Some people out there make decisions on what they will watch based on these criteria. Their choice was removed by a celebrity who felt her "artistic expression" overruled the right of everyone else on whether they were buying into her desires.
The right of artistic expression does trump your right not to buy into her desires, even if you see no artistic value in her performance.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...
Which part of Congress shall make no law are people failing to understand? How on earth, when it's so clearly defined in our Bill of Rights does your right to not see/hear something trump a fundamental right. It doesn't say that Congress can make a little innocent law abridging rights to free speech to protect your right to not hear something...it says it in clear and plain English -- no law. The yelling fire in a movie theater argument doesn't apply here, since there is no clear and present danger.
There's gotta be a better solution. Maybe a market-based solution. If you wanna see a clean and edited superbowl, change to channel 7 and get the version on a 20 second time dump. Sorry, but shit happens on live TV -- sometimes titties pop out. Sometimes, someone drops something heavy on their foot and yells 'shit!' Sometimes, someone leaves their zipper undone and their penis flops out and it happens to within range of a camera broadcasting live TV. If one cannot deal with that risk, that person should simply not watch live TV. I'm sure that there can be a time-delay version for people who cannot deal with the realities of life (or a gratuitous boob flash, precisely planned for a publicity stunt, unbeknownst to the network planners...or a massive conspiracy to make you and your children see Janet's hypnotizing boob and forever upsetting the balance of what is good and decent...depending on what you beleive).
Maybe there should be a technical solution -- like enforcing TV ratings so that the V-chips that we were forced to buy can go to good use...especially because everyone here who bought a TV within the last 10 years has been forced to buy one. (Personally, I think that this is the way to do it without impinging on anyone's rights.)
And her lack of respect for everyone else's rights is what I despise about her.
An interesing choice of words, given your disrespect for other people's rights. Especially because my rights are defined in one of our nation's most sacred documents as fundamental, and unalienable -- and they're well set in writing. These rights that you speak of, the right to be protected from dangerous tits on live TV (and presumably dirty words) where are they written as fundamental, unalienable rights? I do not, however, despise you, despite your lack of respect for everyone's rights, which IMO, goes far beyond Janet Jackson's. May I suggest refraining from watching live TV? You never know what you can expect -- regardless of regulation.
After reading their platform outline, I'm not quite sure what the government would do once they achieve all their goals.
Libertarians believe that the federal government's role is to maintain the military and protect us. They have quite a few ideals that seem a little outlandish to me. However, I still like their platform better than any others that I've seen (meaning that I don't trust the federal government). I can't agree with everyting they say, but they do have some pretty solid ideas...but the Libertarian party will never acheive all of their goals. I like to think of it as adding some balance to our status quo.
It would seem to me that Libertarians would probably prefer entirely privatized education; which would mean no school vouchers, and no tax money paying for education.
That might be taking it a little extreme, though.
Wow...I was just going to write a post that those who would argue that are probably the most extreme of Libertarians...that there are certainly moderate Libertarians, just as there are moderate Democrats and Republicans -- but after doing some homework, you are absolutely correct:
Solutions: We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended. We call for the repeal of the guarantees of tax-funded, government-provided education, which are found in most state constitutions. We condemn compulsory education laws...and we call for an immediate repeal of such laws. Until government involvement in education is ended, we support elimination, within the governmental school system, of forced busing and corporal punishment. We further support immediate reduction of tax support for schools, and removal of the burden of school taxes from those not responsible for the education of children.
The reason to stop things like this act now would be to prevent a slippery slope that could lead to a 1984-like world. But we are nowhere near that right now.
An excellent comment. Just to add to your point, we could be very close to a 1984-like world and we just don't know about it. This is siding on paranoia I know, but (before this judgement) with reduced judicial oversight, what is to stop the executive branch (or DoD) from making mass secret arrests and refusing Habeus Corpus?
I hate sounding so alarmist, and I am agreeing with you, but the folks who are outraged are mostly trying to make a point -- and I think that there is a pretty good reason for the outrage. Civil liberties take lifetimes to fight for, and seconds to lose. Judging from all of the freedom rhetoric, shouldn't we expect the federal government to at least pretend that they're defending our civil liberties? (Damn, that sounds naively idealistic)
The ACLU thinks that taking money from people to support goals they like is ok, but if you take money from people to support goals the do not like it is wrong.
I hate to sound argumenative here (and I'm neither pledging support nor voicing opposition here) but isn't the ACLU a special interest group? Are there any special interest groups who don't do this? I think that hypocricy sucks as much as the next guy (perhaps more), but isn't it everywhere? Perhaps it's unavoidable and we have to choose what we can live with. Not to dismiss your ideals, but personally, I can think of a whole lot of hypocricy that's going on that drives me a whole lot more crazy.
(I'm trying as hard as possible to remain (publicly, at least) agnostic about my feelings for school vouchers for the purposes of this discussion.)
What follows is from another site but it shows the ACLU isn't as consistant as some say they are.
I'm not sure that I'm reading your post right...perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your logic. Could you elaborate on how this is an inconsistency?
It seems to me that the ACLU is saying something like "we oppose laws based on someone's dogmatic morality". They're also appear to take on a position along the lines of "we oppose government funding of religious education". To me, their message seems pretty consistent that they fear the government imposing religion of any kind, in any way, and take a "slippery slope" attitude.
What does strike me as strange in the second link that you pointed out may have everything to do with my perceptions. I always imagined the ACLU as a pretty objective Libertarian organization. I was also under the impression that Libertarians would see the school vouchers as a step in the right direction -- allowing the people to choose (privatizing public schools and handing out vouchers in order to end the debate about religous education in schools...among other things). Perhaps I'm wrong in at least one of these assumptions.
In most states, evictions require subtantial prior notice.
This is why I asked if the roommate's name was on the lease. If it isn't on the lease -- and they're just sort of "there"...it's not necessarily an eviction. Of course, IANAL.
Does their name appear on your lease? You may want to talk with a lawyer first, but if one of my housemates tried to pull any of that, I would likely change the locks and leave their possessions on the lawn for them to collect.
