Or you can just ignore it, move on with your life and don't complain about something that is free.
Let me introduce a new word into your vocabulary.
Apathy ap-a-thy noun. 1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference. 1. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Since when does "it was free" become an excuse for apathy and laziness?
Children are free.
Your argument is that just because we CAN ignore things, we should? Or should we actually show some backbone and not let entities make promises and contracts which they can break on a whim because people like you will just "move on with your life" anyways?
It's a commonly repeated manta that you can't understand something until you have broken it. The BusinessWeek article suggests that frequently being able to apply this principle to Linux is what moves it forwards.
Thats a bit of a mangled interpretation of the mantra... you only got half or it. You cant just go around breaking stuff and expect that you will learn something from that. The idea is that you then put it back together, and in that you learn. Its the idea that before you create something new you have to destroy something, tear down the structures of old and build anew on their ruins.
That is what is constantly pushing Linux forward. A world of programmers constantly picking apart and deconstructing other peoples work, and using it as a starting point and motivation to create further. Its a symbiotic experience between all programmers where we literally offer a peice of our mind to the world on the basis that others will add theirs to it. This is something closed source cannot and will not ever offer : it is not symbiotic, organic growth but rather stilted by the limits of the desires of a few. Open source code offers itself to the (metaphorical)sacrificial altar in the hope of being resurrected later as a peice of the greater good.
I am aware of all this, and still believe that those who truly believe that there is a higher power of some sort will tend to be more responsible for their actions when in a position of power.
With this statement is revealed that this person has based their entire argument on a matter of faith. Thats right : He has faith in the fact that a person that has faith in a higher power will be more responsible for their actions.
Personally I'd like to vote for someone that does NOT have a track record of greed, a family history of corruption and slavish relationships with the corporations that put him in power.
But you know what pisses me of the most? The whole world feels the effects of Bush's actions as he invades foreign countries and throws the world economy into turmoil with massive spending on the military, pumping the value of certain multinational corporations that leave their mark all over the planet, yet not even 50 percent of you Americans even bother to go to the voting booths. These people cant get off their lazy asses just once out of every four years to fill out a ballot that will determine our future.
But is that all it is? You think you can stick a peice of paper in a box or pull some lever and just "sit back and relax", having "faith" in the fact that your leader will do a good job? Dont be so naive as to have faith in a man with such a spotted history and aggressive agenda, let alone ANYONE that purports to KNOW the right thing to do.
With the power of corporations and the economy far surpassing that of countries and their governments, who is going to police the economy? Right now its Bush and his Corporate Family. Well, at least he's got the FAITH!
Have a little imagination man! While you are somewhat convincing, you are making a critical error. You are imposing current standards of discography onto a future medium - one that does not exist yet. For all you know this medium may come with a tiny little holographic projector that creates a representation of the title and tracklistings as well as information on the artist, maybe even movies of the artist performing. Dont be aso quick and naive to write off the fact that other technology wont develop in concert with this.
Look at the size of this thing! That is one massive antenna. Just strap a 4'-3' peice of electronic equipment to the roof rack of your utility vehicle and you're off! yeah... It reminds me of those giantic portable phones they had back in World War 2 that came in a huge box. This is one of those gems thats breaking news today, but people will look back on in 10-20 years and gasp.
By the tone and content of your message it is quite clear that you seem to believe that I just said that the ONLY factor affecting the consumer economy is the level of fear that can be inspired in the population. That is a classic mistake in debating and I will forgive you for it. Please re-read my message in which I state that one good way to get the people out of their seats and into the aisles is through fear. There are many other ways. Have a look at an advertising text-book because they can show you some other ways such as sex, violence, and sadness. Fear still reigns supreme though.
Also you have added your own value judgements into my argument. I'm not saying that American leaders stage wars in order to increase consumption, I am saying one outcome of war is increased consumption. The whole consumer economy is a product of World War I and did not exist prior to it. But dont think for a second that governments and corporations dont have agendas. They do. And talking about them isnt talking about conspiracy theories.
