What does it mean to say that this will be the Year of the Linux Desktop?
Does it mean that he thinks this is the year it will be a viable choice for the mythical Joe Sixpack or that it will gain popularity with said Mr. Sixpack? I never really understood what that meant, exactly.
I've been using Linux on my desktop exclusively for 2 or 3 years. Does that mean that, for me, 2000 was the Year of the Linux Desktop?
I think without knowing what he means by the statement we can't really evaluate it.
If you think this isn't possible without picking a single desktop, you belong back in the Microsoft camp with all the nazis.:)
lol.:-)
To be clear, I never commented on whether it was a good or bad idea, only that it's just one distro and if they don't do things the way you or I would do them, them we can just not use it. It doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether he standardizes on Gnome, KDE, BeOS, FreeDOS, or Fluxbox. What matters to me is whether or not it's something I want to use when he's finished making it. If it is, then I will, and if it isn't, then I won't. No big deal either way, to me.
How can we ever trust their electronic "smart bombs" and whatnot?
Um...because they work and have been used? Those smart bombs are why it cost us so fucking much to wage that war (justly or otherwise). We could've saved a shload of money and probably time if we'd just not cared about civilian casualties as much. They may not yet be perfect, but I'd like to point out that it is the US who is pioneering and bankrolling such technology...and it works.
Look, it ain't the same people designing both. I have little doubt that if asked, a military contractor like Lockheed Martin would make short work of the task of designing a solid e-voting system. It likely wouldn't be free software, but I bet it'd work. As things stand, the wrong people are making these decisions. As you must know, the US government is sprawling and just because one branch can do a thing well doesn't mean another can.
Maybe they need another election disaster like Bush to realise
Save the rhetoric. Whether you like him or not, he was not the election disaster. The disaster was the clusterfuck that the situation became as Gore threatened lawsuits and held up the election process, and as Bush acted less-than-magnanimous about his victory. God, I'm so sick of hearing about this supposed "election disaster". He won. Some old people couldn't figure out a ballot (that was NOT that hard to figure out), and some election fraud came to light all over the country on both sides of the political fence. It was a call to arms for corrective measures, but hardly spelled doom for the electoral process in the US.
it is time to have a look across the border and see how a real election is held.
And it's just that sort of childish bullshit that will keep the divide between the US and Europe growing. Your sniggling little insult is about as useful as all the France-bashing ignorance I heard on our side of the moat the last couple of years.
If you want to offer help, be genuine and keep your sarcasm to yourself. If you want to be a sarcastic prick, don't expect a polite reply.
it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral
That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions. A good book that delves further into this question from the humanist perspective is "The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge" by Paul Kurtz. As you may guess, I totally disagree with him (I can explain why if it matters to anyone), but his arguments aren't as easy to dismiss as some religious folk would like to think.
Had that read "Yes, I think there is..."
True, and you are right when you suggest that I really was just trying to show people that there are other ways of thinking about the problem, but I'd add that I could add "I think [...]" to everything I say. The College years drummed that notion out of my head. It's the natural predessor to all claims by everyone so it isn't really needed by anyone except for the sole purpose of softening the blow of the assertion. In this context, maybe softening it would've gotten me fewer enemies (it's amazing how fast my fan/freak lists filled up after this one post!) but I wanted my answer to be as direct as the questioner, and I've kept that direct tone through all these posts (for better or worse).
you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect
Yeah. Sorry about that. I just started getting frustrated at all the flak I got from others for answering that one guy's question.:-)
I'm gonna tell you the same thing I've told everyone else in this thread. Don't put words in my mouth.
Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.
unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.
What does me doing something have to do with whether or not it's immoral? I do immoral things all the time.
I'll say this one more time. The original poster simply asked me why people found porn immoral and I answered him. That is not the same as saying I've never watched porn, nor is it the same as saying I want porn made illegal, nor is it the same as saying I am a prudish twit, all of which are things people seem so to be pulling from my comment and none of which have I said or suggested.
Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex.
There is a qualitative difference between watching an act designed to help you forget another's humanity for the sake of personal pleasure and an watching a tree grow.
Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?
Man, I hope it isn't immoral because it's enjoyable! Life would suck if it worked that way. I'm not sure why, though, you'd assume that it was immoral for that reason. I never said that. I never hinted that. Heck, I certainly don't beleive that. All I said was that it is immoral to treat a person like an object to be used and pornography does just that.
This thread has filled with people looking to put words in my mouth. They've suggested that I want to legislate my opinion (which I never said), that I find sex inherantly immoral (which I never said), and now that I find enjoyment immoral (which I never said).
My point is a simple one. Pornography is a medium designed to allow us to take pleasure from an act without true concern for the affect it may have on the other people involved. It fosters an attitude of gratification without consequence at the expense of others. That is wrong.
I'm not taking moral high ground here. I've seen my share of pornography. I am guilty of a great deal of objectification of other people. But whatever I do, I won't delude myself into thinking it's moral. I don't have much tolerance for self-deception.
saying objectification is illegal is outright silly
I agree. It's not illegal. It's immoral. There's a difference and I never confused the two.
YOU making a law such that someone cannot watch porn DOES impinge on others.
I agree again. I never once said porn should be illegal. As I stated in another post, I was asked a question about why people find porn immoral and I answered it. My answer never even hinted that I thought porn should be made illegal or gave an opinion one way or the other regarding the Supreme Court case being discussed. I only answered a question that was asked.
It's amazing how much intolerance can manifest itself when someone makes an argument that isn't popular. Sheesh.
And for the record, Yes, the Miss America is about the objectification of women, though not so obviously as pornography.
Tell me, when you're fucking with your wife, you both choose to "act like a tool for your pleasure". What's bad about that? Nothing.
If you think that making love is about making treating the other person as a tool for your pleasure, then you've never done it. It also explains a lot of the rest of your argument. You seem unwilling to see that sex could be different from that. For the record, that is one of the bad effects I associate with a society that considers pornography normal and moral.
You say that consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. What's "moral sex" and who defines that? You? Your church? OK. That's fine. But please don't impose your standarts on everyone else.
I never imposed anything. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly. He wanted to know why people find pornography immoral. I told him. I never said my will should be imposed on anyone. Don't put words in my mouth.
What of those that enjoy being treated like a tool for pleasure? Who are you to deny them their pleasure? However alien it may be to you, there are people that enjoy being objectified.
I don't find it alien, I find it sad. Further I don't deny them anything. I simply called it what it is...the objectification of humanity. I never said it should be illegal, only that it is immoral.
Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong
OK, I'll take the trollbait.;-)
What's worse? Neither, when 'having sex' is in the context of pornography. Both are about the same thing. They are about the objectification of other people.
Murder (notice I did not say killing) is the ultimate act of human objectification. It occurs only after a person has decided that another person is too much of an inconvenience or annoyance to let that other person continue to live. The victim is seen only as a means to an end and the murderer decides the means to his end, in this case, has outlived its usefulness. The victim is objectified.
Pornography (notice I did not say sex) is the ultimate expression of human-as-object. In pornography, we take one or more people and show them treating each other like objects upon which to achieve pleasure...ie, the participants in pornography demonstrate that they believe the other people in the scene are means to an end (the ends being self-gratification).
Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. When someone else annoys us or cuases us problems, we must remind ourselves that unlike a tool or other object in the world, these 'annoyances' or 'roadblocks' are people and are not here to serve us or anyone else. Likewise, when someone entices us or titilates us, we must remind ourselves that unlike a sextoy, these 'titillations' are people. They are someone's daughter or son. Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are. They are worth more than that. Consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. And filming it so that others can also objectify the participants only makes it yet less moral.