There are some things that you shouldn't tolerate. I believe that this is one of them...regardless of the legality of their actions.
As far as them releasing pictures of you on the can and in the shower, your rights vary from state to state (if you're in the US). Contact your state AG's office for details.
But they are not irreparable damages, and it doesn't take political parties of absolute radicals to fix them.
I'm not sure that one has to be an absolute radical to be a Libertarian...and I believe this is where your argument tends to unravel a bit (of course, every party has their radicals). That's like saying that the Republicans are nothing but a bunch of Newt Gingrich-like ultra-conservative bible thumpers. We both (hopefully) know that this statement is simply untrue. Now, from the interview, it's clear that Badnarik has some views which tend to cling to the Libertarian ideal, however, in his answers it is clear that he understands that instant change is impossible, and much of his vision is not going to happen on way or the other. This is a pretty healthy outlook, given the resolve of our current president.
I tend to think of meself as somewhat of a Libertarian, albeit a moderate one. I don't necessarily agree with all of their policies, and some I vehemently disagree with. However, there is no such thing as a "perfect party". Currently, we can only choose between these two parties whose lines have blurred somewhat. Other parties are incredibly far from my vision (and some are far more radical). Does the Libertarian creedo fall completely into place with me? Absolutely not, but it's a pretty close match.
The point is that although I may have LIbertarian leanings, I do not believe that we need a 100% Libertarian government in this country. That would make things even more unbalanced (and potentially screwed up) than they are right now. However, to see the Libertarians in the light of a viable third party, to add a voice (and vote) which will balance things out would be incredibly refreshing, and would restore my faith in our government. I'm not sure how you feel about things like the PATRIOT act, but I would love to have a voice thought our government that would stand up against (what I feel is) opporitunistic legislature which erodes civil liberties (which I still find important).
Finally, regarding the erosion of civil liberties, I'm not sure what it will take to fix this...but it is becoming clear that our current system will continue to wear away at these. Just remember that the civil liberties that we have take lifetimes to earn, and minutes to lose. With this in mind, maybe it will take a third party to fix. Our two major parties are too entrenched in their status quo to make the tough decisions that an underdog would
Look for example, at Sendmail. It's 25 years old, but is *still* a buggy, buggy app.
Are you sure that's a fair comparison? Sendmail is a kludge. It's had bugfixes tacked onto features, tacked onto bugfixes, all heaped into a 25-year-old codebase. It's never been rewritten from the ground up, and by today's standards, it was a mess 25 years ago (when it was written, security was barely a blip on the radar screen). The same can be said for a package like WuFTPd.
What about a package like Qmail, or an OS like OpenBSD (let's leave opinions about DeRadtt and DJB out)? These are OSS packages, have a similar lifespan, and (AFAIK) they absolutely crush W2K's security track record.
I do, however, agree with you that the article has some merit. OSS doesn't necessarily guarantee security. After all, it's not neessarily the process, it's the people who make the product.
Well if you start to work at age 18 (people makeing only 20k would be if they dont' go to colage, and those that go to colage would make more then 20k) need to work (by todays laws) 49 years, better then the 40 for self investment, you can not retire till age 67 now, if you want SS. So witch is better??????????????
Look -- I'm no grammar Nazi. But seriously -- go to college and learn to write coherently (it doesn't even have to be grammatically correct, just coherent).
No, and you should become very very worried if any judge lets you spend more than 30 seconds arguing it. If he does it's probably because he's already decided to rip your case apart limb by limb and is just looking for an excuse to stomp it into a bloody pulp and shove it down your throat one spoonfull at a time. Chuckle.
That makes total sense. I probably should have qualified my comment with an IANAL statement or something. I stand corrected -- thanks for the clarification.
According to one of the posts in the article, there is no such product called "Open Office" (4th post down as of 9/15/2004 6:00 GMT). The product mentioned in the agreement (legally speaking) may or may not refer to OpenOffice.org, which is what the news story is referencing. Why can a news story get it wrong and not a legal contract? Because legalese is all about semantics. News stories don't have to be to have a Slashdot discussion.
The post in question states:
Because of trademark issues, OpenOffice.org must insist that all public communications refer to the project and software as "OpenOffice.org" or "OpenOffice.org 1.0," and not "OpenOffice" or "Open Office."
This is stated here, in the Trademark section (which they claim was last updated 2003-07).
Did Sun's legal department pull one over on MSFT's legal department? Was it a mistake? Was Oo.o defined earlier and then said "referred to herein as 'Open Office'"? Was the agreement between Sun and Microsoft dated before the official communication of Oo.o? I don't know, but it appears to be pretty clever, and raises some intriguing questions.
One way or the other, this won't stop me from deploying Oo.o. It's an excellent product, and saves $400 per PC (nearly 40% of the cost of a complete system).
It's quite likely that your company has some kind of contract with Dell where they purchase exclusively from Dell in exchange for a better deal on those purchases
I believe it's relatively common for companies to do such a thing
I haven't actually seen an exclusive contract -- perhaps that's how it happens at larger companies, where I have less experience (and certainly less management experience). The way I've seen it work at smaller companies is your Dell rep calls you (or your IT Manager/Director/CTO) and asks you how much you have budgeted on hardware for the current FY, they usually ask you to break it down to client machines, servers, and misc hardware. Then they offer you a fixed-price volume-discount deal. Usually, they'll throw in enough stuff to sweeten the deal so that you'll take it. The last deal I worked out with Dell didn't involve signing anything. I could, however, understand how a PC manufacturer would insist on a contract for a larger company since there is far more at stake.
In my experience, more often than not, finance departments like to simplify things. They don't like to have to keep track of 30 different accounts with 30 different vendors just for a small IT group's purchasing (this can be extended to just about any kind of purchasing). Sometimes, they'll have the IT group come out with an RFP to select a vendor (with standard configurations for desktops, laptops, 1U servers, storage, etc), and go with support options and the bottom line. Other groups will just select their favorite vendor and try to finagle a volume deal based on what they have budgeted.
