Now, you know, Microsoft understands that 90% of the world's people are generally stupid and uneducated.
Microsoft understands that most people want to treat a computer as if it was something they already know, like a human (clippy) or a desk (the desktop metaphor). The open source community still insists people think like computers to deal with them. That's not going to happen. We have to rise up to the challenge and design systems that act like things people already know, instead of requiring people to learn entire new paradigms of behavior before they can write a letter.
It's called personal responsibility. If there is a Ford dealership close to my house and all I ever do is buy Fords, should Ford be held liable when all my cars fall apart?
Get informed. Use your brain. Own up to the fact that you have to actually make your own choices.
Theoretically, I agree with you. People should make informed choices. The problem is that we easily make thousands of choices every single day, and it is just not possible to be informed about all of them. If people have to get informed about everything they do, how do you solve the information overload problem. You are likely informed about computers, but are you fully informed about wallpapers and wallpaper adhesive when you want to paper a wall in your home? Are you fully informed about lawnmowers when you wish to purchase one to mow your lawn with? You yourself could easily list thousands of things in your daily life you are not fully informed about because you just haven't gotten around to it yet, and to most people computers are way down the list of things they feel a need to be informed about, so they just never get around to it.
In a country in which more than 40% of the voters have been so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore, and a significant portion of the rest feel trapped into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in election after election, I would think questioning and challenging such a system that is supposed to be "Of, By and For the People" and is plainly NOT would be considered quite patriotic.
I would agree. My country (belgium) has not just the right to vote, but the duty to vote. True representational democracy requires that everyone participate, and that means that everyone should vote. If 40 percent of the population does not take part politically in their country, that's what I would call a broken system.
So is Bush supposed to stop for EVERYTHING that goes wrong. For all he and the Pentagon knew, it was just a freak event in involved a plane that "might have been" malfunctioning. It was only after the second event did it raise a red flag sort of speak.
You still don't get it. Bush was informed of the first crash before he went into the school, and he did not stop his photo op. Very few people criticize him for that. What they criticize him for is that when his assistant told him "the nation is under attack" after the second attack, he sat for seven minutes in a clasroom reading "my pet goat" instead of actually being the commander in chief. No leader worth the title would have done that.
The error in your reasoning is that you assume efficiency always benefits everyone. Working for lower wages is more efficient, but not beneficial for a lot of people.
But in a free job market, jobs will balance out at a point that is acceptable to both sides, employers and employees.
Microsoft abusing it's monopoly is not beneficial to most people.
And their monopoly was handed to them in the form of copyrights and patents by the us government, and is being continued to exist by the government by giving them a get out of jail free card in the anti-trust case.
Making cars that breaks down quicker sells more cars, but is not beneficial for most people.
And if people are aware some company makes shoddier cars than other companies for the same price, they won't buy those cars.
A free market works relatively well, but please don't pretend that it's perfect.
The problem is not that a free market is somehow inadequate, it's that a market is never free, and over time becomes less free. Government has to step in to make sure that all the market players are aware of the full cost of everything, and that the barrier to entry for the market stays low. If government had done its job with respect to microsoft then the anti-trust legislation would have forced microsoft to behave. It's when legislators claim the market should be free that it loses its freedom and becomes a bad thing for the people.
So basically your argument is that people aren't responsible enough to make good decisions on their own, so the government has to decide for them.
The reality is that people very much do not make the right decisions, no matter how much you would like them to, and that pretty much leaves only the government capable of making them do so. People know nike is evil, and they buy nike clothing regardless. The current market situation is proof that people will make the selfish choice rather than the right one.
Now, there are two ways out of the problem of corporate america screwing over everyone to knock a buck of the sales price, and the average citizen going along with it:
- educate every single american to care about the people getting screwed, and only buy morally acceptable products, no matter how expensive or uncool they are
- have a single bill or court decision saying that it is illegal to sell products inside the united states made by workers who don't have certain workers rights
Which do you think is the quickest easiest way to get things done? Takes a really sharp mind to figure that one out, you know.
Because if you do, you should support lawsuits like these which say that people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Well, I'm not for unnecessary lawsuits, but if it's the only way to deal with the reality that most people are too stupid, ignorant or selfish to know the difference between right and wrong, I'm all for it.
