I don't think TV is a monster. I just think it's an utter waste of time when there are more interesting things to do. And most anything is more interesting than TV.
Of course, you understand that there is an implied "to me" in your comment every time you say that watching television is uninteresting. Unless, of course, you are stating that as a fact rather than an opinion, and that everyone should find tv uninteresting? That would be funny. My point being, don't let your head swell too big Mr. Intellect, some of us dumb people might actually... enjoy watching television, and here is a gasper, find it interesting. However, I still can not understand how my wife likes "Wife Swap", "The Simple Life", and its ilk. Now, THAT is brain rot material. Look at me, doing the same thing the parent did. Tsk.
How is that any more arrogant than theists who believe that they know what goes on AFTER death (for which there is absolutely zero proof), so much so that they often come to your DOOR on the weekend to try to convince you to go to their cult meeting? On top of that, they also have the audacity to believe they know exactly how the universe started, and logic be damned. I wouldn't be talking about arrogance if I were you.
For the record: I am an athiest (as if you couldn't tell from the content of the post, but you never know with some people).
Sure, and people should stop murdering people, raping people, stealing peoples stuff, etc. But, much like the list I just mentioned, the spyware/adware, etc is not going anywhere by legislation, the only solution will be technical, and educational.
Ya know, I am juuuust about sick of hearing people whine about "Ill Be Grabbed" and Guantanamo (however you spell them, I can't be bothered to look it up) and calling it torture. Yea, sure, the incidents were unfortunate and should be punished, but torture? Listen, if you want to know about torture, go have Saddam or some of the Al Queda folks show you JUST what torture is. Once you have a sound understanding of torture, then you may realize how ridiculous it is to call those forementioned incidents "torture".
Everyone know this. The reason why these people ignored this bedrock of finance is because Enron's stock once did quite well. They figured they'd beat the market, beat the Jones, beat everyone and place their entire bet on the winning horse. Then they could brag to their neighbors about what a financial genius they were. Simply put: these people who were ruined by the Enron scandal got greedy.
It seems to me that you are making a whole lot of assumptions, some that are verifiably false. For instance, no, not everyone knows about diversification of a portfolio. In fact, I guarantee you that there are a LOT of people that dont even know what a portfolio is. My father, for instance. So, right there, you are wrong.
On your second point, claiming that everyone who had everything invested in Enron was greedy, I am completely dumbfounded that someone could actually think that. Here is a concept, more than likely most of them just didn't know any better. Most of them probably actually trusted the people that ran their company, and more than likely most of them are products of an age when companies often did care about their employees.
Try not to be so shocked that not everyone is as all knowing as yourself. In fact, since you know everything, you should have already KNOWN this!
Please don't take offense but... that's just a silly analogy.
Why would I take offense? I think it was plainly obvious that it was supposed to be silly.
Outside of the words 'digital content', you're making a pretty good case for dead-tree books. They are realtively portable, fairly hardy, and inexpensive. Combined with a small portable reading light, it might get you through those cinema commercials you don't like.
Yeah, someday we may all be reading backlit books. When they replace the functionality of current paper-based versions at approximately the same relative cost, that is. Until then, it is a solution looking for a problem.
You can't take the digital content out of that, since that was a very important piece of information. Now, as an additional feature, it will be nice that I can also have digital copies of paper books on there, several hundred at that, so I don't have to have a huge stack of paper books around. Let me try to use a "non-silly" analogy here, just for you:) This is to paper books as driving a car is to walking. Sure, they both get you there, but driving the car is faster, more convienient, and certainly more comfortable (no AC in the old legs, you know). And I currently do carry paperbacks with me everywhere, just didn't want you to think I hadn't figured that secret out yet. As an added bonus, I have a $10 single LED reading light that works wonders. Doesn't change my point though:)
Well... if you buy paperbacks at Half Price Books and the average cover price is $7.00 (USD)... you'll end up with around 235 books. That would last me at least a couple of years.
Even purchasing new from BN or Amazon, I'd end up with about a year's worth of books.
These e-book readers are a relatively expensive solution in search of a problem IMHO.
I can't argue regarding the cost, but all new technologies are expensive when they first come out. It is the nature of the beast, if we didn't release new stuff because it wasn't cost effective when it was first brought to market, well... There would be no technology out there.
