Let's see, she doesn't share your life views, which is bad enough when you're trying to make a marriage work. But worse, she doesn't respect nor care about your views.
There are lots of/. fools suggesting that it's not important, and that if you are that "picky" you deserve to be lonely. This isn't the case for a number of reasons:
1) If/when you have kids you'll want to teach them your values. If you and your partner have different values this is harder because either you have to teach two different points of view, and this will confuse the child, or one of you can't pass on your view to your children. If she doesn't even care about or respect your views, good luck with that one. Expect to be in court fighting for custody one day, and perhaps having kids you pay for or can't see. Don't underestimate this. I've seen it fuck over a few aquaintance's lives.
2) If/when times get really tough (and if you're buying CDs, not scrounging for enough food to eat or struggling to stay afloat financially I'd suggest they're not that tough), you end up having to decide what's most important to you. Your values become very important then, and you have to choose between things that you find really important e.g. Do I sell myself out or harm others so I can eat? If your life partner's views are incompatible with yours these tough times will break you, and you'll end up enemies.
3) When times are easier and you're suppose to be having fun, you'll always have that nagging feeling that she doesn't give a shit about what you think or feel. Doesn't sound like she'll want to compromise at all. Welcome to the world of "Lots of her shit, none of mine" when it comes to what you want to do and your spare time.
4) A man is judged by his values and the company he keeps. If your wife is a superficial twit, you look worse, people will think worse of you, and you won't attract the friends and other company you want. Instead you'll attract a lot more vain, shallow people.
If the general masses of/. don't think these things are important I'd like to know what they're smoking.
I recently got engaged. I did mention and we discussed that I don't like diamonds due to the whole conflict diamond thing. My fiancee would have taken sapphires or rubies but in the end she did want diamonds (and hell if we're talking about slave labour all my laptops in the last 8 years have been Dells!;-) so it's not like I've never compromised on a principle - this is the real world after all). In the end, since this was a one off thing, I got her a decent diamond and a more expensive ring than I agreed. But she at least asked where these diamonds came from and though I'm not sure if I believe what she was told she did get some assurance they weren't from conflict mines. (I think they were Canadian). Here's the other thing, though she'd have been disappointed and did buy into the whole engagement ring (and eventually wedding ceremony) thing, she takes my views into consideration every step of the way. If I put my foot down I know I could have gotten a cheaper ring. If I insist on a cheaper ceremony I know she'll still marry me. I know she won't be as happy with it so I'm not going to do that to her, but I couldn't be with her if I thought she was only hanging around while she got what she wanted. That makes all the difference to me.
So you see I'm not saying your values have to be identical. My fiancee's and mine aren't, and few people will ever find that. What you have to have is mutual respect for each other's opinions, and enough common ground to reach a compromise. If never buying music from RIAA related companies is important to you, and she won't even give the idea the time of day, and if that's the trend with all your beliefs I do suggest you consider un-proposing and head for the hills!
No noone is doing science news well without backing by a major organisation. Just like no one is mass producing cars very well without backing from a major organisation. In both cases there's a lot that has to happen behind the scenes before that science show (or car) can be put together. A good science show generally requires a team doing research - and not just library research, though that's required, but going out and talking to scientists. The interviewer also has to build a reputation with the science community to get scientists to agree to interviews and take them seriously.
If you want some college kid giving you their un-informed or one dimensional opinion on current science, you can get that for nearly nothing without any kind of backing. If you want good science journalism you need a team of well trained people each doing their bit to get the facts, get the interviews etc.
Who? What you mean Janeway was meant to be female? Oh!!! Now I get it.
Couldn't tell because she was fugly and sounded like a man playing a woman playing Catherine Hepburn.
You gotta give me points for trying.
p.s. When I first saw Voyager, I deplored it so much that I would refer to the series as Startrek Toilet, as in gone down the (and also because the ship looked like a giant potty when it folded up).
This is getting ridiculous. I used both Blackboard and WebCT as an Astronomy Masters student a couple of years ago. Both were awful and I never did understand why anyone paid money for these solutions when this is one area where open source can easily provide the basic functionality, but...
What's with all the mergers lately? In 3D graphics, Autodesk aquired Discreet (3ds Max, GMax) a while back, and then Alias (Maya) days ago. They then promptly killed the free GMax product which a lot of game developers (both paid and hobby) use. There are also now very few competing products in the 3D market to compete. (Killing GMax is actually quite big news but I haven't been able to get an article on this accepted on/. - These days if it doesn't contain the company names Google or Apple, good luck...)
