Right, and that's why Lewis' novels were so much more successful when they were translated from the original Arabic, right?
You can hardly fault the author for espousing his own belief structure. He didn't come to your house with a gun, did he? There weren't exactly a lot of "Hey kids! It's fun to oppress darkies and wogs!" in the books, were there?
Yeah, it would be MUCH better if I had to personally approve every bit that gets written to the hard drive.
Even better, it should LET ME tell it whether I want a zero or a one at every point. That would be GREAT!
Every computer system does things behind your back. That's a feature. The only question is, WHICH SET of things should be done "behind your back"? That is where the good engineering comes in.
Unfortunately, there are very few good software engineers.
Who told you "immune"? Sure hope you weren't paying that consultant a lot of money.
MacOS is LESS susceptible, partly by design, and partly because of market considerations. I know that I've gotten zero pieces of spyware on my Powerbook, and I clean it out daily on the PCs at work.
"But this time, here's a clear-cut case of something grotesquely cruel. I mean, how could a decent person say that it's OK to artificially stock animals in small fenced areas, and then have a remotely fired gun so people can blast these creatures through the Internet? Sorry, that's just flat-out wrong, and even most hunters would say so."
What's cruel about it? Seriously! Yes, it's easy to imagine how this could be mis-managed. Certainly, it would be cruel for poor shots to not kill the animal immediately. I think it would be appropriate to have someone ready to immediately put down a poorly-shot animal.
However, there is nothing inherently more cruel about this process than any other sort of hunting (which I'd guess you disapprove of as well).
"I publish Vegan.com"
Oh. You don't have an agenda or anything.
I don't think you're a loser. I think you should be free to eat, or not eat, whatever makes you happy. I think that if you want to make laws that infringe my liberty to do things you don't approve of, you should get bent.
It's hard for me to support PETA when they genuinely have a valid objection to a cruel process, because they so clearly HATE my chosen diet. They don't respect my liberty, and I don't respect their tactics.
"In some ways, nothing has changed since Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"."
Wow. You're not overstating the case or anything. Food poisoning that results in death is almost unheard of today.
Yes, unsafe food handling practices can indeed make people sick. Considering how many people have to touch the food we eat every day, it's a freakin' miracle that we don't ALL drop dead. That miracle happens because of modern food safety regulations, and by and large they work pretty darn well.
I don't have a Right to operate a deadly weapon using some flash game on my desktop.
I have a Right do do ANYTHING I WANT TO, even if you think it's not nice.
Yes, in order to have a civil society, it's important to have laws against stealing and murder and mayhem. However, there should NOT be laws against doing things that any given person thinks are bad, or silly, or in poor taste.
I certainly wouldn't want this system to be operated in an unsafe or irresponsible manner. However, if I've got a robogun on MY property, it's none of YOUR business.
Why would you go to all the trouble of selecting AGAINST features? Nobody's making you use them.
Most of the chipsets out there are highly integrated, so you don't get a cost savings for getting a mobo without USB, because the USB controller hardware is already built in to the IO controller. Same often goes for sound and/or video.
Get a motherboard that has the features you want. Don't sweat the fact that you're getting stuff you won't use...you're not going to realize any cost savings by cutting them off.
It's a marketing campaign. Marketing campaigns are, by their nature, unethical. They are attempting to manipulate me into thinking that HP Is Good, not by actually making good products, but by managing my perceptions.
There's nothing remotely ethical about manipulating people.
So, from that point of view, DUH of course it's unethical. I just don't understand why you're surprised/outraged/alarmed. This is par for the course. From another point of view, they're not in any way hurting you by not letting you post Naughty Things on their web server. This does not rise to the level of something I'm even remotely worried about.
Of course, I wouldn't buy HP's crap with your money. (Except for their calculators, which don't exist anymore)
No, see, you misunderstand. Your rights don't change, but when you get to my sister, that's when your self-preservation instincts out to be kicking in.
