some business school moron could have said "hey, why don't we leverage our power and force a proprietary format on consumers, and they will be our captive audience"
like microsoft
like sony
etc
has any of it worked? no
for all the anxiety about google's increasing power, as long google does something like this: actively undermine and destroy a closed format in favor of an open one, then the consumer wins, google wins, other companies win, progress and innovation wins, and shortsighted greedy assholes who try to manipulate market inefficiencies in their favor lose (i'm looking at you, music and other media companies). in this context, at least, google really is "doing no evil"
the security guard is responsible for neglecting his duty, NOT FOR THE MONEY
the asshole who took it is guilty of taking something that isn't his, they are on the line for the money
two different responsibilities
but even beyond that, the fact that we NEED security guards is because so many people, such as yourself, don't understand simple fucking morality in this world
there are moral people, who would not take something that is not theres. and there are roaming monkeys with no moral compass who take whatever they can get. such people are the problem with this world. there's no defense for such being such an asshole. if it's not yours, don't fucking take it. it's really that fucking simple. learn it
just because security is lax doesn't entitle you to a damn thing or entitle anyone for any excuse for committing a crime. if you take something that isn't yours, you are guilty, no matter if it is fort knox or a bag of money behind an open door: same level of guilt
try to understand basic morality at some point in your life
you could choose not to go to times square, but assuming you are like every other tourist, that is, you don't plan your media exposure, you just walk into times square and look up at the billboards: those billboards, in an attempt to catch eyes, try to be risque, they constantly push the envelope. what is too risque? PUBLIC policy determines that, and you and your family are exposed to exactly what PUBLIC policy has determined, not wehat you determine
for better or for worse, the de facto truth, even if you are shut in (television), is that public policy determines what you are exposed too. europe for example, has no problem showing female breasts on tv. americans however FEAR TEH BOOBIE, and will only show wholesome corpses and acts violent murder on television (smirk)
just like the one we are crawling out of now. hello?
the roaring twenties was borrowing against the future, the bubble collapsed, and we suffered, horribly, for a decade
that you should be celebrating such financial ignorance and irresponsibility as "a great time to be an american", you are only announcing your abject ignorance. it is because of thinking like yours that we are in the current mess we are in. thanks a lot, shortsighted asshole
the tragedy we are living in is this great mass of ignorants, propagandized into fighting that which will only help and save them
in the healthcare townhall "debates" last summer an old deranged lady shouted "keep your socialist hands off my medicare!"
that about sums up the "principled" opposition to braindead obvious simple progress in this country. its demagogues, in the employ of big business, and the lobbyists buying off their representatives, who are selling the american people a state of impoverishment. because they should be afraid of "socialism"
i am not arguing that saving banking asshats is fair. i'm saying the banking asshats are so embedded, that it is impossible to make them suffer and only them suffer
if you are saying suffering by everyone is inevitable because of what the bankers did, i'm not buying that. nothing's inevitable. we can still suffer in 5 more years, or maybe not. you take it as act of faith that we have only forestalled the inevitable rather than actually cured the disease
what do i believe? perhaps we have only forestalled the inevitable. i have an open mind about the future, we might not have solved the problem. meanwhile, if you are telling me with CERTAINTY we have only forestalled the inevitable, then you are just announced yourself as a brainwashed partisan hack. no one knows the future, including you
you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years
your attitude seems to be "malaria? well then lie in the bed with fevers and chills until its over. forget this quinine crap, suffer like a man! walk it off!"
