And, when the government comes up to our friendly neighborhood monopoly and says, "We know you have all this information on Mr. X. Please kindly hand it all over to us. Now." What will you be saying then?
Again, I understand your concerns. But my point about it not being the gov't was taht it is not mandatory for you to use new Windows BLAHBLAH, unlike things like national id, etc.
I happen to think that part of the law is bad. Moreover, it should be rewritten with respect to software. Nowadays if you are giving stuff for free to drive competitors out of business and than jack up the prices, it's not like there are no alternatives. There's still opensource, gnu, etc.
There are no free cars, and nobody would build them, so same rules should not apply for a car or for software monopoly.
All this stuff can be accomplished with add-on application software.
There is no reason to include a phone book feature into a cell phone. It can be accomplished by purchasing (or even getting for free) add-on pen and notebook.
Yes, but why would Joe User want to go the extra step, when Microsoft already provides it? Because you don't like it? Because it creates a monopoly?
Fight monopoly's strong-arm tactics and licensing agreements. But why technological advances, such as new useful features, should automatically be bad, though they may advance monopoly.
Okay, I agree with privacy weenies about gov't policies, and companies trading info behind our backs and stuff like that.
But this is not the government. Don't use the damn Longhorn if you are concerned, and let others give up their privacy if they want to.
There's been many a cry: "Just because you agree to give up privacy for safety/convenience, don't make me give up mine." Well, ok! Nobody's making you!
remember cleaning up my credit reports a few years back and being astounded by the ammount of innaccurate data they had managed to cobble together. They had no idea where I currently lived or worked, or even how I spell my name.
As the SNL sketch put it, "We don't care, we don't have to." Why would they care to get it right. Just because this info is used to deny you credit, banks wouldn't pay any less for using it.
This means that once someone gets a hold of my biometric data, that there is nothing I can do but receive spam, sales calls, and god knows what else FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE!!!
Addressed to where? Directly to your brain, localized via GPS based solely on your biometrics?
I may disagree with what a man says, but I will give up my life for his right to say it
While I pretty much agree with the statement, isn't it time overused quotes get modded down automatically (this, and the Franklin's "liberty vs. safety" comes to mind). Everyone knows them, they are not adding ANYTHING to the discussion.
A quote from a famous person is not a substitute for your own argument. It hardly is an argument in itself. Of course, it's usually from someone whose way with words is much better than that of the average/. weenie, but try, ok?
First, just because a country calls it a RIGHT, doesn't mean it is, or should be.
At least this way there's no confusion about what is a right. OTherwise, what is it? You say X is a right, somehow, I say "no, it isn't". This argument is endless.
But be prepared: those movies are like painted pictures with very long shots and lot of symbols
Stalker actually has a lot of dialogue, kind of like a play (well, there are only 3 characters), so even if you are not the one to appreciate the Tarkovsky's visuals, you can ponder the philosophy of the dialogue.
For summer easy reading I would recommend also all Lem's short stories spread in several books
A lot of them, if translated well, are hysterically funny.
the movie left me very disappointed...partly because the images I had formed in my imagination were completely different from those in the film
This is a frequent source of disappointment. But isn't it actually better? You got your own images, and now you got another vision from the director.
A film can be an illustration, and it's nice, (like LOTR, say) but when the filmmaker is a real artist he reinterprets the original work with his own vision. You then get 2 for the price of 1, as it were.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I understand your concerns. But my point about it not being the gov't was taht it is not mandatory for you to use new Windows BLAHBLAH,
unlike things like national id, etc.
I happen to think that part of the law is
bad. Moreover, it should be rewritten with respect to software. Nowadays if you are giving stuff for free to drive competitors out of business and than jack up the prices,
it's not like there are no alternatives. There's
still opensource, gnu, etc.
There are no free cars, and nobody would build
them, so same rules should not apply for a car or
for software monopoly.
There is no reason to include a phone book feature into a cell phone. It can be accomplished by purchasing (or even getting for free) add-on pen and notebook.
Yes, but why would Joe User want to go the extra step, when Microsoft already provides it? Because you don't like it? Because it creates a monopoly?
Fight monopoly's strong-arm tactics and licensing agreements. But why technological advances, such as new useful features, should automatically be
bad, though they may advance monopoly.
Okay, I agree with privacy weenies about gov't policies, and companies trading info behind our backs and stuff like that.
But this is not the government. Don't use the damn Longhorn if you are concerned, and let others give up their privacy if they want to.
There's been many a cry: "Just because you agree to give up privacy for safety/convenience,
don't make me give up mine." Well, ok! Nobody's
making you!
And your friendly family grocer will probably have more things to say about you than rows of data in a supermarket's computer.
As the SNL sketch put it, "We don't care, we don't have to." Why would they care to get it right. Just because this info is used to deny you credit, banks wouldn't pay any less for using it.
Authorities, my foot. It was really commissioned for marketing purposes.
Mohammed Atta, it looks like you need this complete breakfast before your flight.
A subtle point: a crime is a violation of the law. So if by a single act you violated 2 laws, you committed 2 crimes, and you can be tried for each.
To continue the syllogism:
- Congress, apparently, appeals to most Americans.
- Therefore, most Americans are not rational people.
Makes sense, actually.
Addressed to where? Directly to your brain,
localized via GPS based solely on your
biometrics?
Really, if you have had it - don't watch
them.
Do you want your Mom to see you
having sex? If the answer is no, perhaps
you'd be better off without it.
Sure, Vint Cerf is a chump. And you're the
unrecognized genius.
I got burned myself after some idiot bought
me to build his computer.
- Motherboard.
See, US currency does not have to be interesting.
Already most people are interested in it.
So there are people who really care about this?
While I pretty much agree with the statement, isn't it time overused quotes get modded down
automatically (this, and the Franklin's
"liberty vs. safety" comes to mind). Everyone
knows them, they are not adding ANYTHING
to the discussion.
A quote from a famous person is not a substitute
for your own argument. It hardly is an argument
in itself. Of course, it's usually from someone
whose way with words is much better than that of the average
Arguably there would be much less harm if
societal attitudes towards sex, children,
sex and children, etc., were changed.
So in this way, religion has caused, and still is,
a lot of psychological harm to individuals.
At least this way there's no confusion
about what is a right. OTherwise, what is
it? You say X is a right, somehow, I say "no,
it isn't". This argument is endless.
But most of it (just like most of any other
mass-produced lit. or music or whatever) is
crap.
Read some Robert Anton Wilson.
Hundreds of cable and satellite channels,
comfortable modern housing, McDs and shopping malls? This is enough for most people, obviously.
Stalker actually has a lot of dialogue, kind
of like a play (well, there are only 3
characters), so even if you are not the one
to appreciate the Tarkovsky's visuals, you can
ponder the philosophy of the dialogue.
For summer easy reading I would recommend also all Lem's short stories spread in several books
A lot of them, if translated well, are hysterically funny.
This is a frequent source of disappointment. But isn't it actually better? You got your own images,
and now you got another vision from the director.
A film can be an illustration, and it's nice,
(like LOTR, say) but when the filmmaker is a real
artist he reinterprets the original work with his
own vision. You then get 2 for the price of 1,
as it were.
Another one of the 2-3 is Stalker, by the
same director.