Don't be absurd. I'm trying to understand for my own personal information. And I am upset that the system whatever it's quality has allowed this to happen. That is unfortunate.
That's fine. You want to morally judge people as if that solves the problem. Delude yourself. I live in Los Angeles, I've grown up with a lot of the people making these choices. I'm not disputing that they own these products or that the people pirating are stealing. The point is that it doesn't matter. Judging someone doesn't fix your problem. If you don't offer content internationally then you're encouraging the foreign market to pirate. Period. If you restrict service so there is only one way to get the product and it isn't the popular way. Then you're encouraging piracy. If you charge a very high price for content from one market and a very low price from another that encourages piracy.
The music industry had a chance to enter the digital music business around 2000 long before itunes. Napster came to them and offered to set it up for them. An online digital for profit music business. The music business told napster to go f' themselves. Now the publishers are getting eaten alive by itunes and bittorrent. Who's fault is that?
Learn. Your moralizing and judgment accomplishes NOTHING. Legal action accomplishes nothing.
The business model is broken. Fix it or die. Sooner better then later.
Here are you choices.
1. Join the 21st century by offering international same day video on demand service for nearly all content at internationally competitive rates.
2. Go out of business.
Choose carefully.
This is a pass/fail intelligence test. Take your time.
no, it's best if the judge doesn't personally execute a sentence. There's a good separation there. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face unless he has medical problems and then do something equally unpleasant but not life threatening.
strong arming metro is going to piss business off. Have they honestly tested this with people that have been using windows for the last 20 years ? I doubt it.
Blame is like gravity... It doesn't particularly care what either of us want. I'd rather it fall on whoever is to blame. That might be a superior officer. that might be a dead man that set policy 20 years ago. It might be some maintenance guy that spilled gasoline everywhere. Someone is going to burn. Don't blame me for that... I didn't make that rule. If you don't find the guilty party or there isn't a guilty party... then an innocent man will be chosen as scapegoat. That would be sad... but as I said... someone will be blamed.
The only question now is who. When a billion in navy property goes up in smoke someone is going to lose their head. Again... not my rule... just the way it is...
1. A very consistent and user friendly interface. The most risky thing MS did was change the GUI in Windows 8 it's extremely risky.
When I say consistent... I mean it hasn't changed remarkably in 20 years. That is something business likes. I really can't be understated.
2. Of equal importance, backward compatibility. Business has no confidence in apple because you can't run old apple programs on a modern mac. And it seems like every new version of the OS breaks compatibility with something.
Some might say, hey linux has both these things. No you don't.
The OS still isn't user friendly. I don't care if you're using Mint or ubuntu or whatever. There are a lot of things you can do with a few mouse clicks in windows that require typing in arcane code into a prompt in linux. That's not okay. If I have to look at a prompt EVER while doing anything conventional... it's an instant fail. It's like accidentally running over gandolf in your driving test. You will not pass.
The OS and the apps also need to look almost identical the MS versions. I mean chinese KFC identical. Probably so identical it would violate trade mark and copyright. Now, you might have an opportunity given that windows is screwing with backward compatibility. But even then you need to package everything better. The office clone has to include an outlook clone with a corresponding Exchange clone. Package and market these things. I don't care if it's free. Put it together and set the wizards up so the whole thing configures itself. If I have to look at one god damn prompt you knocking over traffic cones and drinking vodka while entering highway traffic... singing.
As to backward compatibility. I'm honestly not sure how linux does here. I know that they recompile kernels frequently and that can cause compatibility issues. If you can run old programs from 20 years ago without lots of heavy emulation then we might have a winner here.
Anyway, I know I'm going to get some hate from the various OS's... Each has it's value.
Mac is a great consumer OS. Linux is great so long as we can assume a level of familiarity and sophistication not common in the office drone.
Windows as a business workstation is really pretty damn good. And it has all these great products that match business needs very well with lots of features that all tie into each other at a pretty reasonable price. And they're pretty simple to use.
No one needs perfect... just not anything that allows catastrophic failure. You can have systems that have small failures. total failures are not acceptable.
No. This is for court ordered events and really it's best for the bailiff to do it. It reduces overhead that way. An immediate reaction after which the guilty party being duly punished in a court of law may go.
