But that's not true. I can't smoke in my office. I can't smoke in a restaurant. I can't smoke in planes, trains, buses or taxis. I can't smoke at the cinema. I can't smoke at the theatre. I'm damned sure if I went to your house and started to smoke, you'd ask me to leave if you dislike smoke. So where, exactly, am I sitting next to you?
Don't get me wrong - I support your right not to breath other people's smoke - but if I want to give myself cancer in the comfort of my own home, what business is it of yours?
If only it were that simple. As it stands, I have several relatives who smoke. When they visit, they either smoke outside, ask whether it is okay to smoke inside when they know that I would prefer that they didn't, or sullenly smoke outside and cut their visit short. This causes irritation in me - for two reasons. First, because I am wondering: are you really so fucking pathetic that you can't give up your cancer sticks for the duration of your visit? Second, I hate being made to look like or feel inconsiderate - a "villian" - because someone else can't control their addiction.
Then their are my children - fortunately not sheeple, so they recoil with deserved disgust at smoking, recognizing it for the revolting, nasty habit that it is - but a smoker degrades the station of "adulthood" in the eyes of my children, because I have taught them that being an adult is not some magical chronological entitlement, but can only be truly measured by maturity and responsibility.
Then there is the smell. I take reasonable care with my hygiene. I shower, apply the requisite anti-perspirants, don clean clothes - and wipe my ass after performing a bowel movement. A smoker might as well negelect all off these things. A smoker's breath stinks, their clothes stink, their hair stinks - seriously, I'd prefer breathing in a noxious fart which disipates in a few minutes than be trapped in an office or an elevator with a smoker for even a few seconds. Smoking also upsets my youngest daughter's asthma, whether that smoking was indulged in five minutes ago, or an hour ago.
I like to masturbate, and this activity certainly never hurts anyone. If I masturbated in public, I would even curteously come equipped with a Kleenex. Still, I imagine that many would object even then.
Do I think that smoker's should be taxed for their stupidity? Hell, yes. Do I believe that you or others have the right to smoke? Hell, yes. Will I defend to the death your right to do it? Hell, no.
Besides, caffiene is a far more satisfying way to kill yourself, and you can be social while doing it.
There are many games just as immersive as Myst or Riven. Download a version of the Inform interpreter (for Windows, the most popular version is WinFrotz, for other OS's, I'm not sure), and then download the games to play on them.
I recommend Christchurch or Curses, but there are many others.
Yes, the lowly text adventure is still the most immersive form of game ever created. I know that some will crticize the annoyance of verb/noun guessing, but there is much more to it than that. The storylines can be deep, complex, and satisfying. The verb/noun interaction becomes intuitive and painless, and you get lost in the game as thoroughly as in a good film or book.
I'm a latecomer to all of this... I've only been reading Slashdot for about a year, and I missed - or ignored - most of the Columbine discussion. It's not that the discussions weren't important, or that Columbine wasn't a tragedy, but simply that few of the suggested remedies or putative reasons for the massacre had much connection with reality.
I'm a 39-year old geek. I'd be willing to bet that I suffered every day in school twice as much as Klebold or Harris did. Geeks today have a romantic ideal of themselves, with on-line communities and support groups. Films deify them. Sure, it's still tough to be a geek, but only in the way that it is always tough for non-conforming conformists to fit in - the complex ecology of High School only allows the fittest geeks to survive. The real geeks - the geeks who are not self-identified, but who are shunned by the whole fucking school for their perceived oddness, their lives are more hellish than pseudo-geeks like Klebold or Harris could ever have imagined.
Klebold and Harris were two sick little boys with big weapons. Their parents were probably average, and their traumas no greater than yours or mine or billions of others who have felt pain, but some combination of genetics and environment triggered a (fortunately) rare set of behaviors that made them junior psychopaths.
Blame, presently, is impossible to assign. One day, when the fruits of the Human Genome Project are clear and we have wrestled from the mire of chaos theory some rules that apply, statistically, to any given set of circumstances, we may be able to assign blame. Until then, all of this theorizing is just bullshit. Of course, most verbalized or written angst is just bullshit, and it may serve some therapeutic purpose, but it is bullshit, nonetheless.
I have had a lot of respect for Lieberman for years, but his appeasement to (sic) [of] the crowd who worships sex... the pro-homosexuality crowd [who]... want sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone[,] and delude themselves that there are no consequences... is very troubling to me.
