Is his point not dead on? Are SUVs not exempted from passenger car legislation because of the fiction that they're "work vehicles"?
I don't have any problem if you want to drive an SUV (or a pickup truck, or a big-ass van, or whatever). I do have a problem if you buy a vehicle that's not designed with proper-height bumpers and good crash engineering. Body-on-frame vehicles are bad at not killing passengers in vehicles that they hit.
I don't care how you want your vehicle to be shaped. I DO care about how it's engineered for (my) crash safety, and that is not a level playing field right now.
Re:actually, it doesn't work that way
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like somebody besides me didn't get a free ride due to the fact that he's a white male.
I feel your pain. The Man isn't returning my calls either.
"Ultimately, government does serve to shelter the many from the few. Sure, most of us are bright enough to wear a helmet. Those that don't can't be left to die, so we spend millions trying to patch their head together. If they can't pay for it, you and I are stuck holding the check. So we step in and make laws about wearing head gear."
I think you should be free to not wear a helmet. I also think you should be free to die on the sidewalk if you do something foolish, and get yourself killed if you can't pay for medical care.
I think it's inherently evil to attempt to exert control over another person. Yes, there are certainly times when that is necessary (particularly with children) but, as a principle, I vehemently disagree with your contention that forcing people to Do Good is a necessary and proper function of government. I would agree that government's ONLY proper function is to prevent people from doing Evil to one another.
Small-l libertarianism. I proceed from the assumption that the best person to govern any person is that person, and no other. Enforcing personal responsibility for one's actions is the only appropriate way to govern.
The problem is not lack of drag n' drop, it's simply poor engineering. Drag n' drop might be better than other bad solutions, but it's not as good as a database-driven selection system.
The iPod shuffle is a perfect example. I can tell it to "Keep all my high-rated songs on the device at all times, and fill the remainder with non-one-star rated songs. Oh yeah, and preserve 128 mb of free memory for me to store files in".
You simply can't do that with a drag n' drop solution, without spending hours picking and choosing a file here and there.
What does your bad experience with a cut-rate RCA player have to do with the software that comes with the iPod (which, by the way, you can download for free...even if you don't have an iPod)?
I think drag and drop players DON'T index themselves. There is no index...just a bunch of directories willy nilly arranged on the player.
Yes, there are drag and drop players, that do not have a database that I can query to build playlists, which is (IMO) a crippling limitation. They might suit YOU, which is fine. Nobody's making you buy an iPod. But, yes, adding that function to the iPod would make it less usable.
What's "uncomfortable" about it? You seem to be couching this as some sort of liberty argument, which is totally perplexing. Are you bitter that your video card requires you to use drivers to make it work?
What is the freakin' harm in letting you drop music on the player? How does the player know to update the database when you drag an.mp3 to some random location on the device? The only other alternative would be for the player to re-index itself every time you turn it on. Whee...wouldn't that be fun? I bet it'd only take half an hour or so.
"Held hostage"? Come on. Get some perspective. You're being silly.
So you advocate a government that makes me do things for my own good.
That is totally antithetical to my principles. I disagree with laws that require me to wear a helmet, wear a seat belt, or eat my green vegetables. Individual liberty trumps "social good" every single time. Your position is certainly self consistent, but I categorically oppose your thesis.
Government does not mitigate my baser instincts. It simply gives the legislature more power to indulge their own baser instincts, at my expense. Unacceptable.
We can argue all day about whose statistics are meaningful. If individuals in the US are taxed at a lower rate, and that encourages them to give more charitably, that is Good. Encouraging people to give charitably by not taxing those dollars is Good. Forcing people at gunpoint to support inefficient welfare structures is Bad.
"That said, constitutionaly there's a problem giving funds to religious organizations if they use it for proselytizing."
What? It's unconstitutional for me to give money to my church if they're going to use it for proselytizing? You're crazy.
Hmmm...so she knew what she wanted. What's wrong with that? Or are you supposing that the only possible reason that somebody could want an iPod is fashionista programming?
Comparison shop this: There are zero non-iPod players available with a decent user interface.
I think you're tarring with a pretty broad brush. For me, the key feature of the iPod is the smart playlist generation, and the accompanying database that's built from ID3 tags. Since I started using iTunes, I no longer have to think about the file structure of my MP3 collection. I simply tag the track with a genre, album, title, whatever, and query on that metadata to build playlists.