I thought there was suppose to be some kind of government control to prevent monopolies from springing up. I guess they're too busy with the "war on terrorism" and prosecuting music/movie/software "pirates" to actually police these laws...and there's no money in it!
This is making a fuss about nothing. All these years, the USA have never -- never -- abused its position of the Internet governor.
Yes but it's only recently that you've been doing random searches on your citizens, finger-printing tourists and have had an oil-greedy cowboy running the country. You don't think he'd poison DNS servers???
"As of October 6, 2005, Autodesk will no longer offer Gmax® software as a stand-alone product. If you are interested in other 3D animation, modeling, and rendering applications from Autodesk please check out Autodesk® 3ds Max® software."
I've been trying to post a story on this for 2 days but the/. editors don't seem to think it's news.
This is already affecting people. Knife Edge Software makers of Realflight G3 have been promising a new custom aircraft editor based on GMax for some months now. They've had to announce that they'll be releasing it for 3ds Max instead due to "licensing issues"...issue being GMax is dead.
Here are my rules: 1) If it's standard 4x6, print at a lab. You won't be able to beat the price 2) If it's larger - up to A4, print at home on modest priced photo printer that lets you refill individual tanks, and using cheap photo paper (Where I live Kodak's the cheapest and the quality is good enough for my needs - and I consider myself a serious amateur photographer). 3) If you're likely to be printing A3 or A3+ often it's worth buying an A3 or A3+ photo printer. Since they're considerably more expensive (or were last time I looked), you have to be printing A3 at least an item a month to make it worthwhile. (ie one poster a month). Otherwise find a cheap lab. 4) If you're printing larger than A3 the photos get ridiculously priced. A lab is going to be cheaper but not cheap (unless you are a specialised printing firm). Avoid these.
Actually it's more like saying caviar causes cancer, because people enjoy caviar with their cigars.
I refuse to believe that blowing things and people up with a tiny crosshair on your screen at the level of emmersion we have in games today causes real life violent behaviour.
Killing someone in a game with a gun involved putting the little crosshair or gunsite on the person, pulling the trigger, and watching a small pixelated man unconvincingly yelp in pain then die in one of a handful of predicatable ways. Killing someone with a gun in real life involves seeing the sheer terror in their face (if it's face to face), hearing them screen and squeal in terror, having their blood splattered on you, smelling it, and watching the life drain out of them as they struggle to hold on. If people don't get that this just isn't the same, it's a much deeper problem than any do not sell the game law is going to solve.
A man best known for starring in violent movies that mostly appeal to adolescents signs a bill prohibiting the sale of violent video games to adolescents.
Actually it'd serve better as an example of hypocrisy than irony.
Trust me, utopia will be sucky too, such is the vastness of human desire.
While some minimal level of well being etc. is important to human happiness, that's not the key. The key is that the person perceives their situation to be constantly improving.
For example if you earn $2,000/month or $10,000/month does make a difference to your lifestyle. But a man earning $2,000/month who expects that to be constantly increasing by a few percent in relative terms (keeping in mind inflation etc) is going to be much happier than a man who's use to making $10,000/month but expects that's going to be decreased by a few percent over the next few years.
In simple terms, people like to feel as if their hard work is improving their lives, rather than just maintaining what they have or keeping their head above water.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? I did not say living beyond your means was an excuse for breaking the law. I NEVER said that, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that the punishment was unjustifiably harsh. If you wish to actually argue the point that I was making please reply, otherwise stop pushing your goddamn point - I actually agree with you that copyright infringement is wrong if you'd get the wax out of your ears.
Unlike most lawyers I won't charge you $200/hr for it either.
I don't think the law agrees with you. (Most countries tend to treat copyright material as "property")...and most lemmings jump off cliffs. Should I immitate the lemmings? If the reasonable man on the street has a different definition to property to the legal profession that just shows how out of touch they are. Also don't confuse legal with right/moral. Slavery was a state sanctioned activity in many countries less than 100 years ago. The Jewish holocaust was legal by the rules laid down by the government of the day.
Sure, it is not the same as stealing a loaf of bread, but it is not that far from jumping on a bus without paying the fare
It's a world away from jumping on a bus without paying a fare. That bus uses real tangible fuel - more with an extra person on. That bus must be maintained. etc. etc. You still fail to understand the difference between something you can make a copy of and something you can't. It's a fundamental difference in physical reality, no matter what the legal doctrine or social custom of the day are.
