I have to agree with this. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I'm sure the initial vision was for no apps at all. Everything would be built as webpages/webapps for Safari.
That's fine, but what about corporations, limited liability and government granted intellectual property monopolies?. I take it you are against those as well?
How do you steal shit? Do you take it directly from the bowl or get in from the treatment plant in bulk? Its just not a crime I've heard of before, although nothing surprises me anymore. What do they do with the shit once they've stolen it? Is there a good market? So many questions!
OK, I'll try again:). The OP didn't say anything about taking things without paying, that is your interpretation (you even said it yourself - "I assume he meant..."). They only said that apps aren't worth paying for - not that you should take them anyway.
Anyway, it was a flippant remark and to be honest I'm totally with you in that I'd much rather pay a fair price for an app than put up with micro-transactions or ads or whatever. On the other hand since most apps are utter crap the creators deserve nothing.
Can that many people not find ways to entertain themselves when not working.....?
I've often wondered that myself. I put it down to people fooling themselves because it makes it a bit easier to get through those days at work. Anecdotal I know, but I have a friend who said this for years ('I like work because otherwise I'd just be bored'). He now lives off the income from a few rental properties he bought on the side and basically doesn't work. He doesn't seem bored to me.
No, I'm suggesting they want to encourage those fees to build momentum away from the principle of 'free at the point of use' (which is one of the founding principles of the NHS). Any change from that is a political decision that can only be controlled by the Government. The NHS doesn't petition for money - it is apolitical (in as much as it is run by the Government through the Department of Health so follows Government policy).
It really comes down to how you pay for your ageing population and poor people, doesn't it. I'm happy with the NHS - free at the point of use (but then you might call me a socialist). If that involves raising taxes then I'm fine with that. How would you propose to deal with the costs of poor people and the elderly?
See that's what's funny - you make up my reactions and intentions to make sure it fits your 'political correctness' narrative, no matter what. Its wasn't even an ad hominem as you make no arguments (sorry, apart from 'that nonsense is never simply pointed out for being what it is' which is clearly wrong because apart from anything else, you and others spend a lot of time pointing these things out). You just make vague, half-assed, pointless comments about groups of people so you can then tack on some stupid narrative about political correctness.
The irony is that you didn't even say anything offensive, so my comment was about your trite and boring attempt to string together the narrative you want. You were the only one wanting it be politically incorrect but you couldn't even achieve it. Exactly the same is true of your initial post, you point out something and then shoehorn in the bit about political correctness.
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
AC, I would mod you up if I could. Platforms for healthy skepticism are very rare these days. All you did was ask a simple yet genuine question that should be allowed to remain for intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, 99% of Slashdotters take astronomy to heart, turning it into an almost religion and therefore start throwing stones, only to make those in politics we are all unhappy with right now, look no worse. The truth is, most people here are techies only and actually know very little of the subject they are trying to defend.
In a written only medium its can be very hard to separate a real troll from a sceptic who is just rude. Therefore if someone genuinely wants to ask a question they should probably be careful not to pitch it in a form that looks like a troll. Also don't ask the same question in every single science post.
Maybe because its one small step to understanding the universe and our place in it, and without all those potentially useless steps we'd be sitting in our cold caves eating dinosaur sushi. Maybe it will lead to nothing, or maybe our understanding of stars and planets will one day lead to better power sources (fusion/fission) or superconductors or communications or a new series of Survivor. Perhaps you think research works like Civilisation V, where you can view the tech tree and plan which advances you are going to get in the future, but it doesn't. Faraday didn't think- 'I'd like my ancestors to watch The Kardashians and heat up their popcorn in microwaves'. - he played around with potentially pointless experiments in the full knowledge that perhaps all he'd get out of it was a machine that made pretty sparks, but with the hope that it would lead him to something huge.
And apart from all that - what do you think it actually cost? A few university researchers using a telescope that was already built?
Honestly, Slashdot has turned into the playground of the Luddites. All that are left are the political stooges and a few of us lost geeks wandering around wondering what happened.
