Okay, so don't hold out on us. I'm sure a lot of the people reading this topic are interested in building their own cabinets. I know I sure as hell am, now. So, where did you buy it from? -Trillian
Reading these threads I (like many other slashdotters, I'd imagine) am thinking about making this a summer project. One thing I'm having trouble finding is a total pricetag. How much would you estimate that you spent? Thanks! -Trillian
*Sigh* I'm afraid I am just that stupid. You're right, it wasn't a great idea, but it felt good at the time and, you know what, it *still* feels good. As someone said elsewhere in this thread, it's time to get *mad*. As I replied to another post, I sent Senators Obama and Durbin very calm, collected letters and made very calm collected phone calls before the bill went to vote, explaining my position and why I felt voting 'No' was the only reasonable course of action.
Obviously, I went unheard.
Last time I checked, the government's job is to serve *my* best intrests, not the other way around.
I called Senator Obama on Monday, following the slashdot article that the RealID act had not yet been put to vote, to urge him not to vote in favor of it. In addition, I wrote him a letter attempting to, calmly and without resorting to a flippant, accusing tone, explain why the act (and the bill as a whole) was a bad idea. (For the record, I did the same thing with Durbin, the other IL senator).
He obviously didn't take my consideration seriously enough to vote against the bill.
As such, I feel I have a right to be somewhat flippant and accusing. You're right, it is a sarcastic and nasty letter, and in retrospect I should have put more specifically that I had written him prior to the vote to express my views. When you tell someone not to do something stupid, and they do it anyway, sometimes you need to be rude and point out the extent of that stupidity...
-Trillian
(Also, for what it's worth, the only scenario was concerning the RealID act. My frustration over the passage I quoted (and if it was a wrong quotation, then I do rightly feel like a major idiot) did not express any specific fears about what the Homeland Security might do, only that the passage itself was stupid, regardless of what specific actions it allowed.)
Congratulations. The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill passed, 100-0. I hope you're satisfied with your hard day in the Senate.
But I heard that the RealID Act, included as a rider on the bill, creates a national drivers license standard and requires a database containing information on every single person in the United States with such a license.
But I heard that the bill states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
You must be please as punch. The supplemental spending bill went through without a hitch, giving much-needed money to those poor soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfortunate victims of the tsunami in Asia.
I hope somebody is happy, because I sure as hell am not.
Wasn't one of the reasons the United States disliked the Soviet Union too much because the USSR placed horrible restrictions on free travel, and "Papers, please" was a phrase heard at every local border? Well, I imagine you must be thrilled that, under the legislation you just sent to the President's desk, the United States Government will have the power to do the same thing very shortly.
I can picture it now: I'm on my way to visit my brother in Colorado, but because my RealID drivers license has my political history on it, I'm deemed a "security risk" due to anti-war protests I attended leading up to the invasion of Iran in 2007.
"That can't happen here! It won't happen here!"
How naive. When has any government, in the history of the world, willingly given up power after the populace was foolish enough to hand that power over? I'm sure in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia requiring papers to travel within the country was first announced as a 'temporary security procedure,' and would only be in place 'until things quieted down.
You must be so excited that the same thing can be happening soon, at state border near you.
And this gem: "No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
Have you even read the Constitution? I am so angry right now, I can't begin to explain why the above passage is un-Constitutional, a horrible infringement on the liberties of individuals and states' rights, and a mind-numbingly dumb thing to have put your seal of approval on.
Senator Obama, I voted for you this past November. I was hoping to be excited about voting for you again in the future. We both know this bill was going to pass, with or without your support. But your campaigning speeches, your town-hall debates, your keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, all seemed to point toward a man who was smart, idealistic, and would stand his ground against those in this country who would see liberty and justice fade away.
Give the people of Illinois some credit. Sure, the Republicans would start with attack ads, portraying you as having voted against funding the military and tsunami victims. But people like myself, people who knew the whole story, would never let your image be tarnished in such a way. We would spread the truth and make sure that lies and falsehoods were not allowed to be passed around as "truth."
And you went and voted, along with everyone else, for horrible, horrible, un-Constitutional bill.
Thanks a lot. A little bit of my idealism - my belief that our elected officials will do what's right, even when it's hard - just died.
If you really want to go "Untouchables" on their asses, you need to go a bit further than that...
"How we gonna get the gold farmers, then?" "You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a gankfest, you pull a slaughter. He sends one of yours to the graveyard, you send on of his to permadeath! That's the Lordaeron way, and that's how you get them gold farmers! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"
-Trillian
(With appologies to "The Untouchables." The original quote: 'You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?')
Slashdot user Tackhead, with ID 54550, repots that a previous post 877602 is extremely unsatesfactory as it references an event which didn't happen, the "great leap forward." Please rewrite the post in full, confirming your changes with a moderator prior to posting.