Yep. I don't care. Old women. Children. Who ever wants to do it. You file a bs lawsuit and the court determines it to be frivolous by the legal strictures of the court... Immediate punch to the face.
If the person has some sort of head injury we can give them a court ordered punch to the gut or possibly a really wicked indian burn.
Possibly really really spicy indian food that they are forced by law to eat.... you know the stuff that makes you feel like you're crapping acid for at least two days?
Or maybe hydrogen peroxide applied to their hair for so long it almost falls out?... I don't want to really hurt them. It just needs to be painful, humiliating, and ideally it should cause jackasses to not feel so blithe about filing dozens of bs lawsuits concurrently.
That would only be allowed in extreme medical cases. Otherwise, straight punch to the face. Not a big haymaker. I don't want to give the guy a concussion. Just a solid good morning punch to the face.
I just imagine one of these idiots getting popped in the face twice in the day by the bailiff... it makes the situation less annoying.
As to non gmo having to be more expensive... yes it does. The reason they use GMO is because it's more productive which means it's cheaper.
It just is... you want no gmo? That's fine... it will cost more. And because you care you get to pay for that cost.
Since I don't, I'll eat gmo food and pay less. It's how the it works. If you want something for nothing then you can just keep dreaming.
As to non gmo fleecing customers, that was me teasing you a bit. Look at the people at Whole Foods paying 30 percent more for pretty much everything. Why? Are the carrots 30 percent better at whole foods then at the corner grocery store? Not that I've seen. It's not a terrible store. They do have some nice things in there. But any nice grocery store will have just as nice things if not better without most of the pretension.
In any case, it's your money and I don't have a right to tell you how to spend it. Spend it how you like. Just do me this favor... leave people alone that don't want to join you in your magical little ride. If I want GMO... let me have it and don't dick with it. I swear to god if they start passing laws to turn all grocery stores into whole foods... I will go homicidal.
I believe you should get what you want and what you'll pay for. Let me have the same right.
There are newspapers that are 100 percent ads... so I don't see how there is a law about this... if there is there shouldn't be... what right does anyone have to tell the paper how many ads they can put in it? that's just silly.
that you want... to pay 30 percent more for... I don't care. I'm very happy with my GMO food. I want more of it.
The irony of people whining for genetic vaccines to cure cancer or heart disease or extend human life on the one hand then bitching about GMO in crops is really pretty absurd.
The Luddites should go back to their caves. That said, putting the "may contain" on the label doesn't cost anything and it's an easy compromise. If that settles this nonsense then I'm cool with it.
If you get found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit... you should be punched in the face.
I'm not going to bother levying a fine. These idiots are litigious jerks and probably are broke anyway. Why bother with that. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face.
Barbaric you say? Not at all. Barbaric would be one person randomly coming up to another person on the street and doing it. The difference between kidnapping someone for ten years and prison is the court system.
So if the court determines you filed a frivilious lawsuit... one solid pop to the face. Nothing more or less. You want to file another suit? Go for it.
I have no idea if this would cut down on bullshit lawsuits but I'd like to experiment with it.
What about corporations? That's a little more complicated. I don't want to just punch the lawyer in the face because for all we know he's just some young legal grad they hired to be a punching bag. I'd probably go with the head of their legal department or possibly their CEO. God knows Steve Jobs should have been punched in the face a few times went he decided to touch off this patent Armageddon.
Possibly a stupid idea... but it would make judge judy more interesting to watch. Can you just picture this in a tv court show? That would be delicious.
The problem with labeling things genetically modified especially with processed foods like pretty much anything that comes in a box or can... is that it tends to be mixed up from lots of sources. So some of it is modified and maybe some of it isn't.
So here's the solution. Write on the side of the can "may contain genetically modified goods"... that would have to put on the side pretty much everything. And that's fine. We can put that next to the nutrition chart.
Then there will be a couple companies that don't use genetically modified food and they'll put a BIG label on the side that says "the reason you're paying 40 percent more for this food is because we used more expensive food and we know we can fleece you for extra"...
