look. sorry. bullshit. first of all, you don't know what "tautology" means. second of all, you added a clause to the argument. you should try harder next time. thanks, bye, nilay.
my current car deck is a sony es head unit that has an RCA aux input on the back--it's definitely not cheap, or too bass heavy if you turn off all the mega bass nonsense.:) i just had my installer run a shielded RCA-1/8th inch cable from the back of the unit to an inconspicuous spot in the dash and it's all done. if you have the ipod remote you don't even need all that much cable sticking out of the dash, so it's pretty stealth. it cost me $35 extra parts/labor to run the cable when he was putting in the deck.
highly recommended. although the alpine thing is super-slick.
i think the deal is that darwin and os x are kept in sync, and so adding the things you want to darwin (making it a 'real and useful' bsd) would also have to get added into os x, bloating it unecessarily. (yes i know. genie effect. it's all bloat anyway:))
i mean, why duplicate an airport driver in the core system when the actual product has a really good one? why create an intuitive user/group system when the actual product is really damn good at managing them? i think the point of darwin is to maintain a really slick foundation for an operating system, not an OS all its own.
although i think that's an issue of context-specific meaning, it's very easy to argue that "voting machines" means "machines that vote." they're actually doing the voting, counting, etc. they're just doing it in reponse to user input.
because one of the things the founding fathers attempted to protect against was the tyranny of the majority. an elected official can (theoretically) recognize that while a large percentage of people feel one way, a small minority feels a different way, and make policy to reflect that. if you just let the majority decide, the minority opinion nevers gets taken into account.
besides, even if democracy was more direct, someone has to come up with the choices....
"So let me get this straight. You are saying you would prefer that 24 million people were kept under an oppressive regime because that regime kept communism out? What do you think causes people to become so zealous that they begin to behave like communists? Adequeate channels to express yourself politically and economically are needed to prevent the formation of rouge economic policies such as communism.
while i don't know about the case against LA county, don't be stupid and compare the ACLU to Big Brother.
in 1984, Big Brother is the government. the ACLU is an organization comprised of people who don't want the government to trample civil liberties.
say what you want about the goals and the methodologies of the ACLU, but that's a huge distinction.
as for paul revere, your argument exactly supports his removal and the reinsertion of "some woman who apparently did something similar": if he didn't do what we've always taught and someone else did, it is improper historical revisionism that deleted her and credited him.
Stupid people deserve to be held responsible for their stupid actions. [snip] They're just hindering natural selection:)
interestingly, what you're advocating is called social darwinism.
the fallacy of that theory is obvious on its face. i will say nothng more.
i will say this, however: sometimes people don't have meaningful choices. saying that someone chose to sign a contract signing away their soul is a useless argument if that person doesn't have either an equal postion from which to bargain or some other reasonable choice.
um, you not wearing your seatbelt hurts all kind of people.
let's say you die right off. someone has to pay for your dead, selfish ass to be buried, or cremated. then they have to figure out what to do with your assets. it's easier if you have a will, but it still takes time and money. oh, let's not forget the fact that your mangled car has to be moved and cubed.
feeling more optimistic? let's say you just get maimed. so now a squad of paramedics has to try and keep your stupid ass alive while they drive to the hospital, and then shit. do i have explain how bieng in the hospital could conceivably cost others time and money? i don't care if you're loaded and can pay the bills, the fact that a doctor is occupied with you means that he's not occupied with someone else. it's a cost, plain and simple.
but it's a cost that can be alleviated by making you wear a seatbelt. so we balance the incovenience of wearing a seatbelt against the potential costs of not, and it turns out that it's easier to just make you wear the fuckers.
times change, dude. while the founding fathers had some good stuff, we don't live in the same society the federalist papers were written about. besides, there was some staunch opposition to the principles of the federalist papers. you should know that.
when we were a young country, we thought differently. then we grew up and changed a lot. shit happens.
take it with a grain of salt as i am a law student, but the thing about the law is that it's there for when you need it. so some obscure statute requiring you to file a petition in the paper when you want to sell your mother's donkey may seem kinda stupid, but at least you've got your bases covered.
with your way, eventually we'd ONLY have knee jerk laws, because lawmakers could draft a new statute everytime the old one came up for review. that's what lobbysists are for after all.:)
besides, your system of review is already established in the courts--there's nothing stopping google from taking it to the courts if it passes the ca. house. if the court finds it stupid, they have the power to overturn it. simple.
