That's just a small list of things that are irrefutably stupid. That's what I dislike the most: stupid actions. Those actions, in my worldview make those who commit them: STUPID.
That's part of the deal with freedom. With freedom comes freedom to be stupid. I'm all for it, as long as you're only hurting yourself.
The problem is that science seems to be on the side of the doom predictors. I really really hope and try to convince myself that global warming isn't as bad as predicted, but it's not getting any easier.
I'm with you...and popular science is even more on the side of the alarmists (it's important to be careful about that stuff). It's not that temperatures aren't trending upwards. That's been proven. The debate is over whether or not humans caused it. There is some science that tends to show both sides (actually, the contrary science says that most of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses are not from human sources, but acknowledges some of it). I don't want to take sides on this one today, but I'll tell you now that most global warming information out there on the web today tends to push an agenda -- one way or the other. The nice thing is that part of the scientific process is about scrutinizing new data, and using new data to scrutinize old data. Unfortunately, the popular press tends to ignore this and sensationalize new findings before they're able to get the peer review (and thus the credit/discredit) that they deserve.
Personally, I feel that the jury's still out on how much this phonomena is caused by humans. Does it mean that we should do nothing? Absolutely not. Does it mean that we should panic and radically alter our way of life? I don't think that's a good idea either. I tend to be on the side of gradual change for the better, and monitoring the results of our changes. Although I'm sure that there are some who would strongly disagree.
It's clear that you're missing something to (I'm sure that I am, as well). Put aside the party rhetoric for a second and read up on American neoconservatism. There is other information out there that is probably better (I've read about neocons categorizing Middle East countries as totalitarian vs. authoritarian. We don't like either, but can do business with authoritarian countries [such as Saudai Arabia and Egypt]). I've talked to a friend who works for Paul Wolfowitz, and he further elaborated on the neocon's plan (and he believes in this stuff...which is what scares me, but I'll go into that later). The goal was to turn Iraq into a Americanized-democracy, and create a poster child for "our way". This way, we would have a both a military and trade partner in the end. We could pull out of authoritian countries (like Saudi Arabia) and Al Qaeda won't be quite as pissed. (Also, the Saudi government wanted us there to prevent attacks from Iraq [under Hussein]. Taking out Iraq facilitated our leaving Saudi Arabia.) Also, as we gain friends in the region, we can either convince totalitarian governments to switch to our way...or we'll have enough friends to just walk all over them.
Now, I'm not arguing that the Iraq war wasn't unjust or unnecessary. I don't believe that the motives of our administration were as nefarious (or more to the point, secretive) as some people believe. What scares me is that I believe that they're going to try and do what they wanted to do (not the lip service they're paying to "freedom" and all of that other shit that looks good on the campaign trail). This is some pretty optimistic and wishful thinking, and when applied, becomes reckless.
Every one of you who replied to my previous post is a complete idiot. Yes, I do believe in what I stated above. I also believe that if you don't understand what I said, then you are in definite need of protection from your own incompetence to handle your own life.
Wow...those are strong words. So everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a complete idiot. I think that you were clear about what you said. I still disagree. I'd leave it there, but since you are unable to have a polite discussion without caling people who disagree with you an idiot, I just thought that I'd point out that this makes you an asshole. Good luck with that, kid.
You don't get it do you? People need protection from themselves. No one has the right to put their life at risk when an addiction is involved. Your father and grandfather didn't make a choice.
I strongly disagree. It is my opinion that your body is yours, and you may do whatever you wish with it. Addiction does not surpass free will (if it did, a crackhead could commit a crime and say "I was high, it was the corporation's fault"). When one goes through the long and arduous process of ceasing use of an addictive substance, it is not for any other reason than free will. If free will causes someone to start using an addictive substance, and free will causes one to stop (cessation must be a choice), where is choice not involved?
I believe that your view on this is systemic of one of the problems that American society is facing. People want to blame everyone for their problems but themselves. It's a sad state of affairs, because we will end up with a nannying state, and freedom will continue its trend toward just being a bunch of government rhetoric. When I was addicted to nicotine, I took full responsibility. When I quit -- it was all me.
I also believe that the problem tends to be circular. The more that we take individual responsibility away, the more helpless people will feel. We will see more need for nannying labels and tort suits, and less common sense ("well the electrical socket didn't specifically tell me not to put my tongue in it...it's their fault for not warning me!"). Do we want to encourage dumb behavior, or smart behavior?
Give people the tools to do the right thing, and more often than not, I believe that they will.
The problem I have with environmentalism is that it is mostly focused on a FEELING that humans are doing the wrong thing, and research is used as a sort of background music to the movement rather than the driving force. I want to be an environmentalist, but as long as environmentalism is defined by owl-squeezers and doom predictors I guess I'll have to just be a concerned inhabitant of planet Earth.
Wow...this is the most rational approach to environmentalism I've heard in a long, long time. It's such an emotionally charged issue, that most people tend to take it quite personally when their claims are viewed with skepticism (especially the anti-human folks). I think that your take on the issue is not only tactful, but also seems very progmatic and carefully considered. I think you may have helped alter my position today.
A self-described liberal democrat who happens to be a pragmatist that doesn't simply follow party lines? You may be the first of your kind, sir.
My original post was written as a question, since I know that this is a common pratice here in Brasil, but I do not know what are the laws in the USA and how this would affect the donation and the tax he would have to pay.
Yeah, some people can get away with that in the US, but people as wealthy as Bill Gates have to pay the AMT, which does not allow for unfair write-offs like you mention.
The end of my response wasn't so much directed to you, but to nearly the entirety of the discussion where these Linux zealots act like F/OSS makes their poo smell good...and everything that Bill Gates does is an evil extension of Microsoft (or all of the good that he may do is just a feeble attempt to cover for his wrongdoings). You probably didn't deserve that, but shame on the rest of them.
Are those genorous offers backed up by tax incentives?
