tv is not the cuase of all problems, but it sure contributes
Provide links to a series of studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals which support your claim. Simply saying that it's so doesn't mean squat.
Back in the '80's several studies were published 'proving' that violent TV causes violent behavior. It turns out that violent TV wasn't causative, but correlative; the actual causative element was *violence in the home*, which resulted in the children watching more TV overall to escape the unpleasantness of real life. And because they watched more TV, they watched more violent TV as well.
Violent TV shows had nothing to do with them becoming violent. It just happened to be accidentally correlated with a violent, abusive home life, and the 'researchers' (I use the term loosely, since it's clear they had an agenda) didn't bother to look more closely at the situation since their 'findings' supported the view that they wanted.
BTW, the same thing was done in the '90's re gun deaths, with the conclusion that having a gun in the home was more likely to turn a person in that home into a murderer. Turns out that the gun had nothing to do with it at all; the press were quite eager to publish the first story but not at all interested in giving equal attention to the refutation. Imagine that....
This assumes that the marketing reps - er, that is, 'speakers' - at most of these trade shows can find their ass with both hands.
In many cases they can't, and what they have to say isn't of any real value - except to sell a product of course. On the brighter side it's fairly easy to spot the fools; they're almost always enamored of the latest industry buzzwords, and use them as if they thought they were magic charms imparting knowledge where none existed before.
Why would someone purchase something if they didn't agree that the price made it worth their while?
Because the item is thought to be needed (whether it is or not) and there is no competitive alternative.
If you're having trouble with the concept, imagine if there were only one car manufacturer in the entire world, and the prices they set for their product were commonly thought to be exorbitant. Now, very few people actually *need* a car, but the perception is that it's necessary - and it's certainly far more convenient to own one than not. So, whether the price is deemed to be fair is irrelevant; people will buy one anyway.
The same concept applies to any product, including software. And you're right, this isn't rocket science.
Of course MS is part of the problem. Perhaps even one of the primary causes of it. Saying that the sole responsibility for the current situation lies entirely with copyright law is just plain moronic. Get off the apologia train and go back to working in your cubicle in Redmond, Borgie.
MS practices are, however, a good reason to avoid MS products and use Linux instead. No horseshit whatsoever about licensing, cpus, etc.
At what point do you stop and say; "Yes, it is better to trample on the rights of these few rather than trampling on the rights of the many" ?
You've got a funny idea of what 'rights' are. Essentially you seem to think you have the right to dictate how others live their lives even if it does no harm to you or your neighbors.
And that's precisely what the Constitution tries to prevent. If it doesn't harm folks or their property, then you need to fuck off and mind your own business. And I do mean 'fuck off, and mind your own business'.
While you're at it, cut the crap on kiddie porn and slavery, and whatever other knee-jerk argument you think will turn the tide of opinion in your favor. The Constitution doesn't recognize slavery (harm to others) or pedophilia (harm to others) as a right. Even someone as dull as yourself should be able to figure that one out.
As for smoking dope, go ahead. Maybe you'll end up dying early before you can pollute the gene pool with offspring. Works for me.
I guess reading comprehension is something you flunked in school. Try looking up the word 'many' and see if that equates with the words 'all' or 'every'
The battle cry of the extremist right is "for the chilllllddreen!"
The battle cry of the extremist left is "for the greater good!"
Both sides are fanatical loons and both want the exact same thing: to control what YOU can and cannot do. Their supposed differences are nothing more than trivial details.
People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.
More importantly, they want the government to deal with their neighbors as well, in much the same fashion as the original Puritan colonies did. That is, "do things according to my moral code or I'll get the government to beat your ass."
The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment. Rights interfere with those activities, and because the Constitution is about rights it's an impediment to their goal to exercise power. The fact that such a view will come back to bite them in the ass is of little concern as they're sure that *they* will never become the target - since, of course *they* are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
You'll never win this argument. Slashdot is full of greenies who'll deliberately ignore anything remotely close to a 'fact' if doing so will give them the opportunity to whine about how 'everyone' (meaning 'everyone but my intellectually superior self') is 'ruining the environment'.
The greenies who make an appearance here are, for the most part, party-liners and therefore fucking idiots without the intellectual capacity to even analyze the argument in question - assuming it were possible for them to do so in a rational, non-partisan way. Which, in my experience, is completely beyond the abilities of just about anyone who proudly wears the label 'environmentalist'.
