Yet another news article that continues the bombardment of the uninformed public trying to change the definition of words to fit their needs.
We get it. You post the same damned thing every time there's a story related to copyright violation. All of us have heard you by now. We either agree with you or don't, but hammering away monotonously on the topic isn't convincing anyone.
You can play semantic games all you want, but copyright violation is what it is - illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If you don't like the word thief, call it what you will, but it amounts to the same thing. Aside from that, what exactly is your point?
Euphemisms, in this case as is often so, are just a means of rationalization for *thieves* (there, I said it!) to justify their illegal behavior.
So the government can put up loud large TVs in any public place? How about a set of giant bright blaring TVs on the sidewalk oriented toward your residence 24 hours/day? I'm sure you wouldn't do anything about that.
Lame-ass argument. A TV in an airport at a reasonable volume isn't comparable to a "bright, blaring" TV pointed at my house. And I've never seen an airport where TVs were ubiquitous - if you want to avoid one, do so. If you want to avoid noise of all kinds, an airport isn't the place for you. But historically, no, people don't have the right to fight the gov. with regard to what it does on public property. It's damned hard even for real problems.
So, again, you're in favor of making a law that it's illegal to annoy anyone, anywhere, in public? Or that the goverment has such an obligation? Otherwise, where's the brightline? I mean think about this stuff, it's ridiculous. Government actions aren't subject to veto by each individual citizen.
They can't just decide to do things that keep away a significant fraction of their customers.
Agreed, in general, and if a TV was actually preventing someone from using the airport, that might stand. ADA rules come to mind. But simply annoying someone? Don't think so.
Even if they were completely private businesses, there are still lots of things they cannot do. For example, even if you are the owner of a restaurant, you still may not be permitted to smoke on your premises during business hours.
Sure, and I thought about that too. Difference is that TV's don't cause cancer (assuming you don't sleep next to one), emphysema, or many of the other maladies associated with smoking. Again, we're talking about something that's annoying, not dangerous.
Let's reduce this to basic principals: are all public places prohibited from annoying all people who might enter them? I mean just consider that. It's ridiculous.
Some partially, not all. Doesn't change the fact that not voters don't get a veto over every governmental decision, anyway. "Their" can refer to the government.
Hell, I'd say TV's in airports is a perfect example of democracy ("majority rules") in action.
You and the airport do not have a right to bomb me with adverts from some crappy TV
Yes they do. It's their damned airport. Don't like it? Try another airport. Can't find one to accomodate your needs? Don't fly.
I'm familiar with the classical "rights of man" argument you're making, but you're twisting it. You seem to believe that everyone, everywhere, in any place you could possibly go, is required to accomodate you to prevent you from being annoyed. Hate to tell you, but that is not the way the world works - nor should it. I'd certainly hate to live my life in a way that could never simply annoy anyone.
In this specific instance, more people are entertained - or at least have their boredom reduced - by the TVs than people are annoyed by them, or else they wouldn't be there. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you *aren't* more important than other people.
People in TV induced comas are known for their lack of situational awareness.
Ah, the classic condescending "you watch TV so I'm smarter than you argument." Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of extremely intelligent people watch TV. And a lot of people of meager intelligence avoid TV because they think it makes them appear smarter. To paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda" - a movie, no less - an monkey can read Plato, he just won't understand it. Self-affected intellectual elitism shouldn't be confused for intelligence.
Strict building codes can only go so far. Take a look at Kobe in Japan. A big enough earthquake could cause serious havoc.
Well, yeah. Unfortunately, strict bulding codes are the only protection we have from earthquakes, aside from education. Point is, a 6.7 won't do that kind of damage next time.
My wife, who is from Japan found that the use of "Nipponese" was quite bizarre and affected. At first blush, considering "Japan" in japanese is "Nippon", it seems more PC, but I can't imagine that was the inspiration for its use.
I believe that was a common usage previously, and Neal's are period books.
How can you even ask that question? Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
So am I. So why don't I get in?