What I CAN argue with though, is the solution searching for a problem bit. The last time I tried to stick my computer and my monitor in my pocket so I could read it during the "commercials" at the movie theater (an example scenario, insert your own as needed) the darn thing just wouldn't fit. Especially since I have a CRT. There is a lot of digital content I would just LOVE to have in an inexpensive pocket sized reader so I can take it with me, and no a PDA doesn't cut it. Screen is way too small, and due to the nature of the device, the price will never be where I want it nor will the battery economy be there any time soon. This digital ink stuff, when the tech matures and the price comes down, will fill all my needs. But, I am not rich enough to be an early adopter.
Most likely, he is influenced by da big bucks from telcos that would love nothing more than to see Net Neutrality get struck down. I mean, it's the only explanation.
Of course it is, but the one thing I don't get is why wouldn't they train their pet politician better so he doesn't make a fool of himself (and them, by proxy)? I mean, they could have loaned one of thier 15 year old kids to him for a weekend and they could have spoon fed him a better understanding of the internet.
Are you kidding me? What, and miss some of the best flamefests... er discussions going? No way man, nothing like a good religious "discussion" to get the old juice a flowin.
Its a different kind of audience. They aren't trying to scare the "hardcore criminals" like drug addicts and dealers. They are scaring Bob and Wilma yuppie and their grandma. There are a lot more of this kind of person, and they are the target.
You are completely missing the point. They don't HAVE to prosecute them all, just some of them. And publicly. The more public the better. It will "scare straight" a lot of the population, and THAT is what they want. They know DRM, by itself, can never be perfect.
I find it interesting that you equate accusing people who've yet to be charged with any crime of being evil terrorists with saying good things about America.
Have you been a fascist prick all your life, or is being a whore for those who'd like to take your rights away a new thing for you?
First, let me address your question. No, I am not a fascist, but as for the prick part, well that is entirely up to the observer to determine. The second part of your question is just too ridiculous to bother with.
Now, on to mine. Have you been a incoherent moron all your life, or has your ability to not jump to an incorrect conclusion been stunted recently? As a clarification for the challenged (read, YOU), my first statement was a general statement, not in direct response to his point. The second one was. To me, rereading what I posted, it is still obvious. You, sir, are an idiot. It is hilarous to me how FAR off you missed my point. An analogy is in order. If your post was you shooting a gun, you would have shot someone BEHIND you.
Man, what is wrong with you? Didn't you know it is strictly against the rules to even suggest that there is anything GOOD about America here? Geeze, read the FAQ sometime.
Now, not that I agree with holding people, for any reason at all, without charging them. Citizen or no, that is just plain evil. Charge them or release them, if you dont have the proof you want or need, too bad, so sad.
Oh it matters, because one day they will want to apply this to humans, and we certainly can't use rat embryonic stem cells. The application of stem cells to cure all sorts of ills will probably go down as one of histories most important medical science breakthroughs, but unfortunately it is hampered by religion. As an Atheist, I normally have no problem with anyone wanting to believe what they want, until it starts to intrude into my life, and this is a good example of that happening. Now, I do NOT want to see humans being harvested for their stem cells some day, but if it is the only way to get the stem cells that could allow me to walk again, or cure someone in a vegitative state, etc, so be it. We just have to decide where that line should be drawn. While abortion is legal (and thats a whole other ball of twine) it seems like such a waste to let those stem cells be thrown away when (someday) they can give a fully developed human a much better quality of life. Sometimes the selfishness of religious zealots just astounds me.
I had lasik done almost 4 years ago now. My eyes were SO bad, without my glasses I couldn't even read the big E at the top (I could tell something was there, but it was just an indistinct greyish blob). 4 years later, I can still read the last line with no effort on eye tests. One of my eyes, the bad eye, has slight astigmatism, it was at 20/20 after all the healing was done about 1 year after. The good eye was at 20/10. I have no noticable after effects. I paid over $4000 to have it done, $2k per eye, and paid it all myself with a loan from my bank (meaning I paid quite a bit more than 4k when you factor in interest:), and I can say now, it was the best 4k I ever paid, and would do it over again in a microsecond. I wore glasses for about 20 years, since I was about 10-11 years old. Boy, was I glad to get rid of those damn things!
Well, of course the cage comment was silly, I hope it was completely obvious that it was intended tongue in cheek. It was intended... well, nevermind. If I have to explain it, its not worth while.
