If you want more of a good thing, give money to the people behind the good thing. Simple. I want more good games, so I pay the game maker, not the game seller. No used games for me.
You didn't answer the questions. Do you want more good cars, good books, good houses, good art, etc.? If so, do you also feel that it is morally wrong to buy used cars, books, houses, paintings, sculpture, etc.?
Is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?
[sarcasm] This is a great idea! I'll find some web site which has nothing but banner ads. Then I'll start a business with the same name. After I do that, I'll go to court and sue, demanding that the owners of that domain turn it over to me. [/sarcasm]
Maybe the current domain owners are holding on to the domain in the hopes of one day starting a business in their state/country with that name. Maybe they are ranked well enough search engines that the banner ads are profitable. Whatever the case may be, it's their domain and I don't understand why you think that your business interests should trump theirs.
Face it: You screwed up. You started a business without registering the domain(s) appropriate for that name.
Note: I stopped buying used video games when I was a teenager.
Oh, you're so virtuous! It's making us all damp.
I want to support the developer of a good title with my hard earned money for creating a title I want.
Support the Developers!
Does that philosophy extend to other things in your life? Do you also believe that no one should be selling used cars? Should we be supporting the people who work so hard to design and build cars by only buying new ones? When someone wants a new car, should they be forced (by the market) to either scrap their old car or store it, unused, for years and years?
Should we also buy and sell only new paintings and sculptures, boats, houses, and computers so that we support artists, boat designers, architects, and computer hardware engineers? Should the only option for disposing of older books be paper recycling bins?
Or is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?
Details are details but in the end Sony is no fan of p2p or copying in any form.
Sony is a big fan of copying as shown by the Betamax case of '76-'79. The plaintiffs, Universal and Walt Disney Productions on behalf of the Hollywood majors, charged that the ability of Betamax VCRs to copy programming off of the air was an infringement of copyright and they sought to halt the sale of the machines. In its defense, Sony asserted that a consumer had the absolute right to record programs at home for private use. It drew an analogy to the audio cassette recorder, which was introduced in the 1960s and had made music tapers out of millions of American teenagers. Although the practice had not been tested in the courts, Sony believed a tradition had been established. Surely they wouldn't seek to prevent us from copying now.
Sarcasm aside, this shows the kind of despicable anything-for-profits mentality at major corporations. They don't care about the rights of their customers. When Sony made its money selling VCRs, it was a big proponent of fair use rights for consumers. Now that it is a major content publisher, it's suddenly opposed to those same rights.
If Sony brings a suit for private-use copying, then the suit should be dismissed and Sony should be forced to pay the legal costs of the defendents. The courts should inform Sony that "your corporatation made its position clear in the 1970's Betamax case and the record will show that Sony is in favor of unencumbered consumer rights to copy for private use."
IMHO it treat certain points in an incorrect way (as the Windows Security Updates, becouse the "regular" user, must leave that enabled) and some others in a really poor way like that of Windows Vuln.
The article does not recommend turning off the Windows updates -- just the constant barrage of messages from the Security Center. We've got lab systems at work behind serious hardware firewalls and we don't want to run the Windows firewall, Zonealarm, etc. If we have no software firewall, then the Windows Security Center complains.
And I am not seeing it from my personal point of view, since the things that already know were treated badly or very poor and the ones i dont, did not have anything of interesting.
To each his own. I found the utility for displaying the Windows license key to be handy (I hadn't searched for one, but having one drop in my lap was handy). I also liked having the phone numbers and direct-to-operator codes for so many companies.
PS: Do you overclock your cpu?
One of my systems has an overclocked CPU from the factory (an i-opener at 200mhz with a 180mhz CPU). My primary Athlon system is fast enough that I really don't feel a need to overclock. In the past, when systems were really CPU-bound, I overclocked some, though generally mildly (less than 20%).
Some is and some is not. I don't believe you already knew Amazon's customer support phone number, that Philips has a zero-dead-pixel warranty, how to get to a human on 60+ companies' phone systems, and where to download a utility to reveal a Windows license key. You may have known some of what was in the article, but I'll bet that you didn't know it all.
Sure, the article was not a revelation with each and every paragraph, but it probably provided some useful information to most of the people on Slashdot who read it. I even found one of the linked utilities to be handy.
When you overclock your cpu, its "lifetime" will be reduced.
Like most blanket statements, that one is incorrect. In some cases, the difference between two different speed CPUs is nothing more than on-chip jumpers and markings. If the manufacturer produces 1,000 CPUs and all 1,000 of them can run at the highest speed, they label some for a high speed, perhaps after testing to verify reliable operation, and then label others for the lower speeds. Besides, very few enthusiasts are trying to keep a CPU working for seven years, so even in those cases where there is some reduced lifetime, it's seldom a concern.
