"Besides, by your logic I should be able to sneak into Busch Gardens because they won't let me ride their roller coasters without buying a ticket."
Nowhere in NG's post did he advocate or imply that downloading music without paying for it is okay. Instead, what he's saying is that a theme park should not be allowed to make a big secret of what all the attractions are in a park, and then refuse refunds if the park has no appreciable value. There's nothing here about free/stolen admission.
"And what do you mean "...the only competitor this industry has"? What about books, movies, video games, TV shows, etc? "
Well, in that case, Microsoft's monopoly is okay because the internet competes with newspapers. And before you reply to me telling me what a stupid example that is, go back and reread your own rationale.
"There is plenty of competition within the entertainment industry."
They don't have competition with each other to speak of. As a result, prices don't drop, new services don't come along, and we've really only got one place to go to. Now go back and reread my previous respond.
Additionally, you cannot return an unsatisfactory CD. You open it, it plays, you bought it. Who's stealing from whom? Suddenly the reason why people'd put their own time and energy into music sharing comes into sharp focus.
"It's a feature of the processor that it is not supposed to be damaged by self-induced overheating due to thermal protection."
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that you meant that it's already supposed to be 'defective fan proof'. I was thinking in a more general sense. Hope I wasn't too frustarting.
"The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free"
Yes, that's the piracy side of it. There's still a very large legitimate user side to it as well. Your attempt to group those together demonstrates that you really don't understand what you have obviously spent so much time writing about. Here's an example:
"That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently.99 a song."
An album is $12 whether you like every single song on it or not. I happen to know for a fact you have at least one CD that has precicesly one song on it you like. $12 for that one song isn't ridiculously overpriced? Face facts, the driving force between making the $.99 song available is because people 'pirated', as you call it.
Pardon me for thinking you are full of shit. Seriously, if it's all about 'getting something for nothing' like you have stated, then $400 iPods wouldn't be flying off store shelves. iTunes wouldn't have sold millions of songs. Heck, you'd probably be paying up to $20 per album. Go explore the other side a little while before blindly calling honest people pirates.
" Intel makes the CPU, and the CPU is where the thermal limiter is."
CPU requires fan. Intel provides fan. 3rd party also provides fan. Bad 3rd party fan == bad processor. Bad processor != manufacturing defect from Intel.
" This is obviously a scheme to deter overclockers from scamming away at Intel's Expense. "
No it's not. It's 'obviously' a scheme to make sure they only do the warranty stuff on factors they can actually control. If a 3rd party fan failed, why would that be Intel's fault?
"So has my eletricty. Where is my front page slashdot article?"
I seem to recall a headline story about the massive power outage in the North-eastern edge of the USA. Why? Because a significant chunk of Slashdotters out there were affected.
So, really, pipe down. Or, as you suggested, DEAL WITH IT.
"Everybody with a GUI called their interface a "window" and a collection of them was a set of "windows". MS might very well lose the case."
The point to calling Windows 'windows' was not to appeal to developers, but to the end user/consumer. The end user doesn't see calls to generate an area of the screen they can work inside, they see a visual metaphor that more or less looks like 'windows'. It's kind of like Palm. Were they describing a Palm top machine, or were they describing a machine the user will use in his palm?
" would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
As 'cool' as it would be fore Microsoft to lose their trademark, the simple idea that Lindows did this maliciously is way underrated here. They did not accidentally stumble into the name Lindows, they chose it very much on purpose, and it's sickening that they're not getting punished for it.
I'll put it another way: How would this play out if the roles were reversed? Would anybody be defending Lindows' 'generic trademark' (bear with me here, just trying to remain understandable) or would they be mad at Microsoft for knowingly going in and using the name?
I'd caution against blindly hoping that Microsoft loses this case. I'm not saying you should believe that MS is right, I'm only urging caution. Why? Because if Lindows wins this, what's to stop Microsoft from using this case to leverage against somebody else? What's to stop them from wiggling into Palm's market and taking their name away? (Spare me the argument here, just THINK.)
"Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons."
Fair point, almost. I don't know why you think I do not have a sense of proportion. I mean, if one round was enough for me to say "he had them! he had them!!" would I not be saying that they found WMDs and that Bush didn't lie? I'm talking about thousands of gallons of Anthrax that were not accounted for, not a shell here and there.
I find this rebuttal to be a bit hypocritical. You are trying to say that I have chosen an argument that can never ever make me change my mind, but you have done exactly the same thing by making the rules so specific they cannot realistically be met. (definition of fanatic? Heh.)
"Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic."
Actually I did state it. Not only that, but it's a reasonable question too. Your unwillingness to even think about what I've said makes you a fanatic.
"If someone committed a murder back in 1991.......that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001."
Lame rebuttal. Actually it's more like what's happening with Michael Jackson right now.
"When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion..."
Not only is it not divorced from the situation, but it is also the key ingredient to what started this whole mess to begin with. When you refuse to accept cause and effect, you are a fanatic.
"Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES."
I refuse to lie. Sorry. Frankly, you have shot yourself in the foot here. I have provided an attainable reason. By making such an issue of it and isolating what you really want so strictly, you have proven that you are, indeed, the one who isn't open to reason. Worse, you are only arguing now at this point to try to 'win'. Grow up man, seriously.
"Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you."
Oh yeah because you're soOOoo not going to try to get the last word. Heh.
"No, you have not established that he was producing more. "
I do not need to. He's not supposed to have them, period. Couple that with illegal missiles he had and the automated planes that fly farther then they're allowed, and you have a nasty situation. The only reason you're specifying the "produced and stockpiled" is so you can win.
I will provide for you the same damn answer: If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more. Why does this reasoning work? Because if he was so hell-bent on having these weapons, he wouldn't get rid of his original stash.
Spare me the 'if you are not a fanatic' bit because the only reason you keep asking that is because you know I have a point.
"In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991."
It is very much about the weapons he had in 91. It only wouldn't be if we knew for certain they were destroyed. This is not something you can be dismissive of. You are accusing me of 'evasion' here when it is plainly obvious you are doing so yourself. If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more.
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
My answer is still the same. Either listen and agree to disagree, or admit that you're just trying to 'win' this debate.
"I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question..."
The failure is on your end, my friend.
"You have TWO chances remaining."
Funny, you have evaded my challenge. Your chances are up.
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that.
"I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion."
I'd file that under D for duh. If they had found them this discussion would not even be taking place. Here's the problem: Saddam had some nasty nasty weapons back in the first Gulf war. This is indisputable. He was supposed to have destroyed them but no proof (or even documentation) was ever provided of that. Worse, he kicked the inspectors out. If he did keep those weapons, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that he wanted more. In order for him to have been able to develop those weapons, he would have to find a way to hide them from us. Let me ask you something, if they did build mobile labs, how could we possibly find them? Iraq is not a small place. Worse, they have found a building that was designed to remain undetected by our satellites. If they have those labs parked in a facility like that, how would we find them? In short, the only way he could keep them is if he could hide them well. Because of that, not finding them is not the same as saying they don't exist. This isn't like the Tooth Fairy here, it's more like Amelia Earhart.
I've already mentioned this, but I feel I must reiterate, the one fact that is really damning against my previous argument here is that these weapons were not used against us when we invaded. This has me wondering. It's not enough for me to say "Oops, he didn't have them", but it is enough for me to say "I have doubts as to the reliability of the information that was acted on." The problem is, I just don't know enough facts to come to a solid decision.
"Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic."
Fine. Prove to me that you're not. Ask me a question that casts a least a little doubt with you on your beliefs, like my question about why no WMDs were used against us when we invaded. (I apologize if my assumption that you are American is incorrect.) IMHO, it's hard to call somebody a fanatic if they ask questions like this. At least it demonstrates an open mind. Ask me a really good question here and I'll take back the fanatic comment.
"So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.
Hahahahahahahhaha!"
