Spammers don't seem to profit from spam. I have *never* seen someone actually buy something because of spam. Spammers do it because it's too damn cheap ("Whaaat, TEN MILLION e-mails for U$ 50.00?") so they think it's worth the shot. If it doesn't work, well, they didn't waste much money.
You guys surely don't know places like Brazil. Here in Brazil, taxes take about 40% of our salary. Enterprenerus have to pay *120%* taxes on all of the employees' salaries. Did I mention that you *CAN NEVER RELY ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES*?
I'm not talking about a little overcrowded hospitals. I'm talking about waiting 12 hours (like, 11:00pm to 11:00am) inline for a simple appointment, and sometimes having to return later because doctors are on strike. I'm talking about waiting several months for an urgent surgery, while our stupid president tells us that the brazilian health care is "almost perfect". I'm also talking about several months to have all the paperwork you need to start your own business. Having to keep tons of tax papers because the Brazilian "IRS" sometimes will charge you 2x, even 3x the same tax, because they somehow forgot that you already paid such tax. Sometimes you can't pay the tax because they won't accept "DARF" docs below a certain ammount (say, U$ 5.00). So, you can't pay the tax, but you'll be fined because you didn't pay.
So, we pay 40% taxes, but that money goes down the drain. We're not paying for decent services, we're just giving the money away, and having to spend extra bucks for everything we need. We even pay decent ammounts of money on taxes for your automobiles, but we have to pay lots of aditional fees whenever we're travelling, because roads are maintained by private companies.
BTW, Lula makes Bush look like Einstein. I'm not kidding. He's that stupid.
So, they're right: they can't support OSS because there's no decent OSS implementation. Ogg sucks because it can't handle arbitrary media, Matroska and NUT are largely unknown... They're right.
"except that the planet really does have unlimited time" Huh? I'm not even pro-ID, but this nonsense. (BTW: I'm not neither ID nor a Darwin zealot. I'd rather have a clue and don't pretend I'm so cool because I know the origin of life. Nobody really knows , *NOBODY*, period)
"Avoid AA-type pseudoreligious programs. They have been proven not to work (no flames, please, go google the study yourself)."
I hope you mean that AA-type "pseudoreligious" programs don't work for computer games addiction, because at least AA is proven to WORK. I know this because many of my relatives and friends have been saved by AA. I have actual knowledge about it. I didn't google a study myself. I've been to AA meetings myself. I've seen how AA works myself.
I wish he would focus on funding the underlying causes of problems instead of the results of those problems. Instead of extending someone's wretched existance a short while longer, why not improve the infrastructure that these people live in? That would be a longer-term benefit.
It's much worse than that. Almost all the money donated to Africa ends up feeding absurdly corrupt dictatorships. Then, people starve while stupid governments waste resources that should be used to build an infrastructure that lets people have decent jobs so they don't need to ask for food elsewhere. Money is not the problem, corruption is!
The fact is, I don't pretend to have great knowledge of about every single fscking thing in science. I'm honest about myself. You people stick to the Slashdot "I have never read a single line about it, but I'm already an expert". crowd.
I don't really believe NASA is "under attack". Some scientists are always complaining. The only thing you need to do is not to believe them. Oh, boy, they get mad. They say you're some kind of religious xtreme-right-wing-that-burns-children fanatical guy.
BTW: I don't believe the Big Bang theory. Really, I don't. And not for religious reasons, because I'm not creationist. It's not a proven theory, and I don't blame the scientists for it. How can they prove something that happened billions of years ago? Heck, many times we can't even prove something that happened a few thousands of years ago! If you ask me "oh and how did it happen then, you stupid xtreme-right-wing fanatical mf?". My answer is: I don't know, and I don't care to know either
I agree about PRADO. It's a POS. I mean, when I chose it for a simple website, at first I thought it was so cool. I could create web pages so easily! No need for stinkin' HTML. Then I realized I was spending *much* more time dealing with PRADO's model than I would spend building the HTML myself. It's based on ASP.NET, but only on the worst part of ASP.NET. Nowadays I would choose Cake or some other decent framework. (Yes, I have used WebForms myself. Sorry, WebForms fanboys. I hate WebForms, period).