Everyone happy now? That is dead simple to arrange and everyone gets what they want and what they deserve. The big companies that are pumping out most of the food we eat don't have to do any extra work. Just put on the label "may include genetically modified food"... and we're done with this stupid controversy.
Well, if your classifies page is crap then someone is going to do it better. A lot of the free papers... totally free papers have no news in them at all. They're just ads and classifies... and sometimes real estate stuff.
Every single ad dollar that went into those papers is a dollar the big main paper didn't get. Possibly the big paper could publish both and publish them separately. That way you can fund your unprofitable news charity with real business dollars from the ads.
Whatever... the reality is that there is a lot of money for newspapers to grab and they're not because they're sucking at their jobs. I'm not even talking about news. I'm talking about basic newman concepts like getting some advertisers on the pages. Maybe this means you have to increase the ratio of ads to news? So what... they used to be a lot higher then they are now. Is it the end of the world if it goes back a bit? The only wrong answer is the answer that causes you to go broke.
If people are using business models that are driving them into the poor house then do something differently. Don't just tell me you've changed nothing and it's the big unfair world that changed on you. Welcome to the club. It's changed on everyone. Good and bad. Grow a pair and fix it.
The vast majority of "news" is reprocessed news hey pulled off the news wire. If the newspapers do investigative reporting and generate unique content that people actually want to see they won't have a problem. If they have interesting or knowledgable people that contribute or comment on the news they can probably build a business model on that. If all they're doing is reading internet news and then republishing it as their own then that isn't going to work.
Is free news really not sustainable? I don't know if even that is true. Companies especially local businesses are DESPERATE for relevant advertising options. Absolutely desperate. Radio, newspapers, park benches... anything. And that has always been a big part of newspaper revenue. When newspapers started they were little more then glorified classified ads. Maybe one or two pages of local news followed by forty pages of classifieds.
And yet crag's list exists. Why is that? How could Crag's list have a viable business in cities with major newspapers? Because they offered a better classified ad. And that sort of thing is evident throughout the newspaper business. They're generally bad at the internet. Even their ipad apps are bad. Seen the new york times app? Horrible. When most people bring up a news paper app they want it to be the actual newspaper and not what is basically a webpage configured roughly into the shape of a newspaper. It would be really easy to do this. Hell, you could literally scan the pages vertabim jewelry ads and all into the system. A lot of people would prefer it that way... especially those willing to pay for an online new york times subscription.
Anyway, Buffet just bought 63 news papers across the country. So we'll see how he does but I'm predicting epic failure. This is sort of like the time Bill Gates tried to reform American public schools and found so many useless dicks in the system that he figured it would be more practical to cure Malaria in Africa.
Have fun with the newspapers Warren... at the very least then you can say it was entertaining.
So let me get this straight, my parents generation were bad because of the under aged sex and loose moral values. And now apparently my generation is bad because we kill virtual elves and don't knock up the neighbor's daughter?
It's just sad that none of these people has the self awareness to see that they're doing everything the last generation did when encountered by the inevitably different values and priorities of the next group.
You think there is something wrong with these darned kids?... Try to help them find whatever happiness that they're lacking within the context of their world view. You took the rocker and dropped him into bible school you're just going to make him miserable. Likewise you're not going to get people to stop gaming.
As to women not being pleased... that's ultimately a darwin award situation. That cuts both ways but we'll see what happens. Possibly a generation of gamers will die out... but then a lot of anti gamer women might likewise go into spinsterhood without children.
I've been responding to dozens of posts that boil down to "shit happens"... as to point 1... good. That means someone else likewise doesn't find this acceptable... Just me and the navy apparently.
I don't suggest anything. I don't know what the options are... but obviously it would be better if the insulation actually insulated the compartments rather then served as a ready fuel source for any accidental fire that might want to happen.
The whole point of isolation is to isolate and contain. Obviously the insulation is typically trying to preserve heat, dampen sound, and other fun stuff... but being fire proof would seem to be on the top five things you want to be.
Slashdot Mirror
How do I have that ability?
Think the navy listens to me personally?