One time people made your exact argument in favor of slave labor inside the united states. They said it was impeding the market by making it illegal to have slaves. Some things are just plain wrong, and you don't need people to make the choice for themselves, you just outlaw the stuff outright, so they know not to ever try making the wrong choice.
IIRC, the key jsut wouldn't install. You'd go through the wizard's steps, and they would all run, but dump some error message right at the last and fail. I believe this was with both IE 5 and IE 6, but it's been over a year so I simply don't recall.
Did you submit it as a support request on codeweavers.com?
I used to work at a big music store (headquartered in MN) that would destroy thousands of perfectly good pianos and organs to take them off the market, so they could sell more electronic and upright pianos. Can't find a 25 dollar 'you move it' piano in Minneapolis? Thats why..
Not that I want to argue with you, but I don't get the economics behind this. Are they buying up pianos to destroy them? If so, how could that be profitable? And if they aren't, where are they getting them?
This leaves me wondering, who this offer is really targeted at?
I think it's targetted at people who for whatever reason are ready to dump their ipod and are considering various options to replace the ipod with, so as to lure them all into buying the DJ.
Plus the DJ has dedicated "home" and "back" buttons (e.g. a superior interface!), a _much_ better battery, and a better warranty (1 year standard). And it's cheaper, too.
To be fair to the ipod, it has a back button, and it comes with a one year warranty (though it might not cover as much as the DJ's).
The difference is that mozilla, unlike IE, does not have an infrastructure for installing stuff without user intervention that can be exploited when a hole in it is found.
My bank (ING belgium) has worked for years in mozilla (started using it with moz M18). What they did was serve up a regular old html site (with some javascript for dropdown menu's, that you don't really need) on 127.0.0.1 through a locally installed encrypting proxy server, available for windows, linux (using gtk), and mac os.
If you're being serious, you should know that in all likelihood they are legally unable to open source their codecs due to patents covering them. Most codecs out there can not be legally open-sourced because they are based on patents licensed from someone else.
So complaining real doesn't open their codecs is really not fair unless you know for a fact that it's not covered by patents, or it is only covered by patents owned by real inc.
So why do I want Real or OSS variant? Their encoding is shitty and their realtime streaming is even shittier.
There are still a lot of online radio stations which only stream in real. And why do you say the streaming is shitty? The buffering... buffering does not happen in my experience more often with real than with mediaplayer.
Actually, I've always been more partial to this argument:
A free market is unstable. Scale effects (economies of scale) mean that almost all free markets over time become monopolies or oligopolies, because it's inherently more profitable to merge with or take over your competitor than to keep going it alone. All economists agree that from a society-wide point of view monopolies or oligopolies are bad, because they're inefficient (not inefficient in production, but inefficient in the use of capital). That means that government has to step in to make sure the market stays free, or in other words that money and power does not concentrate in the hands of a few big powers. That means you need to actively redistribute money. And that means you need to tax the rich harder, and give disproportionately more money to the poor. That is, if you want an efficient economy.
it is much easier to feel good about yourself with mindless slogans like [...] "war is baaaddd!" than it is if one considers varying economic theories (perhaps something that did not originate with Marx/Engels *gasp* i.e. Hayek's theories), the validity of just war theory, etc.
Problem number one: economic theory was never a stated reason for the iraq war. In fact, it was disclaimed over and over that economic benefit was a goal of the iraq war.
So that leaves war theory. If you want to educate yourself on war theory, read michael i. handel's masters of war: classical strategic thought. It's long, sometimes pretty boring, but it is comprehensive in its review of classic war theory. If you haven't read a war theory book before, you'll be enlightened. The author used to be a professor of strategy at the US Naval War college, and now he writes books.
There was a study done comparing the belief in a number of assertions that were false, and fox viewers were most likely to claim they were true.
The format of hannity and colmes does not allow colmes to reply to hannity most of the time. Franken attacked colmes over this, and that's the defense colmes used personally for why he comes across as so weak.
I do agree they're not conservative, because a true conservative would not back bush's economic policy or his military agenda, and fox definitely does that.
that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them.
And which stories are being silenced on that damn liberal media then?
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids...
