I agree. I retrofitted my house with cat5 a few years back, but if I was going to do it again, or especially if I was building a new house, I'd want to go with fiber. Perhaps even both, since I like redundant systems.
When you can't argue your point, and your tactical maneuvers to evade argument fail, resort to name calling. That's great, bob beta. It was already pretty clear what sort of person you are, but you've effectively sealed it.
We should thank our Founding single celled Founders for having the foresight to choose earth, and not some planet within the magnetic blast radius. Can you imagine the chaos if we woke up tomorrow and no one could use their credit cards?
Even if you didn't miss all your fellow humans, and were set on spending the rest of your life reading great literature, you'd probably accidently smash your glasses on the steps of the New York Public Library.
Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.
Because what you are describing is metaphysics, not science. I generally have no problem with you or anyone holding whatever metaphysical beliefs you want. It's when you attempt to substitute the metaphysics for science or impose the metaphysics on science that I have a problem.
Your stated metaphysical belief is sufficiently vague as to not conflict with science. You do not seem to be trying to impose your metaphysical beliefs on others. However, we've seen time and again, through out history into the present what happens when scientific development challenges metaphysical notions of those with political power, especially when that power is based on those metaphysical notions.
Furthermore, if you rely on supernatural explanations, why bother doing science? Why attempt to understand the physical world when the supernatural world trumps it? (I realize that your stated beliefs are more akin to that of the Deists, many of whom compared the universe to a clockwork that had been set into motion by some "Mind" and left to run on it's own. By seeking to understand the universe, one was also seeking to understand the mind that created it.)
Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with your personal metaphysical beliefs, but I think they're totally extracurricular to science.
Monkeys have been trained to operate tools and devices before this, both in and out of laboratory settings.
Do you consider slashdot to be a laboratory setting?
But seriously. I have no knowledge of monkey tool use in the lab, but I do know (from many years of National Geographic) that tool using primates make and use very simple tools, usually materials close at hand and with minimal modification. The two examples that come to mind are using twigs to collect termites or large ants for food and crumpling a leaf to sponge up water that might be hard to reach with the mouth.
Obviously, this requires an ability to observe phenomena and to remember. In other words, the ability to learn, which many animals have. The advantage that the monkey has is that it can grasp objects and more easily manipulate them.
In a very broad sense of the word, other animals can learn to use tools. If you consider a door knob mechanism as a tool, there are many stories about animals that learn to open doors (usually the lever type knob). However, no one would reasonably suggest that an animal (other than a human) can make a doorknob.
I guess you're right to consider this "more of a robotic/hapic/man-machine interface breakthrough," but I think the real breakthrough was whatever advance led us to more complex tool making. My guess is that it was the development of language that made this possible, but I doubt that this will ever be proved.
$500 buys the little box that nominally runs OSX. The keyboard and mouse are extra.
Hey thanks for informing me of that important fact.
However, we're talking about you and why you can't afford $500 to run Mac OS X. You originally claimed that you'd have to work 2 months of overtime to be able to afford a "a machine capable of running OSX competently".
I called bullshit on you, and now you're changing the argument and either inventing figures ($650) or not substantiating them. Is the extra $150 for the keyboard, monitor, and mouse that you already own? What, are you going to pay yourself to switch them from one system to another or to use one of your spare sets?
it renders the whole '$500 for an entry level Mac' thing as BULLSHIT- entry-level folks don't already own a monitor
Here is where you really try change the argument. You were arguing about how unaffordable Macs are for you personally. Now you've shifted the argument to be about some abstract "entry-level" person.
Look, if you have other priorities, that's fine. Spend your money as you see fit on whatever it is that you consider valuable. But don't make up bullshit (like 2+ months of overtime) to support your whining contention that Macs are unaffordable.
You're either full of shit or your trolling. If you're trolling, you're a pretty pathetic troll. You need to study Leo McGarry if you want to troll. He's a master, and he's always entertaining to read. I can never completely tell when he's yanking my or someone else's chain or when he's being sincere. Leo contributes to the conversation. You, on the other hand, are just adding noise.
Want Linux picked up by more people sooner? Make it easier to use.
You've made an excellent point, but it should be pointed out that part of Windows "ease of use" is that it comes pre-installed on most consumer level computers, despite Walmart's best efforts.
Some of this is obviously due to market demand, but a large part can be blamed on MS's illegal business practices.
If you worked 10 hours a week overtime for two months, that would be 80 hours. $500 divided by 80 = $6.25. Overtime is usually time and a half, so $6.25 = 1.5x, where x = your hourly wage. $6.25/1.5 = x
So you make $4.17 an hour. What country did you say you live in? In the US, that's under minimum wage. Even kids mowing lawns make more than $4.17 hour.
