I concur. I believe that "equal" should refer to your protection under the law. So that no individual has more rights/freedoms then any other.
However even if you take the "equal in abilities" stance.. everyone is still equal if you take an "average" of their abilities. So one person might not be as smart as another.. and another might not be as strong.. another not as socially adept. etc etc..
I think one would have a REALLY hard time finding someone that maxes out in all possible human abilities and traits. And I think it's for the best.. how far would our society go if we were all big muscled idiots?.. how about if we were all extremely inteligent weaklings? (I'm going to the extreme here) The society as a whole benefits because of our diversity.. trying to make everyone the same will just hurt us iun the long run.
I didn't mean to imply that the reasearchers didn't know what they were talking about. What I meant was that because of all the uncertainty in these kinds of calculations..any result should be taken with a grain of salt. At least until all of the variables can be explained and justified 100%. No one is arguing about Newtons Laws anymore because they have been proven correct. The formulas and constants used in the universal expansion and age calculations still have a long way to go.
It seems that every few years some new group of researchers "discovers/calculates" the age of the universe. And everytime they recalculate it the universe seems to get older by a few billion years. So I would take this latest calculation with a grain of salt, 'cause I'm certain that in a few more years someone is gona claim that it's 13+ billion years old.
Don't take away our choice! But DO teach us and our children responsibility. The problem is that everyone from lawyers to politicians to those grieving for their loss all want to blame something, blame anything.. except ourselves. Our society is geting to the point that no one is willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions. And is it really a wonder?
A couple of years ago there was a story on the news about a cab driver (In NY?) that stoped a armed robber by using his car to pin him against a wall as he was tring to flee, in the process breaking the guys leg. The robber sued and WON! And that wasn't the only such case. If those are the reprecusions of being a good samaritan.. why would any one try to do something to prevent a crime?
Here's my question.. those kids got guns somewhere illegaly! It was ALREADY illegal for them to have those guns.. they got them anyways! How come? Because the current laws are NOT enforced. I was watching fox a couple of nights ago and they were discussing FBI crime statistics. Acording to those something like 2000+ kids were caught with guns. 6 were prosecuted. Anyone see a problem?.. what about the people that sold these kids the guns? 0 prosecuted. hmm?
I know someone is going to mention that some of these kids propably got the guns from their parents. My opinion: prosecute the parents. If you have kids and you leave your guns lieing around that just shows me you are to irresponsible to own it and your license should be revoked and a in the least a BIG fine slapped on your behind.
Mabey.. just mabey we should force people to take responsibility for their own actions. It's easy to say it's because of how our society is.. but don't forget that each one of us is part of that society.
Personaly, I don't own a gun but I have thought about purchasing one.. I'm still undecided.. but this is a liberty that I enjoy, the choice is mine. I do however know one thing.. if I owned a gun and I brought a child into this world the 1st thing I'd do is get rid of the gun. I think a lot of people forget about it.. you can get rid of a gun much easier then you can purchase one. I know that police stations in my area buy back guns.. and even if they didn't BUY them back they'd certainly happily take it back from you for free.
Well there is two ways of looking at this.. your view is that society should get rid of the "guns" thus there is no more need for responsibility. (Specifiaclly the responsibility of the person owning the gun). However that does NOT solve the problem.. only hides it. Are we to simply remove any object that someone may be irresponsible with?
Ok then let's get rid of cars.. and alcohol.. cause all of those irresponsible people that drive drunk. How about getting rid of TV's too.. 'cause some parents irresponsibly use them as babysitters.. oh wait knives too.. oh and fire..'cause some people are arsenists. Where do we draw the line?
I know I propably went a bit to far with these anologies, but I believe I made my point. You need laws that teach RESPONISBILITY and but not remove CHOICE.
You know it's easy to say, get rid of guns and the problem goes away.. but then something else will pop up.. and someone will convince us to get rid of video games.. and then somethuing else.. and then.. well I best leave you with a quote I saw somewhere:
When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent. When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun. Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
I never claimed I would be a "crime buster" hell it would prolly be a 50/50 chance I'd get killed/wounded in the process..but that's besides the point. What I'd like to see is where you're geting your statistics.. or is it just of the top of your head?
