Wow. Talk about extending your argument for argument's sake.
"Did I imply that computers behave more like humans than dogs do in every way?"
No, and neither did I. But you did say "in many ways." I submit that a computer doesn't "behave" like a human at all unless it is programmed to, in which case it is done vicariously as the human that programmed it. Otherwise it would be like like saying a hard disk drive behaves like an author because words keep showing up on it.
"Did I imply that people who talk to their dogs are less sane than people that talk to their computers?"
No, and neither did I. Where did that come from?
"Did I even begin to suggest that computers have their own will, or that they're alive?"
I was only pointing out that dogs, like humans, can respond to internal stimuli, whereas computers can't. The fact that a computer is NOT alive (or sentient) does punch enormous holes in the idea that computers behave like humans.
"I submit that software (and firmware) are internal stimuli."
That's ridiculous. Someone EXTERNAL to the computer had to write the software.
I was thinking the same thing, but I was willing to assume the article cleared up the confusion. I haven't read the article yet, but a chip is definitely not biometrics.
Yeah, and my bathroom mirror responds with a human face too, that doesn't mean it qualifies, under strictest definition of the term, as behaving like a human.
behavior: The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.
Computers exhibit no internal stimuli. People and dogs do. Therefore they fit a more complete fulfillment of behaving like one another. I didn't expect that anyone would need that part explained.
"Computer behavior is, in many ways, more human than dog behavior."
That's one fancy computer. Mine only responds to commands. The people and dogs I've met in my life seem to be able to accomplish things without commands.
I think the point was that burning to CD was lossless, not RE-ENCODING after burning to CD. If you have a problem with the initial encoding, then you should just buy CDs and stop complaining about DRM.
You're not thinking of songs as units sold. You're thinking of it as a song that's sold once and downloaded over and over. It doesn't work that way. Apple didn't get to the 1 billion songs sold number by ignoring songs that were purchased more than once. Someone pays for one song, and downloads one song. A single song (file) does not incur more bandwidth because it is popular. Remember, the original poster said, "there is absolutely no reason a song should cost more because it's popular (besides bandwidth costs)." So in summary, the cost of a song would only be affected by its solitary download bandwidth requirement (which has nothing to do with popularity) or at most by the bandwidth requirements of EVERY song sold put together, popular or not, for a monthly period if that's the way Apple pays for its bandwidth.
When you can quantify how much the artists are getting paid, you might have a case. If you're only paying $1 for an album and iTunes albums cost $10-$12 with $0.11 going to the artists, there's a big discrepancy in what the artists must be getting. Besides the obvious difference, allofmp3.com must be taking some cut of that, and their overhead is probably more expensive than Apple's since they're working on a smaller scale. At the end of the day, I bet that artists are either getting screwed by allofmp3.com, or they're getting screwed by allofmp3.com. Do you see the two possibilities?
You're right, but you could have left out the parenthetical: "(besides bandwidth costs)" because bandwidth has nothing to do with song popularity. A song is a song is a song. It isn't like more popular songs are any larger in file size on average than unpopular songs.
So you're commenting on a problem that is most obviously not associated with photovoltaic cells (PV). Oh, that's much better.
"Take hydrogen powered cars for example."
I'd rather not since I was talking about PVs, but since you bring it up, it's another obvious non-starter. Anybody with an IQ over 80 and a 6th grade education knows that hydrogen is not a free element just lying around, thus energy must be used to isolate it. The form of energy that's used to isolate hydrogen always has to be considered. Though this has nothing to do with what you originally said, and doesn't have any bearing on home production of electricity. Pollution from manufacturing and pollution from energy conversion are two completely different things. Last I checked, every device designed to convert energy must be manufactured.
hazem, that's got to be the weakest argument I've ever seen. "Don't forget to take into account the energy used, and pollution and toxic waste generated by making those" batteries!
That's like saying the firmware in a router adds value to the router. No, it's just a necessary part of the router. And if you think router firmware is no big deal, check out all the open source projects that work on improving the performance of manufacture's versions. I also think you're trying to make the software out to be the product of a genius. You could even avoid using software altogether in a setup like this by running on a huge bank of capacitors as well as batteries, not to mention just use batteries that can handle being constantly charged. All timing and sensing can be done in hardware, and has been done in hardware for decades with battery chargers.
