I'm sure that prior to the wide availibility of the automobile, there were some really incredible buggy whip companies, producing superlative whips, which could touch the horse in just the right way, making it excited to run, without causing it a trace of pain. I'll also bet that they did everything they could to survive after they were no longer needed. They're still gone, and we don't need them to come back. Back when producing and distributing an accurate copy of a piece of audio took a big business, the record companies served a very important purpose. Now, they are as important to music as buggy whips are to transportation. I really don't see why this is difficult for them to understand.
I do. I find your explanation rather difficult to understand. Are you saying that record companies are as obsolete as mainstrwam horse whips? Because if you are, that's utter bullshit. There is an absolute alternative to mainstream horse whips - motorized transport. However, what is the absolute alternative to the record labels? How do you buy an album of your favourite RIAA musician without the record labels? Legally? They don't seem obsolete to me. They are in a position that, unfortunately, allows them to prevent themselves becoming obsolete, unless musicians themselves start to abandon them.
The violence stuff is a non issue to me, but selling sexually explicit material to children is a crime already, and if the current laws dont recognize the difference between Girls Gone Wild and BMX XXX, then they need amendment.
Then your view is totally irrational. Do you really think that showing kids something that happens very naturally between adult humans (sex) is more damaging than something that is really rather less natural (violence), and intended to cause not pleasure but pain and/or death to another human? What is your justification for this? Can you provide any logical justification for this view whatsoever??
I couldn't agree more; that's exactly what passed through my mind as I read the original post. The trouble is, people assume that parents are all very reasonable, and responsible, and will raise their children well and provide enough material to their children to broaden their mind, but limit it enough so as not to corrupt them.
Unfortunately, I don't believe every parent is like this, in fact i'm pretty sure there are many parents out there that most people would consider to be totally unreasonable. If they prevent their children from viewing ANYTHING violent or sexual or whatever, this could well do the child a lot of harm. Not only will they not be desenseitized to this stuff when they DO encounter it in real life, but it will just lead to yet more ultra-conservative thinking and the perpetuation of bad parenting.
I think it's important to give children some rights, and not require them to go through their parents for everything...
Unfortunately your point is moot because anyone neutral (non-American) will know that both the Republicans and the Democrats are extremely conservative when it comes to civil liberty issues compared to ANY PROPER LIBERAL. Anyone calling the Democrats in America 'liberal' clearly hasn't experienced true liberal politics. Face it, you're voting conservative or very conservative.
Y'know, it strikes me that, for a country that constantly bangs on about how its citizens (and government) stand up for their rights, America is really ratehr pathetic. I never understood how you guys wouldn't tolerate prohibition, yet when they come along and say that anyone over the age of 21 can drink it, you're ok with it. 21!!! That's over a a quarter of your life gone before you're legally allowed to buy alcohol. How ludicrous. Even in the UK, 18 is the legal age, and it's probably even lower in France. And you think you've got freedoms:-)
I don't know about you but i'd be pretty damn pissed off if my computer suddenly stops working after the military carry out training excercises in my area...
I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to. It's ridiculous. It's like saying that just because there are serial murderers out there, it's fine for you to be one. By damaging your health and the government paying, you are INDEED costing taxpayers money. Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.
I have to respectfully disagree. By defenition, there are some games which a PC will ALWAYS be better for, and if a console becomes equally good, frankly it's turned into a PC. USB ports, with the ability to plug in keyboards and mice? That seems very PC-like to me. Hard drives? PC-like. Whatsmore, you try using a mouse sitting on your couch. You need a desk, or a very flat surface. You will *never* be able to get mouse-like functionality sitting at your couch because it's physically not possible. Unless you pull up a coffee table or something but then you have to crouch over to play and it's rather uncomfortable.
Whatsmore, I find consoles to be pretty terrible for long-term games. You know, strategy games that eat up hours, like Civilization or The Sims. That's because it's rather anti-social to hog the TV in your house for hours on end, whereas it's not usually as bad to do it with your computer. Also, a computer is much better for saving your progress in such a game. Console with a hard-drive? That's pretty PC-like. If consoles are getting to be as good as PCs at these type of 'non-console' games, it's only because they're slowly but surely turning into PCs.
If a crime carries no after effects and harms no one, it shouldn't be illegal. Granted, there are some dumb laws that exist, but wearing a seatbelt isn't one of them. If you go through the windscreen because you didn't wear a seatbelt, your insurance company have to pay up the cash for your medical costs, if you're still alive. Even if the worst comes to the worst and *you* have to pay the medical costs, it still harms you.
