Actually, that's not exactly true. If you burn protected content on a protected player, and then try to play back that content on an old unprotected DVD player, it won't work. So this affects playback as well as recording.
Let's take the issue of Iraq, since, as you point out, that the president is not (as) responsible for other issues, such as the economy.
My thesis is this: if we're going to play world policeman, then we have to abide by the rule of law. Might does not make Right. Hussein did not have the burden of proof on him to prove that he did not have WMDs; to justify an invasion, we had to prove that he did. He did not.
Consider what this means. Richard Jewell was accused, on air, of a setting off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. As we found out later, Jewell did not. He then turned around and sued the pants off the networks. Who can blame him?
Hussein committed crimes against his people, several years ago. H.W. Bush certainly had an opprtunity to invade and redress the wrongs, or (as I believe a sovereign nation should) at least appeal to other nations to take action as a global majority. However, we invaded Iraq the first time to redress Kuwait, and in 2003-2004 to secure the weapons of mass destruction. That, and only that, was the legal justification for the second invasion.
And this is why Bush's black-and-white views are so wrong. Whining that we knew he had weapons of mass destruction is a flawed argument, not in the least because he didn't. He put the cart before the horse. Put in another context, Bush had enough for a search warrant. Weapons inspectors went in, and found nothing. And that should have been that. Instead, he's forced to retroactively justify an invasion that he should have had incontrovertible proof of before he committed troops. He did not.
If this was a cop show, and Bush had been in charge of an investigative team that went into a suspected terrorist's home and apprehended him on the same incorrect intelligence, and found nothing, you know what would have happened--Bush would have reprimanded, demoted, posibly arrested, and almost certainly sued. Instead, we're actively considering him for another term. Amazing.
On to Kerry's "approval" of the war. Given that Kerry thinks (and should think) of an action of this magnitude in the legal sense, I think he did the right thing in approving the use of force. I want the police to have the right to enter a criminal's house, and to forcibly subdue him in the case he resists. They do not have the right to beat up an innocent person, a la Rodney King. That's what authorizing the use of force means.
Finally, let's dismiss the "capability" and "intention" arguments, shall we? They sort of fall down without the WMDs to prop them up.
My point is this: operating under the rule of law is not consistent with the image of the Western gunslinger that Bush poses as. Men do not wear black hats to identify themselves as the bad guy. But it is consistent with one of the defining statements of Americanism, as President John F. Kennedy put it: "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
As someone who has spent the last few weekends volunteering to sign up voters in Phoenix, I can tell you this is one of the more rewarding experiences I've taken part in. I went door to door in 90 degree heat (hot for October, certainly). One weekend, we were assigned to South Phoenix-- a very poor, Latino area of the city where people kept pit bulls in yards and carfuls of young kids drove by
Sound scary? It wasn't. Almost to a person, everyone there was extremely appreciative that we were making sure they were registered to vote. Sure, we ran into a number of resident aliens and even a few convicted felons (we have to ask if they _can_ vote; if they can't they usually tell us why). In a few cases, neighbors warned us to avoid going into yards or just to be careful in approaching the local "trouble" houses.
I even registered one tough guy walking down the street. I probably would have avoided him entirely if I had wandered into the neighborhood accidentally (hell, I probably wouldn't have been there at all). And he turned out to be quite friendly and appreciative.
I wasn't working for a partisan organization; we'd register Democrats, Republicans, Greens, "no preferance", whatever. The only people who were rude were the odd folks that refused to vote. I had one guy tell me that politics were for other people. When I tried to explain that virtually every aspect of his life had some political bent (welfare, health insurance, even cops on the beat) he would have none of it. It was disappointing, but what are you going to do?
>>While taking care of the child once it arrives may be selfless, the reasons for choosing to have them in the first place are almost always centered around the parent rather than the child.
That seems to be an impossible challenge. You're asking for a general imperative that is specific to the individual, but isn't itself subjective?