Anyway, while I will concede that there were probably, in all the billions of humans throughout history, a few perfect children, and that you may well have been one of that exhalted few, they are definitely the minority. Also, poor parenting is one of my favorite gripes (and probably the one with the most available ammunition) so I would never try to argue that kids are the evil by default. I also feel that most problems with kids can be directly attributed to something their parents did or did not do. One big issue I have witnessed is parents waiting until the kid is 6 or 7 to start trying to teach them "the way". By then a big part of a childs psychological foundation is already set, you have to start MUCH earlier (really from birth for some things). Anyway, this is way too big a subject for this post.
Hasn't that question been asked enough times throughout history for the answer to be self evident? Because he can. No other reason needed, though if there are others, thats just icing on the cake.
They're still responsible, and they're still lousy for letting their teen sneak out in the first place. More to the point they are lousy parents for forcing their kid to feel like they have to lie and / or sneak out to do the things they want. I didn't sneak out, because I knew I could go to my parents and tell them exactly where I was going.
Please, you expect us to believe you never once snuck out behind your parents back? Hell, im sure even the Pope and Mother Teresa did that. Anyway, no parent can 100% control every second of their kids time, EVERY teen does things behind their parents back. Its just a matter of quantity and magnitude. If the teen sneaking out makes the parents lousy, then there have only ever been lousy parents in the history of the world. Well, except the ones that keep their kids in a cage right? Those sure wont be sneaking out.
Nevermind that your opinion is in direct conflict with research studies. That doesn't suprise me, you probably believe an invisible man created you from nothing and gets angry if you have sex before marriage. Or if you choose to use your free will and not show him any love or respect.
Please, whenever someone mentions "the studies" they are just saying they have no idea what they are talking about. You can prove anything you want if you "perform studies" enough.
And no, great job assuming, and wrongly. I am, in fact, an Athiest. So no invisible guys here.
You make the mistake in thinking that the constitution of the united states actually is worth the parchment it is printed on. The US has not been a free country for a very very long time (if ever).
Dont be ridiculous. Of course the US is a free country, you sound like some wack job. I would love to hear your definition of free. Would it be an anarchic society with no laws and no police? You are free to do ANYTHING you want, even rape and kill your neighbor? Would that be the free society you want to live in? If so, then better go somewhere and start it, because my guess is the majority of us want to strike a balance between freedom and order. Given a lawless society and humans, you would not have some socialist utopia, you would have a terrible meat grinder of a society. We need some sort of system of laws to keep us from killing each other. And to the topic at hand, parents should have the right to decide what their kids are exposed to. If companies can't police themselves (and do you think they can or will?), the government will have to do it. I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want my kid playing GTA any more than I would want them watching hard core porn or drinking. Its just as destructive to a young impressionable mind in my opinion. You are free to disagree, and let your kids play GTA. You just have to buy it FOR them. Thank goodness for a free country.
Guess I will have to help out the person that modded my post offtopic, since they obviously are clueless. My response expressed my experience with the subject at hand. It demonstrated the poor experience I got with said subject, and also how I was able to choose a competing service and get better experience. If this experience is typical it can explain the drop in share price so quickly. Now, how is that off topic? Normally the mods on here matter not to me, but in this particular case the sheer stupidity of it just confuses me.
So let me get this straight. The guy who made this SAME comment regarding singles holding the bag for married people gets modded +5 insightful, and this guy expressing the exact mirror image gets modded troll? Could it BE that most Slashdotters are sad single people? Don't get me wrong, I am a sad married people, so don't get your little feelings hurt TOO much. I just find that immensely hypocritical and I think it speaks volumes.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, I am pretty sure you can't mod a thread you post in on Slashdot. If that is incorrect, I KNOW I will be corrected with the quickness!
Of course, you understand that there is an implied "to me" in your comment every time you say that watching television is uninteresting. Unless, of course, you are stating that as a fact rather than an opinion, and that everyone should find tv uninteresting? That would be funny. My point being, don't let your head swell too big Mr. Intellect, some of us dumb people might actually... enjoy watching television, and here is a gasper, find it interesting. However, I still can not understand how my wife likes "Wife Swap", "The Simple Life", and its ilk. Now, THAT is brain rot material. Look at me, doing the same thing the parent did. Tsk.
How is that any more arrogant than theists who believe that they know what goes on AFTER death (for which there is absolutely zero proof), so much so that they often come to your DOOR on the weekend to try to convince you to go to their cult meeting? On top of that, they also have the audacity to believe they know exactly how the universe started, and logic be damned. I wouldn't be talking about arrogance if I were you.
For the record: I am an athiest (as if you couldn't tell from the content of the post, but you never know with some people).
