Because he gives them something they want: to feel powerful, justified.
He's good at coming up with excuses to distract away from the positive and draw focus on the negative in a way that makes people who agree with him feel more assured about what they think. Naturally, the positions he advocates need a lot of rationalization.
The original iMac may have saved Apple. That is why it garners so much deserving affection. Steve Jobs supposedly started the project 10 days after he returned to the company's staff.
Okay..... check out this thread, specifically this post from that story about Madonna iPods from 3 months ago. This AC seems to be talking about the same thing.
Or you can just take it out from the library! Ultimate try-before-you-buy. The Amazon quality rating system is the best for picking out the best books on a given subject, when you can then proceed to borrow from the library.
"Please tell me when, in the history of the United States (or any other nation), has prohibition served it's intended purpose (if it's true intended purpose is to dramatically reduce or elliminate the trade and use of the given subject of prohibition)?"
I'm probably going to get modded out of existence for this, but I am going to have to disagree with you. Let me go ahead and cite all the examples that people usually cite in support of this point: 1) Alcohol 2) Drugs 3) untaxed Tea in revolutionary America 4) that time in Florida when they banned a kind of wash detergent.
Now, we can agree all those examples were failures, right? They may have reduced the total quantity of the substance on the street, but produced external costs on society that exceeded that of the substance by itself.
Let me state some similarities between those substances, in order of importance: 1) Consumption goods (people need a regular supply of them) 2) High, inelastic demand (quantity demanded relatively constant despite changes in price) 3) No close substitute for the good.
This is why I think that any prohibition on products meeting those three requirements will probably fail. Bans against products not meeting these requirements will work a lot better:
1) Leaded gasoline engines: you only need one of them, you don't need a regular supply of them; can substitute with an unleaded gasoline engine
2) CFC-emitting refridgerators: you only need one; can substitute with a CFC-safe refridgerator.
3) Unsafe child safety seats: Can substitute for a real safety seat.
The idea that prohibition can produce some unexpected results is true. Sometimes, prohibition can even increase the quantity consumed by a society. That doesn't mean that prohibition _never_ works; I think that it seems to explode when those 3 requirements I listed are met. It seems to work a lot better for other, less exciting things.
Above poster is correct. The thought doesn't have to be your own; it just has to come from someone you identify with. That rules out your parents at that age.
IMO, I think this is how stuff in Eastern philosophy like the I Ching (it's a big, ancient book of proverbs) worked so well. Proverbs are basically riddles: you have to figure it out the meaning for yourself.
They probably let them do the voices because they are doing it ostensibly to promote the show, and I believe aren't getting paid for it. It's a different story if they just wanted to use the voices and get paid for it in some other context.
I know, think of the possibilities. Cars you buy in the game could be real car models. Manufacturers could not only use the game to advertise products but to see how much people want them. How much people are willing to pay for them over other products. It's a great opportunity, and I wouldn't mind all the marketing if the game was still fun to play and free because of it.
I hope that it won't and doubt that it will be the last incarnation of this kind of game. This game if anything could have used a little market research.
Let's say you have a paranoid administration like the Nixon one, or a socio-fascist one like FDR's that wants an easy way to get rid of dissidents. What's a good way? Find out that they used Kazaa a few times, and imprison them for a few years.
Riiiight... this only works if all of your political dissidents happen to be sweaty 14-year-old hackers.
It seemed to me that the game designers seemed to think that because a strategy was prevalent, it was bad and needed to be stopped.
The idea was without certain commonly-used SC tactics, that you'd be forced to be smarter and more creative in your strategies. The end result was that you simply had fewer strategies available to you.
Re:I'd rather have a jacuzi in my car
on
SAUNAAB
·
· Score: 1
Finally we have an answer to the age old question.
Electronic interference was blamed for a explosion that killed 200+ servicemen on a carrier during Vietnam. A fighter fired some of its ordinance while sitting on the deck before takeoff. I don't know the exact name of the kind of interference that was involved, but it had something to do with not shielding some of the circuitry.
We must realize that this government doesn't work for us, but actively against us, and throw them all out.
No. The government works for the corporations. Which we, in turn, work for.
The corporations have become the middleman between us and the government. We support the corporations, and the corporations support the government. It's silly to externalize blame on the corporations, who were put in power by, well, the populace.
We need to find some way to short circuit the system such that the government works for us and the corporations work for the government. Or some mix up like that.
I think it's possible for us both to be right. You could say that Apple is selling a platform that gives a certain user experience. If Apple was selling a platform only, then it is more likely that it would have gone out of business a long time ago.
If MacOS X the platform was actually open source, where are all the API implementations we'd need to make Mac apps run on Linux?
You're talking about the (GUI) application development perspective and maybe that's true. I don't do any GUI development so that's probably why I didn't think about that. What I was thinking about was being able to click System Preferences, click Sharing, click "Start Web Sharing" as an interface frontend for running "sudo/usr/sbin/apachectl start" in the shell.
What about companies that offer a proprietary frontend for a open source backend, like Apple does with OS X? Couldn't that be considered a kind of dual licensing?