Don't be absurd. I'm trying to understand for my own personal information. And I am upset that the system whatever it's quality has allowed this to happen. That is unfortunate.
people that make free programs often use the free version. ;)
That's fine. You want to morally judge people as if that solves the problem. Delude yourself. I live in Los Angeles, I've grown up with a lot of the people making these choices. I'm not disputing that they own these products or that the people pirating are stealing. The point is that it doesn't matter. Judging someone doesn't fix your problem. If you don't offer content internationally then you're encouraging the foreign market to pirate. Period. If you restrict service so there is only one way to get the product and it isn't the popular way. Then you're encouraging piracy. If you charge a very high price for content from one market and a very low price from another that encourages piracy.
The music industry had a chance to enter the digital music business around 2000 long before itunes. Napster came to them and offered to set it up for them. An online digital for profit music business. The music business told napster to go f' themselves. Now the publishers are getting eaten alive by itunes and bittorrent. Who's fault is that?
Learn. Your moralizing and judgment accomplishes NOTHING. Legal action accomplishes nothing.
The business model is broken. Fix it or die. Sooner better then later.
Here are you choices.
1. Join the 21st century by offering international same day video on demand service for nearly all content at internationally competitive rates.
2. Go out of business.
Choose carefully.
This is a pass/fail intelligence test. Take your time.
no, it's best if the judge doesn't personally execute a sentence. There's a good separation there. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face unless he has medical problems and then do something equally unpleasant but not life threatening.
strong arming metro is going to piss business off. Have they honestly tested this with people that have been using windows for the last 20 years ? I doubt it.
Blame is like gravity... It doesn't particularly care what either of us want. I'd rather it fall on whoever is to blame. That might be a superior officer. that might be a dead man that set policy 20 years ago. It might be some maintenance guy that spilled gasoline everywhere. Someone is going to burn. Don't blame me for that... I didn't make that rule. If you don't find the guilty party or there isn't a guilty party... then an innocent man will be chosen as scapegoat. That would be sad... but as I said... someone will be blamed.
The only question now is who. When a billion in navy property goes up in smoke someone is going to lose their head. Again... not my rule... just the way it is...
1. A very consistent and user friendly interface. The most risky thing MS did was change the GUI in Windows 8 it's extremely risky.
When I say consistent... I mean it hasn't changed remarkably in 20 years. That is something business likes. I really can't be understated.
2. Of equal importance, backward compatibility. Business has no confidence in apple because you can't run old apple programs on a modern mac. And it seems like every new version of the OS breaks compatibility with something.
Some might say, hey linux has both these things. No you don't.
The OS still isn't user friendly. I don't care if you're using Mint or ubuntu or whatever. There are a lot of things you can do with a few mouse clicks in windows that require typing in arcane code into a prompt in linux. That's not okay. If I have to look at a prompt EVER while doing anything conventional... it's an instant fail. It's like accidentally running over gandolf in your driving test. You will not pass.
The OS and the apps also need to look almost identical the MS versions. I mean chinese KFC identical. Probably so identical it would violate trade mark and copyright. Now, you might have an opportunity given that windows is screwing with backward compatibility. But even then you need to package everything better. The office clone has to include an outlook clone with a corresponding Exchange clone. Package and market these things. I don't care if it's free. Put it together and set the wizards up so the whole thing configures itself. If I have to look at one god damn prompt you knocking over traffic cones and drinking vodka while entering highway traffic... singing.
As to backward compatibility. I'm honestly not sure how linux does here. I know that they recompile kernels frequently and that can cause compatibility issues. If you can run old programs from 20 years ago without lots of heavy emulation then we might have a winner here.
Anyway, I know I'm going to get some hate from the various OS's... Each has it's value.
Mac is a great consumer OS. Linux is great so long as we can assume a level of familiarity and sophistication not common in the office drone.
Windows as a business workstation is really pretty damn good. And it has all these great products that match business needs very well with lots of features that all tie into each other at a pretty reasonable price. And they're pretty simple to use.
It's a big deal.
No one needs perfect... just not anything that allows catastrophic failure. You can have systems that have small failures. total failures are not acceptable.
So the diagram that shows upwards of a dozen compartments is not accurate?
No. This is for court ordered events and really it's best for the bailiff to do it. It reduces overhead that way. An immediate reaction after which the guilty party being duly punished in a court of law may go.
ad verecundiam
Yep. I don't care. Old women. Children. Who ever wants to do it. You file a bs lawsuit and the court determines it to be frivolous by the legal strictures of the court... Immediate punch to the face.
