10 years ago you'd be right. Hell, ever 5 years ago you'd be close, but if you REALLY can't find an online station that plays the song you want, especially since there are many that explicitly take listener requests, you are probably not bright enough to figure out how to walk to the store without getting hit by a car on the way, so the music companies aren't losing any money on you.
That's a ridiculus myth; schools are not overpriced, they are simply well priced; the students that a university WANTS go on full scholarship. The students a university doesn't mind go on almost full tuition, and the people that the school really don't need go, if at all, on the strength of large family donations.
Simple economics; the foreign PHD students don't pay a dime, the domestic, rich, undergraduate and MBA students pay a fortune and then donate money to the school for the rest of their lives.
People who call other people "pompous asses" are generally, well, to exclude myself, I'll just call you a jerkoff...
Once I learn to mentally filter out idiots like yourself, hopefully none of you will bother me, my blood pressure will be lower, and my quality of life will in general be higher. Until then, lighten up - learn not to complain on a public forum about the terminology others choose to use; you lead your life, they'll lead theirs, and we can one day all live together in harmony, without you insulting him, or me insulting you, or anyone at all insulting me.
Did you contset this? did you even show up in court? It was stupid of you to take this ticket; you could have fought it, probably sucessfully.
Maybe the pursuit of justice isn't just something other people talk about, but something you need to deal with yourself. As a libertarian myself, I recognize thatI live in a society with certain inequities, but I don't hand over my wallet because a cop says 'boo.' Maybe you shouldn't either.
No. I wish to state categorically that all stereotypes are the exact opposite of the truth; jews are all poor, asians are all dumb, african-americans all suck at sports, and microsoft is a beacon of light and truth in the world.
It's funny, because the fact that you say this means you're right; if you like programming so little that only a secure job and a high salary make it worth doing, you're not going to be happy choosing that as a career.
So yes, you're retarded, but you can be happy that at least you were right about it.
Actually, it's really an Oscar Wilde quote. See Oscar Wilde Quotations, or, to quote; "It is easy to find Oscar Wilde quotes... The more progressive and risque among Britain's social climbers may on occasion be tempted to ask for a quote by Winston Churchill, although the old money still views this as irredeemably gauche."
"The courts have it in their best interest to make sure lawsuits keep happening and go on for extended periods of time. It's job security for them, and they just don't care that it's a drain on the rest of society."
Are you joking, or simply stupid enough to think no one will call you on this?
Courts, as in judges, have positions that pay them regardless of how many hours a case takes; Lawyers get paid by the hour, but the judge has no vested interest either way; he has job security whether he spends more time on the case or none at all.
In fact, the only judge I had the experience opf meeting in relation to their work, when the case came up, simply said, to paraphrase; "Why don't we just sit down for a couple minutes, discuss this, and see if everyone can't just go hame." The discussion took 5 minutes, there was an apology, a suspended sentence and parole, and everyone left in less than half an hour. Maybe, just maybe, the "runaround" you got was the cause of, not the courts, but the employer, the other litigant in this case, who, for some strange reason, was given a right to defend itself.
Of course, normally in these situations, a criminal trial, run by the government against a company, is the way to deal with companies that deal with large numbers of employees in blatantly illegal ways. The civil suits that follow are also made simpler by the precedent set thereby.
I agree; just like linux was only written for PC's, and so only runs on them, and didn't have support for almost anything at v1.0, so too I will assume that the somtware devolpers on this project have suddenly decided that they have better things to do than continue developing the program, and we will never see a version that's useful.
Kudo's on the insightful, not to mention original, post. If more people thought like you, people still wouldn't use wheels, because v1.0 kept rolling away.
While I would love to agree with the sentiment, having taken a bit of time discussing the issue with a friend who is a EE, I have to say that there are valid reasons for doing just this.
The space taken up by the battery bay is not insignificant, especially with something the size of an iPod. Also, the amount of power being used isn't always a good match, so there is the added cost/size (With an iPod, presumably just size) of the electronics to convert the power to a more usable form. Also, imagine the complaints if it happened to need, say, 6 AA batteries; built in rechargables is a much better solution.
Basically, there is frequently a good reason for this stuff you hate, whithout having researched it.
Generall correct, though the first of the three is not their claim, it is general, replicable, and somewhat know, according to what I have found online...
If you wanted win95 licences, I have some. I'm not allowed to sell them, since the're for new machines only, but I should be able to give them away....
It was pointed out on slashdot once before (I really am not planning on finding out when, sorry) That once Microsoft disbands a software team, it is nearly impossible for them to reassemble it:
Since they have many projects at a time, when a project is finished (like IE was several years ago,) they re-assign all but a couple of the developers, who may end up in 5 different new projects. Once they start working there, it would be disruptive to those projects to take key developers out. Furthermore, it's been years since these people looked at their own code on IE. It will take them months to re-acquaint themselves with it.
It siomply is near-impossible for Microsoft to do this without deciding to do a new version of IE, which would require a major commitment and a big push. They need to feel pretty threatened first, and firefox isn't there quite yet.