You've given me something to think about and I'm very torn. On the one hand, you're right that the board is responsible to the shareholders. On the other, they're also responsible to (among others) their employees and customers. I don't know enough about the bill to comment but if, for example, this bill somehow protected Microsoft's gay employees more than they are right now, it could be in the board's best intrest - for the company - to promote the bill.
I dunno. I'm torn. On the one hand, I am in favor of more legal protection for GLBT people. On the other, I do sort of agree that companies should stay the fuck out of politics...
At the very least, you've given me something to think about. -Trillian
"If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen."
I'm afraid I can't agree. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, is morally and ethically the right thing to do, it's the responsibel thing to do to let it happen and -indeed- support it to the fullest extent possible. Being a business does not give a group of people (which is what a business is...) a free pass to to anything which supports their bottom line. We've unfortunately gotten into a mindset in this country where that's often justified, but that doesn't make it so. I've heard elsewhere in this thread that Microsoft is a pro-gay-rights company and continues to do other things to help gay rights, which is a Good Thing. Withdrawing support for this bill (if the facts given in the summary and article are correct) is a Bad Thing.
Okay, now you've piqued *my* interest. I don't pretend to be very good at programing, but I'm really curious how the program printed a list of prime numbers when it was compiled. Any links?
You do have a point. I'm from the Chicago area, so have been to the museum a number of times, but admit that until I went this past summer I hadn't been there in many years. A large part of the fun was, "Oh! I remember this mode/exhibit/etc!"
I do think the new train setup is awesome (I love model trains, so I'm slightly biased...) and look forward to the new sub exhibit. I also think the movie exhibit (which was temporary and may now be gone) was very well done and I had tons of fun exploring it and participating in the "Make A Movie" section (although I think my friends and I were the oldest participants by about 10 years...oh well. We had fun.)
Trying to rethink the museum from a slightly more objective view, I would agree that a lot of there stuff hasn't been touched in years. I just disagree with your statement, "Unless this exhibit is REALLY awesome, I'd skip it. The Museum of Science & Industry is VERY dated and many of their exhibits are in poor repair." I very much enjoyed the museum when I was younger, and enjoyed it again recently. I think they are trying, as the revamped trains, the revamped chick hatchery, the new toymaker exhibit, etc show. You're right that they could be pushed further (and that the admission is pricey) but, as I said, I strongly disagree with your attitude that the museum isn't worth the time to go to, even if I think I see where you're coming from.
On the other hand, if you're making a trip to Chicago specifically for the museum I could see being disapointed, especially with the Field Museum and Aquarium, which (having also been to in the past year) are doing great things.
It's not on display because, as the previous poster said, it's being moved to a new underground (inside) exhibit hall that is currently being built. This is posted all over the MS&I. I also strongly disagree about the museum being boring or dated as I went over the summer with some friends (all early 20s) and had an absolutely great time.
"If anything, I'm blaming a bloated and inefficient system that's churning out morons that no one wants to hire!" Wouldn't that be....everyone else? That is, not yourself?
Look, I'm not disagreeing that many college reqs are bullshit. But I would have to agree that these are the types of things you need to research before while applying to schools and, if your school isn't what you'd hoped, try and transfer.
Let me ask you this: Have you talked to the university administration about why classes on Dante or mythology or astronomy won't count as you think they should?
I'm not saying you'd change anything, but at the very least you could say you've *tried*.
Also, concerning the ability to write papers, I'm gonna have to agree with one of the replies to your original post. If you can't write those papers, tough shit. That's how it works. You need to be able to express yourself in an adequate fashion, period.
I'm also curious why you didn't reply to one of the questions from a reply you got: Why not just go to a vocational school? If you really want to 'just' program and do math, then go do it.
You're right. I jumped the gun by making assumptions about what you thought, and I'm sorry.
What I took from your originial post was that there shouldn't be any fuss because it was legal, and I was objecting to that concept. I still stand by what I said, but I do appologize if I went beyond that and misrepresented what you said and, from rereading your original post, do think I went a bit too far.
As the interviewer in the previous article (which I believe this article summary links to) compared it to, if we're playing monopoly and I land on Boardwalk, I owe the owner (lets say it's you) $2000 with a hotel. Not chump change. But if I can turn to the banker and slip him five *real* dollars in exchange for $5,000 Monopoly dollars, I have violated the rules of the game (possibly, depending on your reading of 'no gifts') and undoubtedly violated the spirit of the game.
Likewise, MMORPGs are designed to have a specific amount of money in the economy and a specific number of items, distributed in a specific fashion. While the amount of gold in a game is effectively infinite (if you spend time 'farming' you can sell items and drops for as long as you want) it is assumed that the ammount of gold/items you have will at least somewhat relate to the amount of time you've spent playing. This does not take into account gifts or guilds helping new members out, but friends giving a couple gold is not going to effect the economy on the same scale as someone buying 100,000 gold off eBay.
So, in a sense, people *are* being harmed by such 'reselling' of in-game items, in the very broad sense that it throws off what was hopefully a carefully planned economy, put in play by the developers.
