Treatment of insurgents is to be handled in the most nihilistic and amoral way possible. "They're fighting us, so they're sort of soliders but not real soldiers, and even then, they're lucky not to be dead if we don't kill them because we feel like it."
Saddam wasn't intentionally killing civilians as such, he was just killing villages with traitors, and the other people were just collateral damage.
It's no different than when we bombed a resturaunt because we thought Saddam may be inside, but he wasn't inside, though a bunch of civilians were. How are we any better -- because we're the "good guys"?
Sorry, that can't be right. If they're enemy soldiers, then we've got to do things like not torture them, or give them rights under ths ame convention.
Listen, you can't have your torture and your Geneva Convention too.
Do you think we haven't killed women and children, that there are NO women and children in the 50,000 dead civilians the Pentagon insists have been killed(though most organisations put it ten times that)?
I'm certainly claiming that everyone we've fought since the republican guard fell has been a civilian.
Do you think Saddam gassed those people because he was bored and wanted to see something cool? He did it to prevent massive sectarian conflict like we've been trying to police since the government in Iraq fell. He was worried that Iran was funding terrorist groups, and needed to use force to prevent those groups from getting a foothold.
Oh wait. He said exactly what WE said, and did exactly the same thing WE did. The bastard!
I guess it's impolite to mention at this point that we've just spent 5 years killing the exact same people we're demonising Saddam Hussein for killing, isn't it?
I guess it's really impolite to mention that killing people in a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't the means to attack us at the moment, and had no plans to attack us in the future makes us murderers.
No, I saw the software trying to have sexual intercourse with software of the same gender. It was terrifying. I didn't think that software could either have a gender OR have sexual intercourse.
Well, I know for SURE the Sony software was gay, I caught it red handed. I just assumed the Samsung software was too, because they're always hanging out and holding hands (another thing I didn't know software could do).
I don't get nervous, I get ANGRY. I think it's a load of crap that the racist gang "Indian Posse" beat the living shit out of our 14 year old babysitter just because she's white. She never did anything to anyone.
I'd like nothing more than for the entire gang to head down to the south and pick a fight with the KKK, so we can be rid of two sets of violent, hateful, intolerant assholes who make our world a less fun world to live in. Let them have their petty little race war -- against each other. We'll lock up the last man standing.
I live in a tiny town. There shouldn't be gangs here at all.
Point being, if you're going to make tens or hundreds of thousands of drivers useless, why set it up so the driver model actually fixes the problem you're trying to solve, so the ported drivers don't just re-implement the same undesirable kernel access, creating new bugs in the process that make your new OS slow and crashy?
I can tell you that it DOES exist. My Creative Nomad Vision M would simply plug into any up-to-date Windows XP machine, and it would show up as a media device. I didn't need to install the software to see the files on it.
Besides true chodes like Sony and Samsung, both of whom had gay software and stupid drivers last time I owned one, every mp3 player on the planet other than the iPod shows up in My Computer as either a drive or a media device.
The reason, as far as I can tell, is that Apple wants to force you to use iTunes to change anything on your iPod. Kodak does a similar thing with their EasyShare cameras, which is the only real negative of those cameras. Thankfully, unlike an iPod, in a camera you can just pull out the memory card and stick it in your PC.
You know, it seems like there are an awful lot of problems with drivers under Vista. Certainly far more problems than I've seen on Vista.
The thing that bothers me about that is the change in driver architecture was billed as a way to make Vista faster and more stable. Why, then, is it that most of the drivers for Vista are less stable and slower than the same hardware running in XP?
Utilizing the threat of force and seizure of private property are two of the basic functions of government. In this case, it's authorized expilcitly for use against those who would practice copyright infringement in the constitution.
There are a number of arguments for allowing the government to exercise these powers. The first and foremost being that it's expressly allowed by the constitution, which is an agreement on the powers and limitation of powers of the government. This constitution can be changed by democratically elected officials through a democratic process, yet isn't. This makes government a societal agreement. Don't like it? Either convince the majority that it needs to be changed, or don't bother being part of society in that way.
