The movie version of Dune blew. Just plain sucked to high heaven. Reeked like 3-day-old roadkill, with second-rate actors and third-rate special effects.
By comparison, the SciFi version was a work of genius.
The entire statement "goes against capitalism" only shows an extreme lack of understanding of what capitalism actually is. Capitalism does not *require* that one charge for service - ever. Donated labor under *any* circumstances is something capitalism doesn't comment on at all.
Economics 101. I suggest you pick up a decent, basic economics textbook to review what capitalism actually is, rather than what you think it is.
But y'all are still descended from penal colonists and some of the worst riff-raff to ever be produced by the human race. This explains alot of things, including your horrid beer.
Ah, try an OS that *requires that I ask permission* from Microsoft before I can actually use the product I purchased? One that tells me that I'm specifically forbidden from looking at the code that's on *my* machine -
- MY fucking machine, not Microsoft's -
- much less altering it in whatever manner I see fit?
While your statement is certainly true of the more rabid Ayn Rand followers, Ayn Rand herself never said any such thing. She was in favor of pure capitalism, which no country has ever had in modern history, nor ever come close to. Rand herself admitted as much and blamed the government for allowing the conditions to exist which perpetuated monopolies - the antithesis of pure capitalism.
I can't see how her arguments in this regard are wrong, given the level of corporate welfare in 21st century America.
Now, it could be that pure capitalism would indeed be an evil economic system, but *since we've never had anything like it* we don't really know, do we? Same goes for pure socialism, pure communism, etc.
Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it goes against what capitalism stands for.
This is a fallacy. Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to say on the value of donated labor. Were this true, any labor donated to charity projects, churches, neighborhood organizations, etc. would "go against capitalism" as you put it.
Getting NVidia to work is damned easy. Both the driver and kernel patch are available via rpm and can be installed just as easily as any Windows driver. I know this because two of my home linux machines have the drivers installed.
So you:
- download the driver and kernel patch - double-click to install them - reboot the machine
Really, so what? Should we wail at the tragedy of it? Exactly what was the tragedy here - addiction to a computer game? He wants to kill himself, that's one for Darwin. Move along now, nothing to see.
The moral high ground awaits for those carrying the Outrage Stick.
Son, speaking as a psychologist (IAAP) I can tell you right here, right now, that counseling alone will do dick for just about every psychosis, most neuroses that are more than mild, and most forms of depression. In these instances, which constitute the vast majority of what we term 'mental illness', drugs are absolutely required. Counseling might help in combination with the drugs, but the drugs are almost always necessary.
People who blather on about 'being strong' and 'not being drug dependent' were either never serious cases or are utter morons. Don't presume to offer an authoritative opinion on something you know nothing about, especially when that opinion essentially devalues the experience and the quality of character of everyone with a serious mental illness.
Max
attack of the Enquirer readers
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
One of the most interesting trends when any sort of privacy issue comes up on Slashdot is the rather large number of trolls - excuse me, 'folks with alternate viewpoints' - who come out of the woodwork to proudly proclaim that *they* have nothing to hide and therefore aren't concerned. And, as *they* aren't concerned, neither should you be - unless you're doing something illegal, immoral, or socially deviant, that is.
Rather intriguing that folks who aren't concerned about their privacy insist that everyone else not be concerned as well. In fact, they practically rant about it, insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with them is either paranoid or involved in some dark, nefarious scheme against All That Is Good And Right(TM).
If they were so bloody unconcerned they should be perfectly ready to accept the fact that others might have more stringent views, and accept them - but they aren't. No, they *demand* that you conform to their views on the matter - which indicates that they are indeed concerned: they want your life to be as open to inspection as their own boring little existence is.
Why? For the same reason that the halfwit readers of the Enquirer insist that public figures have no right to privacy: so that they at least have the chance to snoop on the life of someone more interesting. And participate in their destruction if they prove to be someone socially undesirable, like a bisexual or an atheist, or a bisexual atheist, or whatever is on today's hit-list parade.