Just because you talk a lot, and seek publicity everywhere, and get about 100 people to vote for you, doesn't mean you get to be on TV. If you included every fringe candidate, you'd have 20 people up there minimum, and only 2 will get more than 0.1% of the vote. That would be pointless, as Bush and Kerry would back out and TV wouldn't cover it. So you can have the same thing now - have your all-minor-candidate debate and let whoever is interested watch. Webcast it. The public will decide if they're interested. Which, largely, they're not.
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
Overstating your case there a lot. This isn't persecution - this is America NOT CARING about your candidate. It's also a private entity deciding to host an event, and they have the right who they invite.
They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
Right, so we don't care if the rules make sense so long as they favor our candidates. Typical. Too bad America doesn't care about these candidates, and won't watch them. The point of the debates is to inform voters regarding this election. It's not a platform for election reform, which is their only point. Take it elsewhere, the rest of us don't want to be hostage to your cause. A cause I largely agree with, but that's incidental.
Recall the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to speech, not an audience.
Also, I really hope you're trolling. If so, well crafted.
Even though I'd head it before, this startled me enough to turn around. When I turned back around, a zombie was beating the piss out of me, doing those creepy groans. I shut the game off and turned on every light in the house.:)
I don't understand your post. If you are saying that Avaya is only traditional telco, they have been selling VoIP equipment for over three years now. The last World Cup matches had the entire setup using VoIP and WVoIP services provided by Avaya...
That's the point - they say PBX is dead. They sell VoIP. Big shock there.
Sorry if I confused you by saying "telecom" - I use the term generally. My wife works for company that sells all this shit.
In an automatic I can see there being no use for being able to hit both pedals with the same foot, but why remove this feature from the manual cars? Especially with an Audi which is upscale already, anyone buying the manual is likely buying it because they want the manual, not because its cheaper.
I drive an automatic, but there are *still* reasons to want the gas and the brake close together. First, it should reduce braking time. Second, there are times on hills - say stopped at a light - where I don't want to put the stress on the tranny, if I keep inching along and stopping. To do that, I either want 1) the pedals close, so I can use both with one foot, or 2) far apart, so I can use both feet. I wouldn't advocate 2), however, as you already have enough morons riding the brakes while hitting the gas.
The best part about that 60 minutes stoyis that the report from the NTSB (if I recall) got totally whitewashed - no one had the balls to tell these drivers they're idiots.
Thanks for saying that. I work on artifical olfaction, and our research group has collaborated with Linda Buck's group. Having done so, I can say that her work is in fact groundbreaking. Smell is the least complicated, and evolutionarily oldest of all the senses. This alone makes it worth investigating, simply because of the insights it can give us on human perception.
Work that Linda's group, in conjunction with our group and a number of others, has brought us closer to understanding how odor works on a molecular level, to how odor is perceived, to how we can model this using artificial equipment.
Probably more a testament to human beings' ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend randomness. We love finding patterns in things, but sometimes stuff just happens at the same time. How often is there a bad Hurricane season? How often are there earthquakes and volcanoes? It's obviously not common for these things to coincide a lot (otherwise it'd happen every other year) but I doubt it's that rare.
Well, there's a reason they call it Hurricane *season.*;) So I guess if any mediumish-rare thing happens during fall, it's linked, right? Now I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how a hurricane - in the atmosphere above Florida - is going to affect magma buried miles beneath WA state. But there I go being cynical again.
As for earthquakes and volcanoes, there's a pretty damned good correlation there.
Won't do. The legal process is supposed to find in favour of the person who's right, not the person who's hired the best lawyers. Granted that it ain't always so, nevertheless it should surely be so in a clearly black-and-white case. However many lawyers MS hire, they will not be able to persuade a judge or jury that 2+2 = 5, and neither should they or anyone else be able to make the obviously invalid patents stick.
Guess you missed the OJ trial;). Seriously, snowing over a dimwitted jury with technical evidence is a great way to get a "not guilty" by default because they couldn't understand the case.
Its a lot easier to send 100 messages a day from Outlook than it is from Hotmail. So if you still want to spam it will take you longer. If you have multiple email accounts to get around the limit then this will reduce the number that you can send.
