectively, the money to pay those people is already coming from the author anyway.
The problem with all of the above industries is that they are notoriously bad at cutting fat. So, you are saying that because an expensive and inefficient method doesn't turn a profit most of the time, they should go with the business that can support being expensive and inefficient. However, that ignores the other obvious solution: use a cheap and efficient method.
Also, for musicians and authors, the 'not recouping costs' part applies to their advance, not on the profitability of the book. A book or record could make a profit for the label/publisher without the musician/author reaching the break even point, especially with the way the horrible contracts and the way they do accounting.
Other than the naming procedure, no, I don't see a clear cut difference. Theoretically, you could even use GMO techniques to turn Country Gentleman descendants into Ruby Queen.
I also wonder how far your nomenclature policy applies. Would GM dogs not be dogs anymore? Would GM children no longer be human? If so, then we can get around a lot of those pesky human rights issues.
Because guaranteeing genetic 'purity' is very difficult with organisms that reproduce sexually. Also, how are organic farmers keeping track of all the naturally occurring genes and interactions between them? "All those genes" is the same kind of idiocy as "all those chemicals", and being duped into thinking that dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous.
Edison was pretty much the devil. He tortured puppies to make AC look dangerous. That makes him arguably a puppy killing terrorist. Also, the article claims that Edison solved "a very tough engineering problem", when it basically amounted to just changing the filament. That's a relatively minor step that resulted in a major change in commercial viability, sort of a straw that broke the horses back thing, and his choice of filament was replaced in the bulb we know today.
It's quite likely that torrents are available with significantly better playback quality than what HBO GO streams, or that his preferred playback device does not support HBO GO.
Doesn't the Berne Convention have a provision where if a work is PD in the country of origin, it's PD everywhere? I thought that was one of the selling points of the CTEA. If that's the case, the work is PD in the US, and the US is the country of origin, therefore it's PD throughout the world.
You call me a moron and trash because I take a position against media piracy... That about sums up our differences.
I call you a moron because you advocated criminal enforcement of personal scale copyright infringement, which is a policy even many extremists don't take. I call you trash because you misuse the word "theft" and use the garbage umbrella term "intellectual property."
If I understand you correctly, you believe that piracy (a little, some, or all?) is not wrong and hurts no one. My position is that it does hurt the people who created the content. I don't think you can convince me that your downloading and watching a movie that you would otherwise watch at the theater or on TV with commercials doesn't in a small way hurt the movie industry
I believe that copyright and patents are backwards economic polices that were first implemented in their modern forms (their original forms were largely censorship and indirect taxing respectively) by well-meaning but ill-informed parties aiming to advance learning and promote progress. They even knew well the potential dangers of these systems, as discussions on the matter often portrayed. However, I feel that it's quite clear now that those institutions do not accomplish those goals, and instead get in the way of their stated goals. I also feel the need to remind you that copyright is not a moral institution, but a practical one, so breaking it is not a matter of right or wrong.
Anyone who claims that BitTorrent has plenty of legitimate uses should be fine with the arrest and conviction of those who use it for illegal purposes.
No, just because certain cases are completely legal says nothing about how we should treat that which is currently illegal (which is not the same as criminal). Only complete morons think personal copyright infringement should be criminal.
But mostly people say this as a weak attempt to protect and defend what is simply the massive theft of intellectual property. It is intellectually dishonest.
Copying is not theft, but the kind of trash that uses terms like "intellectual property" often have a hard time grasping such simple concepts.
Sure, some would pay, but it would also lead to many opting for GNU/Linux or other alternatives, especially since the Chinese government isn't a big fan of having lots of money going to other countries. So, there may be some minor short-term gains, but it would be the death of the company.
Pacifism loses out, but the bar isn't "a large military capable of projecting power globally,", it's "annoying enough to not bother taking over." The US population has enough guns already without the military for that, particularly since there's not all that much worth taking in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I use GNU/Linux because I'm lazy and it's less work for me to use GNU/Linux than Windows. This situation means I have to do extra work, which interferes with my main reason to use GNU/Linux. Not enough to make me switch back, but enough to piss me off.
Not really. I would argue that as a general rule, GNU/Linux is easier than Windows. Also, having to take an additional step isn't exactly spoonfeeding IMO.
It means that in some contexts, although I've often seen higher numbers used as well. However, I don't think we've seen any indication of an exceptionally high IQ. His strengths were pretty much outside of what IQ tests measure.
I didn't say that he found many geniuses to work for him. I said that the label of genius was usually better applied to someone else around him. That doesn't mean those other peoples were geniuses, just closer to being geniuses than Jobs.
It doesn't put me anywhere. Where I sit on the scales of being a good person, being influential, and being a genius have nothing to do with where Jobs sits on those scales.