So you're ruling out arguments like "I want to pass on my genes" (a poor argument, but just an example) as well as "well, that's why we have _reproductive_ organs" as well as "Given all the poverty and unhappiness in the world, I would like to give a child the chance that I had".
OK, how about this one? As a species, we have a biological imperative to breed. That's a universal truth, common to all life. However, that urge is instantiated in the individual. It is a selfish act, because humans are driven by individual impulses, not the collective will of the majority (unless we subsume it, as in a democracy).
We have to make the choice, because we're individuals, driven by a genetic imperative. Why is sex pleasurable? We didn't invent it. It's there to encourage us to breed. We've just begun to learn how to fool it, that's all.
**It would be like me writing a certain kind of story and then after that no one whould be ever allowed to write that kind of story without paying me a royalty first.**
Any sufficiently advanced form of humor is indistinguishable from gibberish.
(As adapted from the phrase, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic," popularized by Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote books. Perhaps you've heard of him. The interesting bit, of course, is Clarke's implied criticism of the individual who views the science as magic. Examine this, apply it to your own comment, and report back.)
I don't know whether it's a formatting problem on the part of the web page (which, in my IMO, a browser should try to compensate for) or it's a bug. Anyway, I just get blank spaces when I try to pull up Extremetech, for example. I did a clean install, although I did not delete the directory and start over.
...when its geek mods become apologists for the subjects they interview.
As promised, Glaser answered them himself rather than through PR people, but since part of a CEO's job is to be his company's number one booster it's not surprising that his answers have a high PR component to them; yours would too if you were in his position.
If someone responds to an interview request from Slashdot, they should be required to give us geeks the stright skinny. They may not, of course, but they should be held to that standard.
I don't know if anyone else checked out those links before they modded this guy up, but the first one certainly isn't a "list of questionable reporting". In fact it's a single article with some examination of erroneous assumption Thurott made.
I'm not defending Thurott or attacking the parent poster--just pointing out that the argument isn't as clear cut as its made out to be. Furthermore, the guy apparently cites his own comment (or someone from the same website) as proof. That's at best a little disingenuous.
I've started to, at least with my CDs. I owned a car with an in-trunk stereo a few years back; the car died, and I had it towed down to a donations place. Unfortunately, the trunk-mounted CD jukebox needed power to eject the discs. I was in a hurry; so was the guy, and no one seemed willing to give me a jump to get my stupid CDs. I lost only ten, but they were my favorites. Lesson learned.
I wonder if we can get an infinite loop* going, where CNET quotes Slashdot, and then Slashdot posts a story quoting the CNET story that quotes Slashdot, and then there's an update, and ANOTHER update, and then the disembodied head of Tom Pabst bursts from your screen and screams something inflammatory to draw more hits!
Perhaps my Google skills are lacking, or the key references have been buried on a back page, or you're full of it--either way, I can't seem to find these Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch links you refer to in the post above. Can you provide them?
Um, I don't think so
on
Word Up
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Since you're a geek at heart, your logic skills must be above par. Let's try a little thought exercise.
Do you remember college? The arts classes you detested? Those classes enrolled humanities majors -- people who studied history, philosophy, theater, English literature -- you know, the people who used language and social skills to learn. Remember all the hotties in there? How eager they were to discuss Kant, feminism, and the impact of the Impressionist movement on French Romantic literature? Remember how insecure those girls made you feel?
Here's a hint: those girls knew how to play Scrabble. And read Lord Chatterley's Lover. Think of it as CounterStrike for people who can carry on a conversation.
(Oh, and Lord Chatterley's Lover is kind of like this weird encrypted ASCII porn. It, like, uses your imagination to generate images! And girls dig it!)
Re:The funny thing is you have it backwards
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 1
And I've seen plenty of people move up the ladder without good reviews to back them
So either a.) you gave an underling a bad review, and they were promoted anyway or b.) a confidential review was disclosed to you, or c.) you're talking out of your ass. Since this is Slashdot, I lean toward "c".