I suppose it should be said, I'm assuming this is in a US jurisdiction, since the dollar amount is in USD rather than GBP.
"Pass the cost on to the consumers anyway" means they've got a higher priced product in an incredibly competitive market. If the eepc pricing is indicative, there's a non-trivial mark-up for including Windows. If you can sell a linux box for less, then you can undercut the competition using Windows, even on the same exact hardware with the same exact margins.
Another example, perhaps more pertient, is eye colour.
People with blue eyes are more likely to be hired for positions of power.
Iyou don't have blue eyes, odds are you'll never be able to become president. Every single president for at least a generation has had blue eyes. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford all had blue eyes.
Even among picks for the president and VP, Joe Biden and John McCain both have blue eyes.
Now, keep in mind only about 1 in 6 Americans have blue eyes.
The colour of your eyes is an unalterable trait, yet simply having blue eyes will help secure you a much higher paying job of greater authority.
So, does the unspoken prejudice caused by eye colour rate on par with well-known racial prejudce caused by skin colour?
It takes an incredible amount to actually kill an XP box. You can make explorer upset, you can make your visible applications want to kill you, but unless you've done something phenomenally stupid, in which case you'd know it, task manager will usually pop right up and let you terminate the offending process with extreme prejudice.
Do you know why computer speakers all have green rca jacks, computer microphones all have pink jacks, computer monitor plugs are all blue, keyboard plugs are all purple, and all mouse plugs (besides USB) are bluish green?
Because Microsoft told the OEMs to do that.
Do you know why Windows 95 used VXD drivers, Windows 98 used WDM drivers, and Windows XP drivers won't work with Windows Vista?
Because Micrsoft said so.
Do you know why more systems don't ship as dual-boot systems?
Because Microsoft said so.
Microsoft holds pretty much ultimate power over what OEMs are and aren't allowed to do. With the exercise of this power, they have a responsibility to use it to help promote a positive user experience.
What about racism/generalisations based on empirical evidence?
Government data for my area shows a certain demographic group tends to be overwhelmingly unemployed, they form an overwhelming majority of criminals in prisons, and outside of government data, there is only one gang in my area, and it is a racist gang devoted soley to this demographic. This gang is composed soley of this one demographic, and the name includes a slightly anachronistic name of the demographic.
Given that data shows an overwhelming correlation between this demographic and many traits, why would it be unethical to make generalizations, as long as you allow that such generalizations are indeed generalizations, open to exceptions based on empirical evidence?
Not really related to DRM, but Autopatcher is an amazing piece of software for cutting down on the hassle of re-installing. Basically, it pulls all the patches off a server and installs them in one go. You end up with the latest and greatest with only one reboot.
I've used it on my last few installs, and wouldn't go back to Microsoft's shitty update system.
To be fair regarding that situation you linked to, that guy walked in with a chip on his shoulder, refused to work with tech support, and basically demanded a very expensive solution justified by something that may be fixable with a patch.
If he's having a problem, the first thing to do is realise he's calling tech support, not the other way around. The way he's waving his dick around only makes me feel bad for the poor tech support kid. It's just some 18 year old making a few bucks over minimum wage copying and pasting scripts. This guy acts like they're an affront to God, doing their job.
Common problem among semi-skilled users. They think they know all the answers so they demand a solution that isn't conducive to the problem. I see it as an engineer so often, I actually don't listen to people who ask for a certain solution anymore. I automatically head into finding out the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah....so...um....
Treatment of insurgents is to be handled in the most nihilistic and amoral way possible. "They're fighting us, so they're sort of soliders but not real soldiers, and even then, they're lucky not to be dead if we don't kill them because we feel like it."
I'm so glad we're the good guys.
Saddam wasn't intentionally killing civilians as such, he was just killing villages with traitors, and the other people were just collateral damage.
