I judge art on my subjective interpretation of how difficult it would be for me to reproduce the thing. If it's something I could trivially do myself, the artist hasn't said anything meaningful to me.
Since I replicated this Silent Sonata numerous times in time out when I was a kid, I think I can safely label John Cage a wanker.
Just my opinion.
Re:However, your rights end. . .
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
C'mere, big guy. Sounds like somebody needs a hug. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
Re:Turn the jammer on when you need it
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
Since we're dealing with a problem in the aggregate, I think it makes sense to examine this "solution" in the aggregate.
In my judgement, it is worse than the "problem". Fortunately, the FCC agrees with me, and not with the jammers. yay government. *waves flag*
Re:However, your rights end. . .
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
I won't take it personally.
The FCC will, though.
Incidentally, if I catch you jamming my (non-existent) cell phone, don't take it personally if I kick you in the nuts.
Re:However, your rights end. . .
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
Part of "Free" is that I do not have to justify my actions to you.
In a lot of ways, it's the most important part.
Re:Turn the jammer on when you need it
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
But he does have the right to use the service for which he paid without the interference of a vigilante.
I think you're remembering the few people who annoy you, and not notice the dozens that are talking quietly into their phones.
Unless and until you can give me a scientific study that shows that people talk more loudly into a phone than they do in a face to face conversation, you've got no leg to stand on.
Re:However, your rights end. . .
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
And as long as that private business owner labels the door accordingly, and the footprint of their jammer does not extend into public areas, and they are appropriately licensed to jam public airwaves (all of which I think are Good Ideas), I think that's just dandy.
However, some asshole with a jammer in his pocket is a dangerous public nuisance.
EXCEPT FOR THE PARASITIC ALIEN LIFE FORM NOW LIVING IN HER SKULL!!!!
oh. wait. wrong movie.
this is a bunch of extraneous text I'm putting in to fool/.'s censorware filter. I've never really been annoyed by this before, but it sure is a stupid innovation.
Re:Turn the jammer on when you need it
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, because it's perfectly logical to expect people who buy cell phone jammers to use them as responsibly as cell phone users.
Methinks you have not thought through your scenario. You do not have a right to not be annoyed.
Yeah, it would be much better if only YOU and other people who you deem experts were allowed to call for help.
That'd be much better.
Re:Jammers and Dampers
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't like cell phones? Don't own one.
However, in free countries, other people are allowed (within certain broad arenas) to do things you don't like.
I don't like cell phones because I think the service is priced by collusion, not competition. However, that does not lead me to say that other people should not be allowed to use them.
The diamond industry profits from what is essentially slavery, on rocks that are nowhere near as uncommon as they would have you believe. Their entire industry is a marketing ploy.
Question: What's the effective bitrate of the Bluetooth connection? I'd always ass/u/med that it's a pretty low-speed connection. I mean, if you're only getting 45k from T-Mobile's network, then it doesn't really matter, but I wouldn't want BT to be the bottleneck.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm, so the EA-6B Prowler is nuclear capable too?
Wow.
Yeah, the Brits always have great names for aircraft. Like the "Nimrod".
...Aardvark? (OK, point taken.)\
Eagle
Nighthawk
Tomcat
Falcon (or Viper)
Lancer
Most of 'em aren't bad. Mostly.
The Hornet kills a lot fewer of its pilots, for one.
What part of "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" did you not understand?
You should note that the aircraft for sale is intact, not de-militarized.
I wonder if that means it still has the gun...
However, if I had ten million dollars to organize a kamikaze strike, I'd buy twenty Beech Barons instead of one F-18.
I like the way you went from calling me a warmongering fascist to calling me gay. Nice bit of cognitive dissonance, that.
Kinda turned me on, really.
I judge art on my subjective interpretation of how difficult it would be for me to reproduce the thing. If it's something I could trivially do myself, the artist hasn't said anything meaningful to me.
Since I replicated this Silent Sonata numerous times in time out when I was a kid, I think I can safely label John Cage a wanker.
Just my opinion.
C'mere, big guy. Sounds like somebody needs a hug. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
Since we're dealing with a problem in the aggregate, I think it makes sense to examine this "solution" in the aggregate.
In my judgement, it is worse than the "problem". Fortunately, the FCC agrees with me, and not with the jammers. yay government. *waves flag*
I won't take it personally.
The FCC will, though.
Incidentally, if I catch you jamming my (non-existent) cell phone, don't take it personally if I kick you in the nuts.
Part of "Free" is that I do not have to justify my actions to you.
In a lot of ways, it's the most important part.
But he does have the right to use the service for which he paid without the interference of a vigilante.
Or you could use the staggering technological innovation of...a two page ballot.
Yeah. My patent application is in the mail.
Invariably? Not in my experience.
I think you're remembering the few people who annoy you, and not notice the dozens that are talking quietly into their phones.
Unless and until you can give me a scientific study that shows that people talk more loudly into a phone than they do in a face to face conversation, you've got no leg to stand on.
And as long as that private business owner labels the door accordingly, and the footprint of their jammer does not extend into public areas, and they are appropriately licensed to jam public airwaves (all of which I think are Good Ideas), I think that's just dandy.
However, some asshole with a jammer in his pocket is a dangerous public nuisance.
If I found a jammer user, I'd prosecute him by a boot to the fookin' head.
No apparent harm done....
/.'s censorware filter. I've never really been annoyed by this before, but it sure is a stupid innovation.
EXCEPT FOR THE PARASITIC ALIEN LIFE FORM NOW LIVING IN HER SKULL!!!!
oh. wait. wrong movie.
this is a bunch of extraneous text I'm putting in to fool
Yeah, because it's perfectly logical to expect people who buy cell phone jammers to use them as responsibly as cell phone users.
Methinks you have not thought through your scenario. You do not have a right to not be annoyed.
Yeah, it would be much better if only YOU and other people who you deem experts were allowed to call for help.
That'd be much better.
Don't like cell phones? Don't own one.
However, in free countries, other people are allowed (within certain broad arenas) to do things you don't like.
I don't like cell phones because I think the service is priced by collusion, not competition. However, that does not lead me to say that other people should not be allowed to use them.
The diamond industry profits from what is essentially slavery, on rocks that are nowhere near as uncommon as they would have you believe. Their entire industry is a marketing ploy.
They can go fuck themselves.
All right, that's not too shabby.
Thanks for the info!
Wow. That's a hell of a conclusion to draw from curiousity about some new DJ.
You're an ass.
Yeah, and in the Yellow Pages, there are stars by the lawyers that don't suck, and littly Mr. Yuck faces by the bad ones.
Yeah. The poster doesn't want to read advertising copy for law offices. The poster soliciting other peoples' experience in wisely selecting a lawyer.
Are they bad at teaching reading comprehension in the Great White North, or are you just stupid?
Question: What's the effective bitrate of the Bluetooth connection? I'd always ass/u/med that it's a pretty low-speed connection. I mean, if you're only getting 45k from T-Mobile's network, then it doesn't really matter, but I wouldn't want BT to be the bottleneck.
Any data?
Thanks!