I think from context it is reasonable to read that as "(Almost all of the) people (living today on the planet earth) are not principled enough (by which I mean agree strongly with my personal politics) to rigourously [sic] hold to boycotts (of companies they generally love and respect)."
You need not shy away from reading in an appropriate amount of context to what you read. You don't need to take everything literally or strictly. If you try, you can discover the real meaning behind the shorthand people typically use when speaking. Try it! It will make your life easier.
I don't know. I'm still boycotting Amazon over the one-click thing, but apparently I'm the only one. I've been boycotting Apple ever since they forced users to pay $49.99 for video cables for iPods which cost $1 from third-party vendors (that was about three years ago). I don't buy from Dell or HP or Best Buy or Sears. I still have plenty of consumerism and commercial goods in my life, though.
Just to be clear - do you mean a source of radiation that ends when a coal plant shuts down, or a source of radiation that people will be dealing with a thousand years from now?
I mean the second kind, the kind that lasts a thousand years, like this one.
And, just to be clear, why do nuclear fanboys point fingers at coal in lame attempts at misdirection?
Because it's the other mature, available, well-understood widely deployed energy source, obviously. Because it's the alternative.
Anyway, yeah Fukushima was a crazy disaster. It's going to be enormously expensive to fix. To me, though, that still doesn't add up to the enormous expense of the alternative to nuclear, which is coal.
I just want to be clear about what you are saying.
Is the land near any of hundreds of thousands of dirty, radioactive coal power plants? Or is it near one of the three (ever! worldwide!) nuclear power plants which have ever leaked as much radiation as the average alternative coal plant?
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
If his desire is for the committee process to be funded with taxes, then linking to pirate copies of the costly PDF is, precisely, an attempt to achieve that policy. I agree with him on that point: I want big government and high taxes to fund the creation of this kind of standard, and subverting the current payment model is a good way to achieve that. I feel similarly about advertisements: I want a micro-payment model for websites, so I subvert the advertising model by filtering ads. If almost everyone would join me, then the advertising model would fail, and would be replaced by something else, and I bet micro-payments would be the replacement.
I'm not exactly sure, but like with software patents, I think the problem is absurdly broad patents which cover, say, the entire idea of using genes to solve a class of problems. You can't code around that kind of stupid patent.
You haven't thought about it very hard if you haven't thought of the many, many useful services guns provide in society. If you try a little harder, I am sure you are smart enough to think of some. It's not difficult. Give it a try.
Guns are dangerous, so it is reasonable to regulate them. But nearly all guns are used for exclusively lawful activities, so it is not reasonable to treat all guns as if they are obviously going to be used for crime.
Guns are designed to shoot bullets, not to kill people. Likewise, cars are designed to drive, not to run people over. Most people with guns use them to shoot bullets at paper targets, so it seems odd to focus on an infinitesimal minority of guns used to kill people, and ignore the vast overwhelming majority of guns used for entertainment.
YouTube's brand continues to be strong, which surprises me. Just in the last couple weeks I stopped watching YouTube vids because all of a sudden instead of showing me the video I clicked on, I was shown a commercial for some kind of car. Huh? I didn't click on a car commercial, I clicked on a cuteass cat video, or whatever. If I ask a website to show me something, and it shows me something else, then that website is broken. I do my best not to use broken websites, so I'm doing my best not to use YouTube.
Today's article about an agreement with a fascist music company only makes things worse, but YouTube was already done before that.
There are plenty of video streaming websites. I, too, like the rest of you, really liked how YouTube was easy to use, but some things spoil when they go past their expiration date, and YouTube has expired. It's time to move on.
We've long since quarantined sociopaths. Unfortunately, we've quarantined them on Wall Street, in board rooms, in legislatures, and, apparently, in my wife.
It doesn't feel the same when the "person" doing it is the world's most valuable multinational corporation, and siphons off thirty percent of every sale as a toll, before passing on the payment to more huge multinational corporations to siphon off more, before giving the artists their pittance. I guess for me the DRM is less important than those other things, though still more important.
I reject this as a false dichotomy; and even if it were valid, which it isn't, I would choose paywalls. And I do choose paywalls, by blocking ads. Eventually, if enough of us block ads successfully, we'll get a different model. My guess is freemium+patronage, but paywalls could also work.
I agree with you. I don't hate advertisements in theory; I hate advertisements in practice. In theory, I'm quite happy to be informed of useful and pertinent products and services; but in practice, all I get is screaming, flashing, interrupting, annoying bullshit that blocks my enjoyment of the content I came for. There is an incredibly tiny minority of ads which I block, which I wish would come through (maybe 1 in 10,000 of today's ads), and if we can convince advertisers to conform to certain criteria, then that would make the world Better, and I support that.
I've tried noscript a couple times, and each time it rendered the web useless. Almost all websites use Javascript to build the page or for the pages to function. Do you really use noscript without problem? Is there something I need to change (a setting, or an expectation) which could make it work for me?
Slashdot Mirror
Which people?
I think from context it is reasonable to read that as "(Almost all of the) people (living today on the planet earth) are not principled enough (by which I mean agree strongly with my personal politics) to rigourously [sic] hold to boycotts (of companies they generally love and respect)."
You need not shy away from reading in an appropriate amount of context to what you read. You don't need to take everything literally or strictly. If you try, you can discover the real meaning behind the shorthand people typically use when speaking. Try it! It will make your life easier.
