When a police car runs over someone in a high speed chase, the person being chased is assigned the blame. The same logic will prevail in this situation.
Not that I agree with it -- it's just the answer to the question. (Not that I agree with the protestors either. I don't.)
What are the chances people are going to be using IE 30 years from now versus something that originated from the Mozilla codebase?
As the Mozilla codebase improves in the light of public scrutiny and the IE codebase becomes older and more obscure, things will start to change. It will become cheaper and cheaper to produce a new browser implementation for a specific application based on Mozilla. At the same time, the bills for the continued development of IE will start to pile up for MS. IE will get less attention from coders. Mozilla will get more. In the long run, costs will dictate the outcome and IE will lose.
That's my prediction. Just look what happened to Linux, and look how long it took. Have patience.
The one with Furious D was one of the funniest episodes ever. You're nuts.
"And what's this? A horse abusing a jockey? Could this be the start of a terrifying Planet of the Horses? In this announcer's opinion, almost certainly yes! And away I go!"
It's been pretty clear for a while now. The consensus on Slashdot is that freedom is something to be protected for us and our friends, and something to be taken away from our enemies. Because we hate them, I guess.
This goes for free speech too now. At least it's consistent.
And it will keep happening as long as you give them your money. The only way to stop it is to severely curtail the amount of money that your government has to work with.
And that as a member of society, you have a responsibility to help those around you who have serious problems.
Ok, but that's for me to decide. On a case-by-case basis, I'll decide who I'll help, how much, and in what manner. In a free society, I have the freedom to choose. In a society where innocent people like me are ruled-over by people like you, then you'd get to make that choice for me.
But you're just a prick who'd rather live his own life.
Someone who wants to live his own life is a prick now. I guess that's how you (not a prick at all, but rather one of The Good People) justify taking the freedom away from the rest of us pricks. It's your responsibility, after all.
NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses! NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses! NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses! NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses!
The statement isn't useless. Telling screwed-up people to "take responsibility" may or may not help them. If it helps everyone else realize that, basically, their addictions are their problem and not my problem, then I'm better off.
Useless to the addicted? Maybe.
Useless to people who want to play a game (or do more-or-less anything) without worrying about someone else's personal shortcomings? No. Very useful.
This is off topic now, but fares were a lot higher before deregulation. You've said as much in your second point.
Government regulation had the effect of largely denying affordable air travel to the middle class. This made things a lot more convenient for everyone else, but it's not a good thing.
It's pretty easy for the government to make things good for you at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately, that's a bad outcome, and only a bad person would desire it for themself. Too bad it's such a common attitude.
Actually, price descrimination can be a good thing. For example, price descrimination is largely responsible for the availability of cheap airline tickets and airline tickets being generally available on short notice. Without price descrimination, you'd likely have a situation where you'd pay more than the cheapest fares these days and/or there'd be no seats available for the last minute traveller.
The DVD region system was a good idea, but it's poorly implemented. It's supposed to allow cheap DVDs to be sold in places like India without affecting the market in the US and Europe. Without it, DVDs would probably never be released in India at all, or they'd be released there at the same price as in the US and the middle class wouldn't be able to afford them. I don't see how either of these outcomes is better than $5 DVDs that only work in local DVD players.
Slashdot Mirror
Just eat one or two of them. That's the secret. Then you can lose weight and still eat your Krispy Kremes twice or 3 times a week.
Here's my diet:
Eat less food than you use up each day in energy. At some level of intake, you are guarenteed to lose weight.
High fat food works just as well as low fat food for this, and it tastes better.
Seriously. I lost 105 pounds so far.
When a police car runs over someone in a high speed chase, the person being chased is assigned the blame. The same logic will prevail in this situation.
Not that I agree with it -- it's just the answer to the question. (Not that I agree with the protestors either. I don't.)
What are the chances people are going to be using IE 30 years from now versus something that originated from the Mozilla codebase?
As the Mozilla codebase improves in the light of public scrutiny and the IE codebase becomes older and more obscure, things will start to change. It will become cheaper and cheaper to produce a new browser implementation for a specific application based on Mozilla. At the same time, the bills for the continued development of IE will start to pile up for MS. IE will get less attention from coders. Mozilla will get more. In the long run, costs will dictate the outcome and IE will lose.
That's my prediction. Just look what happened to Linux, and look how long it took. Have patience.
I was recently awarded the unpatent. Non-users of "the compass and geometry" must cease their inaction immediately, or I'll be forced to litigate.
