* Goods must be fit for the purpose for which they are sold
This sounds l* Goods must be fit for the purpose for which they are soldike a really hairy point when thought of in the context of computer software. There are too many cases where someonw could claim that a piece of software was "unfit" for the purpose in which it was sold because of the weird bugs and things that can happen with the complexity of the modern computer and the vast range of hardware out there. It's not as cut and dry as, say, a shovel.
And on the seventh day, God saw that the humans couldn't handle one label used to describe two things, but he was tired, so he said "aw, screw it", and he saw that it was okay...
I think that something this simple really shouldn't be given a patent. But since it has, I think I'll patent "audio notification of consumable liquid boiling point" and charge all tea kettle manufacturers exorbitant licensing fees:P
PS: This is not a seriously researched opinion, IANAL, etc.
I believe I should be the guy that puts stickers on textbooks. My past work includes:
-realist philosophy: "This book just exists" -anti-realist philosophy: "This book does not exist" -home ec: "This book not edible" -physics: "This book is not touching the table" -gym: "Why do you have a book in this class?"
Classically bad, yes. Many people make this mistake, so don't feel bad. An ad hominem, as popularly known, is attacking the man to make the argument. I am doing no such thing: my attacking of the man is entirely separate from my argument.
Maybe you need a refresher on the ad hominem. An ad hominem attack consists of:
1) A makes claim B.
2) There is something objectionable about A.
3) Therefore claim B is false.
This is EXACTLY what you are doing. In every response to any of my arguments, you insist on inserting snide remarks about my intelligence, which satisfies (2), and this implies that what I claim is false.
Again, sad. The PATRIOT Act has no provision for kidnapping, so there is no such person. And I've not personally met people arrested under PATRIOT Act provisions, but I've seen and heard from them. *shrug*
Ignoring your personal attacks that in no way strengthen your argument, I guess you hold a double standard when it comes to assertions: Anything you claim doesn't need to be backed up with a reference or link, but anything I claim without a link is obviously false. In defense of my argument that Constitutional freedoms (including freedom of speech) are being taken away by the PATRIOT Act, you might want to read this article. Particularly interesting is this part:
The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses that loan, rent, or sell books, videos, magazines, and music CDs is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms. The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.
If the Act is not modified, book publishers will take even fewer chances on publishing works that, like The Hunt for Red October "might" result in the government investigation; bookstore owners may not buy as many different titles; and the people, fearing that whatever they read might be subject to Big Brother's scrutiny, may not buy controversial books or check books out of the library. Even worse, writers may not create the works that a free nation should read. How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.
Ignoring the slight editorializing in the first paragraph, the rest of this excerpt shows the PATRIOT Act in its true colors (and in my opinion, they are not red, white, and blue). I admit that my original argument was somewhat convoluted, and this one is more clear.
And as I have clearly shown, no, it does not. I've stated clearly that I hold to the former and not the latter, so any implication to the contrary of my statements is in your own little mind.
Ignoring once again the personal attacks which only makes your argument appear weaker, I am wondering once again why you hold this strange double-standard, where you are exempt from referencing anything to back up your assertions. Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.
Maybe you didn't notice it, but my entire post was SARCASM. This is because I was referring to the OP who suggested that a Mac Mini would be a great replacement for an NT4 box. The problem is, most NT4 boxes that are still around are used for things like file/print sharing and routing. I don't know what kind of networks you've ever seen, but most of them don't mix ethernet and firewire. Yeah, I know it's possible to do some sort of usb-to-ethernet kluge, but it's not something that I would feel comfortable with.
Most likely the person who told you 'I have nothing against...' really meant he/she doesn't find the activity offensive, but merely boring.
Whenever I hear someone saying something like that, to me it sounds like they dislike said activity, but they don't care if other people do it, while at the same time believing that there is a set of people who do believe that said activity do care about that activity because it is the "new evil" or something. I figure it will just take some time, hopefully we'll get over it just like radio and rock music.
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals'
What I actually said:
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals', then the media at large must also be 'liberal'.
This falls into the same propaganda technique I stated earlier, a part of which is misquoting people to make their arguments sound ridiculous. The way in which you quoted me combined with the quick scanning most people do of forum comments would, of course, make me look "sad", which seems to be how you want anyone who disagrees with you to look. Here is what I should have said (hopefully this removes all those pesky shades of gray that you seem to not be able to handle):
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" implies that the media at large has a liberal bias.