I don't know. I'm still boycotting Amazon over the one-click thing, but apparently I'm the only one. I've been boycotting Apple ever since they forced users to pay $49.99 for video cables for iPods which cost $1 from third-party vendors (that was about three years ago). I don't buy from Dell or HP or Best Buy or Sears. I still have plenty of consumerism and commercial goods in my life, though.
Skeptical Inquirer
Just to be clear - do you mean a source of radiation that ends when a coal plant shuts down, or a source of radiation that people will be dealing with a thousand years from now?
I mean the second kind, the kind that lasts a thousand years, like this one.
And, just to be clear, why do nuclear fanboys point fingers at coal in lame attempts at misdirection?
Because it's the other mature, available, well-understood widely deployed energy source, obviously. Because it's the alternative.
Anyway, yeah Fukushima was a crazy disaster. It's going to be enormously expensive to fix. To me, though, that still doesn't add up to the enormous expense of the alternative to nuclear, which is coal.
I just want to be clear about what you are saying.
Is the land near any of hundreds of thousands of dirty, radioactive coal power plants? Or is it near one of the three (ever! worldwide!) nuclear power plants which have ever leaked as much radiation as the average alternative coal plant?
Congratulations, you might just get a Slashdot Achievement for a comment modded "+5, Troll".
Here's the quote you refer to:
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
That sounds like a jest to me.
If his desire is for the committee process to be funded with taxes, then linking to pirate copies of the costly PDF is, precisely, an attempt to achieve that policy. I agree with him on that point: I want big government and high taxes to fund the creation of this kind of standard, and subverting the current payment model is a good way to achieve that. I feel similarly about advertisements: I want a micro-payment model for websites, so I subvert the advertising model by filtering ads. If almost everyone would join me, then the advertising model would fail, and would be replaced by something else, and I bet micro-payments would be the replacement.
I'm not exactly sure, but like with software patents, I think the problem is absurdly broad patents which cover, say, the entire idea of using genes to solve a class of problems. You can't code around that kind of stupid patent.
Alas, that means you have lost the disagreement.
I prefer this one:
"You try protecting liberty from oppressors without a weapon."
Sometimes oppressors are in cereal aisles. Consider that.
You haven't thought about it very hard if you haven't thought of the many, many useful services guns provide in society. If you try a little harder, I am sure you are smart enough to think of some. It's not difficult. Give it a try.
You are right. He is wrong.
Guns are dangerous, so it is reasonable to regulate them. But nearly all guns are used for exclusively lawful activities, so it is not reasonable to treat all guns as if they are obviously going to be used for crime.
Guns are designed to shoot bullets, not to kill people. Likewise, cars are designed to drive, not to run people over. Most people with guns use them to shoot bullets at paper targets, so it seems odd to focus on an infinitesimal minority of guns used to kill people, and ignore the vast overwhelming majority of guns used for entertainment.
Referring to operating systems by the userspace software they use is ridiculous.
You think? Do you insist on calling Mac "Darwin" or "BSD" or something? Do you insist on calling Android "Linux"?
YouTube's brand continues to be strong, which surprises me. Just in the last couple weeks I stopped watching YouTube vids because all of a sudden instead of showing me the video I clicked on, I was shown a commercial for some kind of car. Huh? I didn't click on a car commercial, I clicked on a cuteass cat video, or whatever. If I ask a website to show me something, and it shows me something else, then that website is broken. I do my best not to use broken websites, so I'm doing my best not to use YouTube.
Today's article about an agreement with a fascist music company only makes things worse, but YouTube was already done before that.
There are plenty of video streaming websites. I, too, like the rest of you, really liked how YouTube was easy to use, but some things spoil when they go past their expiration date, and YouTube has expired. It's time to move on.
It's not your metaphysics, it's that you're an asshole. The difference should be clear.
"So"? So, it doesn't feel the same as CK self-publishing his comedy. That's what's so. Wasn't that clear?
We've long since quarantined sociopaths. Unfortunately, we've quarantined them on Wall Street, in board rooms, in legislatures, and, apparently, in my wife.
Yes to all, except that an hour of TV isn't worth $1, it's worth about a quarter of that, or less.
It doesn't feel the same when the "person" doing it is the world's most valuable multinational corporation, and siphons off thirty percent of every sale as a toll, before passing on the payment to more huge multinational corporations to siphon off more, before giving the artists their pittance. I guess for me the DRM is less important than those other things, though still more important.
The evidence doesn't support your waggery.
So here's their options: paywall or ads.
I reject this as a false dichotomy; and even if it were valid, which it isn't, I would choose paywalls. And I do choose paywalls, by blocking ads. Eventually, if enough of us block ads successfully, we'll get a different model. My guess is freemium+patronage, but paywalls could also work.
I agree with you. I don't hate advertisements in theory; I hate advertisements in practice. In theory, I'm quite happy to be informed of useful and pertinent products and services; but in practice, all I get is screaming, flashing, interrupting, annoying bullshit that blocks my enjoyment of the content I came for. There is an incredibly tiny minority of ads which I block, which I wish would come through (maybe 1 in 10,000 of today's ads), and if we can convince advertisers to conform to certain criteria, then that would make the world Better, and I support that.
But, I think that's pretty unlikely.
I've tried noscript a couple times, and each time it rendered the web useless. Almost all websites use Javascript to build the page or for the pages to function. Do you really use noscript without problem? Is there something I need to change (a setting, or an expectation) which could make it work for me?