But regardless, its really annoying that people like you reject the fact that government and industry is interested in controlling people. Thats ALL they are interested in doing. When it treats things like objects, its ok : gun control, drug control, crime control, birth control, pesticide control, immigration control. No one argues that those arent worth talking about. But the minute the topic becomes people control, its labeled conspiracy and you start talking about tin foil hats. Get real buddy. Psychological advertising and marketing techniques have been studied since the early 1920s and are getting more refined by the year. As much as you wish it never existed and pretend it doesnt exist, it does.
Have a look at a few books on Advertising and marketing. Some of the concepts will make you cringe if you think about them in terms of what they really do : treat people like objects to be manipulated. In particular, look up Ernest Dichter and the Motivational Research industry or Behavioral psychologist/advertising executive John B. Watson.
I log onto Slashdot every day and often view these outrageous headlines about SCO. This one struck me this most. It seems to me that SCO is the Linux world equivilant of a suicide bomber, set up by "them" to bring down what could be a serious threat to the software economy. In such a high stakes game I certainly wouldnt put it past Microsoft or some other corporation to set up a dummy company to use the courts to take down their opponents. Any thoughts on this?
The fear=buying-stuff equation is quite simple. Consumption and the consumer economy is based on the concept of creating needs for people. New needs. Products serve a specific purpose- they fill needs. But how do you create desires? How do you make people need things? One way is advertising. But advertising isnt very effective on its own. The consumer needs to be in a specific mindset for it to be very effective, that is, it actually creates a reflexive relationship between the desire and the product. For instance, you are thirsty in a bar and the first thing that crosses your mind is Beer. That mindset is established well by fear. When people are afraid, they feel threatened, and survival instinct kicks in. The psychology is quite complex, but all modern advertisers will agree with the statement that Humans are really just a bundle of wants and needs and spending is a matter of motivating them out of complacency. Fear is a great tool. Many Beer commercials will therefore play on the relationship between men, women and sex in commercials, not only to provoke the primal urges and associate them with the needs, but also to initiate the natural tension and offer the product as a possible response - it provides comfort, confidence, and in some cases "coolness".
But all this theory is really just superfluous. Lets look at the facts. Its hard to compare within America because there has NOT been a time when America has NOT been at war since 1940 when it join World War II. But we can still look at the two Gulf Wars and see a dramatic rise in spending following the announcement of war. You can do your own googlesearching if you want to know the exact numbers. The fact is, as the general climate of fear increases, so does spending. One has then to wonder what interests the media have, since their news programs are the primary source of the information, and thus, the fear.
hmm, you are missing the point too. Sheep have enemies. Thats what makes them NEED the leader. Why else would they need it? to remember that they will never run out of grass to eat? yeah.. didnt think so.
Re:sheeps, americans and europians
on
The Case for the Moon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Unfortunately your words are a waste because u entirely missed the point.
Europeans have HAD war and enemies, however America NEEDS war and enemies. Read Orwell's 1984 for the seed of that idea.
Because America's culture is almost entirely manufactured, it is difficult to use normal methods of control such as morality, history and tradition. Propaganda and media help American's see themselves in a constant battle, but interestingly its often social : against terrorism, against drugs, against starvation, against poverty, against crime, against anything... doesnt matter.. as long as its war, it is good. Keeps the people scared.. buying stuff and watching TV.
Now beyond the control aspect of war and fear is the economic. Understand that the American Military-Industrial complex is the equivilant of the European aristocratic elite. They have their hands in every honey pot, including the government. Wars like Iraq Redux dont merely sell consumer products, they sell ten million dollar missles and billion dollar oil infrastructure systems.
Qualifying statement : I am a vinyl owning DJ that has a portable music device other than the iPod.
Hi,
have you ever tried backing up vinyl?
One would be hard pressed to find a more tedious, boring, and time-consuming use for technology, especially when it is well within our rights as owners of the music to download the song off a P2P program.
So lets step beyond the average consumer as you ask us to. Wait. Why? The average consumer is a cd-listening, computer owning person that just so happens to be Apple's target audience. The other 5-10% matter very little.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but I'll respond anyways with the text-book answer:
There is a very good reason news outlets (CNN in particular, which has US Intelligence ops working as "interns" with the newsmakers) focus on things like Terrorism and not the Bhopal disaster.