---
(Referring to the USA PATRIOT Act)... The former of which has never resulted in anyone losing their right to free speech,...
Saying that the PATRIOT Act has not silenced free speech ignores this: anyone locked up in prison (normally) can still communicate to the outside world, and their Constitutional rights are still intact. I doubt you have met anyone who was kidnapped by a provision of the PATRIOT Act and lived to tell about it. The people locked up in the name of "terror" may very well be ones who chose to speak out for/against something. This would seem to be a curtailing of free speech rights.
---
You, sir, are sad.
And here we have a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
Yeah, those Mac mini things are really great for file/print sharing with all of their available hard drive space and legacy connections, as well as the spacious room to upgrade. I've also heard that the dual Ethernet ports work well when it is used as a router/NAT box. Oh wait...
I used to work in a gas station (this was up to about a year ago), and on slow nights, I would turn on the old NT4 box in the office for some/. and hope nobody came in. Of course, I probably broke the DMCA or something when I typed "login:administrator / password: " and hit enter to get access, but hey, what can I say? Cracking passwords is my specialty:P
This is where people really make money on ebay. All you need is two idiots with credit cards, and you can get 4x the price of something that may not even be hard to find.
Careful readers would realize I did not insist any such thing. I insisted that the journalists fall more on the left than the right, not that this results in significant journalistic bias. There's a big difference.
And this is a classic right-wing propaganda technique. If you can muddy an argument that is not winnable on your side so that it becomes a draw, then you deny the other side a victory, which is just as important as winning it in the first place.
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals', then the media at large must also be 'liberal'. Have you ever considered that these journalists who have been polled and said they "vote Democrat" did so because they know that Republicans love to take away free speech protections? Just look at USA-PATRIOT and "Free Speech Zones". They are two more links in the chain of American Fascism.
The problem with this is that the average person is fucking stupid. I once heard a person remark "Video games? Well, I don't have anything against them..." when people should just realize that VIDEO GAMES ARE ANOTHER ENTERTAINMENT MEDIUM. I was so stupefied by that remark that I didn't reply "Books? Well, I don't have anything against them..."
I think it's obvious that the people who investigate and report the news are more on the left than on the right by far
OBVIOUS? How is this obvious? Either you have done extensive research on every news outlet in the USA (I'm assuming you mean "in the USA") and can tell by reading a story what the exact political leanings of all reporters are, or you've been watching too much of a certain cable news channel.
no, I'm not. I'm saying that people who are arrested for small-scale personal copyright infringement should not be charged under criminal sentences like those who make a living off or piracy should be.
My example was stating that if someone was found doing one thing, they should not be charged with another. What you suggested in your parent post is that it is unconstitutional to write laws that set different penalties that are dependent upon the severity of the crime.
About the drugs, maybe you didn't see the part of my post that said FOR EXAMPLE. I understand that copyright law and drug law are completely different. Stop fishing for convenient excuses to undermine solid arguments attacking your flawed ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Your logic: Hackers are people that hack. Some hackers break laws. Therefore, "Fuck hackers".
I enjoy playing the piano. Some pianists break laws. Therefore, fuck pianists?
See the problem?
Because Coral rarely, if ever, works.
... Anyhow, I've heard from actual /.ers who have related their confusion upon being confronted with a rotary telephone, ...
I love how the average slashdotter is so "tech-savvy", and yet they can't figure out the simple interface of "turn dial, wait for clicks".
PS, I am 18 years old, and I don't think my family ever owned a rotary phone while I was alive.
* Goods must be fit for the purpose for which they are sold
This sounds l* Goods must be fit for the purpose for which they are soldike a really hairy point when thought of in the context of computer software. There are too many cases where someonw could claim that a piece of software was "unfit" for the purpose in which it was sold because of the weird bugs and things that can happen with the complexity of the modern computer and the vast range of hardware out there. It's not as cut and dry as, say, a shovel.
It's more bizarre than the historic episcopate :P
When cell phone companies add features to phones:
OMG WHAT A WASTE
When some random thing with a CPU isn't an open spec:
OMG WE COULD H4X0R IT IF THEY OPENED IT!!11
They should have put the keys in the middle of the keyboard.