If MS QA were pornography, every picture would feature you (the user) getting it up the ass by a sweaty and panting Steve Balmer shouting, "DEVELOPERS!! DEVELOPERS!! DEVELOPERS!!"
You've actually hit upon something interesting. OSS is inherently neither Capitalist nor Communist, thus it's wrong to speak of it as anti-Capitalist or anti-Communist.
Certainly various aspects of OSS might be viewed with pleasure or displeasure by a Communist or Capitalist ideologue. And if you're a Capitalist whose business model is threatened by it, it shouldn't be surprising that you'd attack it as a form of communism, especially if you're not known for your high regard of the truth.
I don't think you know what the word communism means.
1) The H1B program and it's expansion was quite the opposite of anything vaguely in the spectrum of communism. It was completely capitalistic, which is clear to anyone with a minimal understanding of the words involved. It tilted the balance of the job market heavily in favor of the employers, i.e., "the capitalists".
2) Your statement: What, don't tell me you don't recall all the socialist healthcare stuff Clinton put into place, or the restriction of civil liberties he or the restriction of civil liberties he signed into place?
2a) Social welfare programs do not equal "Socialism". Many capitalist nations have nationalized healthcare, and only the most ardent far-right ideologue would call them socialist countries.
Let me clue you in to something, since apparently you aren't a native English speaker. The word "social" and related words do not imply "socialism" or "communism" except in specific circumstances. Thus a "social disease" is not the spread of Marxist theory. A "church social" is not your priest attempting to organize the community to overthrow capitalism. The "National Geographic Society" does not seek to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat. 2b) What "socialist healthcare stuff" did Clinton put into place? Absolutely nothing. It was a non-starter. Clinton completely failed to get any support for his plan. Still, I don't think that the plan qualifies as socialism or communism.
2c) Restrictions on civil liberties under Clinton? Huh? Care to give some specific examples, and show how they're more egregious than say, restrictions under Bush?
So apparently you don't understand the meanings of the words "communism" or "socialism", but only use them to attack people with ideas different than yours.
Either that, or your grasp of the English language is exceedingly poor.
Your comments on class obviously mark you as a marxist/communist. So of course anything you have to say about capitalism is suspect--sort of like asking Gates about free software, or Stallman about the proprietary kind...
Hardly. Instead, I think your comments mark you as a closed minded bigot in the grip of some sort of ideology. So of course any accusations you make about anyone else's political leanings is suspect -- sort of like asking Ann Coulter about anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of George Bush.
Capitalism is like Democracy. They're both terrible systems, but they're the best we've got.
When you leave school and get a real job, then you can comment on free software and the economic forces that pay your rent.
That's a load of malarkey.
Your main point seems to be that Stallman and any other "academic" should not be allowed to criticize Capitalism if they have not directly participated in it.
This is erroneous for two reasons:
1) Your point seems to derive from the sentiment "Don't judge a man until you've walked in his shoes". Perhaps this would have some validity in moral or religious judgments, but it doesn't prevent us from judging actions, methods, words, and more to the point, Software Products. I don't have to be a software developer to judge software. I don't have to be a capitalist to judge an economic model.
2) You wish to exclude most participants in the Capitalist system so that only those who seek a profit are members in good standing entitled to criticize. Anyone living in a modern society participates in the Capitalist System on a daily basis, including you, me, and Stallman. You wish to confer upon your class (or the class to which you aspire or identify with) a special privilege, thereby taking it away from the mere buyers of your products. Your thesis is basically: Only sellers may criticize sellers.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I retrofitted my house with cat5 a few years back, but if I was going to do it again, or especially if I was building a new house, I'd want to go with fiber. Perhaps even both, since I like redundant systems.
When you can't argue your point, and your tactical maneuvers to evade argument fail, resort to name calling. That's great, bob beta. It was already pretty clear what sort of person you are, but you've effectively sealed it.
We should thank our Founding single celled Founders for having the foresight to choose earth, and not some planet within the magnetic blast radius. Can you imagine the chaos if we woke up tomorrow and no one could use their credit cards?
Perhaps it's from one of the Planet of the Apes movies?
Even if you didn't miss all your fellow humans, and were set on spending the rest of your life reading great literature, you'd probably accidently smash your glasses on the steps of the New York Public Library.
Actualyl it is
Apparently, you are lacking the ^H chisel. =)
Think carefully about it next time you sit in a church, read a bible, or post on slashdot.