News agencies, in fact all corporate America, are interested in making money. This means supporting themselves and their affiliated companies (affiliated can mean anything, from a friend of the CEO, to the US Army in the case of CNN). The more there is a terrorist threat, the more you watch the news, the more watch the news, the more you support US government army initiatives, more products are bought by stockpilers, more weapons are bought from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, etc. The news agencies have a very strong interest in keeping topics like Terrorism in the front of your mind. Especially when they are so closely allied with the U.S. Government as is the case with CNN, the provider of this story.
Now, in light of this, how interested do you think they are in keeping the Bhopal disaster in the front of you mind? Bhopal conjures images of corporate greed, government corruption, white collar crime, lack of respect for workers and the environment. It paints that stereotypical image of an all powerful faceless corporation stomping across the working world, leaving disaster in its wake. It doesnt encourage spending, it doesnt encourage fear, it doesnt even encourage watching more news because its downright depressing. While we NEED to remember Bhopal and the atrocities that these multinationals commit, you are confusing human NEEDS with what the CEOs of corporate america WANT. Dont think that CNN is doing any kind of a public service. They have priorities and agendas just like all the rest of us.
I really hope Shaun Garriok wasnt planning on ruining Earthstation5 with this little stunt. I, for one, just downloaded what I think is a cool program that previously I had never heard of, nor would get to know about, because I missed the earlier article on it.
Thanks for drawing it to my attention Shaun. I appreciate it.
man, its a difference of perceptions. You see the conflict in terms of the present, whereas the Chinese see it in terms of the past.... the past being a time when Taiwan was a part of China. Do the "idiot's" opinions make a little more sense now?
What a horrible question, rooted purely in statistics. I really hope this doesnt go through: if you must know, I'm sure you can find some bar graphs that will explain it quite well.
Lets make this clear: you are not talking to corporations, or corporate lawyers, or market researchers (to whom this question would be most properly addressed), you are talking to GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. This is a unique opportunity to find out questions about law, not product sales.
So we agree that Television is bad, but I dont understand how you can say that by introducing a product into their lives, let alone a product whose fundemental purpose is to sell more products, you are giving them more freedom of choice than they had before. If anything it reduces freedom of choice. If they wanted TV so badly they could make the trip to India, Pakistan or even migrate to Europe. Now the only country with no TV is gone, and the whole world loses one more option: the ability to live life in a society free of the pernicious influences of television.
The point of the post was to indicate that VA-Software is untrustworthy, not that they have a lawsuit against them.
Re:Is Thomas Friedman a simplistic hack?
on
Does Google = God?
·
· Score: 1
I totally and completly agree with you, and because of the article's simplicity Friedman has made a classic and critical error.
What is God?
Ther are things in this world we can agree on: what a rock is, how big a TV is, what goes on inside a computer, etc etc. But then theres things like Love, Justice, Good, Bad and, obviously, God. How can we proceed to discuss and comprehened ideas on a topic if we dont even know what we're talking about? Friedman doesnt offer a definition because implicit in his article is the assumption that God = the sum total of all knowledge. He doesnt SAY this because its taken for granted. You cant really argue against something thats not there, but you can denounce the article as a mindless waste of time for being overly material/physical and ignoring the issue of Spirit. For a lay person its easy to breeze over the assumption that God=Knowledge because we dont really think about God much and we havent come to any concrete positions on the topic. Ask a religious person what God is, and they'll tell you Spirit, and for that clearly Google doesnt fit the bill.
Now write an article called God = Economics/the stock market and I'm all over it.
Re:Don't give so much credit
on
Does Google = God?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
you do realize he mentioned 9/11 in the article dont you?
Oh yeah, great argument man! I love the "what if" approach... I love the "if it saves one life" approach...
You know what man, why dont you sit dont and think up the most fucked up 1984 style brave new world epxeriement with baby manufacturing and psychic conditioning that keeps people in bouncey kastles endlessly feeding them through tubes and pumping oxygen into the air. I bet that would save 1 life. LETS DO IT!!!!! IT SAVES ONE LIFE!!!! WHAT IF SOMEONE DIES AND WE COULDVE DONE THIS AND SAVED ONE LIFE!!!!