Not if he pays the AMT...and he probably does. Even if it could have been written off, I wouldn't consider it taxpayer money...the foundation would have still sank $750 million into it.
Slashdotters don't like his software, business model, and/or his company's predatory business practices...so we discredit his generous donations? (Then try to back it up, saying that we're more generous becuase we may or may not contribute code to GNU/Linux). Hmmm...I think that there's a word or phrase for people like that.
Alright...I said, I was done arguing. But letting you have the last word would be too mature. I'll join in the muck-tossing festival...but at this point, I think I'm done discussing anything for better understanding.
"It's what people want" is not an acceptable excuse. If people wanted to discriminate against black people again (in some places they probably still do), that's OK?
Yeah, legally, I don't have a problem with people discriminating against black people...as long as it doesn't prevent them from getting a job, opening a bank account, getting a loan, or anything that gets in the way of anyone's day-to-day life...it's fine. If Joe Blow wants to be an asshole, that's his business. If Jane Blow wants to get crappy news from Fox, that's her business. If you want to blab your version of the news down anyone's throat, that's your business. The minute you try and force me to do something that I don't want to do, or harm me in any way is the moment I begin to have a problem with your actions.
Say you were a politician faced with that scenario, or a judge. Do you, representing the government, have a duty, in that case?
Uhh...if some redneck is sitting on his porch with a shotgun and a sign on his front porch that says "no niggers allowed" -- no. If Jack McKracken's place of business has a sign on the front that says "Help Wanted: niggers need not apply". Yah, I'd feel as if I had a duty to act. It's clear that you, on the other hand, want to have a thought-police regime. Civil rights are not the same as your advocating a "fairness doctrine". Not in the same ballpark, and carely even the same game. You're welcome to your opinions of a thought-police regine, but I think that you're totally full of shit, man.
It hasn't. The FCC has a censorship regime - a legal policy about what can and can't be broadcast. You lied and said I was "going crazy" about "'decency' laws", but pointing to the truth doesn't make your "exaggeration" look any better.
Actually, it was an assumption that I admitted to. Here, you try to make the same assumpton.
If you, or any conservative really believed any of this "TV is free speech" nonsense you would actually act that way, instead of acting the opposite way and censoring it all the time.
I did not advocate censorship at all. If you did your homework, you could have read my previous posts in/. and seen me arguing against it. Free speech, and free market. I am also not a conservative. By your yardstick, you are guilty of the same "lying" that you accuse myself, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Riley of. You're now on the same playing field of the people whose views you despise so much. Maybe you are like them. Well, maybe not politically, but morally, you seem to stand on the same ground (unless you think it's OK to engage in the same behavior as them just because/. has less coverage than they do). Anyway, now I understand what you consider "lies"...it's not a problem that this has been allowed to degrade into much-tossing. You're a total hypocrite, and I have very little to learn from you.
I answered this in advance, and you did not appear to notice. Let me repeat myself, quoting from the previous post. Do you have a response for this?
...Are you ignorant about the way the media works?...
I did notice it...thanks. I still dispute it. You have a voice on the Internet are are using it now. It is supercheap, and I can show you an article that says that Internet can be receive far more viewers than cable news, for a fraction of the cost. Now, this doesn't account for advertising, like you are conviently t
People want legalized drugs and gambling. They want prostitution.
Well, libertarians rejoice. The other 99% of the country can leave this goofy diversion and continue reading:
I dunno, I think that you're dismissing the crux of the conversation with me. It is what the people want, and I believe that we're smart enough to make our own decisions. As for the drug/gambling/prostitution argument...these are all points of far-reaching hypocrisy (who owns you). I guess that you're just "(arguing) whatever contradictory position (you) think is advantageous on a given day". Also interesting that you dismiss a 1%'er view, when you're coming at me with a far less than 1% view.
Actually, no. Rather, you, a self-professed moderate, are putting words in my mouth as if you were a conservative losing a point.
Yah, perhaps I misunderstood this:
they do it every day, and you have to have the doublethink really cranking not to notice the FCC's current censorship regime.
I guess it's not safe to paraphrase your use of the term "censorship regime". Ususally, that infers some kind of complaint. Interesting how quickly your tone has changed.
So now money and political clout (almost the same thing) are all that controls what you get from the TV and radio. We used to be guaranteed a voice. Some freedom you're advocating.
You were never guaranteed a voice. Ever. This is part of where I believe you're going wrong. You seem to think that we used to have something that we never did. You believe that the fairness doctrine actually promoted fairness in broadcasting. It was a farce -- you really think that the average sitcom ever provided fair and balanced commentary or served the public trust?
Without the Fairness Doctrine, those 5/50/5,000 people that we chose will choose to limit what can be said, to follow their own interests. So we made a rule saying, hey, if you're using the box, you have a responsibility to be fair.
This is not true. Especially with Internet. Now everyone can have a voice, and there are not 5/50/5,000 channels. There are around 4.2 billion channels (well, IP addresses inside of IPv4), and nearly anyone can get their hands on them. Just because more people choose to use TV and radio does not call for serious regulation. We have the power, and we can choose. I choose my news sources, as do you. There are plenty available.
I could go on refuting your points, some are pretty easy, and some are simple matters of a difference of opinion about social nature...but it's just struck me that I don't really care for the direction in which tone of this conversation seems to have taken. I'll politely duck out before this is degrades to something else. Good luck to you.
Sure we can be skeptical about the theories from a scientific standpoint, but that shouldn't mean inaction. It should mean stopping and assessing. Since we do not have the luxury to stop everything and see if things are going to get better, we have *no other option* but to take these theories as true.
I agree that skepticism shouldn't mean inaction...but where we will disagree is the question of how much action is necessary over how much time.
Here we are faced with a situation where every single shread of evidence points to the fact that there is global warming, and still you are being skeptical about it.