To answer your first question. I never said that criminals wouldn't be able to get guns if regulation was stricter.. the regulation is there to prevent criminals from acquiring guns through legal channels. Whather there would be strict regulation.. or no guns at all.. those who want a gun to kill another person (ie mafia) would get them through other channels. The regulation/training I was speaking of was to make a gun owner more educated about their responsibilities. If a parent has a gun and that gun got in the hands of their kid because they didn't take the time/care to ensure it doesn't happen.. whose fault is it.. the guns.. or the parents? You can always prosecute the parent..as it should be.
You're are right though in that no amount of legislation will prevent a kid from stealing a gun from his/her parents. However, I'm single now.. I don't right now own a gun.. I've certainly been considering getting one, and I for one have no intention of killing anyone.. or for that matter even comminting any sort of crime. But if I had children I wouldn't even CONSIDER having a gun around. It's called responsibility.. I wish more people had some.
As far as your second question. Crime level is directly propotional to economic suffering. I would hesitantly argue that the reason crime is that high there is not because people can own guns but because the economy/environment is poor and people see crime as a way to better their lives. (Notice I said "hasitantly argue" because I don't have any statistics to quote of the top of my head.. I've read/heard about it somewhere though..) The standard of living in the US is among the best in the world. So the majority of the population has no intent of comiting crimes, even if they carry a gun.
I've seen countless interviews with life long criminals that have themselves stated that when they saw an IRA sticker on a house window.. the skiped that house.. why? Mabey because they knew that the owner most likely had a gun and they were NOT willing to risk their own necks.
Ahhh.. guns. There is always someone ready to say that getting rid of guns will solve the problem. Sure that could work.. if GUNS were the CAUSE of the crimes. They are however just a tool used in those crimes. What do you think would happen if the US as of today banned the sale of guns. There are already millions out there.. and any criminal that want's one could get one anytime.
Here's my proposition: Strict background checks, AND a training course before you're allowed to own a gun. This includes a Gun Safety course. (I know the IRA has those but they are NOT mandatory). Then allow any law obiding citizen to take another course and license him/her self to carry a concealed weapon. No criminal would jump through those kind of hoops to get a gun.. they'd get themselves a black market weapon)
Criminals carry concealed weapons now.. and for them it would still be illegal. (as it is now anyways.. hell it's illegal for them to OWN a gun.. they still do). But something tells me that someone would NOT be as willing to comit a crime if he knows that anyone else in the room may have a weapon on them also.
If I was carring a concealed weapon (legally) and saw a someone picking off people I'd certainly intervene. It would only take a few news stories about Joe Citizen picking of a murderer before some of these guys would think twice. The ones that wouldn't care.. well those are the ones that even if we got rid of guns..they would have them anyways.
And as for those that say get rid of guns and no one would get killed by them.. sorry I've lived in Europe (1/2 my life).. and gee.. there still seems to be a crime problem there and people still get killed everyday. And guns, knives and other asorted weapons are used. So get off your soap box and look around.
I'm sure this is gona get some flak (but please read the whole thing before flaming):
Q: Are violent games played by violent people? A: Yes
Q: Do criminals use guns to kill people? A: yes
This is how the media sees the whole situation.. they ask these two questions and then they try to convince everyone that "violent games + guns" breed murdurers. The only problem is that these same games are played by millions of other people who are NOT violent. And millions of guns are bought and used by people that DON'T commit crimes. But no one looks at those statistics not because they're NOT true.. but because they don't help them push their political agendas.
I'm sorry but I doubt that a 14-16 year old could afford a $2000 computer. An internet connection.. and ALL these violent games. Some where along the lines here the parents payed for some of that. So why are we blaming the games? Most likely the PARENTS bought those games. That's like blaming a gun because a parent bought a hand gun for their kid and the kid went out and killed someone. I'm not saing that games DO cause people to kill.. but even if they DID the parents are still at fault here.