I'm sorry, my response was harsh, I didn't really intend to call you stupid. What I really meant that the "I hate to see anything that even mentions Christianity because I'm cool and I like to bash Christians" attitude is stupid. Some people portrait me as a "xtreme-right-wing-Christian" because of that, but they don't understand that I never make anyone agree with me, and I certainly don't think I'm better than anyone else just because I'm a Christian. Yes, sometimes I'm a bit harsh, but I target opinions, not people. It's just that some people have a childish attitude towards religion.
WHAT is so wrong about it, anyway? I mean, if a muslim puts references to Islam in his book, why so many people get so angry? It seems that one is *forbidden* to put references to his own religion in his own book. It's the teenagers' "don't point a gun at me and make me watch your movie" approach. The Christian-bashing talk is overwhelmingly stupid. I know, I know, it makes you look intelligent. Christian-bashing talk is like a "genius certificate" for teenagers. For me, it's stupid.
What if it is a spyware duck that only looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but has hidden cameras connected to a central server where people monitor your activity?
I'm sorry to inform you that many people don't really care about formats that "can be read by anyone you send them to". They only care about Outlook compatibility. If it works with Outlook, then they say fsck everything else.
In future perhaps you should avoid preceding your opinions with the word "Fact." Why should I avoid preceding my opinions with the word "fact"? Maybe I should just say "Hey, my opinions are always worthless, so, I will never think I'm right about anything".
Logic is logic whether applied mathematically or to real world situations. It is about using a reasoned progression based upon measured criteria. Given A and B we can deduce C. Assertions without facts, or without directly related causation are not logical. It seems to me that reasoned discourse and logic should be formally taught everywhere, as I find it lacking most everywhere. You apply the same logic to mathematic and real world situations? That's not good. Mathematically, A and B will always lead you to C. However, outside of theory, "A and B leads do C" is not always right. It depends on the context. It depends on the way you relate A, B and C. It even depends on your own perspective.
I disagree. Picking sides (in terms of right, left, democrat, republican, etc as I used it above) is easy when you just follow the party line. Making your own choices about things, and making an informed decision is much harder than listening to Rush Limbaugh for debating points. Well, my decisions aren't uninformed just because you disagree with me. People here in Brazil use to take uninformed decisions all the time, and such decisions are almost always something about hating USA and praising Lula. BTW: Who's Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, I don't know.
Oppression and totalitarianism are also present in some degree almost everywhere. Try not to let a bunch of power hungry thugs turn you off on the basic idea of sharing resources and sharing work equitably. If you share work equitably, some will end up having more than others. Why? Because *people* are not equal. Sharing resources equitably is *unfair*. In every socialist regime, obviously, no one wanted to work hard because there would be no benefit at all. That makes the socialist nations' income brutally drop. And, in real world (not in some leftits fantasy), with no income, people don't live very well at all.
What kind of failure in reasoning does it take to make an assertion like "Socialism will never work" and try to claim it as a fact? Have you ever read anything about logic or reasoning? A prediction cannot, by definition, be a fact. Citing previous examples of something not working is not a valid argument as to why something cannot work in the future. That's called empiric reasoning. Your meaning of logic is mostly mathematical, mechanical. Real-World logic is quite different. I stated my opinion about socialism, and it's based on the bad experiences from the past.
In 1200 AD someone may have said, "humans will never fly. people have tried for years to invent flying machines and all failed. Most of them seriously injured themselves. It is a fact that flying machines can never work. " Maybe he did help humans fly, in his own way. Maybe he showed the fundamental flaws of the machines of his time. I don't know if he did. Maybe he just helped inventors shift their views.
Why don't you stop picking sides Well, I could just stop picking sides, but I don't like to. Picking no sides is always easier.
or trying to attack others who believe differently than you Like I said before, some of my arguments were just caricatures (sorry, I don't know if "caricature" is a common word in USA, here in Brazil we use "caricatura" a lot)
and try to look at some of the problems in the world and try to help solve them. What if I do so? Maybe you don't know me so much
Bickering will get you exactly nowhere. I know bickering will not get me anywhere;)
Niether Pol Pot nor Hitler qualify as socialists. And the U.S. helped put Pol Pot in power. You are being very selective in your history.
Most people lost the ability to think about the real meaning of the word "socialism". Hitler was socialist (one hint: he was constanly interfering in the economy).