Well...here's where we will certainly disagree. First of all, your "*no other option*" assertion is just silly. There are certainly other options. The same people flailing about global warming are also flailing that our oil reserves will be gone in a week. If they're right about both things, who cares, right? If fossil fuels go away, global warming won't be a problem, right? (I mean, disregarding the alarmist "point of no return" in TFA). Also, you are totally wrong about "every shred of evidence...". Well, not totally wrong -- because I'm assuming that you're saying that every shred of evidence points to global warming...caused by humans. You made this statement without actually objectively looking at the data. The fact is that if you look at climate changes over geologic time, the climate change that we have witnessed is not even a blip on the radar screen. In fact, the climate change we've seen doesn't look like anything that falls outside of normal long-term climate trending. What is alarming is that this trend coincides with the industrial revolution (which is why I believe that some action is warranted). But is normal climate change trends coinciding with the industrial revolution rock-solid, ironclad evidence of anything? No, probably not...no more than the Bible is proof of the existance of god (I'll fill this in for the hardcore believers...the Bible is not evidence of anything). Does the evidence that we do have mean that we need to start freaking out now? No. We've got enough ameteur alarmist scientists around to tell us what conclusions we should draw from the data. To draw on my previous religious analogy: There are millions and millions of religious folks who will tell us that we are in imminent danger of eternal damnation if we don't accept their god in their way. Now, by your logic, it's probably safest to just listen to the largest religious group, and accept their god to save us from eternal damnation. I mean, they're the largest group and 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, can they? Personally, I don't care for the message, and just because the consequences are more dire, doesn't mean that I'm going to believe them any more. Now, I understand that global warming is different from religion, but by your logic, it isn't. You want this taken as gospel, and you're similar to them in that they would tell us that everyone who doesn't believe them (or contradicts them) is an agent of the devil.
It means: not stopping current trends of production, and only industry lobbyists are being skeptical.
IANAIL (I am not an industry lobbyist) and I still disagree with you as a healthy skeptic. I am also not religious, and not an agant of the devil either.
The U.S. just created the Fairness Doctrine and it merely said, you have to be fair. No propaganda on TV and radio, because these media don't allow free and equal participation, and people can abuse it. It worked well; it kept people honest and it's why we have pleasing anachronisms like "Broadcast News" to look back to, with bright young professionals who could take their jobs so seriously (let alone get jobs - it was pre-deregulation/consolidation)... and now only a few years later, watching the movie is jarring, because while it was fantasy when it was made, now it's so unrealistic as to be bizarre.
Have you considered, even for a second, that this is what the people want? Why can't the people who want Fox news have Fox news? There are alternatives, and all viewpoints have a chance to be heard...and they are legitimate viewpoints (whether or not you believe they are, they're still legitimate).
I would gladly repair the laws against Murdoch/Chinese-style propaganda whether it was in my immediate political interests or not. And I don't consider this, or any other part of my thesis here, to be a "liberal" idea... only a smart one.
It's not Chinese-style propaganda, because there is still room for multiple viewpoints and analyses on other stations. As far as your immediate political interests go...and the conservative troll army -- you need to stop and think for a second. Your idea is a liberal one...in fact, it sits on the far left. Your inability (or unwillingness) to recgonize this and just pass it off as the smart thing to do is likely what's set off the right wing nut-jobs here. It's even set off more moderate folks like myself. You need to realize that there are other ideas out there. Furthermore, some folks (like me) like the idea of freedom of expression more than having news that the has a goverment stamp of "fairness" on it. I feel that having the government slap a "fair and balanced" stamp onto any broadcast program is tantamount to government censorship, which is far worse than what you claim is propaganda, IMO. You are complaining about the FCC's going crazy with "decency" laws, yet in the same breath, you want to give them more power. See, to me -- that stinks of supremy hypocrisy.
Where you're setting me off is the idea that you're smarter than everyone else. You seem to feel that giving people what they want is a bad thing (mainly, it seems, because you disagree with their opinions). You also don't want to understand that as times change, laws change. When cable networks, satellite radio, and Internet came into play -- the reasonable choices for the government are clear. Either regulate the crap out of these two new technologies, or leave them be, and let broadcast TV and radio stay competitive by deregulating them. Terrestrial broadcast media simply wouldn't have been able to compete otherwise. The government has repeatedly screwed up with thieir regulation and deregulation...but these things do take time to get right. Unlike you, I think that most people are smart enough to recgonize changes, and act on them. The thing is this: most people seem to disagree with you. Are they all just a bunch of jerks who can't think for themselves? Is that why they all need people like you looking out for them and telling them how to live their lives and take in their data about the world?
He openly solicits what odds are are insider info, and odds are those are covered by NDAs, and tells the world, and in California that's a crime.
You make a good point. This, however, is something that will come out in a trial/hearing. We have no way of knowing whether or not he signed an NDA. Since Apple knows his name, they would know whether or not he had an NDA. If he had signed one, they would have likely changed their charge.
If there was no NDA, his printing of that information seems legit to me...akin to car magazines publishing spy pictures of upcoming models. This is a regular practice in that industry, and car manufacturers know this (which is one of the reasons why they go through so much trouble to disguise their upcoming models for testing).
If he had no NDA, Apple's only claim stems from his soliciting information from someone who likely did sign an NDA. If this is the case, it is my opinion that Apple's beef should be with the person who divulged the information to DePlume. I'm not sure that this guy, DePlume, should be required to divulge the leaker's name.
As far as where speech protection is limited to, I tend to believe that his speech was within the spirit of the first amendment...however, it's clear that there are wide-ranging disagreements on what each of the first ten amendments are limited to -- so we'll leave it at just being my opinion.
I agree that B&M are the only places to get LCD's. I went with my not-so-tech-savvy roomate so he could get an LCD. He was going to drop a grand, on a 19" sony. We had to open up 7 different LCD boxes
They let you open up 7 boxes and test the monitors, or did you take it back with you and then open 'em up? If they let you open and test in the store, what did you have to say to them to let you do that? What retailer was it at? I'm in the market for an LCD monitor and have similar concerns.