In all seriousness, if this is true, then it's doubly interesting that this was filed in Europe. Personally, I had thought that there the conventional wisdom had shifted away from the PDA and tablet to the smartphone -- especially in Europe and Asia.
Well, I'm sure it'll all make sense when Jobs explains it. At least until I walk out the door.
Re:Services cost more than hardware
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 1
I guess the bigger question is how long before we see a PC included in a cereal box instead of those DVDs I've seen advertised on the boxes of Fruit Loops (or whatever it was)? "Hey! Check it out! This box contains a coupon for a free PC! (just send in 20 box tops, plus $39.95 shipping and handling)"
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that's not exactly true. If you burn protected content on a protected player, and then try to play back that content on an old unprotected DVD player, it won't work. So this affects playback as well as recording.
My thesis is this: if we're going to play world policeman, then we have to abide by the rule of law. Might does not make Right. Hussein did not have the burden of proof on him to prove that he did not have WMDs; to justify an invasion, we had to prove that he did. He did not.
Consider what this means. Richard Jewell was accused, on air, of a setting off a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics. As we found out later, Jewell did not. He then turned around and sued the pants off the networks. Who can blame him?
Hussein committed crimes against his people, several years ago. H.W. Bush certainly had an opprtunity to invade and redress the wrongs, or (as I believe a sovereign nation should) at least appeal to other nations to take action as a global majority. However, we invaded Iraq the first time to redress Kuwait, and in 2003-2004 to secure the weapons of mass destruction. That, and only that, was the legal justification for the second invasion.
And this is why Bush's black-and-white views are so wrong. Whining that we knew he had weapons of mass destruction is a flawed argument, not in the least because he didn't. He put the cart before the horse. Put in another context, Bush had enough for a search warrant. Weapons inspectors went in, and found nothing. And that should have been that. Instead, he's forced to retroactively justify an invasion that he should have had incontrovertible proof of before he committed troops. He did not.
If this was a cop show, and Bush had been in charge of an investigative team that went into a suspected terrorist's home and apprehended him on the same incorrect intelligence, and found nothing, you know what would have happened--Bush would have reprimanded, demoted, posibly arrested, and almost certainly sued. Instead, we're actively considering him for another term. Amazing.
On to Kerry's "approval" of the war. Given that Kerry thinks (and should think) of an action of this magnitude in the legal sense, I think he did the right thing in approving the use of force. I want the police to have the right to enter a criminal's house, and to forcibly subdue him in the case he resists. They do not have the right to beat up an innocent person, a la Rodney King. That's what authorizing the use of force means.
Finally, let's dismiss the "capability" and "intention" arguments, shall we? They sort of fall down without the WMDs to prop them up.
My point is this: operating under the rule of law is not consistent with the image of the Western gunslinger that Bush poses as. Men do not wear black hats to identify themselves as the bad guy. But it is consistent with one of the defining statements of Americanism, as President John F. Kennedy put it: "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
Sound scary? It wasn't. Almost to a person, everyone there was extremely appreciative that we were making sure they were registered to vote. Sure, we ran into a number of resident aliens and even a few convicted felons (we have to ask if they _can_ vote; if they can't they usually tell us why). In a few cases, neighbors warned us to avoid going into yards or just to be careful in approaching the local "trouble" houses.
I even registered one tough guy walking down the street. I probably would have avoided him entirely if I had wandered into the neighborhood accidentally (hell, I probably wouldn't have been there at all). And he turned out to be quite friendly and appreciative.
I wasn't working for a partisan organization; we'd register Democrats, Republicans, Greens, "no preferance", whatever. The only people who were rude were the odd folks that refused to vote. I had one guy tell me that politics were for other people. When I tried to explain that virtually every aspect of his life had some political bent (welfare, health insurance, even cops on the beat) he would have none of it. It was disappointing, but what are you going to do?
>>While taking care of the child once it arrives may be selfless, the reasons for choosing to have them in the first place are almost always centered around the parent rather than the child.
