I don't have a soul so I don't have to prove it. You are the one that believes I have a soul, not me. As for being alive, how do you know this. Maybe this is an automated response with some type of AI. You really don't know. I'm not but it is possible. Anyways, how do you expect me to prove it. Send my heart beat through the internet. Really. You have to assume I'm alive because AI is not that great and if I was dead, I wouldn't be talking to you. Since, you also do not have the intellect to understand this, you are begging the question. Never beg the question. That is all.
I don't have a soul. So what's the big deal. When I die, I am not going to heaven or hell or anyplace inbetween. When I die I will end up in a Casket which will eventually leak and the worms will finish me off. The cycle of life continues.
Bah... Majority Tyranny. "Best for the people" does not just mean what I think is best for the majority. No matter how much I want to shoot all the tree huggers out their, I'm not going to do it because they still pay taxes. They are people too. Just not ones I like particularly to deal with. If I'm in power, I'm still benefitting from their existence and so I'm going to meet the needs of the most people as possible in order to gain more power. If I'm not benefitting or have no chance of benefitting from them in the future, I'm probably going to shove them in a little camp in Antartica and let them freeze to death. This is not ethical. This is government so you can benefit yourself. So, if I kill 300 Americans because they have the plague with no chance of cure and it will kill 50,000,000 people if I don't kill them, do you think that is ethical. No. Is it for the good of the people. Probably(considering short-term alternative.)
When I'm talking about laws that are "good for the people", I'm not referring to Ethics. I'm talking about Theocracry(where the morale code is the law code) and non-theocratic government where you make laws because someone thinks it is needed. Big difference. In a theocracy, if someone drops a $20 bill on the ground, you get your hand cut off because you are "stealing." Where as, in other governments, you found the money fair and square.
Anyways, my point is, I'm trying to separate Ethics and Law. Their is a difference.
Oh please, do yourself a favor, get off the ethics issue. Believe whatever you want, I don't care that you believe we shouldn't do this. This is beside the point. The problem is, you are argueing based on Ethics and HELLO, not a single person here is going to have their mind changed over an ethical arguement. If you are going to argue against it, find a scientific reason not "they are living humans with a soul and should not be killed." arguement. No one with a brain is going to listen. End of story.
As you might've noticed by this post, I don't use the preview button.
I'm not lying. I don't believe in ethics and it still stands.
If you poured boiling water on my hand, I would kick your butt. It is a legal issue, not an ethical issue. Should you hurt other tax paying citizens.
Nazis were not evil. They knew exactly what they wanted and went for it. If your economy was in the sh*t, you would do whatever you could to get out of it. If it meant killing Millions of Jews just so you can give your people hope and get them to work, it was probably worth it. The nazis were not evil, they were just looking for a way out and they found one. It is not like Genocide hasn't occured before, look at the well unknown Armenian genocide.
Look up theology. I am not a theologist. I don't believe in ethics. I believe that laws should be based on not what is right and wrong but what is best for the people. Big difference. You don't understand this and not worth my time either.
You are missing the point. The age old question revised: Should we use Genocide or population control methods in places like Ethiopia where their is an extreme overpopulation allowing fewer people to live a happy life with food and money instead having thousands live wretched lives, starving, without hope of recovering.
It's sorta the same deal here. Leaving ethics out of this, this could be really beneficial. You can injured in a car wreck, you lose your eye, you get a new one. The embryotic cells they are using are as much alive as that fungus you find slowly digesting rock. They haven't developed any mental capacity yet and thus, do not have a choice in the matter.
The biggest problem with this research is the overpopulation question. We don't want it. If you increase the length of people's lives in a limited size planet, you have to slow growth.
Their is also the question of Evil. How do you define it besides you know it when you see it? If I'm getting an arm back because of the control of four or five cells, I'm going to be happy. I don't care about what the Embryo would've become. The embryo would've probably just ended up in the garbage if research wasn't being done on it.
I just don't see your point. Maybe we are living on two different worlds.
Intelligence wins out but only partly. Stem cells are not going to be research to their full extent. Only enough so Bush can say he is staying alive but not so much that he can go against his ethical beliefs. Sucks for us.