Sucky low resolution support: I maintain a Linux port of an adventure game system that runs at resolutions including: 320x200, 320x240, 640x400, 640x480, 800x600. Every LCD i've ever seen has one of two sucky ways of dealing with low resolutions: Stretch the image to fit, blurring the heck out of it, or displaying it at near postage stamp size.
I've been thinking about this recently. Since LCD's are becoming more and more popular (and multisyncing monitors are becoming more and more rare): Would it make sense to just render games at whatever resulution (320/640/800/1024H) internally, and having the computer's internal video processor handle scaling to the native resolution? If the pixel aspect ratio is the same, it shouldn't blur if the computer handles the stretch internally, right? (I up-scale video pretty regularly, and it doesn't seem to tax the CPU.)
Scaling video resolutions up doesn't seem to tax the system much when I do it. (Although I'll admit that I don't know much about video). Since you maintain a game that is dependent on resolution, what do you think? It's clearly becoming an issue for more than a few people.
is this a new Amiga in name only? Or is it somehow compatible with all the old software from the 80's? Or.. what's the connection with this new Amiga and the classic Amigas?
Naaw, this appears to have picked up alot of the legacy stuff from the original Amiga (as has been discussed here)...as well as much of what became lameness as it became outdated. Still no protected memory (which I find outlandish -- this is why I found MacOS pre 10 so useless). I think this was left out so that it would run legacy software, but I'm not 100% sure. It still uses MUI, which I find to be ugly (even though I was an early adopter and actually bought it back in the day). The interface is still very Amiga, and I'm guessing that the functionality of the interface is still Amiga (left button for clicking and right button for pulldown menus). I think that future revisions will also get Arexx, a scripting language based on IBM's Rexx. Probably kept AmigaDOS too, which was similar to a Unix shell.
Don't get me wrong, I was a total Amiga fanboy back in the day...and I'm still nostalgic about the platform, but from the reivew, it seems like too little too late. IMO, the Amiga saw its end of life when 24-bit graphics cards for Wintel were less than $100. At that point, Amiga's AGA graphics (imo, the strongest part of the system) were insufficent to compete in the desktop arena. It could do 8-bit graphics, albeit horribly slowly, whereas even the cheapest Wintel cards could do 8-bit farily quickly. The later AGA Amigas could display 18-bit images using HAM8 mode (Hold and Modify). This was essentially a pallete shifting hack to allow more colors to be displayed at once.
The Amiga was a really neat platform for its day -- but after reading that article, it really clings to the original AmigaOS (the cool stuff as well as the flaws). I'm just not sure what it will bring to the table for anyone -- especially without protected memory.
Starseeker, you are a rarity among Slashdoters. You didn't get angry when I disagreed, and you appear to be willing to discuss something openly without freaking out. Wow.
I'm after a NON-COMMERCIAL news organization.
Like public radio/television and/or BBC? They are funded by businesses, and I don't find them to be totally impartial (they tend to lean left-centrist), but nonetheless, they are non-commercial. I don't think that the commercial and non-commercial news sources need to be mutually exclusive either.
I didn't say the government should say what is and is not of "public importance."
No, you never mentioned it. That was just part of my rant pissing on the Fairness Doctrine -- that parts of it just didn't make sense to me. It was more of a response to the general thread than to anything you had said.
But I disagree the market will react, and that's the scary part. I think that people ARE smart but, like me, they would be unlikely to try and do anything about it (or pay serious attention to it) unless it directly impacts their personal comfort.
I tend to take a things have to get worse before they get better attitude. It's kind of bad right now, but I'm not quite sure we're there yet. When it starts getting really bad, people will seek out alternate sources. When commercial news orginizations lose all credibility and become pure entertainment, people will seek out other sources and take the commercial stuff for what it is.
Where I tend to be optimistic in this, is the use of the Internet as a news source (and a great equalizer). This way, people can seek out any opinion or perspective they want. Maybe Ted Turner was right, that he can't just go out and start another CNN because the marketplace is overcrowded, huge barriers to entry, etc, etc, etc. The nice thing is that Joe Blow and maybe a few of his friends can go out and start an Internet news site for a fraction of a percent of the startup cost of any news network. Making money off of it will be tricky, but as a labor of love, they can attain success (if success is defined for them as voicing their version of the news and reaching a broad market). I'm aware of the "digital divide", but I believe that this is changing as well.
They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
So because conservatives disagree with you, they're just blind to the truth? Oh please...Listen to Air America radio and tell me that those guys aren't just as full of shit. Does that mean that liberal audiences are just as dumb as the convervatives? Or does it mean that they have a different viewpoint and they want to listen to commentary that supports their worldview.
I've been reading this thread and following the commentary since you started it. You are failing to grasp the concept that there are always different versions of the news...and much of the news is a business. There is no such thing as totally fair and balanced. I will continue to choose where I get my news, and my version of the facts...because there are always different versions.
Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
Second time you used that analogy here. It's kind of misleading in that you equate the conservatives with folks who want to ignore teenage drunk driving and the mature adults who know better are the far-left-minded folks (conviently, who are just like you)...I know it's wasn't your point, but your choice of rhetoric here illustrates the point that there's always spin. (Hell, I'm not even a conservative and I'm able to point this obvious spin out to you). This isn't about taking the law away due to not being able to stop people from breaking it. I don't know where you got that from.
It seems that you just want the view which opposes yours to go away (or be forcibly shut down). If "they" asked for the same thing, would you understand -- or freak out about the vast right wing conspiracy? Would you be so upset if your viewpoint gained the same representation that you seem to feel that theirs has? Or is it OK, because your worldview is only represented by the truth?
ClearChannel has flattened radio diversity almost to nothing.