You don't have to reduce the budget to run it down. The point is they are privatising it by the back door, therefore any user fees added are part of a long term political policy and not directly to do with budgets. Really the issue is talking about the NHS as something to help the needy - it is not medicaid or whatever programs they have in the US to help the needy. It is how we run our health care, for everyone, needy or not (and Conservative policy not withstanding). Comparing it with programs for the needy is comparing apples and oranges.
Sounds like a load of baloney to me and really explains nothing. Sounds, in fact, like a cover up from someone who doesn't understand the implications of their lie.
It still doesn't explain why everything went down so catastrophically. Why was there only one power source? What about back up servers and other redundant systems? Why was it so easy for a contractor to switch the power off? Was he following procedure. What about redundancy? Why couldn't he just switch it back on again (I know, but if its such a simple system that it doesn't need redundancy then surely switching it back on would fix it). What about redundancy?
At the end of the day, unless the contractor was working way outside allowed procedures - e.g. deliberately switching it off for a laugh - then the fault lies way over his head.
(I know I'm preaching to the converted here - it just grinds my gears)
Just read an article about England's NHS service considering a plan to let people prioritize their appointments by paying extra, because they need the money.
You need to look into this more before using it as an argument. The reason the NHS in 'England' is suffering is because of Conservative party policies. Ideas like these are floated because it is (Conservative) Government policy at the moment to run down the services and thus show that the NHS needs more privatisation. This is not speculation - current Government ministers have been involved in writing planning documents and books outlining just these policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. Pretty much the same. I'm the UK though, so maybe that would explain why I have literally never heard of this until now.
Why should robots bother doing all that hard work in the first place? They could just hire all the unemployed humans to do it for them.
I have to agree with this. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I'm sure the initial vision was for no apps at all. Everything would be built as webpages/webapps for Safari.
That's fine, but what about corporations, limited liability and government granted intellectual property monopolies?. I take it you are against those as well?
Can I have your copy?
Yup. The problem now is - to what degree can you trust anything?
How do you steal shit? Do you take it directly from the bowl or get in from the treatment plant in bulk? Its just not a crime I've heard of before, although nothing surprises me anymore. What do they do with the shit once they've stolen it? Is there a good market? So many questions!
OK, I'll try again :). The OP didn't say anything about taking things without paying, that is your interpretation (you even said it yourself - "I assume he meant..."). They only said that apps aren't worth paying for - not that you should take them anyway.
Anyway, it was a flippant remark and to be honest I'm totally with you in that I'd much rather pay a fair price for an app than put up with micro-transactions or ads or whatever. On the other hand since most apps are utter crap the creators deserve nothing.
Can that many people not find ways to entertain themselves when not working.....?
I've often wondered that myself. I put it down to people fooling themselves because it makes it a bit easier to get through those days at work. Anecdotal I know, but I have a friend who said this for years ('I like work because otherwise I'd just be bored'). He now lives off the income from a few rental properties he bought on the side and basically doesn't work. He doesn't seem bored to me.
Personally I don't pay for things I don't use, so in that regard the OP is spot on.
No, I'm suggesting they want to encourage those fees to build momentum away from the principle of 'free at the point of use' (which is one of the founding principles of the NHS). Any change from that is a political decision that can only be controlled by the Government. The NHS doesn't petition for money - it is apolitical (in as much as it is run by the Government through the Department of Health so follows Government policy).
It really comes down to how you pay for your ageing population and poor people, doesn't it. I'm happy with the NHS - free at the point of use (but then you might call me a socialist). If that involves raising taxes then I'm fine with that. How would you propose to deal with the costs of poor people and the elderly?
(Incidentally, some studies suggest that migrants are an overall fiscal plus to the UK - http://www.cream-migration.org...)
See that's what's funny - you make up my reactions and intentions to make sure it fits your 'political correctness' narrative, no matter what. Its wasn't even an ad hominem as you make no arguments (sorry, apart from 'that nonsense is never simply pointed out for being what it is' which is clearly wrong because apart from anything else, you and others spend a lot of time pointing these things out). You just make vague, half-assed, pointless comments about groups of people so you can then tack on some stupid narrative about political correctness.