By pirating a movie, you are denying the copyright holder of income that was rightfully theirs (assuming you would have paid money to see the movie)
That's a circular argument. If a person is willing to pay for the movie, they'll go out and do just that. If they're not willing to they will either choose not to watch it (at least until the price, conditions etc. meet their expectations) or they'll choose to break the law and download or otherwise copy the movie. MOST people who pirate things do so because they can't afford to and are living beyond their means, or because they don't think it's worth the price tag, or the legal way to watch it is too damned inconvenient. You assume that most pirates would have paid if it wasn't available for free. From what I can see that just isnt' the case. They'd go without and move on to something else. It's AMAZING to me that people are willing to swallow propaganda so whole heartedly!
Note: I'm not saying piracy is right, but it should be punished less severly than drug trafficing for pity sake!!! How about a $100 fine per movie with a cap for individuals of say $5000? NOT jail time. Not bankruptcy. Not a felony record that means they'll never work legitimately again. Commercialism and consumerism has taken over and governments have lost the damn plot.
User A: I used SAP and had lots of problems and it didn't work and the consultants took lots of money and re-engineered everything around their system. SAP is always crap. User B: I've used SAP for years and had no problems. You must be the problem. Never mind that I know nothing about your situation or your dealings with SAP I'm going to call you a liar and say SAP is wonderful.
Neither of you are being reasonable, but man, pass the popcorn! This is entertaining! Just like Jerry Springer.
*sarcasm* Yes! That's right! And lets just change the law so the penalty for jaywalking is a summary execution. So we should have a copy outside every school sniping kids who jaywalk. That way the only ones that survive will be the ones that obey the law without question */sarcasm*
Man we are heading into a scary world that people think disproportionate punishment is acceptable.
Also, copying something is not theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the property. If I steal your loaf of bread we don't both eat, you go hungry. If you can't make this distinction. Copying something makes it worth less if you try to sell it by increasnig supply. The difference is huge even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
There is not unprecedented. There are around 6000 naked eye stars (total for both hemispheres under good seeing conditions with no light polution). No problems with naming the major ones and giving the others designations by constellation or according to one of many catalogues. (Only insanity here is there's a huge overlap between catalogs so one star can have many names).
There is incredible diversity in the number of species on Earth and again that's been no problem for science. (Okay the Latin is archaic now but it had its merits when the system was conceived).
The problem is that scientists are forgetting to be scientific and use their basic scientific tools - classification being one of the most powerful. Trouble is no scientist or NASA spokesperson wants to tell the public about his exciting discovery on rock NW2345, when it could be called Van Halen or some other name that would capture public imagination.
This is similar to the problems caused by coders who name their variables inane things from swearwords to girls names that have nothing to do with their purpose.
I post at +2, nearly all my posts on the subject are rated +5, and the two examples I gave are at +1 and +0 respectively. You've just proven my point.
Your point is what? That you've got plenty of time to waste and you're a karma whore who'll write whatever's most popular? "Linux good. Mac good. Windows bad. Uggg!". That it buddy? Some of my posts are rated +5, others are rated much lower and I'm damn proud of that. I browse at +4 by the way.
I see no reason to continue this discussion. You're obviously not serious about it, and are just looking to flame.
You're incredible. You haven't attempted to refute one of my very valid points from my last point. You just hurl insults and keep saying the same thing again and again. I think you should learn how to argue before you start going around and saying that people should "go take a hike". (Your words and the beginning of the so called "flame"). It takes all kinds in this world you inconsiderate self centered narcissit.
No I just don't browse at -1. However you'd rather call a person a liar and/or dillusional than understand that.
The extents that people will go through to EXPLICITLY not learn basic knowledge about a computer ("I don't want to understand it, I just want to use it!") is just astounding.
Your arrogance is amazing. Users who say that are typically overwhelmed by the concepts they have to grasp to use a computer but are unwilling to admit it because people don't tend to admit to their own failings, especially when it could get them fired for not being able to do their jobs.
Just so AMAZINGLY easy to smack that reply button and flame, isn't it?
Yes it is, and you keep proving it too.
Now if you're trying to tell me that driving a car is as hard or harder than sitting down in front of a computer, I think you're the dillusional one.
Just about everything to do with driving a car makes sense. There is nothing intuitive about some of the messages coming out of a computer when things go wrong. When it comes to computers you have to be unafraid to experiment and research things to fix a problem. People brough up in the 1940s and 1950s especially tend to be unable to cope with technology because it requires this sort of experimentation, while they're use to learning simple step by step procedures and sticking to them so that things don't go wrong. Some have adapted better than others but I know many intelligent people that I respect who have trouble operating something as simple as a digital camera because they panic at the complexity, let alone administering their own PCs.