However, one will not make any money sending 100 messages a day as a spammer. Not even close. Not by a factor of 1000. So the limit took care of the spam. They're using spam as a scapegoat to do what they want. Not surprising or creative, but the public'll buy it.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that will stop them from complaining? Some of them, perhaps, but most of them just want to return to some happy, fuzzy place that never existed.
You're quite right. Put more clearly - I don't care if the soccer moms/religious nuts complain, as long as no one in the media listens (so I don't have to hear it) and no one in govermnent listens (so I don't have to deal with it). I think a comeback like "What, didn't you read the sign?" goes a long way to that end.
I doubt that even accomplishes anything. But if it does what it is intended to do, inform parents/consumers, more power to them. Parents should be aware when they are buying San Andreas for their kid.
Probably won't, but it certainly gets rid of the damned excuses of "I didn't know that game was violent!" or the like.
Now we (or the EFF) can say: "The game was clearly marked as being for adults, and if that was confusing for you, the store you bought the game at had a sign to explain this to you. So if you're too lazy to take an active role in parenting your own damned kids, don't expect us to do it for you."
In other words, it solves the supposed problem without trouncing our civil liberties. And if it doesn't solve the problem, the people who complain have no one to blame but themselves.
It isn't just inflation-you need to look at where the jobs are. We've seen a decline in IT jobs the last few years-and much of that decline is in the places with the lower cost of living--so all these figures mean is that newer grads are getting jobs in places like California with a high cost of living.
Care to substantiate that? I live in CA, and most of the dot bombs that went out of business were here. Most of the ones that weren't are in the Boston or NYC areas - both very high cost of living areas. Si valley was hit pretty hard. I've seen nothing to say that the majority of the jobs lost were in the heartland, and those created on the edges. If anything, the companies in the heartland tend to be more stable, and weren't as active in the bubble/collapse. I don't have numbers either, but it seems more logical to me that the opposite effect would take place compared to that you suggest.
Or it's possible that salaries actually are just up overall.
It is a foreign language. However the issue I take is that you Americans insist that you are speaking English - you are not, you are speaking American.
As I mentioned, I suggest learning the history of your own language before engaging in any more of your pedantic rants. American English is no less correct than British English. Alternatively, if ours is incorrect because it doesn't resemble yours, then both are incorrect because neither really resembles late Middle/early late English. Read Shakespeare sometime, and realize that was the state of the language when America was founded (the first colony in 1607 was contemporaneous with Shakespeare's work). Both American English and British English have changed substantially since then, particularly with spellings. Again, had English been a non-fluid language before that time, you would have a case. As it is, you don't - I know of very few differences between American and British English that can't be found in common, accepted use in English as of 1600.
English is a language that has, in computer science terms, forked. That doesn't mean either branch is "right." Insisting otherwise really makes one come off as arrogant and condescending.
I understand that, as the British "Empire" has collapsed, you have very few opportunities to condescend toward America these days. However, if the differences in your spellings are all you have to cling to, I might abandon the idea entirely.
Or put it this way - I'll claim to speaking "American" when you claim to speak "British." Until then, you might educate yourself on linguistics and learn the difference between a dialect and a language.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that's Perl you're thinking of. Goddamn hippies. ;)
We get it. You post the same damned thing every time there's a story related to copyright violation. All of us have heard you by now. We either agree with you or don't, but hammering away monotonously on the topic isn't convincing anyone.
You can play semantic games all you want, but copyright violation is what it is - illegally taking something that doesn't belong to you. If you don't like the word thief, call it what you will, but it amounts to the same thing. Aside from that, what exactly is your point?
Euphemisms, in this case as is often so, are just a means of rationalization for *thieves* (there, I said it!) to justify their illegal behavior.
So lemme get this straight, the maker of WMA (MS) issues a report that MP3 is dying, to be replaced with (among others) WMA? Big shock.
