Ok, that does make sense. I was under the impression you could Skype to other VOIP services. If that isn't the case then I can see the point being made here.
I'm claiming that Grandmas only use Windows so while your statement is true it gets in the way of the ultimate conclusion. Grandmas can't unlearn Skype, but they all use Windows anyway (right? Since Windows is a monopoly), so the claim that tying it to windows in some way would hurt them from being able to migrate away from Windows isn't very convincing.
Oh, I forgot, after that case they stopped making IE and distributing it. The whole thing was about BUNDLING. Which I specifically mentioned in my post. We are not in any position to punish people for things they haven't done yet or given any indication that they will. These objections are laughable.
The implication was that Windows (the monopoly) is being forced upon people by tying Skype to it. That is using Skype to bolster their monopoly, not using their monopoly to bolster Skype. Using their monopoly to bolster Skype would be if they didn't allow other VoIP applications on windows or possibly if they bundled it with windows. Saying Skype only works on Windows now is neither of those things and only serves to lessen the appeal of Skype while potentially raising the appeal of Windows. Since Skype is not the monopoly in question, this is not using a monopoly abusively. Am I wrong here?
How many grandmas are running linux? Your whole argument is completely empty and driven by a hate for microsoft. "Oh no, grandmas won't be able to learn anything else and they'll tie it to windows!" Come on, did you type that with a straight face?
How is buying a voice over IP product and tying it to windows using their monopoly to bolster offerings in other markets? It seems the other way around unless Skype is a monopoly in your opinion. I think you're a ltitle out of line here. Sometimes businesses do things you don't like, but that doesn't make it illegal or abusive.
I don't know, it seems to me like you're complaining over nothing. SC2 didn't feel like it was a third of a game to me. It's a full game with 2 planned expansions. Sorry you didn't get three races in your single player, but that doesn't mean it was shipped incomplete, it means they didn't give you exactly what you want. Seeing as how it is a multiplayer game at heart, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Nobody complains that SC1 was released without the Brood War campaign.
I thought it went without saying that content people want to see is expensive, not what you happen to like that is clearly not commercially viable for a reason (nobody wants to see it).
Wrong, you are redefining terms. When somebody speaks, you don't get to tell them what they meant. Are you denying any such movement called Anonymous? Because it would seem to me that there is such a movement and they do real things. When people identify them (which is easy because they leave pretty significant clues to what cultural slice of the internet they come from) as Anonymous you can't say "anonymous is just everybody who doesn't give their name", because that's not what the speaker meant. Everybody outside the group gets this. You can refer to a group of people as neo-nazis and generalize them, even though distinct groups may go about things different ways and nobody owns the trademark on the name. Anonymous is no different, they just like to feel different. You're not clever people.
How the fuck is this informative? This is more inane babble that contradicts reality in favor of stupid bullshit platitudes.
everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone
Sure, if you're a retard. In the real world where presumably you are capable of not being an intentional intellectual midget, you will be able to see that the people refered to as Anonymous are a tangible, real set of people that may change over time, but are definable. Anonymous has a creed, a culture and hang outs, as well as informal leaders. People who frequent certain websites, subscribe to the creed, and are a part of the culture can therefore be called Anonymous and can be classified like you would classify a group. Think "Americans". People don't jump in to every conversation where the word "Americans" was used when not referring to government action, and say "American's aren't a group. Anybody can be an American, all they have to do is live in America and call themselves American, so please stop saying things like 'American's not ready for the electric car.' It shows how you just don't get the melting pot concept."
You could easily say that neo-nazis are under civil war when two groups who are independant begin stabbing each other. There is no centralized structure, anybody can call themselves a neo-nazi. Explain to me how they're different. Oh, they're not. Internet douchebags just like to feel deep.
It's 2011, I don't close everything except the game I'm playing anymore. I'm playing music, recording the screen and running a web server or any number of other things in the background. Or streaming netflix on the other monitor instead of music.
I bought one of those Phenom II X6 1100T Black Editions. Having six cores is pretty nice when you run a web server, file server and capture video and play starcraft II at the same time. I got blasted for not going intel, but I've had no problems at all with it and the chip was pretty cheap.
But abortion is not killing babies, at least not in the mind of a liberal. So you don't say "You support killing babies" you say "you support abortion". You don't say "Christians support homo bashing and invasions and imperialism" you say "you are against the gay lifestyle and for the war in Iraq" and focus on those issues. For the abortion thing somebody against abortion would say "here is why I believe abortion is wrong" and if you are pro gay marriage you say "here is why I think gays should be allowed to marry" If you are against the war in Iraq you say "Let me tell you why the war in Iraq was wrong [ethically, financially, politically, practically]". If you are against a particular budget cut, address that. Don't say tea partiers are racists. It has nothing to do with the policy. Has the tea party pushed for all white salad bars in congress? I don't think so.