Amazing that someone came full-circle making an argument against Mayhem178, and then within two more posts, supporting Mayhem178 possibly without even realizing it. I agree with the non-existance of NPOV. If someone is neutral on the matter, they wouldn't be involved in the first place.
"No, you do get something else. You get the computer program"
The way in which you presented the information about the software seemed liked a justification for the price, since that is precisely what the parent poster was complaining about. The tone of your comment was not neutral. The parent poster pointed out that this is a scam, and I have to agree, software included or not. Quite frankly, the complexity of the software in question isn't exactly rocket science either. I'm sure a programmer with an electrical engineering background could knock out a project like that in a weekend.
I don't mean to sound argumentative, and I do appreciate that someone brought up the software aspect of this item, but the software just doesn't add any value to this deal (scam).
Your case is almost convincing. However, operating systems aren't particularly "simple" either, but Microsoft and Apple don't charge thousands of dollars for them. Even advanced scientific software targeting an extremely narrow market cost less. More importantly, I'll take $10,000 worth of solar panels before spending money on a system that simply rearranges when I get my electricity from a polluting power plant.
"Good management though does mean being consistent, supportive of your staff and their career growth, providing a positive work environment, and making hard decisions." == "keeping you people happy"
I know I would have very little to be unhappy about if the above were true.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone doesn't recognize this is a press release by Red Hat. "VERY LAST LINE" my foot! Try the very first line: "Red Hat has announced" from Slashdot and "Red Hat (NASDAQ: RHAT), the world's leading provider of open source to the enterprise, today announced" from the link. Do people not start with the very first line when reading an article?
How exactly does that matter if less than 97% can get infected with spyware, or were they only testing people with systems that didn't safeguard against such? I would assume more people are careless about such things because they have anti-spyware software installed or are running an OS other than Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
XP and Server 2003 do utilize microkernel concepts which place them in the hybrid kernel category, but in no way is it a monolithic kernel.
Wow. Talk about extending your argument for argument's sake.
"Did I imply that computers behave more like humans than dogs do in every way?"
No, and neither did I. But you did say "in many ways." I submit that a computer doesn't "behave" like a human at all unless it is programmed to, in which case it is done vicariously as the human that programmed it. Otherwise it would be like like saying a hard disk drive behaves like an author because words keep showing up on it.
"Did I imply that people who talk to their dogs are less sane than people that talk to their computers?"
No, and neither did I. Where did that come from?
"Did I even begin to suggest that computers have their own will, or that they're alive?"
I was only pointing out that dogs, like humans, can respond to internal stimuli, whereas computers can't. The fact that a computer is NOT alive (or sentient) does punch enormous holes in the idea that computers behave like humans.
"I submit that software (and firmware) are internal stimuli."
That's ridiculous. Someone EXTERNAL to the computer had to write the software.
I was thinking the same thing, but I was willing to assume the article cleared up the confusion. I haven't read the article yet, but a chip is definitely not biometrics.
Yeah, and my bathroom mirror responds with a human face too, that doesn't mean it qualifies, under strictest definition of the term, as behaving like a human.
behavior: The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli.
Computers exhibit no internal stimuli. People and dogs do. Therefore they fit a more complete fulfillment of behaving like one another. I didn't expect that anyone would need that part explained.
"it grew out of it's container"
What?! Did you put yeast in it or some kind of leavening? Flour, water, salt, and food coloring doesn't just grow out of a container.
I think the point was that burning to CD was lossless, not RE-ENCODING after burning to CD. If you have a problem with the initial encoding, then you should just buy CDs and stop complaining about DRM.
I see virtual alimony coming in your scenario.
