I buy the games they want to sell me. I decline to patronize the scalpers. If they want my business, sell stuff in a store near me. Don't expect me to pay double for the privilege of buying your wares, because I won't do it.
I didn't say Square did anything wrong. They're free to not want my money. However, I don't see anything wrong with buying the album from another (reasonably priced) source.
They decided they didn't want to sell me something. After that, why do they care what I do?
States don't get to take away Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. That's why we have a Constitution.
No, I don't feel guilty when I exercise my inalienable human rights, even if it does get Microsoft's nose out of joint. They can go screw.
So I should feel guilty if I read some code that I downloaded from the Internet? I didn't pick any locks or hack any computers to steal it. I've done nothing wrong. Microsoft fumbled their trade secret, and now it's out there. They might be able to make a case for copyright infringement, but unless and until I damage them, they've got no real case.
And, in point of fact, I HAVEN'T downloaded the code, because there are few things I'm less interested in than Microsoft's 600 mb of crap.
A good scientist appreciates the limitations of the models he has built about the way the world works. A good scientist pursues truth, and does not hew to a hypothesis that is not borne out by data. A good scientist changes his outlook and worldview as more data are collected.
There are very, very, very few good scientists. There are a LOT of parochial, closed-minded, scientists that are totally ignorant about anything outside their very narrow focus.
If Square wanted my money, they would have sold the discs in my country, and not let importers scalp for two or three times the price of a regular CD.
So, in other words, eat my shorts. I feel no obligation whatsoever to pay obscene prices for imports when I can get the same (or at least a satisfactory) product for a reasonable price through other means.
Yeah, the thing is, just because you saw it on TV, doesn't make it true.
"rescued" Apple? How do you "rescue" a company that has over $4 billion in the bank, by buying $500 million in non-voting stock?
Microsoft was buying their way out of the Quicktime lawsuit, and Apple was agreeing that they would promote MS Office and IE and take a big pile of money to settle the lawsuit.
And yet, the company was profitable throughout the tech downturn.
Sales growth is not the be-all end-all of corporate performance. Me, I'm much happier that Apple is focusing on building superior machines than trying to be another crappy VAR.
Why does the RIAA settle? Because it's easier, or because they don't think their case would stand up in court?
The settlement monies are orders of magnitude less than the "penalties". Why doesn't the RIAA roll the dice? Why don't they go to trial?
Because they think they wouldn't win. So they use the threat of a trial to extort funds out of people who have a good chance of paying nothing (except for exorbitant legal fees) if they go to trial.
I'm certain there was a clause somewhere that said "Paying your bill indicates that you accede to the terms of this new contract. Not paying your bill will breach your current contract, and we will send the dogs that have bees in their mouths that come out when they bark at you after you. HAND."
For those of us who have integrity, we judge free trade based on its merits for everybody, rather than whether we think it's going to inconvenience us.
Not In My Backyard is right near the top of the most despicable tendencies of humans.
Sure enough, but most of the problems have been due to a) hydraulic failures and b) weird aerodynamic problems. The flight controls have been adjusted to dial out the second, but I wouldn't describe the problem as flight control related.
The V-22 is a complicated bird. The casualties are tragic, indeed, but keep in mind that the Chinook killed a lot of soldiers too before it became an indispensable workhorse.
That's pretty appalling. I had no idea that it was so high.
Fortunately, the next-generation helicopters with fly-by-wire are going to be way easier to fly. The RAH-66 Comanche is the first example, but I expect that will become standard on military and civilian birds.
Yeah, because having a pistol grip on a rifle makes it FAR more dangerous.
The Brady law is absurd.
and, keep in mind, the aircraft being sold has the weapons pylons installed. Don't know about the electronics, but it has not apparently been de-militarized.
How far does the right to bear arms go? I think it "shall not be infringed".
So a LESS agile aircraft would be harder to fly straight into a mountain?
Before the advent of fly-by-wire, there were exactly zero military aircraft designed with relaxed static stability. World War II aircraft were well-behaved and stable. The P-51 Mustang, in particular, was regarded as a particularly pilot-friendly aircraft.
Where did we get the idea that we should tell people what they should be doing?
Slashdot Mirror
If you think a Model T is the same as a modern car, you've never tried to start a model T.
Or drive at highway speeds in one.
I buy the games they want to sell me. I decline to patronize the scalpers. If they want my business, sell stuff in a store near me. Don't expect me to pay double for the privilege of buying your wares, because I won't do it.
I didn't say Square did anything wrong. They're free to not want my money. However, I don't see anything wrong with buying the album from another (reasonably priced) source.
They decided they didn't want to sell me something. After that, why do they care what I do?
States don't get to take away Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. That's why we have a Constitution.
No, I don't feel guilty when I exercise my inalienable human rights, even if it does get Microsoft's nose out of joint. They can go screw.