I'm 39 years old, married for 20 years to the same wonderful woman, with two lovely daughters, and I am bisexual. I'm also monogamous. I don't worship sex, any more than a strictly heterosexual person (necessarily) does. The majority of my friends are gay, and most of them don't qualify as sex worshippers. A few are, assuredly. However, they are not sex worshippers because they are gay, or gay because they are sex worshippers.
I call myself bisexual because I can fall in love with, or become sexually attracted to, members of either sex with equal ease and intensity. This has always seemed to me a perfectly marvelous situation - 100% of my options are open.
In my youth, I was quite sexually adventurous, but I was always aware of the consequences, and took precautions always. In other words, I acted with maturity and responsibility. Responsibility isn't a virtue that belongs to gays more often than straights, or straights more often than gays. I know gay men who are promiscuous, and gay men who are celibate. I know straight women and straight men; some are promiscuous, some are celibate, and some are in long-term relationships with sex occurring every other month.
I am not pro-homosexuality. I don't want sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, but I do value the part of my nature that puts so few limits on love.
Al: 1. Popular folklore has you claiming to be the inventor of the Internet. I know that you never made such a claim. Don't you get tired of this distortion? 2. What do you feel _are_ your important contributions to the Internet?
George: 1. I spent a decade in the military protecting "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." I feel that I've earned the right to burn as many yards of red, white, and blue fabric as I wish. What do you think? 2. Should I be able be able to burn the bible or the Quran? What about the Book of Mormon?
Not even remotely. I am absolutely jovial. I meant exactly what I typed, with no hidden meaning: some customers (not the majority, but many) buy a PC with the apparent expectation that it comes with lifetime technical support. This is an unrealistic expectation on the part of said customers. It unnecessarily increases the workload of already overworked tech support personnel, and often at the expense of those customers who have reasonable technical expectations.
Lighten up.
The fact is that there has been a marked decline in the quality of techies at retail stores and a similar decline on technical support lines. It's a documented fact, one that I have had to deal with in a number of different ways.
This has been the opposite of my experience. If this alleged decline has been "documented," then I will bow to the evidence. However, I would have to read that evidence first, and agree that the evidence supported the conclusion.
FYI, I am plenty literate and I could punctuate according to MLA, or what have you, when it behooves me.
FYI, I wasn't questioning your literacy. I was referring to those customers who have to perform some task at the command-prompt and don't know the difference between the colon and the semi-colon. Maybe you are explaining how to use the format command, and they ask you what the colon is when you tell them: "Type format f-o-r-m-a-t space C colon."
PS: My use of quotes is not as improper as you suggest... If you still can't handle that, then I suggest you lighten up and little more reading.
Again, I wasn't referring to your use of quotes. I am sure that they adhere to the MLA. I was referring to customers who are confused by written instructions which contain quotes around keywords and mistakenly type them in.
I suggest that you lighten up and read a bit more carefully before you next respond.
Techies at computer stores that actually know anything.
How about bringing back customers who understand that the purchase of a PC _does not_ mean a lifetime of coddling and hand-holding?
How about bringing back literacy skills which include trivial bits of information like the difference between a colon and a semi-colon, what an ampersand is, and that "quotes" around a word are NOT supposed to be typed in?
Neither reference amounts to what can be called "hard evidence." They are both anecdotal, at best, not even falling into the realm of the circumstantial.
The team consists of members who have all either worked on large-scale government projects or currently hold active security clearances, including a top secret rating from the National Security Agency, a top secret rating from the Department of Defense and other ratings from the Treasury Department. Looks like the deck is just a bit stacked."
I suggest that this team consist of ordinary citizens. You know, people who are REALLY knowledgeable about security issues... plumbers, an electrician or two, that guy who sells orthopaedic shoes in the mall, a barber (yours or mine, it doesn't matter), a chiropractor, and even an aromatherapist. Oh, and let's not forget the Roswell "expert" who works at the deli, and the homeless woman who was once abducted by gray proctologists (and in a black helicopter - she does get a little confused at times!).
CERTAINLY they are more likely to have informed opinions! I mean, it is TOTALLY illogical to assume that someone who works in the security field would have any valid input. And these experts aren't real people... they are all clones, all drones of THE MAN, and we shuoldn't trust them!
Note: for those unable to tell the difference, this is neither troll or flamebait, but sarcasm.
The Boxer Rebelion, The Holocaust in Germany, The Nanjing Massacre, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Killing Fields of Cambodia: all politically motivated by political ideology.
Political ideology and religious ideology are the _same_ ideology, and the similarities are not clevery disguised. Popes and presidents, Cardinal Richelieu and Congressman Jesse Helms... different costumes, different offices, different excuses, but the same center.