In fact, the perverts who insist that they don't need privacy, and therefore neither do you (and they'll spend a great deal of energy making sure you don't get it), are nothing more than malicious little peeping toms hoping that legislation stripping away what little privacy we have left will provide them with the same sort of vicarious thrills that the Enquirer does now.
Make no bones about it: the truly unconcerned don't even bother to comment. They are, after all, *unconcerned*. Those that *do* make a point of commenting and then arguing about it are just plain shits - shits who want to first tell you you *can't* have something or do something, just to give themselves a false sense of power in their otherwise pathetic lives; and second, in the hopes of spying on you, either directly or through the government, in order to experience a real life second hand. Or better yet, in the hopes that your more interesting existence will be targeted and destroyed in a public fashion, malicious revenge for the ennui of their own useless, unimportant existence.
The people who argue against privacy aren't just expressing a viewpoint; they're lobbying to actively invade your life and try to extend some control over it. They aren't satisfied unless they know *everyone's* business and have the opportunity to rain all over the parade of people more interesting than themselves.
Make no mistake: these folks are just plain evil (with the small 'e'; they don't have the balls for the bigger one). Nothing more, nothing less. They are the enemy; a repulsive, squalling enemy, a mostly ineffectual, impotent enemy, but still an enemy. Bitch-slap the buggers whenever you can, for that's all that they deserve.
Your standards for privacy are only of value to yourself. They're garbage when applied to anyone else, of absolutely no value whatsoever. If others demand higher privacy in regards to their own business, you've no reason to comment on that at all - it isn't your concern.
Max
Re:September 11th used to justify everything.
on
Carnivore Update
·
· Score: 1
So whatever standards you decide to apply to your own life must also apply to ours...simply on your say-so?
What you consider to be private is of absolutely no value when applied to the standards of others. Unless, of course, you're egotistical enough to claim otherwise.
I find it difficult and time consuming to understand my own code 3 days after I've written it, so I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone can jump into any of the open source code, most of which could best be described as spaghetti code of complex relationships and undocumented correlations, and just "fix up something" (without a MASSIVE investment of time).
I'm also a programmer and my experience is contrary to your own. In fact, it isn't uncommon for skilled Unix admins to know a good deal about the source code, at least in my admittedly anecdotal view.
But then, your experience is also anecdotal and worth about as much as my own: a cup of spit.
To further this ridiculous non-empirical argument where both sides can pull crap out of their asses that can't be verified in the real world, it's been my uniform experience that windows/nt admins tend to be *much* less talented than their unix counterparts, and are often downright incompetent. Especially those that go wave their MCSE about as if it actually qualified them for a job.
So tell me: what the hell is the appeal of the freakin' Sims??? Are people's lives so utterly pathetic they have to pretend to live the incredibly mundane lives of others, folks who're almost as boring as they are?
Yeah, that's what I want to do after a long day at work - go home and pretend that I'm some completely uninspirational fool living in a world just like my own. Oooooh! Maybe, like, I can have a *virtual* house party and pick up some virtual wench, because that's as close to a party and some pussy I'm ever gonna get!
I just can't imagine why so many folks spend so much time on this game, unless their own lives are really *that* bad....
Given that no EULA has the force of contract law anywhere in the U.S., it's rather doubtful that it could be used as 'consent' for utilizing spare cycles in a legal fashion. The company is treading dangerous ground here and just begging to be bitch-slapped with a lawsuit.
While I doubt a serious argument could be made for damages, unless the EULA is upheld by some clueless court then using the spare cpu cycles of personal computers clearly constitutes criminal electronic trespass as outlined in the PATRIOT act. And, as we know, this automatically brands one as a terrorist.
I don't use Kazaa but I can't imagine that very many users will be happy to have their 'spare' cpu cycles appropriated for someone else's gain. Just another reason to dump this software in the electronic crapper.
So either MS rewrote the OS between Win98 and Win2000/XP to foil court orders to remove formerly modular components (as IE was proven to be in Win98), or the decision makers at MS are complete fuckwits.
Either conclusion doesn't do much for the reputation of the company.