I'm going to respond to this, the most recent of the posts criticizing the concept. Simply put, the emphasis was intended to be on the word victimless, not the word crime. I really think this is something even a slashdotter should be able to understand, and not pick a semantics arguement.
One again, with 1-syllable words:
I said the "crime" (which it could soon be,) has a "victim" (I know, two Syl-lab-les, sorry,) not that it is in fact a crime.
OK, a valid criticism. However, if advertisement is less effective/profitable for the advertiser and therefore the airtime costs less, the typical way to refer to this phenomenon, where a property that someone owns/controls declines in value, is _losing_ money.
Research has shown that commercials do not make an significant impression until seen three times. They don't want to entertain you, they want to influence you. It's a different threshold.
The comment about only influencing "dumbasses", while entertaining, is simply incorrect. Once again, commercial research has shown that it does influence everyone, on a near subconcious level.
OK, so I think that the entire idea is ridiculous, and spoke out against it. BUT: bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it. I mean, it's fine to point out that the revenue model is outdated and will no longer work, or say that the advertisements should be moved to placements in the shows, but calling it victimless and comparing it to smoking pot is, well...
I guess you could say it's typical of thinking on Slashdot. Never mind.
You are certainly right. The greens and libertarians are being sore losers, and want a recount. Who knows, they might have won.
Of course, if the law provides for a recount, and it is un-do-able for some technical design reason, this ends up going to the courts. Again. And we have a second consecutive court-appointed president. Impressive.
There is a simpler reason that the democrats don't want people too involved in looking at the returns; almost 400 precints had an anamolous 100% turnout that was democratic. Compare this to less than 20 such districts on the other side. A bit weird, it seems. I haven't done any checking about exactly what percentage of these were using electronic voting machines or had democratic officers in charge of the polls, or what those places previous voting record was like. It may be that's it's on the up-and-up. I would lay money against it, though. (check out the stats: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/)
Slashdot Mirror
10 years ago you'd be right. Hell, ever 5 years ago you'd be close, but if you REALLY can't find an online station that plays the song you want, especially since there are many that explicitly take listener requests, you are probably not bright enough to figure out how to walk to the store without getting hit by a car on the way, so the music companies aren't losing any money on you.
That's a ridiculus myth; schools are not overpriced, they are simply well priced; the students that a university WANTS go on full scholarship. The students a university doesn't mind go on almost full tuition, and the people that the school really don't need go, if at all, on the strength of large family donations.
Simple economics; the foreign PHD students don't pay a dime, the domestic, rich, undergraduate and MBA students pay a fortune and then donate money to the school for the rest of their lives.
The multibillion dollar game industry is clearly only slashdot users, and watching movies...
Wow, you're right, only complete losers and nerds.
People who call other people "pompous asses" are generally, well, to exclude myself, I'll just call you a jerkoff...
Once I learn to mentally filter out idiots like yourself, hopefully none of you will bother me, my blood pressure will be lower, and my quality of life will in general be higher. Until then, lighten up - learn not to complain on a public forum about the terminology others choose to use; you lead your life, they'll lead theirs, and we can one day all live together in harmony, without you insulting him, or me insulting you, or anyone at all insulting me.
Kum by yah my lord, Kum by yah...
Did you contset this? did you even show up in court? It was stupid of you to take this ticket; you could have fought it, probably sucessfully.
Maybe the pursuit of justice isn't just something other people talk about, but something you need to deal with yourself. As a libertarian myself, I recognize thatI live in a society with certain inequities, but I don't hand over my wallet because a cop says 'boo.' Maybe you shouldn't either.
No. I wish to state categorically that all stereotypes are the exact opposite of the truth; jews are all poor, asians are all dumb, african-americans all suck at sports, and microsoft is a beacon of light and truth in the world.
It's funny, because the fact that you say this means you're right; if you like programming so little that only a secure job and a high salary make it worth doing, you're not going to be happy choosing that as a career.
So yes, you're retarded, but you can be happy that at least you were right about it.
Actually, it's really an Oscar Wilde quote. See Oscar Wilde Quotations, or, to quote; "It is easy to find Oscar Wilde quotes ... The more progressive and risque among Britain's social climbers may on occasion be tempted to ask for a quote by Winston Churchill, although the old money still views this as irredeemably gauche."
"The courts have it in their best interest to make sure lawsuits keep happening and go on for extended periods of time. It's job security for them, and they just don't care that it's a drain on the rest of society."
Are you joking, or simply stupid enough to think no one will call you on this?
Courts, as in judges, have positions that pay them regardless of how many hours a case takes; Lawyers get paid by the hour, but the judge has no vested interest either way; he has job security whether he spends more time on the case or none at all.
In fact, the only judge I had the experience opf meeting in relation to their work, when the case came up, simply said, to paraphrase; "Why don't we just sit down for a couple minutes, discuss this, and see if everyone can't just go hame." The discussion took 5 minutes, there was an apology, a suspended sentence and parole, and everyone left in less than half an hour. Maybe, just maybe, the "runaround" you got was the cause of, not the courts, but the employer, the other litigant in this case, who, for some strange reason, was given a right to defend itself.