This one its true, but AFAIK the difference will be in the tests that the product has passed. That way they set the brand.
Seldom is that the case. A Lite-On DVD+-R/W drive sold under the Lite-On name undergoes the same tests as one sold under the Sony name, Hi-Val name, or any other name. Sony, Hi-Val, etc. could not remain price-competitive if they had different, more expensive testing procedures -- especially when Lite-On has already come up with tests that confirm that the drives are functional. Who would you expect to be able to devise a more effective test suite; the manufacturer who designed the product or some third-party reseller who rebrands the drive?
But in general the article is poor and somehow little useful.
Another untrue statement. Did you know Amazon's phone number for customer service? Did you know the shortcut to reach a human operator at the list of over 60 cell phone, PC, and travel firms? Did you know that Philips had a zero-dead-pixel guarantee? Did you have a utility to reveal a Windows XP license key? The article provided a lot of useful information. I knew much of it, but that doesn't mean that everyone knows everything in it.
Slashdot needs to stop publishing this PR tripe everytime some OS vendor releases it.
The total cost of ownership varies wildly based on who will be using the OS, adminstering it, and how it will be used. Will the users be exchanging documents, spreadsheets, databases, and files with a firm running a proprietary OS? Will they be running a handful of custom applications internally? Are the users engineers or are they a sales team? Are the already experts on one OS and will be moving to the other -- or do they have equal experience in both?
When Microsoft wants to show a lower TCO for Windows/Office, they tweak the scenario to get that result. When IBM wants to show a lower TCO for Linux, they do adjustments to make Linux come out the winner. What if IBM funds a study that ends up showing Windows to have the lower TCO? Do you think that they are going to publicize those results? Of course not. And Microsoft wouldn't publicize one of their studies if Linux was the winner.
This kind of "study" is as valuable as a McDonalds' funded study on the health benefits of eating fried foods.
This statement does not gybe with your faith in the Nanny State.
Let's skip Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter / Sean Hannity terms like "Nanny State."
I have faith that people can get out of poverty if given some assistance. I don't believe that impoverished people with no assistance can often move up the socio-economic ladder. Where there is little spending on social programs, those born into poverty usually die impoverished and those born into affluence usually die affluent.
By the way, I believe that the verb is spelled "gibe" or "jibe" when referring to consistency. The spelling "gybe" refers to something shifting from one side of a ship to the other.
Sure, Freddie: if that's what you want to believe, then you go right ahead.
I'm an atheist, Johnny. I have a long history of not believing something just because it makes me feel good. Besides, I would much rather believe that I called you on the phone and we worked out our differences in a civil manner. But that's not what happened and we both know it -- and I'll leave it at that.
Now, since it's so important to your fragile ego to convince yourself of your intelligence, so let me give you a little hint: I know quite a few truly brilliant people, and one thing that they have in common is that they never brag.
Up to your old tricks again: You insult my intelligence ("If you were half as smart as you think you are..."), I defend myself, and you term it "bragging" and a sign of a "fragile ego." For the record, stating that I am smarter than you is hardly bragging. You flatter yoursef.
BTW, do you think you proved anything at all by quoting me out of context?
Yes. There really is not a "context" in which any of those remarks look even remotely appropriate coming from someone who is passing judgement on the social skills, intelligence, and personalities of others.
I didn't "scream" at all, I just told you to never call me again.
No, you screamed with a sound of utter panic in your voice. I had a coworker conferenced in and he laughed hysterically when you hung up the phone. He observed that you "sounded like [you] had been kicked in the [testicles]."
In your dreams, kid.
You keep telling yourself that. Oh, and as to the "kid" thing, I'm probably your elder (both chronologically and maturity wise).
I'm sure it would improve your personality considerably.
Some examples of your pleasant personality gleaned from the net:
"Tell me, did this kind of infantile taunting you routinely resort to work any better for you when you were in elementary school?"
"Blow it out your ass."
"I HAVE seen it from the other side, you jackass."
You're far too emotional to participate in a reasoned debate, which is why I just tweak you for fun.
Coming from someone who screamed like a teenage girl in a horror movie when called on the telephone, you hardly have room to call me "emotional."
Why would you expect a head injury to suddenly increase your mental capacity?
Let me make this simpler for you: (largo) You are not as intelligent as I am. If I were to have a severe head injury, my faculties may be reduced to the level of yours.
Again, you're ignoring the cost of the Internet connectivity, tech support (software installation, spyware removal, training, firewalls, dying fans, failed power supplies, etc.), printers and printer supplies (it doesn't do the kid much good to write a paper for school if they can't print it out).