.sig material.
Dude, that's
Why is it so hard to admit that the order and information content of the "natural" world is the product of a mind just as the products of our modern technological world are conceived in the minds of their creators? All of science would still be just as fascinating and useful if that BELIEF were accepted as the cause for the origin of the order, design and laws that scientists seek to explore.
Because what you are describing is metaphysics, not science. I generally have no problem with you or anyone holding whatever metaphysical beliefs you want. It's when you attempt to substitute the metaphysics for science or impose the metaphysics on science that I have a problem.
Your stated metaphysical belief is sufficiently vague as to not conflict with science. You do not seem to be trying to impose your metaphysical beliefs on others. However, we've seen time and again, through out history into the present what happens when scientific development challenges metaphysical notions of those with political power, especially when that power is based on those metaphysical notions.
Furthermore, if you rely on supernatural explanations, why bother doing science? Why attempt to understand the physical world when the supernatural world trumps it? (I realize that your stated beliefs are more akin to that of the Deists, many of whom compared the universe to a clockwork that had been set into motion by some "Mind" and left to run on it's own. By seeking to understand the universe, one was also seeking to understand the mind that created it.)
Anyway, as I said, I don't have a problem with your personal metaphysical beliefs, but I think they're totally extracurricular to science.
That would explain a great deal, such as why Stewart is so un-American.
Regards,
Tucker Carlson
Monkeys have been trained to operate tools and devices before this, both in and out of laboratory settings.
Do you consider slashdot to be a laboratory setting?
But seriously. I have no knowledge of monkey tool use in the lab, but I do know (from many years of National Geographic) that tool using primates make and use very simple tools, usually materials close at hand and with minimal modification. The two examples that come to mind are using twigs to collect termites or large ants for food and crumpling a leaf to sponge up water that might be hard to reach with the mouth.
Obviously, this requires an ability to observe phenomena and to remember. In other words, the ability to learn, which many animals have. The advantage that the monkey has is that it can grasp objects and more easily manipulate them.
In a very broad sense of the word, other animals can learn to use tools. If you consider a door knob mechanism as a tool, there are many stories about animals that learn to open doors (usually the lever type knob). However, no one would reasonably suggest that an animal (other than a human) can make a doorknob.
I guess you're right to consider this "more of a robotic/hapic/man-machine interface breakthrough," but I think the real breakthrough was whatever advance led us to more complex tool making. My guess is that it was the development of language that made this possible, but I doubt that this will ever be proved.
Well, we'll find out how humans compare when using robotic arms as soon as they begin "Human trails".
That's how the robot army be able to track the surviving humans. By their trails.
Oh, wait. Robot arm, not army. Sorry, I'm apparently as careless a reader as zonk is an editor.
$500 buys the little box that nominally runs OSX. The keyboard and mouse are extra.
Hey thanks for informing me of that important fact.
However, we're talking about you and why you can't afford $500 to run Mac OS X. You originally claimed that you'd have to work 2 months of overtime to be able to afford a "a machine capable of running OSX competently".
I called bullshit on you, and now you're changing the argument and either inventing figures ($650) or not substantiating them. Is the extra $150 for the keyboard, monitor, and mouse that you already own? What, are you going to pay yourself to switch them from one system to another or to use one of your spare sets?
it renders the whole '$500 for an entry level Mac' thing as BULLSHIT- entry-level folks don't already own a monitor
Here is where you really try change the argument. You were arguing about how unaffordable Macs are for you personally. Now you've shifted the argument to be about some abstract "entry-level" person.
Look, if you have other priorities, that's fine. Spend your money as you see fit on whatever it is that you consider valuable. But don't make up bullshit (like 2+ months of overtime) to support your whining contention that Macs are unaffordable.
You're either full of shit or your trolling. If you're trolling, you're a pretty pathetic troll. You need to study Leo McGarry if you want to troll. He's a master, and he's always entertaining to read. I can never completely tell when he's yanking my or someone else's chain or when he's being sincere. Leo contributes to the conversation. You, on the other hand, are just adding noise.
Correction. Lending you the gun, providing a foot-shooting guide, then charging you interest on any late installments when you're in hospital.
Would that be a foot-shooting guide or a foot-shooting wizard?
"I see that you want to shoot a part of your body. Do you want me to show you an anatomical diagram?"
Want Linux picked up by more people sooner? Make it easier to use.
You've made an excellent point, but it should be pointed out that part of Windows "ease of use" is that it comes pre-installed on most consumer level computers, despite Walmart's best efforts.