And what makes that principal so accurate on what was the best thing to do for the president of the united states while the country was under attack?
There is no debatability, he is commander in chief, the moment the words "we are under attack" reached him he should have gotten up and commanded. He didn't. That should be all you need to know.
What is debatable is whether or not he should have gone into the classroom in the first place after having been informed of the first attack and having seen the memos al qaeda was planning on attacking the world trade center, and was planning on hijacking airplanes.
Few who care to objectively watch this 'documentary' can deny that he presents his entire story with a good deal of bias and slant.
Wouldn't it be great if movies never tried to make a political statement? Oh what a happy day it would be then.
It can be argued that presenting this message in the form of a documentary movie is an attempt to sidestep the campaign finance laws
Oh, and all the bush-approved ads on kerry are telling the truth? Like those ads claiming kerry opposed the weapons systems being used in iraq right now, which is more deceitful than anything in fahrenheit 9/11.
Moore has omitted *all* material that might cast the current administration in anything other than a bad light.
Moore is telling you the part of the story you're not getting from Bush's PR team. He is the reason you're getting a more complete picture. Let Bush do his pro message, and let those who oppose him do the anti message, listen to both, and draw your conclusions.
Make a boatload of money.
Damn you Moore, you filthy capitalist. I swear, those commie liberal bastards all love capitalism, um, wait, I meant hate, no, um, damn it, now I'm all confused.
Those who think Moore is full of shit will still think so and will point to the movie as proof of how evil he is.
That's called ad hominem, and it is a logical fallacy. The messenger does not influence the correctness of the message. Anyone who lets himself get swayed by who does the talking instead of what they are talking about is not being objective about things.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of Mozilla (4.78) it's not even all that stable
Not even is it not stable, it doesn't exist. There is netscape 4.78, there is netscape 6/7 and there is mozilla 1.x. Which are you talking about?
Now, you know, Microsoft understands that 90% of the world's people are generally stupid and uneducated.
Microsoft understands that most people want to treat a computer as if it was something they already know, like a human (clippy) or a desk (the desktop metaphor). The open source community still insists people think like computers to deal with them. That's not going to happen. We have to rise up to the challenge and design systems that act like things people already know, instead of requiring people to learn entire new paradigms of behavior before they can write a letter.
It's called personal responsibility. If there is a Ford dealership close to my house and all I ever do is buy Fords, should Ford be held liable when all my cars fall apart?
Get informed. Use your brain. Own up to the fact that you have to actually make your own choices.
Theoretically, I agree with you. People should make informed choices. The problem is that we easily make thousands of choices every single day, and it is just not possible to be informed about all of them. If people have to get informed about everything they do, how do you solve the information overload problem. You are likely informed about computers, but are you fully informed about wallpapers and wallpaper adhesive when you want to paper a wall in your home? Are you fully informed about lawnmowers when you wish to purchase one to mow your lawn with? You yourself could easily list thousands of things in your daily life you are not fully informed about because you just haven't gotten around to it yet, and to most people computers are way down the list of things they feel a need to be informed about, so they just never get around to it.
In a country in which more than 40% of the voters have been so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore, and a significant portion of the rest feel trapped into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in election after election, I would think questioning and challenging such a system that is supposed to be "Of, By and For the People" and is plainly NOT would be considered quite patriotic.
I would agree. My country (belgium) has not just the right to vote, but the duty to vote. True representational democracy requires that everyone participate, and that means that everyone should vote. If 40 percent of the population does not take part politically in their country, that's what I would call a broken system.
So is Bush supposed to stop for EVERYTHING that goes wrong. For all he and the Pentagon knew, it was just a freak event in involved a plane that "might have been" malfunctioning. It was only after the second event did it raise a red flag sort of speak.
You still don't get it. Bush was informed of the first crash before he went into the school, and he did not stop his photo op. Very few people criticize him for that. What they criticize him for is that when his assistant told him "the nation is under attack" after the second attack, he sat for seven minutes in a clasroom reading "my pet goat" instead of actually being the commander in chief. No leader worth the title would have done that.
The error in your reasoning is that you assume efficiency always benefits everyone. Working for lower wages is more efficient, but not beneficial for a lot of people.