And as far as I'm concerned, workers need to get used to the jargon or take a hike. ...and then... Then again, it's much eaiser to smack that Reply button and flame someone isn't it?
Bit of the pot calling the kettle black I think. I did read a large part of the discussion. Here's what I think you're failing to understand. Most business users, trades people etc. don't want to know about the detail. I grant you planes are harder but how much do you need to know to drive a car for example? You need to know the road rules but you can make a car move without them (though I wouldn't condone it). What you need to know is how to put the thing in drive or reverse, how to steer and how to use the brake and gas. It's also helpful if you understand the operation of the lights if you're travelling at night:-) Knowing what an oil light means will save you ruining the car but for the most part in a modern car you can practically ignore all that. The only gauge you typically use all the time is the speed. It then takes a little practice to get the car moving in the direction and at the speed you want. All of that isn't particularly hard and yet we have driving schools.
Now lets look at computing. Every OS is different...very very different for some. The amount you need to know is incredible because things that should work don't. Yes computers are complex because they do more than a car (multi purpose), but look at the headaches you have with just windows and office. Don't get me started on how unfriendly Linux is to admin. Use a computer for more than a few days and you NEED to be your own computer mechanic.
But I think you already realise all this and simply don't care. As far as you're concerned people who don't like it can get stuffed.
Seriously, it's not that hard. Most things you wear have instructions on the label. You do know how to read a manual, right?
no SERIOUSLY how many users have you seen who read the computer manuals???? me... so far none
How many people actually read washing instructions on all their clothes every time they wash them?
You think they magically assimilated their knowledge of Windows explorer, Word and Excel. There are more ways to learn than reading a manual. They may have done a course, or been shown by a friend...
Oh I love intolerant folk like yourself. Most businesses use computers as a tool, not the focus of their existence. Their jargon may very well be engineering or cookie making or banking or anything else. THAT is what they need to know well.
What you're suggesting is the same as suggesting that everyone who flies an airplane should be a aeronautical engineer and mechanic, as well as a fully qualified air transport pilot. Everyone who drives a car needs to be a motor mechanic, engineer etc.
In otherwords you've missed the point and missed the boat. I would absolutely loathe working with you, and I'm in IT.
Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
That's what Hitler's henchmen said at Nurenburg. They were executed anyway, and rightly so.
Hell we don't usually accept "I was just doing what I was told to from above" as a legal defence. (Imagine a drug dealer trying that one on. "My boss made me do it your honor". Mind you drug dealers don't have officially recognised power. Still a corporate manger, or a police officer can't break the law and use the defence that they were just doing what they were told to). Everyone has a legal and moral responsibility when told to do something wrong (illegal, immoral) to say No.
What about box cutters? They were used by terrorists. What about kitchen knives? They'd be more effective.
I think the problem is public transport. Get rid of it. Everyone should have to ride their horses to work. Oh wait horses have hooves. Right everyone should have to walk to work. What's that you say? Good boots can be used as a weapon too? Right everyone should have to walk barefoot to work! What? They get paid and that money can be used by terrorists? Right everyone should be forced to walk bearfoot to work, and be paid in food.
Kitchen knives are used in domestic homocide. Everyone's a killer. Terrrorists breathe air. Everyone's a terrorist.
If you're not happy with this write to your politicians immediately and tell them exactly what you're not happy with and that you'll vote accordingly. As I write this I have to be careful of wording so that in 5 years it doesn't come back and bite me as some sort of evidence of incitement to violence.
So it's "the right thing to do" to rewrite all your HTML whether or not it complied with an older standard to comply with the new standard every few years. Brilliant idea...if you've got nothing better to do with your life.
Like it or not, lots of HTML pages use document.write(). Rewriting them ALL is neither practical (economically for companies, time wise for most individuals) nor particularly sane.
Hell it's this kind of "it's the right thing to do" attitude that's created the bloated over-engineered frameworks I see today (and I'm working on modern J2EE with struts, hibernate etc....or as I lovingly refer to it XML hell).
The/. admins have done the practical, sane thing. They have done the right thing in that they're moving up at a sensible pace.
No, you don't have to do XHTML. But you should.
Why? Because it's the flavour of the month? It won't be for very long.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's see, she doesn't share your life views, which is bad enough when you're trying to make a marriage work. But worse, she doesn't respect nor care about your views.
/. fools suggesting that it's not important, and that if you are that "picky" you deserve to be lonely. This isn't the case for a number of reasons:
/. don't think these things are important I'd like to know what they're smoking.
