This whole thing is stupid. Discrimination is not a bad thing. I don't eat shit, I don't pork ugly, dumb women and I don't play bad video games. I also don't accept friend requests from people with a personality I don't like. I don't hire people that aren't good at the job or tell jokes in bad taste during the interview process. All of those things are discrimination. The only problem with discrimination is when society systematically discriminates against a class of people for the purpose of holding that class back. If you don't discriminate you're an idiot, but you would give yourself a job anyway if you could because discrimination based on intelligence or capability is somehow wrong to you.
Does this sound like unsavory discrimination, or just helping out some vets who gave a lot for and should get a lot from society?
Damnit, what about the dust though? Presumably the spring we tension won't explode when we release it and destroy our crops, though I just know that's what springs would love to happen. Think of all those abandoned houses with stairs to play on without kids there to stretch and tangle them.
Oh, is projecting technological advances, and complex trends based on many factors reality and arithmetic now? I thought it was hazy guess-work and complex statistical modeling.
You're a moron. Do you see all the people that are NOT farming? Yeah... they're the ones that benefit from it. Everything we have, every thing that is NOT food is the benefit of machines producing for us, or other technological advances.
Yes, because there is somebody out there who actually wants everybody to starve, and he will be the one that controls all the robots. There will be nobody out there with any capital to buy a robot or the knowledge to make one. Especially the robot that makes the other robots. He will also make robots that will protect him from everybody that is starving. Come on, you have to be pretty thick to think we would starve in the midst of pleanty in a realm where literally no work needs to be done to survive, just obtain a robot. Also, just because robots can work doesn't mean humans can't.
So why the hell are you fixated on the gap? Jealous of everybody else? Fact remains you have better food, water, toys and healthcare than people did a hundred years ago. If you think the poor now have it worse than the poor did 100 years ago you're just wrong.
But... but... They raised their prices! I.... uh.... DOUBLE!.... uh... I would much rather pay netflix $2 a month for one DVD every few months than drive down the street and pay $1 per movie.
Honestly, this uproar over netflix kind of lets the cat out of the bag about how people view copyright and their entitlement to it all. We've been told all along people torrent because the legal options are too much of a burden. Here, Netflix has done something that actually makes sense. Mailing DVDs around? That is expensive. A lot of people use the streaming only. Rather than raise the price of streaming media to cover the DVD sales, they separated them and allow you to pay for cheaper streaming or cheaper DVDs but both together are more expensive because DVDs are more expensive. But now that they've raised their prices for both DVD and streaming together, that's a good excuse to go back to pirating, instead of supporting Netflix outlaying more cash for better streaming selection everybody wants.
Honestly, grow a damned backbone. If you find the legal way too much of a burden that doesn't mean you have the right to torrent everything, and it is an ineffective way to get what you supposedly want: legal means of accessing content. All you're showing people is there is demand, they just need to try to lock down the piracy. If you had some balls and any kind of will, or weren't just a self-entitled jackwad trying to justify his piracy, you would just not view the content.
The fact is, people can pirate, so they will. They get what they want in the short term. When the companies they are pirating from try to prevent piracy it will backfire, sure, but people will complain louder as this brinksmanship of destroying digital rights and copyrights escalates. The piraters are making their own bed, making the problems they're supposedly righteously fighting. It wouldn't be so bad if people would just say "I wasn't going to buy this anyway, so I torrented it." Instead we get this "Oh, they didn't do what I wanted so I pirated it to teach them a lesson!" No you didn't, you pirated it because you wanted to watch it.
Or maybe the danger of living in earthquake and hurricane zones should come with a penalty in the form of local taxes, which make it unattractive to live there so people don't insist on living in shitty locations and making everybody else pay for their right to choose dangerous grounds to live in. Lots of land out there, we don't all need to live where the weather will continue demolish shit. Federal government is like insurance companies. Since they're footing the bill, I want your to MRI my knee because it twinges when I run 5 miles. If you had to pay the $300 you probably wouldn't spend the money unless it was worth it.