In the end, you have a limited pool of vendors. If your company buys Dells...Dude, you're gettin' a Dell -- that is, unless you're at a high enough level to make the requisite stink to get what you want.
If you haven't used MythTV, you can't really have an opinion on PC-based PVR's.
I've used enough of 'em to make a pretty accurate judgement, save the one I mentioned -- I made a pretty clear exception for that package (it wasn't a big secret or anything). Nice try kid.
Well it certainly won't be you knocking my block off, I'm 6'3" 220 and usually get around without having to teach people with the "short guy" complex where the line is, BTW I'm talking about you little guy. If you'd like to meet personally, I'd definately make a short trip next time I'm in town to meet you! It's suprising how those virtual balls shrink when reality sets in.
Did you just threaten me personally? Bring it on. By the way -- where do you live? What is your name?
You're a hack hiding behind little tech knowledge and the confidence in your ability to apt-get.
OK, I'll take that at face value. I suppose that you have the same authority to make this value judgement as you do to judge colloquialisms.
You lying little bitch, I never said anything like this.
Can you read? Seriously? Did I ever say that you literally said that? In fact, you called me a liar, and then told me that it was an interpretation. I said it was an interpretation when I wrote that to begin with -- how does one lie about an interpretation? It's like you read every other sentence or something. I (again, clearly) said that is the message that's coming across, and that's what you're doing right now. Is English not your first language? Seriously? You do not seen to have much of an ability to communicate in writing. Maybe this is where our problem stems from. BTW -- I'll post the quote so you can read it in context (I know -- our precedent shows that you can't read the whole thing -- try to take it one word at a time):
With your tone and attitude, the message you get across is "fuck you, I'm right and you're wrong -- asshole". When you come across as confrontational for no particular reason, you can't expect an apologetic, or even understanding response.
One last note, anyone who says "tough tacos" on any regular basis has no idea of the female antatonmy ouside their CRT and Kleenex box.
What? What's that got to do with anything? This is the same bullshit that you started in with. It's totally meaningless.
So go crank a few off to gay porn and download some RedHat ISOs, tell your friends that automatic updates are sooo l33t and you could spend 30 hours making a PVR for a friend so they'll talk to you. Just don't forget to clean your gay MPGs out before you deliver it for free!
Again -- that's all you've got? You can't take a rational discussion so you've got some sexuality quips and some misquotes from old discussions that I had (again, without actually reading or understanding anything). Well whoop-de-doo! You've got nothing but a bunch if insults completely irrelevant to the discussion and some physical threats.
The funny thing: I never had to actually directly insult you. I may have told you that you're being a certain way...and you had to resort to this crap? (I did pull the kid stuff, but only in reaction to a demonstrated behaviour...that you're continuing to demonstrate. It made you totally freak out, which I've gotta admit is pretty funny). You've proven my point about maturity -- and I can bet that you will continue to. I'm not even really playing your game and you've lost. You've completely lost your cool in public. What does that say about you? It's also interesting that you would say this before your little insult-rant:
I think you're one of those people who feel personally attacked when someone disagrees with them, someone who has to be right all the time, or they whine and cry.
Again -- read my other responses. I have no problem with being wrong, or learning anything new. In fact, I find it pretty important. Discussion is all about presentation and civility. Attack someone and it'll put them on the defensive. I don't think you'll be abl
You know, changing the topic every post is again obvious you don't have a leg to stand on. You're quite able to expose your own personal ignorance so I won't bother trying.
Nope...I'm done stating the same case over and over again. I'm not changing my position here.
I don't own 100 boards, but of the 50+ I've owned and installed on PC's in the last few years, the majority have had Promise to Highpoint chips that required a floppy drive in the XP/2000 install. This is my main point.
Then why didn't you just say that? Was the other extraneous, inflammatory bullshit necessary? Do I need to quote it all again for you? I guess it's pointless, because you've only been able to read my comments selectively thus far. I've been pretty clear in everything that I've said to you, and have been saying the same shit over and over again.
which was by my fault worded incorrectly.
Whew -- I thought that it was the glue that you said I was inhaling that caused me to take what you said at face value and not read your mind there.
Don't give me this civil, mature, pissing match, over intellectualized nonsense.
Well -- let's look at this rationally. You're being uncivil (and somehow expected a civil response). You're being immature (in your incivility and name-calling, along with your desth-wish upon me...over what, really?). And you're involved in what quickly evolved into what can't be described as anything other a pissing match. What's there to over intellectualize here? If over intellectualization is really the case, you really are pretty dumb, or just refuse to deal with what the reality of the situation has become. The situation now has nothing to do with our original converstaion. It lost that when you began by setting an aggressive tone, and continued to take a more and more aggressive tone (remember, you set it in the first place). Let me tell you something about civility; if you talk to people like that face to face, you'll get your block knocked off. Why do you seem to think it's OK to do that kind of stuff here and not expect a reaction? Because you can hide behind your computer screen in your mom's basement? Go back and read everything that's been written here. Take an objective look at this whole thing -- just for a second. When I bring up civility in reponses to other posters here, the point is that we treated each other with at least some semblance of mutual respect. It went a long way, because we mostly came to an agreement and all learned something. With your tone and attitude, the message you get across is "fuck you, I'm right and you're wrong -- asshole". When you come across as confrontational for no particular reason, you can't expect an apologetic, or even understanding response. You just sound like an asshole who is out to try and get into an aggerssive argument just to make yourself feel superior in some way. Read the posts again (I keep saying this) -- read them as if it were two other guys and not you and I.
You started something you couldn't finish
Nope -- I already point out who started what, it's all in the text. You set the tone here. I also pointed out that you don't read my posts before going off. You clearly didn't this time, either.
Thinking I'm an immature loser will neither make you right or intelligent
You're right -- sort of (getting back to what I've been saying about civility and maturity). My thinking that you're immature doesn't show that I'm right, wrong, smart, stupid, whatever. However, your demonstration of an inability to have a civil, mature discussion means that you don't get to make your case with me. That's exactly what I meant when I said "you lose". You lose, because you can't seperate inflammatory bullshit from your message. If you
I usually wouldn't do this -- I've got a thing against having pissing matches on Slashdot, but I think that stuff like what you post represents most of what's wrong with Slashdot (people who act like you are acting)...and I've got some time on my hands during lunch. Clearly, you're either a troll, or are just being an arrogant asshole, either way -- I'm gonna expose you.