Furthermore, even if you totally disregard the idea that other people are exactly as valuable as you and that you are too valuable to demean yourself, you must at least acknowledge that what we see and what we experience does affect who we are and who we become. That, in fact, is how we become who we are. We are an amalgamation of our nature and our experiences, with a dash of human spirit thrown in to offset the mix. When our experiences are pornographic, it affects us. Like it or not, there is no reputable psychiatrist who would suggest otherwise. Watching pornography does change who we are as does everything else we do and experience. The question is not "Does it affect who we are?" but rather "How does it affect who we are?" I hope you aren't going to argue that it affects us in a good way?!?
It's AOL/TimeWarner, and TimeWarner is a member of the RIAA. I don't think it's too paranoid to say that AOL is being largely ignored in favor of suing other peoples' customers first.
If the company was still in business and the original programmer quit his job does that make it OK to steal the ROMs?
Watch your terminology. You've been listening to the RIAA and MPAA too long. It isn't theft. Theft is a legal term that they are misuing. It is a violation of Copyright. Nothing was stolen (legally speaking). The person downloading a ROM didn't take it away from anyone else.
There is a qualitative and even quantitative different between the legal term theft and what people do when they download music, software, or ROMs illegally.
Is it ok to do some gold mining on their land?
No it would not be. Becuase if I did that, I'd have stolen gold from them. They would no longer have it. If, however, I downlaod a ROM that is part of their IP collection, they still have it. You example is not really hitting the mark. Sorry.
It's totally irresponsible to say that because the original programmer or original company isn't making any money off of these licenses that it's OK to just steal their software.
Irresponsible? I don't see how that word realy pertains here. Perhaps you can clarify? Either way, I happen to agree with the previous poster. His assumption, though it was unstated, is that corporations should not be allowed to own copyrights or patents. That should be a right that falls solely to individualls, in so far as it should exist at all! His claim, therefore, that the original programmer isn't making money and so his download is morally acceptable is the same as saying, "I don't acknowledge corporate copyrights" which is both a moral stance and a resonable one.
What about the Dell Digital Audio Reciever I bought years ago? They forgot that product like bad date. Now I'm stuck with a product that has buttons on the remote for features they never delivered!
I think I'll get my next DAR from someone who will support the product. Sure, the product is nicely made, and the open source community has ralliedbehindit, but it would be nice if the company that made it would at least deliver the things they promised about it. now they want us to buy into another one?
I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)
Cable companies are some of the largest investors in TiVo (e.g., Cox Communications owns a shload of TiVo shares) so in fact, it's quite likely that TiVo will be allowed to participate in the new DTV era.
Sure, but you only submitted one with links from NASA, the Pentagon, and a military contractor. I mean, if you aren't going to take the time to submit it with a real and reputable source linked, like Spaceflight Now, then how can we take you seriously?!?
I see compelling evidence that the the RIAA's loss in sales are a direct result off their own actions.
OK. Up front, I am on your side in this; however, there is little doubt in my mind that sharing music online can, is, and will continue to harm the profit that the RIAA and even the artists derive from their music.
I'll add to that, so f*cking what? Of course, the fact that I haven't bought a CD in over 7 years is directly related to the fact that I can download them instead. But I don't care. They don't deserve to be paid for the same 8 hours of work ad infinitum any more than I do. Screw that junk. I attend concerts of bands that I truly enjoy, and I tell others about them. In other words, I'll pay when they perform for me. That's why they call it a performing art. The fact that the RIAA whats to change the name to recording artist is telling of the direction they want to go. I for one am not following them there. I'll continue to download music rather than buy it, and I'll continue to attend concerts, where I know that the band is working for my money.
Yes, I know this means there could be less studio recording in the future. Fine. Live music is better.
Yes, I am in a position to see the other side. I'm a programming consultant. The works I do are done for a fair hourly wage and I place/no/ restrictions on what the client does with it afterward. If they want to resell it, I don't give a crap. If they want to change, I don't give a crap. If they want to throw it away, I don't give a crap. I've been paid the hourly wage I asked for. I hold no claims to the fruits of that labor ad infinitum, unlike what artists seem to think is their "right".