In the case of the Colorado shootings (And I live about 30 min from Littleton) the kids were building and setting off pipe bombs in their BACK YARD.. hello? anyone? For crying out loud those two were practically asking to get stoped.
So now we have a bunch of "politicians" trying to make their names known by banning games, tv shows.. hell anything that they can point the finger at as the cause. The only "politician" that seems to have ANY common sense these days seems to be an ex-pro wrestler from minesota.
While watching the movie again tonight it kind of hit me on how Anakin is the chosen one to bring balance to the force. A few people have said that Anakin isn't actually the chosen one.. and that in fact Luke is.
I disagree... there are two sides to the force.. the light and the dark. As of Episode 1 the light side far out numbers thbe dark. After all we only have 2 Sith lords. (One of which is killed) but we had at least 10 Jedi Nights. I think the whole prophacy will unfold with Anakin turning to the dark side and eliminating the other Jedi Knights.
In Episode 4 there are two sith lords, Darth Vader and the Emperor. And there are two Jedi knights Yoda and Obi Wan. Balance in the force?.
Why is it that RIAA is completely in a world of it's own when it comes to what they can do legaly.
Let's see.. is there any competition in the music industry? If any other industry bigwigs got together and said for instance let's hike up our ticket porices up 20%.. the government would be on their asses on an instant.
To me, it seems like the RIAA is doing price fixing. And using anti-competative/monopolistic practices to beat up on the 'lill guy. And the government fopr some reason just let's them.. even though it would stomp on anyone else trying to do the same. Why?
They didn't say how they tested that it works.. just that it does. I figure they did it with animals or something like that. (I know not a pleasant thought)
won't work. Neither will a color copy of your face. From what I remeber about these systems (Gata love the Discovery channel) they won't work if the eye is no longer attached to the user. The systems check to ensure that the eye is still "alive". (Small changes/fluctuations in the iris)
If someone mugs you and pokes out your eye the ATM will not authenticate it (the eye) because these changes will no longer occur. A picture won't work for the same reason.
The only way you can be mugged is either after you got the money out. Or haveing the mugger make you takout the cash at gun point at the cash machine. So nothing has really changed with the exception of not having to remeber a card and a pin number.
Opps.. hehe and I even Previewed my post for stupid mistakes. Yes.. I meant "non-techies". Technical people are much more likely to evaluate prettiness vs. functionality. Thus the 1common guy runs windows95.. vs. NT for the more technical in the bunch.. and of course all the real geeks run Linux. (or some-BSD);)
There is one thing to be said for hype about Linux taking the workstation market away from MS in the next year, but at the rate it's going I really think it will at some point in the future.(3-4 years?)
I installed a copy of RedHat 6.0 on one of my development machines at work and demonstrated Gnome and E to a couple of co-workers. One of them is a big NT fanatic.. his first words were "Holy Sh*t!". I thing Linux 2.2.x and Gnome or Kde is really close NOW.. they are easy to use and look pretty. (don't laugh.. that's what most techies judge OSes on)
I think the only things that need work is clean up under the hood.. or at least some good GUI based tools to make it easy for the Windoze user to configure their system, yet leaving a nice console there for the rest of us. And making sure that there is some common ground for app development between distributions. (IE: standard libs, mabey dir. structures.. etc)
You're right, the right thing to do is to test on those basic theories. But in coding there are many solutions to the same problem. And on top of that there are many more paths to said solution. The real question is how do you create a test that is broad enough so that it allows for these differences, and yet not broad enough to let any loony with some basic VB knowledge to pass. I also think you'll find it very difficult to create a test that's not biased to one particular language or application.
I might be overlooking something obvious here, but the only things I've actually found to be universal in programming is logic, data structures and algorithm analysis. So what kind of test would we design? It can't be an "application" test where you have problems to solve because this kind of test would be heavily biased by the person judging them. The only thing I can think of is a knowledge test that is very specific on those basic concepts, but those are the same tests you already took in collage and obviously passed if you got your degree.
Certification for programmers is a bit rediculeous. Is html code or data? What languages will the certification be in? Different certification for each language? What libraries? MFC? OWL? or ANSI? How about OS? What data structures? Will code formating be in it? Who will administer it?