At a public library, there are IT staff members who handle everything. The kid can sit down at the computer and ask for help when he needs it. If the printer jams or runs out of toner/ink, he shows the paper to a librarian and the problem gets fixed.
Some inner-city kid at home has no IT staff to choose and set up his computer, monitor, mouse, keyboard, printer, operating system, applications, modem, and Internet connectivity for him. He has no one to diagnose why the computer won't boot when he hits the "On" switch.
It's like saying that you can have a baby for free. It's not the initial cost: it's the ongoing costs that get you.
As I said before, "the average poor kid wouldn't have a clue as to whether a given machine at a yard sale was useful or worthless.
Do 10 year old kids in ghettos know where to get Linux and how to install it? Do they have the ability to diagnose problems that you or I could handle in a second? Do they have the money for Earthlink? Of course not. But they do understand how to use new tennis shoes and jackets."
If you were half as smart as you think you are, it wouldn't be so easy to push your buttons.
Many of us are on here to have intelligent discussions and debates, not to "push buttons" and play childish games -- actions which are more appropriate for AOL chat rooms.
Your could be my intellectual equal -- if I ever suffer a severe head injury.
If you would like to donate money to a run down relic of a local library feel free - me I would rather have the access at home, and the books that are important to me shipped from Amazon when I need them - frankly, I get better service in both cases, and it doesn't cost nearly as much either
The library is not there just to serve self-centered, middle-class geeks like you. It's also to serve children and people of limited means. I've got my own domain, servers, and an 8 system network. I don't go to the library for Internet access. But I have enough compassion for poor people to realize that it might be their only opportunity to access the Internet.
(oh wait - you probably are sitting there not paying any taxes sitting in your parents basement so it doesn't cost you anything... The rest of us have jobs and are paying for your free services)
I probably pay a lot more in taxes than you do -- and probably have for most of the 25 years that I've been an engineer. The limit on my credit card might even exceed your yearly income. As to my home, it's quite nice and I'm paying it down quickly on an accelerated mortgage. Your mistake was assuming that everyone else was as selfish as you and would, thus, only be in favor of something with directly benefitted them.
God forbid people choose to spend the money they earn. Nanny government to the rescue.
Money that you pay in taxes belongs to the government, not you. You get government services (libraries, schools, the armed services, the Coast Guard, FEMA, law enforcement, etc.) for your taxes. That's it. You don't get the taxes back.
Given the crap that Americans buy (Lotto tickets, Beanie Babies, everything advertised on QVC, "Ab Energizers," Qray magnetic bracelets, and cigarettes, to name a few) and the fact that Americans, on average, save less than 1% of their after-tax income today, you're going to be hard-pressed to argue that the average American will invest their money wisely if they pay less in taxes.
I recently bought SIX Dell machines for $5 each. Three of them are Pentium IIs, three of them are Pentium IIIs. They all had a 128 MB SIMM in them.
With working monitors, keyboards, and mice, or when you say "computers" do you mean only the base units? Would you call that a typical price that anyone could find? Did you buy them at yard sales in the inner city or at some place where no inner city kid would ever go? It's fine for you to cruise around in your copious spare time looking for used bargains, but the average poor kid wouldn't have a clue as to whether a given machine at a yard sale was useful or worthless.
Do 10 year old kids in ghettos know where to get Linux and how to install it? Do they have the ability to diagnose problems that you or I could handle in a second? Do they have the money for Earthlink? Of course not. But they do understand how to use new tennis shoes and jackets.
Yep. Spending lots of money on nice clothes can be twisted around into being a form of oppression.
Instead of feeling sorry for a kid whose whole life savings is tied up in a pair of sneakers and a jacket, you sneer at him. You're pretty fucked up.
We aren't talking about oppression. We're talking about poverty. The kid buys a few pieces of nice clothes (which he may lose his life trying to protect when someone tries to steal them) so that he'll fit in and not be a social outcast -- so that the other kids won't shun him. Kids can be cruel. Unlike you, though, most of them will grow out of it.
When did you last volunteer to go into some inner-city neighborhood and install operating systems, remove spyware, defragment hard drives, replace blown power supplies, or teach kids how to download and install software? While some well-to-do kid in the suburbs may have plenty of help from educated, computer-savvy friends or family members, kids in inner cities rarely have such resources.
Oh, and I'll call bullshit on your claim that useful computers can be had for $5 at yard sales. What is some computer-illiterate kid going to do with an 80386SX-20 computer with 32MB of RAM? Most of the kids we're talking about don't even live in houses with yards and if there's a computer out at the sidewalk, it's because someone's been evicted, not because there's a yard sale going on.