The irony is that you didn't even say anything offensive, so my comment was about your trite and boring attempt to string together the narrative you want. You were the only one wanting it be politically incorrect but you couldn't even achieve it. Exactly the same is true of your initial post, you point out something and then shoehorn in the bit about political correctness.
Still at it I see ;). Remember, ignorance is power!
You're funny
You guys are too funny. What I like best is you don't see the irony of your fake narratives about fake narratives.
Yeh, its Luddite troll. I was wondering when you'd turn up. I was beginning to think you wouldn't make it.
I would mod you but unfortunately there isn't a '-1 interesting but you ruined it'
Actually, given that it had all the definitions of a troll I would say that the 'good answer' to name calling ratio was pretty good. *shrug*
It sure is, just not in the way you suggest.
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.
AC, I would mod you up if I could. Platforms for healthy skepticism are very rare these days. All you did was ask a simple yet genuine question that should be allowed to remain for intelligent discussion. Unfortunately, 99% of Slashdotters take astronomy to heart, turning it into an almost religion and therefore start throwing stones, only to make those in politics we are all unhappy with right now, look no worse. The truth is, most people here are techies only and actually know very little of the subject they are trying to defend.
In a written only medium its can be very hard to separate a real troll from a sceptic who is just rude. Therefore if someone genuinely wants to ask a question they should probably be careful not to pitch it in a form that looks like a troll. Also don't ask the same question in every single science post.
Maybe because its one small step to understanding the universe and our place in it, and without all those potentially useless steps we'd be sitting in our cold caves eating dinosaur sushi. Maybe it will lead to nothing, or maybe our understanding of stars and planets will one day lead to better power sources (fusion/fission) or superconductors or communications or a new series of Survivor. Perhaps you think research works like Civilisation V, where you can view the tech tree and plan which advances you are going to get in the future, but it doesn't. Faraday didn't think- 'I'd like my ancestors to watch The Kardashians and heat up their popcorn in microwaves'. - he played around with potentially pointless experiments in the full knowledge that perhaps all he'd get out of it was a machine that made pretty sparks, but with the hope that it would lead him to something huge.
And apart from all that - what do you think it actually cost? A few university researchers using a telescope that was already built?
Honestly, Slashdot has turned into the playground of the Luddites. All that are left are the political stooges and a few of us lost geeks wandering around wondering what happened.
http://www.independent.co.uk/v...
You don't have to reduce the budget to run it down. The point is they are privatising it by the back door, therefore any user fees added are part of a long term political policy and not directly to do with budgets. Really the issue is talking about the NHS as something to help the needy - it is not medicaid or whatever programs they have in the US to help the needy. It is how we run our health care, for everyone, needy or not (and Conservative policy not withstanding). Comparing it with programs for the needy is comparing apples and oranges.
Sounds like a load of baloney to me and really explains nothing. Sounds, in fact, like a cover up from someone who doesn't understand the implications of their lie.
It still doesn't explain why everything went down so catastrophically. Why was there only one power source? What about back up servers and other redundant systems? Why was it so easy for a contractor to switch the power off? Was he following procedure. What about redundancy? Why couldn't he just switch it back on again (I know, but if its such a simple system that it doesn't need redundancy then surely switching it back on would fix it). What about redundancy?
At the end of the day, unless the contractor was working way outside allowed procedures - e.g. deliberately switching it off for a laugh - then the fault lies way over his head.
(I know I'm preaching to the converted here - it just grinds my gears)
Just read an article about England's NHS service considering a plan to let people prioritize their appointments by paying extra, because they need the money.
You need to look into this more before using it as an argument. The reason the NHS in 'England' is suffering is because of Conservative party policies. Ideas like these are floated because it is (Conservative) Government policy at the moment to run down the services and thus show that the NHS needs more privatisation. This is not speculation - current Government ministers have been involved in writing planning documents and books outlining just these policies.