Let's assume for a moment that your claim that he has not accomplished anything in his life is correct. That would make his value to humanity practically zero. That puts him above those that have had negative net effects on humanity. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that Edison and Jobs fit into that category.
That said, Edison and Jobs being total cunts says nothing about whether or not they were actually geniuses.
Being memorable or important doesn't make you a genius, and being a genius doesn't make you memorable or important. Also, being a genius has nothing to do with bettering humanity. A person can be malicious and still be a genius, and if I had to throw out guesses, I'd say that geniuses as a whole are less benevolent on average than other people, either tending to have a misanthropic viewpoint or often acting in their own self interest to the detriment of others.
I can dislike someone and still think they are a genius, and I can like someone and think they aren't a genius. Most of the time, Jobs wasn't even the best person in the room to apply the term 'genius' to.
What does a post about Steve Jobs have to do with geniuses?
How many people actually rely on Outlook to tell them what days they have off, particularly something like "Spring Bank Holiday"?
Did I say it was a one man job? Did I say an editor is where one of the costs is reduced? No, I just said that the costs of publishing can be significantly dimished without sacrificing quality. I'm not sure about how contracts generally work with authors, but if they are anything like record labels, anybody who has a significant role other than distribution infrastructure is probably counted as an expense against the author's royalties, meaning that effectively, the money to pay those people is already coming from the author anyway.
The problem with all of the above industries is that they are notoriously bad at cutting fat. So, you are saying that because an expensive and inefficient method doesn't turn a profit most of the time, they should go with the business that can support being expensive and inefficient. However, that ignores the other obvious solution: use a cheap and efficient method.
Also, for musicians and authors, the 'not recouping costs' part applies to their advance, not on the profitability of the book. A book or record could make a profit for the label/publisher without the musician/author reaching the break even point, especially with the way the horrible contracts and the way they do accounting.
Publishing isn't free, but now the costs of publishing can be significantly diminished without sacrificing quality.
GMO patents are a legal issue separate from whether or not GMO plants are a good idea.
Plant patents actually mattering are fairly new. The plant patent act of 1930 excluded sexually propagated varieties and tubers.
Other than the naming procedure, no, I don't see a clear cut difference. Theoretically, you could even use GMO techniques to turn Country Gentleman descendants into Ruby Queen.
I also wonder how far your nomenclature policy applies. Would GM dogs not be dogs anymore? Would GM children no longer be human? If so, then we can get around a lot of those pesky human rights issues.
Because guaranteeing genetic 'purity' is very difficult with organisms that reproduce sexually. Also, how are organic farmers keeping track of all the naturally occurring genes and interactions between them? "All those genes" is the same kind of idiocy as "all those chemicals", and being duped into thinking that dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous.
Edison was pretty much the devil. He tortured puppies to make AC look dangerous. That makes him arguably a puppy killing terrorist. Also, the article claims that Edison solved "a very tough engineering problem", when it basically amounted to just changing the filament. That's a relatively minor step that resulted in a major change in commercial viability, sort of a straw that broke the horses back thing, and his choice of filament was replaced in the bulb we know today.
It's quite likely that torrents are available with significantly better playback quality than what HBO GO streams, or that his preferred playback device does not support HBO GO.
It seems we've come full circle. Copyright started as a tool for censorship, and it may soon become one yet again.
Doesn't the Berne Convention have a provision where if a work is PD in the country of origin, it's PD everywhere? I thought that was one of the selling points of the CTEA. If that's the case, the work is PD in the US, and the US is the country of origin, therefore it's PD throughout the world.
I call you a moron because you advocated criminal enforcement of personal scale copyright infringement, which is a policy even many extremists don't take. I call you trash because you misuse the word "theft" and use the garbage umbrella term "intellectual property."
I believe that copyright and patents are backwards economic polices that were first implemented in their modern forms (their original forms were largely censorship and indirect taxing respectively) by well-meaning but ill-informed parties aiming to advance learning and promote progress. They even knew well the potential dangers of these systems, as discussions on the matter often portrayed. However, I feel that it's quite clear now that those institutions do not accomplish those goals, and instead get in the way of their stated goals. I also feel the need to remind you that copyright is not a moral institution, but a practical one, so breaking it is not a matter of right or wrong.
No, just because certain cases are completely legal says nothing about how we should treat that which is currently illegal (which is not the same as criminal). Only complete morons think personal copyright infringement should be criminal.
Copying is not theft, but the kind of trash that uses terms like "intellectual property" often have a hard time grasping such simple concepts.
Sure, some would pay, but it would also lead to many opting for GNU/Linux or other alternatives, especially since the Chinese government isn't a big fan of having lots of money going to other countries. So, there may be some minor short-term gains, but it would be the death of the company.
Pacifism loses out, but the bar isn't "a large military capable of projecting power globally,", it's "annoying enough to not bother taking over." The US population has enough guns already without the military for that, particularly since there's not all that much worth taking in the first place.