I haven't bought a computer game from Dynamix in years. Sierra is not the best software compnay in the world but it is ok. Oh well. I don't think very many people are going to miss them.
So, she is saying we should just let "God" handle everything. God will give us Electricity and Nuclear Bombs and Space Ships, and X-Boxes when he deems necessary. God will research the artificial heart and magically and surgically implant it into another human being. God will contact Aliens for us and invent the computer, the car, and the TV. God will give us food and prevent us from ever getting sick.
Grow up people. If we don't do things ourselves, they'll never get done. We don't want to go back in the dark ages. We are better off now then we've ever been.
I hate GW Bush but I hate Al Gore even more. Who are you going to vote for? Besides, your arguement for the crime difference goes with speculation. Mr. Gore aimed for the Urbanalities while GW Bush aimed for everybody who hated Al Gore. So, naturally, Bush counties are going to have a lower Crime rate than Gore counties(goes with socialism, the more people you put in a smaller area, the more likely they are to kill each other.)
Texas does not rule the world and would die Economically if left to its own.
So to, with gasoline and the price of a barrel of oil. The skyrocketting prices earlier this summer, and last summer, were not tied to oil at all. You are partly right. OPEC generally controls oil prices. The United States is big enough to oppose inflation on Oil Prices. When prices go up, the US forces higher standards on Cars and industries that make them use less Oil to accomplish the same task and the Capitalist invest more money on alternative fuel sources like Methanol or converting coal to oil. We also drill more oil to lower prices. Because of this, we don't have two and three dollars per gallon of gasoline like in Europe. The distribution cost is static(it cost $2 to move Oil from X to Y no matter what the price of oil is.) Oil taxes are generally static. Capitalist prices are dynamic. OPEC prices are dynamic. So, if you can account the OPEC change in price + Capitalist change in price + Distribution Cost + taxes - Change in cost due to regulation, you can estimate how much a gallon of gas will cost tomorrow.
Anyways, my point is, the Static costs(distribution + taxes) costs the most but after that, it is what OPEC and Oil companies want to charge and can get away with it minus how much regulation can reduce the prices. We really don't care about static costs and the dynamic costs are the reason why the prices skyrocketed.
It's not actually that bad as it sounds. The normal/"average" user is not likely to download an MP3 or have the bandwidth to do so. If they're going to download an MP3 and burn it to a CD, most of them aren't likely to buy the CD in the first place.
General rule is, if they can do it, someone will do it. If it is on the back of an ftp site or on Napster they will find a way.
I'll give you this, their are plenty of free loaders. I'm one of them and most of my friends are too. It goes with the territory when you are a poor college student. If you have the money, you are more likely to buy the good copy because it is generally of better quality, looks more impressive, and wastes less of your time. Remember, time is money.
What people don't understand is that free loading actually expands the market. People can try before they buy in a much more comfortable location(via not in the corner of EB with a joystick and thousands people walking by you.) People who would have never entered the market in the first place are now in it and more likely to buy something later from that market when they have the money or when it fits their needs(look at the number of Unix/Linux users in 1989 vs. today.) Most "professionals", via businesses, don't pirate or download from the internet because it looks really bad. The market settles itself by the record companies raising prices because of those that "would've bought it but since they found it on the internet, didn't."
The entire thing works itself out in the end unless their is overpirating which is what you are getting at. I'm not sure their is overpirating in the music industry. Not that many people have CD burners and have the bandwidth to download 20+ megs of files and have the time to actually burn them.
Anyways, my point is that it is not really "fair use" but it has some benefits. It expands the market, gives the try before you buy feeling, and is actually only abused by a small percentage of the population. I don't see this as a major problem on one side because I don't see it as overpirating and a little pirating here and their never hurt anybody. The record companies are trying to prevent overpirating and I think that is really the issue.