I can just see this mess now. If certification for coder will become mendatory.. I can just see the OSS movement taking off because of all the people who love to code but may not be able to afford the rediculeous cost of geting certefied.
What do you mean 'need'? I've never 'needed' to be high ever in my life
Perhaps that was a bad choice of words.. I've never needed to be high either. A need is a symptom of addiction. But I chose to use it because I enjoyed the experiance. I used it socially, I used it by myself if I was in a bad mood sometimes. I don't do it anymore because I found different things that I enjoy more that high, and that pot interfered with.
What have you found Jesus?
No I did't find Jesus, I'm atheist if you must know. And since when does religion and drug use have anything to do with each other?
All I was saying is that there are other things in life that can be just as enjoyable as a high, mabey even more so, just because YOU haven't found them doesn't mean they DON'T EXIST. I'm not saiyng you are an idiot for using drugs or even that you are wrong for doing so. As far as I'm concerned you can do what you want because it's YOUR choice! But don't come off calling everyone that doesn't use drugs or finds other things that they enjoy more then drugs as some kind of nut just because YOU don't enjoy them.
A lot of people have had bad experiances with drugs does that give them the right to slam you because you have had a GOOD experiance with those same drugs?
It's about choice. And that one person should not frown upon anothers choice without checking it out for themselves.
I used to smoke pot, hell I used to do many other chemicals too. I don't anymore.. why? I don't need that high anymore. There is a lot of stuff you can do that's legal, and puts you in a much better mood then any drug.. and on top of that it's possibly even "good" for you.
However it's not the same thing.. it never can be.. but it doesn't mean it's not as good or better as a drug high.
Though I do agree with you.. if you haven't tried don't judge those who have and do. You may not agree with their choice, that's your right.. , but that cuts both ways.
Last time I shot someone I didn't see any body parts or blood fly out all over the place.;)
Please people be serious.. ever since the dawn of freaking humanity kids have played "war". It was no real then as it is now. For everyone person who can't tell the differance between a "game" and "real-life (tm)" there are 100000 who can. Is it fair to punish the majority because of a flaw in one person? or should we address the real problem.. the ONE person that HAS the problem.
I think all this "mis-information" and "illogical" conclusions about the death of OSS stems from deep paranoia.
Let's look at the arguments against OSS:
1: Law suits.. Q:Who do you sue if something breaks? A: How many times has MS been sued for a "flaw" in their software?
2. If Proprietary software disapears people will stop inovatingm including the OSS hackers. A: Why would hackers Stop hacking? the reason OSS exists isn't because proprietary software exists.. but because "hackers" exist. (And every day there is more of us)
3. With proprietary software gone all those coders will be out of jobs. A: There is always a need for customization withing companies. Good programmers will NEVER be out of a job. (Unless someone can come up with an AI that can spit out code)
That's just a few arguments that are commonly used as scare tacticks. And they are all based on the "I'm scared of it so it can't be good" logic.
I was thinking about this and knowing MS, and their licensing practice this would propably spell doom for wine. If MS releases a strict license then they can claim the wine group infinged on MS intelectual property and copyrights by copying the code. Now even if the wine developers DON'T copy the code but even look at how the MS stuff looks.. they can still be nailed for this. And it's a LOT harder to prove you didn't peak at the code.. then to lie about how you DID look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur. I believe that "equal" should refer to your protection under the law. So that no individual has more rights/freedoms then any other.
.. how about if we were all extremely inteligent weaklings? (I'm going to the extreme here) The society as a whole benefits because of our diversity.. trying to make everyone the same will just hurt us iun the long run.
However even if you take the "equal in abilities" stance.. everyone is still equal if you take an "average" of their abilities. So one person might not be as smart as another.. and another might not be as strong.. another not as socially adept. etc etc..
I think one would have a REALLY hard time finding someone that maxes out in all possible human abilities and traits. And I think it's for the best.. how far would our society go if we were all big muscled idiots?