First of all, you set the tone of this thread in your first response to me, when you said:
#2 No one says "tough tacos". It's not even one of those goofy sayings you can get away with while teaching preschoolers.
Now, if that's not a useless attack for the sake of itself, I don't know what is. I'm not even sure how it's relevant to anything that I said -- and who made you an authority on colloquialisms anyway? I guess that you're arrogantly assuming that I'm from the same locality (or even country) as you. Maybe you've been everywhere and seen everything...I don't really care. It was an arrogant and useless thing to say. In my failed attempt at restraint, I believe that I've responded within the realm of what's appropriate.
Right from the start, you seemed to have a desire to attack everything I've said. Maybe it's some desire to prove to Slashdot that you're smarter than everyone else, again, I don't really care why. You know, if you read the rest of my responses to other posters in the thread, you'd notice that they're quite civil and the discussion is friendly...in some cases, we actually learned something from each other. Do you think that I randomly picked you as someone to get into it with, or do you think it's in response to your tone and your words? If you ever find yourself wondering why people don't like you, it might help if you think for a second that maybe it's not everyone else in the world who has a problem.
Most importantly, it's clear that you never actually read any of what I've had to say. I don't know (again, or care) what specifically set you off...but in your rants, you've ignored everything I've said, and not for any clear reason. For example, if you actually read the original post that you replied to, I stated:
Anyway, the end is near for this technology. It's not quite here yet, because manufacturers are still updating bios' with floppies. There are ways around them, but until manufacturers start shipping CD ISO's, these are still hacks. I welcome the demise of floppy technology with open arms.
You've somehow twisted what I wrote into something completely different:
What ever happened to floppys are dead? Diluting your argument every post is a glaring sign of it's frailty and your lack of research.
You've also tried to revise the history of what you've stated when I asked:
...do you have a 100 different SCSI/IDE controllers that you need to install for?
In your response, you first directly quoted my question, then replied:
uh ya, one on almost every Abit and Asus board that's come out in the last 2 years.
When I called you on it and said that you were clearly an exception to the average user, you said:
No I don't, I never said anything like that. You're on glue.
Here's the thing...you more than said something like it -- you said exactly that. Then you tried to cut into me personally again.
At the end of my post, I did get a little harsh. And I sort of regret it -- I probably should have just ignored you. I
So how much is Panasonic's system, and how would it be better for me than what I've already got.
I've set up a few PC-based PVR's and the TiVo and Panasonic ReplayTV's that I've used kick the crap out of them all (I haven't seen MythTV yet).
The interface is cleaner, it's easier to use, there is very little to set up, it doesn't require a clunky PC, and integrates nicely with whatever you've got in your home entertainment system (except for HDTV).
What can it offer you? I don't know. Maybe you're superman with your gear and can set up a seamless MythTV install in minutes. I'm not, although I have the know-how to do what I need -- and in my house, I don't even own a TV, so it's all via my personal computer. The prepackaged systems are pretty cool though -- it's a compelling package no matter who you are.
IMO, where your PC is really cool is for things like watching DivX and other downloaded videos...trying to integrate it into a system that you can use every day. I don't mind using my OS for that -- but again, the TiVo and Replay systems are pretty compelling like that. Cheaper to run, and they just work.
No I don't, I never said anything like that. You're on glue.
Read the thread. I asked you directly -- you responded.
You're an ass. This is wrong. You don't know what mobo manufacturers are offering. Extra IDE controllers add less than $5 to the price of a board and are not only used on enthusiast boards.
Who cares what they offer. What do OEM's sell? mmm? That's what the end user market buys. I'm talking Dell, Gateway, IBM, Apple -- the people who sell 85% of desktops. They're (for the most part) not offering floppies anymore as standard on new PC's. Did you even read the article? Why are you arguing this with me if you clearly haven't read it.
Namecalling and a little deathwish is all you've got all you've got? You lose. Discussion's over. Sheesh.
Wow -- intersting. I've only been using these USB keys for a few months (I'm a late adopter of everything) and I haven't run into any problems...but I certainly believe you. Have you heard of any other folks with this problem? Do you think it's a defective unit, or is it just a problem with the storage technology?
"do you have a 100 different SCSI/IDE controllers that you need to install for?"
uh ya, one on almost every Abit and Asus board that's come out in the last 2 years. Ever heard of Promise? High Point? You need a floppy for this driver.
So you have 100 different mobos. Then this post isn't directed towards you -- you're one of those "but I'm the exception" people...so you must be trolling. In any case, Abit and Asus products that have Promise and High Point controllers are (for the most part) enthusiast mobos. The target audience for those boards are not your average windows user.
Do I need to say this again? It's not me who has killed the floppy. It's the OEM market. Get it through your head -- the OEM market is killing the floppy. Most users don't need it. They're not putting them in new machines. It doesn't mean you can't buy one. Can I phrase this in any other way so you'll get it and STFU?
Not really - these "fanboys" are the people who convince the company(ies) to keep selling the product and kick-start the 'economy of scale' that allow you to buy the now-standard and cheaper features.
Fanboys do little more than sound stupid and juvenile while subjectively saluting a company or product in every way. I'm not talking about your average user...but then again, your average user still doesn't need GigE.
We'll see how long TiVo lasts doing what they're doing now. In any case, this isn't a Turkey original opinion -- this has been stated over and over by analysts.
#2 No one says "tough tacos". It's not even one of those goofy sayings you can get away with while teaching preschoolers.
Hmm -- looks like I've proven that it works for college kids too. I guess you're wrong there.
#3 Analog modems aren't going anywhere, neither are floppys. I use a floppy on a weekly basis not because I'm a floppy advocate, but because either I have no other choice, or don't want to spend 10 minutes creating a bootable CD which I'll use once. Burning a single use bootable CD each time is also more expensive than using the same floppy 100 times.