It's no different than when we bombed a resturaunt because we thought Saddam may be inside, but he wasn't inside, though a bunch of civilians were. How are we any better -- because we're the "good guys"?
I dunno. I've recently paid for a number of games. I wouldn't pay for Spore, Bioshock, or now Red Alert 3.
The cost is the same, but the people who made the games I did pay for didn't piss me off.
Don't piss off customers. It doesn't help you make money.
Sorry, that can't be right. If they're enemy soldiers, then we've got to do things like not torture them, or give them rights under ths ame convention.
Listen, you can't have your torture and your Geneva Convention too.
Do you think we haven't killed women and children, that there are NO women and children in the 50,000 dead civilians the Pentagon insists have been killed(though most organisations put it ten times that)?
Really? Do you think that?
Really?
I'm certainly claiming that everyone we've fought since the republican guard fell has been a civilian.
Do you think Saddam gassed those people because he was bored and wanted to see something cool? He did it to prevent massive sectarian conflict like we've been trying to police since the government in Iraq fell. He was worried that Iran was funding terrorist groups, and needed to use force to prevent those groups from getting a foothold.
Oh wait. He said exactly what WE said, and did exactly the same thing WE did. The bastard!
I guess it's impolite to mention at this point that we've just spent 5 years killing the exact same people we're demonising Saddam Hussein for killing, isn't it?
I guess it's really impolite to mention that killing people in a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't the means to attack us at the moment, and had no plans to attack us in the future makes us murderers.
If they're not managing your rights, is it rights management?
I mean, you can install on as many computers as you want.
No, I saw the software trying to have sexual intercourse with software of the same gender. It was terrifying. I didn't think that software could either have a gender OR have sexual intercourse.
Well, I know for SURE the Sony software was gay, I caught it red handed. I just assumed the Samsung software was too, because they're always hanging out and holding hands (another thing I didn't know software could do).
You're stereotyping people yourself.
I don't get nervous, I get ANGRY. I think it's a load of crap that the racist gang "Indian Posse" beat the living shit out of our 14 year old babysitter just because she's white. She never did anything to anyone.
I'd like nothing more than for the entire gang to head down to the south and pick a fight with the KKK, so we can be rid of two sets of violent, hateful, intolerant assholes who make our world a less fun world to live in. Let them have their petty little race war -- against each other. We'll lock up the last man standing.
I live in a tiny town. There shouldn't be gangs here at all.
Yeah, welcome to Engineering.
Getting people to do what you want to do is a serious part of it.
Point being, if you're going to make tens or hundreds of thousands of drivers useless, why set it up so the driver model actually fixes the problem you're trying to solve, so the ported drivers don't just re-implement the same undesirable kernel access, creating new bugs in the process that make your new OS slow and crashy?
I can tell you that it DOES exist. My Creative Nomad Vision M would simply plug into any up-to-date Windows XP machine, and it would show up as a media device. I didn't need to install the software to see the files on it.
Besides true chodes like Sony and Samsung, both of whom had gay software and stupid drivers last time I owned one, every mp3 player on the planet other than the iPod shows up in My Computer as either a drive or a media device.
The reason, as far as I can tell, is that Apple wants to force you to use iTunes to change anything on your iPod. Kodak does a similar thing with their EasyShare cameras, which is the only real negative of those cameras. Thankfully, unlike an iPod, in a camera you can just pull out the memory card and stick it in your PC.
What's the point of a new driver model if you can just port old drivers and amplify the same bugs you were trying to kill in the first place?
You know, it seems like there are an awful lot of problems with drivers under Vista. Certainly far more problems than I've seen on Vista.
The thing that bothers me about that is the change in driver architecture was billed as a way to make Vista faster and more stable. Why, then, is it that most of the drivers for Vista are less stable and slower than the same hardware running in XP?
Utilizing the threat of force and seizure of private property are two of the basic functions of government. In this case, it's authorized expilcitly for use against those who would practice copyright infringement in the constitution.