I would hate to have to pick and choose 6000-10,000 tracks to put on my iPod (assuming I have a collection that's larger than my device). Drag and drop is not good enough.
Ah, so it's better to be forced to be socially responsible than to do it voluntarily.
The article I read stated that combined government social programs and private giving in the US outstrips combined social programs and private giving in any other nation on Earth.
Is it bad that people give money to churches instead of "secular charity"? Most churches have excellent community outreach programs, and many have a policy of not proselytizing to the people who use those services.
And, even if you DO have to listen to a sermon to get a meal, beggars can't be choosers, can they?
Nobody is entitled to charity on their own terms. They are free to partake of charity on the charitable person's terms.
How do you reconcile your assertion that the United States has a culture of materialistic consumerism (read: selfishness) with the fact that Americans give, on a per capita basis, more to charities than any other nation on Earth? Heck, our charitable giving is twice that of Canada, and isn't Canada the country we're supposed to want to be like?
My experience with Opera's UI is far more negative. I found it to be a useless array of poorly organized preference panes, and the keyboard shortcuts seemed to be selected by pulling letters out of a Scrabble box. I was never able to convince it to actually remap the keys (although I seem to remember finding that preference).
Neither of those problems are going to be fixed by a skin. I don't care what the widgets look like: They need to behave in a consistent and predictable manner.
Macmice.com has smooth-wheel mice, no detents. I have the Bluetooth version, which has worked very well for me (although other customers have had issues).
It's got two buttons and a clickable wheel. It's a little spendy, but I like it.
Slashdot Mirror
Is his point not dead on? Are SUVs not exempted from passenger car legislation because of the fiction that they're "work vehicles"?
I don't have any problem if you want to drive an SUV (or a pickup truck, or a big-ass van, or whatever). I do have a problem if you buy a vehicle that's not designed with proper-height bumpers and good crash engineering. Body-on-frame vehicles are bad at not killing passengers in vehicles that they hit.
I don't care how you want your vehicle to be shaped. I DO care about how it's engineered for (my) crash safety, and that is not a level playing field right now.
Sounds like somebody besides me didn't get a free ride due to the fact that he's a white male.
I feel your pain. The Man isn't returning my calls either.
So, by your logic, people who don't think it's an insult aren't real people?
Thanks. Dick.
Yeah, because the IRS can be relied upon to search assiduously for deductions you might be eligible for.
Fox guarding the henhouse.
"tenet of the left to play hands-off with the net."
There's where you are wrong. The only tenet of any politician is to increase his power base.
Do you have a citation for this, or just a harebrained internet rumor?
It's a hard drive. Pretty well-understood mechanism. Why would an iPod be more prone to dying than a 2.5" laptop drive?
Somebody who wants a small, bus-powered external 60gb drive.
"Ultimately, government does serve to shelter the many from the few. Sure, most of us are bright enough to wear a helmet. Those that don't can't be left to die, so we spend millions trying to patch their head together. If they can't pay for it, you and I are stuck holding the check. So we step in and make laws about wearing head gear."
I think you should be free to not wear a helmet. I also think you should be free to die on the sidewalk if you do something foolish, and get yourself killed if you can't pay for medical care.
I think it's inherently evil to attempt to exert control over another person. Yes, there are certainly times when that is necessary (particularly with children) but, as a principle, I vehemently disagree with your contention that forcing people to Do Good is a necessary and proper function of government. I would agree that government's ONLY proper function is to prevent people from doing Evil to one another.
Small-l libertarianism. I proceed from the assumption that the best person to govern any person is that person, and no other. Enforcing personal responsibility for one's actions is the only appropriate way to govern.
the her than superb.
The problem is not lack of drag n' drop, it's simply poor engineering. Drag n' drop might be better than other bad solutions, but it's not as good as a database-driven selection system.
The iPod shuffle is a perfect example. I can tell it to "Keep all my high-rated songs on the device at all times, and fill the remainder with non-one-star rated songs. Oh yeah, and preserve 128 mb of free memory for me to store files in".
You simply can't do that with a drag n' drop solution, without spending hours picking and choosing a file here and there.
What does your bad experience with a cut-rate RCA player have to do with the software that comes with the iPod (which, by the way, you can download for free...even if you don't have an iPod)?
I think drag and drop players DON'T index themselves. There is no index...just a bunch of directories willy nilly arranged on the player.