It doesn't mean that we have to like analog modems. It's a total hack. What's wrong with saying that?
This should answer 1 and 3: do you have a 100 different SCSI/IDE controllers that you need to install for? If you do, well -- you're one of those "except for me" folks and are just trolling. If you work in an IT group with anything close to standardized hardware, a single CD will install all of your systems. You can make 5 CD's for 5 different systems and just keep them. If you install enough OS'es, you should have an automated install process.
BTW -- I know you may have special needs, but the average user doesn't need floppies -- most OEM's have already dictated that (did you read the article?). Wanna buy a new system from a major OEM with a floppy drive included in the price? Tough tacos.
are you high?... I can't believe you tlak about floppy reliabilty, then talk about burning a CD. yeah, thats 100%... yes, the size of a floppy makes it useless for anything other then boot, and maybe config files.
You make a compelling argument, but you're missing some key points. First, CD's are only unreliable when they are constructed poorly using cheap materials. I believe that Kodak CD's using formazan are guaranteed for 200 years. There are many other quality CDR's on the market that will last as long as any other media. Buyers just need to do their due diligence and be leary of spindles of CD's that are $0.08 a piece.
Your reliability argument loses when you bring magnetism into the discussion. The differential in resistance to magnetism ishuge when comparing a floppy to a CD. But what about when you talk about other magnetic media -- like a hard drive. Put equal amounts of magnetism next to a hard drive a floppy and the hard drive wins. Conventional wisdom would tell us that it should lose data first, because it's a far higher density media, but it doesn't because it's better shielded. My breathe-on-them-wrong comment wasn't meant to be read literally, but it really did have to do with magnetism. If you put a student's floppies in a carrier in their backback with anything magnetic (a pair of headphones), that floppy stands a high probability of corruption. Perhaps you don't have the same experience as I do -- I saw students lose data on a regular basis. Another user just pointed out how sensitive floppies are to different disc drives internal mechanicals.
You also mentioned that the floppy's only limitation is the size. Speed is a huge issue here. They're slow as all hell. Even when we moved to higher density technology (such as folpptical's, LS-120's, and even Zip disks) -- they were still slow, and plagued with reliability problems taboot. (FWIW, due to the "click of death" -- we had to can all support for Zip disks...what a horrible technology).
Finally, you're coming at me like it's me who is killing the floppy disk with my words. It's not me, it's the OEM's. They've already done it, they're doing it now, and they will continue to. An OEM picks a chipset. That chipset supports booting from USB and ATAPI. The OEM throws in a USB memory stick, and deletes the floppy drive, saving $6...or the OEM puts an extra $10 into the system and ships with a burner. It doesn't matter. It's done -- the article points this out. However, it's not like your existing floppy drives are going to just vanish in a puff of smoke when these things are declared dead. You can use them for as long as you want...I don't care. They are a relatively ancient technology, and one of the few that has not been improved on in 20 years. Compare this to other old storage technologies. The hard drive is nearly 50 years old, and the concept has not changed. However, they have been consistently improved and aren't going anywhere. The floppy has been replaced. When you buy your next computer, chances are high that it will not need one.
Slashdot Mirror
The right of artistic expression does trump your right not to buy into her desires, even if you see no artistic value in her performance.
Which part of Congress shall make no law are people failing to understand? How on earth, when it's so clearly defined in our Bill of Rights does your right to not see/hear something trump a fundamental right. It doesn't say that Congress can make a little innocent law abridging rights to free speech to protect your right to not hear something...it says it in clear and plain English -- no law. The yelling fire in a movie theater argument doesn't apply here, since there is no clear and present danger.
There's gotta be a better solution. Maybe a market-based solution. If you wanna see a clean and edited superbowl, change to channel 7 and get the version on a 20 second time dump. Sorry, but shit happens on live TV -- sometimes titties pop out. Sometimes, someone drops something heavy on their foot and yells 'shit!' Sometimes, someone leaves their zipper undone and their penis flops out and it happens to within range of a camera broadcasting live TV. If one cannot deal with that risk, that person should simply not watch live TV. I'm sure that there can be a time-delay version for people who cannot deal with the realities of life (or a gratuitous boob flash, precisely planned for a publicity stunt, unbeknownst to the network planners...or a massive conspiracy to make you and your children see Janet's hypnotizing boob and forever upsetting the balance of what is good and decent...depending on what you beleive).
Maybe there should be a technical solution -- like enforcing TV ratings so that the V-chips that we were forced to buy can go to good use...especially because everyone here who bought a TV within the last 10 years has been forced to buy one. (Personally, I think that this is the way to do it without impinging on anyone's rights.)
An interesing choice of words, given your disrespect for other people's rights. Especially because my rights are defined in one of our nation's most sacred documents as fundamental, and unalienable -- and they're well set in writing. These rights that you speak of, the right to be protected from dangerous tits on live TV (and presumably dirty words) where are they written as fundamental, unalienable rights? I do not, however, despise you, despite your lack of respect for everyone's rights, which IMO, goes far beyond Janet Jackson's. May I suggest refraining from watching live TV? You never know what you can expect -- regardless of regulation.
Libertarians believe that the federal government's role is to maintain the military and protect us. They have quite a few ideals that seem a little outlandish to me. However, I still like their platform better than any others that I've seen (meaning that I don't trust the federal government). I can't agree with everyting they say, but they do have some pretty solid ideas...but the Libertarian party will never acheive all of their goals. I like to think of it as adding some balance to our status quo.
Wow...I was just going to write a post that those who would argue that are probably the most extreme of Libertarians...that there are certainly moderate Libertarians, just as there are moderate Democrats and Republicans -- but after doing some homework, you are absolutely correct:
I guess that's another example of where the Libertarian party and I do not agree.
An excellent comment. Just to add to your point, we could be very close to a 1984-like world and we just don't know about it. This is siding on paranoia I know, but (before this judgement) with reduced judicial oversight, what is to stop the executive branch (or DoD) from making mass secret arrests and refusing Habeus Corpus?