This is the second time you've mentioned ClearChannel in this thread, and I can't resist but bite this time. I don't think that there is a regulatory problem with conglomerates owning more than one station in a city. You're coming off sounding like someone who feels intellectually elite, as the only one who can differentiate between viewpoints. The average person is smarter than that, and if/when there is a problem, the market will react. In fact, I believe that the owners and management of terrestrial radio are running scared of what sattelite radio will provide to consumers, who will in turn jump ship for pay services. Sattelite radio programming seems to have channels that represent a wide range of opinions (many of which Concern would prefer to censor), with a broad diversity in programming. (I would post links to Sirius' news and entertainment sections, but their site sucks and links are fugly). Apparently, terrestrial radio management has figured out that they're going to lose, and are trying right now to make their prodict more attractive to listeners. Infinity broadcasting is cutting the ratio advertising to content time drastically, and are changing the format of many of their stations.
With all fairness to the Fairness Doctrine (and I know that you didn't mention it, but while I'm on my soapbox...), it is conceviable that a company could monopolize a market and just play their opinions and views. However, I have yet to see it happen -- the closest thing I saw to it thus far was so heavily protested the offenders had to change to avoid losing vast markets. Personally, I could care less about "public importance" -- I prefer entertainment. Furthermore, I find the idea of the federal government deciding which issues are entertainment and which are of "public importance" to be part propaganda and part censorship.
I don't want rant any further, I'm sure that you will disagree...but I had to sound off on this part of the issue.
Are people's jobs being sacrificed for greater technology?
Yep, but that doesn't mean that new jobs aren't being created in the process. Someone's gotta develop and make the kiosks, someone's gotta write the software, someone's gotta maintain the software, someone's gotta install the kiosks, and someone's gotta maintain them.
Does it net out the same? Probably not, but seriously, is it a bad thing to iron out inefficencies? If so, maybe our federal government's inefficencies are actually a good thing. (Although I hope most people are like me in that they hate wasting money and don't mind sacrificing a few jobs to save money for you and I).
till, the situation of your average Iraqi isn't actually particularly fucking amusing.
Yah, I agree. I'm a bit past the point of being pissed...so I'm trying really hard not to lose my sense of humor -- particluarly with the rhetoric that's being thrown around. I think that all that's left to do is make fun of the rhetoric.
You really should have read more carefully. If you had, you would have noticed the;P at the bottom of my post. That means its a joke...you're supposed to laugh.
Slashdot Mirror
That's part of the deal with freedom. With freedom comes freedom to be stupid. I'm all for it, as long as you're only hurting yourself.
With BitTorrent, everybody who downloads is an uploader/distributor (unless of course, you're only counting people who seed).
I'm with you...and popular science is even more on the side of the alarmists (it's important to be careful about that stuff). It's not that temperatures aren't trending upwards. That's been proven. The debate is over whether or not humans caused it. There is some science that tends to show both sides (actually, the contrary science says that most of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses are not from human sources, but acknowledges some of it). I don't want to take sides on this one today, but I'll tell you now that most global warming information out there on the web today tends to push an agenda -- one way or the other. The nice thing is that part of the scientific process is about scrutinizing new data, and using new data to scrutinize old data. Unfortunately, the popular press tends to ignore this and sensationalize new findings before they're able to get the peer review (and thus the credit/discredit) that they deserve.
Personally, I feel that the jury's still out on how much this phonomena is caused by humans. Does it mean that we should do nothing? Absolutely not. Does it mean that we should panic and radically alter our way of life? I don't think that's a good idea either. I tend to be on the side of gradual change for the better, and monitoring the results of our changes. Although I'm sure that there are some who would strongly disagree.
It's clear that you're missing something to (I'm sure that I am, as well). Put aside the party rhetoric for a second and read up on American neoconservatism. There is other information out there that is probably better (I've read about neocons categorizing Middle East countries as totalitarian vs. authoritarian. We don't like either, but can do business with authoritarian countries [such as Saudai Arabia and Egypt]). I've talked to a friend who works for Paul Wolfowitz, and he further elaborated on the neocon's plan (and he believes in this stuff...which is what scares me, but I'll go into that later). The goal was to turn Iraq into a Americanized-democracy, and create a poster child for "our way". This way, we would have a both a military and trade partner in the end. We could pull out of authoritian countries (like Saudi Arabia) and Al Qaeda won't be quite as pissed. (Also, the Saudi government wanted us there to prevent attacks from Iraq [under Hussein]. Taking out Iraq facilitated our leaving Saudi Arabia.) Also, as we gain friends in the region, we can either convince totalitarian governments to switch to our way...or we'll have enough friends to just walk all over them.
Now, I'm not arguing that the Iraq war wasn't unjust or unnecessary. I don't believe that the motives of our administration were as nefarious (or more to the point, secretive) as some people believe. What scares me is that I believe that they're going to try and do what they wanted to do (not the lip service they're paying to "freedom" and all of that other shit that looks good on the campaign trail). This is some pretty optimistic and wishful thinking, and when applied, becomes reckless.
Wow...those are strong words. So everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a complete idiot. I think that you were clear about what you said. I still disagree. I'd leave it there, but since you are unable to have a polite discussion without caling people who disagree with you an idiot, I just thought that I'd point out that this makes you an asshole. Good luck with that, kid.
I strongly disagree. It is my opinion that your body is yours, and you may do whatever you wish with it. Addiction does not surpass free will (if it did, a crackhead could commit a crime and say "I was high, it was the corporation's fault"). When one goes through the long and arduous process of ceasing use of an addictive substance, it is not for any other reason than free will. If free will causes someone to start using an addictive substance, and free will causes one to stop (cessation must be a choice), where is choice not involved?
I believe that your view on this is systemic of one of the problems that American society is facing. People want to blame everyone for their problems but themselves. It's a sad state of affairs, because we will end up with a nannying state, and freedom will continue its trend toward just being a bunch of government rhetoric. When I was addicted to nicotine, I took full responsibility. When I quit -- it was all me.
