Blaming the geeks is unacceptable, even if the technology was faulty. Generals get to those high positions by accepting responsibility for their decisions, and they decided to go into war with unproven technology, so it follows that it's their fault. If you're going to be a leader, you have to accept both the accolades on success and responsibility on failure.
That is a textbook either/or fallacy. You lumped all forms of genetic engineering together into its root category and then challenged the "slashbots" to provide an absolutist stance of either being for or against the whole root category, when there are multiple forms of genetic engineering that you could support/oppose individually (for instance, genetic engineering toward humans and genetic engineering toward plants).
Here's an example of where your "reasoning" takes you: "I'm so sick of people who think that provoking a war just to boost the economy is bad, but then they support war against a country who attacked us! Either you support war or you don't! Which one is it, people?"
Should I be fired for being married to a black woman because my employer beleives "misogyny is unnatural?"
What does hatred of women have to do with interracial marriages?
Furthermore, the US government has already "drawn the line" on what companies can't discriminate against through the passing of several laws. This page on the EEOC's website outlines it pretty well.
I'd think it would be worse, since instead of your body having time to recover from the startle while the monitor is changing resolutions, a text-mode to text-mode BSOD is instantaneous.
Of course, I've never personally had much trouble with BSODs since Windows XP came out, but that's another story.
You may legally be permitted to have the files you're offering to others. For instance, it would be perfectly legal for you to have some MP3s that you ripped from some CDs you own. However, it's against the law to start distributing those files over the Internet.
If the RIAA are not extorting, then what is it that they are doing?
Suing people they have traced infringing their copyrights by downloading RIAA music over P2P sources. Let's look at it from the other side here. The people being sued have (probably) broken the law themselves to get into this position. How exactly is this situation "extortion" if the person broke the law in the first place? I mean, legally the RIAA is entitled to the damages that the law permits them to receive from these law-breakers. It's being lenient to allow these law-breakers to settle for so little.
Yes, it may be unfair if you legitimately didn't do it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of the people that the RIAA is suing actually broke the laws in question. Chances are, these people have been chronically breaking the law, and there's probably a huge paper trail.
When I really need to get something done, I like to do something similar to what all the good rock stars do and go "unplugged." That means literally unplugging the Ethernet cable from the back of my computer. That way, I can still use my computer to do what I need to do (or listen to music while I'm doing something that's not on the computer), but I can't get caught up in distractions while working. Also, since you physically have to plug it back in to get your Internet access working again, you can't open up that Mozilla icon on the Quick Launch bar and end up distracting yourself.
By removing the Ethernet cable, you've made it a (small) hassle to use the Internet again. That way, it puts more weight on the "Internet" side of the scale when you're weighing out your options on what to do. Let's see: either do this work, or go to the back of my computer, find the cord, plug it back in, and then waste a bunch of time on the Internet. It helps your brain make the right choice.
You do realize that SDL uses DirectX for two-dimensional screen surfaces when you're in Windows, right? SDL is basically a wrapper for I/O and graphics systems. The library will use the fastest graphics system on the available system in order to display stuff.
Well, unless you want 3D, and then you can pretty much only use OpenGL. But considering that modern Windows, Macintosh, and Linux OS's all have that shipped in the box, there's really no room to complain.
Also, SDL really isn't that complicated. SDL takes just a couple of days (maybe a week) to learn enough of it in order to be able to produce a small game. That's because the main SDL library only has what's absolutely necessary to obtain input and draw things to the screen. If you want fancier stuff, you use the addon libraries to SDL, which have an even smaller learning curve than the base SDL.
The service pack doesn't cost money, but then again, the downpayment for using that operating system is $300. Network exploits have been a big problem since Windows 98, but they still didn't bother to put a firewall in their software until now.
Once again, I shall ask: what are people paying for when they buy Windows? How do you justify paying money for something that doesn't even have a decent multiuser system that blocks malicious executables from invading the system? Why did it take so long to put a firewall in Windows to block against network exploits? Why did Outlook have a scripting language built-in that could invade computers? These are major security oversights that were all being abused in the times of Windows 98, but even though they had three years to see the result of their mistakes, they went ahead and repeated those mistakes in Windows XP.
I'm saying that it's pathetic that you're justifying Microsoft's crappy service pack by comparing it to software that doesn't cost money.
"This new and expensive car you just sold me is a lemon!" "Yeah, but if you bought a used car, it would have problems too!"
When I pay a lot of money for an operating system, I expect it to be good enough that I don't have to justify its flaws with the fact that the free alternative has problems, too. Why shouldn't I use Linux if they both have the same problems but Linux costs $0 and Windows costs $300?
Most of the software in Linux is marked as beta software. Also, you don't have to pay for Fedora. Those are HUGE differences.
If Microsoft called Service Pack 2 a "bleeding-edge" beta piece of software and it wasn't a patch for a $300 operating system, I'd cut them a little more slack.
So if you want to compare Windows to an operating system that is freely available off the Internet, go ahead. I ask, however: what the hell am I paying for?