Not funny... Insightful.. I fully support this idea. (As someone who is currently using LEGAL copies of Windows XP Pro,.Net Studio, and Windows 2000 Server.
being the best at something isn't the same as prohibiting them from competing.
as a corollary, the presence of good competition is not a barrier to entry.
microsoft bundled a browser and didn't let netscape in on the same space. that's a barrier to entry. what's google going to do, shut down the internet and only let people access google?
Hijack Apple's bandwidth to provide previews for shared files? How does this build sympathy for "fight[ing] the major record label monopoly"? It simply obscures any legitimate fair use arguments if you add a layer to a p2p app designed to blatantly steal resources.
that's funny, because most of the kids i know just steal the resources anyway--they click around iTMS looking for stuff they like, and then they download it for free using some other p2p software.
so what's the difference? it's just so fucking trivial--either way, i'm sucking apple's bandwidth and not spending any money at the store.
oh, and let's not even discuss the flaming wreckage that is any university network after local itunes sharing and leechster or mytunes doing their thing.
damned if apple didn't create a DRM music store but then also give kids on fast networks with lots of clients the smoothest way to share files in a way undetectable by the RIAA. i mean, i don't even have to fire up gnutella if i'm in the library--the ~50 itunes shares i can see will probably have what i want, and it'll download at 400K/sec.
but colloboration changes aren't metadata, just regular data that's hidden until you expose it. the redline action could conceivably be called metadata, but the point is that i can send you a flat file and you can make changes that are tracked within the file itself and then send the same flat file back to me. storing this data outside of the document would require either that i send you a document specific change db with the doc, or that you and i both maintain independent db's of file changes that we keep in sync.
both of those solutions seem like the suck. word's colloboration feature is useful and popular because it's so simple--no extra steps+a flat file. all it seems to lack is an obtrusive "retain change information? yes/no" dialog when you save, because then people might actually remember to strip the doc before publishing it.
There is additional energy cost associated with publishing on paper, and the cost of energy threatens to climb to 1973 levels. Electronic media reduces our dependance on fossil fuels for communication and information transfer.
because, obviously, building a global network has no associated fossil fuel costs, and once it's in place, the server and the client, not the mention the giant fuckoff network in between require no energy resources.
at least once the book is published, resource consumption is over. electronic media constantly requires energy--anything you might save upfront you make up on the back end.
"This is a group that does not appreciate as much as the general population that it is illegal to share copyright music on a peer-to-peer network," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America. "More education is necessary. One form of education is lawsuits."
it's funny because parent references the $1,100 eMac, which comes with a DVD-R/RW and iDVD, which we're all getting stupid over as the best thing for the average user.
but clearly, that $1,100 system is "simply too expensive" for the average user.
the usb market probably would have grown and done it's thing without the imac, but you know what? the instant the imac came out, the usb market exploded. yes, it's because all of the sudden there was a captive market of imac owners who needed printers and slow-ass usb hard drives, but the point was the imac was a major product whose sheer popularity created an entire market for usb devices.
the same could be argued for digital video editing--until apple created a market for 1394 minidv cameras by shipping millions of copies of imovie, no one was doing it at home except for uh, you, with your 1989 amiga. cut-ting edge, my man.
and i clearly had a centris 660av with a 25mhz 68040 and DSP chip that could capture s-video out of the box in 1993. it was just a pain, because the computer couldn't talk to the camera very well--there was s-link, but it never worked right. apple made it all just work(TM) and that's kind of what people give them cred for, y'know?
(interesting note about multitasking: when apple went to OS X, preemptive multitasking meant that the age-old behavior of all processes screeching to a halt when the mouse button was held down was finally done away with. there was actually a massive outcry because people in realtime production environments had used this little limitiation to their advantage, essentially starting and stopping the computer as they needed. i just thought that was interesting.)
