I have heard and read arguments like yours, and without a single exception, they came from people who did not use BeOS (booting it up is not using it).
Every time I've heard someone say turds aren't good to eat, it's been someone who doesn't even eat turds (tasting it and spitting it out isn't eating it).
You ass. You said that in north america he could 'get nailed with an electrical code violation'. Now you're trying to say something different. First you say it is illegal to do it, now you say that it *might* not get your insurance money if something goes wrong.
You're one of those people with a pathological need to always be right, even when you're wrong. How's that working for you?
You get electricians to approve things which are PART OF A BUILDING. You don't get consumer electronics you build yourself and plug into an outlet approved.
Listen one more time! If it is inside the wall it has to be built to code, if it is plugged in to an outlet THEN NOT.
When you buy a new TV do you invite an electrician over to approve it as a breaker box? Dumbshit.
You idiot. Maybe if you tried to SELL it it won't be able to get UL approved. However, there is no 'electrical code' against putting electronics in a wooden box yourself. Until about 1989 most tv's were big wooden boxes that sat on the floor. Unless someone went around to everyone's grandma's house and rounded up all the old console tv's, we have an awful lot of violators. Not to mention old record players and radios. I don't recall RCA getting busted for the millions of wooden tv's they sold.
But once again, thank you for talking out of your ass, since you clearly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.
All that would have to happen for him to get an electrical violation would be..... for him to do something that is in violation? There aren't alot of laws, if any, telling you what you are allowed to plug into an outlet. Not there are codes for buildings, but that is a different story.
Thanks for talking out of your ass though, we all appriciate it.
Not at all. I had alot of good questions mixed in with some inyourface pointing out of stupidity.
Now, I'm not assuming anyone will view the ads. I don't care really. Now, in general: If a site goes out of business because people don't look at the ads, then there are 1000000000000 other sites ready to accept the viewers. If all 1 gillion other sites go under as well then, guess what! It's all just a bunch of mental masturbation, and I still have my library card.
If you think that any source of information on the internet (besides wikipedia and google maybe) is unique or valuable enough to care if it were gone you are an idiot.
In the case of slashdot: Slashdot's content is provided by the community. If slashdot died today, slashdot-wiki would be up tomorrow. The only cost is for equipment and bandwidth, which are problems you can work around. Slashdot's only really valuable asset is the slashdot community, so they really should be more concerned with making us happy than anything else.
If adblocking becomes common there are easy ways to prevent people blocking your ads. I won't go into those ways because I don't want to fill in any trogs that are reading this, as I hate ads.
If market forces don't work efficiently, then why will they take off the free content?
Did you even read your own post? What are you saying? How don't they work efficiently?
I'll look at ads when I have no way to avoid it. It's dopes like you that sit and stare at commercials thinking it will improve the quality of TV shows.
Life is more comfortable today for many. It will continue to become more comfortable. OR we will kill 1/3 of the people who currently benefit from technology with nuclear weapons. Averaging across possible worlds (to find our *Expected quality of life*) we don't have it nearly as good. And we have it better than most people alive today, in fact, better than 99%.
The world is crap. Any advance in technology will make us more comfortable and also increase the likelihood that we will all be dead at once. In the end it's a wash.
What you have to realize is that people are born stupid animals. They are going to kill each other. They are going to live a filthy life in the dirt. And if you give them an axe to build a better house they will use it to kill you and take what you have, every time. If you give a man a fish he'll eat it, then wonder where you got it, and in the morning you'll open your refrigerator and all your food will have been stolen. Teach a man to fish and you'll find him the next day selling those fish for drugs.
If we were handed a star trek utopia where everyone was provided for, and no one wanted, and there was technology to produce anything anyone could want 1000x times over, a charismatic strong man would convince people to let him have it (you don't believe me? Look at the world today and find one example where this HASN'T happened), and he would put the wealth in a big pile and employ thugs to guard it. People don't just want to be rich, they want to be richer than someone else.
All the hopes for people are based on the idea that people are mostly like you. I'm sure the parent poster is a kind person who hopes for the best for the world. I'm sure he uses his opportunities responsibly and doesn't hurt others. I'm sure he thinks that given the opportunity most people are basically like him. He's wrong.
People aren't worth trying to save. It's a nice dream though.
If I were so inclined I could pay for the education of 20 poor children from the third world. It would cost $1000 each per year. 90% of the people reading this could make the same commitment. But you won't. You won't give a fraction of your huge stack of money to help those kids who are going to die poor and illiterate, probably by being murdered by the kids I didn't pay for. (then next year vice-versa)
There are a large number of people in the world who would cut your head off for a months salary up front. That we all know. What is disturbing is that there is hardly anyone in the world who wouldn't look the other way for a years average salary that country. Could you turn down a hundred grand to just cross the street and not look back?