Because the suits who do the hiring will only look at the paper.
If you think that having an education is about impressing suits and making money, then you probably don't have one. You wouldn't be alone. I know many degreed people with no reasonable education whose only point in attending college was to get a job. You are just going to have to accept, however, that not everyone approaches life from a mercenary perspective.
I quit school in the 8th grade, got my GED and entered the workforce. I was already an established professional in my field (programming consultant) long before I decided to get my degree. In fact, going back to college when I did only hurt my career. I now own my own business, make good money, haven't been seriously affected by the economic downturn, and am better educated in the end. Life is not about keeping your eye on the prize. Go through life like that and you'll end up a miserable person.
I got a degree in religion becuase when I went back to college I asked myself "what should I learn about?" Questions of ultimacy and the purpose of life seemed then and still seem today some of the most important questions to ask and to have answered. I, therefore, studied the subject that would bring me closest to that ideal. I haven't regretted a moment of it.
Stop worrying so much about impressing suits and start trying to impress yourself. The rest will work itself out.
Slashdot Mirror
What does it mean to say that this will be the Year of the Linux Desktop?
Does it mean that he thinks this is the year it will be a viable choice for the mythical Joe Sixpack or that it will gain popularity with said Mr. Sixpack? I never really understood what that meant, exactly.
I've been using Linux on my desktop exclusively for 2 or 3 years. Does that mean that, for me, 2000 was the Year of the Linux Desktop?
I think without knowing what he means by the statement we can't really evaluate it.
If you think this isn't possible without picking a single desktop, you belong back in the Microsoft camp with all the nazis. :)
:-)
lol.
To be clear, I never commented on whether it was a good or bad idea, only that it's just one distro and if they don't do things the way you or I would do them, them we can just not use it. It doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether he standardizes on Gnome, KDE, BeOS, FreeDOS, or Fluxbox. What matters to me is whether or not it's something I want to use when he's finished making it. If it is, then I will, and if it isn't, then I won't. No big deal either way, to me.
Seriously. So what? If you want to use KDE, use a different distro. This is a non-issue.
-Tom
um..the term is "liberate", dude, not "invade". I mean, seriously, who doesn't consider Celine Dion a Weapon of Mass Destruction?!?
-Tom
Then what have I been using exclusively for the last 2.5 years?
-Tom
How can we ever trust their electronic "smart bombs" and whatnot?
Um...because they work and have been used? Those smart bombs are why it cost us so fucking much to wage that war (justly or otherwise). We could've saved a shload of money and probably time if we'd just not cared about civilian casualties as much. They may not yet be perfect, but I'd like to point out that it is the US who is pioneering and bankrolling such technology...and it works.
Look, it ain't the same people designing both. I have little doubt that if asked, a military contractor like Lockheed Martin would make short work of the task of designing a solid e-voting system. It likely wouldn't be free software, but I bet it'd work. As things stand, the wrong people are making these decisions. As you must know, the US government is sprawling and just because one branch can do a thing well doesn't mean another can.
Maybe they need another election disaster like Bush to realise
Save the rhetoric. Whether you like him or not, he was not the election disaster. The disaster was the clusterfuck that the situation became as Gore threatened lawsuits and held up the election process, and as Bush acted less-than-magnanimous about his victory. God, I'm so sick of hearing about this supposed "election disaster". He won. Some old people couldn't figure out a ballot (that was NOT that hard to figure out), and some election fraud came to light all over the country on both sides of the political fence. It was a call to arms for corrective measures, but hardly spelled doom for the electoral process in the US.
it is time to have a look across the border and see how a real election is held.
And it's just that sort of childish bullshit that will keep the divide between the US and Europe growing. Your sniggling little insult is about as useful as all the France-bashing ignorance I heard on our side of the moat the last couple of years.