Oh lord - yet another editorial attempt to get the Gaians and the Ostriches to have at it again, in the hopes of stimulating a flame war. And here Taco was saying that the comments posted by folks here are of little, if any, value to Slashdot.
If that's the case, then why do they go out of their way to get fanatics on an issue in an uproar?
Of course, real scientists realize that the question of human-caused global warming is an unanswered one and deserving of further empirical study, rather than just pulling an argument out of one's ass.
But then, neither the Gaians nor the Ostriches are ever interested in actual *scientific investigation*. They're already convinced that what they say is true, just because they say it.
Which gives them quite a bit in common with institutionalized megalomaniacs.
Why bother? Linux is incorporating all of the 'new' technologies with each kernel version, in essence transforming itself into the OS that you're thinking of. The only radically different technology is the microkernel which, outside of lab conditions, has never worked as well in practice as it has in theory.
No one in their right mind is ever going to mistake "Yoga Inside" for an Intel business division. The lawsuit is ludicrous on its face, and any court or law which defends it is just as ridiculous.
Aside from which, only a blithering idiot would support the trademark of common words, like "windows" or "inside". The language belongs to its speakers, not to any corporate entity. Arguments to the contrary are either non-sensical or a practice in corporate whoredom.
So how is this a problem? You send one email asking for the public key, then encrypt the second and send. One additional step at the beginning of the conversation.
So long as you're fairly certain that email address A belongs to person A and isn't being accessed by anyone else I don't see why this presents a difficulty.
Yet another pundit being pundit-like. It's rather clear from the article that the author walked in heavily biased towards Microsoft products and had already come to his conclusions prior to any actual testing. Do these guys get free blow jobs every time they do an MS PR piece?
Slashdot Mirror
The movie version of Dune blew. Just plain sucked to high heaven. Reeked like 3-day-old roadkill, with second-rate actors and third-rate special effects.
By comparison, the SciFi version was a work of genius.
Max
The entire statement "goes against capitalism" only shows an extreme lack of understanding of what capitalism actually is. Capitalism does not *require* that one charge for service - ever. Donated labor under *any* circumstances is something capitalism doesn't comment on at all.
Economics 101. I suggest you pick up a decent, basic economics textbook to review what capitalism actually is, rather than what you think it is.
Max
But y'all are still descended from penal colonists and some of the worst riff-raff to ever be produced by the human race. This explains alot of things, including your horrid beer.
Max
Ah, try an OS that *requires that I ask permission* from Microsoft before I can actually use the product I purchased? One that tells me that I'm specifically forbidden from looking at the code that's on *my* machine -
- MY fucking machine, not Microsoft's -
- much less altering it in whatever manner I see fit?
No thanks.
Max
While your statement is certainly true of the more rabid Ayn Rand followers, Ayn Rand herself never said any such thing. She was in favor of pure capitalism, which no country has ever had in modern history, nor ever come close to. Rand herself admitted as much and blamed the government for allowing the conditions to exist which perpetuated monopolies - the antithesis of pure capitalism.
I can't see how her arguments in this regard are wrong, given the level of corporate welfare in 21st century America.
Now, it could be that pure capitalism would indeed be an evil economic system, but *since we've never had anything like it* we don't really know, do we? Same goes for pure socialism, pure communism, etc.
Max
The problem is that Linux can't swim. Deal with it. M$ is a scapegoat, nothing else.
And you're a brainless fan-boy. BillyG will never notice you or your adoration, not in this lifetime. Deal with it.
Max
Again, I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it goes against what capitalism stands for.
This is a fallacy. Capitalism has nothing whatsoever to say on the value of donated labor. Were this true, any labor donated to charity projects, churches, neighborhood organizations, etc. would "go against capitalism" as you put it.
Max
Getting NVidia to work is damned easy. Both the driver and kernel patch are available via rpm and can be installed just as easily as any Windows driver. I know this because two of my home linux machines have the drivers installed.
So you:
- download the driver and kernel patch
- double-click to install them
- reboot the machine
and you're done. That's it.