Slashdot Mirror
look. sorry. bullshit. first of all, you don't know what "tautology" means. second of all, you added a clause to the argument. you should try harder next time. thanks, bye, nilay.
my current car deck is a sony es head unit that has an RCA aux input on the back--it's definitely not cheap, or too bass heavy if you turn off all the mega bass nonsense. :) i just had my installer run a shielded RCA-1/8th inch cable from the back of the unit to an inconspicuous spot in the dash and it's all done. if you have the ipod remote you don't even need all that much cable sticking out of the dash, so it's pretty stealth. it cost me $35 extra parts/labor to run the cable when he was putting in the deck.
highly recommended. although the alpine thing is super-slick.
while we're making demands, i'd like a pony.
i think the deal is that darwin and os x are kept in sync, and so adding the things you want to darwin (making it a 'real and useful' bsd) would also have to get added into os x, bloating it unecessarily. (yes i know. genie effect. it's all bloat anyway :))
i mean, why duplicate an airport driver in the core system when the actual product has a really good one? why create an intuitive user/group system when the actual product is really damn good at managing them? i think the point of darwin is to maintain a really slick foundation for an operating system, not an OS all its own.
although i think that's an issue of context-specific meaning, it's very easy to argue that "voting machines" means "machines that vote." they're actually doing the voting, counting, etc. they're just doing it in reponse to user input.
because one of the things the founding fathers attempted to protect against was the tyranny of the majority. an elected official can (theoretically) recognize that while a large percentage of people feel one way, a small minority feels a different way, and make policy to reflect that. if you just let the majority decide, the minority opinion nevers gets taken into account. besides, even if democracy was more direct, someone has to come up with the choices....
"So let me get this straight. You are saying you would prefer that 24 million people were kept under an oppressive regime because that regime kept communism out? What do you think causes people to become so zealous that they begin to behave like communists? Adequeate channels to express yourself politically and economically are needed to prevent the formation of rouge economic policies such as communism.
while i don't know about the case against LA county, don't be stupid and compare the ACLU to Big Brother.
in 1984, Big Brother is the government. the ACLU is an organization comprised of people who don't want the government to trample civil liberties.
say what you want about the goals and the methodologies of the ACLU, but that's a huge distinction.
as for paul revere, your argument exactly supports his removal and the reinsertion of "some woman who apparently did something similar": if he didn't do what we've always taught and someone else did, it is improper historical revisionism that deleted her and credited him.
Stupid people deserve to be held responsible for their stupid actions. [snip] They're just hindering natural selection :)
interestingly, what you're advocating is called social darwinism.
the fallacy of that theory is obvious on its face. i will say nothng more.
i will say this, however: sometimes people don't have meaningful choices. saying that someone chose to sign a contract signing away their soul is a useless argument if that person doesn't have either an equal postion from which to bargain or some other reasonable choice.
IANAL, but IAALaw student.
or refuse to admit him to the hospital.
so your theory is that if someone gets into a car accident and isn't wearing their seatbelt, they shouldn't get medical care.
just a quick question: that's supposed to be even remotely ethical?
um, you not wearing your seatbelt hurts all kind of people.
:)
let's say you die right off. someone has to pay for your dead, selfish ass to be buried, or cremated. then they have to figure out what to do with your assets. it's easier if you have a will, but it still takes time and money. oh, let's not forget the fact that your mangled car has to be moved and cubed.
feeling more optimistic? let's say you just get maimed. so now a squad of paramedics has to try and keep your stupid ass alive while they drive to the hospital, and then shit. do i have explain how bieng in the hospital could conceivably cost others time and money? i don't care if you're loaded and can pay the bills, the fact that a doctor is occupied with you means that he's not occupied with someone else. it's a cost, plain and simple.
but it's a cost that can be alleviated by making you wear a seatbelt. so we balance the incovenience of wearing a seatbelt against the potential costs of not, and it turns out that it's easier to just make you wear the fuckers.
as for drinking, i agree with you entirely.
times change, dude. while the founding fathers had some good stuff, we don't live in the same society the federalist papers were written about. besides, there was some staunch opposition to the principles of the federalist papers. you should know that.
when we were a young country, we thought differently. then we grew up and changed a lot. shit happens.
no, that's retarded.
:)
take it with a grain of salt as i am a law student, but the thing about the law is that it's there for when you need it. so some obscure statute requiring you to file a petition in the paper when you want to sell your mother's donkey may seem kinda stupid, but at least you've got your bases covered.
with your way, eventually we'd ONLY have knee jerk laws, because lawmakers could draft a new statute everytime the old one came up for review. that's what lobbysists are for after all.
besides, your system of review is already established in the courts--there's nothing stopping google from taking it to the courts if it passes the ca. house. if the court finds it stupid, they have the power to overturn it. simple.