But in a free job market, jobs will balance out at a point that is acceptable to both sides, employers and employees.
Microsoft abusing it's monopoly is not beneficial to most people.
And their monopoly was handed to them in the form of copyrights and patents by the us government, and is being continued to exist by the government by giving them a get out of jail free card in the anti-trust case.
Making cars that breaks down quicker sells more cars, but is not beneficial for most people.
And if people are aware some company makes shoddier cars than other companies for the same price, they won't buy those cars.
A free market works relatively well, but please don't pretend that it's perfect.
The problem is not that a free market is somehow inadequate, it's that a market is never free, and over time becomes less free. Government has to step in to make sure that all the market players are aware of the full cost of everything, and that the barrier to entry for the market stays low. If government had done its job with respect to microsoft then the anti-trust legislation would have forced microsoft to behave. It's when legislators claim the market should be free that it loses its freedom and becomes a bad thing for the people.
So basically your argument is that people aren't responsible enough to make good decisions on their own, so the government has to decide for them.
The reality is that people very much do not make the right decisions, no matter how much you would like them to, and that pretty much leaves only the government capable of making them do so. People know nike is evil, and they buy nike clothing regardless. The current market situation is proof that people will make the selfish choice rather than the right one.
Now, there are two ways out of the problem of corporate america screwing over everyone to knock a buck of the sales price, and the average citizen going along with it:
- educate every single american to care about the people getting screwed, and only buy morally acceptable products, no matter how expensive or uncool they are
- have a single bill or court decision saying that it is illegal to sell products inside the united states made by workers who don't have certain workers rights
Which do you think is the quickest easiest way to get things done? Takes a really sharp mind to figure that one out, you know.
Because if you do, you should support lawsuits like these which say that people are too stupid to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Well, I'm not for unnecessary lawsuits, but if it's the only way to deal with the reality that most people are too stupid, ignorant or selfish to know the difference between right and wrong, I'm all for it.
One time people made your exact argument in favor of slave labor inside the united states. They said it was impeding the market by making it illegal to have slaves. Some things are just plain wrong, and you don't need people to make the choice for themselves, you just outlaw the stuff outright, so they know not to ever try making the wrong choice.
IIRC, the key jsut wouldn't install. You'd go through the wizard's steps, and they would all run, but dump some error message right at the last and fail. I believe this was with both IE 5 and IE 6, but it's been over a year so I simply don't recall.
Did you submit it as a support request on codeweavers.com?
I used to work at a big music store (headquartered in MN) that would destroy thousands of perfectly good pianos and organs to take them off the market, so they could sell more electronic and upright pianos. Can't find a 25 dollar 'you move it' piano in Minneapolis? Thats why..
Not that I want to argue with you, but I don't get the economics behind this. Are they buying up pianos to destroy them? If so, how could that be profitable? And if they aren't, where are they getting them?
This leaves me wondering, who this offer is really targeted at?
I think it's targetted at people who for whatever reason are ready to dump their ipod and are considering various options to replace the ipod with, so as to lure them all into buying the DJ.
But when you sell it on ebay, how can you be sure that the buyer will recycle it?
If it's that much of a worry, make the buyer absolutely promise that if the ipod ever breaks, they'll send it in to apple's recycling program.
Plus the DJ has dedicated "home" and "back" buttons (e.g. a superior interface!), a _much_ better battery, and a better warranty (1 year standard). And it's cheaper, too.
To be fair to the ipod, it has a back button, and it comes with a one year warranty (though it might not cover as much as the DJ's).
The EU is launching a game called honoloko that teaches young kids to be environmentally sensitive.
Gah, I meant wasn't ofcourse, I shall have to preview more often
On the other hand, which european nation that was created after 1800 does not have an illegitimate king somewhere in its history?
The difference is that mozilla, unlike IE, does not have an infrastructure for installing stuff without user intervention that can be exploited when a hole in it is found.
My bank (ING belgium) has worked for years in mozilla (started using it with moz M18). What they did was serve up a regular old html site (with some javascript for dropdown menu's, that you don't really need) on 127.0.0.1 through a locally installed encrypting proxy server, available for windows, linux (using gtk), and mac os.