I'm not saying you voted you're complicit, I'm saying if you voted and you were dazzled by political money buying your vote through TV ads and the like then you are complicit. If you weren't dazzled, then you didn't get what you wanted, which means there is another group of people who were either dazzled and need to wake up, or actually got what they wanted. I broke them up in to 50% (undazzled) and 49% (got what they want/dazzled). You need to take your message to the 49% in a way that makes sense to them, instead of just shaming rich people publicly. The Occupy Wall Street movement clearly hates the rich and powerful in the country. There is a sizable portion of Americans who do not hate the rich and powerful without being a part of them. Show the people why we should hate the 1% is my point, instead of making everybody just hate you more, which is all this movement has accomplished so far with their childish antics, especially what they said to Congressman Lewis in Atlanta. Talk about bizarre behavior! Why would I want to listen to anybody who won't listen to a congressman speak directly to them about their issue?
You've come close to describing what I think is the real problem.
Protestors claim to be the 99%, blaming Wall Street for buying politicians.
Protestors, the supposed 99% vote for the politicians. The money from the corporations is spent on buying votes to stay in power.
Therefore the 99% are allowing themselves to be dazzled, OR, this whole theory is a crock of shit and they aren't the 99%, they're more like the 50%. The other 49% are just not agreeing with them. So don't blame this all on corporations, you can blame it on the 49% or admit that you're wrong, but corporations can't run the world without the consent of the people working for the corporations, voting for the politicians, and generally accepting the status quo. The only reason to be angry at the corporations is because you're greedy yourself. Otherwise be angry at yourselves and the populace and really try to change by speaking to the 49%, not the 1%.
Have any of you even looked at the Win8 Preview SDK? It makes all of the "C# and.NET are dead!" comments laughable. It's like they don't care they're obviously wrong, they just want to make it seem for the moment that C# developers are screwed so they don't feel so bad for not taking it seriously when it came out. They'll keep screaming their points with no facts at all until the screaming itself becomes the "fact" they need.
What is wrong with saying why you modded something up or down? I like to know when people think things are funny or insightful or informative. More-over, I like to know other people think I'm one of those things, or if I was modded down because a "meh" joke hit +5, or if the modder thought I was a troll.
I was going to mod you down as overrated as I've already moderated in this thread, but this post is so bad I decided to just lose the mod points and post a correction to your woefully naive and innacurate analysis. It would slow down by a factor of 9, asshole. Way to overstate your case.
Perhaps he is acutely aware of this and is now removing his things so others will take the responsibility of making his previous work available while he does whatever else he wants without worrying about it.
If the rich aren't spending their money, then what good is it doing them? I'm not sure I fully understand why people who have money can't just not pay taxes on it until they spend it. If they aren't spending it, they may as well not have it. When they are investing it, they are essentially giving back, when they spend it they would get taxed. Sure, the poor might be spending a bigger percentage of their income, but the percentage of income not being spent by the rich effectively makes them live like they're poorer, right? The only difference is you don't have these ridiculous schemes like approved retirement programs for investments that have weird rules, HSAs and FSAs (again with weird rules), and all kinds of tax loopholes that only serve to prove that we aren't really taxing based on income anyway but more along the lines of what you're spending that income on. The way things are now they simply take the money up front then refund it to you later based on what you spent it on.
What do you think about the capital gains tax? Isn't that a rich-people-pay-less tax? I know it isn't income but if we taxed consumption, when people spent their investment income it would be taxed at the same rate as everybody else's wages. Isn't that more fair? On top of it with consumption taxes you can choose not to tax the essentials, like food, which would greatly shift the tax burden back over to the rich.
Well this post is almost 100% ignorant. IE8 does support Flash, you're confusing IE with Windows, or 8 with 10. I'm not sure which. Further, Microsoft did a good job with IE6 until they left it alone for a decade while everything else evolved around it. So no, they weren't always dragging their feet. IE6 led browser innovation in the beginning and actually worked.
Slashdot Mirror
This whole thing is stupid. Discrimination is not a bad thing. I don't eat shit, I don't pork ugly, dumb women and I don't play bad video games. I also don't accept friend requests from people with a personality I don't like. I don't hire people that aren't good at the job or tell jokes in bad taste during the interview process. All of those things are discrimination. The only problem with discrimination is when society systematically discriminates against a class of people for the purpose of holding that class back. If you don't discriminate you're an idiot, but you would give yourself a job anyway if you could because discrimination based on intelligence or capability is somehow wrong to you.