Ex-Nt-User
I didn't mean to imply that the reasearchers didn't know what they were talking about. What I meant was that because of all the uncertainty in these kinds of calculations..any result should be taken with a grain of salt. At least until all of the variables can be explained and justified 100%.
No one is arguing about Newtons Laws anymore because they have been proven correct. The formulas and constants used in the universal expansion and age calculations still have a long way to go.
Ex-Nt-User
Ex-Nt-User
It seems that every few years some new group of researchers "discovers/calculates" the age of the universe. And everytime they recalculate it the universe seems to get older by a few billion years. So I would take this latest calculation with a grain of salt, 'cause I'm certain that in a few more years someone is gona claim that it's 13+ billion years old.
Ex-Nt-User
Don't take away our choice! But DO teach us and our children responsibility. The problem is that everyone from lawyers to politicians to those grieving for their loss all want to blame something, blame anything.. except ourselves. Our society is geting to the point that no one is willing to take personal responsibility for their own actions. And is it really a wonder?
A couple of years ago there was a story on the news about a cab driver (In NY?) that stoped a armed robber by using his car to pin him against a wall as he was tring to flee, in the process breaking the guys leg. The robber sued and WON! And that wasn't the only such case. If those are the reprecusions of being a good samaritan.. why would any one try to do something to prevent a crime?
Here's my question.. those kids got guns somewhere illegaly! It was ALREADY illegal for them to have those guns.. they got them anyways! How come? Because the current laws are NOT enforced. I was watching fox a couple of nights ago and they were discussing FBI crime statistics. Acording to those something like 2000+ kids were caught with guns. 6 were prosecuted. Anyone see a problem?.. what about the people that sold these kids the guns? 0 prosecuted. hmm?
I know someone is going to mention that some of these kids propably got the guns from their parents. My opinion: prosecute the parents. If you have kids and you leave your guns lieing around that just shows me you are to irresponsible to own it and your license should be revoked and a in the least a BIG fine slapped on your behind.
Mabey.. just mabey we should force people to take responsibility for their own actions. It's easy to say it's because of how our society is.. but don't forget that each one of us is part of that society.
Personaly, I don't own a gun but I have thought about purchasing one.. I'm still undecided.. but this is a liberty that I enjoy, the choice is mine. I do however know one thing.. if I owned a gun and I brought a child into this world the 1st thing I'd do is get rid of the gun. I think a lot of people forget about it.. you can get rid of a gun much easier then you can purchase one. I know that police stations in my area buy back guns.. and even if they didn't BUY them back they'd certainly happily take it back from you for free.
The key is: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Ex-Nt-User
Well there is two ways of looking at this.. your view is that society should get rid of the "guns" thus there is no more need for responsibility. (Specifiaclly the responsibility of the person owning the gun). However that does NOT solve the problem.. only hides it. Are we to simply remove any object that someone may be irresponsible with?
Ok then let's get rid of cars.. and alcohol.. cause all of those irresponsible people that drive drunk. How about getting rid of TV's too.. 'cause some parents irresponsibly use them as babysitters.. oh wait knives too.. oh and fire..'cause some people are arsenists. Where do we draw the line?
I know I propably went a bit to far with these anologies, but I believe I made my point. You need laws that teach RESPONISBILITY and but not remove CHOICE.
You know it's easy to say, get rid of guns and the problem goes away.. but then something else will pop up.. and someone will convince us to get rid of video games.. and then somethuing else.. and then.. well I best leave you with a quote I saw somewhere:
When they took the fourth amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment,
I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment,
and I can say nothing about it.
-Ex-Nt-User
I never claimed I would be a "crime buster" hell it would prolly be a 50/50 chance I'd get killed/wounded in the process..but that's besides the point. What I'd like to see is where you're geting your statistics.. or is it just of the top of your head?