In a more down-to-earth sense, farmers disrupt my ability to play the game. Ignoring the fact that I think it's "unfair" (a very subjective term, I admit) for someone to buy the latest Sword of Pwning +10 from eBay, the item was obtained by killing monsters, and thus preventing 'real' players (another subjective term) from killing them and obtaining the items/gold.
World of Warcraft (the MMORPG I am currently playing and thus most familiar with) solves this partially by implimenting 'instanced' dungeons, where every party in the dungeon gets their own 'instance' of the dungeon, with seperate monsters and such. This allows each party to fight through without the posibility of running into other players. While this is a great sollution on a small basis, it does not prevent a gold/item reseller from farming in a high-traffic area, or an area with important quest-related NPCs.
On an entirely different issue, saying "hey are not breaking any law, so what's all the fuss about that?" is just stupid. Even if you don't think selling items/gold from MMORPGs on eBay immoral, saying that it's moral because it's *legal* is disgusting. I am in no way comparing selling a WoW item to any of these things, but slavery, preventing women from voting, segregation, preventing blacks from voting, husbands beating wives, and torture have all at some point been legal. Again, I am *not* comparing MMORPG item reselling to any of these things. Merely pointing out that legality does not indicate morality, nor the other way around.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and, as this is Slashdot, I have no doubt someone will), but I don't believe Windows was *designed* as a gaming platform. Rather, as it became obvious that PC users desired the ability to do more graphic-based applications, often meaning games, Windows tools such as DirectX became available.
There is no reason something similar can't happen under Linux. I agree, video card manufacturers keeping closed-source drivers and the ever-present 'which came first' issue of companies not publishing to Linux until companies publish to Linux are issues. As you say, you support the ideas behind this project. I don't think you're trying to be negative, but it comes off as if you felt these guys wasted their time.
I recently aquired a bigger harddrive and am thinking of configuring it for dual-booting. As much as I suspect I'll have to go into Windows for World of Warcraft and such, it's still nice to know that I'd be able to have similar time-wasting games on Linux like I do on Windows.
Your first reason for not donating is flawed because you assume there is a standard of "meaning" that can be assigned to people and accomplishment. While many have their own personal definitions for what a life of "accomplishment" is, or what a "meaningful" life is, there is no universally accepted standard for living a "meaningful and accomplished" life. Thus, while you personally may feel those affected by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean *are* meaningless and/or live meaningless lives, you (fortunately) do not have the authority to assign meaning or accomplishment to others. In short, who the hell are you to define whether someone is living a meaningless life, or has accomplished something?
Your second argument is just as flawed. You said, "the general population is usually wrong." Even if I agreed with that statement, the word "usually" means that (by your own admission!) the general population is *SOMETIMES* correct. I'm not going to even attempt to decide whether the general population is right or wrong, or whether you personally should donate money. However, saying "so-and-so is doing something so I *won't*" is just as flawed as when your mother warned you as a child, "If Bobbie jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?" While the actions of those you respect (or, in this case, seem not to respect) may offer guidance for your own actions, you must judge your actions based on their own merrit, not on other people telling you to do or not to do something.
So your first argument is, basically, "I'm passing judgement on the worth of others and find this group's worth lacking." If that's true, then fine. Come out and say so. But don't pretend that "meaning" and "accomplishment" carry the universal weight you attempt to assign them.
Your second argument is even worse, as it implies that you always (or perhaps just "usually") go against the will of the general population. So in addition to being a judgemental ass, you're spineless as well and can't make your own decisions.
Again, I'm not attempting to say that you *should* donate money. All I'm saying is that your present reasons for doing so are, at best, logically flawed and, at worse, the sign that you're simply a jerk.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, this would seem to be a really dumb use of Mario. People already know what DDR is, and don't need a product tie-in to make the sale. In fact, if I was presented with two versions of DDR, one Mario-filled and one 'normal,' I'd go with the normal one.
That said, I'm really glad the GameCube is *finally* getting a version of DDR. For the most part I enjoy the games released on GameCube more than those released on PS2 or XBox. But one of the notable exceptions I wish GameCube had has been DDR, and it looks like this opens the door for future releases.
So, overall, I'm pleased with this announcmenet, because I've been wanting a GC DDR. At the same time, I wish they didn't have to make another Mario tie-in...
You're obviously right, and have given me something to think about. The best I can come up with is MLK Jr. and Co. were attempting to grant more freedom, while PTC is trying to take it away. ('Freedom' here is given the very broad definition of 'the ability to do stuff.' In this case, 'stuff' is watching what PTC finds objectionable on TV.) I need to mull over this more, but that's my gut reaction. Granting people more freedom is 'good,' while restrictions such as PTC is attempting to impose are 'bad.' On a similar note, I'd say MLK Jr. and Co. were attempting to impose more personal responsibility for actions, in that case making the bus companies acknowledge their racism and deal with it (either change your policies or lose our business). PTC is pushing for less personal responsibility, in that PTC seems to be pushing for parents to let someone else do their job.