I have the solution: Foot pedals. As an added bonus, pudgy XML/HTML coders get to run a marathon every day!
(Missing excerpt from the bible)
And on the seventh day, God saw that the humans couldn't handle one label used to describe two things, but he was tired, so he said "aw, screw it", and he saw that it was okay...
You know, I think I found a link between /. and Wall Street:
1: Cut jobs
2: ?????
3: Profit!
I dug up these three patents that Immersion Corp apparently holds: 6,366,273 6,271,833 6,184,868.
:P
I think that something this simple really shouldn't be given a patent. But since it has, I think I'll patent "audio notification of consumable liquid boiling point" and charge all tea kettle manufacturers exorbitant licensing fees
PS: This is not a seriously researched opinion, IANAL, etc.
Okay, this is getting old. Neither one of us is going to concede any points, so therefore:
-You are an idiot.
-I am an idiot.
-Whatever.
I believe I should be the guy that puts stickers on textbooks. My past work includes:
-realist philosophy: "This book just exists"
-anti-realist philosophy: "This book does not exist"
-home ec: "This book not edible"
-physics: "This book is not touching the table"
-gym: "Why do you have a book in this class?"
thanks, I'm here all week...
Wow, good job taking the post out of context. Use some ellipses or something.
troll style: 5.9
troll technical accuracy: 5.8
you're still in the running to win the gold!
Classically bad, yes. Many people make this mistake, so don't feel bad. An ad hominem, as popularly known, is attacking the man to make the argument. I am doing no such thing: my attacking of the man is entirely separate from my argument.
Maybe you need a refresher on the ad hominem. An ad hominem attack consists of:
1) A makes claim B.
2) There is something objectionable about A.
3) Therefore claim B is false.
This is EXACTLY what you are doing. In every response to any of my arguments, you insist on inserting snide remarks about my intelligence, which satisfies (2), and this implies that what I claim is false.
Again, sad. The PATRIOT Act has no provision for kidnapping, so there is no such person. And I've not personally met people arrested under PATRIOT Act provisions, but I've seen and heard from them. *shrug*
Ignoring your personal attacks that in no way strengthen your argument, I guess you hold a double standard when it comes to assertions: Anything you claim doesn't need to be backed up with a reference or link, but anything I claim without a link is obviously false. In defense of my argument that Constitutional freedoms (including freedom of speech) are being taken away by the PATRIOT Act, you might want to read this article. Particularly interesting is this part:
The effect of the USA Patriot Act upon businesses that loan, rent, or sell books, videos, magazines, and music CDs is not to find and incarcerate terrorists--there are far more ways to investigate threats to the nation than to check on a terrorist's reading and listening habits--but to put a sweeping chilling effect upon Constitutional freedoms. The Act butts against the protections of the First (free speech), Fourth (unreasonable searches), Fifth (right against self-incrimination), and Sixth (due process) amendments.
If the Act is not modified, book publishers will take even fewer chances on publishing works that, like The Hunt for Red October "might" result in the government investigation; bookstore owners may not buy as many different titles; and the people, fearing that whatever they read might be subject to Big Brother's scrutiny, may not buy controversial books or check books out of the library. Even worse, writers may not create the works that a free nation should read. How ironic it is that a President who says he wants everyone to read is the one who may be responsible for giving the people less choice in what they may read.
Ignoring the slight editorializing in the first paragraph, the rest of this excerpt shows the PATRIOT Act in its true colors (and in my opinion, they are not red, white, and blue). I admit that my original argument was somewhat convoluted, and this one is more clear.
And as I have clearly shown, no, it does not. I've stated clearly that I hold to the former and not the latter, so any implication to the contrary of my statements is in your own little mind.
Ignoring once again the personal attacks which only makes your argument appear weaker, I am wondering once again why you hold this strange double-standard, where you are exempt from referencing anything to back up your assertions. Your original claim that I replied to that "more journalists fall on the left than right" has not, that I can find, been linked or referenced to any study or report that agrees with it.
Maybe you didn't notice it, but my entire post was SARCASM. This is because I was referring to the OP who suggested that a Mac Mini would be a great replacement for an NT4 box. The problem is, most NT4 boxes that are still around are used for things like file/print sharing and routing. I don't know what kind of networks you've ever seen, but most of them don't mix ethernet and firewire. Yeah, I know it's possible to do some sort of usb-to-ethernet kluge, but it's not something that I would feel comfortable with.