I hate sounding so alarmist, and I am agreeing with you, but the folks who are outraged are mostly trying to make a point -- and I think that there is a pretty good reason for the outrage. Civil liberties take lifetimes to fight for, and seconds to lose. Judging from all of the freedom rhetoric, shouldn't we expect the federal government to at least pretend that they're defending our civil liberties? (Damn, that sounds naively idealistic)
I hate to sound argumenative here (and I'm neither pledging support nor voicing opposition here) but isn't the ACLU a special interest group? Are there any special interest groups who don't do this? I think that hypocricy sucks as much as the next guy (perhaps more), but isn't it everywhere? Perhaps it's unavoidable and we have to choose what we can live with. Not to dismiss your ideals, but personally, I can think of a whole lot of hypocricy that's going on that drives me a whole lot more crazy.
(I'm trying as hard as possible to remain (publicly, at least) agnostic about my feelings for school vouchers for the purposes of this discussion.)
I'm not sure that I'm reading your post right...perhaps I'm just misunderstanding your logic. Could you elaborate on how this is an inconsistency?
It seems to me that the ACLU is saying something like "we oppose laws based on someone's dogmatic morality". They're also appear to take on a position along the lines of "we oppose government funding of religious education". To me, their message seems pretty consistent that they fear the government imposing religion of any kind, in any way, and take a "slippery slope" attitude.
What does strike me as strange in the second link that you pointed out may have everything to do with my perceptions. I always imagined the ACLU as a pretty objective Libertarian organization. I was also under the impression that Libertarians would see the school vouchers as a step in the right direction -- allowing the people to choose (privatizing public schools and handing out vouchers in order to end the debate about religous education in schools...among other things). Perhaps I'm wrong in at least one of these assumptions.
This is why I asked if the roommate's name was on the lease. If it isn't on the lease -- and they're just sort of "there"...it's not necessarily an eviction. Of course, IANAL.
Does their name appear on your lease? You may want to talk with a lawyer first, but if one of my housemates tried to pull any of that, I would likely change the locks and leave their possessions on the lawn for them to collect.
There are some things that you shouldn't tolerate. I believe that this is one of them...regardless of the legality of their actions.
As far as them releasing pictures of you on the can and in the shower, your rights vary from state to state (if you're in the US). Contact your state AG's office for details.
I'm not sure that one has to be an absolute radical to be a Libertarian...and I believe this is where your argument tends to unravel a bit (of course, every party has their radicals). That's like saying that the Republicans are nothing but a bunch of Newt Gingrich-like ultra-conservative bible thumpers. We both (hopefully) know that this statement is simply untrue. Now, from the interview, it's clear that Badnarik has some views which tend to cling to the Libertarian ideal, however, in his answers it is clear that he understands that instant change is impossible, and much of his vision is not going to happen on way or the other. This is a pretty healthy outlook, given the resolve of our current president.
I tend to think of meself as somewhat of a Libertarian, albeit a moderate one. I don't necessarily agree with all of their policies, and some I vehemently disagree with. However, there is no such thing as a "perfect party". Currently, we can only choose between these two parties whose lines have blurred somewhat. Other parties are incredibly far from my vision (and some are far more radical). Does the Libertarian creedo fall completely into place with me? Absolutely not, but it's a pretty close match.
The point is that although I may have LIbertarian leanings, I do not believe that we need a 100% Libertarian government in this country. That would make things even more unbalanced (and potentially screwed up) than they are right now. However, to see the Libertarians in the light of a viable third party, to add a voice (and vote) which will balance things out would be incredibly refreshing, and would restore my faith in our government. I'm not sure how you feel about things like the PATRIOT act, but I would love to have a voice thought our government that would stand up against (what I feel is) opporitunistic legislature which erodes civil liberties (which I still find important).
Finally, regarding the erosion of civil liberties, I'm not sure what it will take to fix this...but it is becoming clear that our current system will continue to wear away at these. Just remember that the civil liberties that we have take lifetimes to earn, and minutes to lose. With this in mind, maybe it will take a third party to fix. Our two major parties are too entrenched in their status quo to make the tough decisions that an underdog would
.Are you sure that's a fair comparison? Sendmail is a kludge. It's had bugfixes tacked onto features, tacked onto bugfixes, all heaped into a 25-year-old codebase. It's never been rewritten from the ground up, and by today's standards, it was a mess 25 years ago (when it was written, security was barely a blip on the radar screen). The same can be said for a package like WuFTPd.
What about a package like Qmail, or an OS like OpenBSD (let's leave opinions about DeRadtt and DJB out)? These are OSS packages, have a similar lifespan, and (AFAIK) they absolutely crush W2K's security track record.
I do, however, agree with you that the article has some merit. OSS doesn't necessarily guarantee security. After all, it's not neessarily the process, it's the people who make the product.
That makes total sense. I probably should have qualified my comment with an IANAL statement or something. I stand corrected -- thanks for the clarification.
According to one of the posts in the article, there is no such product called "Open Office" (4th post down as of 9/15/2004 6:00 GMT). The product mentioned in the agreement (legally speaking) may or may not refer to OpenOffice.org, which is what the news story is referencing. Why can a news story get it wrong and not a legal contract? Because legalese is all about semantics. News stories don't have to be to have a Slashdot discussion.
The post in question states:
This is stated here, in the Trademark section (which they claim was last updated 2003-07).Did Sun's legal department pull one over on MSFT's legal department? Was it a mistake? Was Oo.o defined earlier and then said "referred to herein as 'Open Office'"? Was the agreement between Sun and Microsoft dated before the official communication of Oo.o? I don't know, but it appears to be pretty clever, and raises some intriguing questions.
One way or the other, this won't stop me from deploying Oo.o. It's an excellent product, and saves $400 per PC (nearly 40% of the cost of a complete system).
