But that's exactly the point! He's being inconvenienced, not prevented from buying tickets. As everyone else has already pointed out, he could always pick up a phone and call them, like someone who actually takes responsibility for what happens to them instead of just whining about it and making it everyone else's problem.
My apologies, sir, for implying you had made it up.
Incidentally, I agree with the rest of what you said. Everyone seems to believe this myth that it was a frivolous lawsuit without checking up on it for themselves.
And with your nitpicking, you missed the point entirely. Should you have to be able to do any of those things to drive a car? By no means. So why should you have to be a programmer just to use a computer?
Your way, people have to read manuals and learn how to do new things. The Microsoft (and Lindows) way, more is done for them so they don't have to: they can just use the computer. Which way do you think the average computer user prefers?
Excuse me, sir? Melted the cup? I think not. If you are referring to the case of the 79 year old woman who sued McDonald's for burns, then granted, that was a justified lawsuit, but don't make stuff up. She spilled it on herself.
But that is not a victory... that's nit-picking. Saying "if rational people are swayed by irrational arguments, they aren't rational" isn't bringing anything interesting to the argument and is also missing the point entirely.
For instance: If you define a rational person as someone whose every decision is rational, then no, by definition they will never be swayed by any irrational arguments, but since their logical abilities must be perfect all the time (in order for them to be rational by your definition), they also don't exist in real life.
If you instead define a rational person as someone who usually makes only rational decisions (as this rational person does), then they can occasionally slip up, as real people do, and be swayed by some irrational arguments, and p no longer implies ~q... so your argument no longer holds.
The lesson here? Choosing definitions to suit your argument doesn't add anything to the discussion. Tautologies like that are NOT useful in real life.
He is not whining, though. He is merely surprised that he has received such support and so little opposition from the normally rabid RMS supporters.
you whine that people aren't treating you fairly because your beliefs are different from some stereotypical/.er who only exists as an abstraction
Exists only as an abstraction? Do you even read Slashdot? Is it inconceivable that there is a large, vocal population of GNU advocates here? You know, it is possible to make generalizations about a lot of the people here when you see them do the same things over and over again...
I've always found his posts to be quite intelligent and well thought out, and incidentally, his post in the other thread summed up almost exactly how I've felt about RMS for some time now. Good job, foobar104.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's exactly the point! He's being inconvenienced, not prevented from buying tickets. As everyone else has already pointed out, he could always pick up a phone and call them, like someone who actually takes responsibility for what happens to them instead of just whining about it and making it everyone else's problem.
My apologies, sir, for implying you had made it up.
Incidentally, I agree with the rest of what you said. Everyone seems to believe this myth that it was a frivolous lawsuit without checking up on it for themselves.
And with your nitpicking, you missed the point entirely. Should you have to be able to do any of those things to drive a car? By no means. So why should you have to be a programmer just to use a computer?
Your way, people have to read manuals and learn how to do new things. The Microsoft (and Lindows) way, more is done for them so they don't have to: they can just use the computer. Which way do you think the average computer user prefers?
Off topic, I know, but I had to respond.
Excuse me, sir? Melted the cup? I think not. If you are referring to the case of the 79 year old woman who sued McDonald's for burns, then granted, that was a justified lawsuit, but don't make stuff up. She spilled it on herself.
But that is not a victory... that's nit-picking. Saying "if rational people are swayed by irrational arguments, they aren't rational" isn't bringing anything interesting to the argument and is also missing the point entirely.
For instance: If you define a rational person as someone whose every decision is rational, then no, by definition they will never be swayed by any irrational arguments, but since their logical abilities must be perfect all the time (in order for them to be rational by your definition), they also don't exist in real life.
If you instead define a rational person as someone who usually makes only rational decisions (as this rational person does), then they can occasionally slip up, as real people do, and be swayed by some irrational arguments, and p no longer implies ~q... so your argument no longer holds.
The lesson here? Choosing definitions to suit your argument doesn't add anything to the discussion. Tautologies like that are NOT useful in real life.
Exists only as an abstraction? Do you even read Slashdot? Is it inconceivable that there is a large, vocal population of GNU advocates here? You know, it is possible to make generalizations about a lot of the people here when you see them do the same things over and over again...
I've always found his posts to be quite intelligent and well thought out, and incidentally, his post in the other thread summed up almost exactly how I've felt about RMS for some time now. Good job, foobar104.