you bail these companies out to save a lot of common people who did nothing to create this horrible mess form a lot of financial pain
THAT'S the point of the bailouts
not because we like to save banking asshats from themselves
having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor, but its not a business plan
the only amount people will spend on music (apart from upper middle class westerners) is zero
and the internet makes it possible
you can't beat an army of technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers. your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable. your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothers
your only option is to fucking die already, music industry
the future is artists giving away their recordings for free, and making money via ancillary means like concerts, endorsements, advertising, personalized content, etc
there is no place for the distributor anymore. some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare. the rest, you've been replaced by the internet. fucking deal with it and die already
and you can use linux instead of windows, but that's not the point
we're not talking about the best practices of paranoid schizophrenic open source gurus
we're talking about the lives of average people, who are using windows and google, naive and naked. the next fallacy you might try to foist on this thread would be to hold their naivete and technical nakedness against them: "its your fault for not acting like a paranoid schizophrenic and a technological astute and going to obscene amounts of effort. and so you deserve to be raped by microsoft and google"
pffft
the real moral argument: the behavior of google and microsoft must be altered. not my behavior, not yours, not the average joe's
but the class was LISP, and we had to write a program to play the card game "go fish". our algorithms would compete against each other (the winner and runner up algorithms were both claimed by a high school student auditing the class, but that's another story)
i took the class along with my physics TA
he came to me and offered a good physics lab grade in exchange for me writing a separate "go fish" algorithm for himself
i took him up on the offer. the algorithm i wrote for myself did ok, but the algorithm i wrote for him sucked. problem was, i wasn't doing that bad in physics lab to begin with. so i think i actually wound up putting my grade in jeopardy by disappointing my physics TA
just do the work, because any schemes you concoct will wind up backfiring in ways you don't intend and don't foresee. good cheating requires control of too many variables, so to cheat successfully, you often wind up stressing yourself out more than just slogging through the work
in every way, except in our minds: we don't have the wariness towards it that we have towards microsoft
i am asking for that wariness
microsoft has proved to be a basket case in the smartphone arena, while google has moved muscularly into the mobile arena. google will know everything you search, everywhere you walk, and keep track of it all. ok, microsoft has my photo album and my tax returns. meanwhile, google has my deepest desires and fears (searches) and knows everywhere i go
but you apparently are saying "don't worry about google, worry about microsoft"
listen to me: i am saying "in the way you worry about microsoft, you should also worry about google"
i don't care how benevolent it is now, it is laying a groundwork that can potentially be abused with a change in attitude later
and with so much focus on insinuating itself into how so much of the web works, disengaging from google won't be that easy
google is pursuing a sound business strategy for growth, and those toiling away at google are doing so in the most noble of intentions: making the web a better place for all of us
i just wish there were a way to chop google in half, or into dozens of bits, so those brilliant people toiling away at google were competing against each other. rather than being focused on building one overwhelming colossus whose future benevolence is not guaranteed and cannot be guaranteed by anyone
i don't want all that data that they admit they are keeping about us in the fat little fingers of some future successor to harmless wonks brin and page who is not so interested in simply making the web an easier place to navigate
something is being built right now that we all cheerfully accept that we may someday gnash our teeth about: why didn't we worry about this juggernaut being built in front of our very eyes? why were we so distracted by the colorful baubles not to see the edifice that can be so easily abused?
google is facing pressure in europe too to conform to national policies, lets see if they push back there too
basically, we are seeing the end of sovereignty, and the emergence of a global decision making body, that is not consensual and hamstrung like the UN
personally, i'm not one of those wackjobs that thinks one global government is bad, i actually view nationalism to be the real evil in this world. fuck sovereignty, its so much tribal posturing and it excuses crimes and war making. far better that the world someday be a federalist conglomerate, like the united states and its states
look out, paranoid schizophrenics, here comes the foundation of the world government that figures so prominently in your fear-addled feeble fantasy lives
but you have to admit its an improvement over the status quo
all of his arguments for the xxx domain are sound
therefore, it's a good idea, and you should support it
you can't reject his idea simply because the idea isn't a perfect answer to everything
on the basis of your standards in your questions, the entire history of human process is rejectable
the problem here is your impossible standards
the xxx domain is obviously an improvement. its not perfect. NOTHING is
for every advance in human history, we have to deal with criticism that is predicated on perfection rather than realism. i really wish such people would learn to shut up. but they are always unfortunately the loudest whiners
criticism is only valid in this world if it is based on realistic expectations. criticism based on a desire for perfection is fucking useless, counterproductive, and really fucking annoying
if history didn't happen the way it did then history wouldn't happen the way it did?
radical insight dude!