I was referring to the MAJORITY of Slashdotters, especially the people who tend to get the mod points, disagree with someone, and find that excuse enough to mod someone down. Hence, people on Slashdot eventually stop having opinions that conflict with the standard pro-Linux pro-P2P anti-corporation mindset that the majority of Slashdotters have and it becomes a huge orgy of modding up people with popular opinions and modding down people with unpopular opinions.
Oh, and way to show your individuality by posting Anonymous Coward, dumbass.
Heh. You obviously have enough bandwidth and time to make that holier-than-thou post about how you don't submit to "soul-sucking registrations." I'd say you have enough bandwidth and time to make a registration.
No one can ever own a name, a song or an invention the same way they own a pencil.
For names, you can have a trademark on it if it's unique. For instance, how many people were "sharing" the name Microsoft before Bill Gates started the company? Without trademark law, no company would be able to set up a reputation for themselves, because a bunch of other people would start selling stuff in their name. So please, tell us your utopian solution to that problem.
As for songs, we're talking about original recordings here. It's not like a bunch of guys are making covers of these songs and spreading them around on BitTorrent. It's ripped right off the original CDs. Also, it's not like you're forced to listen to RIAA music. If you don't like what they're doing, stop listening to them. Simple as that. But don't start trying to download their music from P2P sources to get your fix.
And for inventions, there is zero motivation for certain companies to make any kind of invention without patents. It takes enormous capital to create something, and patents help to keep the return higher than the investment. Yes, there's some problems with the current patent system, but don't take the baby out with the bathwater.
Movie studios are nervous because they are not the exclusive providers of moving pictures anymore.
You're confusing movie studios being afraid of competition in the market with common people downloading their movies off the Internet without monetary compensation towards the originators. These are two different issues. I think you're confusing the RIAA/MPAA's monopolies on record and movie media with the concept of intellectual property, calling both "exclusive franchise." You see, without intellectual property, you can't have any competition in the industry, because the industry would be DEAD. The only music in the world would be stuff made in people's spare time, because nobody would be able to make a livable wage making music.
If every industry had no protection on their intellectual property, capitalism would fail miserably, because companies would just mooch off other companies' hard work and engineering. There would be no incentive to create a new product, because the instant you create it, every other company would start building cars exactly like it, or using the unique technology that you spent X amount of years perfecting.
I find this post to be hilarious soley due to the fact that it conforms to a classic stereotypical Slashdot comment. Specifically, an "I'll get modded down for this, but..." getting modded to 4 or above.
Slashdot Mirror
Blaming the geeks is unacceptable, even if the technology was faulty. Generals get to those high positions by accepting responsibility for their decisions, and they decided to go into war with unproven technology, so it follows that it's their fault. If you're going to be a leader, you have to accept both the accolades on success and responsibility on failure.
Either genetic modification is OK or it isn't
That is a textbook either/or fallacy. You lumped all forms of genetic engineering together into its root category and then challenged the "slashbots" to provide an absolutist stance of either being for or against the whole root category, when there are multiple forms of genetic engineering that you could support/oppose individually (for instance, genetic engineering toward humans and genetic engineering toward plants).
Here's an example of where your "reasoning" takes you: "I'm so sick of people who think that provoking a war just to boost the economy is bad, but then they support war against a country who attacked us! Either you support war or you don't! Which one is it, people?"
We're talking about the biggest spoken gaffes in 2005, not 2004. Both of your links are dated in 2004.
What does hatred of women have to do with interracial marriages?
Furthermore, the US government has already "drawn the line" on what companies can't discriminate against through the passing of several laws. This page on the EEOC's website outlines it pretty well.
Just pronounce it mon-ed instead of mon-add. That way, it doesn't sound like gonad.
I'd think it would be worse, since instead of your body having time to recover from the startle while the monitor is changing resolutions, a text-mode to text-mode BSOD is instantaneous.
Of course, I've never personally had much trouble with BSODs since Windows XP came out, but that's another story.
You may legally be permitted to have the files you're offering to others. For instance, it would be perfectly legal for you to have some MP3s that you ripped from some CDs you own. However, it's against the law to start distributing those files over the Internet.
It's the hormone Oxytocin, not the narcotic Oxycontin.
Oh, you mean the Macintosh Plus that CmdrTaco has in the corner of his living room?
If the RIAA are not extorting, then what is it that they are doing?
Suing people they have traced infringing their copyrights by downloading RIAA music over P2P sources. Let's look at it from the other side here. The people being sued have (probably) broken the law themselves to get into this position. How exactly is this situation "extortion" if the person broke the law in the first place? I mean, legally the RIAA is entitled to the damages that the law permits them to receive from these law-breakers. It's being lenient to allow these law-breakers to settle for so little.
Yes, it may be unfair if you legitimately didn't do it, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of the people that the RIAA is suing actually broke the laws in question. Chances are, these people have been chronically breaking the law, and there's probably a huge paper trail.
By removing the Ethernet cable, you've made it a (small) hassle to use the Internet again. That way, it puts more weight on the "Internet" side of the scale when you're weighing out your options on what to do. Let's see: either do this work, or go to the back of my computer, find the cord, plug it back in, and then waste a bunch of time on the Internet. It helps your brain make the right choice.