I don't even understand your argument. HP is a multi-gajillion old-line blue chip arch-conservative megaconglomerate. Why did you think for a moment that their fucking blog page would turn into an Indymedia-style Designated Free Speech Zone? Hint: HP doesn't have blogs because they think blogs are The Democratization of Opinion. HP has blogs because they think that blogs are percieved in a positive light by the public. It's transparent marketing. It's blisteringly obvious. They've found a trend, and they're trying to surf it. They're about as graceful at surfing as I would be: Which is to say not at all.
I don't think anybody's Wrong for trying to post negative stuff on HP's blog, and I don't think HP is Wrong for doing exactly what anybody would expect HP to do. Seriously...what did you expect to happen?
The world is locally flat. The sun can stand still in the sky, from my own perspective, if the Earth stops rotating. All I'm saying is, refuting this myth (which is a silly thing to feel the need to do in the first place) takes more than semantic games about where axes of rotation and revolution are in space.
I think you might be confused about what the argument here is.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, and that's why Lewis' novels were so much more successful when they were translated from the original Arabic, right?
You can hardly fault the author for espousing his own belief structure. He didn't come to your house with a gun, did he? There weren't exactly a lot of "Hey kids! It's fun to oppress darkies and wogs!" in the books, were there?
What exactly is your objection?
Why would that creep you out? Whose beliefs should an author be using to motivate his stories? Yours?
Is it SO astonishing that this person could be BOTH a Christian AND a good storyteller?
When something is taken from you, you don't have it anymore. That's what the word means.
If I copy something, you still have it. So nothing has been taken from you.
I'm not saying that what this joker did was OK, I'm saying that it's not called "stealing".
Yeah, it would be MUCH better if I had to personally approve every bit that gets written to the hard drive.
Even better, it should LET ME tell it whether I want a zero or a one at every point. That would be GREAT!
Every computer system does things behind your back. That's a feature. The only question is, WHICH SET of things should be done "behind your back"? That is where the good engineering comes in.
Unfortunately, there are very few good software engineers.
Who told you "immune"? Sure hope you weren't paying that consultant a lot of money.
MacOS is LESS susceptible, partly by design, and partly because of market considerations. I know that I've gotten zero pieces of spyware on my Powerbook, and I clean it out daily on the PCs at work.
I know which system I prefer.
Yep, and I'm sure that they all just stopped working as soon as they heard that The Mothership shipped a new version of the OS.
What was your point again?
"But this time, here's a clear-cut case of something grotesquely cruel. I mean, how could a decent person say that it's OK to artificially stock animals in small fenced areas, and then have a remotely fired gun so people can blast these creatures through the Internet? Sorry, that's just flat-out wrong, and even most hunters would say so."
What's cruel about it? Seriously! Yes, it's easy to imagine how this could be mis-managed. Certainly, it would be cruel for poor shots to not kill the animal immediately. I think it would be appropriate to have someone ready to immediately put down a poorly-shot animal.
However, there is nothing inherently more cruel about this process than any other sort of hunting (which I'd guess you disapprove of as well).
"I publish Vegan.com"
Oh. You don't have an agenda or anything.
I don't think you're a loser. I think you should be free to eat, or not eat, whatever makes you happy. I think that if you want to make laws that infringe my liberty to do things you don't approve of, you should get bent.
It's hard for me to support PETA when they genuinely have a valid objection to a cruel process, because they so clearly HATE my chosen diet. They don't respect my liberty, and I don't respect their tactics.
Nuh uh!
(Do you haeve an argument to make, or are you just being argumentative?)
Open your mouth.
Put your fingers in there. Feel those hard, kinda pointy things? Those are called teeth.
The front dozen or so are designed to cut meat.
That's why I think it's a pretty good assumption that, through out history, a lot of people have eaten a lot of meat.
"In some ways, nothing has changed since Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"."
Wow. You're not overstating the case or anything. Food poisoning that results in death is almost unheard of today.