as if you can remove the quirky personalities from history and history would be devoid of quirky personalities. some other quirky personality would have influenced history
history is not some static process that happens like clockwork. there is no such thing as "started with the scientific method I'd bet we would have come a lot further than we have". hilarious and laughable
this is arguing after the fact that psychology proved to be an important field of study. no one knew that at the time. like if there was no freud some yahoo would have came along and said "lets invest thousands of minds in strict scientific rigor in this odd subject of inquiry now because this field is going to be important, i know it, and you can all trust me about that." yeah right
no one knows what will be important or not before it is important or not. no one goes "don't let the german economy crash because it will lead to german outrage and sow the seeds for the rise of hitler" or "don't let this weird guy marx write a book, it will introduce this bad idea called communism." people write "important" treatises all the time. a tiny few wind up being the basis for major advances in philosophy, 99% wind up being obscure forgotten and useless. no one knows beforehand. no one sees big important aspects of history coming beforehand
the initial groundwork for psychology became important when another strange austrian made a speculative thought process, that was intriguing to other minds, like jung, and they had friendly chats, and some others followed up on the thinking, however unscientific and bizarre at times, and they grew something more rigorous and even more important, and so was swaned a major field of thought. that's the way it worked, and that's the way it also worked when isaac newton saw an apple fall or darwin stared deeply at galapagos finch beaks: quirky dudes having quirky thoughts opening up massively important fields of inquiry. and no one sees it coming
history very much was, is, and always will be, influenced in jumps and starts by certain unique individuals who impart some of themselves in the initial work, because at the time, it is usually the realm of only a few strange obsessives to pour so much of themselves into a dark corner. then others follow
freud is important to the development of modern psychology. fact. deal with it. why is it so hard for you to accept this?
Slashdot Mirror
some business school moron could have said "hey, why don't we leverage our power and force a proprietary format on consumers, and they will be our captive audience"
like microsoft
like sony
etc
has any of it worked? no
for all the anxiety about google's increasing power, as long google does something like this: actively undermine and destroy a closed format in favor of an open one, then the consumer wins, google wins, other companies win, progress and innovation wins, and shortsighted greedy assholes who try to manipulate market inefficiencies in their favor lose (i'm looking at you, music and other media companies). in this context, at least, google really is "doing no evil"
and someone takes it
fact: the security guard is responsible
fact: the asshole who took it is responsible
the security guard is responsible for neglecting his duty, NOT FOR THE MONEY
the asshole who took it is guilty of taking something that isn't his, they are on the line for the money
two different responsibilities
but even beyond that, the fact that we NEED security guards is because so many people, such as yourself, don't understand simple fucking morality in this world
there are moral people, who would not take something that is not theres. and there are roaming monkeys with no moral compass who take whatever they can get. such people are the problem with this world. there's no defense for such being such an asshole. if it's not yours, don't fucking take it. it's really that fucking simple. learn it
just because security is lax doesn't entitle you to a damn thing or entitle anyone for any excuse for committing a crime. if you take something that isn't yours, you are guilty, no matter if it is fort knox or a bag of money behind an open door: same level of guilt
try to understand basic morality at some point in your life
say: the billboards in times square
you could choose not to go to times square, but assuming you are like every other tourist, that is, you don't plan your media exposure, you just walk into times square and look up at the billboards: those billboards, in an attempt to catch eyes, try to be risque, they constantly push the envelope. what is too risque? PUBLIC policy determines that, and you and your family are exposed to exactly what PUBLIC policy has determined, not wehat you determine
for better or for worse, the de facto truth, even if you are shut in (television), is that public policy determines what you are exposed too. europe for example, has no problem showing female breasts on tv. americans however FEAR TEH BOOBIE, and will only show wholesome corpses and acts violent murder on television (smirk)
no bailout: certain collapse
bailout: possible collapse
see how that fucking works?
the '20s was a bubble, you idiot
just like the one we are crawling out of now. hello?
the roaring twenties was borrowing against the future, the bubble collapsed, and we suffered, horribly, for a decade
that you should be celebrating such financial ignorance and irresponsibility as "a great time to be an american", you are only announcing your abject ignorance. it is because of thinking like yours that we are in the current mess we are in. thanks a lot, shortsighted asshole
the tragedy we are living in is this great mass of ignorants, propagandized into fighting that which will only help and save them
in the healthcare townhall "debates" last summer an old deranged lady shouted "keep your socialist hands off my medicare!"