No, we are paying for a name. If you didn't want a pretty cover in a nice 30c Cd case, you wouldn't be their. From that name, comes Graphic designers and their magical $200 drawings that are nice but not needed. Recording does add a small percentage but still, after all is said and done, over 70% is still profit. Recording media is not expensive. My boss actually records CDs and has them published. He pays one dollar per CD with a pretty cover and everything. He is paying more then a major studio would pay. Recording studios, well that takes money and can be evenly distributed over several 1000 CDs and eventually it dwindles down to nothing. So you see, you know nothing about economics are simply a troll.
It certainly doesn't take my "rights" away to steal their work. This is not a war against the artist, they are just casualties, it is a war against the record and labeling companies that make most of the profit. It costs like $.33 to buy a CD and what $.10 of labor and electricity to stamp it. What is the CD selling for, what, $19.99 retail with record companies sell it for $14.99. The artist is making, what, only 5% of the record company sell ~ $.72 per CD. Who do you think war is going to be declared first on?
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. If you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to copy it.
I do see a problem when you can't copy it and still want a backup copy of it. Like those old NES games, the only real way to copy it is to rip out the chip and use some special hardware to convert the data on it to a digital file on a computer. Not everybody has the capability of doing this. So, should I be punished and not be able to play NES games that bought 12 years ago because my Nintendo no longer works? I don't think so. I still paid for it and should still be able to keep a backup copy of it. Same deal here. Not everybody has the ability or the time to rip CDDA and convert it to wave files just so they can convert it to MP3s in bulk. They shouldn't be punished or not be able to have a backup copy when their CD could get scratched or burned or something any minute. The illegal stuff, well that is iffy and their is really no way to prevent that completely.
The economy won't stay in the rut forever. Eventually enough dot-coms will drop out of the market so that the remaining can actually make a profit. The supreme court is the king of the US and, in the end, everything will turn out A-Ok. So get over it. Everything will turn out fine. We are not suddenly going to go back into the great depression with all the dot-coms dying at once and the courts taking away our freedom of speech, press, etc. Leave it at that.
Why aren't major US corporation having them arrested by Interpol while thay are on vacation on the Riviera?
Because the people who run major US corporations don't have balls... Actually, it is because US companies don't rule the world and really don't have the power to stop international pirates. Plus, you actually have to have evidence before ou arrest somebody and it is hard to get a warrant so you can collect evidence overseas. If you get evidence without reasoning of getting evidence(like getting lucky and knocking on the right door), you can't really use that evidence. The only place companies could stop them is if they press them in the US(not likely) and are exporting them. They can get them as they try to export them. So you see, it is really quite complex for a US company to prevent piracy overseas and I'm sure Interpol is going to waste their precious time arresting a local Mob boss. They have bigger fish to fry then pirates.
1) I completely agree. He's Russian. Export him back to Russia. We don't want him.
2) You should be able to copy things you own and the devices to do this should be legal as long as the media is not distributed if it is copywrited(naturally). Of course, this will always be abused by somebody but it is small enough to be acceptable.
3) I agree also. It doesn't matter if I should President Bush in the head with a 20 guage or run him over with a bus, it's still murder.
Agreed here too. Code is a form of free speech but it is also a tool and when it violates other peoples rights or damages other peoples property such as writing a virus that flips every other 1 on the harddrive to zero, it should be prosecuted for obstruction.
5) The DMCA does "suck" as you put it so well. Don't get me wrong, they've did some good things but this doesn't look good for anybody but the publishers. Whatever happened to power to the people. No, now its power to the government and large corporations.
Nintendo was once a great company and now they suck. End of story. PS2 would've did much better if they actually had enough consoles. Personally, I would've delayed the launch until I had atleast 3/4 of what would be initially demanded for. ----
I thought JP3 was better then the second Jurassic Park. It was funny, horrific, and all the things that make a good movie. It certainly wasn't the Matrix but it was good.:) ----
OK, this is interesting. I only call people retarded when they really desrve it. Besides, you started it. ----
Re:Umm.. am i missing something? Yes!
on
Share The Pi!
