If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.
What if the user boots a LiveCD, downloads LOIC to a RAM disk, and runs it there? The computer itself will show no record of any of this (unless you catch them doing it or within a few seconds of having done it and powered off the machine), so forensics won't find jack.
Yes, yes and one day we will develop big brains that will allow us to control our base urges and rise above being mere animals.
The hell we will. Half of society is intent on making sure that natural selection and microevolution are denied influence on the human race. It's my understanding that currently, our brains are actually shrinking (whether that's good or bad however seems to be up in the air).
It also doesn't mean that certain constructs in society that try to turn everything "natural" into something that needs to be stopped, should be propped up by those with a view towards tradition.
I'm not necessarily saying infidelity is GOOD, in the sense that people should unilaterally accept it and if they don't, there's something wrong with them. What I am saying is that it's for each individual person to determine where they stand on such an issue, and then seek out a partner that shares that (or at least intersects substantially).
If two people get together, and they decide that they want an "open" relationship, one that would result in acts you define as infidelity - what purpose does it serve to label that as despicable? Such behavior affects you approximately zero (even if your partner cheats on you with this couple, that's an issue for you and your partner to deal with that doesn't really involve the couple, as they aren't cheating on anybody).
Also, it stands to be said (at least anecdotally), often the people who complain the loudest about infidelity are the ones committing it. My ex-girlfriend would claim evidence of an occurrence that didn't happen (and thus the evidence didn't exist) as a way to prop up an argument, but in the long run she was the one caught cheating. I also know that I'm not the only one to experience something like this.
When society tries to impose a certain lifestyle (or combination of lifestyles) on everyone, such that there is an effort to make people feel "guilty" or "ashamed" if they don't fit in with that lifestyle, then I would argue that society is overstepping its bounds. In an alternate universe somewhere, a society exists that has no concept of cheating because they never tried to be monogamous in the first place. If someone from our universe were to enter into the polygamous universe, knowing human tendencies they'd be so disgusted that they'd start trying to preach and change this alternate universe, instead of just leaving well enough alone.
Of course, you still have a damn brain, so "my genetics told me too" is never a good excuse.
I don't think that's what this points to, I think this merely says that genetics can cause an almost irresistible, sometimes overriding urge to do something in a certain way (or to do something at all). Of course, this then touches on a society that wants to pretend like the human brain is perfect and clearly if someone does something "wrong" or "inappropriate", it's caused by them simply not giving a fuck, and can not be influence by how their brain internally operates on a subconscious level.
Your entire post is false and tantamount to flamebait. Destroying software patents would not allow someone to copy MS code verbatim and only change branding. That would still be covered under copyright. The abolition (or weakening) of software patents would only mean that other teams can create, from scratch, implementations of previously patented software without worrying about the fact that the patent shouldn't even exist because there exists prior art back 10 or 20 years.
And when it's all over and done, and software patents are that much further entrenched, we can point to posts like yours and say "You sure got what you wanted! Are you happy now, asshole?"
Figures that you wouldn't even have the balls to attach a pseudonym or handle to your post. Fucking wuss.
Absolutely correct, and only in recent years have the quality of the OS even attempted to approach the way things used to be. Sure, in the old days there was much less need for protecting the use from rogue apps (back then, the only malware you ever heard of were viruses and trojans which were easy enough to protect from - I don't remember hearing about a rash of "rogue antivirus" tools back then).
I wonder how the computing landscape would have turned out if Commodore had actually done the smart thing with the Amiga in the long run. We could all be running AmigaOS 5.0 or 6.0 or some shit on a high end PPC architecture with GB of RAM and storage space, but with fully supported and integrated classic Amiga emulation for old hardware-bangers.
They did sue DRI over the look and feel thing, though - but not Atari, whose TOS was a self-ported version of GEM.
They didn't sue Commodore either. TBH, they should never have sued anyone but MS if it was solely about breach of contract. I guess they just never felt Commodore or Atari to be a threat (and in the long run, it seems they were right, as they're the only one of the three still around today without having the company name passed through umpteen different hands).
Yeah, the Amiga had been doing preemptive multitasking for about three years at that point. Too bad Commodore really did fuck up their marketing, as they were sitting on a gold mine. Even Workbench 1.0, with all its bugs, ran smoother and with more flexibility than Windows 1.0 (CBM never got sued like MS and DRI did so they had overlapping windows since day one, similar to Atari's TOS).
Why'd you put console in quotes? The Genesis absolutely was a console, and you had to have one to use Sega Channel, just like you have to have a 360 to use Live.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, this is yet another tool that can be used to suppress jury nullification, which is one of the pillars of our legal system.
Do not want.
The sad thing is, while this post is most certainly sarcastic, how many people out there would do exactly this if given the option?
If a left-leaning person is not even willing to hear from anyone labeled a conservative, I would posit that they are part of the problem as much as they harp on the right.
Shut the fuck up, quit giving them ideas!
Recently Galileo was acquitted and his excommunication was reverted.
Wow, I'm sure he'll be enthused to know that!
What if the user boots a LiveCD, downloads LOIC to a RAM disk, and runs it there? The computer itself will show no record of any of this (unless you catch them doing it or within a few seconds of having done it and powered off the machine), so forensics won't find jack.