Someone mod this up, please. Two posts below, another Slashdotter says:
"It's their service, so why all the crying. Don't they have a right to do what they want with their technology. Why not use all the alternative messsangers instead..." and it is marked 2, Informative.
If I believed that God existed, I would be unlikely to believe any of the aforementioned. Currently, when I entertain the idea that God exists, I consider him as an 18th century Deist might, choosing to believe that he interferes not one iota with his universe. If he really knows me "completely and truly," as you say, then he will understand my skepticism.
Also, I wasn't talking about God "show[ing] up." I was referring more to the intellectual conviction that he did exist, and not a personal visit. In some scenarios, a visit from a vastly superior being would certainly be terrifying. However,unless his point was to terrify, he could appear to me in a totally non-threatening form.
I would be unprepared to believe in the Xtian God without a visitation, incidentally. It would take less to persuade me that a more impersonal God existed, but I am not expecting any such evidence to be presented soon.
Bertrand Russell wrote the definitions of atheism, theism, and agnosticism that have the most meaning in my life. I can only paraphrase, but he said, basically, this:
Atheists believe that they can KNOW that God does NOT exist.
A theist believes that it is possible to KNOW that God DOES exist.
An agnostist believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
In this way, I consider myself, in a purely _pragmatic_ sense, to be both an atheist and an agnostic. I don't believe that God exists, but I acknowledge that He might.
And, truthfully, at this point in my life, I consider the question of His existance or non-existance to be (almost) irrelevant. If I knew that he existed, I wouldn't live my life any differently than I do now. Still, there is the intellectual curiosity, and I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of certainty if it arose (assuming that this opportunity did not involve wish-fulfillment or self-delusion).
I honestly don't care whether the EQ emulator is legal or not. It certainly won't curtail their profits, which, as Verant is a corporation which exists to make profits, is the only ethical consideration. Notice that I said ethical: fuck legal considerations when they are overshadowed by morality.
However: if Company X releases a product (say, a cheese grater), which, as a condition of purchase, requires you to daily masturbate into a tuna sandwich, and you STILL purchase that grater, then you have given up your right to whine, IMHO. Verant, also IMHO, has the right to impose any sales restictions that they want. Again, fuck the law. If Verant doesn't have that right, they should. EQ is an indulgence, not a necessity (despite what EQ addicts might sometimes feel). No, the producer of life-essential goods shouldn't, MORALLY, impose restrictions which would mean that some people starved to death (those who believed that wanking guaranteed their place in hell, for instance).
Laws exist to protect us, to ensure that what _should_ happen, DOES. By following the letter of the law and not the spirit, the legal system makes an ass of the law.
To sum up: Verant has the legal right to demand whatever they want as a condition of purchasing their products. However, as this server emulator causes Verant no injury, you have no moral obligation to obey that law.
If you're in Stalinist Russia, and you don't like bread lines, you should boycott bread and starve to death -- that'd show them. Yea, right.
There is no remote connection between doing what is necessary to prevent one's own starvation and worshipping at the altar of consumer culture. As far as I know, no one has ever died from lack of television.
In other words, while your anarchist sentiment might be sincere, your analogy sucked.
I hate corporations. I hate them because they constantly steal from me, lie to me, buy politicians that are supposed to represent me, buy laws that line their pockets and punish me, and just all around make the world a shittier place to live.
They steal from you? Give me a dozen examples. It should be simple for you to do, as corporations are "constantly" stealing from you. They lie to you? Bullshit. Corporations exist to make money. That is the truth, and all of the advertising jingles are just tools to help them achieve that end. If you don't like their products, or are repulsed by their advertisements, HURT them. Stop buying their products, and they will become the company that you want them to be, because that is the only way for them to continue making money. And, again, as the adjective "constantly" applies to all of the other accusations in your diatribe, providing a few dozen examples of each offense ought to be easy.
Information doesn't "want" anything. Specifically, information doesn't exist, except as a construct of man (for "man" you can insert "conscious sentient beings," if you wish; I won't quibble).
Some information is obvious, some isn't. The information - or knowledge - which has been patiently and laboriously gleaned by ""conscious sentient beings" has the capacity to be shared, and nothing more. Ethically, some might argue that information _ought_ to be free, but I don't think that moral arbiters are generally a good idea. Freedom of choice, not freedom to know, is the more important value (IMHO).
If I am a free man, then I have no obligation to share with you the fruits of my labor (whether fruits of the intellect, or otherwise). If you can persuade me, either through appealing to a shared philosophy/politics - or my own love of self - that I _should_ share (because it profits me, or I am convinced that altruism is a good and proper motive), then the decision is still mine.