·
· Score: 1
The digits of PI are relatively random where 1.2112211122211112222.... have a relatively predictable pattern in decimal. I know PI is not a random number but it's decimal places are random and in the long run should have equal displacement of each number. ----
So I'm inconsistent, I really don't care. Unless you are going to talk to me in person, I really don't care. What are you going to do, track down my DHCP IP address. Does/. log them? Anybody know? Anyways, if I wanted to be consistent and I actually cared and wasn't so bored to actually reply, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? As for "Dude, Where's my Car", I haven't seen it. As for MP3s, I'll listen to them in a very rare while when I'm really bored. Another thing, I'm much nicer when I'm not replying to an Annonymous coward. Try getting a user account. We could discuss the theory of relativity all day but it is really getting old and what is this, my thirtieth post on my subject. Another thing, it is a public forum, if people can't handle some curse words(as on South Park "words of curse", oh my god, you killed Kenny, you bastard) then they shouldn't be here.
Anyways, this forum has been the longest one I've ever replied to. Do you really want to know the truth about me? Here it goes. I like to piss people off. I like saying things to get responses. I like to argue. I don't care if I'm right or not or if the other person is right or not(I'm still going to dispute Einstein's theory of relativity because it really assumes too much how things are(as I said in an earlier post, the math might be right that explains a phenomenon within a specified range but the reasoning behind it still might be wrong)) I just like to argue. I'm sorry for calling you stupid, I don't know if your stupid or not. If you can even understand Einstein's theory of relativity, you must have atleast an IQ of 120 which is better then most people. Anyways, argueing is fun, don't you agree? I love to argue. I'll go down a path that I know is completely wrong if I can argue it and if asked a question against myself, I would argue it too. I just enjoy it that much. I'm really quite intelligent when it comes down to it. I haven't got where I've gotten in life by being stupid(in other words, I didn't join the Army.)
The main points I have against the theory of relativity include:
1) Is their anything really special about the velocity of light.
2) Why would relativity at the speed of light change when the relativity below the speed of light is normal.
3) The space-time continuum problem. Does time exist. In other words, can we make time non-linear. I have yet to see proof of this.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a soul so I don't have to prove it. You are the one that believes I have a soul, not me. As for being alive, how do you know this. Maybe this is an automated response with some type of AI. You really don't know. I'm not but it is possible. Anyways, how do you expect me to prove it. Send my heart beat through the internet. Really. You have to assume I'm alive because AI is not that great and if I was dead, I wouldn't be talking to you. Since, you also do not have the intellect to understand this, you are begging the question. Never beg the question. That is all.
I don't have a soul. So what's the big deal. When I die, I am not going to heaven or hell or anyplace inbetween. When I die I will end up in a Casket which will eventually leak and the worms will finish me off. The cycle of life continues.
Bah ... Majority Tyranny. "Best for the people" does not just mean what I think is best for the majority. No matter how much I want to shoot all the tree huggers out their, I'm not going to do it because they still pay taxes. They are people too. Just not ones I like particularly to deal with. If I'm in power, I'm still benefitting from their existence and so I'm going to meet the needs of the most people as possible in order to gain more power. If I'm not benefitting or have no chance of benefitting from them in the future, I'm probably going to shove them in a little camp in Antartica and let them freeze to death. This is not ethical. This is government so you can benefit yourself. So, if I kill 300 Americans because they have the plague with no chance of cure and it will kill 50,000,000 people if I don't kill them, do you think that is ethical. No. Is it for the good of the people. Probably(considering short-term alternative.)
When I'm talking about laws that are "good for the people", I'm not referring to Ethics. I'm talking about Theocracry(where the morale code is the law code) and non-theocratic government where you make laws because someone thinks it is needed. Big difference. In a theocracy, if someone drops a $20 bill on the ground, you get your hand cut off because you are "stealing." Where as, in other governments, you found the money fair and square.
Anyways, my point is, I'm trying to separate Ethics and Law. Their is a difference.
Oh please, do yourself a favor, get off the ethics issue. Believe whatever you want, I don't care that you believe we shouldn't do this. This is beside the point. The problem is, you are argueing based on Ethics and HELLO, not a single person here is going to have their mind changed over an ethical arguement. If you are going to argue against it, find a scientific reason not "they are living humans with a soul and should not be killed." arguement. No one with a brain is going to listen. End of story.