Yes, there are drag and drop players, that do not have a database that I can query to build playlists, which is (IMO) a crippling limitation. They might suit YOU, which is fine. Nobody's making you buy an iPod. But, yes, adding that function to the iPod would make it less usable.
Ah! Found it. NM.
What I'm telling you, is that you didn't provide a link to the information you're talking about, so I can't evaluate it. : )
I think you missed your link there.
No, I don't know what his personal history is like. I do know that the product I bought works as advertised.
What's "uncomfortable" about it? You seem to be couching this as some sort of liberty argument, which is totally perplexing. Are you bitter that your video card requires you to use drivers to make it work?
.mp3 to some random location on the device? The only other alternative would be for the player to re-index itself every time you turn it on. Whee...wouldn't that be fun? I bet it'd only take half an hour or so.
What is the freakin' harm in letting you drop music on the player? How does the player know to update the database when you drag an
"Held hostage"? Come on. Get some perspective. You're being silly.
So you advocate a government that makes me do things for my own good.
That is totally antithetical to my principles. I disagree with laws that require me to wear a helmet, wear a seat belt, or eat my green vegetables. Individual liberty trumps "social good" every single time. Your position is certainly self consistent, but I categorically oppose your thesis.
Government does not mitigate my baser instincts. It simply gives the legislature more power to indulge their own baser instincts, at my expense. Unacceptable.
We can argue all day about whose statistics are meaningful. If individuals in the US are taxed at a lower rate, and that encourages them to give more charitably, that is Good. Encouraging people to give charitably by not taxing those dollars is Good. Forcing people at gunpoint to support inefficient welfare structures is Bad.
"That said, constitutionaly there's a problem giving funds to religious organizations if they use it for proselytizing."
What? It's unconstitutional for me to give money to my church if they're going to use it for proselytizing? You're crazy.
Uh, I do. I've got 7,000 tracks on my iPod, and sometimes people have given me music that I don't recognize off the bat.
How does that make me a moron, exactly?
Hmmm...so she knew what she wanted. What's wrong with that? Or are you supposing that the only possible reason that somebody could want an iPod is fashionista programming?
Comparison shop this: There are zero non-iPod players available with a decent user interface.
I think you're tarring with a pretty broad brush. For me, the key feature of the iPod is the smart playlist generation, and the accompanying database that's built from ID3 tags. Since I started using iTunes, I no longer have to think about the file structure of my MP3 collection. I simply tag the track with a genre, album, title, whatever, and query on that metadata to build playlists.
I would hate to have to pick and choose 6000-10,000 tracks to put on my iPod (assuming I have a collection that's larger than my device). Drag and drop is not good enough.
Ah, so it's better to be forced to be socially responsible than to do it voluntarily.
The article I read stated that combined government social programs and private giving in the US outstrips combined social programs and private giving in any other nation on Earth.
Is it bad that people give money to churches instead of "secular charity"? Most churches have excellent community outreach programs, and many have a policy of not proselytizing to the people who use those services.
And, even if you DO have to listen to a sermon to get a meal, beggars can't be choosers, can they?
Nobody is entitled to charity on their own terms. They are free to partake of charity on the charitable person's terms.
I suspect the poster intended to say that the shuffle has become the de facto standard in an established market since its release two months ago.
But maybe I'm crazy.
How do you reconcile your assertion that the United States has a culture of materialistic consumerism (read: selfishness) with the fact that Americans give, on a per capita basis, more to charities than any other nation on Earth? Heck, our charitable giving is twice that of Canada, and isn't Canada the country we're supposed to want to be like?
I'm pretty sure RICO makes it illegal to do anything that any particular law enforcement officer doesn't happen to like.
I wish I was joking.
Why does it need to appeal to the vast majority of users to be a success? If it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't. What's the problem?
My experience with Opera's UI is far more negative. I found it to be a useless array of poorly organized preference panes, and the keyboard shortcuts seemed to be selected by pulling letters out of a Scrabble box. I was never able to convince it to actually remap the keys (although I seem to remember finding that preference).
Neither of those problems are going to be fixed by a skin. I don't care what the widgets look like: They need to behave in a consistent and predictable manner.
Macmice.com has smooth-wheel mice, no detents. I have the Bluetooth version, which has worked very well for me (although other customers have had issues).
It's got two buttons and a clickable wheel. It's a little spendy, but I like it.