Ex-Nt-User
To answer your first question. I never said that criminals wouldn't be able to get guns if regulation was stricter.. the regulation is there to prevent criminals from acquiring guns through legal channels. Whather there would be strict regulation.. or no guns at all.. those who want a gun to kill another person (ie mafia) would get them through other channels. The regulation/training I was speaking of was to make a gun owner more educated about their responsibilities. If a parent has a gun and that gun got in the hands of their kid because they didn't take the time/care to ensure it doesn't happen .. whose fault is it.. the guns.. or the parents? You can always prosecute the parent..as it should be.
You're are right though in that no amount of legislation will prevent a kid from stealing a gun from his/her parents. However, I'm single now.. I don't right now own a gun.. I've certainly been considering getting one, and I for one have no intention of killing anyone.. or for that matter even comminting any sort of crime. But if I had children I wouldn't even CONSIDER having a gun around. It's called responsibility.. I wish more people had some.
As far as your second question. Crime level is directly propotional to economic suffering. I would hesitantly argue that the reason crime is that high there is not because people can own guns but because the economy/environment is poor and people see crime as a way to better their lives. (Notice I said "hasitantly argue" because I don't have any statistics to quote of the top of my head.. I've read/heard about it somewhere though..) The standard of living in the US is among the best in the world. So the majority of the population has no intent of comiting crimes, even if they carry a gun.
I've seen countless interviews with life long criminals that have themselves stated that when they saw an IRA sticker on a house window.. the skiped that house.. why? Mabey because they knew that the owner most likely had a gun and they were NOT willing to risk their own necks.
Ex-Nt-User
Ahhh.. guns. There is always someone ready to say that getting rid of guns will solve the problem. Sure that could work.. if GUNS were the CAUSE of the crimes. They are however just a tool used in those crimes. What do you think would happen if the US as of today banned the sale of guns. There are already millions out there.. and any criminal that want's one could get one anytime.
Here's my proposition: Strict background checks, AND a training course before you're allowed to own a gun. This includes a Gun Safety course. (I know the IRA has those but they are NOT mandatory). Then allow any law obiding citizen to take another course and license him/her self to carry a concealed weapon. No criminal would jump through those kind of hoops to get a gun.. they'd get themselves a black market weapon)
Criminals carry concealed weapons now.. and for them it would still be illegal. (as it is now anyways.. hell it's illegal for them to OWN a gun.. they still do). But something tells me that someone would NOT be as willing to comit a crime if he knows that anyone else in the room may have a weapon on them also.
If I was carring a concealed weapon (legally) and saw a someone picking off people I'd certainly intervene. It would only take a few news stories about Joe Citizen picking of a murderer before some of these guys would think twice. The ones that wouldn't care.. well those are the ones that even if we got rid of guns..they would have them anyways.
And as for those that say get rid of guns and no one would get killed by them.. sorry I've lived in Europe (1/2 my life).. and gee.. there still seems to be a crime problem there and people still get killed everyday. And guns, knives and other asorted weapons are used. So get off your soap box and look around.
Ex-Nt-User
I'm sure this is gona get some flak (but please read the whole thing before flaming):
Q: Are violent games played by violent people?
A: Yes
Q: Do criminals use guns to kill people?
A: yes
This is how the media sees the whole situation.. they ask these two questions and then they try to convince everyone that "violent games + guns" breed murdurers. The only problem is that these same games are played by millions of other people who are NOT violent. And millions of guns are bought and used by people that DON'T commit crimes. But no one looks at those statistics not because they're NOT true.. but because they don't help them push their political agendas.
I'm sorry but I doubt that a 14-16 year old could afford a $2000 computer. An internet connection.. and ALL these violent games. Some where along the lines here the parents payed for some of that. So why are we blaming the games? Most likely the PARENTS bought those games. That's like blaming a gun because a parent bought a hand gun for their kid and the kid went out and killed someone. I'm not saing that games DO cause people to kill.. but even if they DID the parents are still at fault here.
In the case of the Colorado shootings (And I live about 30 min from Littleton) the kids were building and setting off pipe bombs in their BACK YARD.. hello? anyone? For crying out loud those two were practically asking to get stoped.
So now we have a bunch of "politicians" trying to make their names known by banning games, tv shows.. hell anything that they can point the finger at as the cause. The only "politician" that seems to have ANY common sense these days seems to be an ex-pro wrestler from minesota.