I also believe that the problem tends to be circular. The more that we take individual responsibility away, the more helpless people will feel. We will see more need for nannying labels and tort suits, and less common sense ("well the electrical socket didn't specifically tell me not to put my tongue in it...it's their fault for not warning me!"). Do we want to encourage dumb behavior, or smart behavior?
Give people the tools to do the right thing, and more often than not, I believe that they will.
Wow...this is the most rational approach to environmentalism I've heard in a long, long time. It's such an emotionally charged issue, that most people tend to take it quite personally when their claims are viewed with skepticism (especially the anti-human folks). I think that your take on the issue is not only tactful, but also seems very progmatic and carefully considered. I think you may have helped alter my position today.
A self-described liberal democrat who happens to be a pragmatist that doesn't simply follow party lines? You may be the first of your kind, sir.
Yeah, some people can get away with that in the US, but people as wealthy as Bill Gates have to pay the AMT, which does not allow for unfair write-offs like you mention.
The end of my response wasn't so much directed to you, but to nearly the entirety of the discussion where these Linux zealots act like F/OSS makes their poo smell good...and everything that Bill Gates does is an evil extension of Microsoft (or all of the good that he may do is just a feeble attempt to cover for his wrongdoings). You probably didn't deserve that, but shame on the rest of them.
Not if he pays the AMT...and he probably does. Even if it could have been written off, I wouldn't consider it taxpayer money...the foundation would have still sank $750 million into it.
Slashdotters don't like his software, business model, and/or his company's predatory business practices...so we discredit his generous donations? (Then try to back it up, saying that we're more generous becuase we may or may not contribute code to GNU/Linux). Hmmm...I think that there's a word or phrase for people like that.
Alright...I said, I was done arguing. But letting you have the last word would be too mature. I'll join in the muck-tossing festival...but at this point, I think I'm done discussing anything for better understanding.
Yeah, legally, I don't have a problem with people discriminating against black people...as long as it doesn't prevent them from getting a job, opening a bank account, getting a loan, or anything that gets in the way of anyone's day-to-day life...it's fine. If Joe Blow wants to be an asshole, that's his business. If Jane Blow wants to get crappy news from Fox, that's her business. If you want to blab your version of the news down anyone's throat, that's your business. The minute you try and force me to do something that I don't want to do, or harm me in any way is the moment I begin to have a problem with your actions.
Uhh...if some redneck is sitting on his porch with a shotgun and a sign on his front porch that says "no niggers allowed" -- no. If Jack McKracken's place of business has a sign on the front that says "Help Wanted: niggers need not apply". Yah, I'd feel as if I had a duty to act. It's clear that you, on the other hand, want to have a thought-police regime. Civil rights are not the same as your advocating a "fairness doctrine". Not in the same ballpark, and carely even the same game. You're welcome to your opinions of a thought-police regine, but I think that you're totally full of shit, man.
Actually, it was an assumption that I admitted to. Here, you try to make the same assumpton.
I did not advocate censorship at all. If you did your homework, you could have read my previous posts in /. and seen me arguing against it. Free speech, and free market. I am also not a conservative. By your yardstick, you are guilty of the same "lying" that you accuse myself, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Riley of. You're now on the same playing field of the people whose views you despise so much. Maybe you are like them. Well, maybe not politically, but morally, you seem to stand on the same ground (unless you think it's OK to engage in the same behavior as them just because /. has less coverage than they do). Anyway, now I understand what you consider "lies"...it's not a problem that this has been allowed to degrade into much-tossing. You're a total hypocrite, and I have very little to learn from you.
I did notice it...thanks. I still dispute it. You have a voice on the Internet are are using it now. It is supercheap, and I can show you an article that says that Internet can be receive far more viewers than cable news, for a fraction of the cost. Now, this doesn't account for advertising, like you are conviently t
I dunno, I think that you're dismissing the crux of the conversation with me. It is what the people want, and I believe that we're smart enough to make our own decisions. As for the drug/gambling/prostitution argument...these are all points of far-reaching hypocrisy (who owns you). I guess that you're just "(arguing) whatever contradictory position (you) think is advantageous on a given day". Also interesting that you dismiss a 1%'er view, when you're coming at me with a far less than 1% view.
Yah, perhaps I misunderstood this:
I guess it's not safe to paraphrase your use of the term "censorship regime". Ususally, that infers some kind of complaint. Interesting how quickly your tone has changed.
You were never guaranteed a voice. Ever. This is part of where I believe you're going wrong. You seem to think that we used to have something that we never did. You believe that the fairness doctrine actually promoted fairness in broadcasting. It was a farce -- you really think that the average sitcom ever provided fair and balanced commentary or served the public trust?
This is not true. Especially with Internet. Now everyone can have a voice, and there are not 5/50/5,000 channels. There are around 4.2 billion channels (well, IP addresses inside of IPv4), and nearly anyone can get their hands on them. Just because more people choose to use TV and radio does not call for serious regulation. We have the power, and we can choose. I choose my news sources, as do you. There are plenty available.
I could go on refuting your points, some are pretty easy, and some are simple matters of a difference of opinion about social nature...but it's just struck me that I don't really care for the direction in which tone of this conversation seems to have taken. I'll politely duck out before this is degrades to something else. Good luck to you.
I agree that skepticism shouldn't mean inaction...but where we will disagree is the question of how much action is necessary over how much time.