If you're being serious, you should know that in all likelihood they are legally unable to open source their codecs due to patents covering them. Most codecs out there can not be legally open-sourced because they are based on patents licensed from someone else.
So complaining real doesn't open their codecs is really not fair unless you know for a fact that it's not covered by patents, or it is only covered by patents owned by real inc.
So why do I want Real or OSS variant? Their encoding is shitty and their realtime streaming is even shittier.
... buffering does not happen in my experience more often with real than with mediaplayer.
There are still a lot of online radio stations which only stream in real. And why do you say the streaming is shitty? The buffering
Actually, I've always been more partial to this argument:
A free market is unstable. Scale effects (economies of scale) mean that almost all free markets over time become monopolies or oligopolies, because it's inherently more profitable to merge with or take over your competitor than to keep going it alone. All economists agree that from a society-wide point of view monopolies or oligopolies are bad, because they're inefficient (not inefficient in production, but inefficient in the use of capital). That means that government has to step in to make sure the market stays free, or in other words that money and power does not concentrate in the hands of a few big powers. That means you need to actively redistribute money. And that means you need to tax the rich harder, and give disproportionately more money to the poor. That is, if you want an efficient economy.
it is much easier to feel good about yourself with mindless slogans like [...] "war is baaaddd!" than it is if one considers varying economic theories (perhaps something that did not originate with Marx/Engels *gasp* i.e. Hayek's theories), the validity of just war theory, etc.
Problem number one: economic theory was never a stated reason for the iraq war. In fact, it was disclaimed over and over that economic benefit was a goal of the iraq war.
So that leaves war theory. If you want to educate yourself on war theory, read michael i. handel's masters of war: classical strategic thought. It's long, sometimes pretty boring, but it is comprehensive in its review of classic war theory. If you haven't read a war theory book before, you'll be enlightened. The author used to be a professor of strategy at the US Naval War college, and now he writes books.
I think the parent meant logical fallacies. Still, I wouldn't characterise them as unfair, just mistaken.
There was a study done comparing the belief in a number of assertions that were false, and fox viewers were most likely to claim they were true.
The format of hannity and colmes does not allow colmes to reply to hannity most of the time. Franken attacked colmes over this, and that's the defense colmes used personally for why he comes across as so weak.
I do agree they're not conservative, because a true conservative would not back bush's economic policy or his military agenda, and fox definitely does that.
that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them.
And which stories are being silenced on that damn liberal media then?
It's a debatable issue whether the president should have cut his visit to the classroom short when he was told that a second plane had hit the second tower. The principal of the school says that Bush did the right thing because running out of the classroom would have scared the kids...
And what makes that principal so accurate on what was the best thing to do for the president of the united states while the country was under attack?
There is no debatability, he is commander in chief, the moment the words "we are under attack" reached him he should have gotten up and commanded. He didn't. That should be all you need to know.
What is debatable is whether or not he should have gone into the classroom in the first place after having been informed of the first attack and having seen the memos al qaeda was planning on attacking the world trade center, and was planning on hijacking airplanes.
Few who care to objectively watch this 'documentary' can deny that he presents his entire story with a good deal of bias and slant.
Wouldn't it be great if movies never tried to make a political statement? Oh what a happy day it would be then.
It can be argued that presenting this message in the form of a documentary movie is an attempt to sidestep the campaign finance laws
Oh, and all the bush-approved ads on kerry are telling the truth? Like those ads claiming kerry opposed the weapons systems being used in iraq right now, which is more deceitful than anything in fahrenheit 9/11.
Moore has omitted *all* material that might cast the current administration in anything other than a bad light.
Moore is telling you the part of the story you're not getting from Bush's PR team. He is the reason you're getting a more complete picture. Let Bush do his pro message, and let those who oppose him do the anti message, listen to both, and draw your conclusions.
Make a boatload of money.
Damn you Moore, you filthy capitalist. I swear, those commie liberal bastards all love capitalism, um, wait, I meant hate, no, um, damn it, now I'm all confused.
Those who think Moore is full of shit will still think so and will point to the movie as proof of how evil he is.
That's called ad hominem, and it is a logical fallacy. The messenger does not influence the correctness of the message. Anyone who lets himself get swayed by who does the talking instead of what they are talking about is not being objective about things.