[reposted from another story that i accidentally misposted to] with the steam box from valve there will probably be no used sale market since there is none on steam on windows/mac/linux at present. microsoft eliminating used sales for their console would give a big boost to the steam box by removing a big differentiator, esp. if potential purchasers of the steam box are used to steam sales and think the steambox will have similar.
of course, if microsoft and perhaps sony go down the no resale route, and valve went in the other direction and actually came up with a system of selling your steam attached games to other steam users, maybe taking a cut of the sale; then which console would you buy?
i hope valve introduces resale, there's no reason it couldn't introduce an experiment in resale, a trial period with clear terms & conditions upfront and see what happens, compare it's income before and after. that way the discussion over resale would have some actual evidence brought to it:)
with the steam box from valve there will probably be no used sale market since there is none on steam on windows/mac/linux at present. microsoft eliminating used sales for their console would give a big boost to the steam box by removing a big differentiator, esp. if potential purchasers of the steam box are used to steam sales and think the steambox will have similar.
of course, if microsoft and perhaps sony go down the no resale route, and valve went in the other direction and actually came up with a system of selling your steam attached games to other steam users, maybe taking a cut of the sale; then which console would you buy? i hope valve introduces resale, there's no reason it couldn't introduce an experiment in resale, a trial period with clear terms & conditions upfront and see what happens, compare it's income before and after. that way the discussion over resale would have some actual evidence brought to it:)
And his assertions that many who believe in God do so because they were taught so by their parents, and have enver examined their faith critically nor independently.
which is why of course the various religions are randomly destributed amongst the population according to their relative ratios right?
and as for calling you ignorant, when did he do that? dawkins calls people don't accept evolution as the best explanation for the state of life on earth as being ignorant when it is far and away the only reasonable explanation currently available, do you reject evolution? then you are ignorant, if you said your computer worked due to magic pixies inside i'd call you ignorant, and no one would complain, yet somehow demonstrably false opinions about biology are immune from being called out.
Are you sure it was police you passed and not Highways Agency traffic officers?
in my experience the traffic officers cars seem to have black and yellow checks whereas police have blue and yellow checks, as opposed to green and yellow checks for paramedic cars.
when coming up from behind the obilique angle makes it hard to tell the difference between the colours,
there's a difference between "not being perfect" and downright immoral, what if there was a flavour of ice cream that you considered to be actually "immoral"? how could you justify patronising any of the the stores if they all sell the "immoral" one?
many people feel that way about choices for politician, candidate A did this good thing but he drops bombs on people attending the funerals of people he dropped bombs on earlier because they might have been bad guys even though no-one knew for sure, candidate B is against what candidate A does with bombs (well actually he's not but lets give him a good point) but he's in favour of government intervention in private lives, forcing a particular religious definition of marriage on citizens, forcing a particular religious definition of human life on women, forcing a particular religious moral code of sexual behaviour on people.
for a lot of people both candidates are just plain immoral no matter what else they do since it has long been accepted by most folk (imho) that one doesn't cancel out x amount of immorality with y amount of good stuff,
i believe that if i vote for a candidate whom i know will almost certainly commit immoral acts then i'm complicit in those acts and no amount of other good stuff makes me a good guy in that situation, so neither candidate could get my vote.
which is different to finding out after you vote that the winning candidate does something awful that you had no reason to expect
47% of the population gets a FREE (as in you pay for it) ObamaPhone
actually it's a reaganphone if anything, since the scheme that provides them was introduced under his regime... i guess that makes reagan a dirty socialist?:)
But who knows, maybe the next generation will require their leaders to have lived their entire lives squeaky clean.
i suspect that the existing ruling elite will learn to teach their kids how to avoid leaving "incriminating stuff" online, teach to avoid facebook etc. after all their kids will be brought up to know that they are likely to be the ruling elite and will understand the need. the average joe however doesn't believe he or his kids will ever be in the public eye so won't bother.
the upshot will be the further entrenchement of a two class system, those born to rule by getting elected by people who refuse to elect anyone who has "incriminating stuff", and the rest of us, because of course the rest of us won't bother to understand that if we just decided not to give a shit about "incriminating stuff" we could get elected too - well, notwithstanding money etc.:)
actually i think your post would be an anti-godwin since a) it wasn't anyone in the forum that you compared to hitler, and b) hitler came out the better in the comparison
The guy committed a crime so he should be punished - that's the way it works. so we should extradite gay people to certain african countries because over there being gay is a crime? o'dwyer didn't commit a crime in th uk according to uk law, what the us thinks about it should be irrelevant.