Of course, normally in these situations, a criminal trial, run by the government against a company, is the way to deal with companies that deal with large numbers of employees in blatantly illegal ways. The civil suits that follow are also made simpler by the precedent set thereby.
I agree; just like linux was only written for PC's, and so only runs on them, and didn't have support for almost anything at v1.0, so too I will assume that the somtware devolpers on this project have suddenly decided that they have better things to do than continue developing the program, and we will never see a version that's useful.
Kudo's on the insightful, not to mention original, post. If more people thought like you, people still wouldn't use wheels, because v1.0 kept rolling away.
While I would love to agree with the sentiment, having taken a bit of time discussing the issue with a friend who is a EE, I have to say that there are valid reasons for doing just this.
The space taken up by the battery bay is not insignificant, especially with something the size of an iPod. Also, the amount of power being used isn't always a good match, so there is the added cost/size (With an iPod, presumably just size) of the electronics to convert the power to a more usable form. Also, imagine the complaints if it happened to need, say, 6 AA batteries; built in rechargables is a much better solution.
Basically, there is frequently a good reason for this stuff you hate, whithout having researched it.
Of course, you could always sue.
This case would be more analogous with the following added and modified components:
FBI: You Tried to launder money to the Soviets, didn't you?
Person: No. I didn't.
FBI: You use encyption software.
Person: In Soviet Russia, encryption software uses you!
Generall correct, though the first of the three is not their claim, it is general, replicable, and somewhat know, according to what I have found online...
http://vnuuk.typepad.com/silicon_valley_sleuth/200 5/01/microsoft_gives.html
If you wanted win95 licences, I have some. I'm not allowed to sell them, since the're for new machines only, but I should be able to give them away....
is a older tablet pc, or better, a pentium 1 laptop or so, if it's practical.
It's silly to try and get a cheap PDA with a good, decent sized screen, when a laptop with those criteria is going to be dirt cheap.
Then again, using a notebook does make alot of sense...
It was pointed out on slashdot once before (I really am not planning on finding out when, sorry) That once Microsoft disbands a software team, it is nearly impossible for them to reassemble it:
Since they have many projects at a time, when a project is finished (like IE was several years ago,) they re-assign all but a couple of the developers, who may end up in 5 different new projects. Once they start working there, it would be disruptive to those projects to take key developers out. Furthermore, it's been years since these people looked at their own code on IE. It will take them months to re-acquaint themselves with it.
It siomply is near-impossible for Microsoft to do this without deciding to do a new version of IE, which would require a major commitment and a big push. They need to feel pretty threatened first, and firefox isn't there quite yet.
I'm going to respond to this, the most recent of the posts criticizing the concept. Simply put, the emphasis was intended to be on the word victimless, not the word crime. I really think this is something even a slashdotter should be able to understand, and not pick a semantics arguement.
One again, with 1-syllable words:
I said the "crime" (which it could soon be,) has a "victim" (I know, two Syl-lab-les, sorry,) not that it is in fact a crime.
OK, a valid criticism. However, if advertisement is less effective/profitable for the advertiser and therefore the airtime costs less, the typical way to refer to this phenomenon, where a property that someone owns/controls declines in value, is _losing_ money.
Research has shown that commercials do not make an significant impression until seen three times. They don't want to entertain you, they want to influence you. It's a different threshold.
The comment about only influencing "dumbasses", while entertaining, is simply incorrect. Once again, commercial research has shown that it does influence everyone, on a near subconcious level.
OK, so I think that the entire idea is ridiculous, and spoke out against it. BUT: bypassing the networks sponsors is not QUITE a victimless crime, as the networks are losing money by it. I mean, it's fine to point out that the revenue model is outdated and will no longer work, or say that the advertisements should be moved to placements in the shows, but calling it victimless and comparing it to smoking pot is, well...
I guess you could say it's typical of thinking on Slashdot. Never mind.
You are certainly right. The greens and libertarians are being sore losers, and want a recount. Who knows, they might have won.
Of course, if the law provides for a recount, and it is un-do-able for some technical design reason, this ends up going to the courts. Again. And we have a second consecutive court-appointed president. Impressive.
There is a simpler reason that the democrats don't want people too involved in looking at the returns; almost 400 precints had an anamolous 100% turnout that was democratic. Compare this to less than 20 such districts on the other side. A bit weird, it seems. I haven't done any checking about exactly what percentage of these were using electronic voting machines or had democratic officers in charge of the polls, or what those places previous voting record was like. It may be that's it's on the up-and-up. I would lay money against it, though. (check out the stats: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/)
It'd funny because I didn't realize that I still had a .sig: I don't view them anymore...
I understand that it's flawed, but Is there any place the original (flawed in lemma 8) proof can be viewed?
(I went to GA Tech for a semester...)