Some of this is obviously due to market demand, but a large part can be blamed on MS's illegal business practices.
I'll type so you can follow along.
If you worked 10 hours a week overtime for two months, that would be 80 hours. $500 divided by 80 = $6.25. Overtime is usually time and a half, so $6.25 = 1.5x, where x = your hourly wage. $6.25/1.5 = x
So you make $4.17 an hour. What country did you say you live in? In the US, that's under minimum wage. Even kids mowing lawns make more than $4.17 hour.
Apple (outside of the minimac) is, to me, expensive
Only if your time is not valuable.
Dick Clark is also a 45th level lich.
If MS QA were pornography, every picture would feature you (the user) getting it up the ass by a sweaty and panting Steve Balmer shouting, "DEVELOPERS!! DEVELOPERS!! DEVELOPERS!!"
You've actually hit upon something interesting. OSS is inherently neither Capitalist nor Communist, thus it's wrong to speak of it as anti-Capitalist or anti-Communist.
Certainly various aspects of OSS might be viewed with pleasure or displeasure by a Communist or Capitalist ideologue. And if you're a Capitalist whose business model is threatened by it, it shouldn't be surprising that you'd attack it as a form of communism, especially if you're not known for your high regard of the truth.
I don't think you know what the word communism means.
1) The H1B program and it's expansion was quite the opposite of anything vaguely in the spectrum of communism. It was completely capitalistic, which is clear to anyone with a minimal understanding of the words involved. It tilted the balance of the job market heavily in favor of the employers, i.e., "the capitalists".
2) Your statement:
What, don't tell me you don't recall all the socialist healthcare stuff Clinton put into place, or the restriction of civil liberties he or the restriction of civil liberties he signed into place?
2a) Social welfare programs do not equal "Socialism". Many capitalist nations have nationalized healthcare, and only the most ardent far-right ideologue would call them socialist countries.
Let me clue you in to something, since apparently you aren't a native English speaker. The word "social" and related words do not imply "socialism" or "communism" except in specific circumstances. Thus a "social disease" is not the spread of Marxist theory. A "church social" is not your priest attempting to organize the community to overthrow capitalism. The "National Geographic Society" does not seek to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.
2b) What "socialist healthcare stuff" did Clinton put into place? Absolutely nothing. It was a non-starter. Clinton completely failed to get any support for his plan. Still, I don't think that the plan qualifies as socialism or communism.
2c) Restrictions on civil liberties under Clinton? Huh? Care to give some specific examples, and show how they're more egregious than say, restrictions under Bush?
So apparently you don't understand the meanings of the words "communism" or "socialism", but only use them to attack people with ideas different than yours.
Either that, or your grasp of the English language is exceedingly poor.
Or both.
Your comments on class obviously mark you as a marxist/communist. So of course anything you have to say about capitalism is suspect--sort of like asking Gates about free software, or Stallman about the proprietary kind...
Hardly. Instead, I think your comments mark you as a closed minded bigot in the grip of some sort of ideology. So of course any accusations you make about anyone else's political leanings is suspect -- sort of like asking Ann Coulter about anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of George Bush.
Capitalism is like Democracy. They're both terrible systems, but they're the best we've got.
When you leave school and get a real job, then you can comment on free software and the economic forces that pay your rent.
That's a load of malarkey.
Your main point seems to be that Stallman and any other "academic" should not be allowed to criticize Capitalism if they have not directly participated in it.
This is erroneous for two reasons:
1) Your point seems to derive from the sentiment "Don't judge a man until you've walked in his shoes". Perhaps this would have some validity in moral or religious judgments, but it doesn't prevent us from judging actions, methods, words, and more to the point, Software Products. I don't have to be a software developer to judge software. I don't have to be a capitalist to judge an economic model.
2) You wish to exclude most participants in the Capitalist system so that only those who seek a profit are members in good standing entitled to criticize. Anyone living in a modern society participates in the Capitalist System on a daily basis, including you, me, and Stallman. You wish to confer upon your class (or the class to which you aspire or identify with) a special privilege, thereby taking it away from the mere buyers of your products. Your thesis is basically: Only sellers may criticize sellers.
In both cases, what you write is patently absurd.
Less than 1/1000th users even know what Vorbis is
It's more like 1/100,000, if even that.
It is also concealed but close to the chest (sensitive area) so he can feel the vibration even when working in noisy surroundings.
"Excuse me, I have to take this call. It's making my nipples hard."
Kids play nintendo.
Adults use palm.
It's an open secret that this is for Nintendo's mobile pron media center device, code named Hairy Palm.