It's not 1930 anymore. The USA Communist party is dead. I'm pretty far to the left (I didn't like Kerry because I think he's to far to the right) but I'm glad the USSR fell. Same goes for just about every other leftist I've talked to about this. The Soviet Union was an authoratarian empire, good riddence.
You are glad USSR fell. Most leftists are. The question is: didn't they support USSR? Yes, they did. They knew what was going on, but they supported USSR back then. Why? Because it was against USA. Quite simple. Fact: Socialism will never work. In fact, every single comunist regime was extremely elitist. "What, elitist?" You ask. Yes, elitist. All the population was poor, the food was scarse. Oh, except for the government, of course.
Newsflash. Michael Moore is just a fat guy who made a movie. Get over it. Michael Moore made a movie, exactly. It was pure fiction. However, some people do "find" some "truth" in his movie(s), which is pretty amazing.
You haven't read anything by Chomsky, have you. I've read a couple of his books, he references everything. If you want to argue that his socialist beleifs are wrong fine, but just making stuff up and dropping his name is so David Horowitz. Well, I read one of his books. It was like this : "Vatican helped the Nazis, X was paid by Y" etc. Many, many, many of them with no references at all. I wouldn't even need to refute his "facts". Of course I don't COMPLETELY disagree with him, I'm not the kind of pro-USA-all-the-way guy.
It's worth noting that all his critics rely on personal attacks and alleged sympathies for communists or fascists, but never question the facts he cites. I don't agree with some of his politics, but factually speaking he is pretty reliable. Not that reliable. His arguments are pure hate against USA. The facts he cites don't sum up to his defense of communist regimes.
Instead of responding to this imaginary leftist in your head, maybe you should try engaging one of us in serious discussion. The "imaginary leftist" was only a joke, a "caricature".
Sorry, I spelled USSR like in Brazil, URSS (União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas) Anyway, it's good to see the way you dismiss an argument. Very good.
Slashdot Mirror
Spammers don't seem to profit from spam. I have *never* seen someone actually buy something because of spam. Spammers do it because it's too damn cheap ("Whaaat, TEN MILLION e-mails for U$ 50.00?") so they think it's worth the shot. If it doesn't work, well, they didn't waste much money.
You guys surely don't know places like Brazil. Here in Brazil, taxes take about 40% of our salary. Enterprenerus have to pay *120%* taxes on all of the employees' salaries. Did I mention that you *CAN NEVER RELY ON THE PUBLIC SERVICES*?
I'm not talking about a little overcrowded hospitals. I'm talking about waiting 12 hours (like, 11:00pm to 11:00am) inline for a simple appointment, and sometimes having to return later because doctors are on strike.
I'm talking about waiting several months for an urgent surgery, while our stupid president tells us that the brazilian health care is "almost perfect".
I'm also talking about several months to have all the paperwork you need to start your own business. Having to keep tons of tax papers because the Brazilian "IRS" sometimes will charge you 2x, even 3x the same tax, because they somehow forgot that you already paid such tax. Sometimes you can't pay the tax because they won't accept "DARF" docs below a certain ammount (say, U$ 5.00). So, you can't pay the tax, but you'll be fined because you didn't pay.
So, we pay 40% taxes, but that money goes down the drain. We're not paying for decent services, we're just giving the money away, and having to spend extra bucks for everything we need. We even pay decent ammounts of money on taxes for your automobiles, but we have to pay lots of aditional fees whenever we're travelling, because roads are maintained by private companies.
BTW, Lula makes Bush look like Einstein. I'm not kidding. He's that stupid.
So, they're right: they can't support OSS because there's no decent OSS implementation. Ogg sucks because it can't handle arbitrary media, Matroska and NUT are largely unknown... They're right.
Are you telling me that Google isn't the cure for everything? How... How could you?
"except that the planet really does have unlimited time"
Huh? I'm not even pro-ID, but this nonsense.
(BTW: I'm not neither ID nor a Darwin zealot. I'd rather have a clue and don't pretend I'm so cool because I know the origin of life. Nobody really knows , *NOBODY*, period)
"Avoid AA-type pseudoreligious programs. They have been proven not to work (no flames, please, go google the study yourself)."
I hope you mean that AA-type "pseudoreligious" programs don't work for computer games addiction, because at least AA is proven to WORK. I know this because many of my relatives and friends have been saved by AA. I have actual knowledge about it. I didn't google a study myself. I've been to AA meetings myself. I've seen how AA works myself.