Lame-ass argument. A TV in an airport at a reasonable volume isn't comparable to a "bright, blaring" TV pointed at my house. And I've never seen an airport where TVs were ubiquitous - if you want to avoid one, do so. If you want to avoid noise of all kinds, an airport isn't the place for you. But historically, no, people don't have the right to fight the gov. with regard to what it does on public property. It's damned hard even for real problems.
So, again, you're in favor of making a law that it's illegal to annoy anyone, anywhere, in public? Or that the goverment has such an obligation? Otherwise, where's the brightline? I mean think about this stuff, it's ridiculous. Government actions aren't subject to veto by each individual citizen.
Agreed, in general, and if a TV was actually preventing someone from using the airport, that might stand. ADA rules come to mind. But simply annoying someone? Don't think so.
Even if they were completely private businesses, there are still lots of things they cannot do. For example, even if you are the owner of a restaurant, you still may not be permitted to smoke on your premises during business hours.
Sure, and I thought about that too. Difference is that TV's don't cause cancer (assuming you don't sleep next to one), emphysema, or many of the other maladies associated with smoking. Again, we're talking about something that's annoying, not dangerous.
Let's reduce this to basic principals: are all public places prohibited from annoying all people who might enter them? I mean just consider that. It's ridiculous.
Some partially, not all. Doesn't change the fact that not voters don't get a veto over every governmental decision, anyway. "Their" can refer to the government.
Hell, I'd say TV's in airports is a perfect example of democracy ("majority rules") in action.
Yes they do. It's their damned airport. Don't like it? Try another airport. Can't find one to accomodate your needs? Don't fly.
I'm familiar with the classical "rights of man" argument you're making, but you're twisting it. You seem to believe that everyone, everywhere, in any place you could possibly go, is required to accomodate you to prevent you from being annoyed. Hate to tell you, but that is not the way the world works - nor should it. I'd certainly hate to live my life in a way that could never simply annoy anyone.
In this specific instance, more people are entertained - or at least have their boredom reduced - by the TVs than people are annoyed by them, or else they wouldn't be there. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you *aren't* more important than other people.
People in TV induced comas are known for their lack of situational awareness.
Ah, the classic condescending "you watch TV so I'm smarter than you argument." Hate to burst your bubble, but lots of extremely intelligent people watch TV. And a lot of people of meager intelligence avoid TV because they think it makes them appear smarter. To paraphrase "A Fish Called Wanda" - a movie, no less - an monkey can read Plato, he just won't understand it. Self-affected intellectual elitism shouldn't be confused for intelligence.
Well, yeah. Unfortunately, strict bulding codes are the only protection we have from earthquakes, aside from education. Point is, a 6.7 won't do that kind of damage next time.
M'bad, thought Cryptonomicon was being referred to. Snow Crash was strange all the way around. But very cool.
I believe that was a common usage previously, and Neal's are period books.
So am I. So why don't I get in?
Just because you talk a lot, and seek publicity everywhere, and get about 100 people to vote for you, doesn't mean you get to be on TV. If you included every fringe candidate, you'd have 20 people up there minimum, and only 2 will get more than 0.1% of the vote. That would be pointless, as Bush and Kerry would back out and TV wouldn't cover it. So you can have the same thing now - have your all-minor-candidate debate and let whoever is interested watch. Webcast it. The public will decide if they're interested. Which, largely, they're not.
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
Overstating your case there a lot. This isn't persecution - this is America NOT CARING about your candidate. It's also a private entity deciding to host an event, and they have the right who they invite.
They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
Right, so we don't care if the rules make sense so long as they favor our candidates. Typical. Too bad America doesn't care about these candidates, and won't watch them. The point of the debates is to inform voters regarding this election. It's not a platform for election reform, which is their only point. Take it elsewhere, the rest of us don't want to be hostage to your cause. A cause I largely agree with, but that's incidental.
Recall the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to speech, not an audience.
Also, I really hope you're trolling. If so, well crafted.
And changed your shorts. ;)
That's the point - they say PBX is dead. They sell VoIP. Big shock there.
Sorry if I confused you by saying "telecom" - I use the term generally. My wife works for company that sells all this shit.