My understanding is that the Mongomary boycotts were larger than PTC will ever be, but you're right in that they're both situations of a minority speaking for a larger population. Although, thinking out loud, MLK Jr. never pretended to speak for the majority. He was very specific in that he spoke for what he felt were the rights of everyone, but that a specific minority was being denied those rights. PTC is saying they *do* speak for everyone.
These are all my own personal musings, and I' not totaly awake yet. But I'm leaning towards saying there is an objective, as well as subjective, difference between MLK JR. and PTC.
You're right, I don't. I have no authority to speak for Americans everywhere. But they don't either. My point is that if they can do it, so can I. Judging by the responses on Slashdot, I can say with some authority that my email spoke for SOME Americans, SOMEWHERE. Which is more than PTC seems able to do.
In addition, I'm asking them not to speak, rather than taking initiative and speaking out. I think the distinction is important. Were PTC to have a huge membership base, such that the 99% of the FTC claims they filed actually represented PTC's proportion of the population, I wouldn't have a problem with their argument that they speak for America. If tens of millions of parents joined PTC, maybe they *should* have some political clout. I would still disagree with their position, but not from the standpoint that they're giving a 'voice' to people who never asked for one. The fact that those parents have not taken the initiative to speak out is somewhat indicitive of their attitudes.
So you're entirely right. I can no more claim to speak for America than PTC. However, I can and do claim that those of us who are NOT speaking out are doing so for a reason. Staying silent and not taking a position *is* a position, which PTC seems to ignore.
I have to admit I was also just being intentionaly obnoxious. It's only ironic if I didn't know what I was doing. I was well aware of using their own (fallacious) argument, but to try and show how ridiculous they were being.
I think, at the very least, my letter was effective in sharing my personal dislike of their campaign. I'd also say it was effective in indicating I had at least some people who agree with me.
I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/arti cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656] brought your group to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to do something you seem to have taken on for yourself: Speak for Americans everywhere. It disgusts me that you would attempt to skew the number of complaints filed with the FCC to further your own views, and to attempt to regulate television as you see fit.
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
I'm sure the free flat screen/ipod/ds/computer/laptop/etc actually work for people who A) do the required programs, B) get 4 people to sign up, and C) have their 4 referals do all the required programs. The problem is that, while a good number of people may get their free item, it remains a pyramid scheme. At some point down the road, the 4 people who person X has referred are NOT going to be able to get 4 referals of their own, and will be S.O.L.
I believe that if you can get 4 of your friends to sign up and (more importantly) get 4 of 'em to do the required programs, you will get your iPod/DS/whatever. But by participating you are ensuring that (at some point down the line) someone is going to do all of their stuff and then be unable to find 4 people to complete the program, leaving them having given away personal information for the 'free trial offers' or whatnot without getting 'paid.'
You can call it whatever you want, but it remains a pyramid scheme. The people at the bottom (who will end up with nothing) are 'paying' for your iPod.
My favorite quote from the last link in the summary (on format security) would have to be the following:
"In the U.S., the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits unauthorized circumvention. Outside the U.S., however, many jurisdictions only have conventional copyright laws that only protect creative works. Normal decryption keys do not include any obvious creative element."
Now, jumping to the Constitution ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries") it is not clear that copyright must *only* be granted to works with "obvious creative element." But I liked the fact that the above comment on future security requirements acknowledged what seems to be much of Slashdot (and the tech community's) beef with copyrighting algorithms and computer software, but from the assumption that it's a GOOD thing, rather than a BAD thing.
Just an example of how you can agree on the issue while still having mutually exclusive views on the sollution.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, so don't hold out on us. I'm sure a lot of the people reading this topic are interested in building their own cabinets. I know I sure as hell am, now. So, where did you buy it from?
-Trillian
Reading these threads I (like many other slashdotters, I'd imagine) am thinking about making this a summer project. One thing I'm having trouble finding is a total pricetag. How much would you estimate that you spent?
Thanks!
-Trillian
*Sigh* I'm afraid I am just that stupid. You're right, it wasn't a great idea, but it felt good at the time and, you know what, it *still* feels good. As someone said elsewhere in this thread, it's time to get *mad*. As I replied to another post, I sent Senators Obama and Durbin very calm, collected letters and made very calm collected phone calls before the bill went to vote, explaining my position and why I felt voting 'No' was the only reasonable course of action.
Obviously, I went unheard.
Last time I checked, the government's job is to serve *my* best intrests, not the other way around.
-Trillian
I called Senator Obama on Monday, following the slashdot article that the RealID act had not yet been put to vote, to urge him not to vote in favor of it. In addition, I wrote him a letter attempting to, calmly and without resorting to a flippant, accusing tone, explain why the act (and the bill as a whole) was a bad idea. (For the record, I did the same thing with Durbin, the other IL senator).