For Jews, losing 6,000,000 people, a vast majority of the population of Jews living in Europe, has put many of them on the defensive.
Hitler managed to gas and kill 13,000,000 people. Six million of those were Jews, another one million were assorted 'undesirable' Eastern Europeans (many of them commonly known as 'gypsies'), and the remaining six million were Poles.
Yes, that's right - just as many Poles died in the camps as Jews. Yet, strangely enough, I don't hear the Poles going on and on about how their grandparents suffered so in WW2, nor that they should be compensated extraordinary sums of money for said suffering, nor do they claim a moral high ground because of that suffering and mention it any time anyone ever disagrees with them.
So, if you measure righteousness in terms of body count, the Poles are neck-and-neck with the Jews re the death camps. Why then aren't the Poles given the same slack as the Jews, and why aren't the Poles eager to mention this fact whenever someone says something they disagree with?
Of course, the mere fact that I mentioned this historical tidbit will no doubt get me labeled as an anti-Semite....
...yet another fucking moron advocating even *more* government control of my life. Talk about striving for a command economy and government dictation in how I'll run my life; the hypocrisy of his absurd statement apparently didn't occur to him before he rushed off to print.
I don't need more laws, thank you. And with those laws another bunch of fucking idiots trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my life.
...and how long before the government collects data identifying the songs you listen to and correlating that with political leanings? "Oh, that person listens to Ani DiFranco - must be an anarchist or communist. Better tap their phone."
Usability? I've switched machines over to Linux running KDE with standard apps like OpenOffice and folks have actually believed I just put a 'new' version of Windows on their machine with a custom skin! The similarities between apps are so great they've been up and running in no time, with little help from yours truly. All the while believing that they're using Windows.
Perhaps the secret to 'usability' lies in what the customer thinks, and not minor contrasts in GUI and organization. If the customer believes that what he or she is using is the same ol' same ol', then they seem to be far more likely to adapt than if they're convinced that the new thing is completely alien. It might just be, when all is said and done, that at this point in the game the problem with 'usability' lies entirely in the mind-set of the customer and not with the software proper.
Capitalism says man is not benign - man is malign. He will want ownership.
What a crock of socialist shit. Capitalism makes no judgements on the moral condition of human beings; it simply assumes that they primarily motivated from self-interest.
There is nothing 'malign' or evil about self-interest. Neither is there anything inherently good about a lack of self-interest.
In almost any other country, a man who has sacrificed his earning potential to pursue a larger cause is revered.
A great many other countries are socialist backwaters interested only in the Borg-like acceptance of the idea that wealth is evil. This is a prime exampel of 'postage stamp' thinking, expressed by a bunch of fucking idiots whose sole goal is to punish everyone who's able to accumulate more wealth than they are. Everyone's equal in a socialism, so long as they're all equal with the lowest common denominator.
If I write a book containing I ideas, I cannot copyright the ideas - at least in a logical, rational world. I can, however, copyright the book, and charge you for copies of it. To tell me that I must provide my book for free is nothing short of hare-brained socialist twaddle.
A world that allows copyrights on ideas is one founded upon insane assumptions; a world that allows copyrights on things - books, programs, paintings, whatever - is a perfectly rational one, and a splendid example of capitalism. The problem doesn't lie in the copyright of things, it lies in the fact that the law - and those who profit by it - now regard 'ideas' as 'things' as well.
Slashdot Mirror
tv is not the cuase of all problems, but it sure contributes
Provide links to a series of studies published in accredited, peer-reviewed journals which support your claim. Simply saying that it's so doesn't mean squat.
Back in the '80's several studies were published 'proving' that violent TV causes violent behavior. It turns out that violent TV wasn't causative, but correlative; the actual causative element was *violence in the home*, which resulted in the children watching more TV overall to escape the unpleasantness of real life. And because they watched more TV, they watched more violent TV as well.
Violent TV shows had nothing to do with them becoming violent. It just happened to be accidentally correlated with a violent, abusive home life, and the 'researchers' (I use the term loosely, since it's clear they had an agenda) didn't bother to look more closely at the situation since their 'findings' supported the view that they wanted.