I drive an automatic, but there are *still* reasons to want the gas and the brake close together. First, it should reduce braking time. Second, there are times on hills - say stopped at a light - where I don't want to put the stress on the tranny, if I keep inching along and stopping. To do that, I either want 1) the pedals close, so I can use both with one foot, or 2) far apart, so I can use both feet. I wouldn't advocate 2), however, as you already have enough morons riding the brakes while hitting the gas.
The best part about that 60 minutes stoyis that the report from the NTSB (if I recall) got totally whitewashed - no one had the balls to tell these drivers they're idiots.
When someone who *doesn't* work for a telecom manufacturer starts saying stuff like this, I might listen.
There are a ton of great, independent American beers. I agree with the tragedy of Redhook - kind of like when Coors bought Pete's.
Work that Linda's group, in conjunction with our group and a number of others, has brought us closer to understanding how odor works on a molecular level, to how odor is perceived, to how we can model this using artificial equipment.
Ultimately, she is well deserving of the Prize.
Well, there's a reason they call it Hurricane *season.* ;) So I guess if any mediumish-rare thing happens during fall, it's linked, right? Now I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how a hurricane - in the atmosphere above Florida - is going to affect magma buried miles beneath WA state. But there I go being cynical again.
As for earthquakes and volcanoes, there's a pretty damned good correlation there.
Guess you missed the OJ trial ;). Seriously, snowing over a dimwitted jury with technical evidence is a great way to get a "not guilty" by default because they couldn't understand the case.
However, one will not make any money sending 100 messages a day as a spammer. Not even close. Not by a factor of 1000. So the limit took care of the spam. They're using spam as a scapegoat to do what they want. Not surprising or creative, but the public'll buy it.
You're quite right. Put more clearly - I don't care if the soccer moms/religious nuts complain, as long as no one in the media listens (so I don't have to hear it) and no one in govermnent listens (so I don't have to deal with it). I think a comeback like "What, didn't you read the sign?" goes a long way to that end.
Probably won't, but it certainly gets rid of the damned excuses of "I didn't know that game was violent!" or the like.
Now we (or the EFF) can say: "The game was clearly marked as being for adults, and if that was confusing for you, the store you bought the game at had a sign to explain this to you. So if you're too lazy to take an active role in parenting your own damned kids, don't expect us to do it for you."
In other words, it solves the supposed problem without trouncing our civil liberties. And if it doesn't solve the problem, the people who complain have no one to blame but themselves.
Care to substantiate that? I live in CA, and most of the dot bombs that went out of business were here. Most of the ones that weren't are in the Boston or NYC areas - both very high cost of living areas. Si valley was hit pretty hard. I've seen nothing to say that the majority of the jobs lost were in the heartland, and those created on the edges. If anything, the companies in the heartland tend to be more stable, and weren't as active in the bubble/collapse. I don't have numbers either, but it seems more logical to me that the opposite effect would take place compared to that you suggest.
Or it's possible that salaries actually are just up overall.
...Me. After 150,324,123 mysterious write-in votes.
As I mentioned, I suggest learning the history of your own language before engaging in any more of your pedantic rants. American English is no less correct than British English. Alternatively, if ours is incorrect because it doesn't resemble yours, then both are incorrect because neither really resembles late Middle/early late English. Read Shakespeare sometime, and realize that was the state of the language when America was founded (the first colony in 1607 was contemporaneous with Shakespeare's work). Both American English and British English have changed substantially since then, particularly with spellings. Again, had English been a non-fluid language before that time, you would have a case. As it is, you don't - I know of very few differences between American and British English that can't be found in common, accepted use in English as of 1600.
English is a language that has, in computer science terms, forked. That doesn't mean either branch is "right." Insisting otherwise really makes one come off as arrogant and condescending.
I understand that, as the British "Empire" has collapsed, you have very few opportunities to condescend toward America these days. However, if the differences in your spellings are all you have to cling to, I might abandon the idea entirely.
Or put it this way - I'll claim to speaking "American" when you claim to speak "British." Until then, you might educate yourself on linguistics and learn the difference between a dialect and a language.