Not funny... Insightful.. I fully support this idea. (As someone who is currently using LEGAL copies of Windows XP Pro, .Net Studio, and Windows 2000 Server.
at last, someone with some real credentials.
being the best at something isn't the same as prohibiting them from competing.
as a corollary, the presence of good competition is not a barrier to entry.
microsoft bundled a browser and didn't let netscape in on the same space. that's a barrier to entry. what's google going to do, shut down the internet and only let people access google?
*blinks*
holy shit.
Hijack Apple's bandwidth to provide previews for shared files? How does this build sympathy for "fight[ing] the major record label monopoly"? It simply obscures any legitimate fair use arguments if you add a layer to a p2p app designed to blatantly steal resources.
that's funny, because most of the kids i know just steal the resources anyway--they click around iTMS looking for stuff they like, and then they download it for free using some other p2p software.
so what's the difference? it's just so fucking trivial--either way, i'm sucking apple's bandwidth and not spending any money at the store.
oh, and let's not even discuss the flaming wreckage that is any university network after local itunes sharing and leechster or mytunes doing their thing.
damned if apple didn't create a DRM music store but then also give kids on fast networks with lots of clients the smoothest way to share files in a way undetectable by the RIAA. i mean, i don't even have to fire up gnutella if i'm in the library--the ~50 itunes shares i can see will probably have what i want, and it'll download at 400K/sec.
man, you didn't even try, did you?
.17 seconds to solve your problem.
it took google
here, i'll even give you the damn link: external drives in idvd
but colloboration changes aren't metadata, just regular data that's hidden until you expose it. the redline action could conceivably be called metadata, but the point is that i can send you a flat file and you can make changes that are tracked within the file itself and then send the same flat file back to me. storing this data outside of the document would require either that i send you a document specific change db with the doc, or that you and i both maintain independent db's of file changes that we keep in sync.
both of those solutions seem like the suck. word's colloboration feature is useful and popular because it's so simple--no extra steps+a flat file. all it seems to lack is an obtrusive "retain change information? yes/no" dialog when you save, because then people might actually remember to strip the doc before publishing it.
There is additional energy cost associated with publishing on paper, and the cost of energy threatens to climb to 1973 levels. Electronic media reduces our dependance on fossil fuels for communication and information transfer.
because, obviously, building a global network has no associated fossil fuel costs, and once it's in place, the server and the client, not the mention the giant fuckoff network in between require no energy resources.
at least once the book is published, resource consumption is over. electronic media constantly requires energy--anything you might save upfront you make up on the back end.
from the wired article:
"This is a group that does not appreciate as much as the general population that it is illegal to share copyright music on a peer-to-peer network," said Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America. "More education is necessary. One form of education is lawsuits."
you know, i bet he goes to bed all fuzzy inside.
An extra set of headphones in case an impromptu lan party were to spring up.
man, your life is gonna suck when college is over.
it's funny because parent references the $1,100 eMac, which comes with a DVD-R/RW and iDVD, which we're all getting stupid over as the best thing for the average user.
but clearly, that $1,100 system is "simply too expensive" for the average user.
dude, you're on the internet. why on earth are you paying for porn?
QT doesn't ask about upping to pro everytime it starts, it's like once a month or something.
besides, while i'll admit it's annoying, it's still nowhere near as bad as either real or microsoft.
and let's not discuss musicmatch.
dude.
the usb market probably would have grown and done it's thing without the imac, but you know what? the instant the imac came out, the usb market exploded. yes, it's because all of the sudden there was a captive market of imac owners who needed printers and slow-ass usb hard drives, but the point was the imac was a major product whose sheer popularity created an entire market for usb devices.
the same could be argued for digital video editing--until apple created a market for 1394 minidv cameras by shipping millions of copies of imovie, no one was doing it at home except for uh, you, with your 1989 amiga. cut-ting edge, my man.
and i clearly had a centris 660av with a 25mhz 68040 and DSP chip that could capture s-video out of the box in 1993. it was just a pain, because the computer couldn't talk to the camera very well--there was s-link, but it never worked right. apple made it all just work(TM) and that's kind of what people give them cred for, y'know?
(interesting note about multitasking: when apple went to OS X, preemptive multitasking meant that the age-old behavior of all processes screeching to a halt when the mouse button was held down was finally done away with. there was actually a massive outcry because people in realtime production environments had used this little limitiation to their advantage, essentially starting and stopping the computer as they needed. i just thought that was interesting.)