If a punishment does not fit the crime, it will not be a deterrant. Additionally, if you do not punish a crime, the crime becomes acceptable. Do you really think it's normal for teenagers to be blowing each other away in schools or in their friends houses or stealing cars so they can do drive-by shootings?
By NOT killing people who commit such crimes, we belittle the very concept of life you are so hung up about. To treat the life of a murderer as MORE important than the life of his victims, you are saying that murder is no crime. That there is nothing wrong with it. And it shows.
I really wonder at the intellegience of people like you. You'd kill a rabit pit bull that is just behaving as nature dictates, but you'd let a serial murderer who willfully CHOSE to commit his crimes live.
Sometimes I wonder exactly when these criminals became victims and the idea of public safety died. Violient criminals were executed as much as to prevent reoccurances as to be punishment.
Bottom line is that I value my own life infinitely more than anyone else's. If someone does something truly harmful, I see no reason not to kill them.
The only laws that are enforced are the ones that make someone cash. Hence, you'll be ticketed for minor infractions, but can walk free after killing someone while driving drunk. Since there are no corporations that profit from enforcing most laws, most laws are not enforced. No one profits from preventing hate crime, so no one does.
"The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default."
" Firefox. It didn't try to mimic IE. It introduced tabbed browsing (before IE did, anyway--yes, Opera had it first) and has a thriving extensions scene (which Opera and IE do not.)"
It always makes me a little sad when I read statements like this. I was using tabbed browsing on Windows 3.1, with a browser provided by AOL. Firefox (and Opera) copied an idea done 5-10 years previously by the so-called newbs of the internet.
The browser I used would even download multiple pages simultaneously, which I just read today that Firefox has trouble doing on a MULTI-THREADED OS. That's just sad beyond words. If the GNN browser had been updated to support modern media formats and Javascript+CSS, it would be the best browser bar none.
I suspect that the usage is correct. When I hear mountains within a range referred to, it's in the plural. Witness the Alps, for example. No one refers to the range as "The Alp". The name of the range may be singular. When referring to all the mountains within the range, the name of the range is often written in the plural as sort of a contraction. I'm not a grammarian or anything. I'm just commenting on usage patterns I've seen and heard.
"I know it's a troll point of view at/. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system."
This article is talking about term extenstions. Copyrights already last until after death. Extending copyrights won't help someone who still holds the copyright after they starve to death.
YES! It's nothing but greed. If I were a master carpenter and hand-crafted a piece of furniture, I could sell it exactly one time, though it might survive for hundreds of years as a valuable antique. My descendents might never see the piece, much less profit from it.
Copyright allows people who have never produced anything but piss and crap to leech money for work their grandparents did. That is nothing but greed.
Even if all passengers had to board naked and were not allowed any carry-on, there would still be successful hijackings if someone were desperate enough.
The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters because they could. If box cutters were banned (they aren't anymore), the terrorists would simply have used a cord to strangele or threaten to strangle someone. Should we ban all cloth now because it could be used in a hijacking attempt? It doesn't matter what is banned. There will always be a way to threaten deadly force.
Not only is that false, it is stupid. If I go out and kill 300 people am I not guilty of murder until I've been convicted? Guilty just means that you actually committed the act. The justice system is all about PROVING guilt before punishment. You are guilty or not independant of any proof. It is a state of being. You are a criminal as soon as you commit a crime. THAT IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS.
What you really want is tickets for anyone travelling significantly faster or *slower* than the rest of the traffic. If everyone is driving at 85, it's far more dangerous if one driver is going 55. This reasoning is behind the recent increases in speed limits on some highways around the country. Everyone knows people speed. On most highways, there's a fairly stable average speed above the limit which most drivers will go (70 in a 55, for example). Raising the speed limit helps tighten the deviation in speeds, and this increases safety. It's also why there are minimum limits on many highways as well.
You say a lot and then list the only remembered example in the entire history of the US.
Also, McVeigh was not a terrorist. Killing a lot of people does not make one a terrorist. If that were true, the US Army is full of terrorists, as is any active army of a recognized government.
At a minimum, the CEO should be tortured to death. There is no excuse for what he is alleged to have done. If he is guilty, mere execution is far too lenient.
From reading your posts, you should be joining him in whatever punishment he does receive. Those that rationalize evil are worse than those that do it.
Yeah, who cares that XM/Sirius may be breaking the law! NPR is evil (because you, some random shit on slashdot, says so!), so they shouldn't be able to stop the law-breakers.
I think the biggest draw to Windows is DirectX. It provides code for handling input devices, display, sound and networking. It hides minor differences in hardware, and will emulate as much as possible so that developers can code to a sort of reference platflorm. If gives what is probably the closest thing to a console in terms of uniformity.
The only major game producers that I know of that create popular games for multiple platforms are companies that were doing games before DirectX was introduced. Granted, the only two I know of are Id and Blizzard.
Slashdot Mirror
If a punishment does not fit the crime, it will not be a deterrant. Additionally, if you do not punish a crime, the crime becomes acceptable. Do you really think it's normal for teenagers to be blowing each other away in schools or in their friends houses or stealing cars so they can do drive-by shootings?
By NOT killing people who commit such crimes, we belittle the very concept of life you are so hung up about. To treat the life of a murderer as MORE important than the life of his victims, you are saying that murder is no crime. That there is nothing wrong with it. And it shows.
I really wonder at the intellegience of people like you. You'd kill a rabit pit bull that is just behaving as nature dictates, but you'd let a serial murderer who willfully CHOSE to commit his crimes live.