He obviously didn't take my consideration seriously enough to vote against the bill.
As such, I feel I have a right to be somewhat flippant and accusing. You're right, it is a sarcastic and nasty letter, and in retrospect I should have put more specifically that I had written him prior to the vote to express my views. When you tell someone not to do something stupid, and they do it anyway, sometimes you need to be rude and point out the extent of that stupidity...
-Trillian
(Also, for what it's worth, the only scenario was concerning the RealID act. My frustration over the passage I quoted (and if it was a wrong quotation, then I do rightly feel like a major idiot) did not express any specific fears about what the Homeland Security might do, only that the passage itself was stupid, regardless of what specific actions it allowed.)
So write your Senators and Reps. I just did:
Senator Obama,
Congratulations. The Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill passed, 100-0. I hope you're satisfied with your hard day in the Senate.
But I heard that the RealID Act, included as a rider on the bill, creates a national drivers license standard and requires a database containing information on every single person in the United States with such a license.
But I heard that the bill states that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
You must be please as punch. The supplemental spending bill went through without a hitch, giving much-needed money to those poor soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfortunate victims of the tsunami in Asia.
I hope somebody is happy, because I sure as hell am not.
Wasn't one of the reasons the United States disliked the Soviet Union too much because the USSR placed horrible restrictions on free travel, and "Papers, please" was a phrase heard at every local border? Well, I imagine you must be thrilled that, under the legislation you just sent to the President's desk, the United States Government will have the power to do the same thing very shortly.
I can picture it now: I'm on my way to visit my brother in Colorado, but because my RealID drivers license has my political history on it, I'm deemed a "security risk" due to anti-war protests I attended leading up to the invasion of Iran in 2007.
"That can't happen here! It won't happen here!"
How naive. When has any government, in the history of the world, willingly given up power after the populace was foolish enough to hand that power over? I'm sure in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia requiring papers to travel within the country was first announced as a 'temporary security procedure,' and would only be in place 'until things quieted down.
You must be so excited that the same thing can be happening soon, at state border near you.
And this gem: "No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, or order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision."
Have you even read the Constitution? I am so angry right now, I can't begin to explain why the above passage is un-Constitutional, a horrible infringement on the liberties of individuals and states' rights, and a mind-numbingly dumb thing to have put your seal of approval on.
Senator Obama, I voted for you this past November. I was hoping to be excited about voting for you again in the future. We both know this bill was going to pass, with or without your support. But your campaigning speeches, your town-hall debates, your keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, all seemed to point toward a man who was smart, idealistic, and would stand his ground against those in this country who would see liberty and justice fade away.
Give the people of Illinois some credit. Sure, the Republicans would start with attack ads, portraying you as having voted against funding the military and tsunami victims. But people like myself, people who knew the whole story, would never let your image be tarnished in such a way. We would spread the truth and make sure that lies and falsehoods were not allowed to be passed around as "truth."
And you went and voted, along with everyone else, for horrible, horrible, un-Constitutional bill.
Thanks a lot. A little bit of my idealism - my belief that our elected officials will do what's right, even when it's hard - just died.
Again, I hope you're happy.
Congratulations.
If you really want to go "Untouchables" on their asses, you need to go a bit further than that...
"How we gonna get the gold farmers, then?"
"You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a gankfest, you pull a slaughter. He sends one of yours to the graveyard, you send on of his to permadeath! That's the Lordaeron way, and that's how you get them gold farmers! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?"
-Trillian
(With appologies to "The Untouchables." The original quote: 'You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?')
What's really awful is that I'm currently in a stage production of 1984, and can translate that to Old English without a problem:
"slashdot 54550 reporting: lastpost 877602 doubleplusungood refs unevent "great leap forward". Rewrite fullwise upmod anteposting."
Slashdot user Tackhead, with ID 54550, repots that a previous post 877602 is extremely unsatesfactory as it references an event which didn't happen, the "great leap forward." Please rewrite the post in full, confirming your changes with a moderator prior to posting.
-Trillian
So do you have any links to a .torrent of the song?!
-Trillian
You've given me something to think about and I'm very torn. On the one hand, you're right that the board is responsible to the shareholders. On the other, they're also responsible to (among others) their employees and customers. I don't know enough about the bill to comment but if, for example, this bill somehow protected Microsoft's gay employees more than they are right now, it could be in the board's best intrest - for the company - to promote the bill.
I dunno. I'm torn. On the one hand, I am in favor of more legal protection for GLBT people. On the other, I do sort of agree that companies should stay the fuck out of politics...
At the very least, you've given me something to think about.
-Trillian
"If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, has the potential to cause them to lose a large amount of their business, it's the responsible thing to do to not let that happen."