;-) so it's not like I've never compromised on a principle - this is the real world after all). In the end, since this was a one off thing, I got her a decent diamond and a more expensive ring than I agreed. But she at least asked where these diamonds came from and though I'm not sure if I believe what she was told she did get some assurance they weren't from conflict mines. (I think they were Canadian). Here's the other thing, though she'd have been disappointed and did buy into the whole engagement ring (and eventually wedding ceremony) thing, she takes my views into consideration every step of the way. If I put my foot down I know I could have gotten a cheaper ring. If I insist on a cheaper ceremony I know she'll still marry me. I know she won't be as happy with it so I'm not going to do that to her, but I couldn't be with her if I thought she was only hanging around while she got what she wanted. That makes all the difference to me.
There are lots of
1) If/when you have kids you'll want to teach them your values. If you and your partner have different values this is harder because either you have to teach two different points of view, and this will confuse the child, or one of you can't pass on your view to your children. If she doesn't even care about or respect your views, good luck with that one. Expect to be in court fighting for custody one day, and perhaps having kids you pay for or can't see. Don't underestimate this. I've seen it fuck over a few aquaintance's lives.
2) If/when times get really tough (and if you're buying CDs, not scrounging for enough food to eat or struggling to stay afloat financially I'd suggest they're not that tough), you end up having to decide what's most important to you. Your values become very important then, and you have to choose between things that you find really important e.g. Do I sell myself out or harm others so I can eat? If your life partner's views are incompatible with yours these tough times will break you, and you'll end up enemies.
3) When times are easier and you're suppose to be having fun, you'll always have that nagging feeling that she doesn't give a shit about what you think or feel. Doesn't sound like she'll want to compromise at all. Welcome to the world of "Lots of her shit, none of mine" when it comes to what you want to do and your spare time.
4) A man is judged by his values and the company he keeps. If your wife is a superficial twit, you look worse, people will think worse of you, and you won't attract the friends and other company you want. Instead you'll attract a lot more vain, shallow people.
If the general masses of
I recently got engaged. I did mention and we discussed that I don't like diamonds due to the whole conflict diamond thing. My fiancee would have taken sapphires or rubies but in the end she did want diamonds (and hell if we're talking about slave labour all my laptops in the last 8 years have been Dells!
So you see I'm not saying your values have to be identical. My fiancee's and mine aren't, and few people will ever find that. What you have to have is mutual respect for each other's opinions, and enough common ground to reach a compromise. If never buying music from RIAA related companies is important to you, and she won't even give the idea the time of day, and if that's the trend with all your beliefs I do suggest you consider un-proposing and head for the hills!
No noone is doing science news well without backing by a major organisation. Just like no one is mass producing cars very well without backing from a major organisation. In both cases there's a lot that has to happen behind the scenes before that science show (or car) can be put together. A good science show generally requires a team doing research - and not just library research, though that's required, but going out and talking to scientists. The interviewer also has to build a reputation with the science community to get scientists to agree to interviews and take them seriously.
If you want some college kid giving you their un-informed or one dimensional opinion on current science, you can get that for nearly nothing without any kind of backing. If you want good science journalism you need a team of well trained people each doing their bit to get the facts, get the interviews etc.
Who? What you mean Janeway was meant to be female? Oh!!! Now I get it.
Couldn't tell because she was fugly and sounded like a man playing a woman playing Catherine Hepburn.
You gotta give me points for trying.
p.s. When I first saw Voyager, I deplored it so much that I would refer to the series as Startrek Toilet, as in gone down the (and also because the ship looked like a giant potty when it folded up).
This is getting ridiculous. I used both Blackboard and WebCT as an Astronomy Masters student a couple of years ago. Both were awful and I never did understand why anyone paid money for these solutions when this is one area where open source can easily provide the basic functionality, but...
/. - These days if it doesn't contain the company names Google or Apple, good luck...)
What's with all the mergers lately? In 3D graphics, Autodesk aquired Discreet (3ds Max, GMax) a while back, and then Alias (Maya) days ago. They then promptly killed the free GMax product which a lot of game developers (both paid and hobby) use. There are also now very few competing products in the 3D market to compete. (Killing GMax is actually quite big news but I haven't been able to get an article on this accepted on
I thought there was suppose to be some kind of government control to prevent monopolies from springing up. I guess they're too busy with the "war on terrorism" and prosecuting music/movie/software "pirates" to actually police these laws...and there's no money in it!
This is making a fuss about nothing. All these years, the USA have never -- never -- abused its position of the Internet governor.