I would argue that spending your time finding posts to correct means that you have less of a life than I.
If you think Billie Piper is in any way "fat" then you have a seriously warped view of human beauty.
Not that you're any different than 99% of people who will see a girl that weighs 150lbs and think "eww, fatty".
It's "Doctor Who", not "Dr. Who".
Yes, I'm ignoring the Cushing films. Just like most people do.
Yes, yes and one day we will develop big brains that will allow us to control our base urges and rise above being mere animals.
The hell we will. Half of society is intent on making sure that natural selection and microevolution are denied influence on the human race. It's my understanding that currently, our brains are actually shrinking (whether that's good or bad however seems to be up in the air).
It also doesn't mean that certain constructs in society that try to turn everything "natural" into something that needs to be stopped, should be propped up by those with a view towards tradition.
I'm not necessarily saying infidelity is GOOD, in the sense that people should unilaterally accept it and if they don't, there's something wrong with them. What I am saying is that it's for each individual person to determine where they stand on such an issue, and then seek out a partner that shares that (or at least intersects substantially).
If two people get together, and they decide that they want an "open" relationship, one that would result in acts you define as infidelity - what purpose does it serve to label that as despicable? Such behavior affects you approximately zero (even if your partner cheats on you with this couple, that's an issue for you and your partner to deal with that doesn't really involve the couple, as they aren't cheating on anybody).
Also, it stands to be said (at least anecdotally), often the people who complain the loudest about infidelity are the ones committing it. My ex-girlfriend would claim evidence of an occurrence that didn't happen (and thus the evidence didn't exist) as a way to prop up an argument, but in the long run she was the one caught cheating. I also know that I'm not the only one to experience something like this.
When society tries to impose a certain lifestyle (or combination of lifestyles) on everyone, such that there is an effort to make people feel "guilty" or "ashamed" if they don't fit in with that lifestyle, then I would argue that society is overstepping its bounds. In an alternate universe somewhere, a society exists that has no concept of cheating because they never tried to be monogamous in the first place. If someone from our universe were to enter into the polygamous universe, knowing human tendencies they'd be so disgusted that they'd start trying to preach and change this alternate universe, instead of just leaving well enough alone.
Of course, you still have a damn brain, so "my genetics told me too" is never a good excuse.
I don't think that's what this points to, I think this merely says that genetics can cause an almost irresistible, sometimes overriding urge to do something in a certain way (or to do something at all). Of course, this then touches on a society that wants to pretend like the human brain is perfect and clearly if someone does something "wrong" or "inappropriate", it's caused by them simply not giving a fuck, and can not be influence by how their brain internally operates on a subconscious level.
Your entire post is false and tantamount to flamebait. Destroying software patents would not allow someone to copy MS code verbatim and only change branding. That would still be covered under copyright. The abolition (or weakening) of software patents would only mean that other teams can create, from scratch, implementations of previously patented software without worrying about the fact that the patent shouldn't even exist because there exists prior art back 10 or 20 years.
And when it's all over and done, and software patents are that much further entrenched, we can point to posts like yours and say "You sure got what you wanted! Are you happy now, asshole?"
Figures that you wouldn't even have the balls to attach a pseudonym or handle to your post. Fucking wuss.
Ah, but you forget - to others, who have more power and wealth, [b]you[/b] may be considered an "end user".
They didn't remove the unison bonus, they expanded it to apply in solo play as well.
Absolutely correct, and only in recent years have the quality of the OS even attempted to approach the way things used to be. Sure, in the old days there was much less need for protecting the use from rogue apps (back then, the only malware you ever heard of were viruses and trojans which were easy enough to protect from - I don't remember hearing about a rash of "rogue antivirus" tools back then).
I wonder how the computing landscape would have turned out if Commodore had actually done the smart thing with the Amiga in the long run. We could all be running AmigaOS 5.0 or 6.0 or some shit on a high end PPC architecture with GB of RAM and storage space, but with fully supported and integrated classic Amiga emulation for old hardware-bangers.
They did sue DRI over the look and feel thing, though - but not Atari, whose TOS was a self-ported version of GEM.
They didn't sue Commodore either. TBH, they should never have sued anyone but MS if it was solely about breach of contract. I guess they just never felt Commodore or Atari to be a threat (and in the long run, it seems they were right, as they're the only one of the three still around today without having the company name passed through umpteen different hands).
Yeah, the Amiga had been doing preemptive multitasking for about three years at that point. Too bad Commodore really did fuck up their marketing, as they were sitting on a gold mine. Even Workbench 1.0, with all its bugs, ran smoother and with more flexibility than Windows 1.0 (CBM never got sued like MS and DRI did so they had overlapping windows since day one, similar to Atari's TOS).
Win1 did support overlapping windows, technically - they were just called "dialogs".
Efuses, anyone?
Why'd you put console in quotes? The Genesis absolutely was a console, and you had to have one to use Sega Channel, just like you have to have a 360 to use Live.
I'd love to see a device that generates a new key every time it boots up. The ultimate unblockable device, no matter how many keys get revoked.
Right. Copyright infringement is "in spirit" theft as well, correct?
Just ensuring you're not a hypocrite, that's all.
They didn't break into his garage, they were invited in by his grandmother.