As you might've noticed by this post, I don't use the preview button.
I'm not lying. I don't believe in ethics and it still stands.
If you poured boiling water on my hand, I would kick your butt. It is a legal issue, not an ethical issue. Should you hurt other tax paying citizens.
Nazis were not evil. They knew exactly what they wanted and went for it. If your economy was in the sh*t, you would do whatever you could to get out of it. If it meant killing Millions of Jews just so you can give your people hope and get them to work, it was probably worth it. The nazis were not evil, they were just looking for a way out and they found one. It is not like Genocide hasn't occured before, look at the well unknown Armenian genocide.
Look up theology. I am not a theologist. I don't believe in ethics. I believe that laws should be based on not what is right and wrong but what is best for the people. Big difference. You don't understand this and not worth my time either.
For the record, I don't believe in ethics.
You are missing the point. The age old question revised: Should we use Genocide or population control methods in places like Ethiopia where their is an extreme overpopulation allowing fewer people to live a happy life with food and money instead having thousands live wretched lives, starving, without hope of recovering.
It's sorta the same deal here. Leaving ethics out of this, this could be really beneficial. You can injured in a car wreck, you lose your eye, you get a new one. The embryotic cells they are using are as much alive as that fungus you find slowly digesting rock. They haven't developed any mental capacity yet and thus, do not have a choice in the matter.
The biggest problem with this research is the overpopulation question. We don't want it. If you increase the length of people's lives in a limited size planet, you have to slow growth.
Their is also the question of Evil. How do you define it besides you know it when you see it? If I'm getting an arm back because of the control of four or five cells, I'm going to be happy. I don't care about what the Embryo would've become. The embryo would've probably just ended up in the garbage if research wasn't being done on it.
I just don't see your point. Maybe we are living on two different worlds.
I wonder how long this one will last?
Intelligence wins out but only partly. Stem cells are not going to be research to their full extent. Only enough so Bush can say he is staying alive but not so much that he can go against his ethical beliefs. Sucks for us.
I haven't bought a computer game from Dynamix in years. Sierra is not the best software compnay in the world but it is ok. Oh well. I don't think very many people are going to miss them.
So, she is saying we should just let "God" handle everything. God will give us Electricity and Nuclear Bombs and Space Ships, and X-Boxes when he deems necessary. God will research the artificial heart and magically and surgically implant it into another human being. God will contact Aliens for us and invent the computer, the car, and the TV. God will give us food and prevent us from ever getting sick.
Grow up people. If we don't do things ourselves, they'll never get done. We don't want to go back in the dark ages. We are better off now then we've ever been.
I hate GW Bush but I hate Al Gore even more. Who are you going to vote for? Besides, your arguement for the crime difference goes with speculation. Mr. Gore aimed for the Urbanalities while GW Bush aimed for everybody who hated Al Gore. So, naturally, Bush counties are going to have a lower Crime rate than Gore counties(goes with socialism, the more people you put in a smaller area, the more likely they are to kill each other.)
Texas does not rule the world and would die Economically if left to its own.
So to, with gasoline and the price of a barrel of oil. The skyrocketting prices earlier this summer, and last summer, were not tied to oil at all. You are partly right. OPEC generally controls oil prices. The United States is big enough to oppose inflation on Oil Prices. When prices go up, the US forces higher standards on Cars and industries that make them use less Oil to accomplish the same task and the Capitalist invest more money on alternative fuel sources like Methanol or converting coal to oil. We also drill more oil to lower prices. Because of this, we don't have two and three dollars per gallon of gasoline like in Europe. The distribution cost is static(it cost $2 to move Oil from X to Y no matter what the price of oil is.) Oil taxes are generally static. Capitalist prices are dynamic. OPEC prices are dynamic. So, if you can account the OPEC change in price + Capitalist change in price + Distribution Cost + taxes - Change in cost due to regulation, you can estimate how much a gallon of gas will cost tomorrow.