That seems to be an impossible challenge. You're asking for a general imperative that is specific to the individual, but isn't itself subjective?
So you're ruling out arguments like "I want to pass on my genes" (a poor argument, but just an example) as well as "well, that's why we have _reproductive_ organs" as well as "Given all the poverty and unhappiness in the world, I would like to give a child the chance that I had".
OK, how about this one? As a species, we have a biological imperative to breed. That's a universal truth, common to all life. However, that urge is instantiated in the individual. It is a selfish act, because humans are driven by individual impulses, not the collective will of the majority (unless we subsume it, as in a democracy).
We have to make the choice, because we're individuals, driven by a genetic imperative. Why is sex pleasurable? We didn't invent it. It's there to encourage us to breed. We've just begun to learn how to fool it, that's all.
Blowjobs from hot groupies aren't just given out to us ordinary joes, you know (unless you're in Swordfish). That's gotta be worth something.
What say you to that, sir?
**It would be like me writing a certain kind of story and then after that no one whould be ever allowed to write that kind of story without paying me a royalty first.**
Oh baby I love it when you talk dirty to me.
^
|
| (Note nick)
|
Any sufficiently advanced form of humor is indistinguishable from gibberish.
(As adapted from the phrase, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic," popularized by Arthur C. Clarke, who wrote books. Perhaps you've heard of him. The interesting bit, of course, is Clarke's implied criticism of the individual who views the science as magic. Examine this, apply it to your own comment, and report back.)
"But, at the same time, why should we pay our tax dollars to have the military spy on US citicens (sic), when they could be looking for terrorists?"
They are.
Why, I don't know. But it did...
Sorry, everything in the previous message still applies.
Anyone else have this problem?
If someone responds to an interview request from Slashdot, they should be required to give us geeks the stright skinny. They may not, of course, but they should be held to that standard.
I'm not defending Thurott or attacking the parent poster--just pointing out that the argument isn't as clear cut as its made out to be. Furthermore, the guy apparently cites his own comment (or someone from the same website) as proof. That's at best a little disingenuous.
It may take you ten minutes to be able to download this comment, but:
;)
PBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBTTTTTTTTTT!!!
United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland): 94,248 square miles
South Korea: 38,320 Square Miles (about the size of Indiana)
Sweden: 173,732 square miles
USA: 3,537,438 square miles, 79.6 persons per square mile (in the year 2000)
China: 3.7 million square miles
China's Tiger Beach, the largest aviary in the world: 6,950 square miles
Northern Ireland: 5,467 square miles
I wonder if we can get an infinite loop* going, where CNET quotes Slashdot, and then Slashdot posts a story quoting the CNET story that quotes Slashdot, and then there's an update, and ANOTHER update, and then the disembodied head of Tom Pabst bursts from your screen and screams something inflammatory to draw more hits!
*Yes, this is Apple wordplay!
Do you remember college? The arts classes you detested? Those classes enrolled humanities majors -- people who studied history, philosophy, theater, English literature -- you know, the people who used language and social skills to learn. Remember all the hotties in there? How eager they were to discuss Kant, feminism, and the impact of the Impressionist movement on French Romantic literature? Remember how insecure those girls made you feel?
Here's a hint: those girls knew how to play Scrabble. And read Lord Chatterley's Lover. Think of it as CounterStrike for people who can carry on a conversation.
(Oh, and Lord Chatterley's Lover is kind of like this weird encrypted ASCII porn. It, like, uses your imagination to generate images! And girls dig it!)
In all seriousness, if this is true, then it's doubly interesting that this was filed in Europe. Personally, I had thought that there the conventional wisdom had shifted away from the PDA and tablet to the smartphone -- especially in Europe and Asia.
Well, I'm sure it'll all make sense when Jobs explains it. At least until I walk out the door.
'cause this is a good idea
He's the guy whose weapon was the slide rule, right?
(Damn--what's a good Web designer combat weapon?)