BTW, the same thing was done in the '90's re gun deaths, with the conclusion that having a gun in the home was more likely to turn a person in that home into a murderer. Turns out that the gun had nothing to do with it at all; the press were quite eager to publish the first story but not at all interested in giving equal attention to the refutation. Imagine that....
Max
Alias. Jennifer Garner, mmmm....
Stargate. Amanda Tapping, mmmm....
And as bad as it is, record and fast-forward through "Smallville" for, of course, the scenes with Kristin Kreuk. Mmmm....
Yep, there is *some* good TV out there.
Max
...results in more porn I'm all for it. You can never have too much porn.
Max
This assumes that the marketing reps - er, that is, 'speakers' - at most of these trade shows can find their ass with both hands.
In many cases they can't, and what they have to say isn't of any real value - except to sell a product of course. On the brighter side it's fairly easy to spot the fools; they're almost always enamored of the latest industry buzzwords, and use them as if they thought they were magic charms imparting knowledge where none existed before.
Max
Why would someone purchase something if they didn't agree that the price made it worth their while?
Because the item is thought to be needed (whether it is or not) and there is no competitive alternative.
If you're having trouble with the concept, imagine if there were only one car manufacturer in the entire world, and the prices they set for their product were commonly thought to be exorbitant. Now, very few people actually *need* a car, but the perception is that it's necessary - and it's certainly far more convenient to own one than not. So, whether the price is deemed to be fair is irrelevant; people will buy one anyway.
The same concept applies to any product, including software. And you're right, this isn't rocket science.
Max
To me, a "fair" price is one that is mutually agreeable.
And a lot don't. Purchase does not imply agreement with pricing in a monopoly market.
Basic Econ 101.
Max
Of course MS is part of the problem. Perhaps even one of the primary causes of it. Saying that the sole responsibility for the current situation lies entirely with copyright law is just plain moronic. Get off the apologia train and go back to working in your cubicle in Redmond, Borgie.
MS practices are, however, a good reason to avoid MS products and use Linux instead. No horseshit whatsoever about licensing, cpus, etc.
Max
At what point do you stop and say; "Yes, it is better to trample on the rights of these few rather than trampling on the rights of the many" ?
You've got a funny idea of what 'rights' are. Essentially you seem to think you have the right to dictate how others live their lives even if it does no harm to you or your neighbors.
And that's precisely what the Constitution tries to prevent. If it doesn't harm folks or their property, then you need to fuck off and mind your own business. And I do mean 'fuck off, and mind your own business'.
While you're at it, cut the crap on kiddie porn and slavery, and whatever other knee-jerk argument you think will turn the tide of opinion in your favor. The Constitution doesn't recognize slavery (harm to others) or pedophilia (harm to others) as a right. Even someone as dull as yourself should be able to figure that one out.
As for smoking dope, go ahead. Maybe you'll end up dying early before you can pollute the gene pool with offspring. Works for me.
Max
I guess reading comprehension is something you flunked in school. Try looking up the word 'many' and see if that equates with the words 'all' or 'every'
Moron.
Max
The majority selects the government. The government enforces the will of them.
Which is why a Constitution is needed: so that the minority can tell the majority to fuck off and mind its own business.
Without that, all you have is another form of dictatorship.
Max
The battle cry of the extremist right is "for the chilllllddreen!"
The battle cry of the extremist left is "for the greater good!"
Both sides are fanatical loons and both want the exact same thing: to control what YOU can and cannot do. Their supposed differences are nothing more than trivial details.
Max
People seem to want the government and other organizations to take care of them and take care of their children.
More importantly, they want the government to deal with their neighbors as well, in much the same fashion as the original Puritan colonies did. That is, "do things according to my moral code or I'll get the government to beat your ass."
The Constitution is of little concern to many Americans. They're far more invested in oppressing the people around them to confirm that they have the power to control their environment. Rights interfere with those activities, and because the Constitution is about rights it's an impediment to their goal to exercise power. The fact that such a view will come back to bite them in the ass is of little concern as they're sure that *they* will never become the target - since, of course *they* are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.
Max
You'll never win this argument. Slashdot is full of greenies who'll deliberately ignore anything remotely close to a 'fact' if doing so will give them the opportunity to whine about how 'everyone' (meaning 'everyone but my intellectually superior self') is 'ruining the environment'.