Now on the other hand if you support abortion a bad argument is "old men want to control women's bodies!" and a good argument would be along the lines of "there is no way to determine when a person becomes a person, therefore as the only verifiable person involved, the mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy when it is disputable that the baby has become a person. Otherwise we would be giving up our rights to our bodies in favor of the rights of a possibility." Do you see the difference?
if someone calls himself "Anonymous", he in that very moment, stops being Anonymous.
Don't say contradictory things like you know what the fuck you are talking about, then tell everybody else they're wrong because you set contradictory rules to membership of a club which is not a club then claimed to be members which is against being a member. Then you top it off with the cream of the creme, "EPIC FAIL". Your post is everything I hate about the internet going mainstream, cyber-douchism at its maximum.
I stopped reading at "Faux News", assuming you were retarded. Hate Fox News all you want, but at least be original and don't replace Fox with a word that would only be pronounced similarly to Fox if you were a third grader. The political implication of "Faux News" is not my problem, it is just genuinely annoying to have to read that.
They are if they say they are, isn't that the whole point? This "Anonymous isn't a group but anonymous != Anonymous" shit makes no fucking sense. God damn it's like everybody is in Philosophy 101 all of a sudden with delusions of being deep.
I'm sorry, are you usually out living life when you sit in the office with no work to do collecting a paycheck? Is not telling your boss when you have no work to do somehow a triumph of the human fucking spirit, or do you just lack reading skills? Tell me, please, inform us all about your excellent life doing the minimum, wasting your time in a dead end, not growing your skills but churning the same shit out over and over instead of freeing the humans of the world from doing that task. Perhaps you should look at the trends over the past couple thousand years and see how much free time people have to live their lives now compared to the rest of history.
Where did I ever say that being a hippy was a bad thing?
I didn't say you said that. I was just transitioning. Perhaps roughly. If Jesus is a hippy, god is a libertarian.
what have Republicans been doing for the last decade? Invasions and imperialism.
See, right here, this is your problem. I doubt christians voted for GWB a second time hoping he would start another war, or are just waiting for us to invade somebody else. In fact, stuff with Libya seems to have people a little wary. Even Christians. This could be caused by simple partisanship, or it could be that they genuinely don't agree with the blanket "lets invade other countries" like you keep asserting, and believed in the two invasions under GWB. You will only make enemies when you try to tell somebody they believe something they don't. This is why I don't tell liberals they believe in killing babies. See? If I called a liberal a baby killer, thats ineffective. They don't believe they support that at all.
it's about bashing homosexuals, killing non-Christians, invading other countries to establish imperialism, etc.
Seriously I don't want to start an argument with you or anything, but I think you're way out of touch with christianity. All you do is cast generalized accusations at people based on parodies of them. You can find the lowest of the low on either side, and cast that in to the image of those who oppose you, but that isn't helpful at all. My father goes to Guatemala twice a year to help a village there by building a school and donating money. He is sent there by the church he attends and going there to help has pretty much infected him with an enthusiasm I've never seen him have. In what way is that not about love and instead about killing non-Christians and invading other countries? My wager is very few christians really think to themselves "we should kill brown people and establish an empire!" and the few that do aren't really christians. You may see that as the results of their philosophy, or the intentions of the people they support, but it is WILDLY wrong to suggest that is how christians think. So since they know they don't believe that, all you do by accusing them of that is make them blind to your real point, which is that those are the consequences of their policies of choice.
You see Jesus as a hippy, I see him as the model citizen, sent to show us what we should be like. Meanwhile our very libertarian God has all the power to force us to behave the way he wants us to, but allows us to live our lives as we see fit because it is our life. That's the point here. I can't speak for all libertarians, but as one of many I give to charities, I help people when I can and I do not believe in passing laws to force people to do what I do. I am me, I choose what is right and wrong for me, and I act accordingly. I believe the model person should give to charity, should help people on the street and should volunteer more than just money but also time to make the world a better place, but not even God forces people to do what in his mind is "right". That is the failing logic behind most liberals I encounter who rail against the tea party and libertarianism. They cast not wanting to force somebody to do something to mean they want the opposite of that thing to happen.