Reminds me of that Dilbert cartoon when he goes to Elbonia to see one of their computer science classes:
Okay, today you're the computer.
I believe he was simply pointing out the double-entendre there.
You do realize that SDL uses DirectX for two-dimensional screen surfaces when you're in Windows, right? SDL is basically a wrapper for I/O and graphics systems. The library will use the fastest graphics system on the available system in order to display stuff.
Well, unless you want 3D, and then you can pretty much only use OpenGL. But considering that modern Windows, Macintosh, and Linux OS's all have that shipped in the box, there's really no room to complain.
Also, SDL really isn't that complicated. SDL takes just a couple of days (maybe a week) to learn enough of it in order to be able to produce a small game. That's because the main SDL library only has what's absolutely necessary to obtain input and draw things to the screen. If you want fancier stuff, you use the addon libraries to SDL, which have an even smaller learning curve than the base SDL.
The service pack doesn't cost money, but then again, the downpayment for using that operating system is $300. Network exploits have been a big problem since Windows 98, but they still didn't bother to put a firewall in their software until now.
Once again, I shall ask: what are people paying for when they buy Windows? How do you justify paying money for something that doesn't even have a decent multiuser system that blocks malicious executables from invading the system? Why did it take so long to put a firewall in Windows to block against network exploits? Why did Outlook have a scripting language built-in that could invade computers? These are major security oversights that were all being abused in the times of Windows 98, but even though they had three years to see the result of their mistakes, they went ahead and repeated those mistakes in Windows XP.
I'm saying that it's pathetic that you're justifying Microsoft's crappy service pack by comparing it to software that doesn't cost money.
"This new and expensive car you just sold me is a lemon!"
"Yeah, but if you bought a used car, it would have problems too!"
When I pay a lot of money for an operating system, I expect it to be good enough that I don't have to justify its flaws with the fact that the free alternative has problems, too. Why shouldn't I use Linux if they both have the same problems but Linux costs $0 and Windows costs $300?
Most of the software in Linux is marked as beta software. Also, you don't have to pay for Fedora. Those are HUGE differences.
If Microsoft called Service Pack 2 a "bleeding-edge" beta piece of software and it wasn't a patch for a $300 operating system, I'd cut them a little more slack.
So if you want to compare Windows to an operating system that is freely available off the Internet, go ahead. I ask, however: what the hell am I paying for?
I was referring to the MAJORITY of Slashdotters, especially the people who tend to get the mod points, disagree with someone, and find that excuse enough to mod someone down. Hence, people on Slashdot eventually stop having opinions that conflict with the standard pro-Linux pro-P2P anti-corporation mindset that the majority of Slashdotters have and it becomes a huge orgy of modding up people with popular opinions and modding down people with unpopular opinions.
Oh, and way to show your individuality by posting Anonymous Coward, dumbass.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. Slashdotters have the worst double-standard in the world when it comes to intellectual property.
Heh. You obviously have enough bandwidth and time to make that holier-than-thou post about how you don't submit to "soul-sucking registrations." I'd say you have enough bandwidth and time to make a registration.
In fact, I don't see anything positive in anonymity.
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 22, @04:11PM
You are the god of irony and paradox.
d) Keep it a secret and use it as a tool for making billions of dollars.
;)
But then again, I'm a greedy bastard
Did you accidentally encrypt your sense of humor or something?
No one can ever own a name, a song or an invention the same way they own a pencil.
For names, you can have a trademark on it if it's unique. For instance, how many people were "sharing" the name Microsoft before Bill Gates started the company? Without trademark law, no company would be able to set up a reputation for themselves, because a bunch of other people would start selling stuff in their name. So please, tell us your utopian solution to that problem.
As for songs, we're talking about original recordings here. It's not like a bunch of guys are making covers of these songs and spreading them around on BitTorrent. It's ripped right off the original CDs. Also, it's not like you're forced to listen to RIAA music. If you don't like what they're doing, stop listening to them. Simple as that. But don't start trying to download their music from P2P sources to get your fix.
And for inventions, there is zero motivation for certain companies to make any kind of invention without patents. It takes enormous capital to create something, and patents help to keep the return higher than the investment. Yes, there's some problems with the current patent system, but don't take the baby out with the bathwater.
Movie studios are nervous because they are not the exclusive providers of moving pictures anymore.
You're confusing movie studios being afraid of competition in the market with common people downloading their movies off the Internet without monetary compensation towards the originators. These are two different issues. I think you're confusing the RIAA/MPAA's monopolies on record and movie media with the concept of intellectual property, calling both "exclusive franchise." You see, without intellectual property, you can't have any competition in the industry, because the industry would be DEAD. The only music in the world would be stuff made in people's spare time, because nobody would be able to make a livable wage making music.
If every industry had no protection on their intellectual property, capitalism would fail miserably, because companies would just mooch off other companies' hard work and engineering. There would be no incentive to create a new product, because the instant you create it, every other company would start building cars exactly like it, or using the unique technology that you spent X amount of years perfecting.
I find this post to be hilarious soley due to the fact that it conforms to a classic stereotypical Slashdot comment. Specifically, an "I'll get modded down for this, but..." getting modded to 4 or above.