Man, if you are so concerned about one life, why dont you volenteer your time and help one of the single mothers who suffers with their children while the government installs X-RAY machines so all rich people can travel to Honalulu in safety.
I have a feeling that instead your going to sit on a computer pounding out messages about saving lives by invading people's UTMOST privacy. Personally I dont want Bob Jones from Minnesota looking at my dick.
So two guys make a discovery. They immediatly contact the company to whom it concerns who simply ignores them. After repeatedly trying to contact them directly and getting no answer, they go through a different channel. They contact a news company and tell them what happened: they made a discovery that the company will want to keep hidden, and are offering to keep it a secret if the company takes the matter into its own hands. If the company refuses to even acknowledge them, they are just going to go ahead and not keep it a secret anymore. They are being "nice". They could've just posted the code/directions on the internet, instead they are making great efforts to reduce the stress on Microsoft.
What does slashdot do? HEADLINE: LINUXLOSERS TRY TO BLACKMAIL MICROSOFT. With the subtitle "Great way to end up in jail."
Great way to get people to read the story, but totally dishonest.
Your ADDITION of a value judgement is not going unnoticed.
you translate "Its my property, I use my property as I please" into "How dare microsoft release a closed system". The second statement accuses microsoft of wrongdoing, something that ws never evident in the first statement. The first statement is positive, the second negative.
The first statement concerns the nature of property, and the fact that despite whatever assumptions are made about what I'm going to do with it, I may do unpredictable things that may not be intended. I am allowed to do this, its my right. they may TAKE THE RISK of selling this property for cheaper because of the intent to recoup the losses in games, but I have now found a new use for it.. what can they do about it? nothing. Its mine now. But wait, they can do something about it: they can pay off the government officials and make a law against manipulating your own property.
But hey, lets stop being so Amero-centric. I'm aghast at the number of people who are saying things like "Good way to end up in jail" (which is actually in the newspost itself).. Have they even thought about the issue yet or just started running off at the mouth (keyboard).. Sorry, American laws apply to America, and not to the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can just ignore it, move on with your life and don't complain about something that is free.
Let me introduce a new word into your vocabulary.
Apathy
ap-a-thy
noun.
1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
1. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Since when does "it was free" become an excuse for apathy and laziness?
Children are free.
Your argument is that just because we CAN ignore things, we should? Or should we actually show some backbone and not let entities make promises and contracts which they can break on a whim because people like you will just "move on with your life" anyways?
Apathy makes me sick.
It's a commonly repeated manta that you can't understand something until you have broken it. The BusinessWeek article suggests that frequently being able to apply this principle to Linux is what moves it forwards.
Thats a bit of a mangled interpretation of the mantra... you only got half or it. You cant just go around breaking stuff and expect that you will learn something from that. The idea is that you then put it back together, and in that you learn. Its the idea that before you create something new you have to destroy something, tear down the structures of old and build anew on their ruins.
That is what is constantly pushing Linux forward. A world of programmers constantly picking apart and deconstructing other peoples work, and using it as a starting point and motivation to create further. Its a symbiotic experience between all programmers where we literally offer a peice of our mind to the world on the basis that others will add theirs to it. This is something closed source cannot and will not ever offer : it is not symbiotic, organic growth but rather stilted by the limits of the desires of a few. Open source code offers itself to the (metaphorical)sacrificial altar in the hope of being resurrected later as a peice of the greater good.
I am aware of all this, and still believe that those who truly believe that there is a higher power of some sort will tend to be more responsible for their actions when in a position of power.
With this statement is revealed that this person has based their entire argument on a matter of faith. Thats right : He has faith in the fact that a person that has faith in a higher power will be more responsible for their actions.
Personally I'd like to vote for someone that does NOT have a track record of greed, a family history of corruption and slavish relationships with the corporations that put him in power.
But you know what pisses me of the most? The whole world feels the effects of Bush's actions as he invades foreign countries and throws the world economy into turmoil with massive spending on the military, pumping the value of certain multinational corporations that leave their mark all over the planet, yet not even 50 percent of you Americans even bother to go to the voting booths. These people cant get off their lazy asses just once out of every four years to fill out a ballot that will determine our future.