and now the gun crime rate is well up over 1000% of the pre-ban stats since in my entire life i've never met anyone in the uk who owns a gun, excespt the rare cop; i doubt very much that the lower gun crime rate you quote was due to law abiding citizens having guns and criminals being scared of them. i rather suspect but cannot prove, that it is an increase in gang culture and organised crime
i don't live in america so perhaps i'm wrong but i get the impression that for ordinary folk papers are not news sources, fox tv news and the like are, whereas in the uk it's the other way around. there are national tabloids that politicians like to court to woo the populace with all their attendant bias and agendas, with the uk tv news being far less partial and shrill - though not perfect by any means.
Try finding anyone in the UK who gives a damn about prisoner voting rights. i give a damn, never been to prison, hope never to go, but who knows what laws might get put on the books that make me a criminal for otherwise moral behaviour; if that hasn't happened already! and as for the dangers, well unless politicians start canvassing on the 'let all the murderers out of jail' ticket. what harm will having murderers voting do to you? whereas say a politico is on a 'marijuana should be legal' kick. then why is the opinion of a convicted druggie on the subject less worthy than say, mine?
i see that you feel that lack of voting is a reasonable punishment for social misbehavior and i can't argue from first principles that you are wrong, i just wanted to point out that i don't see the harm to society in prisoner voting, and i feel that if the punishment is liberty deprivation then we should make that the punishment and not lay other things on top. remember that there are innocent people in prison, they can never be given their liberty back, but they could get to keep their franchisement?
The internet started off with decentralized control and it could have kept going in that direction. It could have become the strongest force against thought-police and censorship that the world has ever known i see asynchronous connections and dynamic ip addresses as one of the root causes of this centralised control, if from the beginning, anyone so inclined was able to host their own data easily, we might have had a very different approach to home servers. they could have become the norm for households, everyone hosting their own pages with companies offering akamai-like services for those who became popular, with householders managing the dns for their static ip and domain names in coooperation with their isp. everytime an idea such as facebook or msn or whatever came along, the community would have developed addons for the home servers that allowed distributed versions of these things to work from day one. of course it could be argued that there woulod have been no facebook/twitter etc. without the prospect of big money from centralised control but i think that there would eventually have been their equivalents, just taking a bit longer to arrive on the scene. and perhaps that wouldn't have been a bad thing? there are efforts out there to create things like diaspora and such but i fear that until some philanthropists decide to start spending megagroats on bounties for a whole range of distributed, encrypted, easy to use tools to replace the social media tools prevalent today we will see an increasingly centralised, intrusive, and exposed internet.
Not necessarily. If I already had Dropbox installed on my computer, and now want to extend that to my phone, Apple has not brought Dropbox any business they didn't already have.
If I am a drop box user looking for a tablet/smartphone I would probably look for one that has a dropbox app, therefore as you imply it is just as legitimate to say that dropbox brought people to apple
Resulting in my having to choose between leaving my employer or have it speak on my behalf politically saying things i don't believe. After all the political speech that the "Screw Government Organization" makes is known beforehand to all members and is the reason the members became such. The political speech my employer makes is chosen by the ceo and I am not consulted. The ceo gets two politcal speech avenues to my one, his or her personal activities just as I have, and also the activities of the corporation, which just so happen to coincide with the interests of the ceo, and not only that but come with added money attached, which I do not have. In the end your "Screw Government Organization" equates to a political party, clearly a corporation as it is usually understood to be nominally doesn't.
If you read the expanded version of instructions given - "never talk to the arab woman before the man", "it's expected to have outbursts of temper" it becomes plausible that these racist comments might not have arisen from some assumption of genetic superiority, but from a desire to be culturally sensitive!! i.e. an attempt 'not' to be racist!
What this says about multiculturalism or anything else I'm too chicken to get into here on slashdot:)
Having read all the posts so far I find it interesting that no-one seems to have suggested that this problem for Moseley stems from an imperfect google algorithm. Surely we would all benefit from search results that could - without human intervention - rank results according to truth reputation amongst what ever other factors google use. A court rules that some statement is in fact not true and google then somehow incorporates that into its ranking system. Now I know of no way to achieve this without a) google's systems becoming self aware and b) the new google ai being really interested in reading every court ruling ever produced by every court ever; but that doesn't invalidate the criticism.