And where was it implied that they were? You were reading what you wanted to into his words.
In short, the only person who should follow the advise to "get over yourself" appears to be you. At the very least, you should take a course in critical reading.
Unless you are Finish, or have travelled extensively (and know that this gentleman is in error), I don't understand the incredulity behind your response. Are you sure that the contention of this polite Fin (i.e., no checks in Finland) is innacurate? Maybe he was using hyperbole, which isn't unknown on Slashdot. At any rate, your hostility was unearned.
Does it make you feel powerful to be rude to strangers?
As someone who has lived quite extensively abroad, I know that US banking is many years behind what is offered in much of Europe, so our Finnish friend may indeed be telling the truth, even if he has stretched the point.
Yes I realize that SEGA is doing some MMORPG based on Phantasy Star (one of their earlier console RPG hits), but try to imagine for one second how hard it's going to be for the palyers to communicate with one another without a keyboard.
A keyboard is a rather simple accessory to add to a console, and, in fact, the Dreamcast has had a nice keyboard available for it for quite some time. If you sign up for Sega Internet access (I forget the name of the service), the keyboard is free, actually. Further, I understand that when Phantasy Star come out, Sega expects to drop the price of the Dreamcast by another $50, and give away the keyboard _and_ offer a $200 rebate to subscribers of their Internet service (on a three year contract). So, the console is effectively free, and you are paying to play the games.
Anyway, a keyboard isn't an obstacle, and I'm certain that MS won't hesistate to produce one for the X-box. I'll bet that a standard PC keyboard (USB, perhaps) will probably work.
Computers found to be defective within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded...
And who makes the decision that a PC is defective? The customer, the retailer, or a third-party arbitration panel?
I work at a busy PC retailer where we assemble PC's to order. We have customers who enter the store daily whom we KNOW should never be allowed to own a PC (hell, there are customer's who should be licensed to operate toasters), but there is no reasonable way to deny them ("I'm sorry, but you are too stupid to ever learn to operate a PC"), so we are put in the unenviable position of selling to people who, three years later, still call our tech support weekly because they have forgotten how to cut-and-paste again, because they have deleted system files again, because they have forced a floppy disk in the drive upside-down again (quite a feat), who can't figure out how to plug their PCMCIA card into the serial port (I wish I was kidding, but I'm not), and who decide a week or an hour after purchase that their PC is "broken" because they don't know how to use it. They have been to classes, have been assisted hundreds of times by our polite, patient staff (and we are unfailingly polite and patient, despite the tone of this message: I'm ranting here, not responding as I would to a customer), but the Uncle visiting from Oregon (or Utah, etc.) who is a computer "expert" (meaning he owned a Commodore 64 for six weeks, ten years ago) told them that their new PC is "broken."
These people should be allowed to return a computer TWO YEARS after purchase because someone who couldn't possibly know the grief that they have put us through - or the smiling, apparently-reasonable customer's history of idiocy - because the customer considers it "defective?"
I would agree that this idea had merit only if customers were forced to take and pass a basic computer competency course before they were allowed to purchase a PC. If they aren't willing to take the test, or able to take it, they wave their right to arbitrary refunds (and arbitrary are what the refunds would be). Since I know that no such test will ever be required, I think that this legislation is an incredibly poor idea.
I'm not into anything macho at all - I have the testosterone level of a randy cabbage - but I think that Battlebots are the coolest things ever, and I want someone to open a Battlebot arena in my area NOW.
I'd pay $25 an hour to get together with my friends and slam our avatar Battlebot-selves into each other, the vanquished paying for the beer afterwards!
Can you imagine what it will be like if these things take off? Er, I mean, can you imagine what it will be like if these things get off the ground? Wait! Try again - can you imagine what it will be like if these personal helicopters become popular, and tens of thousands of them are whizzing about overhead?
I'm flying to work, and I'm stuck in traffic three rows thick, which I have to navigate horizontally _and_ vertically? And how horrific would a three 'copter collision be, when, not only would the "flyers" be killed, but the innocents below, crushed and sliced by falling debris?
Of course, there would now be the loser who would hop in his 'copter to fly across the street for a loaf of bread - the coolness factor might make the temptation too great - and then there would be me, watering my lawn from 50 feet in the air!
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not true. I can't smoke in my office. I can't smoke in a restaurant. I can't smoke in planes, trains, buses or taxis. I can't smoke at the cinema. I can't smoke at the theatre. I'm damned sure if I went to your house and started to smoke, you'd ask me to leave if you dislike smoke. So where, exactly, am I sitting next to you?