If you want to offer help, be genuine and keep your sarcasm to yourself. If you want to be a sarcastic prick, don't expect a polite reply.
-Tom
I saw the example new site and it uses smaller fonts. That alone should save a bunch in bandwidth costs!
(yes, Mildred, it's a joke)
it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral
:-)
That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions. A good book that delves further into this question from the humanist perspective is "The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge" by Paul Kurtz. As you may guess, I totally disagree with him (I can explain why if it matters to anyone), but his arguments aren't as easy to dismiss as some religious folk would like to think.
Had that read "Yes, I think there is..."
True, and you are right when you suggest that I really was just trying to show people that there are other ways of thinking about the problem, but I'd add that I could add "I think [...]" to everything I say. The College years drummed that notion out of my head. It's the natural predessor to all claims by everyone so it isn't really needed by anyone except for the sole purpose of softening the blow of the assertion. In this context, maybe softening it would've gotten me fewer enemies (it's amazing how fast my fan/freak lists filled up after this one post!) but I wanted my answer to be as direct as the questioner, and I've kept that direct tone through all these posts (for better or worse).
you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect
Yeah. Sorry about that. I just started getting frustrated at all the flak I got from others for answering that one guy's question.
-Tom
But do you consider it immoral, no, of course not
I'm gonna tell you the same thing I've told everyone else in this thread. Don't put words in my mouth.
Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.
unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.
What does me doing something have to do with whether or not it's immoral? I do immoral things all the time.
I'll say this one more time. The original poster simply asked me why people found porn immoral and I answered him. That is not the same as saying I've never watched porn, nor is it the same as saying I want porn made illegal, nor is it the same as saying I am a prudish twit, all of which are things people seem so to be pulling from my comment and none of which have I said or suggested.
-Tom
Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex.
There is a qualitative difference between watching an act designed to help you forget another's humanity for the sake of personal pleasure and an watching a tree grow.
Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?
Man, I hope it isn't immoral because it's enjoyable! Life would suck if it worked that way. I'm not sure why, though, you'd assume that it was immoral for that reason. I never said that. I never hinted that. Heck, I certainly don't beleive that. All I said was that it is immoral to treat a person like an object to be used and pornography does just that.
This thread has filled with people looking to put words in my mouth. They've suggested that I want to legislate my opinion (which I never said), that I find sex inherantly immoral (which I never said), and now that I find enjoyment immoral (which I never said).
My point is a simple one. Pornography is a medium designed to allow us to take pleasure from an act without true concern for the affect it may have on the other people involved. It fosters an attitude of gratification without consequence at the expense of others. That is wrong.
I'm not taking moral high ground here. I've seen my share of pornography. I am guilty of a great deal of objectification of other people. But whatever I do, I won't delude myself into thinking it's moral. I don't have much tolerance for self-deception.
-Tom
saying objectification is illegal is outright silly
I agree. It's not illegal. It's immoral. There's a difference and I never confused the two.
YOU making a law such that someone cannot watch porn DOES impinge on others.
I agree again. I never once said porn should be illegal. As I stated in another post, I was asked a question about why people find porn immoral and I answered it. My answer never even hinted that I thought porn should be made illegal or gave an opinion one way or the other regarding the Supreme Court case being discussed. I only answered a question that was asked.
It's amazing how much intolerance can manifest itself when someone makes an argument that isn't popular. Sheesh.
And for the record, Yes, the Miss America is about the objectification of women, though not so obviously as pornography.
Tell me, when you're fucking with your wife, you both choose to "act like a tool for your pleasure". What's bad about that? Nothing.
If you think that making love is about making treating the other person as a tool for your pleasure, then you've never done it. It also explains a lot of the rest of your argument. You seem unwilling to see that sex could be different from that. For the record, that is one of the bad effects I associate with a society that considers pornography normal and moral.
You say that consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. What's "moral sex" and who defines that? You? Your church? OK. That's fine. But please don't impose your standarts on everyone else.