Ah, again with the spinning. Funny, I didn't say they weren't produced. That's a really strange sentence there. In any case, your 'hahhahahaha' proves that I've really riled you up here. You're trying soooooo hard to convince me that you're laughing, but really you're banging your fist in anger. Heh. Lighten up man, it's just a discussion.
"Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator)."
Heh. Yes, you are right, nothing will change your mind.
"So you think I'm a fanatic because: #1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.
#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.
#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion."
You are a fanatic because you assume Bush and the Gov't were lying about it. Though he very well could have been, you don't know jack shit. You have based your opinions on assumptions you call 'facts'.
"Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed."
Um, you do realize that Saddam had a lot of WMDs several years ago, right? He didn't declare a lot of them destroyed.
"There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist."
Ah, you didn't know about those. Ass, you don't even know what you're talking so heatedly about. "HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA"
"I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion."
Wrong. Already gone around this block.
Seriously man, you have built some rather harsh opinions based on faulty logic. If you turn out to be 'right' about any of them, it's because you got lucky.
"Have fun my little fanatic.:)"
Heh. It's so painfully obvious that you're mad at me. You've tried to make me think you're laughing at me. You've tried to spin a post of mine in order to grab a concession. Now you're trying to behave like I am inferior to you. "I'm workin with facts!" Riiiight. You're working with anger. It's fun to watch. Keep'em coming!
Slashdot Mirror
"Besides, by your logic I should be able to sneak into Busch Gardens because they won't let me ride their roller coasters without buying a ticket."
Nowhere in NG's post did he advocate or imply that downloading music without paying for it is okay. Instead, what he's saying is that a theme park should not be allowed to make a big secret of what all the attractions are in a park, and then refuse refunds if the park has no appreciable value. There's nothing here about free/stolen admission.
"And what do you mean "...the only competitor this industry has"? What about books, movies, video games, TV shows, etc? "
Well, in that case, Microsoft's monopoly is okay because the internet competes with newspapers. And before you reply to me telling me what a stupid example that is, go back and reread your own rationale.
"There is plenty of competition within the entertainment industry."
They don't have competition with each other to speak of. As a result, prices don't drop, new services don't come along, and we've really only got one place to go to. Now go back and reread my previous respond.
"You just called an innocent man a thief, you fucking asshole."
I don't have anything particularly interesting to say here. That line just resonated with me.
" You can't steal bits and bytes."
Additionally, you cannot return an unsatisfactory CD. You open it, it plays, you bought it. Who's stealing from whom? Suddenly the reason why people'd put their own time and energy into music sharing comes into sharp focus.
"It's a feature of the processor that it is not supposed to be damaged by self-induced overheating due to thermal protection."
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that you meant that it's already supposed to be 'defective fan proof'. I was thinking in a more general sense. Hope I wasn't too frustarting.
"You will pay the RIAA whether you want to or not."
Ask our friends in Canada about that.
"The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free"
.99 a song."
Yes, that's the piracy side of it. There's still a very large legitimate user side to it as well. Your attempt to group those together demonstrates that you really don't understand what you have obviously spent so much time writing about. Here's an example:
"That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently
An album is $12 whether you like every single song on it or not. I happen to know for a fact you have at least one CD that has precicesly one song on it you like. $12 for that one song isn't ridiculously overpriced? Face facts, the driving force between making the $.99 song available is because people 'pirated', as you call it.
Pardon me for thinking you are full of shit. Seriously, if it's all about 'getting something for nothing' like you have stated, then $400 iPods wouldn't be flying off store shelves. iTunes wouldn't have sold millions of songs. Heck, you'd probably be paying up to $20 per album. Go explore the other side a little while before blindly calling honest people pirates.
"No need for a cheap-shot."
Agreed. I read that little quip and thought I was reading a Dilbert cartoon. "Next we want you to write software that makes the laptop lighter."
" Intel makes the CPU, and the CPU is where the thermal limiter is."
CPU requires fan. Intel provides fan. 3rd party also provides fan. Bad 3rd party fan == bad processor. Bad processor != manufacturing defect from Intel.