So a future Utopia will certainly come about. As soon as we have technology advanced enough, whether AI or something else, to manage things for us. As long as humans are in control of resources we will suffer from monkey hoarding instincts.
Factory workers only watch TV. In fact, Code monkeys mostly watch TV. People in the US mostly watch TV. They'll pretend to read when they're on an airplane.
What you have to realize is that while only 90% of everything is crap, 99% of people don't care about learning and are functionally illiterate, uninformed, and stupid. They would much rather perform mental masturbation in front of the idiot box than do much of anything else (exceptions are made of course for drinking beer, although notice that virtually every bar has a TV every direction you look).
If you have run windows for as long as parent claims and NEVER had any malware automagically install itself then you aren't using windows on the internet. PERIOD.
Windows is inherently insecure. What I mean is that every 2 weeks or so a remote exploit is found and patched. That means that there is nothing you can do unless you personally edit and recompile it anticipating the patches. *OR NOT CONNECT IT TO A NETWORK*
Otherwise no amount of carefulness will save you.
Virus scanners can't always protect against virii that are only a few days old, and no firewall can protect you from remote exploits that use necessary windows services (like file and printer sharing). The test of an OS isn't whether you can make it secure by disabling all of the features. The test is whether you can use the subset of features you require and have a reasonable expectation of security. Windows does not have this. No matter how expertly you manage a windows box it has holes, and stuff WILL get through.
Now, this data is obviously skewed with respect to the total distribution, since the people who run something like SETI@home are probably more technologically inclined than the average computer user.
Lets see, more technically inclined you say? Hmm, so they might work around computers... I wonder, if a low percentage of participants end up installing seti@home in an entire computer lab, do you think that might scew the results also? In fact, as a technically oriented user, I am much more likely to install seti@home on a random computer than on my powerbook for obvious reasons. #1 is battery life.
Computers are much more important than God (thus religion). Computers exist.
If you think that God does exist you need psychological help.
If you disagree with this than you are an idiot.
Now, hopefully you are mad at me and want to point out that I am just anouncing things to be true without any evidence, and you are one step closer to enlightenment.
I'm not so sure. For an equivelent pc to be cheaper than a mac it is necessary for such a pc to exist. Therefore the existence is presupposed by the statment, and it begs the question, since the statement is that pc's are better than macs due to price.
So again, statement ~:PC's are better than macs because of price.
presumed 'fact':there exists a PC that is equivelent to a mac, varying only on price.
but the very fact being debated is which is better. So he assumes they are equal, and then says pc's are cheaper. This is begging the question, since he asks that we concede the equivelence of some PC's to macs, which is the very point of contention.
They licensed the GUI and the mouse from Xerox. Stop getting your knowledge "out of the air" and look it up. Xerox was paid a significant amount for them, including apple stock.
This is such a load of crap it has a name: Naturalistic Fallacy.
There is no definition of natural which isn't shit. It just means something like "guys in white lab coats haven't touched it". Any definition you give can be immediately shown to not work as intended.
Firstly, this assumes that humans aren't 'natural'. It also would lead you to believe that there is some kind of connection between nature and ethics, there isn't. It is 'natural' for a tiger to eat babies given the chance. Must be ok.
So for any ethical dilemma, using the word natural is akin to calling someone a nazi. It gets you nowhere. It does not favor any ethical argument over any other.
A lot of the reason it comes up so much, despite its worthlessness as an argument, is probably environmentalists. They would have you believe that human caused change in the environment is 'bad'. However, they do not tell you why it is 'bad'.
For something to be 'bad' there must be some criteria for judging 'goodness' and 'badness'. Care to give me a criteria that makes 'natural' to be 'good' without also implying that we should go back to living in caves and stop using this newfangled unnatural controlled-fire?
I think George Carlin had it right when he said that pollution is bad... FOR US. We can't cause negative changes from the perspective of the Earth, because the Earth does not strive, it does not have goals. Whatever it is is equally good to it. However, by polluting we run the risk of making things uncomfortable and dangerous for future humans, which is the only reason a sane person would care anyway.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Hard drives do not utilize the Bernoulli effect. This is a common misconception. There were removable disk drives which used the effect a while back, but they are no longer made. I'm glad that NASA contractors have basic understanding of how a hard drive works. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a rocket scientist." --KSR
Thank you for your ass backward money wasting service to our country.
Slashdot Mirror
I have heard and read arguments like yours, and without a single exception, they came from people who did not use BeOS (booting it up is not using it).
Every time I've heard someone say turds aren't good to eat, it's been someone who doesn't even eat turds (tasting it and spitting it out isn't eating it).
And now hopefully you see why you are wrong.
You ass. You said that in north america he could 'get nailed with an electrical code violation'. Now you're trying to say something different. First you say it is illegal to do it, now you say that it *might* not get your insurance money if something goes wrong.