Don't get me wrong - I support your right not to breath other people's smoke - but if I want to give myself cancer in the comfort of my own home, what business is it of yours?
If only it were that simple. As it stands, I have several relatives who smoke. When they visit, they either smoke outside, ask whether it is okay to smoke inside when they know that I would prefer that they didn't, or sullenly smoke outside and cut their visit short. This causes irritation in me - for two reasons. First, because I am wondering: are you really so fucking pathetic that you can't give up your cancer sticks for the duration of your visit? Second, I hate being made to look like or feel inconsiderate - a "villian" - because someone else can't control their addiction.
Then their are my children - fortunately not sheeple, so they recoil with deserved disgust at smoking, recognizing it for the revolting, nasty habit that it is - but a smoker degrades the station of "adulthood" in the eyes of my children, because I have taught them that being an adult is not some magical chronological entitlement, but can only be truly measured by maturity and responsibility.
Then there is the smell. I take reasonable care with my hygiene. I shower, apply the requisite anti-perspirants, don clean clothes - and wipe my ass after performing a bowel movement. A smoker might as well negelect all off these things. A smoker's breath stinks, their clothes stink, their hair stinks - seriously, I'd prefer breathing in a noxious fart which disipates in a few minutes than be trapped in an office or an elevator with a smoker for even a few seconds. Smoking also upsets my youngest daughter's asthma, whether that smoking was indulged in five minutes ago, or an hour ago.
I like to masturbate, and this activity certainly never hurts anyone. If I masturbated in public, I would even curteously come equipped with a Kleenex. Still, I imagine that many would object even then.
Do I think that smoker's should be taxed for their stupidity? Hell, yes. Do I believe that you or others have the right to smoke? Hell, yes. Will I defend to the death your right to do it? Hell, no.
Besides, caffiene is a far more satisfying way to kill yourself, and you can be social while doing it.
:-)
There are many games just as immersive as Myst or Riven. Download a version of the Inform interpreter (for Windows, the most popular version is WinFrotz, for other OS's, I'm not sure), and then download the games to play on them.
I recommend Christchurch or Curses, but there are many others.
Yes, the lowly text adventure is still the most immersive form of game ever created. I know that some will crticize the annoyance of verb/noun guessing, but there is much more to it than that. The storylines can be deep, complex, and satisfying. The verb/noun interaction becomes intuitive and painless, and you get lost in the game as thoroughly as in a good film or book.
Try 'em, you'll like it!
I'm a latecomer to all of this... I've only been reading Slashdot for about a year, and I missed - or ignored - most of the Columbine discussion. It's not that the discussions weren't important, or that Columbine wasn't a tragedy, but simply that few of the suggested remedies or putative reasons for the massacre had much connection with reality.
I'm a 39-year old geek. I'd be willing to bet that I suffered every day in school twice as much as Klebold or Harris did. Geeks today have a romantic ideal of themselves, with on-line communities and support groups. Films deify them. Sure, it's still tough to be a geek, but only in the way that it is always tough for non-conforming conformists to fit in - the complex ecology of High School only allows the fittest geeks to survive. The real geeks - the geeks who are not self-identified, but who are shunned by the whole fucking school for their perceived oddness, their lives are more hellish than pseudo-geeks like Klebold or Harris could ever have imagined.
Klebold and Harris were two sick little boys with big weapons. Their parents were probably average, and their traumas no greater than yours or mine or billions of others who have felt pain, but some combination of genetics and environment triggered a (fortunately) rare set of behaviors that made them junior psychopaths.
Blame, presently, is impossible to assign. One day, when the fruits of the Human Genome Project are clear and we have wrestled from the mire of chaos theory some rules that apply, statistically, to any given set of circumstances, we may be able to assign blame. Until then, all of this theorizing is just bullshit. Of course, most verbalized or written angst is just bullshit, and it may serve some therapeutic purpose, but it is bullshit, nonetheless.
I have had a lot of respect for Lieberman for years, but his appeasement to (sic) [of] the crowd who worships sex... the pro-homosexuality crowd [who]... want sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone[,] and delude themselves that there are no consequences... is very troubling to me.
I'm 39 years old, married for 20 years to the same wonderful woman, with two lovely daughters, and I am bisexual. I'm also monogamous. I don't worship sex, any more than a strictly heterosexual person (necessarily) does. The majority of my friends are gay, and most of them don't qualify as sex worshippers. A few are, assuredly. However, they are not sex worshippers because they are gay, or gay because they are sex worshippers.
I call myself bisexual because I can fall in love with, or become sexually attracted to, members of either sex with equal ease and intensity. This has always seemed to me a perfectly marvelous situation - 100% of my options are open.