IMO, this is OK because with Aqua (the user front end for OS X) Apple is really selling the user experience, not just a powerful tool. It's still software but the goal is different. I think of Warcraft 3: they are really selling the experience; the artwork should be proprietary, while the engine that runs it should be open. That's just what I've been thinking recently.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say I make an argument. Then, let's say, you make a counter-argument based on a totally irrelevant analogy. How should I respond?
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING IN THE OTHER 4???
That's a contextual definition. There's no law that says that must be true.
Using this, some people define the purpose the the media as Entertainment and/or cash cow.
I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting.
So would I.
Because he gives them something they want: to feel powerful, justified.
He's good at coming up with excuses to distract away from the positive and draw focus on the negative in a way that makes people who agree with him feel more assured about what they think. Naturally, the positions he advocates need a lot of rationalization.
The original iMac may have saved Apple. That is why it garners so much deserving affection. Steve Jobs supposedly started the project 10 days after he returned to the company's staff.
Warning: He also suggested making Newt Gingrich the proconsul of Iraq in the first paragraph.
While most spam is from US-based entities, these people may be able to take advantage of servers outside the US.
Message is...
From US => 2% likelihood
Outside => 65% likelihood
Okay..... check out this thread, specifically this post from that story about Madonna iPods from 3 months ago. This AC seems to be talking about the same thing.
Or you can just take it out from the library! Ultimate try-before-you-buy. The Amazon quality rating system is the best for picking out the best books on a given subject, when you can then proceed to borrow from the library.
I'm probably going to get modded out of existence for this, but I am going to have to disagree with you. Let me go ahead and cite all the examples that people usually cite in support of this point: 1) Alcohol 2) Drugs 3) untaxed Tea in revolutionary America 4) that time in Florida when they banned a kind of wash detergent.
Now, we can agree all those examples were failures, right? They may have reduced the total quantity of the substance on the street, but produced external costs on society that exceeded that of the substance by itself.
Let me state some similarities between those substances, in order of importance: 1) Consumption goods (people need a regular supply of them) 2) High, inelastic demand (quantity demanded relatively constant despite changes in price) 3) No close substitute for the good.
This is why I think that any prohibition on products meeting those three requirements will probably fail. Bans against products not meeting these requirements will work a lot better:
1) Leaded gasoline engines: you only need one of them, you don't need a regular supply of them; can substitute with an unleaded gasoline engine
2) CFC-emitting refridgerators: you only need one; can substitute with a CFC-safe refridgerator.
3) Unsafe child safety seats: Can substitute for a real safety seat.
The idea that prohibition can produce some unexpected results is true. Sometimes, prohibition can even increase the quantity consumed by a society. That doesn't mean that prohibition _never_ works; I think that it seems to explode when those 3 requirements I listed are met. It seems to work a lot better for other, less exciting things.
Also, regular computers don't come at a $150 loss to Microsoft.
Above poster is correct. The thought doesn't have to be your own; it just has to come from someone you identify with. That rules out your parents at that age. IMO, I think this is how stuff in Eastern philosophy like the I Ching (it's a big, ancient book of proverbs) worked so well. Proverbs are basically riddles: you have to figure it out the meaning for yourself.
They probably let them do the voices because they are doing it ostensibly to promote the show, and I believe aren't getting paid for it. It's a different story if they just wanted to use the voices and get paid for it in some other context.
I hope that it won't and doubt that it will be the last incarnation of this kind of game. This game if anything could have used a little market research.
Bill Gates gets a nickel for every time this does or doesn't happen.
mmmmm macaroni and cheese game
Riiiight... this only works if all of your political dissidents happen to be sweaty 14-year-old hackers.
Why do people find this funny?
The idea was without certain commonly-used SC tactics, that you'd be forced to be smarter and more creative in your strategies. The end result was that you simply had fewer strategies available to you.
Q: Why are no black cars in Arizona?
A: There are if you're Swedish.
Electronic interference was blamed for a explosion that killed 200+ servicemen on a carrier during Vietnam. A fighter fired some of its ordinance while sitting on the deck before takeoff. I don't know the exact name of the kind of interference that was involved, but it had something to do with not shielding some of the circuitry.
No. The government works for the corporations. Which we, in turn, work for.
The corporations have become the middleman between us and the government. We support the corporations, and the corporations support the government. It's silly to externalize blame on the corporations, who were put in power by, well, the populace.
We need to find some way to short circuit the system such that the government works for us and the corporations work for the government. Or some mix up like that.
I think it's possible for us both to be right. You could say that Apple is selling a platform that gives a certain user experience. If Apple was selling a platform only, then it is more likely that it would have gone out of business a long time ago.
If MacOS X the platform was actually open source, where are all the API implementations we'd need to make Mac apps run on Linux?
You're talking about the (GUI) application development perspective and maybe that's true. I don't do any GUI development so that's probably why I didn't think about that. What I was thinking about was being able to click System Preferences, click Sharing, click "Start Web Sharing" as an interface frontend for running "sudo /usr/sbin/apachectl start" in the shell.
IMO, this is OK because with Aqua (the user front end for OS X) Apple is really selling the user experience, not just a powerful tool. It's still software but the goal is different. I think of Warcraft 3: they are really selling the experience; the artwork should be proprietary, while the engine that runs it should be open. That's just what I've been thinking recently.