Anyways, my point is, the Static costs(distribution + taxes) costs the most but after that, it is what OPEC and Oil companies want to charge and can get away with it minus how much regulation can reduce the prices. We really don't care about static costs and the dynamic costs are the reason why the prices skyrocketed.
It's not actually that bad as it sounds. The normal/"average" user is not likely to download an MP3 or have the bandwidth to do so. If they're going to download an MP3 and burn it to a CD, most of them aren't likely to buy the CD in the first place.
General rule is, if they can do it, someone will do it. If it is on the back of an ftp site or on Napster they will find a way.
I'll give you this, their are plenty of free loaders. I'm one of them and most of my friends are too. It goes with the territory when you are a poor college student. If you have the money, you are more likely to buy the good copy because it is generally of better quality, looks more impressive, and wastes less of your time. Remember, time is money.
What people don't understand is that free loading actually expands the market. People can try before they buy in a much more comfortable location(via not in the corner of EB with a joystick and thousands people walking by you.) People who would have never entered the market in the first place are now in it and more likely to buy something later from that market when they have the money or when it fits their needs(look at the number of Unix/Linux users in 1989 vs. today.) Most "professionals", via businesses, don't pirate or download from the internet because it looks really bad. The market settles itself by the record companies raising prices because of those that "would've bought it but since they found it on the internet, didn't."
The entire thing works itself out in the end unless their is overpirating which is what you are getting at. I'm not sure their is overpirating in the music industry. Not that many people have CD burners and have the bandwidth to download 20+ megs of files and have the time to actually burn them.
Anyways, my point is that it is not really "fair use" but it has some benefits. It expands the market, gives the try before you buy feeling, and is actually only abused by a small percentage of the population. I don't see this as a major problem on one side because I don't see it as overpirating and a little pirating here and their never hurt anybody. The record companies are trying to prevent overpirating and I think that is really the issue.
No, we are paying for a name. If you didn't want a pretty cover in a nice 30c Cd case, you wouldn't be their. From that name, comes Graphic designers and their magical $200 drawings that are nice but not needed. Recording does add a small percentage but still, after all is said and done, over 70% is still profit. Recording media is not expensive. My boss actually records CDs and has them published. He pays one dollar per CD with a pretty cover and everything. He is paying more then a major studio would pay. Recording studios, well that takes money and can be evenly distributed over several 1000 CDs and eventually it dwindles down to nothing. So you see, you know nothing about economics are simply a troll.
Time to use Ghost Script.
It certainly doesn't take my "rights" away to steal their work. This is not a war against the artist, they are just casualties, it is a war against the record and labeling companies that make most of the profit. It costs like $.33 to buy a CD and what $.10 of labor and electricity to stamp it. What is the CD selling for, what, $19.99 retail with record companies sell it for $14.99. The artist is making, what, only 5% of the record company sell ~ $.72 per CD. Who do you think war is going to be declared first on?
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. If you don't own it, you shouldn't be able to copy it.
I do see a problem when you can't copy it and still want a backup copy of it. Like those old NES games, the only real way to copy it is to rip out the chip and use some special hardware to convert the data on it to a digital file on a computer. Not everybody has the capability of doing this. So, should I be punished and not be able to play NES games that bought 12 years ago because my Nintendo no longer works? I don't think so. I still paid for it and should still be able to keep a backup copy of it. Same deal here. Not everybody has the ability or the time to rip CDDA and convert it to wave files just so they can convert it to MP3s in bulk. They shouldn't be punished or not be able to have a backup copy when their CD could get scratched or burned or something any minute. The illegal stuff, well that is iffy and their is really no way to prevent that completely.
The economy won't stay in the rut forever. Eventually enough dot-coms will drop out of the market so that the remaining can actually make a profit. The supreme court is the king of the US and, in the end, everything will turn out A-Ok. So get over it. Everything will turn out fine. We are not suddenly going to go back into the great depression with all the dot-coms dying at once and the courts taking away our freedom of speech, press, etc. Leave it at that.
Why aren't major US corporation having them arrested by Interpol while thay are on vacation on the Riviera?