Well...here's where we will certainly disagree. First of all, your "*no other option*" assertion is just silly. There are certainly other options. The same people flailing about global warming are also flailing that our oil reserves will be gone in a week. If they're right about both things, who cares, right? If fossil fuels go away, global warming won't be a problem, right? (I mean, disregarding the alarmist "point of no return" in TFA). Also, you are totally wrong about "every shred of evidence...". Well, not totally wrong -- because I'm assuming that you're saying that every shred of evidence points to global warming...caused by humans. You made this statement without actually objectively looking at the data. The fact is that if you look at climate changes over geologic time, the climate change that we have witnessed is not even a blip on the radar screen. In fact, the climate change we've seen doesn't look like anything that falls outside of normal long-term climate trending. What is alarming is that this trend coincides with the industrial revolution (which is why I believe that some action is warranted). But is normal climate change trends coinciding with the industrial revolution rock-solid, ironclad evidence of anything? No, probably not...no more than the Bible is proof of the existance of god (I'll fill this in for the hardcore believers...the Bible is not evidence of anything). Does the evidence that we do have mean that we need to start freaking out now? No. We've got enough ameteur alarmist scientists around to tell us what conclusions we should draw from the data. To draw on my previous religious analogy: There are millions and millions of religious folks who will tell us that we are in imminent danger of eternal damnation if we don't accept their god in their way. Now, by your logic, it's probably safest to just listen to the largest religious group, and accept their god to save us from eternal damnation. I mean, they're the largest group and 50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong, can they? Personally, I don't care for the message, and just because the consequences are more dire, doesn't mean that I'm going to believe them any more. Now, I understand that global warming is different from religion, but by your logic, it isn't. You want this taken as gospel, and you're similar to them in that they would tell us that everyone who doesn't believe them (or contradicts them) is an agent of the devil.
IANAIL (I am not an industry lobbyist) and I still disagree with you as a healthy skeptic. I am also not religious, and not an agant of the devil either.
Have you considered, even for a second, that this is what the people want? Why can't the people who want Fox news have Fox news? There are alternatives, and all viewpoints have a chance to be heard...and they are legitimate viewpoints (whether or not you believe they are, they're still legitimate).
It's not Chinese-style propaganda, because there is still room for multiple viewpoints and analyses on other stations. As far as your immediate political interests go...and the conservative troll army -- you need to stop and think for a second. Your idea is a liberal one...in fact, it sits on the far left. Your inability (or unwillingness) to recgonize this and just pass it off as the smart thing to do is likely what's set off the right wing nut-jobs here. It's even set off more moderate folks like myself. You need to realize that there are other ideas out there. Furthermore, some folks (like me) like the idea of freedom of expression more than having news that the has a goverment stamp of "fairness" on it. I feel that having the government slap a "fair and balanced" stamp onto any broadcast program is tantamount to government censorship, which is far worse than what you claim is propaganda, IMO. You are complaining about the FCC's going crazy with "decency" laws, yet in the same breath, you want to give them more power. See, to me -- that stinks of supremy hypocrisy.
Where you're setting me off is the idea that you're smarter than everyone else. You seem to feel that giving people what they want is a bad thing (mainly, it seems, because you disagree with their opinions). You also don't want to understand that as times change, laws change. When cable networks, satellite radio, and Internet came into play -- the reasonable choices for the government are clear. Either regulate the crap out of these two new technologies, or leave them be, and let broadcast TV and radio stay competitive by deregulating them. Terrestrial broadcast media simply wouldn't have been able to compete otherwise. The government has repeatedly screwed up with thieir regulation and deregulation...but these things do take time to get right. Unlike you, I think that most people are smart enough to recgonize changes, and act on them. The thing is this: most people seem to disagree with you. Are they all just a bunch of jerks who can't think for themselves? Is that why they all need people like you looking out for them and telling them how to live their lives and take in their data about the world?
You make a good point. This, however, is something that will come out in a trial/hearing. We have no way of knowing whether or not he signed an NDA. Since Apple knows his name, they would know whether or not he had an NDA. If he had signed one, they would have likely changed their charge.
If there was no NDA, his printing of that information seems legit to me...akin to car magazines publishing spy pictures of upcoming models. This is a regular practice in that industry, and car manufacturers know this (which is one of the reasons why they go through so much trouble to disguise their upcoming models for testing).
If he had no NDA, Apple's only claim stems from his soliciting information from someone who likely did sign an NDA. If this is the case, it is my opinion that Apple's beef should be with the person who divulged the information to DePlume. I'm not sure that this guy, DePlume, should be required to divulge the leaker's name.
As far as where speech protection is limited to, I tend to believe that his speech was within the spirit of the first amendment...however, it's clear that there are wide-ranging disagreements on what each of the first ten amendments are limited to -- so we'll leave it at just being my opinion.
IANAL (uhhhh huh huh, I said "anal")
They let you open up 7 boxes and test the monitors, or did you take it back with you and then open 'em up? If they let you open and test in the store, what did you have to say to them to let you do that? What retailer was it at? I'm in the market for an LCD monitor and have similar concerns.
I've been thinking about this recently. Since LCD's are becoming more and more popular (and multisyncing monitors are becoming more and more rare): Would it make sense to just render games at whatever resulution (320/640/800/1024H) internally, and having the computer's internal video processor handle scaling to the native resolution? If the pixel aspect ratio is the same, it shouldn't blur if the computer handles the stretch internally, right? (I up-scale video pretty regularly, and it doesn't seem to tax the CPU.)
Scaling video resolutions up doesn't seem to tax the system much when I do it. (Although I'll admit that I don't know much about video). Since you maintain a game that is dependent on resolution, what do you think? It's clearly becoming an issue for more than a few people.
What makes you think that just because it's Slashdot, it's OK to call people morons and idiots because you disagree?
I guess it's got to the point where I'm surprised when people on Slashdot keep it civil. This kind of stuff is totally uncalled for.
Wow -- why was it disabled? Testing? Compatibility?
Personal politics? What was this all about?
Naaw, this appears to have picked up alot of the legacy stuff from the original Amiga (as has been discussed here)...as well as much of what became lameness as it became outdated. Still no protected memory (which I find outlandish -- this is why I found MacOS pre 10 so useless). I think this was left out so that it would run legacy software, but I'm not 100% sure. It still uses MUI, which I find to be ugly (even though I was an early adopter and actually bought it back in the day). The interface is still very Amiga, and I'm guessing that the functionality of the interface is still Amiga (left button for clicking and right button for pulldown menus). I think that future revisions will also get Arexx, a scripting language based on IBM's Rexx. Probably kept AmigaDOS too, which was similar to a Unix shell.