In my youth, I was quite sexually adventurous, but I was always aware of the consequences, and took precautions always. In other words, I acted with maturity and responsibility. Responsibility isn't a virtue that belongs to gays more often than straights, or straights more often than gays. I know gay men who are promiscuous, and gay men who are celibate. I know straight women and straight men; some are promiscuous, some are celibate, and some are in long-term relationships with sex occurring every other month.
I am not pro-homosexuality. I don't want sex anytime, anywhere, with anyone, but I do value the part of my nature that puts so few limits on love.
Just something for you to think about.
Global Thermonuclear Warfare Definitely a lose-lose game. In fact, I'd say the only way to win is not to play at all.
The line is, in fact, a paraphrase of the message the loser reads at the end of Chris Crawford's wonderful game, "Balance of Power."
Does anyone else remember it?
Al: 1. Popular folklore has you claiming to be the inventor of the Internet. I know that you never made such a claim. Don't you get tired of this distortion? 2. What do you feel _are_ your important contributions to the Internet?
George: 1. I spent a decade in the military protecting "the land of the free, and the home of the brave." I feel that I've earned the right to burn as many yards of red, white, and blue fabric as I wish. What do you think? 2. Should I be able be able to burn the bible or the Quran? What about the Book of Mormon?
You, sir, are bitter.
Not even remotely. I am absolutely jovial. I meant exactly what I typed, with no hidden meaning: some customers (not the majority, but many) buy a PC with the apparent expectation that it comes with lifetime technical support. This is an unrealistic expectation on the part of said customers. It unnecessarily increases the workload of already overworked tech support personnel, and often at the expense of those customers who have reasonable technical expectations.
Lighten up.
The fact is that there has been a marked decline in the quality of techies at retail stores and a similar decline on technical support lines. It's a documented fact, one that I have had to deal with in a number of different ways.
This has been the opposite of my experience. If this alleged decline has been "documented," then I will bow to the evidence. However, I would have to read that evidence first, and agree that the evidence supported the conclusion.
FYI, I am plenty literate and I could punctuate according to MLA, or what have you, when it behooves me.
FYI, I wasn't questioning your literacy. I was referring to those customers who have to perform some task at the command-prompt and don't know the difference between the colon and the semi-colon. Maybe you are explaining how to use the format command, and they ask you what the colon is when you tell them: "Type format f-o-r-m-a-t space C colon."
PS: My use of quotes is not as improper as you suggest... If you still can't handle that, then I suggest you lighten up and little more reading.
Again, I wasn't referring to your use of quotes. I am sure that they adhere to the MLA. I was referring to customers who are confused by written instructions which contain quotes around keywords and mistakenly type them in.
I suggest that you lighten up and read a bit more carefully before you next respond.
Techies at computer stores that actually know anything.
How about bringing back customers who understand that the purchase of a PC _does not_ mean a lifetime of coddling and hand-holding?
How about bringing back literacy skills which include trivial bits of information like the difference between a colon and a semi-colon, what an ampersand is, and that "quotes" around a word are NOT supposed to be typed in?
Neither reference amounts to what can be called "hard evidence." They are both anecdotal, at best, not even falling into the realm of the circumstantial.
The team consists of members who have all either worked on large-scale government projects or currently hold active security clearances, including a top secret rating from the National Security Agency, a top secret rating from the Department of Defense and other ratings from the Treasury Department. Looks like the deck is just a bit stacked."
I suggest that this team consist of ordinary citizens. You know, people who are REALLY knowledgeable about security issues... plumbers, an electrician or two, that guy who sells orthopaedic shoes in the mall, a barber (yours or mine, it doesn't matter), a chiropractor, and even an aromatherapist. Oh, and let's not forget the Roswell "expert" who works at the deli, and the homeless woman who was once abducted by gray proctologists (and in a black helicopter - she does get a little confused at times!).
CERTAINLY they are more likely to have informed opinions! I mean, it is TOTALLY illogical to assume that someone who works in the security field would have any valid input. And these experts aren't real people... they are all clones, all drones of THE MAN, and we shuoldn't trust them!
Note: for those unable to tell the difference, this is neither troll or flamebait, but sarcasm.
Uhm, because it was a troll?
The Boxer Rebelion, The Holocaust in Germany, The Nanjing Massacre, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Killing Fields of Cambodia: all politically motivated by political ideology.
Political ideology and religious ideology are the _same_ ideology, and the similarities are not clevery disguised. Popes and presidents, Cardinal Richelieu and Congressman Jesse Helms... different costumes, different offices, different excuses, but the same center.