Yes but it's only recently that you've been doing random searches on your citizens, finger-printing tourists and have had an oil-greedy cowboy running the country. You don't think he'd poison DNS servers???
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=5562 445&siteID=123112
/. editors don't seem to think it's news.
"As of October 6, 2005, Autodesk will no longer offer Gmax® software as a stand-alone product. If you are interested in other 3D animation, modeling, and rendering applications from Autodesk please check out Autodesk® 3ds Max® software."
I've been trying to post a story on this for 2 days but the
This is already affecting people. Knife Edge Software makers of Realflight G3 have been promising a new custom aircraft editor based on GMax for some months now. They've had to announce that they'll be releasing it for 3ds Max instead due to "licensing issues"...issue being GMax is dead.
Here are my rules:
1) If it's standard 4x6, print at a lab. You won't be able to beat the price
2) If it's larger - up to A4, print at home on modest priced photo printer that lets you refill individual tanks, and using cheap photo paper (Where I live Kodak's the cheapest and the quality is good enough for my needs - and I consider myself a serious amateur photographer).
3) If you're likely to be printing A3 or A3+ often it's worth buying an A3 or A3+ photo printer. Since they're considerably more expensive (or were last time I looked), you have to be printing A3 at least an item a month to make it worthwhile. (ie one poster a month). Otherwise find a cheap lab.
4) If you're printing larger than A3 the photos get ridiculously priced. A lab is going to be cheaper but not cheap (unless you are a specialised printing firm). Avoid these.
The last time I checked it had more than 87 authors. Show me a commercial debugger that gets that much attention
Oh no! The broth is about to spoil! Quick add more cooks!!!
Actually it's more like saying caviar causes cancer, because people enjoy caviar with their cigars.
I refuse to believe that blowing things and people up with a tiny crosshair on your screen at the level of emmersion we have in games today causes real life violent behaviour.
Killing someone in a game with a gun involved putting the little crosshair or gunsite on the person, pulling the trigger, and watching a small pixelated man unconvincingly yelp in pain then die in one of a handful of predicatable ways. Killing someone with a gun in real life involves seeing the sheer terror in their face (if it's face to face), hearing them screen and squeal in terror, having their blood splattered on you, smelling it, and watching the life drain out of them as they struggle to hold on. If people don't get that this just isn't the same, it's a much deeper problem than any do not sell the game law is going to solve.
A man best known for starring in violent movies that mostly appeal to adolescents signs a bill prohibiting the sale of violent video games to adolescents.
Actually it'd serve better as an example of hypocrisy than irony.
Trust me, utopia will be sucky too, such is the vastness of human desire.
While some minimal level of well being etc. is important to human happiness, that's not the key. The key is that the person perceives their situation to be constantly improving.
For example if you earn $2,000/month or $10,000/month does make a difference to your lifestyle. But a man earning $2,000/month who expects that to be constantly increasing by a few percent in relative terms (keeping in mind inflation etc) is going to be much happier than a man who's use to making $10,000/month but expects that's going to be decreased by a few percent over the next few years.
In simple terms, people like to feel as if their hard work is improving their lives, rather than just maintaining what they have or keeping their head above water.
Are you being obtuse on purpose? I did not say living beyond your means was an excuse for breaking the law. I NEVER said that, so stop putting words in my mouth. What I said was that the punishment was unjustifiably harsh. If you wish to actually argue the point that I was making please reply, otherwise stop pushing your goddamn point - I actually agree with you that copyright infringement is wrong if you'd get the wax out of your ears.
You're just playing with definitions
...and most lemmings jump off cliffs. Should I immitate the lemmings? If the reasonable man on the street has a different definition to property to the legal profession that just shows how out of touch they are. Also don't confuse legal with right/moral. Slavery was a state sanctioned activity in many countries less than 100 years ago. The Jewish holocaust was legal by the rules laid down by the government of the day.
Unlike most lawyers I won't charge you $200/hr for it either.
I don't think the law agrees with you. (Most countries tend to treat copyright material as "property")
Sure, it is not the same as stealing a loaf of bread, but it is not that far from jumping on a bus without paying the fare
It's a world away from jumping on a bus without paying a fare. That bus uses real tangible fuel - more with an extra person on. That bus must be maintained. etc. etc. You still fail to understand the difference between something you can make a copy of and something you can't. It's a fundamental difference in physical reality, no matter what the legal doctrine or social custom of the day are.