Of course the above won't happen, but if it isn't to happen and google isn't to respond to demands to intervene in the manner proposed; then doesn't this suggest that there is a gap in how we - society - think of search engines and how we use them. Perhaps our kids should have school lessons in using search engines, interpreting results, cross referencing etc. Maybe they should discuss the difference between public interest and the interests of the public. Moseley would still have had his privacy invaded but perhaps people would have been more sympathetic to him, maybe the papers would have had more condemnation, maybe they would be less likely to do it again?
Of course that would make for a much better educated, informed and aware electorate so, don't hold your breath!
The issue is whether contraceptives can be provided as part of private insurance plans that are themselves provided by employers. The 'free' bit doesn't come into it since most folk treat their employer health plan as being part of their remuneration, something they have earned. Since employers have an imbalance of power these days it is right to have a discussion on what exclusions such a health plan might make since otherwise unscrupulous employers will do the inevitable and cut back to save money. It becomes irrelevant if the motivation for said unscrupulousness is some heartfelt religious belief. The action still results in employees getting less for their labour, which is equivalent to getting less for their money. So, no 'free' about it.
Of course she was also talking about a friend who needed the hormone treatment to avoid losing an ovary, one would have thought that religious folk would be keen on women having fully functioning reproductive systems, but then the lady concerned is lesbian so maybe she doesn't count as a 'woman' to them.
Religious freedom is no more special than political freedom, if a state acts otherwise then that state has actually taken a position on the existent of a higher being; since their is no other reason to treat religion with greater respect than other statements of belief than if one thinks there is actual proof of it.
Note that this gives scientific evidentiary based statements about the world a greater credibility than religious/political/economic beliefs. Which is odd since it is evidentiary based science which seems so lacking in our great rulers machinations.
Slashdot Mirror
what is ffs?
what is tfs?
what is tlc?
[reposted from another story that i accidentally misposted to]
with the steam box from valve there will probably be no used sale market since there is none on steam on windows/mac/linux at present. microsoft eliminating used sales for their console would give a big boost to the steam box by removing a big differentiator, esp. if potential purchasers of the steam box are used to steam sales and think the steambox will have similar.
of course, if microsoft and perhaps sony go down the no resale route, and valve went in the other direction and actually came up with a system of selling your steam attached games to other steam users, maybe taking a cut of the sale; then which console would you buy?
i hope valve introduces resale, there's no reason it couldn't introduce an experiment in resale, a trial period with clear terms & conditions upfront and see what happens, compare it's income before and after. that way the discussion over resale would have some actual evidence brought to it :)
with the steam box from valve there will probably be no used sale market since there is none on steam on windows/mac/linux at present. microsoft eliminating used sales for their console would give a big boost to the steam box by removing a big differentiator, esp. if potential purchasers of the steam box are used to steam sales and think the steambox will have similar.
of course, if microsoft and perhaps sony go down the no resale route, and valve went in the other direction and actually came up with a system of selling your steam attached games to other steam users, maybe taking a cut of the sale; then which console would you buy? i hope valve introduces resale, there's no reason it couldn't introduce an experiment in resale, a trial period with clear terms & conditions upfront and see what happens, compare it's income before and after. that way the discussion over resale would have some actual evidence brought to it :)
You can't buy a toothpick without there being some kind of disclaimer somewhere whose full implications also require a lawyer's time to understand.
wonko, is that you?
And his assertions that many who believe in God do so because they were taught so by their parents, and have enver examined their faith critically nor independently.
which is why of course the various religions are randomly destributed amongst the population according to their relative ratios right?
and as for calling you ignorant, when did he do that? dawkins calls people don't accept evolution as the best explanation for the state of life on earth as being ignorant when it is far and away the only reasonable explanation currently available, do you reject evolution? then you are ignorant, if you said your computer worked due to magic pixies inside i'd call you ignorant, and no one would complain, yet somehow demonstrably false opinions about biology are immune from being called out.