Sure, and people should stop murdering people, raping people, stealing peoples stuff, etc. But, much like the list I just mentioned, the spyware/adware, etc is not going anywhere by legislation, the only solution will be technical, and educational.
Ya know, I am juuuust about sick of hearing people whine about "Ill Be Grabbed" and Guantanamo (however you spell them, I can't be bothered to look it up) and calling it torture. Yea, sure, the incidents were unfortunate and should be punished, but torture? Listen, if you want to know about torture, go have Saddam or some of the Al Queda folks show you JUST what torture is. Once you have a sound understanding of torture, then you may realize how ridiculous it is to call those forementioned incidents "torture".
blockquoteNintendo to Microsoft : You.. in teh fire too./blockquote
Dont frigging DO that! I snorted coke out my nose when I read that part, and that HURTS.
It seems to me that you are making a whole lot of assumptions, some that are verifiably false. For instance, no, not everyone knows about diversification of a portfolio. In fact, I guarantee you that there are a LOT of people that dont even know what a portfolio is. My father, for instance. So, right there, you are wrong.
On your second point, claiming that everyone who had everything invested in Enron was greedy, I am completely dumbfounded that someone could actually think that. Here is a concept, more than likely most of them just didn't know any better. Most of them probably actually trusted the people that ran their company, and more than likely most of them are products of an age when companies often did care about their employees.
Try not to be so shocked that not everyone is as all knowing as yourself. In fact, since you know everything, you should have already KNOWN this!
Completely off topic, but I got the biggest laugh at your name, I remember that dude from the 80s heavy metal.
Why would I take offense? I think it was plainly obvious that it was supposed to be silly.
You can't take the digital content out of that, since that was a very important piece of information. Now, as an additional feature, it will be nice that I can also have digital copies of paper books on there, several hundred at that, so I don't have to have a huge stack of paper books around. Let me try to use a "non-silly" analogy here, just for you
I can't argue regarding the cost, but all new technologies are expensive when they first come out. It is the nature of the beast, if we didn't release new stuff because it wasn't cost effective when it was first brought to market, well... There would be no technology out there.
What I CAN argue with though, is the solution searching for a problem bit. The last time I tried to stick my computer and my monitor in my pocket so I could read it during the "commercials" at the movie theater (an example scenario, insert your own as needed) the darn thing just wouldn't fit. Especially since I have a CRT. There is a lot of digital content I would just LOVE to have in an inexpensive pocket sized reader so I can take it with me, and no a PDA doesn't cut it. Screen is way too small, and due to the nature of the device, the price will never be where I want it nor will the battery economy be there any time soon. This digital ink stuff, when the tech matures and the price comes down, will fill all my needs. But, I am not rich enough to be an early adopter.
Of course it is, but the one thing I don't get is why wouldn't they train their pet politician better so he doesn't make a fool of himself (and them, by proxy)? I mean, they could have loaned one of thier 15 year old kids to him for a weekend and they could have spoon fed him a better understanding of the internet.
Its a different kind of audience. They aren't trying to scare the "hardcore criminals" like drug addicts and dealers. They are scaring Bob and Wilma yuppie and their grandma. There are a lot more of this kind of person, and they are the target.
You are completely missing the point. They don't HAVE to prosecute them all, just some of them. And publicly. The more public the better. It will "scare straight" a lot of the population, and THAT is what they want. They know DRM, by itself, can never be perfect.
First, let me address your question. No, I am not a fascist, but as for the prick part, well that is entirely up to the observer to determine. The second part of your question is just too ridiculous to bother with.
Now, on to mine. Have you been a incoherent moron all your life, or has your ability to not jump to an incorrect conclusion been stunted recently? As a clarification for the challenged (read, YOU), my first statement was a general statement, not in direct response to his point. The second one was. To me, rereading what I posted, it is still obvious. You, sir, are an idiot. It is hilarous to me how FAR off you missed my point. An analogy is in order. If your post was you shooting a gun, you would have shot someone BEHIND you.
Man, what is wrong with you? Didn't you know it is strictly against the rules to even suggest that there is anything GOOD about America here? Geeze, read the FAQ sometime.
Now, not that I agree with holding people, for any reason at all, without charging them. Citizen or no, that is just plain evil. Charge them or release them, if you dont have the proof you want or need, too bad, so sad.