By pirating a movie, you are denying the copyright holder of income that was rightfully theirs (assuming you would have paid money to see the movie)
That's a circular argument. If a person is willing to pay for the movie, they'll go out and do just that. If they're not willing to they will either choose not to watch it (at least until the price, conditions etc. meet their expectations) or they'll choose to break the law and download or otherwise copy the movie. MOST people who pirate things do so because they can't afford to and are living beyond their means, or because they don't think it's worth the price tag, or the legal way to watch it is too damned inconvenient. You assume that most pirates would have paid if it wasn't available for free. From what I can see that just isnt' the case. They'd go without and move on to something else. It's AMAZING to me that people are willing to swallow propaganda so whole heartedly!
Note: I'm not saying piracy is right, but it should be punished less severly than drug trafficing for pity sake!!! How about a $100 fine per movie with a cap for individuals of say $5000? NOT jail time. Not bankruptcy. Not a felony record that means they'll never work legitimately again. Commercialism and consumerism has taken over and governments have lost the damn plot.
This argument is brilliant.
User A: I used SAP and had lots of problems and it didn't work and the consultants took lots of money and re-engineered everything around their system. SAP is always crap.
User B: I've used SAP for years and had no problems. You must be the problem. Never mind that I know nothing about your situation or your dealings with SAP I'm going to call you a liar and say SAP is wonderful.
Neither of you are being reasonable, but man, pass the popcorn! This is entertaining! Just like Jerry Springer.
*sarcasm*
Yes! That's right! And lets just change the law so the penalty for jaywalking is a summary execution. So we should have a copy outside every school sniping kids who jaywalk. That way the only ones that survive will be the ones that obey the law without question
*/sarcasm*
Man we are heading into a scary world that people think disproportionate punishment is acceptable.
Also, copying something is not theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the property. If I steal your loaf of bread we don't both eat, you go hungry. If you can't make this distinction. Copying something makes it worth less if you try to sell it by increasnig supply. The difference is huge even if you refuse to acknowledge it.
There is not unprecedented. There are around 6000 naked eye stars (total for both hemispheres under good seeing conditions with no light polution). No problems with naming the major ones and giving the others designations by constellation or according to one of many catalogues. (Only insanity here is there's a huge overlap between catalogs so one star can have many names).
There is incredible diversity in the number of species on Earth and again that's been no problem for science. (Okay the Latin is archaic now but it had its merits when the system was conceived).
The problem is that scientists are forgetting to be scientific and use their basic scientific tools - classification being one of the most powerful. Trouble is no scientist or NASA spokesperson wants to tell the public about his exciting discovery on rock NW2345, when it could be called Van Halen or some other name that would capture public imagination.
This is similar to the problems caused by coders who name their variables inane things from swearwords to girls names that have nothing to do with their purpose.
I post at +2, nearly all my posts on the subject are rated +5, and the two examples I gave are at +1 and +0 respectively. You've just proven my point.
Your point is what? That you've got plenty of time to waste and you're a karma whore who'll write whatever's most popular? "Linux good. Mac good. Windows bad. Uggg!". That it buddy? Some of my posts are rated +5, others are rated much lower and I'm damn proud of that. I browse at +4 by the way.
I see no reason to continue this discussion. You're obviously not serious about it, and are just looking to flame.
You're incredible. You haven't attempted to refute one of my very valid points from my last point. You just hurl insults and keep saying the same thing again and again. I think you should learn how to argue before you start going around and saying that people should "go take a hike". (Your words and the beginning of the so called "flame"). It takes all kinds in this world you inconsiderate self centered narcissit.
You're either lying or fooling yourself.
No I just don't browse at -1. However you'd rather call a person a liar and/or dillusional than understand that.
The extents that people will go through to EXPLICITLY not learn basic knowledge about a computer ("I don't want to understand it, I just want to use it!") is just astounding.
Your arrogance is amazing. Users who say that are typically overwhelmed by the concepts they have to grasp to use a computer but are unwilling to admit it because people don't tend to admit to their own failings, especially when it could get them fired for not being able to do their jobs.
Just so AMAZINGLY easy to smack that reply button and flame, isn't it?
Yes it is, and you keep proving it too.
Now if you're trying to tell me that driving a car is as hard or harder than sitting down in front of a computer, I think you're the dillusional one.
Just about everything to do with driving a car makes sense. There is nothing intuitive about some of the messages coming out of a computer when things go wrong. When it comes to computers you have to be unafraid to experiment and research things to fix a problem. People brough up in the 1940s and 1950s especially tend to be unable to cope with technology because it requires this sort of experimentation, while they're use to learning simple step by step procedures and sticking to them so that things don't go wrong. Some have adapted better than others but I know many intelligent people that I respect who have trouble operating something as simple as a digital camera because they panic at the complexity, let alone administering their own PCs.