I never imposed anything. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly. He wanted to know why people find pornography immoral. I told him. I never said my will should be imposed on anyone. Don't put words in my mouth.
-Tom
What of those that enjoy being treated like a tool for pleasure? Who are you to deny them their pleasure? However alien it may be to you, there are people that enjoy being objectified.
I don't find it alien, I find it sad. Further I don't deny them anything. I simply called it what it is...the objectification of humanity. I never said it should be illegal, only that it is immoral.
-Tom
Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong
;-)
OK, I'll take the trollbait.
What's worse? Neither, when 'having sex' is in the context of pornography. Both are about the same thing. They are about the objectification of other people.
Murder (notice I did not say killing) is the ultimate act of human objectification. It occurs only after a person has decided that another person is too much of an inconvenience or annoyance to let that other person continue to live. The victim is seen only as a means to an end and the murderer decides the means to his end, in this case, has outlived its usefulness. The victim is objectified.
Pornography (notice I did not say sex) is the ultimate expression of human-as-object. In pornography, we take one or more people and show them treating each other like objects upon which to achieve pleasure...ie, the participants in pornography demonstrate that they believe the other people in the scene are means to an end (the ends being self-gratification).
Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. When someone else annoys us or cuases us problems, we must remind ourselves that unlike a tool or other object in the world, these 'annoyances' or 'roadblocks' are people and are not here to serve us or anyone else. Likewise, when someone entices us or titilates us, we must remind ourselves that unlike a sextoy, these 'titillations' are people. They are someone's daughter or son. Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are. They are worth more than that. Consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. And filming it so that others can also objectify the participants only makes it yet less moral.
Furthermore, even if you totally disregard the idea that other people are exactly as valuable as you and that you are too valuable to demean yourself, you must at least acknowledge that what we see and what we experience does affect who we are and who we become. That, in fact, is how we become who we are. We are an amalgamation of our nature and our experiences, with a dash of human spirit thrown in to offset the mix. When our experiences are pornographic, it affects us. Like it or not, there is no reputable psychiatrist who would suggest otherwise. Watching pornography does change who we are as does everything else we do and experience. The question is not "Does it affect who we are?" but rather "How does it affect who we are?" I hope you aren't going to argue that it affects us in a good way?!?
-Tom
It's AOL/TimeWarner, and TimeWarner is a member of the RIAA. I don't think it's too paranoid to say that AOL is being largely ignored in favor of suing other peoples' customers first.
-Tom
If the company was still in business and the original programmer quit his job does that make it OK to steal the ROMs?
Watch your terminology. You've been listening to the RIAA and MPAA too long. It isn't theft. Theft is a legal term that they are misuing. It is a violation of Copyright. Nothing was stolen (legally speaking). The person downloading a ROM didn't take it away from anyone else.
There is a qualitative and even quantitative different between the legal term theft and what people do when they download music, software, or ROMs illegally.
Is it ok to do some gold mining on their land?
No it would not be. Becuase if I did that, I'd have stolen gold from them. They would no longer have it. If, however, I downlaod a ROM that is part of their IP collection, they still have it. You example is not really hitting the mark. Sorry.
It's totally irresponsible to say that because the original programmer or original company isn't making any money off of these licenses that it's OK to just steal their software.
Irresponsible? I don't see how that word realy pertains here. Perhaps you can clarify? Either way, I happen to agree with the previous poster. His assumption, though it was unstated, is that corporations should not be allowed to own copyrights or patents. That should be a right that falls solely to individualls, in so far as it should exist at all! His claim, therefore, that the original programmer isn't making money and so his download is morally acceptable is the same as saying, "I don't acknowledge corporate copyrights" which is both a moral stance and a resonable one.
-Tom
What about the Dell Digital Audio Reciever I bought years ago? They forgot that product like bad date. Now I'm stuck with a product that has buttons on the remote for features they never delivered!