Ex-Nt-User
--- SPOILERS AHEAD ----
While watching the movie again tonight it kind of hit me on how Anakin is the chosen one to bring balance to the force. A few people have said that Anakin isn't actually the chosen one.. and that in fact Luke is.
I disagree... there are two sides to the force.. the light and the dark. As of Episode 1 the light side far out numbers thbe dark. After all we only have 2 Sith lords. (One of which is killed) but we had at least 10 Jedi Nights. I think the whole prophacy will unfold with Anakin turning to the dark side and eliminating the other Jedi Knights.
In Episode 4 there are two sith lords, Darth Vader and the Emperor. And there are two Jedi knights Yoda and Obi Wan. Balance in the force?.
Comments?
-Ex-Nt-User
Why is it that RIAA is completely in a world of it's own when it comes to what they can do legaly.
Let's see.. is there any competition in the music industry? If any other industry bigwigs got together and said for instance let's hike up our ticket porices up 20%.. the government would be on their asses on an instant.
To me, it seems like the RIAA is doing price fixing. And using anti-competative/monopolistic practices to beat up on the 'lill guy. And the government fopr some reason just let's them.. even though it would stomp on anyone else trying to do the same. Why?
Ex-Nt-User
They didn't say how they tested that it works.. just that it does. I figure they did it with animals or something like that. (I know not a pleasant thought)
Ex-Nt-User
won't work. Neither will a color copy of your face.
From what I remeber about these systems (Gata love the Discovery channel) they won't work if the eye is no longer attached to the user. The systems check to ensure that the eye is still "alive". (Small changes/fluctuations in the iris)
If someone mugs you and pokes out your eye the ATM will not authenticate it (the eye) because these changes will no longer occur. A picture won't work for the same reason.
The only way you can be mugged is either after you got the money out. Or haveing the mugger make you takout the cash at gun point at the cash machine. So nothing has really changed with the exception of not having to remeber a card and a pin number.
Ex-Nt-User
Opps.. hehe and I even Previewed my post for stupid mistakes. Yes.. I meant "non-techies". Technical people are much more likely to evaluate prettiness vs. functionality.
Thus the 1common guy runs windows95.. vs. NT for the more technical in the bunch.. and of course all the real geeks run Linux. (or some-BSD)
There is one thing to be said for hype about Linux taking the workstation market away from MS in the next year, but at the rate it's going I really think it will at some point in the future .(3-4 years?)
I installed a copy of RedHat 6.0 on one of my development machines at work and demonstrated Gnome and E to a couple of co-workers. One of them is a big NT fanatic.. his first words were "Holy Sh*t!". I thing Linux 2.2.x and Gnome or Kde is really close NOW.. they are easy to use and look pretty. (don't laugh.. that's what most techies judge OSes on)
I think the only things that need work is clean up under the hood.. or at least some good GUI based tools to make it easy for the Windoze user to configure their system, yet leaving a nice console there for the rest of us.
And making sure that there is some common ground for app development between distributions. (IE: standard libs, mabey dir. structures.. etc)
-Ex-Nt-User
You're right, the right thing to do is to test on those basic theories. But in coding there are many solutions to the same problem. And on top of that there are many more paths to said solution. The real question is how do you create a test that is broad enough so that it allows for these differences, and yet not broad enough to let any loony with some basic VB knowledge to pass. I also think you'll find it very difficult to create a test that's not biased to one particular language or application.
I might be overlooking something obvious here, but the only things I've actually found to be universal in programming is logic, data structures and algorithm analysis. So what kind of test would we design? It can't be an "application" test where you have problems to solve because this kind of test would be heavily biased by the person judging them. The only thing I can think of is a knowledge test that is very specific on those basic concepts, but those are the same tests you already took in collage and obviously passed if you got your degree.
Ex-Nt-User
Certification for programmers is a bit rediculeous. Is html code or data? What languages will the certification be in? Different certification for each language? What libraries? MFC? OWL? or ANSI? How about OS? What data structures? Will code formating be in it? Who will administer it?
