That is a nonsensical statement, and exemplary of the sort of moral relativism that is prevalent among many people today. Of course some lifestyles are superior to others: how could you possibly claim that the "lifestyle" of someone like Mother Teresa was not superior that of Hermann Goering? It doesn't make a bit of sense, unless you're willing to assert that morality is irrelevant to quality, which makes this argument even more silly.
Does that make non-moral relativists moral absolutists? Where do the rules come from? I am really curious to know.
Doesn't the music and movie industry sell their stuff at lower prices in different places? I have been told that regions codes were invented for this reason. No buying cheap stuff in China and playing it your american DVD player.
I was just thinking about what you wrote. The music industry should not allow a company such as Wallmart control 20% of their distribution. Even worse though is that music artists allow the music industry to controll 100% of their distribution, so an artist or artists must sign whatever contract their label wants if they want to have their music distributed. It seems whenever there is an organization that stands between supplier and consumer there the whole free market thing brakes down. You don't see cd prices fluctate based on demand.
It wasn't quite the same rhyme. I think the tiger used to be something else. I never knew that until I heard about the SW suit. I always thought it was tiger growing up, but my friends who are a few years older remember the racist version of the rhyme.
I wish we could take it a step further and only pay for the shows we watch not the channels. I mean I would pay $2 for the chance to see the Simpson's episode this week. If 10 million other people feel the same way then the simspons gross 20 million. Minus the cost per episode which I think they said is around 1 million, minus delivery costs, maybe a few million per episode and they still make a tidy profit.
Then all those shows people want to see they can. Just get a few hundred thousand people willing to fork over like $10 an episode and there you go.
"7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't even understand this."
I am not sure if this helpful, but I think that this is supposed to be a paraphrase of what Isaac Newton supposedly said about his accomplishments in science.
So I guess he means that because open source works like science ideally is thought to work, with everyone else sharing in others works, that you can do more.
For example, if you want to make some new kind of web commerce engine or something. You can stand on the shoulders of linux/bsd, apache, mysql/postgresql, perl/python/php, and concentrate on your webcommerce code, instead of having to reinvent all of that other stuff first. And theoretically those "giants will always be there to stand on, unlike non open software.
You could also skip the middleman, and just run whatever you want off your own internal chemical enegy stores. Wasn't there a story on slashdot about that a while ago?
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror] Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs] Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud] [Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat] -- "Treehouse of Horror VII"
Shopkeeper: I must warn you the doll is cursed. Homer: That's bad. Homer: But it comes with a free frogurt! Homer: That's good. Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed. Homer: That's bad! Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free choice of toppings! Homer: That's good! Shopkeeper: The toppings contain sodium benzoate. [Homer looks puzzled.] Shopkeeper: That's bad. Homer: Can I go now?
Re:Why are we always nitpicking?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
Actually, just to be cautious I looked it up. What do I know, maybe it is a word, and everyone is giving "W" a hard time for no reason. Dictionary.com gave me embitterment as a possible match. I had to laugh at least a little at that.
Re:Why are we always nitpicking?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 1
Did you really just use the "word" embetterment. God good, what have we come to? In all the ways you could try to emulate George W. Bush, please try not to emulatify his misusenenment of our language. Thank you.
vmware is great, I really like it, but considering I can buy a new computer for the price of the license, I think I will stick with having a second computer.
My setup at work is exactly what you describe. It works great for me. I think you really have a good idea, and you get out much cheaper. Also, if you have dual boot on the machines you can be rebooting one while using the other. It really is terrific.
I got to read the whole thing, by asking it to print and reading that as opposed to trying the links. Even so, I did not understand what his point was. Is it just to make pcs cheaper? I have no love of the floppy drive, but how does not having one, and saving $5, make my computer any better? Maybe smaller? Whats wrong with something that is old, as long as it works? I am all for throwing out some stuff, but I love my rs232, for programming, it is so choice.
I don't know much about this. But your question makes sense to me. I mean I own a toaster and hooking up a webserver to it would be pretty pointless because my toaster does not have a little computer with AtoD converters to keep track of the temperature or little electronic switches to control whether the toast pops up. It is all analog and mechanical. So for this to be useful in my toaster I would need to also have a little embedded controller with sensors and activators and stuff. I think it will be much more complicated and expensive than sticking one of these in my toaster.