I'm afraid I can't agree. If an activity they indulge in, which is unrelated to their business, is morally and ethically the right thing to do, it's the responsibel thing to do to let it happen and -indeed- support it to the fullest extent possible. Being a business does not give a group of people (which is what a business is...) a free pass to to anything which supports their bottom line. We've unfortunately gotten into a mindset in this country where that's often justified, but that doesn't make it so. I've heard elsewhere in this thread that Microsoft is a pro-gay-rights company and continues to do other things to help gay rights, which is a Good Thing. Withdrawing support for this bill (if the facts given in the summary and article are correct) is a Bad Thing.
-Trillian
Okay, now you've piqued *my* interest. I don't pretend to be very good at programing, but I'm really curious how the program printed a list of prime numbers when it was compiled. Any links?
-Trillian
You do have a point. I'm from the Chicago area, so have been to the museum a number of times, but admit that until I went this past summer I hadn't been there in many years. A large part of the fun was, "Oh! I remember this mode/exhibit/etc!"
I do think the new train setup is awesome (I love model trains, so I'm slightly biased...) and look forward to the new sub exhibit. I also think the movie exhibit (which was temporary and may now be gone) was very well done and I had tons of fun exploring it and participating in the "Make A Movie" section (although I think my friends and I were the oldest participants by about 10 years...oh well. We had fun.)
Trying to rethink the museum from a slightly more objective view, I would agree that a lot of there stuff hasn't been touched in years. I just disagree with your statement, "Unless this exhibit is REALLY awesome, I'd skip it. The Museum of Science & Industry is VERY dated and many of their exhibits are in poor repair." I very much enjoyed the museum when I was younger, and enjoyed it again recently. I think they are trying, as the revamped trains, the revamped chick hatchery, the new toymaker exhibit, etc show. You're right that they could be pushed further (and that the admission is pricey) but, as I said, I strongly disagree with your attitude that the museum isn't worth the time to go to, even if I think I see where you're coming from.
On the other hand, if you're making a trip to Chicago specifically for the museum I could see being disapointed, especially with the Field Museum and Aquarium, which (having also been to in the past year) are doing great things.
-Trillian
It's not on display because, as the previous poster said, it's being moved to a new underground (inside) exhibit hall that is currently being built. This is posted all over the MS&I. I also strongly disagree about the museum being boring or dated as I went over the summer with some friends (all early 20s) and had an absolutely great time.
*Shrug*
YMMV
-Trillian
"If anything, I'm blaming a bloated and inefficient system that's churning out morons that no one wants to hire!" Wouldn't that be....everyone else? That is, not yourself?
Look, I'm not disagreeing that many college reqs are bullshit. But I would have to agree that these are the types of things you need to research before while applying to schools and, if your school isn't what you'd hoped, try and transfer.
Let me ask you this: Have you talked to the university administration about why classes on Dante or mythology or astronomy won't count as you think they should?
I'm not saying you'd change anything, but at the very least you could say you've *tried*.
Also, concerning the ability to write papers, I'm gonna have to agree with one of the replies to your original post. If you can't write those papers, tough shit. That's how it works. You need to be able to express yourself in an adequate fashion, period.
I'm also curious why you didn't reply to one of the questions from a reply you got: Why not just go to a vocational school? If you really want to 'just' program and do math, then go do it.
-Trillian
You're right. I jumped the gun by making assumptions about what you thought, and I'm sorry.
What I took from your originial post was that there shouldn't be any fuss because it was legal, and I was objecting to that concept. I still stand by what I said, but I do appologize if I went beyond that and misrepresented what you said and, from rereading your original post, do think I went a bit too far.
-Trillian
I'll bite.
As the interviewer in the previous article (which I believe this article summary links to) compared it to, if we're playing monopoly and I land on Boardwalk, I owe the owner (lets say it's you) $2000 with a hotel. Not chump change. But if I can turn to the banker and slip him five *real* dollars in exchange for $5,000 Monopoly dollars, I have violated the rules of the game (possibly, depending on your reading of 'no gifts') and undoubtedly violated the spirit of the game.
Likewise, MMORPGs are designed to have a specific amount of money in the economy and a specific number of items, distributed in a specific fashion. While the amount of gold in a game is effectively infinite (if you spend time 'farming' you can sell items and drops for as long as you want) it is assumed that the ammount of gold/items you have will at least somewhat relate to the amount of time you've spent playing. This does not take into account gifts or guilds helping new members out, but friends giving a couple gold is not going to effect the economy on the same scale as someone buying 100,000 gold off eBay.
So, in a sense, people *are* being harmed by such 'reselling' of in-game items, in the very broad sense that it throws off what was hopefully a carefully planned economy, put in play by the developers.
In a more down-to-earth sense, farmers disrupt my ability to play the game. Ignoring the fact that I think it's "unfair" (a very subjective term, I admit) for someone to buy the latest Sword of Pwning +10 from eBay, the item was obtained by killing monsters, and thus preventing 'real' players (another subjective term) from killing them and obtaining the items/gold.