Because the people who run major US corporations don't have balls... Actually, it is because US companies don't rule the world and really don't have the power to stop international pirates. Plus, you actually have to have evidence before ou arrest somebody and it is hard to get a warrant so you can collect evidence overseas. If you get evidence without reasoning of getting evidence(like getting lucky and knocking on the right door), you can't really use that evidence. The only place companies could stop them is if they press them in the US(not likely) and are exporting them. They can get them as they try to export them. So you see, it is really quite complex for a US company to prevent piracy overseas and I'm sure Interpol is going to waste their precious time arresting a local Mob boss. They have bigger fish to fry then pirates.
1) I completely agree. He's Russian. Export him back to Russia. We don't want him.
2) You should be able to copy things you own and the devices to do this should be legal as long as the media is not distributed if it is copywrited(naturally). Of course, this will always be abused by somebody but it is small enough to be acceptable.
3) I agree also. It doesn't matter if I should President Bush in the head with a 20 guage or run him over with a bus, it's still murder.
Agreed here too. Code is a form of free speech but it is also a tool and when it violates other peoples rights or damages other peoples property such as writing a virus that flips every other 1 on the harddrive to zero, it should be prosecuted for obstruction.
5) The DMCA does "suck" as you put it so well. Don't get me wrong, they've did some good things but this doesn't look good for anybody but the publishers. Whatever happened to power to the people. No, now its power to the government and large corporations.
Nintendo was once a great company and now they suck. End of story. PS2 would've did much better if they actually had enough consoles. Personally, I would've delayed the launch until I had atleast 3/4 of what would be initially demanded for.
----
I thought JP3 was better then the second Jurassic Park. It was funny, horrific, and all the things that make a good movie. It certainly wasn't the Matrix but it was good. :)
----
OK, this is interesting. I only call people retarded when they really desrve it. Besides, you started it.
----
The digits of PI are relatively random where 1.2112211122211112222.... have a relatively predictable pattern in decimal. I know PI is not a random number but it's decimal places are random and in the long run should have equal displacement of each number.
----
So I'm inconsistent, I really don't care. Unless you are going to talk to me in person, I really don't care. What are you going to do, track down my DHCP IP address. Does /. log them? Anybody know? Anyways, if I wanted to be consistent and I actually cared and wasn't so bored to actually reply, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we? As for "Dude, Where's my Car", I haven't seen it. As for MP3s, I'll listen to them in a very rare while when I'm really bored. Another thing, I'm much nicer when I'm not replying to an Annonymous coward. Try getting a user account. We could discuss the theory of relativity all day but it is really getting old and what is this, my thirtieth post on my subject. Another thing, it is a public forum, if people can't handle some curse words(as on South Park "words of curse", oh my god, you killed Kenny, you bastard) then they shouldn't be here.
Anyways, this forum has been the longest one I've ever replied to. Do you really want to know the truth about me? Here it goes. I like to piss people off. I like saying things to get responses. I like to argue. I don't care if I'm right or not or if the other person is right or not(I'm still going to dispute Einstein's theory of relativity because it really assumes too much how things are(as I said in an earlier post, the math might be right that explains a phenomenon within a specified range but the reasoning behind it still might be wrong)) I just like to argue. I'm sorry for calling you stupid, I don't know if your stupid or not. If you can even understand Einstein's theory of relativity, you must have atleast an IQ of 120 which is better then most people. Anyways, argueing is fun, don't you agree? I love to argue. I'll go down a path that I know is completely wrong if I can argue it and if asked a question against myself, I would argue it too. I just enjoy it that much. I'm really quite intelligent when it comes down to it. I haven't got where I've gotten in life by being stupid(in other words, I didn't join the Army.)
The main points I have against the theory of relativity include:
1) Is their anything really special about the velocity of light.
2) Why would relativity at the speed of light change when the relativity below the speed of light is normal.
3) The space-time continuum problem. Does time exist. In other words, can we make time non-linear. I have yet to see proof of this.
4) The energy->mass->energy conversion problem.
It's been fun but I have to go.
----