I wish he would focus on funding the underlying causes of problems instead of the results of those problems. Instead of extending someone's wretched existance a short while longer, why not improve the infrastructure that these people live in? That would be a longer-term benefit.
It's much worse than that. Almost all the money donated to Africa ends up feeding absurdly corrupt dictatorships. Then, people starve while stupid governments waste resources that should be used to build an infrastructure that lets people have decent jobs so they don't need to ask for food elsewhere. Money is not the problem, corruption is!
The fact is, I don't pretend to have great knowledge of about every single fscking thing in science.
I'm honest about myself. You people stick to the Slashdot "I have never read a single line about it, but I'm already an expert". crowd.
I don't really believe NASA is "under attack". Some scientists are always complaining. The only thing you need to do is not to believe them. Oh, boy, they get mad. They say you're some kind of religious xtreme-right-wing-that-burns-children fanatical guy.
BTW: I don't believe the Big Bang theory. Really, I don't. And not for religious reasons, because I'm not creationist. It's not a proven theory, and I don't blame the scientists for it. How can they prove something that happened billions of years ago? Heck, many times we can't even prove something that happened a few thousands of years ago! If you ask me "oh and how did it happen then, you stupid xtreme-right-wing fanatical mf?". My answer is: I don't know, and I don't care to know either
I agree about PRADO. It's a POS. I mean, when I chose it for a simple website, at first I thought it was so cool. I could create web pages so easily! No need for stinkin' HTML. Then I realized I was spending *much* more time dealing with PRADO's model than I would spend building the HTML myself. It's based on ASP.NET, but only on the worst part of ASP.NET.
Nowadays I would choose Cake or some other decent framework.
(Yes, I have used WebForms myself. Sorry, WebForms fanboys. I hate WebForms, period).
BTW, the few-seconds memory of the Goldfish is a myth that the Mythbusters claimed to have busted.
I'm sorry, my response was harsh, I didn't really intend to call you stupid. What I really meant that the "I hate to see anything that even mentions Christianity because I'm cool and I like to bash Christians" attitude is stupid. Some people portrait me as a "xtreme-right-wing-Christian" because of that, but they don't understand that I never make anyone agree with me, and I certainly don't think I'm better than anyone else just because I'm a Christian. Yes, sometimes I'm a bit harsh, but I target opinions, not people. It's just that some people have a childish attitude towards religion.
WHAT is so wrong about it, anyway? I mean, if a muslim puts references to Islam in his book, why so many people get so angry? It seems that one is *forbidden* to put references to his own religion in his own book. It's the teenagers' "don't point a gun at me and make me watch your movie" approach.
The Christian-bashing talk is overwhelmingly stupid. I know, I know, it makes you look intelligent. Christian-bashing talk is like a "genius certificate" for teenagers. For me, it's stupid.
What if it is a spyware duck that only looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, but has hidden cameras connected to a central server where people monitor your activity?
Have you tried Plone?
I'm sorry to inform you that many people don't really care about formats that "can be read by anyone you send them to". They only care about Outlook compatibility. If it works with Outlook, then they say fsck everything else.
I wonder how long until all geeks stop giving a f*ck about what OS will prevail :-P
GTK2 file dialogs suck! Oh, wait, it's GT2K! Oh, nevermind.
(still can't parse Slash code for shit, but that's just a hurdle to be overcome soon)
Fixed already, just not present in Firefox 1.0
First of all, you need to check what "socialist" means. I seriously doubt you know the real meaning of "left".
In future perhaps you should avoid preceding your opinions with the word "Fact."
Why should I avoid preceding my opinions with the word "fact"? Maybe I should just say "Hey, my opinions are always worthless, so, I will never think I'm right about anything".
Logic is logic whether applied mathematically or to real world situations. It is about using a reasoned progression based upon measured criteria. Given A and B we can deduce C. Assertions without facts, or without directly related causation are not logical. It seems to me that reasoned discourse and logic should be formally taught everywhere, as I find it lacking most everywhere.
You apply the same logic to mathematic and real world situations? That's not good. Mathematically, A and B will always lead you to C. However, outside of theory, "A and B leads do C" is not always right. It depends on the context. It depends on the way you relate A, B and C. It even depends on your own perspective.