Someone mod this up, please. Two posts below, another Slashdotter says:
"It's their service, so why all the crying. Don't they have a right to do what they want with their technology. Why not use all the alternative messsangers instead..." and it is marked 2, Informative.
We REALLY need some moderation consistency.
If I believed that God existed, I would be unlikely to believe any of the aforementioned. Currently, when I entertain the idea that God exists, I consider him as an 18th century Deist might, choosing to believe that he interferes not one iota with his universe. If he really knows me "completely and truly," as you say, then he will understand my skepticism.
Also, I wasn't talking about God "show[ing] up." I was referring more to the intellectual conviction that he did exist, and not a personal visit. In some scenarios, a visit from a vastly superior being would certainly be terrifying. However,unless his point was to terrify, he could appear to me in a totally non-threatening form.
I would be unprepared to believe in the Xtian God without a visitation, incidentally. It would take less to persuade me that a more impersonal God existed, but I am not expecting any such evidence to be presented soon.
Bertrand Russell wrote the definitions of atheism, theism, and agnosticism that have the most meaning in my life. I can only paraphrase, but he said, basically, this:
Atheists believe that they can KNOW that God does NOT exist.
A theist believes that it is possible to KNOW that God DOES exist.
An agnostist believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
In this way, I consider myself, in a purely _pragmatic_ sense, to be both an atheist and an agnostic. I don't believe that God exists, but I acknowledge that He might.
And, truthfully, at this point in my life, I consider the question of His existance or non-existance to be (almost) irrelevant. If I knew that he existed, I wouldn't live my life any differently than I do now. Still, there is the intellectual curiosity, and I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of certainty if it arose (assuming that this opportunity did not involve wish-fulfillment or self-delusion).
I honestly don't care whether the EQ emulator is legal or not. It certainly won't curtail their profits, which, as Verant is a corporation which exists to make profits, is the only ethical consideration. Notice that I said ethical: fuck legal considerations when they are overshadowed by morality.
However: if Company X releases a product (say, a cheese grater), which, as a condition of purchase, requires you to daily masturbate into a tuna sandwich, and you STILL purchase that grater, then you have given up your right to whine, IMHO. Verant, also IMHO, has the right to impose any sales restictions that they want. Again, fuck the law. If Verant doesn't have that right, they should. EQ is an indulgence, not a necessity (despite what EQ addicts might sometimes feel). No, the producer of life-essential goods shouldn't, MORALLY, impose restrictions which would mean that some people starved to death (those who believed that wanking guaranteed their place in hell, for instance).
Laws exist to protect us, to ensure that what _should_ happen, DOES. By following the letter of the law and not the spirit, the legal system makes an ass of the law.
To sum up: Verant has the legal right to demand whatever they want as a condition of purchasing their products. However, as this server emulator causes Verant no injury, you have no moral obligation to obey that law.
Verant: 0. Us: 1.
If you're in Stalinist Russia, and you don't like bread lines, you should boycott bread and starve to death -- that'd show them. Yea, right.
There is no remote connection between doing what is necessary to prevent one's own starvation and worshipping at the altar of consumer culture. As far as I know, no one has ever died from lack of television.
In other words, while your anarchist sentiment might be sincere, your analogy sucked.
I hate corporations. I hate them because they constantly steal from me, lie to me, buy politicians that are supposed to represent me, buy laws that line their pockets and punish me, and just all around make the world a shittier place to live.
They steal from you? Give me a dozen examples. It should be simple for you to do, as corporations are "constantly" stealing from you. They lie to you? Bullshit. Corporations exist to make money. That is the truth, and all of the advertising jingles are just tools to help them achieve that end. If you don't like their products, or are repulsed by their advertisements, HURT them. Stop buying their products, and they will become the company that you want them to be, because that is the only way for them to continue making money. And, again, as the adjective "constantly" applies to all of the other accusations in your diatribe, providing a few dozen examples of each offense ought to be easy.
Information doesn't "want" anything. Specifically, information doesn't exist, except as a construct of man (for "man" you can insert "conscious sentient beings," if you wish; I won't quibble).
Some information is obvious, some isn't. The information - or knowledge - which has been patiently and laboriously gleaned by ""conscious sentient beings" has the capacity to be shared, and nothing more. Ethically, some might argue that information _ought_ to be free, but I don't think that moral arbiters are generally a good idea. Freedom of choice, not freedom to know, is the more important value (IMHO).