If the person has some sort of head injury we can give them a court ordered punch to the gut or possibly a really wicked indian burn.
Possibly really really spicy indian food that they are forced by law to eat.... you know the stuff that makes you feel like you're crapping acid for at least two days?
Or maybe hydrogen peroxide applied to their hair for so long it almost falls out?... I don't want to really hurt them. It just needs to be painful, humiliating, and ideally it should cause jackasses to not feel so blithe about filing dozens of bs lawsuits concurrently.
That would only be allowed in extreme medical cases. Otherwise, straight punch to the face. Not a big haymaker. I don't want to give the guy a concussion. Just a solid good morning punch to the face.
I just imagine one of these idiots getting popped in the face twice in the day by the bailiff... it makes the situation less annoying.
As to non gmo having to be more expensive... yes it does. The reason they use GMO is because it's more productive which means it's cheaper.
It just is... you want no gmo? That's fine... it will cost more. And because you care you get to pay for that cost.
Since I don't, I'll eat gmo food and pay less. It's how the it works. If you want something for nothing then you can just keep dreaming.
As to non gmo fleecing customers, that was me teasing you a bit. Look at the people at Whole Foods paying 30 percent more for pretty much everything. Why? Are the carrots 30 percent better at whole foods then at the corner grocery store? Not that I've seen. It's not a terrible store. They do have some nice things in there. But any nice grocery store will have just as nice things if not better without most of the pretension.
In any case, it's your money and I don't have a right to tell you how to spend it. Spend it how you like. Just do me this favor... leave people alone that don't want to join you in your magical little ride. If I want GMO... let me have it and don't dick with it. I swear to god if they start passing laws to turn all grocery stores into whole foods... I will go homicidal.
I believe you should get what you want and what you'll pay for. Let me have the same right.
Join it or die. I really have lost patience with these idiots.
There are newspapers that are 100 percent ads... so I don't see how there is a law about this... if there is there shouldn't be... what right does anyone have to tell the paper how many ads they can put in it? that's just silly.
that you want... to pay 30 percent more for... I don't care. I'm very happy with my GMO food. I want more of it.
The irony of people whining for genetic vaccines to cure cancer or heart disease or extend human life on the one hand then bitching about GMO in crops is really pretty absurd.
The Luddites should go back to their caves. That said, putting the "may contain" on the label doesn't cost anything and it's an easy compromise. If that settles this nonsense then I'm cool with it.
If you get found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit... you should be punched in the face.
I'm not going to bother levying a fine. These idiots are litigious jerks and probably are broke anyway. Why bother with that. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face.
Barbaric you say? Not at all. Barbaric would be one person randomly coming up to another person on the street and doing it. The difference between kidnapping someone for ten years and prison is the court system.
So if the court determines you filed a frivilious lawsuit... one solid pop to the face. Nothing more or less. You want to file another suit? Go for it.
I have no idea if this would cut down on bullshit lawsuits but I'd like to experiment with it.
What about corporations? That's a little more complicated. I don't want to just punch the lawyer in the face because for all we know he's just some young legal grad they hired to be a punching bag. I'd probably go with the head of their legal department or possibly their CEO. God knows Steve Jobs should have been punched in the face a few times went he decided to touch off this patent Armageddon.
Possibly a stupid idea... but it would make judge judy more interesting to watch. Can you just picture this in a tv court show? That would be delicious.
The problem with labeling things genetically modified especially with processed foods like pretty much anything that comes in a box or can... is that it tends to be mixed up from lots of sources. So some of it is modified and maybe some of it isn't.
So here's the solution. Write on the side of the can "may contain genetically modified goods"... that would have to put on the side pretty much everything. And that's fine. We can put that next to the nutrition chart.
Then there will be a couple companies that don't use genetically modified food and they'll put a BIG label on the side that says "the reason you're paying 40 percent more for this food is because we used more expensive food and we know we can fleece you for extra"...
Everyone happy now? That is dead simple to arrange and everyone gets what they want and what they deserve. The big companies that are pumping out most of the food we eat don't have to do any extra work. Just put on the label "may include genetically modified food"... and we're done with this stupid controversy.