You're one of those people with a pathological need to always be right, even when you're wrong. How's that working for you?
Listen Captain Stupid.
You get electricians to approve things which are PART OF A BUILDING. You don't get consumer electronics you build yourself and plug into an outlet approved.
Listen one more time! If it is inside the wall it has to be built to code, if it is plugged in to an outlet THEN NOT.
When you buy a new TV do you invite an electrician over to approve it as a breaker box? Dumbshit.
You idiot. Maybe if you tried to SELL it it won't be able to get UL approved. However, there is no 'electrical code' against putting electronics in a wooden box yourself. Until about 1989 most tv's were big wooden boxes that sat on the floor. Unless someone went around to everyone's grandma's house and rounded up all the old console tv's, we have an awful lot of violators. Not to mention old record players and radios. I don't recall RCA getting busted for the millions of wooden tv's they sold.
But once again, thank you for talking out of your ass, since you clearly have no idea what in the hell you're talking about.
In soviet russia, electric violate you!
All that would have to happen for him to get an electrical violation would be..... for him to do something that is in violation? There aren't alot of laws, if any, telling you what you are allowed to plug into an outlet. Not there are codes for buildings, but that is a different story.
Thanks for talking out of your ass though, we all appriciate it.
Short term stock purchases are ALWAYS just speculation anyway. If she had played her cards right this could be a big promotion.
So if something is bullshit he should put his head down and shutup about it?
No my friend, fuck you.
Not at all. I had alot of good questions mixed in with some inyourface pointing out of stupidity.
Now, I'm not assuming anyone will view the ads. I don't care really. Now, in general: If a site goes out of business because people don't look at the ads, then there are 1000000000000 other sites ready to accept the viewers. If all 1 gillion other sites go under as well then, guess what! It's all just a bunch of mental masturbation, and I still have my library card.
If you think that any source of information on the internet (besides wikipedia and google maybe) is unique or valuable enough to care if it were gone you are an idiot.
In the case of slashdot: Slashdot's content is provided by the community. If slashdot died today, slashdot-wiki would be up tomorrow. The only cost is for equipment and bandwidth, which are problems you can work around. Slashdot's only really valuable asset is the slashdot community, so they really should be more concerned with making us happy than anything else.
If adblocking becomes common there are easy ways to prevent people blocking your ads. I won't go into those ways because I don't want to fill in any trogs that are reading this, as I hate ads.
If market forces don't work efficiently, then why will they take off the free content?
Did you even read your own post? What are you saying? How don't they work efficiently?
I'll look at ads when I have no way to avoid it. It's dopes like you that sit and stare at commercials thinking it will improve the quality of TV shows.
Idiot.
Fantastsic.
Life is more comfortable today for many. It will continue to become more comfortable. OR we will kill 1/3 of the people who currently benefit from technology with nuclear weapons. Averaging across possible worlds (to find our *Expected quality of life*) we don't have it nearly as good. And we have it better than most people alive today, in fact, better than 99%.
The world is crap. Any advance in technology will make us more comfortable and also increase the likelihood that we will all be dead at once. In the end it's a wash.
What you have to realize is that people are born stupid animals. They are going to kill each other. They are going to live a filthy life in the dirt. And if you give them an axe to build a better house they will use it to kill you and take what you have, every time. If you give a man a fish he'll eat it, then wonder where you got it, and in the morning you'll open your refrigerator and all your food will have been stolen. Teach a man to fish and you'll find him the next day selling those fish for drugs.
If we were handed a star trek utopia where everyone was provided for, and no one wanted, and there was technology to produce anything anyone could want 1000x times over, a charismatic strong man would convince people to let him have it (you don't believe me? Look at the world today and find one example where this HASN'T happened), and he would put the wealth in a big pile and employ thugs to guard it. People don't just want to be rich, they want to be richer than someone else.
All the hopes for people are based on the idea that people are mostly like you. I'm sure the parent poster is a kind person who hopes for the best for the world. I'm sure he uses his opportunities responsibly and doesn't hurt others. I'm sure he thinks that given the opportunity most people are basically like him. He's wrong.
People aren't worth trying to save. It's a nice dream though.
If I were so inclined I could pay for the education of 20 poor children from the third world. It would cost $1000 each per year. 90% of the people reading this could make the same commitment. But you won't. You won't give a fraction of your huge stack of money to help those kids who are going to die poor and illiterate, probably by being murdered by the kids I didn't pay for. (then next year vice-versa)
There are a large number of people in the world who would cut your head off for a months salary up front. That we all know. What is disturbing is that there is hardly anyone in the world who wouldn't look the other way for a years average salary that country. Could you turn down a hundred grand to just cross the street and not look back?
So a future Utopia will certainly come about. As soon as we have technology advanced enough, whether AI or something else, to manage things for us. As long as humans are in control of resources we will suffer from monkey hoarding instincts.