Max
He was 21. He killed himself. Fuck him.
Really, so what? Should we wail at the tragedy of it? Exactly what was the tragedy here - addiction to a computer game? He wants to kill himself, that's one for Darwin. Move along now, nothing to see.
The moral high ground awaits for those carrying the Outrage Stick.
Max
Son, speaking as a psychologist (IAAP) I can tell you right here, right now, that counseling alone will do dick for just about every psychosis, most neuroses that are more than mild, and most forms of depression. In these instances, which constitute the vast majority of what we term 'mental illness', drugs are absolutely required. Counseling might help in combination with the drugs, but the drugs are almost always necessary.
People who blather on about 'being strong' and 'not being drug dependent' were either never serious cases or are utter morons. Don't presume to offer an authoritative opinion on something you know nothing about, especially when that opinion essentially devalues the experience and the quality of character of everyone with a serious mental illness.
Max
One of the most interesting trends when any sort of privacy issue comes up on Slashdot is the rather large number of trolls - excuse me, 'folks with alternate viewpoints' - who come out of the woodwork to proudly proclaim that *they* have nothing to hide and therefore aren't concerned. And, as *they* aren't concerned, neither should you be - unless you're doing something illegal, immoral, or socially deviant, that is.
Rather intriguing that folks who aren't concerned about their privacy insist that everyone else not be concerned as well. In fact, they practically rant about it, insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with them is either paranoid or involved in some dark, nefarious scheme against All That Is Good And Right(TM).
If they were so bloody unconcerned they should be perfectly ready to accept the fact that others might have more stringent views, and accept them - but they aren't. No, they *demand* that you conform to their views on the matter - which indicates that they are indeed concerned: they want your life to be as open to inspection as their own boring little existence is.
Why? For the same reason that the halfwit readers of the Enquirer insist that public figures have no right to privacy: so that they at least have the chance to snoop on the life of someone more interesting. And participate in their destruction if they prove to be someone socially undesirable, like a bisexual or an atheist, or a bisexual atheist, or whatever is on today's hit-list parade.
In fact, the perverts who insist that they don't need privacy, and therefore neither do you (and they'll spend a great deal of energy making sure you don't get it), are nothing more than malicious little peeping toms hoping that legislation stripping away what little privacy we have left will provide them with the same sort of vicarious thrills that the Enquirer does now.
Make no bones about it: the truly unconcerned don't even bother to comment. They are, after all, *unconcerned*. Those that *do* make a point of commenting and then arguing about it are just plain shits - shits who want to first tell you you *can't* have something or do something, just to give themselves a false sense of power in their otherwise pathetic lives; and second, in the hopes of spying on you, either directly or through the government, in order to experience a real life second hand. Or better yet, in the hopes that your more interesting existence will be targeted and destroyed in a public fashion, malicious revenge for the ennui of their own useless, unimportant existence.
The people who argue against privacy aren't just expressing a viewpoint; they're lobbying to actively invade your life and try to extend some control over it. They aren't satisfied unless they know *everyone's* business and have the opportunity to rain all over the parade of people more interesting than themselves.
Make no mistake: these folks are just plain evil (with the small 'e'; they don't have the balls for the bigger one). Nothing more, nothing less. They are the enemy; a repulsive, squalling enemy, a mostly ineffectual, impotent enemy, but still an enemy. Bitch-slap the buggers whenever you can, for that's all that they deserve.
Max
Your standards for privacy are only of value to yourself. They're garbage when applied to anyone else, of absolutely no value whatsoever. If others demand higher privacy in regards to their own business, you've no reason to comment on that at all - it isn't your concern.
Max
So whatever standards you decide to apply to your own life must also apply to ours...simply on your say-so?
What you consider to be private is of absolutely no value when applied to the standards of others. Unless, of course, you're egotistical enough to claim otherwise.
Max
I find it difficult and time consuming to understand my own code 3 days after I've written it, so I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone can jump into any of the open source code, most of which could best be described as spaghetti code of complex relationships and undocumented correlations, and just "fix up something" (without a MASSIVE investment of time).