But is that all it is? You think you can stick a peice of paper in a box or pull some lever and just "sit back and relax", having "faith" in the fact that your leader will do a good job? Dont be so naive as to have faith in a man with such a spotted history and aggressive agenda, let alone ANYONE that purports to KNOW the right thing to do.
With the power of corporations and the economy far surpassing that of countries and their governments, who is going to police the economy? Right now its Bush and his Corporate Family. Well, at least he's got the FAITH!
Have a little imagination man! While you are somewhat convincing, you are making a critical error. You are imposing current standards of discography onto a future medium - one that does not exist yet. For all you know this medium may come with a tiny little holographic projector that creates a representation of the title and tracklistings as well as information on the artist, maybe even movies of the artist performing. Dont be aso quick and naive to write off the fact that other technology wont develop in concert with this.
Look at the size of this thing! That is one massive antenna. Just strap a 4'-3' peice of electronic equipment to the roof rack of your utility vehicle and you're off! yeah ... It reminds me of those giantic portable phones they had back in World War 2 that came in a huge box. This is one of those gems thats breaking news today, but people will look back on in 10-20 years and gasp.
By the tone and content of your message it is quite clear that you seem to believe that I just said that the ONLY factor affecting the consumer economy is the level of fear that can be inspired in the population. That is a classic mistake in debating and I will forgive you for it. Please re-read my message in which I state that one good way to get the people out of their seats and into the aisles is through fear. There are many other ways. Have a look at an advertising text-book because they can show you some other ways such as sex, violence, and sadness. Fear still reigns supreme though.
Also you have added your own value judgements into my argument. I'm not saying that American leaders stage wars in order to increase consumption, I am saying one outcome of war is increased consumption. The whole consumer economy is a product of World War I and did not exist prior to it. But dont think for a second that governments and corporations dont have agendas. They do. And talking about them isnt talking about conspiracy theories.
But regardless, its really annoying that people like you reject the fact that government and industry is interested in controlling people. Thats ALL they are interested in doing. When it treats things like objects, its ok : gun control, drug control, crime control, birth control, pesticide control, immigration control. No one argues that those arent worth talking about. But the minute the topic becomes people control, its labeled conspiracy and you start talking about tin foil hats. Get real buddy. Psychological advertising and marketing techniques have been studied since the early 1920s and are getting more refined by the year. As much as you wish it never existed and pretend it doesnt exist, it does.
Have a look at a few books on Advertising and marketing. Some of the concepts will make you cringe if you think about them in terms of what they really do : treat people like objects to be manipulated. In particular, look up Ernest Dichter and the Motivational Research industry or Behavioral psychologist/advertising executive John B. Watson.
I log onto Slashdot every day and often view these outrageous headlines about SCO. This one struck me this most. It seems to me that SCO is the Linux world equivilant of a suicide bomber, set up by "them" to bring down what could be a serious threat to the software economy. In such a high stakes game I certainly wouldnt put it past Microsoft or some other corporation to set up a dummy company to use the courts to take down their opponents. Any thoughts on this?
The fear=buying-stuff equation is quite simple.
Consumption and the consumer economy is based on the concept of creating needs for people. New needs. Products serve a specific purpose- they fill needs. But how do you create desires? How do you make people need things? One way is advertising. But advertising isnt very effective on its own. The consumer needs to be in a specific mindset for it to be very effective, that is, it actually creates a reflexive relationship between the desire and the product. For instance, you are thirsty in a bar and the first thing that crosses your mind is Beer. That mindset is established well by fear. When people are afraid, they feel threatened, and survival instinct kicks in. The psychology is quite complex, but all modern advertisers will agree with the statement that Humans are really just a bundle of wants and needs and spending is a matter of motivating them out of complacency. Fear is a great tool. Many Beer commercials will therefore play on the relationship between men, women and sex in commercials, not only to provoke the primal urges and associate them with the needs, but also to initiate the natural tension and offer the product as a possible response - it provides comfort, confidence, and in some cases "coolness".