Factory workers only watch TV. In fact, Code monkeys mostly watch TV. People in the US mostly watch TV. They'll pretend to read when they're on an airplane.
What you have to realize is that while only 90% of everything is crap, 99% of people don't care about learning and are functionally illiterate, uninformed, and stupid. They would much rather perform mental masturbation in front of the idiot box than do much of anything else (exceptions are made of course for drinking beer, although notice that virtually every bar has a TV every direction you look).
NONONO PAL is significantly different then NTSC. There is more color information inm the PAL signal but a lower frame rate.
The resolution is also slightly different.
If you have run windows for as long as parent claims and NEVER had any malware automagically install itself then you aren't using windows on the internet. PERIOD.
Windows is inherently insecure. What I mean is that every 2 weeks or so a remote exploit is found and patched. That means that there is nothing you can do unless you personally edit and recompile it anticipating the patches. *OR NOT CONNECT IT TO A NETWORK*
Otherwise no amount of carefulness will save you.
Virus scanners can't always protect against virii that are only a few days old, and no firewall can protect you from remote exploits that use necessary windows services (like file and printer sharing).
The test of an OS isn't whether you can make it secure by disabling all of the features. The test is whether you can use the subset of features you require and have a reasonable expectation of security. Windows does not have this. No matter how expertly you manage a windows box it has holes, and stuff WILL get through.
FALSE FALSE FALSE
Why don't your brains work people?
Now, this data is obviously skewed with respect to the total distribution, since the people who run something like SETI@home are probably more technologically inclined than the average computer user.
Lets see, more technically inclined you say? Hmm, so they might work around computers... I wonder, if a low percentage of participants end up installing seti@home in an entire computer lab, do you think that might scew the results also? In fact, as a technically oriented user, I am much more likely to install seti@home on a random computer than on my powerbook for obvious reasons. #1 is battery life.
There IS a difference between not having malware and being too stupid to know it.
Computers are much more important than God (thus religion). Computers exist.
If you think that God does exist you need psychological help.
If you disagree with this than you are an idiot.
Now, hopefully you are mad at me and want to point out that I am just anouncing things to be true without any evidence, and you are one step closer to enlightenment.
I'm not so sure. For an equivelent pc to be cheaper than a mac it is necessary for such a pc to exist. Therefore the existence is presupposed by the statment, and it begs the question, since the statement is that pc's are better than macs due to price.
So again,
statement ~:PC's are better than macs because of price.
presumed 'fact':there exists a PC that is equivelent to a mac, varying only on price.
but the very fact being debated is which is better. So he assumes they are equal, and then says pc's are cheaper. This is begging the question, since he asks that we concede the equivelence of some PC's to macs, which is the very point of contention.
Your sig is misleading. It begs the question, "is there a pc that is equivelent to a mac?".
They licensed the GUI and the mouse from Xerox. Stop getting your knowledge "out of the air" and look it up. Xerox was paid a significant amount for them, including apple stock.
how is this modded up, but not modded funny? Hurray for moderators who are clueless.
This is such a load of crap it has a name: Naturalistic Fallacy.
There is no definition of natural which isn't shit. It just means something like "guys in white lab coats haven't touched it". Any definition you give can be immediately shown to not work as intended.
Firstly, this assumes that humans aren't 'natural'. It also would lead you to believe that there is some kind of connection between nature and ethics, there isn't. It is 'natural' for a tiger to eat babies given the chance. Must be ok.
So for any ethical dilemma, using the word natural is akin to calling someone a nazi. It gets you nowhere. It does not favor any ethical argument over any other.
A lot of the reason it comes up so much, despite its worthlessness as an argument, is probably environmentalists. They would have you believe that human caused change in the environment is 'bad'. However, they do not tell you why it is 'bad'.
For something to be 'bad' there must be some criteria for judging 'goodness' and 'badness'. Care to give me a criteria that makes 'natural' to be 'good' without also implying that we should go back to living in caves and stop using this newfangled unnatural controlled-fire?
I think George Carlin had it right when he said that pollution is bad... FOR US. We can't cause negative changes from the perspective of the Earth, because the Earth does not strive, it does not have goals. Whatever it is is equally good to it. However, by polluting we run the risk of making things uncomfortable and dangerous for future humans, which is the only reason a sane person would care anyway.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
Hard drives do not utilize the Bernoulli effect. This is a common misconception. There were removable disk drives which used the effect a while back, but they are no longer made. I'm glad that NASA contractors have basic understanding of how a hard drive works. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be a rocket scientist." --KSR
Thank you for your ass backward money wasting service to our country.
The math department at University of Maryland, College Park recently decided to replace it's Sun workstations with linux computers, probably Dell's.
I for one welcome our Educational Linux using ahchchhc cough cough.