Troll and stupid? Hardly. I don't believe people should go through life doing tasks that could be done better or more efficiently just to get paid by somebody else to do it. It's called advancement. If I'm in charge of maintaining a website and I always manually edit every page with new content from marketing, I shouldn't work to provide a way for marketing to just do that themselves? Then I move from writing some stupid HTML to writing some code, and having more time available to do other things like improve the UI, or make new functionality. Sure, when times are tough they may decide they don't need my new services, as marketing took over my old tasks, but I've improved the efficiency of that company and improved my own worth and skills.
Some people want to preserve their HTML editing job and resist new tools, some people embrace the new tools. I would much rather be somebody who tries to progress and move on to bigger and better things than sit there doing the same unnecessary thing just to get a check. That attitude is every bit as short sighted as people claim corporate America to be with its focus on quarterly profits. Try doing a good job and being the best and most efficient you can be. I promise those people aren't the ones looking for jobs. At least not very long.
Well, that's true. You should probably just think of stuff that will make your job easier down the road and begin doing that. Documentation, research, develop tools, etc. But a lot of times my managers have work that they haven't assigned yet because they genuinely don't know I've gotten all of my priority tasks completed, and its irritating watching people sleep all day or post on slashdot since they "have no work" instead of trying to get more done.
Well first of all I'm fairly certain Woz is not working for Steve Jobs anymore. Secondly, if you have no work to do and don't ask for me work then all you are is somebody trying to preserve their job. Sometimes the attitudes of people on here about their jobs astounds me. A bunch of the community come off as trying to preserve their jobs while doing as little work as possible. If you aren't working your hardest to make your current responsibilities obsolete, what are you doing? That kind of lazy attitude disgusts me. Don't you have any pride?
The concept of war predates the US legal definition. Since then it has also been used extensively to mean things other than the legal definition. Remember those examples I gave you? Please, do tell, how does this intelligence differ from other "war" intelligence, including any information we had on the Germans, English or Japanese before we officially declared war in WWII. Please, enlighten me how the difference between what you term "War Intelligence" and what the OP described as "War Intelligence" has any difference in terms of what it means in relation to the conversation at hand. Specifically if the information should be leaked. Please, go ahead. I'm waiting for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, that does make sense. I was under the impression you could Skype to other VOIP services. If that isn't the case then I can see the point being made here.
I'm claiming that Grandmas only use Windows so while your statement is true it gets in the way of the ultimate conclusion. Grandmas can't unlearn Skype, but they all use Windows anyway (right? Since Windows is a monopoly), so the claim that tying it to windows in some way would hurt them from being able to migrate away from Windows isn't very convincing.
Oh, I forgot, after that case they stopped making IE and distributing it. The whole thing was about BUNDLING. Which I specifically mentioned in my post. We are not in any position to punish people for things they haven't done yet or given any indication that they will. These objections are laughable.
The implication was that Windows (the monopoly) is being forced upon people by tying Skype to it. That is using Skype to bolster their monopoly, not using their monopoly to bolster Skype. Using their monopoly to bolster Skype would be if they didn't allow other VoIP applications on windows or possibly if they bundled it with windows. Saying Skype only works on Windows now is neither of those things and only serves to lessen the appeal of Skype while potentially raising the appeal of Windows. Since Skype is not the monopoly in question, this is not using a monopoly abusively. Am I wrong here?
How many grandmas are running linux? Your whole argument is completely empty and driven by a hate for microsoft. "Oh no, grandmas won't be able to learn anything else and they'll tie it to windows!" Come on, did you type that with a straight face?
How is buying a voice over IP product and tying it to windows using their monopoly to bolster offerings in other markets? It seems the other way around unless Skype is a monopoly in your opinion. I think you're a ltitle out of line here. Sometimes businesses do things you don't like, but that doesn't make it illegal or abusive.
I don't know, it seems to me like you're complaining over nothing. SC2 didn't feel like it was a third of a game to me. It's a full game with 2 planned expansions. Sorry you didn't get three races in your single player, but that doesn't mean it was shipped incomplete, it means they didn't give you exactly what you want. Seeing as how it is a multiplayer game at heart, I don't think it is that big of a deal. Nobody complains that SC1 was released without the Brood War campaign.
Nothing lasts forever. Eventually there will be no more stars, do you worry about that too?
I thought it went without saying that content people want to see is expensive, not what you happen to like that is clearly not commercially viable for a reason (nobody wants to see it).