that about sums up the "principled" opposition to braindead obvious simple progress in this country. its demagogues, in the employ of big business, and the lobbyists buying off their representatives, who are selling the american people a state of impoverishment. because they should be afraid of "socialism"
pathetic, tragic, sad
i am not arguing that saving banking asshats is fair. i'm saying the banking asshats are so embedded, that it is impossible to make them suffer and only them suffer
if you are saying suffering by everyone is inevitable because of what the bankers did, i'm not buying that. nothing's inevitable. we can still suffer in 5 more years, or maybe not. you take it as act of faith that we have only forestalled the inevitable rather than actually cured the disease
what do i believe? perhaps we have only forestalled the inevitable. i have an open mind about the future, we might not have solved the problem. meanwhile, if you are telling me with CERTAINTY we have only forestalled the inevitable, then you are just announced yourself as a brainwashed partisan hack. no one knows the future, including you
of the stupidest lamest waste of time on the internet
comes the most effective force for progressive change
the one thing that an idiot has, that a wise man does not seem to have, is freedom to act
when your education acclimates you to acceptance of a lame status quo, then your education is worth less than being an idiot
LOL
you forgot to mention the grinding pain and poverty of the general population because of that for years
your attitude seems to be "malaria? well then lie in the bed with fevers and chills until its over. forget this quinine crap, suffer like a man! walk it off!"
you bail these companies out to save a lot of common people who did nothing to create this horrible mess form a lot of financial pain
THAT'S the point of the bailouts
not because we like to save banking asshats from themselves
having an existential crisis is a good definition of humor, but its not a business plan
the only amount people will spend on music (apart from upper middle class westerners) is zero
and the internet makes it possible
you can't beat an army of technologically astute, media hungry, and POOR teenagers. your bought and paid for legislation is unenforceable. your garrison of lawyers can only catch clueless soccer moms and grandmothers
your only option is to fucking die already, music industry
the future is artists giving away their recordings for free, and making money via ancillary means like concerts, endorsements, advertising, personalized content, etc
there is no place for the distributor anymore. some of you will morph into promoters for pop fare. the rest, you've been replaced by the internet. fucking deal with it and die already
and you can use linux instead of windows, but that's not the point
we're not talking about the best practices of paranoid schizophrenic open source gurus
we're talking about the lives of average people, who are using windows and google, naive and naked. the next fallacy you might try to foist on this thread would be to hold their naivete and technical nakedness against them: "its your fault for not acting like a paranoid schizophrenic and a technological astute and going to obscene amounts of effort. and so you deserve to be raped by microsoft and google"
pffft
the real moral argument: the behavior of google and microsoft must be altered. not my behavior, not yours, not the average joe's
but the class was LISP, and we had to write a program to play the card game "go fish". our algorithms would compete against each other (the winner and runner up algorithms were both claimed by a high school student auditing the class, but that's another story)
i took the class along with my physics TA
he came to me and offered a good physics lab grade in exchange for me writing a separate "go fish" algorithm for himself
i took him up on the offer. the algorithm i wrote for myself did ok, but the algorithm i wrote for him sucked. problem was, i wasn't doing that bad in physics lab to begin with. so i think i actually wound up putting my grade in jeopardy by disappointing my physics TA
just do the work, because any schemes you concoct will wind up backfiring in ways you don't intend and don't foresee. good cheating requires control of too many variables, so to cheat successfully, you often wind up stressing yourself out more than just slogging through the work
in every way, except in our minds: we don't have the wariness towards it that we have towards microsoft
i am asking for that wariness
microsoft has proved to be a basket case in the smartphone arena, while google has moved muscularly into the mobile arena. google will know everything you search, everywhere you walk, and keep track of it all. ok, microsoft has my photo album and my tax returns. meanwhile, google has my deepest desires and fears (searches) and knows everywhere i go
but you apparently are saying "don't worry about google, worry about microsoft"
listen to me: i am saying "in the way you worry about microsoft, you should also worry about google"
too much power
i don't care how benevolent it is now, it is laying a groundwork that can potentially be abused with a change in attitude later
and with so much focus on insinuating itself into how so much of the web works, disengaging from google won't be that easy
google is pursuing a sound business strategy for growth, and those toiling away at google are doing so in the most noble of intentions: making the web a better place for all of us
i just wish there were a way to chop google in half, or into dozens of bits, so those brilliant people toiling away at google were competing against each other. rather than being focused on building one overwhelming colossus whose future benevolence is not guaranteed and cannot be guaranteed by anyone
i don't want all that data that they admit they are keeping about us in the fat little fingers of some future successor to harmless wonks brin and page who is not so interested in simply making the web an easier place to navigate
something is being built right now that we all cheerfully accept that we may someday gnash our teeth about: why didn't we worry about this juggernaut being built in front of our very eyes? why were we so distracted by the colorful baubles not to see the edifice that can be so easily abused?