Yes, unsafe food handling practices can indeed make people sick. Considering how many people have to touch the food we eat every day, it's a freakin' miracle that we don't ALL drop dead. That miracle happens because of modern food safety regulations, and by and large they work pretty darn well.
You misunderstand.
I don't have a Right to operate a deadly weapon using some flash game on my desktop.
I have a Right do do ANYTHING I WANT TO, even if you think it's not nice.
Yes, in order to have a civil society, it's important to have laws against stealing and murder and mayhem. However, there should NOT be laws against doing things that any given person thinks are bad, or silly, or in poor taste.
I certainly wouldn't want this system to be operated in an unsafe or irresponsible manner. However, if I've got a robogun on MY property, it's none of YOUR business.
Lay off the Barry White, yo.
Why would you go to all the trouble of selecting AGAINST features? Nobody's making you use them.
Most of the chipsets out there are highly integrated, so you don't get a cost savings for getting a mobo without USB, because the USB controller hardware is already built in to the IO controller. Same often goes for sound and/or video.
Get a motherboard that has the features you want. Don't sweat the fact that you're getting stuff you won't use...you're not going to realize any cost savings by cutting them off.
It's a marketing campaign. Marketing campaigns are, by their nature, unethical. They are attempting to manipulate me into thinking that HP Is Good, not by actually making good products, but by managing my perceptions.
There's nothing remotely ethical about manipulating people.
So, from that point of view, DUH of course it's unethical. I just don't understand why you're surprised/outraged/alarmed. This is par for the course. From another point of view, they're not in any way hurting you by not letting you post Naughty Things on their web server. This does not rise to the level of something I'm even remotely worried about.
Of course, I wouldn't buy HP's crap with your money. (Except for their calculators, which don't exist anymore)
So, is it bad that the GUI was created? Does it somehow diminish you?
You like the CLI. That's fine. Do you think that everybody works like you do?
Of course. Why do you think I care what you call me?
No, see, you misunderstand. Your rights don't change, but when you get to my sister, that's when your self-preservation instincts out to be kicking in.
I don't even understand your argument. HP is a multi-gajillion old-line blue chip arch-conservative megaconglomerate. Why did you think for a moment that their fucking blog page would turn into an Indymedia-style Designated Free Speech Zone? Hint: HP doesn't have blogs because they think blogs are The Democratization of Opinion. HP has blogs because they think that blogs are percieved in a positive light by the public. It's transparent marketing. It's blisteringly obvious. They've found a trend, and they're trying to surf it. They're about as graceful at surfing as I would be: Which is to say not at all.
I don't think anybody's Wrong for trying to post negative stuff on HP's blog, and I don't think HP is Wrong for doing exactly what anybody would expect HP to do. Seriously...what did you expect to happen?
Dude. HP's blog is a marketing gimmick. OF COURSE they're going to edit it.
Go ahead and have sex with all the unmarried women you want...it's none of my business unless and until you get to my sister. Then I'll beat yer ass.
If HP wants to do whatever the hell HP wants with HP's servers, they are completely within their rights.
Want to be a jackass? Get your own megaphone.
Older generations have thought that about younger generations since the dawn of time. Mostly, they've been wrong.
Idiocy doesn't show a strong correlation with age.
What species? What did the teacher say, exactly?
If you think I'm a proponent of the historicity of the Bible, you're horribly confused.
The world is locally flat. The sun can stand still in the sky, from my own perspective, if the Earth stops rotating. All I'm saying is, refuting this myth (which is a silly thing to feel the need to do in the first place) takes more than semantic games about where axes of rotation and revolution are in space.
I think you might be confused about what the argument here is.
So as long as you are the oppressor, oppression is just fine?
Yeah. I very much a lot don't agree with you.
You seem to think that Congress wants bills to be passed on their own merit, rather than being tacked on to other, un-killable legislation.
How would they pork barrel in that environment?