But all this theory is really just superfluous. Lets look at the facts. Its hard to compare within America because there has NOT been a time when America has NOT been at war since 1940 when it join World War II. But we can still look at the two Gulf Wars and see a dramatic rise in spending following the announcement of war. You can do your own googlesearching if you want to know the exact numbers. The fact is, as the general climate of fear increases, so does spending. One has then to wonder what interests the media have, since their news programs are the primary source of the information, and thus, the fear.
hmm, you are missing the point too. Sheep have enemies. Thats what makes them NEED the leader. Why else would they need it? to remember that they will never run out of grass to eat? yeah.. didnt think so.
Unfortunately your words are a waste because u entirely missed the point.
Europeans have HAD war and enemies, however America NEEDS war and enemies. Read Orwell's 1984 for the seed of that idea.
Because America's culture is almost entirely manufactured, it is difficult to use normal methods of control such as morality, history and tradition. Propaganda and media help American's see themselves in a constant battle, but interestingly its often social : against terrorism, against drugs, against starvation, against poverty, against crime, against anything... doesnt matter.. as long as its war, it is good. Keeps the people scared.. buying stuff and watching TV.
Now beyond the control aspect of war and fear is the economic. Understand that the American Military-Industrial complex is the equivilant of the European aristocratic elite. They have their hands in every honey pot, including the government. Wars like Iraq Redux dont merely sell consumer products, they sell ten million dollar missles and billion dollar oil infrastructure systems.
how does such a stupid comment get modded INSIGHTFUL??
America has already been to the moon you witless fool, and the chinese were there to see it the first time.
Qualifying statement : I am a vinyl owning DJ that has a portable music device other than the iPod.
Hi,
have you ever tried backing up vinyl?
One would be hard pressed to find a more tedious, boring, and time-consuming use for technology, especially when it is well within our rights as owners of the music to download the song off a P2P program.
So lets step beyond the average consumer as you ask us to. Wait. Why? The average consumer is a cd-listening, computer owning person that just so happens to be Apple's target audience. The other 5-10% matter very little.
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not, but I'll respond anyways with the text-book answer:
There is a very good reason news outlets (CNN in particular, which has US Intelligence ops working as "interns" with the newsmakers) focus on things like Terrorism and not the Bhopal disaster.
News agencies, in fact all corporate America, are interested in making money. This means supporting themselves and their affiliated companies (affiliated can mean anything, from a friend of the CEO, to the US Army in the case of CNN). The more there is a terrorist threat, the more you watch the news, the more watch the news, the more you support US government army initiatives, more products are bought by stockpilers, more weapons are bought from Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, etc. The news agencies have a very strong interest in keeping topics like Terrorism in the front of your mind. Especially when they are so closely allied with the U.S. Government as is the case with CNN, the provider of this story.
Now, in light of this, how interested do you think they are in keeping the Bhopal disaster in the front of you mind? Bhopal conjures images of corporate greed, government corruption, white collar crime, lack of respect for workers and the environment. It paints that stereotypical image of an all powerful faceless corporation stomping across the working world, leaving disaster in its wake. It doesnt encourage spending, it doesnt encourage fear, it doesnt even encourage watching more news because its downright depressing. While we NEED to remember Bhopal and the atrocities that these multinationals commit, you are confusing human NEEDS with what the CEOs of corporate america WANT. Dont think that CNN is doing any kind of a public service. They have priorities and agendas just like all the rest of us.
I really hope Shaun Garriok wasnt planning on ruining Earthstation5 with this little stunt. I, for one, just downloaded what I think is a cool program that previously I had never heard of, nor would get to know about, because I missed the earlier article on it.
Thanks for drawing it to my attention Shaun. I appreciate it.
it is rather ignorant and boorish to think that your physical safety equates to your ideological and political safety.
man, its a difference of perceptions. You see the conflict in terms of the present, whereas the Chinese see it in terms of the past.... the past being a time when Taiwan was a part of China. Do the "idiot's" opinions make a little more sense now?
What a horrible question, rooted purely in statistics. I really hope this doesnt go through: if you must know, I'm sure you can find some bar graphs that will explain it quite well.
Lets make this clear: you are not talking to corporations, or corporate lawyers, or market researchers (to whom this question would be most properly addressed), you are talking to GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. This is a unique opportunity to find out questions about law, not product sales.