Dr. Evil: Okay everybody leave! Except for you SUSE, cept for you Number 2 turbolinux, and you Conectiva S.A. cept for you Goldmember, cept for you guy back there, cept for you guy pretending he's working on the computer but really not... *SCO looks at Dr. Evil* Dr. Evil: Yeah! Tight moment right here! Goldmember: HaHa! Little guy can't take a hint!
That is true, I didn't think of that. I guess the military can be useful in stopping terrorism by attacking them in other countries where they are trained and supported. I am just afraid that by using our military in this way we might end up creating an atmosphere where more terrorists will be created. What I mean is that by stomping terrorist "areas" around the world people in that area will learn to hate the United States more. I guess I am thinking about the way Israel deals with their terrorists. They send their army in to destroy the terrorist headquarters, and that probably does cripple the terrorist operations, but it seems to make some Palestenians willing to commit suicide just to strike back.
I can see your point that his argument does not make sense. Do they call that a non-sequitar? However, do you really think our armed forces are what deter a terrorist attack?
I do not advocate disbanding our armed forces, they are a necessary evil in the world in which we exist. But the whole point of the terrorist attacks is to hurt America by going around the military. I think the argument could be made that having our armed forces in Saudi Arabia was an important element in why Osama Bin Laden decided to launch a terrorist attack at America.
Some really good points where made in a another post about how we could reduce the threat of terrorism. http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl? sid=56022&th reshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&pid=54 49381#5450303
That is absolutely true. For me as an individual that would be bad. However in the long run, maybe it would be better for more people if things were more economically even. It seems like most people who I meet that come to work in America, don't come for our culture, but because that is where the money is. If other countries (besides those where the standard of living is already as good, or better then in the U.S), were to develop their economies further, maybe the economic development will result in a viable middle class, which could lead to the good things we benefit from. I guess that is a lot of ifs and maybes though.
He draws some interesting parallels, but it would be nice to have some numbers to back up his statements. It is easy to talk doom and gloom, and everyone is quick to jump on that bandwagon, but lets see some hard data.
He may be right though, but would that be so bad? I am an American, and I love America, but I would like to see a world where there there is a little more balance of economic power. Would that be so bad for the average American?
Of course I didn't read the artcile, but maybe there is a good side-effect to the fact that that they are motivated by profit, as all corporations are and must be.
Isn't one of the problems with antibiotics that they become ineffective because they are too widely prescribed? Having it be used less because of cost could keep it effective longer, until the bacteria out-evolve it.
I know that is pretty useless to you if you can't get it.
I have used P2P, and found them very convenient to get things that I want. I hope that they do not shut them down. However this post is a really well thought out argument to examine them. Does anyone have a halfway decent couter-argument to this? I can kind of see where the government is coming from after reading this. Why has no one modded this up?
Slashdot Mirror
You do what? Simplify tax codes?
That is a nonsensical statement, and exemplary of the sort of moral relativism that is prevalent among many people today. Of course some lifestyles are superior to others: how could you possibly claim that the "lifestyle" of someone like Mother Teresa was not superior that of Hermann Goering? It doesn't make a bit of sense, unless you're willing to assert that morality is irrelevant to quality, which makes this argument even more silly.
Does that make non-moral relativists moral absolutists? Where do the rules come from? I am really curious to know.
Thanks.
Doesn't the music and movie industry sell their stuff at lower prices in different places? I have been told that regions codes were invented for this reason. No buying cheap stuff in China and playing it your american DVD player.
I was just thinking about what you wrote. The music industry should not allow a company such as Wallmart control 20% of their distribution. Even worse though is that music artists allow the music industry to controll 100% of their distribution, so an artist or artists must sign whatever contract their label wants if they want to have their music distributed. It seems whenever there is an organization that stands between supplier and consumer there the whole free market thing brakes down. You don't see cd prices fluctate based on demand.
It wasn't quite the same rhyme. I think the tiger used to be something else. I never knew that until I heard about the SW suit. I always thought it was tiger growing up, but my friends who are a few years older remember the racist version of the rhyme.
I wish we could take it a step further and only pay for the shows we watch not the channels. I mean I would pay $2 for the chance to see the Simpson's episode this week. If 10 million other people feel the same way then the simspons gross 20 million. Minus the cost per episode which I think they said is around 1 million, minus delivery costs, maybe a few million per episode and they still make a tidy profit.
Then all those shows people want to see they can. Just get a few hundred thousand people willing to fork over like $10 an episode and there you go.