" What difference does it make if you run it with the OEM fan, an aftermarket fan, or no fan at all?"
The difference is that Intel can only guarantee the products they make.
" This is obviously a scheme to deter overclockers from scamming away at Intel's Expense.
"
No it's not. It's 'obviously' a scheme to make sure they only do the warranty stuff on factors they can actually control. If a 3rd party fan failed, why would that be Intel's fault?
"WTF are you smoking? Cox == Cox Cable, one of the largest cable companies in North America."
And with a clever edit...
"WTF are you smoking? Cox..."
"What next, questioning of my sexual preference?"
Must be pretty embarrasing that you can't follow your own advice. Is that why you are trying to be all diversionary here?
"So your email was down for a day or so. DEAL WITH IT.... Instead it's ONE guy bitching about his lack of mail for a week. Boohoo."
Deal with it.
" What a useless Slashdot story."
It's not useless to Cox subscribers.
"So has my eletricty. Where is my front page slashdot article?"
I seem to recall a headline story about the massive power outage in the North-eastern edge of the USA. Why? Because a significant chunk of Slashdotters out there were affected.
So, really, pipe down. Or, as you suggested, DEAL WITH IT.
"Everybody with a GUI called their interface a "window" and a collection of them was a set of "windows". MS might very well lose the case."
The point to calling Windows 'windows' was not to appeal to developers, but to the end user/consumer. The end user doesn't see calls to generate an area of the screen they can work inside, they see a visual metaphor that more or less looks like 'windows'. It's kind of like Palm. Were they describing a Palm top machine, or were they describing a machine the user will use in his palm?
" would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?"
As 'cool' as it would be fore Microsoft to lose their trademark, the simple idea that Lindows did this maliciously is way underrated here. They did not accidentally stumble into the name Lindows, they chose it very much on purpose, and it's sickening that they're not getting punished for it.
I'll put it another way: How would this play out if the roles were reversed? Would anybody be defending Lindows' 'generic trademark' (bear with me here, just trying to remain understandable) or would they be mad at Microsoft for knowingly going in and using the name?
I'd caution against blindly hoping that Microsoft loses this case. I'm not saying you should believe that MS is right, I'm only urging caution. Why? Because if Lindows wins this, what's to stop Microsoft from using this case to leverage against somebody else? What's to stop them from wiggling into Palm's market and taking their name away? (Spare me the argument here, just THINK.)
Hey man,
I had some 'not so proud' moments yesterday. Just wanted to say I'm sorry for being an asshole.
Nanogator Wins: FATALITY
Your weapon was not useful against me, so you are trying to use it against NG? Tsk tsk.
"Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons."
Fair point, almost. I don't know why you think I do not have a sense of proportion. I mean, if one round was enough for me to say "he had them! he had them!!" would I not be saying that they found WMDs and that Bush didn't lie? I'm talking about thousands of gallons of Anthrax that were not accounted for, not a shell here and there.
I find this rebuttal to be a bit hypocritical. You are trying to say that I have chosen an argument that can never ever make me change my mind, but you have done exactly the same thing by making the rules so specific they cannot realistically be met. (definition of fanatic? Heh.)
"Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic."
...that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001."
Actually I did state it. Not only that, but it's a reasonable question too. Your unwillingness to even think about what I've said makes you a fanatic.
"If someone committed a murder back in 1991....
Lame rebuttal. Actually it's more like what's happening with Michael Jackson right now.
"When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion..."
Not only is it not divorced from the situation, but it is also the key ingredient to what started this whole mess to begin with. When you refuse to accept cause and effect, you are a fanatic.
"Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES."
I refuse to lie. Sorry. Frankly, you have shot yourself in the foot here. I have provided an attainable reason. By making such an issue of it and isolating what you really want so strictly, you have proven that you are, indeed, the one who isn't open to reason. Worse, you are only arguing now at this point to try to 'win'. Grow up man, seriously.
"Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you."
Oh yeah because you're soOOoo not going to try to get the last word. Heh.