Are you sure it was police you passed and not Highways Agency traffic officers?
in my experience the traffic officers cars seem to have black and yellow checks whereas police have blue and yellow checks, as opposed to green and yellow checks for paramedic cars.
when coming up from behind the obilique angle makes it hard to tell the difference between the colours,
snake
Wenn ist das Nunnstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
there's a difference between "not being perfect" and downright immoral,
what if there was a flavour of ice cream that you considered to be actually "immoral"?
how could you justify patronising any of the the stores if they all sell the "immoral" one?
many people feel that way about choices for politician, candidate A did this good thing but he drops bombs on people attending the funerals of people he dropped bombs on earlier because they might have been bad guys even though no-one knew for sure,
candidate B is against what candidate A does with bombs (well actually he's not but lets give him a good point) but he's in favour of government intervention in private lives, forcing a particular religious definition of marriage on citizens, forcing a particular religious definition of human life on women, forcing a particular religious moral code of sexual behaviour on people.
for a lot of people both candidates are just plain immoral no matter what else they do since it has long been accepted by most folk (imho) that one doesn't cancel out x amount of immorality with y amount of good stuff,
i believe that if i vote for a candidate whom i know will almost certainly commit immoral acts then i'm complicit in those acts and no amount of other good stuff makes me a good guy in that situation, so neither candidate could get my vote.
which is different to finding out after you vote that the winning candidate does something awful that you had no reason to expect
snake
47% of the population gets a FREE (as in you pay for it) ObamaPhone
actually it's a reaganphone if anything, since the scheme that provides them was introduced under his regime... :)
i guess that makes reagan a dirty socialist?
snake
But who knows, maybe the next generation will require their leaders to have lived their entire lives squeaky clean.
i suspect that the existing ruling elite will learn to teach their kids how to avoid leaving "incriminating stuff" online, teach to avoid facebook etc. after all their kids will be brought up to know that they are likely to be the ruling elite and will understand the need. the average joe however doesn't believe he or his kids will ever be in the public eye so won't bother.
the upshot will be the further entrenchement of a two class system, those born to rule by getting elected by people who refuse to elect anyone who has "incriminating stuff", and the rest of us, because of course the rest of us won't bother to understand that if we just decided not to give a shit about "incriminating stuff" we could get elected too - well, notwithstanding money etc. :)
actually i think your post would be an anti-godwin since
a) it wasn't anyone in the forum that you compared to hitler,
and
b) hitler came out the better in the comparison
made a bum moderation, posting to undo
snake
The guy committed a crime so he should be punished - that's the way it works.
so we should extradite gay people to certain african countries because over there being gay is a crime?
o'dwyer didn't commit a crime in th uk according to uk law, what the us thinks about it should be irrelevant.
are you here all week? :)
should i try the fish?
and now the gun crime rate is well up over 1000% of the pre-ban stats
since in my entire life i've never met anyone in the uk who owns a gun, excespt the rare cop; i doubt very much that the lower gun crime rate you quote was due to law abiding citizens having guns and criminals being scared of them.
i rather suspect but cannot prove, that it is an increase in gang culture and organised crime
i don't live in america so perhaps i'm wrong but i get the impression that for ordinary folk papers are not news sources, fox tv news and the like are, whereas in the uk it's the other way around. there are national tabloids that politicians like to court to woo the populace with all their attendant bias and agendas, with the uk tv news being far less partial and shrill - though not perfect by any means.
Try finding anyone in the UK who gives a damn about prisoner voting rights.
i give a damn, never been to prison, hope never to go, but who knows what laws might get put on the books that make me a criminal for otherwise moral behaviour; if that hasn't happened already!
and as for the dangers, well unless politicians start canvassing on the 'let all the murderers out of jail' ticket. what harm will having murderers voting do to you? whereas say a politico is on a 'marijuana should be legal' kick. then why is the opinion of a convicted druggie on the subject less worthy than say, mine?
i see that you feel that lack of voting is a reasonable punishment for social misbehavior and i can't argue from first principles that you are wrong, i just wanted to point out that i don't see the harm to society in prisoner voting, and i feel that if the punishment is liberty deprivation then we should make that the punishment and not lay other things on top. remember that there are innocent people in prison, they can never be given their liberty back, but they could get to keep their franchisement?