Wrong, you are redefining terms. When somebody speaks, you don't get to tell them what they meant. Are you denying any such movement called Anonymous? Because it would seem to me that there is such a movement and they do real things. When people identify them (which is easy because they leave pretty significant clues to what cultural slice of the internet they come from) as Anonymous you can't say "anonymous is just everybody who doesn't give their name", because that's not what the speaker meant. Everybody outside the group gets this. You can refer to a group of people as neo-nazis and generalize them, even though distinct groups may go about things different ways and nobody owns the trademark on the name. Anonymous is no different, they just like to feel different. You're not clever people.
everyone is anonymous and anonymous is everyone
Sure, if you're a retard. In the real world where presumably you are capable of not being an intentional intellectual midget, you will be able to see that the people refered to as Anonymous are a tangible, real set of people that may change over time, but are definable. Anonymous has a creed, a culture and hang outs, as well as informal leaders. People who frequent certain websites, subscribe to the creed, and are a part of the culture can therefore be called Anonymous and can be classified like you would classify a group. Think "Americans". People don't jump in to every conversation where the word "Americans" was used when not referring to government action, and say "American's aren't a group. Anybody can be an American, all they have to do is live in America and call themselves American, so please stop saying things like 'American's not ready for the electric car.' It shows how you just don't get the melting pot concept."
You could easily say that neo-nazis are under civil war when two groups who are independant begin stabbing each other. There is no centralized structure, anybody can call themselves a neo-nazi. Explain to me how they're different. Oh, they're not. Internet douchebags just like to feel deep.
It's 2011, I don't close everything except the game I'm playing anymore. I'm playing music, recording the screen and running a web server or any number of other things in the background. Or streaming netflix on the other monitor instead of music.
I bought one of those Phenom II X6 1100T Black Editions. Having six cores is pretty nice when you run a web server, file server and capture video and play starcraft II at the same time. I got blasted for not going intel, but I've had no problems at all with it and the chip was pretty cheap.
But abortion is not killing babies, at least not in the mind of a liberal. So you don't say "You support killing babies" you say "you support abortion". You don't say "Christians support homo bashing and invasions and imperialism" you say "you are against the gay lifestyle and for the war in Iraq" and focus on those issues. For the abortion thing somebody against abortion would say "here is why I believe abortion is wrong" and if you are pro gay marriage you say "here is why I think gays should be allowed to marry" If you are against the war in Iraq you say "Let me tell you why the war in Iraq was wrong [ethically, financially, politically, practically]". If you are against a particular budget cut, address that. Don't say tea partiers are racists. It has nothing to do with the policy. Has the tea party pushed for all white salad bars in congress? I don't think so. Now on the other hand if you support abortion a bad argument is "old men want to control women's bodies!" and a good argument would be along the lines of "there is no way to determine when a person becomes a person, therefore as the only verifiable person involved, the mother should be able to terminate the pregnancy when it is disputable that the baby has become a person. Otherwise we would be giving up our rights to our bodies in favor of the rights of a possibility." Do you see the difference?
Anonymous itself stated
...
if someone calls himself "Anonymous", he in that very moment, stops being Anonymous.
Don't say contradictory things like you know what the fuck you are talking about, then tell everybody else they're wrong because you set contradictory rules to membership of a club which is not a club then claimed to be members which is against being a member. Then you top it off with the cream of the creme, "EPIC FAIL". Your post is everything I hate about the internet going mainstream, cyber-douchism at its maximum.
I stopped reading at "Faux News", assuming you were retarded. Hate Fox News all you want, but at least be original and don't replace Fox with a word that would only be pronounced similarly to Fox if you were a third grader. The political implication of "Faux News" is not my problem, it is just genuinely annoying to have to read that.
Whoa whoa whoa! Your reasoning is getting in the way of our crucifixion!
They are if they say they are, isn't that the whole point? This "Anonymous isn't a group but anonymous != Anonymous" shit makes no fucking sense. God damn it's like everybody is in Philosophy 101 all of a sudden with delusions of being deep.
I'm sorry, are you usually out living life when you sit in the office with no work to do collecting a paycheck? Is not telling your boss when you have no work to do somehow a triumph of the human fucking spirit, or do you just lack reading skills? Tell me, please, inform us all about your excellent life doing the minimum, wasting your time in a dead end, not growing your skills but churning the same shit out over and over instead of freeing the humans of the world from doing that task. Perhaps you should look at the trends over the past couple thousand years and see how much free time people have to live their lives now compared to the rest of history.
Where did I ever say that being a hippy was a bad thing?