The fundamental difference between these media is that this thing's data is fully volatile, and can be overwritten. Even DVD-RWs can only be rewritten several times, as I understand it. It's only partially volatile. These things have much greater potential as they're designed to be fully volatile.
If I were to have put $100 (fine for not wearing a seatbelt) away, yes, I would be entitled to break the law. That's the way freedom works. It's not free -- I prepaid.
You have a very strange idea of how the law works. You do not pay a fine to 'allow' you to break the law. The idea is that *under no circumstances* are you meant to break the law, but if you do, the fine is a *punishment* - you haven't bought the right to break the law. It's not like buying a license or something.
people are very much annoyed by Microsoft's upgrade/release cycles. Especially in countries like Australia where Windows is a subscription based service.
Wha....????? I had no idea that Windows was a subscription-based service anywhere. How does that work? Is the Australian government clueless enough to allow this?
(at the bottom of relnotes): "Portions of this software are based in part on the work of Luigi Rizzo. Because Microsoft has included the Luigi Rizzo software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software:"
After all that, is it really worth having your credit given at all? How about requiring that the user have a good chance to see it, instead? So they have to put it in bold on the desktop or something.:-)
Nor do I ever hear anyone say... "Hoover up that dirt".
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Because over here, in the UK, it's pretty much replaced 'vacuum' as a verb. People use it uncapitalized all the time. I frequently hear and see "Hoover up that dirt." or whatever. Maybe it's because Hoover was a much bigger brand over here??
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that prior to the wide availibility of the automobile, there were some really incredible buggy whip companies, producing superlative whips, which could touch the horse in just the right way, making it excited to run, without causing it a trace of pain. I'll also bet that they did everything they could to survive after they were no longer needed. They're still gone, and we don't need them to come back. Back when producing and distributing an accurate copy of a piece of audio took a big business, the record companies served a very important purpose. Now, they are as important to music as buggy whips are to transportation. I really don't see why this is difficult for them to understand.
I do. I find your explanation rather difficult to understand. Are you saying that record companies are as obsolete as mainstrwam horse whips? Because if you are, that's utter bullshit. There is an absolute alternative to mainstream horse whips - motorized transport. However, what is the absolute alternative to the record labels? How do you buy an album of your favourite RIAA musician without the record labels? Legally? They don't seem obsolete to me. They are in a position that, unfortunately, allows them to prevent themselves becoming obsolete, unless musicians themselves start to abandon them.
As well as (ultimately) the mind that was in the most pieces.
No, because then it wouldn't be dynamic. It's handy to have an appended piece of text to each of your submissions which you can edit at will.
The violence stuff is a non issue to me, but selling sexually explicit material to children is a crime already, and if the current laws dont recognize the difference between Girls Gone Wild and BMX XXX, then they need amendment.
Then your view is totally irrational. Do you really think that showing kids something that happens very naturally between adult humans (sex) is more damaging than something that is really rather less natural (violence), and intended to cause not pleasure but pain and/or death to another human? What is your justification for this? Can you provide any logical justification for this view whatsoever??
I couldn't agree more; that's exactly what passed through my mind as I read the original post. The trouble is, people assume that parents are all very reasonable, and responsible, and will raise their children well and provide enough material to their children to broaden their mind, but limit it enough so as not to corrupt them.
Unfortunately, I don't believe every parent is like this, in fact i'm pretty sure there are many parents out there that most people would consider to be totally unreasonable. If they prevent their children from viewing ANYTHING violent or sexual or whatever, this could well do the child a lot of harm. Not only will they not be desenseitized to this stuff when they DO encounter it in real life, but it will just lead to yet more ultra-conservative thinking and the perpetuation of bad parenting.
I think it's important to give children some rights, and not require them to go through their parents for everything...
Unfortunately your point is moot because anyone neutral (non-American) will know that both the Republicans and the Democrats are extremely conservative when it comes to civil liberty issues compared to ANY PROPER LIBERAL. Anyone calling the Democrats in America 'liberal' clearly hasn't experienced true liberal politics. Face it, you're voting conservative or very conservative.