Do you really think that a pre-teen kid who needs Internet access for school projects can hold down two or three jobs? Just who is hiring these children? Nike?
and for many of the poorest families, most of their utilities and rent is paid for by the government, so their money is free for them to spend on sneakers and puffy coats.
Sounds like you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for too long. I assure you that your view of welfare recipients is quite distorted.
Take a walk around some time, you'll be amazed at what these kids have.
Do you think that a nice coat and sneakers mean that the kid has plenty of spending money? It never occurred to you that the kid spent all of his money on some nice clothes so that the other kids wouldn't make fun of him for being poor, did it?
Why shouldn't people be trusted with their own money?
They are trusted with their own money.
However, money collected as taxes from them is not their money. Some percentage of money collected in the form of taxes is spent on programs intended for the common good. These can include libraries, schools, roads, etc. It's admirable when the people entrusted with spending the library's budget ask for guidance about how best to spend it. It's not a sign that they are "wasting" the money.
The key word: "was." It's not any more. When the government levies a tax, the money becomes theirs. Period. They printed it. They control the supply of it. They levy taxes. You don't like how they spend it, then elect other representatives.
There was work to be done and he was willing to pay money to me to do it, and I was willing to do it for that sum, and yet that transaction between 2 consenting adults was illegal even though there was nothing inherently illegal about any part of it.
Unless I miss my guess, two parts of it were illegal: The wage and the deductions (which I am presuming were not withheld.)
That someone would consent to something does not mean that the transaction is moral. Suppose I found someone willing gouge their own eyes out for $50. We're both consenting adults. Does that mean that it's a moral tranaction?
Let's hypothesize that you have a decent minimum wage job stocking shelves at my store. Suppose someone who just wants a little extra income is willing to do it for $3/hour. Would it be moral for me to fire you in order to hire on the guy for $3/hour?
The problem that I see with the "market fixes everything" libertarian view is that it leads to a bifurcation of the population into "haves" and "have-nots." You lose your job stocking shelves to someone who wants $3/hour. After a while, you get desperate and agree to flip hamburgers for $3.50/hour. That displaces the minimum wage hamburger flipper and he might end up taking a construction job for $2.75/hour in order to keep from starving. It just goes on and on in the low-skill job sector. I take home a bigger paycheck. The guy who owns the burger joint takes home a bigger paycheck. The builder who employes the $2.75/hour construction worker will take home a bigger paycheck. But the workers will take home less.
I already had a liveable wage... I wanted a bit more than "livable" and I got it by breaking the law (in a victimless crime. I see nothing unethical about honest employment regardless of what the state has to say about it.)
You call it victimless, but below-minimum-wage supplemental income like you describe means that there are employers who will pay that rather than hire minimum wage workers. Those would-be-employed minimum wage workers are victims in that case.
Actually, I learned to touch-type on a Royal manual typewriter. In High School.
So you learned to type at taxpayer expense using technology purchased through tax funds. And that has benefitted you for years since then -- even though the Royal manual typewriters on which you learned are long gone.
Computers cost $5 at yard sales these days.
So they get a $5 computer 80386SX computer with insufficient RAM and hard drive space to run any modern OS. If the computer was really useful, it wouldn't be sold for $5 at a yard sale. That $5 doesn't pay for Internet connectivity, permission to tie up the family phone line for hours every week, a service contract, technical support if the system becomes infected with a virus or worm, etc.
There are zero, zippo, no kids at this point in time who don't have access to a computer if motivated.
You have obviously never been to a really poor neighborhood. They don't have $120 per year for dial-up Internet access. Some don't even have phones. Others struggle just to keep the electric bill paid so that the lights stay on. Yeah, middle-income and above kids who really want a computer have one, but the library is there to serve the whole community.
Then get the government out of their way, and let them get on with it.
I spend my time composing posts with actual content and you make wisecracks and repeat sound-bytes from right-wing talk radio shows. If you don't want to answer the points and questions that I raise, perhaps you should just stop replying.
Third time:
You said that tax funding of programs for the poor was a "a disincentive" to working people who paid taxes. That says to me that is something that discourages or deters someone from trying to get a better paying job. Does it? Do you find yourself actively avoiding pay increases and promotions because more of your money would go to help the less fortunate?
Slashdot Mirror
If you want more of a good thing, give money to the people behind the good thing. Simple. I want more good games, so I pay the game maker, not the game seller. No used games for me.
You didn't answer the questions. Do you want more good cars, good books, good houses, good art, etc.? If so, do you also feel that it is morally wrong to buy used cars, books, houses, paintings, sculpture, etc.?