I can just see this mess now. If certification for coder will become mendatory.. I can just see the OSS movement taking off because of all the people who love to code but may not be able to afford the rediculeous cost of geting certefied.
Ex-Nt-User
What do you mean 'need'? I've never 'needed' to be high ever in my life
Perhaps that was a bad choice of words.. I've never needed to be high either. A need is a symptom of addiction. But I chose to use it because I enjoyed the experiance. I used it socially, I used it by myself if I was in a bad mood sometimes. I don't do it anymore because I found different things that I enjoy more that high, and that pot interfered with.
What have you found Jesus?
No I did't find Jesus, I'm atheist if you must know. And since when does religion and drug use have anything to do with each other?
All I was saying is that there are other things in life that can be just as enjoyable as a high, mabey even more so, just because YOU haven't found them doesn't mean they DON'T EXIST. I'm not saiyng you are an idiot for using drugs or even that you are wrong for doing so. As far as I'm concerned you can do what you want because it's YOUR choice! But don't come off calling everyone that doesn't use drugs or finds other things that they enjoy more then drugs as some kind of nut just because YOU don't enjoy them.
A lot of people have had bad experiances with drugs does that give them the right to slam you because you have had a GOOD experiance with those same drugs?
It's about choice. And that one person should not frown upon anothers choice without checking it out for themselves.
Ex-Nt-User
I used to smoke pot, hell I used to do many other chemicals too. I don't anymore.. why? I don't need that high anymore. There is a lot of stuff you can do that's legal, and puts you in a much better mood then any drug.. and on top of that it's possibly even "good" for you.
However it's not the same thing.. it never can be.. but it doesn't mean it's not as good or better as a drug high.
Though I do agree with you.. if you haven't tried don't judge those who have and do. You may not agree with their choice, that's your right.. , but that cuts both ways.
Ex-Nt-User
Last time I shot someone I didn't see any body parts or blood fly out all over the place.
Please people be serious.. ever since the dawn of freaking humanity kids have played "war". It was no real then as it is now. For everyone person who can't tell the differance between a "game" and "real-life (tm)" there are 100000 who can. Is it fair to punish the majority because of a flaw in one person? or should we address the real problem.. the ONE person that HAS the problem.
-Ex-Nt-User
"Stand Back -
I may be dangerous!"
Heheh.. that's a really nice quote for the back of a t-shirt.
-Ex-Nt-User
Ok so I suppose all the Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Gimp, etc etc.. users must not be either
A: people
or
B: living in the real world
If no one wan't to use software created on the internet why do more then 50% of webservers run Apache?
Why are there so many Windows shareware/freeware applications?
Ex-Nt-User
I think all this "mis-information" and "illogical" conclusions about the death of OSS stems from deep paranoia.
Let's look at the arguments against OSS:
1: Law suits..
Q:Who do you sue if something breaks?
A: How many times has MS been sued for a "flaw" in their software?
2. If Proprietary software disapears people will stop inovatingm including the OSS hackers.
A: Why would hackers Stop hacking? the reason OSS exists isn't because proprietary software exists.. but because "hackers" exist. (And every day there is more of us)
3. With proprietary software gone all those coders will be out of jobs.
A: There is always a need for customization withing companies. Good programmers will NEVER be out of a job. (Unless someone can come up with an AI that can spit out code)
That's just a few arguments that are commonly used as scare tacticks. And they are all based on the "I'm scared of it so it can't be good" logic.
Ex-Nt-User
Actually with the exception of a few *smart* people who stick around universities.. in general Universities are places where *dumb* people stagnate.
All the smart people leave ASAP to get well paying jobs.
-Ex-Nt-User
I was thinking about this and knowing MS, and their licensing practice this would propably spell doom for wine. If MS releases a strict license then they can claim the wine group infinged on MS intelectual property and copyrights by copying the code. Now even if the wine developers DON'T copy the code but even look at how the MS stuff looks.. they can still be nailed for this.
And it's a LOT harder to prove you didn't peak at the code.. then to lie about how you DID look at it.
-Ex-NT-User