Don't get me wrong, I was a total Amiga fanboy back in the day...and I'm still nostalgic about the platform, but from the reivew, it seems like too little too late. IMO, the Amiga saw its end of life when 24-bit graphics cards for Wintel were less than $100. At that point, Amiga's AGA graphics (imo, the strongest part of the system) were insufficent to compete in the desktop arena. It could do 8-bit graphics, albeit horribly slowly, whereas even the cheapest Wintel cards could do 8-bit farily quickly. The later AGA Amigas could display 18-bit images using HAM8 mode (Hold and Modify). This was essentially a pallete shifting hack to allow more colors to be displayed at once.
The Amiga was a really neat platform for its day -- but after reading that article, it really clings to the original AmigaOS (the cool stuff as well as the flaws). I'm just not sure what it will bring to the table for anyone -- especially without protected memory.
Starseeker, you are a rarity among Slashdoters. You didn't get angry when I disagreed, and you appear to be willing to discuss something openly without freaking out. Wow.
Like public radio/television and/or BBC? They are funded by businesses, and I don't find them to be totally impartial (they tend to lean left-centrist), but nonetheless, they are non-commercial. I don't think that the commercial and non-commercial news sources need to be mutually exclusive either.
No, you never mentioned it. That was just part of my rant pissing on the Fairness Doctrine -- that parts of it just didn't make sense to me. It was more of a response to the general thread than to anything you had said.
I tend to take a things have to get worse before they get better attitude. It's kind of bad right now, but I'm not quite sure we're there yet. When it starts getting really bad, people will seek out alternate sources. When commercial news orginizations lose all credibility and become pure entertainment, people will seek out other sources and take the commercial stuff for what it is.
Where I tend to be optimistic in this, is the use of the Internet as a news source (and a great equalizer). This way, people can seek out any opinion or perspective they want. Maybe Ted Turner was right, that he can't just go out and start another CNN because the marketplace is overcrowded, huge barriers to entry, etc, etc, etc. The nice thing is that Joe Blow and maybe a few of his friends can go out and start an Internet news site for a fraction of a percent of the startup cost of any news network. Making money off of it will be tricky, but as a labor of love, they can attain success (if success is defined for them as voicing their version of the news and reaching a broad market). I'm aware of the "digital divide", but I believe that this is changing as well.
So because conservatives disagree with you, they're just blind to the truth? Oh please...Listen to Air America radio and tell me that those guys aren't just as full of shit. Does that mean that liberal audiences are just as dumb as the convervatives? Or does it mean that they have a different viewpoint and they want to listen to commentary that supports their worldview.
I've been reading this thread and following the commentary since you started it. You are failing to grasp the concept that there are always different versions of the news...and much of the news is a business. There is no such thing as totally fair and balanced. I will continue to choose where I get my news, and my version of the facts...because there are always different versions.
Second time you used that analogy here. It's kind of misleading in that you equate the conservatives with folks who want to ignore teenage drunk driving and the mature adults who know better are the far-left-minded folks (conviently, who are just like you)...I know it's wasn't your point, but your choice of rhetoric here illustrates the point that there's always spin. (Hell, I'm not even a conservative and I'm able to point this obvious spin out to you). This isn't about taking the law away due to not being able to stop people from breaking it. I don't know where you got that from.
It seems that you just want the view which opposes yours to go away (or be forcibly shut down). If "they" asked for the same thing, would you understand -- or freak out about the vast right wing conspiracy? Would you be so upset if your viewpoint gained the same representation that you seem to feel that theirs has? Or is it OK, because your worldview is only represented by the truth?
This is the second time you've mentioned ClearChannel in this thread, and I can't resist but bite this time. I don't think that there is a regulatory problem with conglomerates owning more than one station in a city. You're coming off sounding like someone who feels intellectually elite, as the only one who can differentiate between viewpoints. The average person is smarter than that, and if/when there is a problem, the market will react. In fact, I believe that the owners and management of terrestrial radio are running scared of what sattelite radio will provide to consumers, who will in turn jump ship for pay services. Sattelite radio programming seems to have channels that represent a wide range of opinions (many of which Concern would prefer to censor), with a broad diversity in programming. (I would post links to Sirius' news and entertainment sections, but their site sucks and links are fugly). Apparently, terrestrial radio management has figured out that they're going to lose, and are trying right now to make their prodict more attractive to listeners. Infinity broadcasting is cutting the ratio advertising to content time drastically, and are changing the format of many of their stations.
With all fairness to the Fairness Doctrine (and I know that you didn't mention it, but while I'm on my soapbox...), it is conceviable that a company could monopolize a market and just play their opinions and views. However, I have yet to see it happen -- the closest thing I saw to it thus far was so heavily protested the offenders had to change to avoid losing vast markets. Personally, I could care less about "public importance" -- I prefer entertainment. Furthermore, I find the idea of the federal government deciding which issues are entertainment and which are of "public importance" to be part propaganda and part censorship.
I don't want rant any further, I'm sure that you will disagree...but I had to sound off on this part of the issue.
Yep, but that doesn't mean that new jobs aren't being created in the process. Someone's gotta develop and make the kiosks, someone's gotta write the software, someone's gotta maintain the software, someone's gotta install the kiosks, and someone's gotta maintain them.
Does it net out the same? Probably not, but seriously, is it a bad thing to iron out inefficencies? If so, maybe our federal government's inefficencies are actually a good thing. (Although I hope most people are like me in that they hate wasting money and don't mind sacrificing a few jobs to save money for you and I).
Yah, I agree. I'm a bit past the point of being pissed...so I'm trying really hard not to lose my sense of humor -- particluarly with the rhetoric that's being thrown around. I think that all that's left to do is make fun of the rhetoric.
Cheers!
You really should have read more carefully. If you had, you would have noticed the ;P at the bottom of my post. That means its a joke...you're supposed to laugh.