Is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?
[sarcasm]
This is a great idea! I'll find some web site which has nothing but banner ads. Then I'll start a business with the same name. After I do that, I'll go to court and sue, demanding that the owners of that domain turn it over to me.
[/sarcasm]
Maybe the current domain owners are holding on to the domain in the hopes of one day starting a business in their state/country with that name. Maybe they are ranked well enough search engines that the banner ads are profitable. Whatever the case may be, it's their domain and I don't understand why you think that your business interests should trump theirs.
Face it: You screwed up. You started a business without registering the domain(s) appropriate for that name.
Note: I stopped buying used video games when I was a teenager.
Oh, you're so virtuous! It's making us all damp.
I want to support the developer of a good title with my hard earned money for creating a title I want.
Support the Developers!
Does that philosophy extend to other things in your life? Do you also believe that no one should be selling used cars? Should we be supporting the people who work so hard to design and build cars by only buying new ones? When someone wants a new car, should they be forced (by the market) to either scrap their old car or store it, unused, for years and years?
Should we also buy and sell only new paintings and sculptures, boats, houses, and computers so that we support artists, boat designers, architects, and computer hardware engineers? Should the only option for disposing of older books be paper recycling bins?
Or is there something unique to software engineers that justifies us being held in such a lofty position relative to all other creators of art and intellectual property?
Details are details but in the end Sony is no fan of p2p or copying in any form.
Sony is a big fan of copying as shown by the Betamax case of '76-'79. The plaintiffs, Universal and Walt Disney Productions on behalf of the Hollywood majors, charged that the ability of Betamax VCRs to copy programming off of the air was an infringement of copyright and they sought to halt the sale of the machines. In its defense, Sony asserted that a consumer had the absolute right to record programs at home for private use. It drew an analogy to the audio cassette recorder, which was introduced in the 1960s and had made music tapers out of millions of American teenagers. Although the practice had not been tested in the courts, Sony believed a tradition had been established. Surely they wouldn't seek to prevent us from copying now.
Sarcasm aside, this shows the kind of despicable anything-for-profits mentality at major corporations. They don't care about the rights of their customers. When Sony made its money selling VCRs, it was a big proponent of fair use rights for consumers. Now that it is a major content publisher, it's suddenly opposed to those same rights.
If Sony brings a suit for private-use copying, then the suit should be dismissed and Sony should be forced to pay the legal costs of the defendents. The courts should inform Sony that "your corporatation made its position clear in the 1970's Betamax case and the record will show that Sony is in favor of unencumbered consumer rights to copy for private use."
IMHO it treat certain points in an incorrect way (as the Windows Security Updates, becouse the "regular" user, must leave that enabled) and some others in a really poor way like that of Windows Vuln.
The article does not recommend turning off the Windows updates -- just the constant barrage of messages from the Security Center. We've got lab systems at work behind serious hardware firewalls and we don't want to run the Windows firewall, Zonealarm, etc. If we have no software firewall, then the Windows Security Center complains.
And I am not seeing it from my personal point of view, since the things that already know were treated badly or very poor and the ones i dont, did not have anything of interesting.
To each his own. I found the utility for displaying the Windows license key to be handy (I hadn't searched for one, but having one drop in my lap was handy). I also liked having the phone numbers and direct-to-operator codes for so many companies.
PS: Do you overclock your cpu?
One of my systems has an overclocked CPU from the factory (an i-opener at 200mhz with a 180mhz CPU). My primary Athlon system is fast enough that I really don't feel a need to overclock. In the past, when systems were really CPU-bound, I overclocked some, though generally mildly (less than 20%).
This is stuff the average nerd already knows.
Some is and some is not. I don't believe you already knew Amazon's customer support phone number, that Philips has a zero-dead-pixel warranty, how to get to a human on 60+ companies' phone systems, and where to download a utility to reveal a Windows license key. You may have known some of what was in the article, but I'll bet that you didn't know it all.
Sure, the article was not a revelation with each and every paragraph, but it probably provided some useful information to most of the people on Slashdot who read it. I even found one of the linked utilities to be handy.
When you overclock your cpu, its "lifetime" will be reduced.
Like most blanket statements, that one is incorrect. In some cases, the difference between two different speed CPUs is nothing more than on-chip jumpers and markings. If the manufacturer produces 1,000 CPUs and all 1,000 of them can run at the highest speed, they label some for a high speed, perhaps after testing to verify reliable operation, and then label others for the lower speeds. Besides, very few enthusiasts are trying to keep a CPU working for seven years, so even in those cases where there is some reduced lifetime, it's seldom a concern.