The greenies who make an appearance here are, for the most part, party-liners and therefore fucking idiots without the intellectual capacity to even analyze the argument in question - assuming it were possible for them to do so in a rational, non-partisan way. Which, in my experience, is completely beyond the abilities of just about anyone who proudly wears the label 'environmentalist'.
Max
For Jews, losing 6,000,000 people, a vast majority of the population of Jews living in Europe, has put many of them on the defensive.
Hitler managed to gas and kill 13,000,000 people. Six million of those were Jews, another one million were assorted 'undesirable' Eastern Europeans (many of them commonly known as 'gypsies'), and the remaining six million were Poles.
Yes, that's right - just as many Poles died in the camps as Jews. Yet, strangely enough, I don't hear the Poles going on and on about how their grandparents suffered so in WW2, nor that they should be compensated extraordinary sums of money for said suffering, nor do they claim a moral high ground because of that suffering and mention it any time anyone ever disagrees with them.
So, if you measure righteousness in terms of body count, the Poles are neck-and-neck with the Jews re the death camps. Why then aren't the Poles given the same slack as the Jews, and why aren't the Poles eager to mention this fact whenever someone says something they disagree with?
Of course, the mere fact that I mentioned this historical tidbit will no doubt get me labeled as an anti-Semite....
Max
...yet another fucking moron advocating even *more* government control of my life. Talk about striving for a command economy and government dictation in how I'll run my life; the hypocrisy of his absurd statement apparently didn't occur to him before he rushed off to print.
I don't need more laws, thank you. And with those laws another bunch of fucking idiots trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my life.
Max
most of the English speaking world.
Most of the English-speaking world speaks American English, not British English, contrary to what a few Brits wish were true.
Max
...American schools were teaching crap. Looks like there's at least one country in the world where the school system sucks even more than our own.
Max
'Script kiddie' and 'culture' are a contradiction in terms. It makes about as much sense putting together the words 'Microsoft' and 'security'.
Max
...and how long before the government collects data identifying the songs you listen to and correlating that with political leanings? "Oh, that person listens to Ani DiFranco - must be an anarchist or communist. Better tap their phone."
Max
...cue the arrogant little pricks who will jump up to exclaim "yeah, but 99% of it is shit - except for my brilliant prose, of course."
Douche bags, start your engines! Time to bare your bloated egos for all to see!
Max
The real question is, how much of the content is even worth existing?
Not the comment above, that's for certain.
Max
Usability? I've switched machines over to Linux running KDE with standard apps like OpenOffice and folks have actually believed I just put a 'new' version of Windows on their machine with a custom skin! The similarities between apps are so great they've been up and running in no time, with little help from yours truly. All the while believing that they're using Windows.
Perhaps the secret to 'usability' lies in what the customer thinks, and not minor contrasts in GUI and organization. If the customer believes that what he or she is using is the same ol' same ol', then they seem to be far more likely to adapt than if they're convinced that the new thing is completely alien. It might just be, when all is said and done, that at this point in the game the problem with 'usability' lies entirely in the mind-set of the customer and not with the software proper.
Max
Capitalism says man is not benign - man is malign. He will want ownership.
What a crock of socialist shit. Capitalism makes no judgements on the moral condition of human beings; it simply assumes that they primarily motivated from self-interest.
There is nothing 'malign' or evil about self-interest. Neither is there anything inherently good about a lack of self-interest.
Max
In almost any other country, a man who has sacrificed his earning potential to pursue a larger cause is revered.
A great many other countries are socialist backwaters interested only in the Borg-like acceptance of the idea that wealth is evil. This is a prime exampel of 'postage stamp' thinking, expressed by a bunch of fucking idiots whose sole goal is to punish everyone who's able to accumulate more wealth than they are. Everyone's equal in a socialism, so long as they're all equal with the lowest common denominator.
Max
If I write a book containing I ideas, I cannot copyright the ideas - at least in a logical, rational world. I can, however, copyright the book, and charge you for copies of it. To tell me that I must provide my book for free is nothing short of hare-brained socialist twaddle.
A world that allows copyrights on ideas is one founded upon insane assumptions; a world that allows copyrights on things - books, programs, paintings, whatever - is a perfectly rational one, and a splendid example of capitalism. The problem doesn't lie in the copyright of things, it lies in the fact that the law - and those who profit by it - now regard 'ideas' as 'things' as well.
Max