And as far as I'm concerned, workers need to get used to the jargon or take a hike. ...and then...
:-) Knowing what an oil light means will save you ruining the car but for the most part in a modern car you can practically ignore all that. The only gauge you typically use all the time is the speed. It then takes a little practice to get the car moving in the direction and at the speed you want. All of that isn't particularly hard and yet we have driving schools.
Then again, it's much eaiser to smack that Reply button and flame someone isn't it?
Bit of the pot calling the kettle black I think. I did read a large part of the discussion. Here's what I think you're failing to understand. Most business users, trades people etc. don't want to know about the detail. I grant you planes are harder but how much do you need to know to drive a car for example? You need to know the road rules but you can make a car move without them (though I wouldn't condone it). What you need to know is how to put the thing in drive or reverse, how to steer and how to use the brake and gas. It's also helpful if you understand the operation of the lights if you're travelling at night
Now lets look at computing. Every OS is different...very very different for some. The amount you need to know is incredible because things that should work don't. Yes computers are complex because they do more than a car (multi purpose), but look at the headaches you have with just windows and office. Don't get me started on how unfriendly Linux is to admin. Use a computer for more than a few days and you NEED to be your own computer mechanic.
But I think you already realise all this and simply don't care. As far as you're concerned people who don't like it can get stuffed.
Seriously, it's not that hard. Most things you wear have instructions on the label. You do know how to read a manual, right?
no SERIOUSLY how many users have you seen who read the computer manuals???? me... so far none
How many people actually read washing instructions on all their clothes every time they wash them?
You think they magically assimilated their knowledge of Windows explorer, Word and Excel. There are more ways to learn than reading a manual. They may have done a course, or been shown by a friend...
Oh I love intolerant folk like yourself. Most businesses use computers as a tool, not the focus of their existence. Their jargon may very well be engineering or cookie making or banking or anything else. THAT is what they need to know well.
What you're suggesting is the same as suggesting that everyone who flies an airplane should be a aeronautical engineer and mechanic, as well as a fully qualified air transport pilot. Everyone who drives a car needs to be a motor mechanic, engineer etc.
In otherwords you've missed the point and missed the boat. I would absolutely loathe working with you, and I'm in IT.
Get a clue.
Sounds to me like they were just doing what they were instructed to do from above.
That's what Hitler's henchmen said at Nurenburg. They were executed anyway, and rightly so.
Hell we don't usually accept "I was just doing what I was told to from above" as a legal defence. (Imagine a drug dealer trying that one on. "My boss made me do it your honor". Mind you drug dealers don't have officially recognised power. Still a corporate manger, or a police officer can't break the law and use the defence that they were just doing what they were told to). Everyone has a legal and moral responsibility when told to do something wrong (illegal, immoral) to say No.
What about box cutters? They were used by terrorists.
What about kitchen knives? They'd be more effective.
I think the problem is public transport. Get rid of it. Everyone should have to ride their horses to work. Oh wait horses have hooves. Right everyone should have to walk to work. What's that you say? Good boots can be used as a weapon too? Right everyone should have to walk barefoot to work! What? They get paid and that money can be used by terrorists? Right everyone should be forced to walk bearfoot to work, and be paid in food.
I know I'm scared, but not of terrorists.
Let's go a little further to show how absurd.
Kitchen knives are used in domestic homocide. Everyone's a killer.
Terrrorists breathe air. Everyone's a terrorist.
If you're not happy with this write to your politicians immediately and tell them exactly what you're not happy with and that you'll vote accordingly. As I write this I have to be careful of wording so that in 5 years it doesn't come back and bite me as some sort of evidence of incitement to violence.
I pity the future.
Because its the Right Thing To Do.
...or as I lovingly refer to it XML hell).
/. admins have done the practical, sane thing. They have done the right thing in that they're moving up at a sensible pace.
So it's "the right thing to do" to rewrite all your HTML whether or not it complied with an older standard to comply with the new standard every few years. Brilliant idea...if you've got nothing better to do with your life.
Like it or not, lots of HTML pages use document.write(). Rewriting them ALL is neither practical (economically for companies, time wise for most individuals) nor particularly sane.
Hell it's this kind of "it's the right thing to do" attitude that's created the bloated over-engineered frameworks I see today (and I'm working on modern J2EE with struts, hibernate etc.
The
No, you don't have to do XHTML. But you should.
Why? Because it's the flavour of the month? It won't be for very long.