This one its true, but AFAIK the difference will be in the tests that the product has passed. That way they set the brand.
Seldom is that the case. A Lite-On DVD+-R/W drive sold under the Lite-On name undergoes the same tests as one sold under the Sony name, Hi-Val name, or any other name. Sony, Hi-Val, etc. could not remain price-competitive if they had different, more expensive testing procedures -- especially when Lite-On has already come up with tests that confirm that the drives are functional. Who would you expect to be able to devise a more effective test suite; the manufacturer who designed the product or some third-party reseller who rebrands the drive?
But in general the article is poor and somehow little useful.
Another untrue statement. Did you know Amazon's phone number for customer service? Did you know the shortcut to reach a human operator at the list of over 60 cell phone, PC, and travel firms? Did you know that Philips had a zero-dead-pixel guarantee? Did you have a utility to reveal a Windows XP license key? The article provided a lot of useful information. I knew much of it, but that doesn't mean that everyone knows everything in it.
Slashdot needs to stop publishing this PR tripe everytime some OS vendor releases it.
The total cost of ownership varies wildly based on who will be using the OS, adminstering it, and how it will be used. Will the users be exchanging documents, spreadsheets, databases, and files with a firm running a proprietary OS? Will they be running a handful of custom applications internally? Are the users engineers or are they a sales team? Are the already experts on one OS and will be moving to the other -- or do they have equal experience in both?
When Microsoft wants to show a lower TCO for Windows/Office, they tweak the scenario to get that result. When IBM wants to show a lower TCO for Linux, they do adjustments to make Linux come out the winner. What if IBM funds a study that ends up showing Windows to have the lower TCO? Do you think that they are going to publicize those results? Of course not. And Microsoft wouldn't publicize one of their studies if Linux was the winner.
This kind of "study" is as valuable as a McDonalds' funded study on the health benefits of eating fried foods.
This statement does not gybe with your faith in the Nanny State.
Let's skip Rush Limbaugh / Ann Coulter / Sean Hannity terms like "Nanny State."
I have faith that people can get out of poverty if given some assistance. I don't believe that impoverished people with no assistance can often move up the socio-economic ladder. Where there is little spending on social programs, those born into poverty usually die impoverished and those born into affluence usually die affluent.
By the way, I believe that the verb is spelled "gibe" or "jibe" when referring to consistency. The spelling "gybe" refers to something shifting from one side of a ship to the other.
See: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/jibe
Sure, Freddie: if that's what you want to believe, then you go right ahead.
I'm an atheist, Johnny. I have a long history of not believing something just because it makes me feel good. Besides, I would much rather believe that I called you on the phone and we worked out our differences in a civil manner. But that's not what happened and we both know it -- and I'll leave it at that.
Now, since it's so important to your fragile ego to convince yourself of your intelligence, so let me give you a little hint: I know quite a few truly brilliant people, and one thing that they have in common is that they never brag.
Up to your old tricks again: You insult my intelligence ("If you were half as smart as you think you are..."), I defend myself, and you term it "bragging" and a sign of a "fragile ego." For the record, stating that I am smarter than you is hardly bragging. You flatter yoursef.
BTW, do you think you proved anything at all by quoting me out of context?
Yes. There really is not a "context" in which any of those remarks look even remotely appropriate coming from someone who is passing judgement on the social skills, intelligence, and personalities of others.
I didn't "scream" at all, I just told you to never call me again.
No, you screamed with a sound of utter panic in your voice. I had a coworker conferenced in and he laughed hysterically when you hung up the phone. He observed that you "sounded like [you] had been kicked in the [testicles]."
In your dreams, kid.
You keep telling yourself that. Oh, and as to the "kid" thing, I'm probably your elder (both chronologically and maturity wise).
I'm sure it would improve your personality considerably.
Some examples of your pleasant personality gleaned from the net:
"Tell me, did this kind of infantile taunting you routinely resort to work any
better for you when you were in elementary school?"
"Blow it out your ass."
"I HAVE seen it from the other side, you jackass."
"Fuck em all."
You're far too emotional to participate in a reasoned debate, which is why I just tweak you for fun.
Coming from someone who screamed like a teenage girl in a horror movie when called on the telephone, you hardly have room to call me "emotional."
Why would you expect a head injury to suddenly increase your mental capacity?
Let me make this simpler for you: (largo) You are not as intelligent as I am. If I were to have a severe head injury, my faculties may be reduced to the level of yours.
Again, you're ignoring the cost of the Internet connectivity, tech support (software installation, spyware removal, training, firewalls, dying fans, failed power supplies, etc.), printers and printer supplies (it doesn't do the kid much good to write a paper for school if they can't print it out).