you are espousing anarchy, no matter at your dislike of the word
enjoy somalia, idiot
for all the crimes of a nation state, a world of mad max style warlords like in somalia is far worse
i look forward to one world government
publish the whereabouts going back a year of some government officials. especially let the wife see some of the more interesting locations
sounds unfair? no, it's epitome of turnaround and fairness
of course, it won't stop the assholes from going after the hacker and claiming that a crime was committed. fucking hypocrites
to blow his cigar smoke into the beetle's bore holes?
tobacco basically invented nicotine to kill insects, so rush, with his volumes of hot air, seems like a perfect delivery vehicle
as a bonus, we hasten limbaugh's death via lung cancer
google is facing pressure in europe too to conform to national policies, lets see if they push back there too
basically, we are seeing the end of sovereignty, and the emergence of a global decision making body, that is not consensual and hamstrung like the UN
personally, i'm not one of those wackjobs that thinks one global government is bad, i actually view nationalism to be the real evil in this world. fuck sovereignty, its so much tribal posturing and it excuses crimes and war making. far better that the world someday be a federalist conglomerate, like the united states and its states
look out, paranoid schizophrenics, here comes the foundation of the world government that figures so prominently in your fear-addled feeble fantasy lives
i've been reading and posting here a long time, and i don't remember anyone coming right out and saying "microsoft employee here"
i never expected someone to rip off their clothes, douse themselves in a1 steak sauce, and walk into the hyena enclosure
you are very brave sir
how well read is slashdot at microsoft?
but you have to admit its an improvement over the status quo
all of his arguments for the xxx domain are sound
therefore, it's a good idea, and you should support it
you can't reject his idea simply because the idea isn't a perfect answer to everything
on the basis of your standards in your questions, the entire history of human process is rejectable
the problem here is your impossible standards
the xxx domain is obviously an improvement. its not perfect. NOTHING is
for every advance in human history, we have to deal with criticism that is predicated on perfection rather than realism. i really wish such people would learn to shut up. but they are always unfortunately the loudest whiners
criticism is only valid in this world if it is based on realistic expectations. criticism based on a desire for perfection is fucking useless, counterproductive, and really fucking annoying
and ignorance of plain old history
and you have a massive chip on your shoulder about freud for some reason
whatever, the intellectual charity ends here for you
have a good one
pure win
if history didn't happen the way it did then history wouldn't happen the way it did?
radical insight dude!
as if you can remove the quirky personalities from history and history would be devoid of quirky personalities. some other quirky personality would have influenced history
history is not some static process that happens like clockwork. there is no such thing as "started with the scientific method I'd bet we would have come a lot further than we have". hilarious and laughable
this is arguing after the fact that psychology proved to be an important field of study. no one knew that at the time. like if there was no freud some yahoo would have came along and said "lets invest thousands of minds in strict scientific rigor in this odd subject of inquiry now because this field is going to be important, i know it, and you can all trust me about that." yeah right
no one knows what will be important or not before it is important or not. no one goes "don't let the german economy crash because it will lead to german outrage and sow the seeds for the rise of hitler" or "don't let this weird guy marx write a book, it will introduce this bad idea called communism." people write "important" treatises all the time. a tiny few wind up being the basis for major advances in philosophy, 99% wind up being obscure forgotten and useless. no one knows beforehand. no one sees big important aspects of history coming beforehand
the initial groundwork for psychology became important when another strange austrian made a speculative thought process, that was intriguing to other minds, like jung, and they had friendly chats, and some others followed up on the thinking, however unscientific and bizarre at times, and they grew something more rigorous and even more important, and so was swaned a major field of thought. that's the way it worked, and that's the way it also worked when isaac newton saw an apple fall or darwin stared deeply at galapagos finch beaks: quirky dudes having quirky thoughts opening up massively important fields of inquiry. and no one sees it coming
history very much was, is, and always will be, influenced in jumps and starts by certain unique individuals who impart some of themselves in the initial work, because at the time, it is usually the realm of only a few strange obsessives to pour so much of themselves into a dark corner. then others follow
freud is important to the development of modern psychology. fact. deal with it. why is it so hard for you to accept this?
a subset of godwin's law:
"As an online slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning goatse.cx approaches 1."
to the formation of modern psychology
of course they are bullshit and of course some people still erroneously believe them
as if that nullifies my point: freud's ideas were important to the formation of modern psychology