I haven't actually seen an exclusive contract -- perhaps that's how it happens at larger companies, where I have less experience (and certainly less management experience). The way I've seen it work at smaller companies is your Dell rep calls you (or your IT Manager/Director/CTO) and asks you how much you have budgeted on hardware for the current FY, they usually ask you to break it down to client machines, servers, and misc hardware. Then they offer you a fixed-price volume-discount deal. Usually, they'll throw in enough stuff to sweeten the deal so that you'll take it. The last deal I worked out with Dell didn't involve signing anything. I could, however, understand how a PC manufacturer would insist on a contract for a larger company since there is far more at stake.
In my experience, more often than not, finance departments like to simplify things. They don't like to have to keep track of 30 different accounts with 30 different vendors just for a small IT group's purchasing (this can be extended to just about any kind of purchasing). Sometimes, they'll have the IT group come out with an RFP to select a vendor (with standard configurations for desktops, laptops, 1U servers, storage, etc), and go with support options and the bottom line. Other groups will just select their favorite vendor and try to finagle a volume deal based on what they have budgeted.
In the end, you have a limited pool of vendors. If your company buys Dells...Dude, you're gettin' a Dell -- that is, unless you're at a high enough level to make the requisite stink to get what you want.
I've used enough of 'em to make a pretty accurate judgement, save the one I mentioned -- I made a pretty clear exception for that package (it wasn't a big secret or anything). Nice try kid.
Did you just threaten me personally? Bring it on. By the way -- where do you live? What is your name?
OK, I'll take that at face value. I suppose that you have the same authority to make this value judgement as you do to judge colloquialisms.
Can you read? Seriously? Did I ever say that you literally said that? In fact, you called me a liar, and then told me that it was an interpretation. I said it was an interpretation when I wrote that to begin with -- how does one lie about an interpretation? It's like you read every other sentence or something. I (again, clearly) said that is the message that's coming across, and that's what you're doing right now. Is English not your first language? Seriously? You do not seen to have much of an ability to communicate in writing. Maybe this is where our problem stems from. BTW -- I'll post the quote so you can read it in context (I know -- our precedent shows that you can't read the whole thing -- try to take it one word at a time):
What? What's that got to do with anything? This is the same bullshit that you started in with. It's totally meaningless.
Again -- that's all you've got? You can't take a rational discussion so you've got some sexuality quips and some misquotes from old discussions that I had (again, without actually reading or understanding anything). Well whoop-de-doo! You've got nothing but a bunch if insults completely irrelevant to the discussion and some physical threats.
The funny thing: I never had to actually directly insult you. I may have told you that you're being a certain way...and you had to resort to this crap? (I did pull the kid stuff, but only in reaction to a demonstrated behaviour...that you're continuing to demonstrate. It made you totally freak out, which I've gotta admit is pretty funny). You've proven my point about maturity -- and I can bet that you will continue to. I'm not even really playing your game and you've lost. You've completely lost your cool in public. What does that say about you? It's also interesting that you would say this before your little insult-rant:
Again -- read my other responses. I have no problem with being wrong, or learning anything new. In fact, I find it pretty important. Discussion is all about presentation and civility. Attack someone and it'll put them on the defensive. I don't think you'll be abl
Nope...I'm done stating the same case over and over again. I'm not changing my position here.
Then why didn't you just say that? Was the other extraneous, inflammatory bullshit necessary? Do I need to quote it all again for you? I guess it's pointless, because you've only been able to read my comments selectively thus far. I've been pretty clear in everything that I've said to you, and have been saying the same shit over and over again.
Whew -- I thought that it was the glue that you said I was inhaling that caused me to take what you said at face value and not read your mind there.
Well -- let's look at this rationally. You're being uncivil (and somehow expected a civil response). You're being immature (in your incivility and name-calling, along with your desth-wish upon me...over what, really?). And you're involved in what quickly evolved into what can't be described as anything other a pissing match. What's there to over intellectualize here? If over intellectualization is really the case, you really are pretty dumb, or just refuse to deal with what the reality of the situation has become. The situation now has nothing to do with our original converstaion. It lost that when you began by setting an aggressive tone, and continued to take a more and more aggressive tone (remember, you set it in the first place). Let me tell you something about civility; if you talk to people like that face to face, you'll get your block knocked off. Why do you seem to think it's OK to do that kind of stuff here and not expect a reaction? Because you can hide behind your computer screen in your mom's basement? Go back and read everything that's been written here. Take an objective look at this whole thing -- just for a second. When I bring up civility in reponses to other posters here, the point is that we treated each other with at least some semblance of mutual respect. It went a long way, because we mostly came to an agreement and all learned something. With your tone and attitude, the message you get across is "fuck you, I'm right and you're wrong -- asshole". When you come across as confrontational for no particular reason, you can't expect an apologetic, or even understanding response. You just sound like an asshole who is out to try and get into an aggerssive argument just to make yourself feel superior in some way. Read the posts again (I keep saying this) -- read them as if it were two other guys and not you and I.
Nope -- I already point out who started what, it's all in the text. You set the tone here. I also pointed out that you don't read my posts before going off. You clearly didn't this time, either.
You're right -- sort of (getting back to what I've been saying about civility and maturity). My thinking that you're immature doesn't show that I'm right, wrong, smart, stupid, whatever. However, your demonstration of an inability to have a civil, mature discussion means that you don't get to make your case with me. That's exactly what I meant when I said "you lose". You lose, because you can't seperate inflammatory bullshit from your message. If you
I usually wouldn't do this -- I've got a thing against having pissing matches on Slashdot, but I think that stuff like what you post represents most of what's wrong with Slashdot (people who act like you are acting)...and I've got some time on my hands during lunch. Clearly, you're either a troll, or are just being an arrogant asshole, either way -- I'm gonna expose you.
First of all, you set the tone of this thread in your first response to me, when you said:
Now, if that's not a useless attack for the sake of itself, I don't know what is. I'm not even sure how it's relevant to anything that I said -- and who made you an authority on colloquialisms anyway? I guess that you're arrogantly assuming that I'm from the same locality (or even country) as you. Maybe you've been everywhere and seen everything...I don't really care. It was an arrogant and useless thing to say. In my failed attempt at restraint, I believe that I've responded within the realm of what's appropriate.