At a public library, there are IT staff members who handle everything. The kid can sit down at the computer and ask for help when he needs it. If the printer jams or runs out of toner/ink, he shows the paper to a librarian and the problem gets fixed.
Some inner-city kid at home has no IT staff to choose and set up his computer, monitor, mouse, keyboard, printer, operating system, applications, modem, and Internet connectivity for him. He has no one to diagnose why the computer won't boot when he hits the "On" switch.
It's like saying that you can have a baby for free. It's not the initial cost: it's the ongoing costs that get you.
As I said before, "the average poor kid wouldn't have a clue as to whether a given machine at a yard sale was useful or worthless.
Do 10 year old kids in ghettos know where to get Linux and how to install it? Do they have the ability to diagnose problems that you or I could handle in a second? Do they have the money for Earthlink? Of course not. But they do understand how to use new tennis shoes and jackets."
If you were half as smart as you think you are, it wouldn't be so easy to push your buttons.
Many of us are on here to have intelligent discussions and debates, not to "push buttons" and play childish games -- actions which are more appropriate for AOL chat rooms.
Your could be my intellectual equal -- if I ever suffer a severe head injury.
If you would like to donate money to a run down relic of a local library feel free - me I would rather have the access at home, and the books that are important to me shipped from Amazon when I need them - frankly, I get better service in both cases, and it doesn't cost nearly as much either
The library is not there just to serve self-centered, middle-class geeks like you. It's also to serve children and people of limited means. I've got my own domain, servers, and an 8 system network. I don't go to the library for Internet access. But I have enough compassion for poor people to realize that it might be their only opportunity to access the Internet.
(oh wait - you probably are sitting there not paying any taxes sitting in your parents basement so it doesn't cost you anything... The rest of us have jobs and are paying for your free services)
I probably pay a lot more in taxes than you do -- and probably have for most of the 25 years that I've been an engineer. The limit on my credit card might even exceed your yearly income. As to my home, it's quite nice and I'm paying it down quickly on an accelerated mortgage. Your mistake was assuming that everyone else was as selfish as you and would, thus, only be in favor of something with directly benefitted them.
God forbid people choose to spend the money they earn. Nanny government to the rescue.
Money that you pay in taxes belongs to the government, not you. You get government services (libraries, schools, the armed services, the Coast Guard, FEMA, law enforcement, etc.) for your taxes. That's it. You don't get the taxes back.
Given the crap that Americans buy (Lotto tickets, Beanie Babies, everything advertised on QVC, "Ab Energizers," Qray magnetic bracelets, and cigarettes, to name a few) and the fact that Americans, on average, save less than 1% of their after-tax income today, you're going to be hard-pressed to argue that the average American will invest their money wisely if they pay less in taxes.
I recently bought SIX Dell machines for $5 each. Three of them are Pentium IIs, three of them are Pentium IIIs. They all had a 128 MB SIMM in them.
With working monitors, keyboards, and mice, or when you say "computers" do you mean only the base units? Would you call that a typical price that anyone could find? Did you buy them at yard sales in the inner city or at some place where no inner city kid would ever go? It's fine for you to cruise around in your copious spare time looking for used bargains, but the average poor kid wouldn't have a clue as to whether a given machine at a yard sale was useful or worthless.
Do 10 year old kids in ghettos know where to get Linux and how to install it? Do they have the ability to diagnose problems that you or I could handle in a second? Do they have the money for Earthlink? Of course not. But they do understand how to use new tennis shoes and jackets.
Yep. Spending lots of money on nice clothes can be twisted around into being a form of oppression.
Instead of feeling sorry for a kid whose whole life savings is tied up in a pair of sneakers and a jacket, you sneer at him. You're pretty fucked up.
We aren't talking about oppression. We're talking about poverty. The kid buys a few pieces of nice clothes (which he may lose his life trying to protect when someone tries to steal them) so that he'll fit in and not be a social outcast -- so that the other kids won't shun him. Kids can be cruel. Unlike you, though, most of them will grow out of it.
When did you last volunteer to go into some inner-city neighborhood and install operating systems, remove spyware, defragment hard drives, replace blown power supplies, or teach kids how to download and install software? While some well-to-do kid in the suburbs may have plenty of help from educated, computer-savvy friends or family members, kids in inner cities rarely have such resources.
Oh, and I'll call bullshit on your claim that useful computers can be had for $5 at yard sales. What is some computer-illiterate kid going to do with an 80386SX-20 computer with 32MB of RAM? Most of the kids we're talking about don't even live in houses with yards and if there's a computer out at the sidewalk, it's because someone's been evicted, not because there's a yard sale going on.