World of Warcraft (the MMORPG I am currently playing and thus most familiar with) solves this partially by implimenting 'instanced' dungeons, where every party in the dungeon gets their own 'instance' of the dungeon, with seperate monsters and such. This allows each party to fight through without the posibility of running into other players. While this is a great sollution on a small basis, it does not prevent a gold/item reseller from farming in a high-traffic area, or an area with important quest-related NPCs.
On an entirely different issue, saying "hey are not breaking any law, so what's all the fuss about that?" is just stupid. Even if you don't think selling items/gold from MMORPGs on eBay immoral, saying that it's moral because it's *legal* is disgusting. I am in no way comparing selling a WoW item to any of these things, but slavery, preventing women from voting, segregation, preventing blacks from voting, husbands beating wives, and torture have all at some point been legal. Again, I am *not* comparing MMORPG item reselling to any of these things. Merely pointing out that legality does not indicate morality, nor the other way around.
Just my thoughts.
-Trillian
"I don't think music is different from art or music."
Okay...I'll buy the first part, that music isn't different from art. But you lost me at the music/music comparison...
-Trillian
Correct me if I'm wrong (and, as this is Slashdot, I have no doubt someone will), but I don't believe Windows was *designed* as a gaming platform. Rather, as it became obvious that PC users desired the ability to do more graphic-based applications, often meaning games, Windows tools such as DirectX became available.
There is no reason something similar can't happen under Linux. I agree, video card manufacturers keeping closed-source drivers and the ever-present 'which came first' issue of companies not publishing to Linux until companies publish to Linux are issues. As you say, you support the ideas behind this project. I don't think you're trying to be negative, but it comes off as if you felt these guys wasted their time.
I recently aquired a bigger harddrive and am thinking of configuring it for dual-booting. As much as I suspect I'll have to go into Windows for World of Warcraft and such, it's still nice to know that I'd be able to have similar time-wasting games on Linux like I do on Windows.
-Trillian
I'll take the bait...
Your first reason for not donating is flawed because you assume there is a standard of "meaning" that can be assigned to people and accomplishment. While many have their own personal definitions for what a life of "accomplishment" is, or what a "meaningful" life is, there is no universally accepted standard for living a "meaningful and accomplished" life. Thus, while you personally may feel those affected by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean *are* meaningless and/or live meaningless lives, you (fortunately) do not have the authority to assign meaning or accomplishment to others. In short, who the hell are you to define whether someone is living a meaningless life, or has accomplished something?
Your second argument is just as flawed. You said, "the general population is usually wrong." Even if I agreed with that statement, the word "usually" means that (by your own admission!) the general population is *SOMETIMES* correct. I'm not going to even attempt to decide whether the general population is right or wrong, or whether you personally should donate money. However, saying "so-and-so is doing something so I *won't*" is just as flawed as when your mother warned you as a child, "If Bobbie jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?" While the actions of those you respect (or, in this case, seem not to respect) may offer guidance for your own actions, you must judge your actions based on their own merrit, not on other people telling you to do or not to do something.
So your first argument is, basically, "I'm passing judgement on the worth of others and find this group's worth lacking." If that's true, then fine. Come out and say so. But don't pretend that "meaning" and "accomplishment" carry the universal weight you attempt to assign them.
Your second argument is even worse, as it implies that you always (or perhaps just "usually") go against the will of the general population. So in addition to being a judgemental ass, you're spineless as well and can't make your own decisions.
Again, I'm not attempting to say that you *should* donate money. All I'm saying is that your present reasons for doing so are, at best, logically flawed and, at worse, the sign that you're simply a jerk.
-Trillian
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, this would seem to be a really dumb use of Mario. People already know what DDR is, and don't need a product tie-in to make the sale. In fact, if I was presented with two versions of DDR, one Mario-filled and one 'normal,' I'd go with the normal one.
That said, I'm really glad the GameCube is *finally* getting a version of DDR. For the most part I enjoy the games released on GameCube more than those released on PS2 or XBox. But one of the notable exceptions I wish GameCube had has been DDR, and it looks like this opens the door for future releases.
So, overall, I'm pleased with this announcmenet, because I've been wanting a GC DDR. At the same time, I wish they didn't have to make another Mario tie-in...
-Trillian
Touche.
You're obviously right, and have given me something to think about. The best I can come up with is MLK Jr. and Co. were attempting to grant more freedom, while PTC is trying to take it away. ('Freedom' here is given the very broad definition of 'the ability to do stuff.' In this case, 'stuff' is watching what PTC finds objectionable on TV.) I need to mull over this more, but that's my gut reaction. Granting people more freedom is 'good,' while restrictions such as PTC is attempting to impose are 'bad.' On a similar note, I'd say MLK Jr. and Co. were attempting to impose more personal responsibility for actions, in that case making the bus companies acknowledge their racism and deal with it (either change your policies or lose our business). PTC is pushing for less personal responsibility, in that PTC seems to be pushing for parents to let someone else do their job.