"No, you have not established that he was producing more. "
I do not need to. He's not supposed to have them, period. Couple that with illegal missiles he had and the automated planes that fly farther then they're allowed, and you have a nasty situation. The only reason you're specifying the "produced and stockpiled" is so you can win.
I will provide for you the same damn answer: If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more. Why does this reasoning work? Because if he was so hell-bent on having these weapons, he wouldn't get rid of his original stash.
Spare me the 'if you are not a fanatic' bit because the only reason you keep asking that is because you know I have a point.
"In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991."
It is very much about the weapons he had in 91. It only wouldn't be if we knew for certain they were destroyed. This is not something you can be dismissive of. You are accusing me of 'evasion' here when it is plainly obvious you are doing so yourself. If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more.
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
My answer is still the same. Either listen and agree to disagree, or admit that you're just trying to 'win' this debate.
"I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question..."
The failure is on your end, my friend.
"You have TWO chances remaining."
Funny, you have evaded my challenge. Your chances are up.
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."
I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that.
"I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion."
I'd file that under D for duh. If they had found them this discussion would not even be taking place. Here's the problem: Saddam had some nasty nasty weapons back in the first Gulf war. This is indisputable. He was supposed to have destroyed them but no proof (or even documentation) was ever provided of that. Worse, he kicked the inspectors out. If he did keep those weapons, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that he wanted more. In order for him to have been able to develop those weapons, he would have to find a way to hide them from us. Let me ask you something, if they did build mobile labs, how could we possibly find them? Iraq is not a small place. Worse, they have found a building that was designed to remain undetected by our satellites. If they have those labs parked in a facility like that, how would we find them? In short, the only way he could keep them is if he could hide them well. Because of that, not finding them is not the same as saying they don't exist. This isn't like the Tooth Fairy here, it's more like Amelia Earhart.
I've already mentioned this, but I feel I must reiterate, the one fact that is really damning against my previous argument here is that these weapons were not used against us when we invaded. This has me wondering. It's not enough for me to say "Oops, he didn't have them", but it is enough for me to say "I have doubts as to the reliability of the information that was acted on." The problem is, I just don't know enough facts to come to a solid decision.
"Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic."
Fine. Prove to me that you're not. Ask me a question that casts a least a little doubt with you on your beliefs, like my question about why no WMDs were used against us when we invaded. (I apologize if my assumption that you are American is incorrect.) IMHO, it's hard to call somebody a fanatic if they ask questions like this. At least it demonstrates an open mind. Ask me a really good question here and I'll take back the fanatic comment.
"So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.
:)"
Hahahahahahahhaha!"
Ah, again with the spinning. Funny, I didn't say they weren't produced. That's a really strange sentence there. In any case, your 'hahhahahaha' proves that I've really riled you up here. You're trying soooooo hard to convince me that you're laughing, but really you're banging your fist in anger. Heh. Lighten up man, it's just a discussion.
"Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator)."
Heh. Yes, you are right, nothing will change your mind.
"So you think I'm a fanatic because:
#1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.
#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.
#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion."
You are a fanatic because you assume Bush and the Gov't were lying about it. Though he very well could have been, you don't know jack shit. You have based your opinions on assumptions you call 'facts'.
"Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed."
Um, you do realize that Saddam had a lot of WMDs several years ago, right? He didn't declare a lot of them destroyed.
"There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist."
Ah, you didn't know about those. Ass, you don't even know what you're talking so heatedly about. "HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA"
"I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion."
Wrong. Already gone around this block.
Seriously man, you have built some rather harsh opinions based on faulty logic. If you turn out to be 'right' about any of them, it's because you got lucky.
"Have fun my little fanatic.
Heh. It's so painfully obvious that you're mad at me. You've tried to make me think you're laughing at me. You've tried to spin a post of mine in order to grab a concession. Now you're trying to behave like I am inferior to you. "I'm workin with facts!" Riiiight. You're working with anger. It's fun to watch. Keep'em coming!