Does this sound like unsavory discrimination, or just helping out some vets who gave a lot for and should get a lot from society?
Right, right. I totally take your word on what sucks and what doesn't, because Sonic Youth is a good band.
Damnit, what about the dust though? Presumably the spring we tension won't explode when we release it and destroy our crops, though I just know that's what springs would love to happen. Think of all those abandoned houses with stairs to play on without kids there to stretch and tangle them.
Oh, is projecting technological advances, and complex trends based on many factors reality and arithmetic now? I thought it was hazy guess-work and complex statistical modeling.
You're a moron. Do you see all the people that are NOT farming? Yeah... they're the ones that benefit from it. Everything we have, every thing that is NOT food is the benefit of machines producing for us, or other technological advances.
Yes, because there is somebody out there who actually wants everybody to starve, and he will be the one that controls all the robots. There will be nobody out there with any capital to buy a robot or the knowledge to make one. Especially the robot that makes the other robots. He will also make robots that will protect him from everybody that is starving. Come on, you have to be pretty thick to think we would starve in the midst of pleanty in a realm where literally no work needs to be done to survive, just obtain a robot. Also, just because robots can work doesn't mean humans can't.
So why the hell are you fixated on the gap? Jealous of everybody else? Fact remains you have better food, water, toys and healthcare than people did a hundred years ago. If you think the poor now have it worse than the poor did 100 years ago you're just wrong.
Automation makes things cheaper.
But... but... They raised their prices! I.... uh.... DOUBLE!.... uh... I would much rather pay netflix $2 a month for one DVD every few months than drive down the street and pay $1 per movie.
Honestly, this uproar over netflix kind of lets the cat out of the bag about how people view copyright and their entitlement to it all. We've been told all along people torrent because the legal options are too much of a burden. Here, Netflix has done something that actually makes sense. Mailing DVDs around? That is expensive. A lot of people use the streaming only. Rather than raise the price of streaming media to cover the DVD sales, they separated them and allow you to pay for cheaper streaming or cheaper DVDs but both together are more expensive because DVDs are more expensive. But now that they've raised their prices for both DVD and streaming together, that's a good excuse to go back to pirating, instead of supporting Netflix outlaying more cash for better streaming selection everybody wants.
Honestly, grow a damned backbone. If you find the legal way too much of a burden that doesn't mean you have the right to torrent everything, and it is an ineffective way to get what you supposedly want: legal means of accessing content. All you're showing people is there is demand, they just need to try to lock down the piracy. If you had some balls and any kind of will, or weren't just a self-entitled jackwad trying to justify his piracy, you would just not view the content.
The fact is, people can pirate, so they will. They get what they want in the short term. When the companies they are pirating from try to prevent piracy it will backfire, sure, but people will complain louder as this brinksmanship of destroying digital rights and copyrights escalates. The piraters are making their own bed, making the problems they're supposedly righteously fighting. It wouldn't be so bad if people would just say "I wasn't going to buy this anyway, so I torrented it." Instead we get this "Oh, they didn't do what I wanted so I pirated it to teach them a lesson!" No you didn't, you pirated it because you wanted to watch it.
Or maybe the danger of living in earthquake and hurricane zones should come with a penalty in the form of local taxes, which make it unattractive to live there so people don't insist on living in shitty locations and making everybody else pay for their right to choose dangerous grounds to live in. Lots of land out there, we don't all need to live where the weather will continue demolish shit. Federal government is like insurance companies. Since they're footing the bill, I want your to MRI my knee because it twinges when I run 5 miles. If you had to pay the $300 you probably wouldn't spend the money unless it was worth it.
Therefore, some of the greatest minds the world has ever known were right handed.
Why did you leave in the first place?
Maybe they will set their shit up properly if they have to.