Well, if your classifies page is crap then someone is going to do it better. A lot of the free papers... totally free papers have no news in them at all. They're just ads and classifies... and sometimes real estate stuff.
Every single ad dollar that went into those papers is a dollar the big main paper didn't get. Possibly the big paper could publish both and publish them separately. That way you can fund your unprofitable news charity with real business dollars from the ads.
Whatever... the reality is that there is a lot of money for newspapers to grab and they're not because they're sucking at their jobs. I'm not even talking about news. I'm talking about basic newman concepts like getting some advertisers on the pages. Maybe this means you have to increase the ratio of ads to news? So what... they used to be a lot higher then they are now. Is it the end of the world if it goes back a bit? The only wrong answer is the answer that causes you to go broke.
If people are using business models that are driving them into the poor house then do something differently. Don't just tell me you've changed nothing and it's the big unfair world that changed on you. Welcome to the club. It's changed on everyone. Good and bad. Grow a pair and fix it.
The vast majority of "news" is reprocessed news hey pulled off the news wire. If the newspapers do investigative reporting and generate unique content that people actually want to see they won't have a problem. If they have interesting or knowledgable people that contribute or comment on the news they can probably build a business model on that. If all they're doing is reading internet news and then republishing it as their own then that isn't going to work.
Is free news really not sustainable? I don't know if even that is true. Companies especially local businesses are DESPERATE for relevant advertising options. Absolutely desperate. Radio, newspapers, park benches... anything. And that has always been a big part of newspaper revenue. When newspapers started they were little more then glorified classified ads. Maybe one or two pages of local news followed by forty pages of classifieds.
And yet crag's list exists. Why is that? How could Crag's list have a viable business in cities with major newspapers? Because they offered a better classified ad. And that sort of thing is evident throughout the newspaper business. They're generally bad at the internet. Even their ipad apps are bad. Seen the new york times app? Horrible. When most people bring up a news paper app they want it to be the actual newspaper and not what is basically a webpage configured roughly into the shape of a newspaper. It would be really easy to do this. Hell, you could literally scan the pages vertabim jewelry ads and all into the system. A lot of people would prefer it that way... especially those willing to pay for an online new york times subscription.
Anyway, Buffet just bought 63 news papers across the country. So we'll see how he does but I'm predicting epic failure. This is sort of like the time Bill Gates tried to reform American public schools and found so many useless dicks in the system that he figured it would be more practical to cure Malaria in Africa.
Have fun with the newspapers Warren... at the very least then you can say it was entertaining.
Get off my lawn!
So let me get this straight, my parents generation were bad because of the under aged sex and loose moral values. And now apparently my generation is bad because we kill virtual elves and don't knock up the neighbor's daughter?
It's just sad that none of these people has the self awareness to see that they're doing everything the last generation did when encountered by the inevitably different values and priorities of the next group.
You think there is something wrong with these darned kids?... Try to help them find whatever happiness that they're lacking within the context of their world view. You took the rocker and dropped him into bible school you're just going to make him miserable. Likewise you're not going to get people to stop gaming.
As to women not being pleased... that's ultimately a darwin award situation. That cuts both ways but we'll see what happens. Possibly a generation of gamers will die out... but then a lot of anti gamer women might likewise go into spinsterhood without children.
It doesn't matter. If a captain loses a ship, he doesn't get another one. It doesn't matter if it was an act of god.
These guys some how lost a ship in dry dock. That's so pathetic I don't even know where to start with it.
I've been responding to dozens of posts that boil down to "shit happens"... as to point 1... good. That means someone else likewise doesn't find this acceptable... Just me and the navy apparently.
I don't suggest anything. I don't know what the options are... but obviously it would be better if the insulation actually insulated the compartments rather then served as a ready fuel source for any accidental fire that might want to happen.
The whole point of isolation is to isolate and contain. Obviously the insulation is typically trying to preserve heat, dampen sound, and other fun stuff... but being fire proof would seem to be on the top five things you want to be.
LAFD tends to identify the cause of a fire within the first hour. So... I don't think I'm being unreasonable.