Sometimes I wonder exactly when these criminals became victims and the idea of public safety died. Violient criminals were executed as much as to prevent reoccurances as to be punishment.
Bottom line is that I value my own life infinitely more than anyone else's. If someone does something truly harmful, I see no reason not to kill them.
The only laws that are enforced are the ones that make someone cash. Hence, you'll be ticketed for minor infractions, but can walk free after killing someone while driving drunk. Since there are no corporations that profit from enforcing most laws, most laws are not enforced. No one profits from preventing hate crime, so no one does.
"The best example that I can think of is not having the option to type in a path in the Finder. Certainly it can be done with 3rd party applications, but it seems extremely asinine to not support it by default."
Apple+G.
You can do this yourself, using SetFile (IIRC).
"The other cool thing is that you can have multiple mice plugged in at the same time, and both will work. They just both control the same cursor."
Any PC using USB mice will operate this way. It works with a PS/2 mouse + USB as well. It also works for multiple keyboards.
If you found it in the cash drawer at a movie theatre, it was hardly "uncirculated".
" Firefox. It didn't try to mimic IE. It introduced tabbed browsing (before IE did, anyway--yes, Opera had it first) and has a thriving extensions scene (which Opera and IE do not.)"
It always makes me a little sad when I read statements like this. I was using tabbed browsing on Windows 3.1, with a browser provided by AOL. Firefox (and Opera) copied an idea done 5-10 years previously by the so-called newbs of the internet.
The browser I used would even download multiple pages simultaneously, which I just read today that Firefox has trouble doing on a MULTI-THREADED OS. That's just sad beyond words. If the GNN browser had been updated to support modern media formats and Javascript+CSS, it would be the best browser bar none.
I suspect that the usage is correct. When I hear mountains within a range referred to, it's in the plural. Witness the Alps, for example. No one refers to the range as "The Alp". The name of the range may be singular. When referring to all the mountains within the range, the name of the range is often written in the plural as sort of a contraction. I'm not a grammarian or anything. I'm just commenting on usage patterns I've seen and heard.
Says the guy posting on slashdot from a computer.
"I know it's a troll point of view at /. but for every McCartney there's a thousand artists who are struggling and barely make it with the present system."
This article is talking about term extenstions. Copyrights already last until after death. Extending copyrights won't help someone who still holds the copyright after they starve to death.
YES! It's nothing but greed. If I were a master carpenter and hand-crafted a piece of furniture, I could sell it exactly one time, though it might survive for hundreds of years as a valuable antique. My descendents might never see the piece, much less profit from it.
Copyright allows people who have never produced anything but piss and crap to leech money for work their grandparents did. That is nothing but greed.
I agree completely, and I'll go one further.
Even if all passengers had to board naked and were not allowed any carry-on, there would still be successful hijackings if someone were desperate enough.
The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters because they could. If box cutters were banned (they aren't anymore), the terrorists would simply have used a cord to strangele or threaten to strangle someone. Should we ban all cloth now because it could be used in a hijacking attempt? It doesn't matter what is banned. There will always be a way to threaten deadly force.
Not that I think it's really needed, but M = 1000, so MM = 1000 x 1000 = 1 million.
I think Humor wants to beat you up and leave you for dead. In retrobution, of course.
And not only that, but Apple doesn't even require that you prove ownership of a previous version.
Not only is that false, it is stupid. If I go out and kill 300 people am I not guilty of murder until I've been convicted? Guilty just means that you actually committed the act. The justice system is all about PROVING guilt before punishment. You are guilty or not independant of any proof. It is a state of being. You are a criminal as soon as you commit a crime. THAT IS WHAT THE WORD MEANS.
That is not true at all. Many new(er) cars have iPod-specific connectors. There's even been /. articles about it.
Actually, you are the ignorant one.
You are ignorant of the meaning of the word "humor".
OO is not written in Java. There are almost no general-purpose (non-programmer IDEs) written in Java for the desktop.
What you really want is tickets for anyone travelling significantly faster or *slower* than the rest of the traffic. If everyone is driving at 85, it's far more dangerous if one driver is going 55. This reasoning is behind the recent increases in speed limits on some highways around the country. Everyone knows people speed. On most highways, there's a fairly stable average speed above the limit which most drivers will go (70 in a 55, for example). Raising the speed limit helps tighten the deviation in speeds, and this increases safety. It's also why there are minimum limits on many highways as well.
You say a lot and then list the only remembered example in the entire history of the US.
Also, McVeigh was not a terrorist. Killing a lot of people does not make one a terrorist. If that were true, the US Army is full of terrorists, as is any active army of a recognized government.
At a minimum, the CEO should be tortured to death. There is no excuse for what he is alleged to have done. If he is guilty, mere execution is far too lenient.
From reading your posts, you should be joining him in whatever punishment he does receive. Those that rationalize evil are worse than those that do it.
Yeah, who cares that XM/Sirius may be breaking the law! NPR is evil (because you, some random shit on slashdot, says so!), so they shouldn't be able to stop the law-breakers.
I think the biggest draw to Windows is DirectX. It provides code for handling input devices, display, sound and networking. It hides minor differences in hardware, and will emulate as much as possible so that developers can code to a sort of reference platflorm. If gives what is probably the closest thing to a console in terms of uniformity.
The only major game producers that I know of that create popular games for multiple platforms are companies that were doing games before DirectX was introduced. Granted, the only two I know of are Id and Blizzard.