Oh it matters, because one day they will want to apply this to humans, and we certainly can't use rat embryonic stem cells. The application of stem cells to cure all sorts of ills will probably go down as one of histories most important medical science breakthroughs, but unfortunately it is hampered by religion. As an Atheist, I normally have no problem with anyone wanting to believe what they want, until it starts to intrude into my life, and this is a good example of that happening. Now, I do NOT want to see humans being harvested for their stem cells some day, but if it is the only way to get the stem cells that could allow me to walk again, or cure someone in a vegitative state, etc, so be it. We just have to decide where that line should be drawn. While abortion is legal (and thats a whole other ball of twine) it seems like such a waste to let those stem cells be thrown away when (someday) they can give a fully developed human a much better quality of life. Sometimes the selfishness of religious zealots just astounds me.
I had lasik done almost 4 years ago now. My eyes were SO bad, without my glasses I couldn't even read the big E at the top (I could tell something was there, but it was just an indistinct greyish blob). 4 years later, I can still read the last line with no effort on eye tests. One of my eyes, the bad eye, has slight astigmatism, it was at 20/20 after all the healing was done about 1 year after. The good eye was at 20/10. I have no noticable after effects. I paid over $4000 to have it done, $2k per eye, and paid it all myself with a loan from my bank (meaning I paid quite a bit more than 4k when you factor in interest :), and I can say now, it was the best 4k I ever paid, and would do it over again in a microsecond. I wore glasses for about 20 years, since I was about 10-11 years old. Boy, was I glad to get rid of those damn things!
Well, of course the cage comment was silly, I hope it was completely obvious that it was intended tongue in cheek. It was intended... well, nevermind. If I have to explain it, its not worth while.
Anyway, while I will concede that there were probably, in all the billions of humans throughout history, a few perfect children, and that you may well have been one of that exhalted few, they are definitely the minority. Also, poor parenting is one of my favorite gripes (and probably the one with the most available ammunition) so I would never try to argue that kids are the evil by default. I also feel that most problems with kids can be directly attributed to something their parents did or did not do. One big issue I have witnessed is parents waiting until the kid is 6 or 7 to start trying to teach them "the way". By then a big part of a childs psychological foundation is already set, you have to start MUCH earlier (really from birth for some things). Anyway, this is way too big a subject for this post.
Hasn't that question been asked enough times throughout history for the answer to be self evident? Because he can. No other reason needed, though if there are others, thats just icing on the cake.
Please, you expect us to believe you never once snuck out behind your parents back? Hell, im sure even the Pope and Mother Teresa did that. Anyway, no parent can 100% control every second of their kids time, EVERY teen does things behind their parents back. Its just a matter of quantity and magnitude. If the teen sneaking out makes the parents lousy, then there have only ever been lousy parents in the history of the world. Well, except the ones that keep their kids in a cage right? Those sure wont be sneaking out.
Please, whenever someone mentions "the studies" they are just saying they have no idea what they are talking about. You can prove anything you want if you "perform studies" enough.
And no, great job assuming, and wrongly. I am, in fact, an Athiest. So no invisible guys here.
Dont be ridiculous. Of course the US is a free country, you sound like some wack job. I would love to hear your definition of free. Would it be an anarchic society with no laws and no police? You are free to do ANYTHING you want, even rape and kill your neighbor? Would that be the free society you want to live in? If so, then better go somewhere and start it, because my guess is the majority of us want to strike a balance between freedom and order. Given a lawless society and humans, you would not have some socialist utopia, you would have a terrible meat grinder of a society. We need some sort of system of laws to keep us from killing each other. And to the topic at hand, parents should have the right to decide what their kids are exposed to. If companies can't police themselves (and do you think they can or will?), the government will have to do it. I can tell you one thing, I wouldn't want my kid playing GTA any more than I would want them watching hard core porn or drinking. Its just as destructive to a young impressionable mind in my opinion. You are free to disagree, and let your kids play GTA. You just have to buy it FOR them. Thank goodness for a free country.
Guess I will have to help out the person that modded my post offtopic, since they obviously are clueless. My response expressed my experience with the subject at hand. It demonstrated the poor experience I got with said subject, and also how I was able to choose a competing service and get better experience. If this experience is typical it can explain the drop in share price so quickly. Now, how is that off topic? Normally the mods on here matter not to me, but in this particular case the sheer stupidity of it just confuses me.
So let me get this straight. The guy who made this SAME comment regarding singles holding the bag for married people gets modded +5 insightful, and this guy expressing the exact mirror image gets modded troll? Could it BE that most Slashdotters are sad single people? Don't get me wrong, I am a sad married people, so don't get your little feelings hurt TOO much. I just find that immensely hypocritical and I think it speaks volumes.