I disagree. Picking sides (in terms of right, left, democrat, republican, etc as I used it above) is easy when you just follow the party line. Making your own choices about things, and making an informed decision is much harder than listening to Rush Limbaugh for debating points.
Well, my decisions aren't uninformed just because you disagree with me. People here in Brazil use to take uninformed decisions all the time, and such decisions are almost always something about hating USA and praising Lula. BTW: Who's Rush Limbaugh? Seriously, I don't know.
Oppression and totalitarianism are also present in some degree almost everywhere. Try not to let a bunch of power hungry thugs turn you off on the basic idea of sharing resources and sharing work equitably.
If you share work equitably, some will end up having more than others. Why? Because *people* are not equal. Sharing resources equitably is *unfair*. In every socialist regime, obviously, no one wanted to work hard because there would be no benefit at all. That makes the socialist nations' income brutally drop. And, in real world (not in some leftits fantasy), with no income, people don't live very well at all.
What kind of failure in reasoning does it take to make an assertion like "Socialism will never work" and try to claim it as a fact? Have you ever read anything about logic or reasoning? A prediction cannot, by definition, be a fact. Citing previous examples of something not working is not a valid argument as to why something cannot work in the future.
;)
That's called empiric reasoning. Your meaning of logic is mostly mathematical, mechanical. Real-World logic is quite different.
I stated my opinion about socialism, and it's based on the bad experiences from the past.
In 1200 AD someone may have said, "humans will never fly. people have tried for years to invent flying machines and all failed. Most of them seriously injured themselves. It is a fact that flying machines can never work. "
Maybe he did help humans fly, in his own way. Maybe he showed the fundamental flaws of the machines of his time. I don't know if he did. Maybe he just helped inventors shift their views.
Why don't you stop picking sides
Well, I could just stop picking sides, but I don't like to. Picking no sides is always easier.
or trying to attack others who believe differently than you
Like I said before, some of my arguments were just caricatures (sorry, I don't know if "caricature" is a common word in USA, here in Brazil we use "caricatura" a lot)
and try to look at some of the problems in the world and try to help solve them.
What if I do so? Maybe you don't know me so much
Bickering will get you exactly nowhere.
I know bickering will not get me anywhere
Niether Pol Pot nor Hitler qualify as socialists. And the U.S. helped put Pol Pot in power. You are being very selective in your history.
Most people lost the ability to think about the real meaning of the word "socialism". Hitler was socialist (one hint: he was constanly interfering in the economy).
It's not 1930 anymore. The USA Communist party is dead. I'm pretty far to the left (I didn't like Kerry because I think he's to far to the right) but I'm glad the USSR fell. Same goes for just about every other leftist I've talked to about this. The Soviet Union was an authoratarian empire, good riddence.
You are glad USSR fell. Most leftists are. The question is: didn't they support USSR? Yes, they did. They knew what was going on, but they supported USSR back then. Why? Because it was against USA. Quite simple.
Fact: Socialism will never work. In fact, every single comunist regime was extremely elitist. "What, elitist?" You ask. Yes, elitist. All the population was poor, the food was scarse. Oh, except for the government, of course.
Newsflash. Michael Moore is just a fat guy who made a movie. Get over it.
Michael Moore made a movie, exactly. It was pure fiction. However, some people do "find" some "truth" in his movie(s), which is pretty amazing.
You haven't read anything by Chomsky, have you. I've read a couple of his books, he references everything. If you want to argue that his socialist beleifs are wrong fine, but just making stuff up and dropping his name is so David Horowitz.
Well, I read one of his books. It was like this : "Vatican helped the Nazis, X was paid by Y" etc. Many, many, many of them with no references at all. I wouldn't even need to refute his "facts". Of course I don't COMPLETELY disagree with him, I'm not the kind of pro-USA-all-the-way guy.
It's worth noting that all his critics rely on personal attacks and alleged sympathies for communists or fascists, but never question the facts he cites. I don't agree with some of his politics, but factually speaking he is pretty reliable.
Not that reliable. His arguments are pure hate against USA. The facts he cites don't sum up to his defense of communist regimes.
Instead of responding to this imaginary leftist in your head, maybe you should try engaging one of us in serious discussion.
The "imaginary leftist" was only a joke, a "caricature".
Sorry, I spelled USSR like in Brazil, URSS (União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas)
Anyway, it's good to see the way you dismiss an argument. Very good.