You're not thinking of songs as units sold. You're thinking of it as a song that's sold once and downloaded over and over. It doesn't work that way. Apple didn't get to the 1 billion songs sold number by ignoring songs that were purchased more than once. Someone pays for one song, and downloads one song. A single song (file) does not incur more bandwidth because it is popular. Remember, the original poster said, "there is absolutely no reason a song should cost more because it's popular (besides bandwidth costs)." So in summary, the cost of a song would only be affected by its solitary download bandwidth requirement (which has nothing to do with popularity) or at most by the bandwidth requirements of EVERY song sold put together, popular or not, for a monthly period if that's the way Apple pays for its bandwidth.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=184603&c id=15242274
"Does it matter where the artists get paid?"
Apparently.
You're right, but you could have left out the parenthetical: "(besides bandwidth costs)" because bandwidth has nothing to do with song popularity. A song is a song is a song. It isn't like more popular songs are any larger in file size on average than unpopular songs.
"I'm not making an argument against solar cells."
So you're commenting on a problem that is most obviously not associated with photovoltaic cells (PV). Oh, that's much better.
"Take hydrogen powered cars for example."
I'd rather not since I was talking about PVs, but since you bring it up, it's another obvious non-starter. Anybody with an IQ over 80 and a 6th grade education knows that hydrogen is not a free element just lying around, thus energy must be used to isolate it. The form of energy that's used to isolate hydrogen always has to be considered. Though this has nothing to do with what you originally said, and doesn't have any bearing on home production of electricity. Pollution from manufacturing and pollution from energy conversion are two completely different things. Last I checked, every device designed to convert energy must be manufactured.
Thank you afidel for your comment.
hazem, that's got to be the weakest argument I've ever seen. "Don't forget to take into account the energy used, and pollution and toxic waste generated by making those" batteries!
That's like saying the firmware in a router adds value to the router. No, it's just a necessary part of the router. And if you think router firmware is no big deal, check out all the open source projects that work on improving the performance of manufacture's versions. I also think you're trying to make the software out to be the product of a genius. You could even avoid using software altogether in a setup like this by running on a huge bank of capacitors as well as batteries, not to mention just use batteries that can handle being constantly charged. All timing and sensing can be done in hardware, and has been done in hardware for decades with battery chargers.
However?
"No POV is neutral." == "There is always bias."
Amazing that someone came full-circle making an argument against Mayhem178, and then within two more posts, supporting Mayhem178 possibly without even realizing it. I agree with the non-existance of NPOV. If someone is neutral on the matter, they wouldn't be involved in the first place.
"No, you do get something else. You get the computer program"
The way in which you presented the information about the software seemed liked a justification for the price, since that is precisely what the parent poster was complaining about. The tone of your comment was not neutral. The parent poster pointed out that this is a scam, and I have to agree, software included or not. Quite frankly, the complexity of the software in question isn't exactly rocket science either. I'm sure a programmer with an electrical engineering background could knock out a project like that in a weekend.
I don't mean to sound argumentative, and I do appreciate that someone brought up the software aspect of this item, but the software just doesn't add any value to this deal (scam).
Your case is almost convincing. However, operating systems aren't particularly "simple" either, but Microsoft and Apple don't charge thousands of dollars for them. Even advanced scientific software targeting an extremely narrow market cost less. More importantly, I'll take $10,000 worth of solar panels before spending money on a system that simply rearranges when I get my electricity from a polluting power plant.
I've got a news flash for you:
"Good management though does mean being consistent, supportive of your staff and their career growth, providing a positive work environment, and making hard decisions." == "keeping you people happy"
I know I would have very little to be unhappy about if the above were true.
I'm still trying to figure out how someone doesn't recognize this is a press release by Red Hat. "VERY LAST LINE" my foot! Try the very first line: "Red Hat has announced" from Slashdot and "Red Hat (NASDAQ: RHAT), the world's leading provider of open source to the enterprise, today announced" from the link. Do people not start with the very first line when reading an article?
How exactly does that matter if less than 97% can get infected with spyware, or were they only testing people with systems that didn't safeguard against such? I would assume more people are careless about such things because they have anti-spyware software installed or are running an OS other than Windows.
I'll assume you're just trying to be humorous and respond in kind: Yeah, it's not like nudist colonies exist.
It knows you didn't write it.