I'm not saying you voted you're complicit, I'm saying if you voted and you were dazzled by political money buying your vote through TV ads and the like then you are complicit. If you weren't dazzled, then you didn't get what you wanted, which means there is another group of people who were either dazzled and need to wake up, or actually got what they wanted. I broke them up in to 50% (undazzled) and 49% (got what they want/dazzled). You need to take your message to the 49% in a way that makes sense to them, instead of just shaming rich people publicly. The Occupy Wall Street movement clearly hates the rich and powerful in the country. There is a sizable portion of Americans who do not hate the rich and powerful without being a part of them. Show the people why we should hate the 1% is my point, instead of making everybody just hate you more, which is all this movement has accomplished so far with their childish antics, especially what they said to Congressman Lewis in Atlanta. Talk about bizarre behavior! Why would I want to listen to anybody who won't listen to a congressman speak directly to them about their issue?
You've come close to describing what I think is the real problem.
Protestors claim to be the 99%, blaming Wall Street for buying politicians.
Protestors, the supposed 99% vote for the politicians. The money from the corporations is spent on buying votes to stay in power.
Therefore the 99% are allowing themselves to be dazzled, OR, this whole theory is a crock of shit and they aren't the 99%, they're more like the 50%. The other 49% are just not agreeing with them. So don't blame this all on corporations, you can blame it on the 49% or admit that you're wrong, but corporations can't run the world without the consent of the people working for the corporations, voting for the politicians, and generally accepting the status quo. The only reason to be angry at the corporations is because you're greedy yourself. Otherwise be angry at yourselves and the populace and really try to change by speaking to the 49%, not the 1%.
Have any of you even looked at the Win8 Preview SDK? It makes all of the "C# and .NET are dead!" comments laughable. It's like they don't care they're obviously wrong, they just want to make it seem for the moment that C# developers are screwed so they don't feel so bad for not taking it seriously when it came out. They'll keep screaming their points with no facts at all until the screaming itself becomes the "fact" they need.
What is wrong with saying why you modded something up or down? I like to know when people think things are funny or insightful or informative. More-over, I like to know other people think I'm one of those things, or if I was modded down because a "meh" joke hit +5, or if the modder thought I was a troll.
I was going to mod you down as overrated as I've already moderated in this thread, but this post is so bad I decided to just lose the mod points and post a correction to your woefully naive and innacurate analysis. It would slow down by a factor of 9, asshole. Way to overstate your case.
Perhaps he is acutely aware of this and is now removing his things so others will take the responsibility of making his previous work available while he does whatever else he wants without worrying about it.
If the rich aren't spending their money, then what good is it doing them? I'm not sure I fully understand why people who have money can't just not pay taxes on it until they spend it. If they aren't spending it, they may as well not have it. When they are investing it, they are essentially giving back, when they spend it they would get taxed. Sure, the poor might be spending a bigger percentage of their income, but the percentage of income not being spent by the rich effectively makes them live like they're poorer, right? The only difference is you don't have these ridiculous schemes like approved retirement programs for investments that have weird rules, HSAs and FSAs (again with weird rules), and all kinds of tax loopholes that only serve to prove that we aren't really taxing based on income anyway but more along the lines of what you're spending that income on. The way things are now they simply take the money up front then refund it to you later based on what you spent it on.
What do you think about the capital gains tax? Isn't that a rich-people-pay-less tax? I know it isn't income but if we taxed consumption, when people spent their investment income it would be taxed at the same rate as everybody else's wages. Isn't that more fair? On top of it with consumption taxes you can choose not to tax the essentials, like food, which would greatly shift the tax burden back over to the rich.
Gee, it's almost like income tax doesn't make any sense, and consumption tax does.
The problem is if I observe a blaster shot from Han hit Greedo before I see Han shoot.... fuck it, this joke isn't worth the mind bending.
Well this post is almost 100% ignorant. IE8 does support Flash, you're confusing IE with Windows, or 8 with 10. I'm not sure which. Further, Microsoft did a good job with IE6 until they left it alone for a decade while everything else evolved around it. So no, they weren't always dragging their feet. IE6 led browser innovation in the beginning and actually worked.
Wow, you're right, in a distant future games of today will be streamable. But what about games of the distant future?
At that point why have the browser at all? Because another layer of abstraction is awesome?