There are a number of arguments for allowing the government to exercise these powers. The first and foremost being that it's expressly allowed by the constitution, which is an agreement on the powers and limitation of powers of the government. This constitution can be changed by democratically elected officials through a democratic process, yet isn't. This makes government a societal agreement. Don't like it? Either convince the majority that it needs to be changed, or don't bother being part of society in that way.
I suppose it should be said, I'm assuming this is in a US jurisdiction, since the dollar amount is in USD rather than GBP.
"Pass the cost on to the consumers anyway" means they've got a higher priced product in an incredibly competitive market. If the eepc pricing is indicative, there's a non-trivial mark-up for including Windows. If you can sell a linux box for less, then you can undercut the competition using Windows, even on the same exact hardware with the same exact margins.
Another example, perhaps more pertient, is eye colour.
People with blue eyes are more likely to be hired for positions of power.
Iyou don't have blue eyes, odds are you'll never be able to become president. Every single president for at least a generation has had blue eyes. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford all had blue eyes.
Even among picks for the president and VP, Joe Biden and John McCain both have blue eyes.
Now, keep in mind only about 1 in 6 Americans have blue eyes.
The colour of your eyes is an unalterable trait, yet simply having blue eyes will help secure you a much higher paying job of greater authority.
So, does the unspoken prejudice caused by eye colour rate on par with well-known racial prejudce caused by skin colour?
Control-Shift-Escape. It is your friend always.
It takes an incredible amount to actually kill an XP box. You can make explorer upset, you can make your visible applications want to kill you, but unless you've done something phenomenally stupid, in which case you'd know it, task manager will usually pop right up and let you terminate the offending process with extreme prejudice.
Do you know why computer speakers all have green rca jacks, computer microphones all have pink jacks, computer monitor plugs are all blue, keyboard plugs are all purple, and all mouse plugs (besides USB) are bluish green?
Because Microsoft told the OEMs to do that.
Do you know why Windows 95 used VXD drivers, Windows 98 used WDM drivers, and Windows XP drivers won't work with Windows Vista?
Because Micrsoft said so.
Do you know why more systems don't ship as dual-boot systems?
Because Microsoft said so.
Microsoft holds pretty much ultimate power over what OEMs are and aren't allowed to do. With the exercise of this power, they have a responsibility to use it to help promote a positive user experience.
What about racism/generalisations based on empirical evidence?
Government data for my area shows a certain demographic group tends to be overwhelmingly unemployed, they form an overwhelming majority of criminals in prisons, and outside of government data, there is only one gang in my area, and it is a racist gang devoted soley to this demographic. This gang is composed soley of this one demographic, and the name includes a slightly anachronistic name of the demographic.
Given that data shows an overwhelming correlation between this demographic and many traits, why would it be unethical to make generalizations, as long as you allow that such generalizations are indeed generalizations, open to exceptions based on empirical evidence?
If they failed in court, then obviously it wasn't as blatant as it is here.
The germans in the late '30s all picked up anti-semitism. Does your arguement still stand?
Not really related to DRM, but Autopatcher is an amazing piece of software for cutting down on the hassle of re-installing. Basically, it pulls all the patches off a server and installs them in one go. You end up with the latest and greatest with only one reboot.
I've used it on my last few installs, and wouldn't go back to Microsoft's shitty update system.
To be fair regarding that situation you linked to, that guy walked in with a chip on his shoulder, refused to work with tech support, and basically demanded a very expensive solution justified by something that may be fixable with a patch.
If he's having a problem, the first thing to do is realise he's calling tech support, not the other way around. The way he's waving his dick around only makes me feel bad for the poor tech support kid. It's just some 18 year old making a few bucks over minimum wage copying and pasting scripts. This guy acts like they're an affront to God, doing their job.
Common problem among semi-skilled users. They think they know all the answers so they demand a solution that isn't conducive to the problem. I see it as an engineer so often, I actually don't listen to people who ask for a certain solution anymore. I automatically head into finding out the problem.