I think I'll get my next DAR from someone who will support the product. Sure, the product is nicely made, and the open source community has rallied behind it, but it would be nice if the company that made it would at least deliver the things they promised about it. now they want us to buy into another one?
-Tom
Just Because Im Educated, Doesnt Make Me Smart: A Case Study of MBA Graduates
;-)
If we're talking about MBA grads, can we just say "Just because we have a degree doesn't mean we're educated" and be done with it?
-Tom
I'm sure they're trying their hardest not to allow it (especially since TiVos run Linux)
Cable companies are some of the largest investors in TiVo (e.g., Cox Communications owns a shload of TiVo shares) so in fact, it's quite likely that TiVo will be allowed to participate in the new DTV era.
-Tom
Submited on september 6, 2003
Sure, but you only submitted one with links from NASA, the Pentagon, and a military contractor. I mean, if you aren't going to take the time to submit it with a real and reputable source linked, like Spaceflight Now, then how can we take you seriously?!?
Sheesh! Some people expect too much.
-Tom
I see compelling evidence that the the RIAA's loss in sales are a direct result off their own actions.
/no/ restrictions on what the client does with it afterward. If they want to resell it, I don't give a crap. If they want to change, I don't give a crap. If they want to throw it away, I don't give a crap. I've been paid the hourly wage I asked for. I hold no claims to the fruits of that labor ad infinitum, unlike what artists seem to think is their "right".
OK. Up front, I am on your side in this; however, there is little doubt in my mind that sharing music online can, is, and will continue to harm the profit that the RIAA and even the artists derive from their music.
I'll add to that, so f*cking what? Of course, the fact that I haven't bought a CD in over 7 years is directly related to the fact that I can download them instead. But I don't care. They don't deserve to be paid for the same 8 hours of work ad infinitum any more than I do. Screw that junk. I attend concerts of bands that I truly enjoy, and I tell others about them. In other words, I'll pay when they perform for me. That's why they call it a performing art. The fact that the RIAA whats to change the name to recording artist is telling of the direction they want to go. I for one am not following them there. I'll continue to download music rather than buy it, and I'll continue to attend concerts, where I know that the band is working for my money.
Yes, I know this means there could be less studio recording in the future. Fine. Live music is better.
Yes, I am in a position to see the other side. I'm a programming consultant. The works I do are done for a fair hourly wage and I place
-Tom
If we are to go through all the trouble of rolling out a new protocol, why would we roll one out that only kinda fixes the problem?
The IM2000 protocol fixes the problem at its source. Isn't that the kind of solution we should be looking for?
-Tom
Because the suits who do the hiring will only look at the paper.
If you think that having an education is about impressing suits and making money, then you probably don't have one. You wouldn't be alone. I know many degreed people with no reasonable education whose only point in attending college was to get a job. You are just going to have to accept, however, that not everyone approaches life from a mercenary perspective.
I quit school in the 8th grade, got my GED and entered the workforce. I was already an established professional in my field (programming consultant) long before I decided to get my degree. In fact, going back to college when I did only hurt my career. I now own my own business, make good money, haven't been seriously affected by the economic downturn, and am better educated in the end. Life is not about keeping your eye on the prize. Go through life like that and you'll end up a miserable person.
I got a degree in religion becuase when I went back to college I asked myself "what should I learn about?" Questions of ultimacy and the purpose of life seemed then and still seem today some of the most important questions to ask and to have answered. I, therefore, studied the subject that would bring me closest to that ideal. I haven't regretted a moment of it.
Stop worrying so much about impressing suits and start trying to impress yourself. The rest will work itself out.
-Tom
One could go for years wondering at the usefulness of such a thing.
It's a travesty of modern public education that people assume that education is merely a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself.
The "usefulness" of any degree is that you are ostensibly a better educated person. Why should education need more justification than that?
-Tom
If Microsoft made a vacuum cleaner, it'd be their only product which would not suck...
Right. It would blow.
BaDumBum.
-Tom