Y'know, it strikes me that, for a country that constantly bangs on about how its citizens (and government) stand up for their rights, America is really ratehr pathetic. I never understood how you guys wouldn't tolerate prohibition, yet when they come along and say that anyone over the age of 21 can drink it, you're ok with it. 21!!! That's over a a quarter of your life gone before you're legally allowed to buy alcohol. How ludicrous. Even in the UK, 18 is the legal age, and it's probably even lower in France. And you think you've got freedoms :-)
MY ARTIFICIAL HEART!!!!
I don't know about you but i'd be pretty damn pissed off if my computer suddenly stops working after the military carry out training excercises in my area...
I totally dismiss your argument that just because there are some people in the country who purposely damage their health, that makes it OK for anyone to. It's ridiculous. It's like saying that just because there are serial murderers out there, it's fine for you to be one. By damaging your health and the government paying, you are INDEED costing taxpayers money. Maybe smoking should be illegal, but the fact is there are a lot of people out there addicted to it, and giving up smoking is extremely difficult, whereas putting on a seatbelt is a hell of a lot easier.
I have to respectfully disagree. By defenition, there are some games which a PC will ALWAYS be better for, and if a console becomes equally good, frankly it's turned into a PC. USB ports, with the ability to plug in keyboards and mice? That seems very PC-like to me. Hard drives? PC-like. Whatsmore, you try using a mouse sitting on your couch. You need a desk, or a very flat surface. You will *never* be able to get mouse-like functionality sitting at your couch because it's physically not possible. Unless you pull up a coffee table or something but then you have to crouch over to play and it's rather uncomfortable.
Whatsmore, I find consoles to be pretty terrible for long-term games. You know, strategy games that eat up hours, like Civilization or The Sims. That's because it's rather anti-social to hog the TV in your house for hours on end, whereas it's not usually as bad to do it with your computer. Also, a computer is much better for saving your progress in such a game. Console with a hard-drive? That's pretty PC-like. If consoles are getting to be as good as PCs at these type of 'non-console' games, it's only because they're slowly but surely turning into PCs.
If a crime carries no after effects and harms no one, it shouldn't be illegal. Granted, there are some dumb laws that exist, but wearing a seatbelt isn't one of them. If you go through the windscreen because you didn't wear a seatbelt, your insurance company have to pay up the cash for your medical costs, if you're still alive. Even if the worst comes to the worst and *you* have to pay the medical costs, it still harms you.
The fundamental difference between these media is that this thing's data is fully volatile, and can be overwritten. Even DVD-RWs can only be rewritten several times, as I understand it. It's only partially volatile. These things have much greater potential as they're designed to be fully volatile.
If I were to have put $100 (fine for not wearing a seatbelt) away, yes, I would be entitled to break the law. That's the way freedom works. It's not free -- I prepaid.
You have a very strange idea of how the law works. You do not pay a fine to 'allow' you to break the law. The idea is that *under no circumstances* are you meant to break the law, but if you do, the fine is a *punishment* - you haven't bought the right to break the law. It's not like buying a license or something.
Is it just me who doesn't have a fucking clue what you're talking about? Where is the USSR mentioned??
I think it was being implied that this was a good thing.
Also, if you're a spammer, you get some more free certified addresses!! You'd be positively encouraging them!!
No, really, I don't spam...
people are very much annoyed by Microsoft's upgrade/release cycles. Especially in countries like Australia where Windows is a subscription based service.
Wha....????? I had no idea that Windows was a subscription-based service anywhere. How does that work? Is the Australian government clueless enough to allow this?
Lol.
:-)
(at the bottom of relnotes):
"Portions of this software are based in part on the work of Luigi Rizzo. Because Microsoft has included the Luigi Rizzo software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software:"
After all that, is it really worth having your credit given at all? How about requiring that the user have a good chance to see it, instead? So they have to put it in bold on the desktop or something.
Maybe the time has come to rename the Slashdot 'staff' from editors to accepters (of submissions) or, more appropriately, rejecters.
Your account is suspended, please contact support.
Apple bananas? Sounds like they're trying to make a banana that looks like someone's crotch.
That could be interpreted in a different way... :-)
Perhaps googles time has passed and its time for a NEW king of search engines anyhow??
Perhaps..... SearchKing!!!
Nor do I ever hear anyone say ... "Hoover up that dirt".
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally? Because over here, in the UK, it's pretty much replaced 'vacuum' as a verb. People use it uncapitalized all the time. I frequently hear and see "Hoover up that dirt." or whatever. Maybe it's because Hoover was a much bigger brand over here??