So I should feel guilty if I read some code that I downloaded from the Internet? I didn't pick any locks or hack any computers to steal it. I've done nothing wrong. Microsoft fumbled their trade secret, and now it's out there. They might be able to make a case for copyright infringement, but unless and until I damage them, they've got no real case.
And, in point of fact, I HAVEN'T downloaded the code, because there are few things I'm less interested in than Microsoft's 600 mb of crap.
A good scientist appreciates the limitations of the models he has built about the way the world works. A good scientist pursues truth, and does not hew to a hypothesis that is not borne out by data. A good scientist changes his outlook and worldview as more data are collected.
There are very, very, very few good scientists. There are a LOT of parochial, closed-minded, scientists that are totally ignorant about anything outside their very narrow focus.
Yeah, because both George Bush and Bill Clinton were totally responsible for the economic performance of this country.
Right. What color is the sky on your planet?
Encouraging people to break the law is a crime? WHAT? Incitement to riot is a crime. Encouraging people to break the law is free speech.
As is, by the way, transmitting Microsoft's source code.
If Square wanted my money, they would have sold the discs in my country, and not let importers scalp for two or three times the price of a regular CD.
So, in other words, eat my shorts. I feel no obligation whatsoever to pay obscene prices for imports when I can get the same (or at least a satisfactory) product for a reasonable price through other means.
Yeah, the thing is, just because you saw it on TV, doesn't make it true.
"rescued" Apple? How do you "rescue" a company that has over $4 billion in the bank, by buying $500 million in non-voting stock?
Microsoft was buying their way out of the Quicktime lawsuit, and Apple was agreeing that they would promote MS Office and IE and take a big pile of money to settle the lawsuit.
There was no rescue. The TV was wrong.
And yet, the company was profitable throughout the tech downturn.
Sales growth is not the be-all end-all of corporate performance. Me, I'm much happier that Apple is focusing on building superior machines than trying to be another crappy VAR.
Why does the RIAA settle? Because it's easier, or because they don't think their case would stand up in court?
The settlement monies are orders of magnitude less than the "penalties". Why doesn't the RIAA roll the dice? Why don't they go to trial?
Because they think they wouldn't win. So they use the threat of a trial to extort funds out of people who have a good chance of paying nothing (except for exorbitant legal fees) if they go to trial.
Nonsense! I happen to know that you had to be able to spell "Internet" in order to get the VC millions.
Silly monkey.
I'm certain there was a clause somewhere that said "Paying your bill indicates that you accede to the terms of this new contract. Not paying your bill will breach your current contract, and we will send the dogs that have bees in their mouths that come out when they bark at you after you. HAND."
As soon as higher quality starts making campaign contributions.
Yeah right.
For those of us who have integrity, we judge free trade based on its merits for everybody, rather than whether we think it's going to inconvenience us.
Not In My Backyard is right near the top of the most despicable tendencies of humans.
Sure enough, but most of the problems have been due to a) hydraulic failures and b) weird aerodynamic problems. The flight controls have been adjusted to dial out the second, but I wouldn't describe the problem as flight control related.
The V-22 is a complicated bird. The casualties are tragic, indeed, but keep in mind that the Chinook killed a lot of soldiers too before it became an indispensable workhorse.
Yeah, anybody who uses tools to do their job is incompetent.
I need to remember not to let you try to fix anything I own, ever.
That's pretty appalling. I had no idea that it was so high.
Fortunately, the next-generation helicopters with fly-by-wire are going to be way easier to fly. The RAH-66 Comanche is the first example, but I expect that will become standard on military and civilian birds.
That doesn't surprise me very much, since the ground is dangerous. I'm curious, do you have a citation? I'd be curious to compare the numbers.
[French knight]I told him we've-a already got one![/French knight]
Costs a bundle, but there's your draw-on LCD to attach to your desktop.
They also bombed four or five years ago. And again nine or ten years ago.
I think MS is the only company who thinks this is a good idea, and they keep trying to convince others. They're still wrong.
If I had to handicap the animation industry, I'd bet on Pixar because they have five mega-hits under their belts, and zero flops.
Dreamworks has been much more spotty.
Yeah, because having a pistol grip on a rifle makes it FAR more dangerous.
The Brady law is absurd.
and, keep in mind, the aircraft being sold has the weapons pylons installed. Don't know about the electronics, but it has not apparently been de-militarized.
How far does the right to bear arms go? I think it "shall not be infringed".
So a LESS agile aircraft would be harder to fly straight into a mountain?
Before the advent of fly-by-wire, there were exactly zero military aircraft designed with relaxed static stability. World War II aircraft were well-behaved and stable. The P-51 Mustang, in particular, was regarded as a particularly pilot-friendly aircraft.
Where did we get the idea that we should tell people what they should be doing?
I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate here, because I think it's an interesting question.
"More like the right to bear arms shall only be infringed enough that law enforcement can provide proper order for the citizenry."
I missed that clause in the Constitution.
It seems to me that the base assumption the Founders made is that the American people are trustworthy. I agree with them.