Most have two or three jobs,
Do you really think that a pre-teen kid who needs Internet access for school projects can hold down two or three jobs? Just who is hiring these children? Nike?
and for many of the poorest families, most of their utilities and rent is paid for by the government, so their money is free for them to spend on sneakers and puffy coats.
Sounds like you've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for too long. I assure you that your view of welfare recipients is quite distorted.
Take a walk around some time, you'll be amazed at what these kids have.
Do you think that a nice coat and sneakers mean that the kid has plenty of spending money? It never occurred to you that the kid spent all of his money on some nice clothes so that the other kids wouldn't make fun of him for being poor, did it?
Why shouldn't people be trusted with their own money?
They are trusted with their own money.
However, money collected as taxes from them is not their money. Some percentage of money collected in the form of taxes is spent on programs intended for the common good. These can include libraries, schools, roads, etc. It's admirable when the people entrusted with spending the library's budget ask for guidance about how best to spend it. It's not a sign that they are "wasting" the money.
The key word: "was." It's not any more. When the government levies a tax, the money becomes theirs. Period. They printed it. They control the supply of it. They levy taxes. You don't like how they spend it, then elect other representatives.
There was work to be done and he was willing to pay money to me to do it, and I was willing to do it for that sum, and yet that transaction between 2 consenting adults was illegal even though there was nothing inherently illegal about any part of it.
Unless I miss my guess, two parts of it were illegal: The wage and the deductions (which I am presuming were not withheld.)
That someone would consent to something does not mean that the transaction is moral. Suppose I found someone willing gouge their own eyes out for $50. We're both consenting adults. Does that mean that it's a moral tranaction?
Let's hypothesize that you have a decent minimum wage job stocking shelves at my store. Suppose someone who just wants a little extra income is willing to do it for $3/hour. Would it be moral for me to fire you in order to hire on the guy for $3/hour?
The problem that I see with the "market fixes everything" libertarian view is that it leads to a bifurcation of the population into "haves" and "have-nots." You lose your job stocking shelves to someone who wants $3/hour. After a while, you get desperate and agree to flip hamburgers for $3.50/hour. That displaces the minimum wage hamburger flipper and he might end up taking a construction job for $2.75/hour in order to keep from starving. It just goes on and on in the low-skill job sector. I take home a bigger paycheck. The guy who owns the burger joint takes home a bigger paycheck. The builder who employes the $2.75/hour construction worker will take home a bigger paycheck. But the workers will take home less.
I already had a liveable wage... I wanted a bit more than "livable" and I got it by breaking the law (in a victimless crime. I see nothing unethical about honest employment regardless of what the state has to say about it.)
You call it victimless, but below-minimum-wage supplemental income like you describe means that there are employers who will pay that rather than hire minimum wage workers. Those would-be-employed minimum wage workers are victims in that case.
But at least we agree on the Republicans.
No you don't, you just run at the mouth to try to convince yourself of your superiority.
Your inability to debate the points is all the convincing that I need.
perhaps you should just stop replying.
Sorry, I don't take orders from petty autocrats.
Apparently, you are still not 'reading at grade level' since what you quoted could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as an "order."
Actually, I learned to touch-type on a Royal manual typewriter. In High School.
So you learned to type at taxpayer expense using technology purchased through tax funds. And that has benefitted you for years since then -- even though the Royal manual typewriters on which you learned are long gone.
Computers cost $5 at yard sales these days.
So they get a $5 computer 80386SX computer with insufficient RAM and hard drive space to run any modern OS. If the computer was really useful, it wouldn't be sold for $5 at a yard sale. That $5 doesn't pay for Internet connectivity, permission to tie up the family phone line for hours every week, a service contract, technical support if the system becomes infected with a virus or worm, etc.
There are zero, zippo, no kids at this point in time who don't have access to a computer if motivated.
You have obviously never been to a really poor neighborhood. They don't have $120 per year for dial-up Internet access. Some don't even have phones. Others struggle just to keep the electric bill paid so that the lights stay on. Yeah, middle-income and above kids who really want a computer have one, but the library is there to serve the whole community.
Then get the government out of their way, and let them get on with it.
I spend my time composing posts with actual content and you make wisecracks and repeat sound-bytes from right-wing talk radio shows. If you don't want to answer the points and questions that I raise, perhaps you should just stop replying.
Third time:
You said that tax funding of programs for the poor was a "a disincentive" to working people who paid taxes. That says to me that is something that discourages or deters someone from trying to get a better paying job. Does it? Do you find yourself actively avoiding pay increases and promotions because more of your money would go to help the less fortunate?