I'm also a programmer and my experience is contrary to your own. In fact, it isn't uncommon for skilled Unix admins to know a good deal about the source code, at least in my admittedly anecdotal view.
But then, your experience is also anecdotal and worth about as much as my own: a cup of spit.
To further this ridiculous non-empirical argument where both sides can pull crap out of their asses that can't be verified in the real world, it's been my uniform experience that windows/nt admins tend to be *much* less talented than their unix counterparts, and are often downright incompetent. Especially those that go wave their MCSE about as if it actually qualified them for a job.
Max
So tell me: what the hell is the appeal of the freakin' Sims??? Are people's lives so utterly pathetic they have to pretend to live the incredibly mundane lives of others, folks who're almost as boring as they are?
Yeah, that's what I want to do after a long day at work - go home and pretend that I'm some completely uninspirational fool living in a world just like my own. Oooooh! Maybe, like, I can have a *virtual* house party and pick up some virtual wench, because that's as close to a party and some pussy I'm ever gonna get!
I just can't imagine why so many folks spend so much time on this game, unless their own lives are really *that* bad....
Max
What moron would compare an MCSE to a doctor? Sounds like a dim-witted MS goon with delusions of grandeur.
Max
Given that no EULA has the force of contract law anywhere in the U.S., it's rather doubtful that it could be used as 'consent' for utilizing spare cycles in a legal fashion. The company is treading dangerous ground here and just begging to be bitch-slapped with a lawsuit.
While I doubt a serious argument could be made for damages, unless the EULA is upheld by some clueless court then using the spare cpu cycles of personal computers clearly constitutes criminal electronic trespass as outlined in the PATRIOT act. And, as we know, this automatically brands one as a terrorist.
I don't use Kazaa but I can't imagine that very many users will be happy to have their 'spare' cpu cycles appropriated for someone else's gain. Just another reason to dump this software in the electronic crapper.
Max
So either MS rewrote the OS between Win98 and Win2000/XP to foil court orders to remove formerly modular components (as IE was proven to be in Win98), or the decision makers at MS are complete fuckwits.
Either conclusion doesn't do much for the reputation of the company.
Max
Oh lord - yet another editorial attempt to get the Gaians and the Ostriches to have at it again, in the hopes of stimulating a flame war. And here Taco was saying that the comments posted by folks here are of little, if any, value to Slashdot.
If that's the case, then why do they go out of their way to get fanatics on an issue in an uproar?
Max
Of course, real scientists realize that the question of human-caused global warming is an unanswered one and deserving of further empirical study, rather than just pulling an argument out of one's ass.
But then, neither the Gaians nor the Ostriches are ever interested in actual *scientific investigation*. They're already convinced that what they say is true, just because they say it.
Which gives them quite a bit in common with institutionalized megalomaniacs.
Max
Why bother? Linux is incorporating all of the 'new' technologies with each kernel version, in essence transforming itself into the OS that you're thinking of. The only radically different technology is the microkernel which, outside of lab conditions, has never worked as well in practice as it has in theory.
Max
No one in their right mind is ever going to mistake "Yoga Inside" for an Intel business division. The lawsuit is ludicrous on its face, and any court or law which defends it is just as ridiculous.
Aside from which, only a blithering idiot would support the trademark of common words, like "windows" or "inside". The language belongs to its speakers, not to any corporate entity. Arguments to the contrary are either non-sensical or a practice in corporate whoredom.
Max
So how is this a problem? You send one email asking for the public key, then encrypt the second and send. One additional step at the beginning of the conversation.
So long as you're fairly certain that email address A belongs to person A and isn't being accessed by anyone else I don't see why this presents a difficulty.
Max
It certainly beats "I'm a whining fuck of a loser who thinks he has a right to make demands of people who do this shit for free".
Max
Yet another pundit being pundit-like. It's rather clear from the article that the author walked in heavily biased towards Microsoft products and had already come to his conclusions prior to any actual testing. Do these guys get free blow jobs every time they do an MS PR piece?
Max