I didn't say you said that. I was just transitioning. Perhaps roughly. If Jesus is a hippy, god is a libertarian.
what have Republicans been doing for the last decade? Invasions and imperialism.
See, right here, this is your problem. I doubt christians voted for GWB a second time hoping he would start another war, or are just waiting for us to invade somebody else. In fact, stuff with Libya seems to have people a little wary. Even Christians. This could be caused by simple partisanship, or it could be that they genuinely don't agree with the blanket "lets invade other countries" like you keep asserting, and believed in the two invasions under GWB. You will only make enemies when you try to tell somebody they believe something they don't. This is why I don't tell liberals they believe in killing babies. See? If I called a liberal a baby killer, thats ineffective. They don't believe they support that at all.
it's about bashing homosexuals, killing non-Christians, invading other countries to establish imperialism, etc.
Seriously I don't want to start an argument with you or anything, but I think you're way out of touch with christianity. All you do is cast generalized accusations at people based on parodies of them. You can find the lowest of the low on either side, and cast that in to the image of those who oppose you, but that isn't helpful at all. My father goes to Guatemala twice a year to help a village there by building a school and donating money. He is sent there by the church he attends and going there to help has pretty much infected him with an enthusiasm I've never seen him have. In what way is that not about love and instead about killing non-Christians and invading other countries? My wager is very few christians really think to themselves "we should kill brown people and establish an empire!" and the few that do aren't really christians. You may see that as the results of their philosophy, or the intentions of the people they support, but it is WILDLY wrong to suggest that is how christians think. So since they know they don't believe that, all you do by accusing them of that is make them blind to your real point, which is that those are the consequences of their policies of choice.
You see Jesus as a hippy, I see him as the model citizen, sent to show us what we should be like. Meanwhile our very libertarian God has all the power to force us to behave the way he wants us to, but allows us to live our lives as we see fit because it is our life. That's the point here. I can't speak for all libertarians, but as one of many I give to charities, I help people when I can and I do not believe in passing laws to force people to do what I do. I am me, I choose what is right and wrong for me, and I act accordingly. I believe the model person should give to charity, should help people on the street and should volunteer more than just money but also time to make the world a better place, but not even God forces people to do what in his mind is "right". That is the failing logic behind most liberals I encounter who rail against the tea party and libertarianism. They cast not wanting to force somebody to do something to mean they want the opposite of that thing to happen.
Troll and stupid? Hardly. I don't believe people should go through life doing tasks that could be done better or more efficiently just to get paid by somebody else to do it. It's called advancement. If I'm in charge of maintaining a website and I always manually edit every page with new content from marketing, I shouldn't work to provide a way for marketing to just do that themselves? Then I move from writing some stupid HTML to writing some code, and having more time available to do other things like improve the UI, or make new functionality. Sure, when times are tough they may decide they don't need my new services, as marketing took over my old tasks, but I've improved the efficiency of that company and improved my own worth and skills.
Some people want to preserve their HTML editing job and resist new tools, some people embrace the new tools. I would much rather be somebody who tries to progress and move on to bigger and better things than sit there doing the same unnecessary thing just to get a check. That attitude is every bit as short sighted as people claim corporate America to be with its focus on quarterly profits. Try doing a good job and being the best and most efficient you can be. I promise those people aren't the ones looking for jobs. At least not very long.
Well, that's true. You should probably just think of stuff that will make your job easier down the road and begin doing that. Documentation, research, develop tools, etc. But a lot of times my managers have work that they haven't assigned yet because they genuinely don't know I've gotten all of my priority tasks completed, and its irritating watching people sleep all day or post on slashdot since they "have no work" instead of trying to get more done.
Well first of all I'm fairly certain Woz is not working for Steve Jobs anymore. Secondly, if you have no work to do and don't ask for me work then all you are is somebody trying to preserve their job. Sometimes the attitudes of people on here about their jobs astounds me. A bunch of the community come off as trying to preserve their jobs while doing as little work as possible. If you aren't working your hardest to make your current responsibilities obsolete, what are you doing? That kind of lazy attitude disgusts me. Don't you have any pride?
The concept of war predates the US legal definition. Since then it has also been used extensively to mean things other than the legal definition. Remember those examples I gave you? Please, do tell, how does this intelligence differ from other "war" intelligence, including any information we had on the Germans, English or Japanese before we officially declared war in WWII. Please, enlighten me how the difference between what you term "War Intelligence" and what the OP described as "War Intelligence" has any difference in terms of what it means in relation to the conversation at hand. Specifically if the information should be leaked. Please, go ahead. I'm waiting for you.