Most likely the person who told you 'I have nothing against...' really meant he/she doesn't find the activity offensive, but merely boring.
Whenever I hear someone saying something like that, to me it sounds like they dislike said activity, but they don't care if other people do it, while at the same time believing that there is a set of people who do believe that said activity do care about that activity because it is the "new evil" or something. I figure it will just take some time, hopefully we'll get over it just like radio and rock music.
Your quote of my post:
... The former of which has never resulted in anyone losing their right to free speech, ...
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals'
What I actually said:
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals', then the media at large must also be 'liberal'.
This falls into the same propaganda technique I stated earlier, a part of which is misquoting people to make their arguments sound ridiculous. The way in which you quoted me combined with the quick scanning most people do of forum comments would, of course, make me look "sad", which seems to be how you want anyone who disagrees with you to look. Here is what I should have said (hopefully this removes all those pesky shades of gray that you seem to not be able to handle):
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" implies that the media at large has a liberal bias.
---
(Referring to the USA PATRIOT Act)
Saying that the PATRIOT Act has not silenced free speech ignores this: anyone locked up in prison (normally) can still communicate to the outside world, and their Constitutional rights are still intact. I doubt you have met anyone who was kidnapped by a provision of the PATRIOT Act and lived to tell about it. The people locked up in the name of "terror" may very well be ones who chose to speak out for/against something. This would seem to be a curtailing of free speech rights.
---
You, sir, are sad.
And here we have a classic example of an ad hominem attack.
Yeah, those Mac mini things are really great for file/print sharing with all of their available hard drive space and legacy connections, as well as the spacious room to upgrade. I've also heard that the dual Ethernet ports work well when it is used as a router/NAT box. Oh wait...
I used to work in a gas station (this was up to about a year ago), and on slow nights, I would turn on the old NT4 box in the office for some /. and hope nobody came in. Of course, I probably broke the DMCA or something when I typed "login:administrator / password: " and hit enter to get access, but hey, what can I say? Cracking passwords is my specialty :P
This is where people really make money on ebay. All you need is two idiots with credit cards, and you can get 4x the price of something that may not even be hard to find.
Careful readers would realize I did not insist any such thing. I insisted that the journalists fall more on the left than the right, not that this results in significant journalistic bias. There's a big difference.
And this is a classic right-wing propaganda technique. If you can muddy an argument that is not winnable on your side so that it becomes a draw, then you deny the other side a victory, which is just as important as winning it in the first place.
Saying that "more journalists fall on the left than right" is implying that since the majority of journalists are 'liberals', then the media at large must also be 'liberal'. Have you ever considered that these journalists who have been polled and said they "vote Democrat" did so because they know that Republicans love to take away free speech protections? Just look at USA-PATRIOT and "Free Speech Zones". They are two more links in the chain of American Fascism.
The problem with this is that the average person is fucking stupid. I once heard a person remark "Video games? Well, I don't have anything against them..." when people should just realize that VIDEO GAMES ARE ANOTHER ENTERTAINMENT MEDIUM. I was so stupefied by that remark that I didn't reply "Books? Well, I don't have anything against them..."
I think it's obvious that the people who investigate and report the news are more on the left than on the right by far
OBVIOUS? How is this obvious? Either you have done extensive research on every news outlet in the USA (I'm assuming you mean "in the USA") and can tell by reading a story what the exact political leanings of all reporters are, or you've been watching too much of a certain cable news channel.
no, I'm not. I'm saying that people who are arrested for small-scale personal copyright infringement should not be charged under criminal sentences like those who make a living off or piracy should be.
My example was stating that if someone was found doing one thing, they should not be charged with another. What you suggested in your parent post is that it is unconstitutional to write laws that set different penalties that are dependent upon the severity of the crime.
About the drugs, maybe you didn't see the part of my post that said FOR EXAMPLE. I understand that copyright law and drug law are completely different. Stop fishing for convenient excuses to undermine solid arguments attacking your flawed ones.
CBS gets flamed over one story, and the 24/7 slanderhouse known as Fox News gets a free pass? Blasphemy!