What was wrong with the laws we had 10 years ago? IP owners got protection, but didn't get to run your life. Sounds roughly fair to me.
Didn't the patent office used to more-or-less do their job correctly back then too?
DLink is also selling a 72 Mbps version, and Proxim is selling a 108 Mbps version of this same product.
I'm using the D-Link. It works, but I haven't benchmarked it for speed. It says it connects at 72 Mbps consistently.
Intel and SMC sell 802.11a equipment too. The Intel one is limited to 54 Mbps. Not sure about the SMC.
Best thing for me is that it doesn't interfere with my analog 2400 Mhz devices because it runs at 5 GHz.
The one with Furious D was one of the funniest episodes ever. You're nuts.
"And what's this? A horse abusing a jockey? Could this be the start of a terrifying Planet of the Horses? In this announcer's opinion, almost certainly yes! And away I go!"
If someone takes away my freedom(s) they are harming me. So, taking away freedoms is harmful.
Tell me. How do you harm a group of people (a corporation, in this case) without harming some of the individuals?
And harming individuals is bad. It's doubly bad when the government harms individuals. Unfortunately, it's not uncommon.
It's sad that so many people on this board support harming "certain people". The motive, which seems to be "hate" in this case, is even sadder.
Yes it is, along with some of their other freedoms.
That's a BAD thing. That was part of my original point. I'm for more freedom for everyone all the time.
Your perception of the attitude of /.ers comes directly off of this.
Nope. This never made Slashdotters hate their enemies and want their freedom taken away.
The people who work at Nike and/or own Nike stock are people.
Also notice how I was talking about the attitude of Slashdotters. Not about Nike at all.
It's been pretty clear for a while now. The consensus on Slashdot is that freedom is something to be protected for us and our friends, and something to be taken away from our enemies. Because we hate them, I guess.
This goes for free speech too now. At least it's consistent.
And it will keep happening as long as you give them your money. The only way to stop it is to severely curtail the amount of money that your government has to work with.
No way. When did this start?
And that as a member of society, you have a responsibility to help those around you who have serious problems.
Ok, but that's for me to decide. On a case-by-case basis, I'll decide who I'll help, how much, and in what manner. In a free society, I have the freedom to choose. In a society where innocent people like me are ruled-over by people like you, then you'd get to make that choice for me.
But you're just a prick who'd rather live his own life.
Someone who wants to live his own life is a prick now. I guess that's how you (not a prick at all, but rather one of The Good People) justify taking the freedom away from the rest of us pricks. It's your responsibility, after all.
NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses!
NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses!
NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses!
NeuroPulse tries to hit the Enter key and misses!
The statement isn't useless. Telling screwed-up people to "take responsibility" may or may not help them. If it helps everyone else realize that, basically, their addictions are their problem and not my problem, then I'm better off.
Useless to the addicted? Maybe.
Useless to people who want to play a game (or do more-or-less anything) without worrying about someone else's personal shortcomings? No. Very useful.
Having someone else read it for you and post a summary or an excerpt is better.
The same means lower learning costs and a greater ability to communicate and share code between programmers.
The overall cost of a new language outweigh the benefits. This means no new languages until something comes along with an overwhelming benefit.
Don't hold your breath, but when it comes, it'll really be worth the wait.
Government regulation had the effect of largely denying affordable air travel to the middle class. This made things a lot more convenient for everyone else, but it's not a good thing.
It's pretty easy for the government to make things good for you at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately, that's a bad outcome, and only a bad person would desire it for themself. Too bad it's such a common attitude.
Actually, price descrimination can be a good thing. For example, price descrimination is largely responsible for the availability of cheap airline tickets and airline tickets being generally available on short notice. Without price descrimination, you'd likely have a situation where you'd pay more than the cheapest fares these days and/or there'd be no seats available for the last minute traveller.
The DVD region system was a good idea, but it's poorly implemented. It's supposed to allow cheap DVDs to be sold in places like India without affecting the market in the US and Europe. Without it, DVDs would probably never be released in India at all, or they'd be released there at the same price as in the US and the middle class wouldn't be able to afford them. I don't see how either of these outcomes is better than $5 DVDs that only work in local DVD players.
Right, that's why all licensed drivers are good drivers.
Driving is a "freedom". The idea of driving as a "priviledge" was a concept created to convince you to give up that freedom. It worked.
Only because it was stolen. Speech wasn't a freedom in the former Soviet Union either.