So we agree that Television is bad, but I dont understand how you can say that by introducing a product into their lives, let alone a product whose fundemental purpose is to sell more products, you are giving them more freedom of choice than they had before. If anything it reduces freedom of choice. If they wanted TV so badly they could make the trip to India, Pakistan or even migrate to Europe. Now the only country with no TV is gone, and the whole world loses one more option: the ability to live life in a society free of the pernicious influences of television.
I would like to hear your reply to that.
uhhhh ... what? Who cares?
The point of the post was to indicate that VA-Software is untrustworthy, not that they have a lawsuit against them.
I totally and completly agree with you, and because of the article's simplicity Friedman has made a classic and critical error.
What is God?
Ther are things in this world we can agree on: what a rock is, how big a TV is, what goes on inside a computer, etc etc. But then theres things like Love, Justice, Good, Bad and, obviously, God. How can we proceed to discuss and comprehened ideas on a topic if we dont even know what we're talking about? Friedman doesnt offer a definition because implicit in his article is the assumption that God = the sum total of all knowledge. He doesnt SAY this because its taken for granted. You cant really argue against something thats not there, but you can denounce the article as a mindless waste of time for being overly material/physical and ignoring the issue of Spirit. For a lay person its easy to breeze over the assumption that God=Knowledge because we dont really think about God much and we havent come to any concrete positions on the topic. Ask a religious person what God is, and they'll tell you Spirit, and for that clearly Google doesnt fit the bill.
Now write an article called God = Economics/the stock market and I'm all over it.
you do realize he mentioned 9/11 in the article dont you?
you did read the WHOLE article didnt you?
I think you are confusing the fact that people are adament about property rights with your assumption that people hate microsoft.
Oh yeah, great argument man! I love the "what if" approach... I love the "if it saves one life" approach...
You know what man, why dont you sit dont and think up the most fucked up 1984 style brave new world epxeriement with baby manufacturing and psychic conditioning that keeps people in bouncey kastles endlessly feeding them through tubes and pumping oxygen into the air. I bet that would save 1 life. LETS DO IT!!!!! IT SAVES ONE LIFE!!!! WHAT IF SOMEONE DIES AND WE COULDVE DONE THIS AND SAVED ONE LIFE!!!!
Man, if you are so concerned about one life, why dont you volenteer your time and help one of the single mothers who suffers with their children while the government installs X-RAY machines so all rich people can travel to Honalulu in safety.
I have a feeling that instead your going to sit on a computer pounding out messages about saving lives by invading people's UTMOST privacy. Personally I dont want Bob Jones from Minnesota looking at my dick.
So two guys make a discovery. They immediatly contact the company to whom it concerns who simply ignores them. After repeatedly trying to contact them directly and getting no answer, they go through a different channel. They contact a news company and tell them what happened: they made a discovery that the company will want to keep hidden, and are offering to keep it a secret if the company takes the matter into its own hands. If the company refuses to even acknowledge them, they are just going to go ahead and not keep it a secret anymore. They are being "nice". They could've just posted the code/directions on the internet, instead they are making great efforts to reduce the stress on Microsoft.
What does slashdot do? HEADLINE: LINUXLOSERS TRY TO BLACKMAIL MICROSOFT. With the subtitle "Great way to end up in jail."
Great way to get people to read the story, but totally dishonest.
Your ADDITION of a value judgement is not going unnoticed.
you translate "Its my property, I use my property as I please" into "How dare microsoft release a closed system". The second statement accuses microsoft of wrongdoing, something that ws never evident in the first statement. The first statement is positive, the second negative.
The first statement concerns the nature of property, and the fact that despite whatever assumptions are made about what I'm going to do with it, I may do unpredictable things that may not be intended. I am allowed to do this, its my right. they may TAKE THE RISK of selling this property for cheaper because of the intent to recoup the losses in games, but I have now found a new use for it.. what can they do about it? nothing. Its mine now. But wait, they can do something about it: they can pay off the government officials and make a law against manipulating your own property.
But hey, lets stop being so Amero-centric. I'm aghast at the number of people who are saying things like "Good way to end up in jail" (which is actually in the newspost itself).. Have they even thought about the issue yet or just started running off at the mouth (keyboard).. Sorry, American laws apply to America, and not to the rest of the world.