If I am a free man, then I have no obligation to share with you the fruits of my labor (whether fruits of the intellect, or otherwise). If you can persuade me, either through appealing to a shared philosophy/politics - or my own love of self - that I _should_ share (because it profits me, or I am convinced that altruism is a good and proper motive), then the decision is still mine.
That doesn't mean they are less of a person.
And where was it implied that they were? You were reading what you wanted to into his words.
In short, the only person who should follow the advise to "get over yourself" appears to be you. At the very least, you should take a course in critical reading.
Unless you are Finish, or have travelled extensively (and know that this gentleman is in error), I don't understand the incredulity behind your response. Are you sure that the contention of this polite Fin (i.e., no checks in Finland) is innacurate? Maybe he was using hyperbole, which isn't unknown on Slashdot. At any rate, your hostility was unearned.
Does it make you feel powerful to be rude to strangers?
As someone who has lived quite extensively abroad, I know that US banking is many years behind what is offered in much of Europe, so our Finnish friend may indeed be telling the truth, even if he has stretched the point.
Yes I realize that SEGA is doing some MMORPG based on Phantasy Star (one of their earlier console RPG hits), but try to imagine for one second how hard it's going to be for the palyers to communicate with one another without a keyboard.
A keyboard is a rather simple accessory to add to a console, and, in fact, the Dreamcast has had a nice keyboard available for it for quite some time. If you sign up for Sega Internet access (I forget the name of the service), the keyboard is free, actually. Further, I understand that when Phantasy Star come out, Sega expects to drop the price of the Dreamcast by another $50, and give away the keyboard _and_ offer a $200 rebate to subscribers of their Internet service (on a three year contract). So, the console is effectively free, and you are paying to play the games.
Anyway, a keyboard isn't an obstacle, and I'm certain that MS won't hesistate to produce one for the X-box. I'll bet that a standard PC keyboard (USB, perhaps) will probably work.
The .com suffix isn't a U.S. TLD.
The original poster was mistaken, or trolling, or both.
Computers found to be defective within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded...
And who makes the decision that a PC is defective? The customer, the retailer, or a third-party arbitration panel?
I work at a busy PC retailer where we assemble PC's to order. We have customers who enter the store daily whom we KNOW should never be allowed to own a PC (hell, there are customer's who should be licensed to operate toasters), but there is no reasonable way to deny them ("I'm sorry, but you are too stupid to ever learn to operate a PC"), so we are put in the unenviable position of selling to people who, three years later, still call our tech support weekly because they have forgotten how to cut-and-paste again, because they have deleted system files again, because they have forced a floppy disk in the drive upside-down again (quite a feat), who can't figure out how to plug their PCMCIA card into the serial port (I wish I was kidding, but I'm not), and who decide a week or an hour after purchase that their PC is "broken" because they don't know how to use it. They have been to classes, have been assisted hundreds of times by our polite, patient staff (and we are unfailingly polite and patient, despite the tone of this message: I'm ranting here, not responding as I would to a customer), but the Uncle visiting from Oregon (or Utah, etc.) who is a computer "expert" (meaning he owned a Commodore 64 for six weeks, ten years ago) told them that their new PC is "broken."
These people should be allowed to return a computer TWO YEARS after purchase because someone who couldn't possibly know the grief that they have put us through - or the smiling, apparently-reasonable customer's history of idiocy - because the customer considers it "defective?"
I would agree that this idea had merit only if customers were forced to take and pass a basic computer competency course before they were allowed to purchase a PC. If they aren't willing to take the test, or able to take it, they wave their right to arbitrary refunds (and arbitrary are what the refunds would be). Since I know that no such test will ever be required, I think that this legislation is an incredibly poor idea.
I'm not into anything macho at all - I have the testosterone level of a randy cabbage - but I think that Battlebots are the coolest things ever, and I want someone to open a Battlebot arena in my area NOW.
I'd pay $25 an hour to get together with my friends and slam our avatar Battlebot-selves into each other, the vanquished paying for the beer afterwards!
Can you imagine what it will be like if these things take off? Er, I mean, can you imagine what it will be like if these things get off the ground? Wait! Try again - can you imagine what it will be like if these personal helicopters become popular, and tens of thousands of them are whizzing about overhead?
I'm flying to work, and I'm stuck in traffic three rows thick, which I have to navigate horizontally _and_ vertically? And how horrific would a three 'copter collision be, when, not only would the "flyers" be killed, but the innocents below, crushed and sliced by falling debris?
Of course, there would now be the loser who would hop in his 'copter to fly across the street for a loaf of bread - the coolness factor might make the temptation too great - and then there would be me, watering my lawn from 50 feet in the air!