Right from the start, you seemed to have a desire to attack everything I've said. Maybe it's some desire to prove to Slashdot that you're smarter than everyone else, again, I don't really care why. You know, if you read the rest of my responses to other posters in the thread, you'd notice that they're quite civil and the discussion is friendly...in some cases, we actually learned something from each other. Do you think that I randomly picked you as someone to get into it with, or do you think it's in response to your tone and your words? If you ever find yourself wondering why people don't like you, it might help if you think for a second that maybe it's not everyone else in the world who has a problem.
Most importantly, it's clear that you never actually read any of what I've had to say. I don't know (again, or care) what specifically set you off...but in your rants, you've ignored everything I've said, and not for any clear reason. For example, if you actually read the original post that you replied to, I stated:
You've somehow twisted what I wrote into something completely different:
You've also tried to revise the history of what you've stated when I asked:
In your response, you first directly quoted my question, then replied:
When I called you on it and said that you were clearly an exception to the average user, you said:
Here's the thing...you more than said something like it -- you said exactly that. Then you tried to cut into me personally again.
At the end of my post, I did get a little harsh. And I sort of regret it -- I probably should have just ignored you. I
I've set up a few PC-based PVR's and the TiVo and Panasonic ReplayTV's that I've used kick the crap out of them all (I haven't seen MythTV yet).
The interface is cleaner, it's easier to use, there is very little to set up, it doesn't require a clunky PC, and integrates nicely with whatever you've got in your home entertainment system (except for HDTV).
What can it offer you? I don't know. Maybe you're superman with your gear and can set up a seamless MythTV install in minutes. I'm not, although I have the know-how to do what I need -- and in my house, I don't even own a TV, so it's all via my personal computer. The prepackaged systems are pretty cool though -- it's a compelling package no matter who you are.
IMO, where your PC is really cool is for things like watching DivX and other downloaded videos...trying to integrate it into a system that you can use every day. I don't mind using my OS for that -- but again, the TiVo and Replay systems are pretty compelling like that. Cheaper to run, and they just work.
Read the thread. I asked you directly -- you responded.
Who cares what they offer. What do OEM's sell? mmm? That's what the end user market buys. I'm talking Dell, Gateway, IBM, Apple -- the people who sell 85% of desktops. They're (for the most part) not offering floppies anymore as standard on new PC's. Did you even read the article? Why are you arguing this with me if you clearly haven't read it.
Namecalling and a little deathwish is all you've got all you've got? You lose. Discussion's over. Sheesh.
Wow -- intersting. I've only been using these USB keys for a few months (I'm a late adopter of everything) and I haven't run into any problems...but I certainly believe you. Have you heard of any other folks with this problem? Do you think it's a defective unit, or is it just a problem with the storage technology?
Fanboys do little more than sound stupid and juvenile while subjectively saluting a company or product in every way. I'm not talking about your average user...but then again, your average user still doesn't need GigE.
We'll see how long TiVo lasts doing what they're doing now. In any case, this isn't a Turkey original opinion -- this has been stated over and over by analysts.
Hmm -- looks like I've proven that it works for college kids too. I guess you're wrong there.
It doesn't mean that we have to like analog modems. It's a total hack. What's wrong with saying that?
This should answer 1 and 3: do you have a 100 different SCSI/IDE controllers that you need to install for? If you do, well -- you're one of those "except for me" folks and are just trolling. If you work in an IT group with anything close to standardized hardware, a single CD will install all of your systems. You can make 5 CD's for 5 different systems and just keep them. If you install enough OS'es, you should have an automated install process.
BTW -- I know you may have special needs, but the average user doesn't need floppies -- most OEM's have already dictated that (did you read the article?). Wanna buy a new system from a major OEM with a floppy drive included in the price? Tough tacos.
You make a compelling argument, but you're missing some key points. First, CD's are only unreliable when they are constructed poorly using cheap materials. I believe that Kodak CD's using formazan are guaranteed for 200 years. There are many other quality CDR's on the market that will last as long as any other media. Buyers just need to do their due diligence and be leary of spindles of CD's that are $0.08 a piece.
Your reliability argument loses when you bring magnetism into the discussion. The differential in resistance to magnetism ishuge when comparing a floppy to a CD. But what about when you talk about other magnetic media -- like a hard drive. Put equal amounts of magnetism next to a hard drive a floppy and the hard drive wins. Conventional wisdom would tell us that it should lose data first, because it's a far higher density media, but it doesn't because it's better shielded. My breathe-on-them-wrong comment wasn't meant to be read literally, but it really did have to do with magnetism. If you put a student's floppies in a carrier in their backback with anything magnetic (a pair of headphones), that floppy stands a high probability of corruption. Perhaps you don't have the same experience as I do -- I saw students lose data on a regular basis. Another user just pointed out how sensitive floppies are to different disc drives internal mechanicals.
You also mentioned that the floppy's only limitation is the size. Speed is a huge issue here. They're slow as all hell. Even when we moved to higher density technology (such as folpptical's, LS-120's, and even Zip disks) -- they were still slow, and plagued with reliability problems taboot. (FWIW, due to the "click of death" -- we had to can all support for Zip disks...what a horrible technology).
Finally, you're coming at me like it's me who is killing the floppy disk with my words. It's not me, it's the OEM's. They've already done it, they're doing it now, and they will continue to. An OEM picks a chipset. That chipset supports booting from USB and ATAPI. The OEM throws in a USB memory stick, and deletes the floppy drive, saving $6...or the OEM puts an extra $10 into the system and ships with a burner. It doesn't matter. It's done -- the article points this out. However, it's not like your existing floppy drives are going to just vanish in a puff of smoke when these things are declared dead. You can use them for as long as you want...I don't care. They are a relatively ancient technology, and one of the few that has not been improved on in 20 years. Compare this to other old storage technologies. The hard drive is nearly 50 years old, and the concept has not changed. However, they have been consistently improved and aren't going anywhere. The floppy has been replaced. When you buy your next computer, chances are high that it will not need one.