My understanding is that the Mongomary boycotts were larger than PTC will ever be, but you're right in that they're both situations of a minority speaking for a larger population. Although, thinking out loud, MLK Jr. never pretended to speak for the majority. He was very specific in that he spoke for what he felt were the rights of everyone, but that a specific minority was being denied those rights. PTC is saying they *do* speak for everyone.
These are all my own personal musings, and I' not totaly awake yet. But I'm leaning towards saying there is an objective, as well as subjective, difference between MLK JR. and PTC.
-Trillian
You're right, I don't. I have no authority to speak for Americans everywhere. But they don't either. My point is that if they can do it, so can I. Judging by the responses on Slashdot, I can say with some authority that my email spoke for SOME Americans, SOMEWHERE. Which is more than PTC seems able to do.
In addition, I'm asking them not to speak, rather than taking initiative and speaking out. I think the distinction is important. Were PTC to have a huge membership base, such that the 99% of the FTC claims they filed actually represented PTC's proportion of the population, I wouldn't have a problem with their argument that they speak for America. If tens of millions of parents joined PTC, maybe they *should* have some political clout. I would still disagree with their position, but not from the standpoint that they're giving a 'voice' to people who never asked for one. The fact that those parents have not taken the initiative to speak out is somewhat indicitive of their attitudes.
So you're entirely right. I can no more claim to speak for America than PTC. However, I can and do claim that those of us who are NOT speaking out are doing so for a reason. Staying silent and not taking a position *is* a position, which PTC seems to ignore.
I have to admit I was also just being intentionaly obnoxious. It's only ironic if I didn't know what I was doing. I was well aware of using their own (fallacious) argument, but to try and show how ridiculous they were being.
I think, at the very least, my letter was effective in sharing my personal dislike of their campaign. I'd also say it was effective in indicating I had at least some people who agree with me.
You're welcome not to be one of them.
-Trillian
I just sent the following email to PTC, from the link on their website:
i cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000731656] brought your group to my attention. I would like to take this opportunity to do something you seem to have taken on for yourself: Speak for Americans everywhere. It disgusts me that you would attempt to skew the number of complaints filed with the FCC to further your own views, and to attempt to regulate television as you see fit.
"To the Parents Television Council,
Please go away. Disband, disperse, diffuse, disappear, dissolve, disengage, break up, cease all activities, halt all programs, and leave.
The recent article in Mediaweek [http://www.mediaweek.com/mediaweek/headlines/art
Your spokeswoman Lara Mahaney asked, "Why does it matter how the complaints come?" I sincerely hope she was not the best you could do for your public image, because that would indicate your group is not only misguided, but headed by fools. It matters because the complaints filed with the FCC are supposed to represent all Americans, and what they consider indecent. It is not your responsibility to speak for those of us who are satisfied with television the way it is. Even were we not satisfied, we did not ask you to speak for us, and would prefer you stayed silent.
I find the entire premise of your group offensive. No child is required to watch television. On the contrary, children only watch television with the permission of their parents. Indeed, no parent is even required to own a television. The argument that parents cannot monitor their children, and so America "needs" you to do so for them, is ridiculous. When I was a child my parents regulated the shows I watched, the movies I went to, the amount of computer use I was allowed, the videogames I played, and helped me to foster a sense of *self* regulation. I am a fine, upstanding citizen today because instead of relying on groups like yours my parents did their job: They parented me.
Go away. You are not wanted here.
-Jared Kling"
This is off-topic:
I'm sure the free flat screen/ipod/ds/computer/laptop/etc actually work for people who A) do the required programs, B) get 4 people to sign up, and C) have their 4 referals do all the required programs. The problem is that, while a good number of people may get their free item, it remains a pyramid scheme. At some point down the road, the 4 people who person X has referred are NOT going to be able to get 4 referals of their own, and will be S.O.L.
I believe that if you can get 4 of your friends to sign up and (more importantly) get 4 of 'em to do the required programs, you will get your iPod/DS/whatever. But by participating you are ensuring that (at some point down the line) someone is going to do all of their stuff and then be unable to find 4 people to complete the program, leaving them having given away personal information for the 'free trial offers' or whatnot without getting 'paid.'
You can call it whatever you want, but it remains a pyramid scheme. The people at the bottom (who will end up with nothing) are 'paying' for your iPod.
-Trillian
My favorite quote from the last link in the summary (on format security) would have to be the following:
"In the U.S., the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits unauthorized circumvention. Outside the U.S., however, many jurisdictions only have conventional copyright laws that only protect creative works. Normal decryption keys do not include any obvious creative element."
Now, jumping to the Constitution ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries") it is not clear that copyright must *only* be granted to works with "obvious creative element." But I liked the fact that the above comment on future security requirements acknowledged what seems to be much of Slashdot (and the tech community's) beef with copyrighting algorithms and computer software, but from the assumption that it's a GOOD thing, rather than a BAD thing.
Just an example of how you can agree on the issue while still having mutually exclusive views on the sollution.
-Trillian