The internet started off with decentralized control and it could have kept going in that direction. It could have become the strongest force against thought-police and censorship that the world has ever known
i see asynchronous connections and dynamic ip addresses as one of the root causes of this centralised control, if from the beginning, anyone so inclined was able to host their own data easily, we might have had a very different approach to home servers. they could have become the norm for households, everyone hosting their own pages with companies offering akamai-like services for those who became popular, with householders managing the dns for their static ip and domain names in coooperation with their isp.
everytime an idea such as facebook or msn or whatever came along, the community would have developed addons for the home servers that allowed distributed versions of these things to work from day one. of course it could be argued that there woulod have been no facebook/twitter etc. without the prospect of big money from centralised control but i think that there would eventually have been their equivalents, just taking a bit longer to arrive on the scene. and perhaps that wouldn't have been a bad thing?
there are efforts out there to create things like diaspora and such but i fear that until some philanthropists decide to start spending megagroats on bounties for a whole range of distributed, encrypted, easy to use tools to replace the social media tools prevalent today we will see an increasingly centralised, intrusive, and exposed internet.
The Linux community is probably the worst community you'll find on the net,
well i think you'll find the pedos and the nazis give linux users a run for their money :)
esp. illinois nazis, i hate illinois nazis!
Not necessarily. If I already had Dropbox installed on my computer, and now want to extend that to my phone, Apple has not brought Dropbox any business they didn't already have.
If I am a drop box user looking for a tablet/smartphone I would probably look for one that has a dropbox app, therefore as you imply it is just as legitimate to say that dropbox brought people to apple
Even if everyone moved to browsers supporting this having the domain name in the initial connection request now allows for easier blocking :(
Resulting in my having to choose between leaving my employer or have it speak on my behalf politically saying things i don't believe. After all the political speech that the "Screw Government Organization" makes is known beforehand to all members and is the reason the members became such. The political speech my employer makes is chosen by the ceo and I am not consulted. The ceo gets two politcal speech avenues to my one, his or her personal activities just as I have, and also the activities of the corporation, which just so happen to coincide with the interests of the ceo, and not only that but come with added money attached, which I do not have. In the end your "Screw Government Organization" equates to a political party, clearly a corporation as it is usually understood to be nominally doesn't.
snake
If you read the expanded version of instructions given - "never talk to the arab woman before the man", "it's expected to have outbursts of temper" it becomes plausible that these racist comments might not have arisen from some assumption of genetic superiority, but from a desire to be culturally sensitive!! i.e. an attempt 'not' to be racist!
What this says about multiculturalism or anything else I'm too chicken to get into here on slashdot :)
snake
Having read all the posts so far I find it interesting that no-one seems to have suggested that this problem for Moseley stems from an imperfect google algorithm. Surely we would all benefit from search results that could - without human intervention - rank results according to truth reputation amongst what ever other factors google use. A court rules that some statement is in fact not true and google then somehow incorporates that into its ranking system. Now I know of no way to achieve this without a) google's systems becoming self aware and b) the new google ai being really interested in reading every court ruling ever produced by every court ever; but that doesn't invalidate the criticism.
Of course the above won't happen, but if it isn't to happen and google isn't to respond to demands to intervene in the manner proposed; then doesn't this suggest that there is a gap in how we - society - think of search engines and how we use them. Perhaps our kids should have school lessons in using search engines, interpreting results, cross referencing etc. Maybe they should discuss the difference between public interest and the interests of the public. Moseley would still have had his privacy invaded but perhaps people would have been more sympathetic to him, maybe the papers would have had more condemnation, maybe they would be less likely to do it again?
Of course that would make for a much better educated, informed and aware electorate so, don't hold your breath!
snake
Am I making a point here?!?
No,
The issue is whether contraceptives can be provided as part of private insurance plans that are themselves provided by employers. The 'free' bit doesn't come into it since most folk treat their employer health plan as being part of their remuneration, something they have earned. Since employers have an imbalance of power these days it is right to have a discussion on what exclusions such a health plan might make since otherwise unscrupulous employers will do the inevitable and cut back to save money. It becomes irrelevant if the motivation for said unscrupulousness is some heartfelt religious belief. The action still results in employees getting less for their labour, which is equivalent to getting less for their money. So, no 'free' about it.
Of course she was also talking about a friend who needed the hormone treatment to avoid losing an ovary, one would have thought that religious folk would be keen on women having fully functioning reproductive systems, but then the lady concerned is lesbian so maybe she doesn't count as a 'woman' to them.
Religious freedom is no more special than political freedom, if a state acts otherwise then that state has actually taken a position on the existent of a higher being; since their is no other reason to treat religion with greater respect than other statements of belief than if one thinks there is actual proof of it.
Note that this gives scientific evidentiary based statements about the world a greater credibility than religious/political/economic beliefs. Which is odd since it is evidentiary based science which seems so lacking in our great rulers machinations.
snake