Best of all, no commercials needed.
"7. "Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants."
I don't even understand this."
I am not sure if this helpful, but I think that this is supposed to be a paraphrase of what Isaac Newton supposedly said about his accomplishments in science.
So I guess he means that because open source works like science ideally is thought to work, with everyone else sharing in others works, that you can do more.
For example, if you want to make some new kind of web commerce engine or something. You can stand on the shoulders of linux/bsd, apache, mysql/postgresql, perl/python/php, and concentrate on your webcommerce code, instead of having to reinvent all of that other stuff first. And theoretically those "giants will always be there to stand on, unlike non open software.
I am intrigued by your post. Just out of curiosity, are you for or against drug prohibition? Also, are you for the death penalty?
The obvious solution is to move management over to India also. Then it is all done cheaply in the same place.
You could also skip the middleman, and just run whatever you want off your own internal chemical enegy stores. Wasn't there a story on slashdot about that a while ago?
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.
[unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"
Shopkeeper: I must warn you the doll is cursed.
Homer: That's bad.
Homer: But it comes with a free frogurt!
Homer: That's good.
Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: That's bad!
Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free choice of toppings!
Homer: That's good!
Shopkeeper: The toppings contain sodium benzoate.
[Homer looks puzzled.]
Shopkeeper: That's bad.
Homer: Can I go now?
Actually, just to be cautious I looked it up. What do I know, maybe it is a word, and everyone is giving "W" a hard time for no reason. Dictionary.com gave me embitterment as a possible match. I had to laugh at least a little at that.
Did you really just use the "word" embetterment. God good, what have we come to? In all the ways you could try to emulate George W. Bush, please try not to emulatify his misusenenment of our language.
Thank you.
vmware is great, I really like it, but considering I can buy a new computer for the price of the license, I think I will stick with having a second computer.
My setup at work is exactly what you describe. It works great for me. I think you really have a good idea, and you get out much cheaper. Also, if you have dual boot on the machines you can be rebooting one while using the other. It really is terrific.
I got to read the whole thing, by asking it to print and reading that as opposed to trying the links. Even so, I did not understand what his point was. Is it just to make pcs cheaper? I have no love of the floppy drive, but how does not having one, and saving $5, make my computer any better? Maybe smaller? Whats wrong with something that is old, as long as it works? I am all for throwing out some stuff, but I love my rs232, for programming, it is so choice.
I don't know much about this. But your question makes sense to me. I mean I own a toaster and hooking up a webserver to it would be pretty pointless because my toaster does not have a little computer with AtoD converters to keep track of the temperature or little electronic switches to control whether the toast pops up. It is all analog and mechanical. So for this to be useful in my toaster I would need to also have a little embedded controller with sensors and activators and stuff. I think it will be much more complicated and expensive than sticking one of these in my toaster.
United Linux should have gone Dr. Evil on SCO.
Dr. Evil: Okay everybody leave! Except for you SUSE, cept for you Number 2 turbolinux, and you Conectiva S.A. cept for you Goldmember, cept for you guy back there, cept for you guy pretending he's working on the computer but really not...
*SCO looks at Dr. Evil*
Dr. Evil: Yeah! Tight moment right here!
Goldmember: HaHa! Little guy can't take a hint!
That is true, I didn't think of that. I guess the military can be useful in stopping terrorism by attacking them in other countries where they are trained and supported. I am just afraid that by using our military in this way we might end up creating an atmosphere where more terrorists will be created. What I mean is that by stomping terrorist "areas" around the world people in that area will learn to hate the United States more. I guess I am thinking about the way Israel deals with their terrorists. They send their army in to destroy the terrorist headquarters, and that probably does cripple the terrorist operations, but it seems to make some Palestenians willing to commit suicide just to strike back.
I can see your point that his argument does not make sense. Do they call that a non-sequitar? However, do you really think our armed forces are what deter a terrorist attack?
? sid=56022&th reshold=0&commentsort=0&tid=160&mode=thread&pid=54 49381#5450303
I do not advocate disbanding our armed forces, they are a necessary evil in the world in which we exist. But the whole point of the terrorist attacks is to hurt America by going around the military. I think the argument could be made that having our armed forces in Saudi Arabia was an important element in why Osama Bin Laden decided to launch a terrorist attack at America.
Some really good points where made in a another post about how we could reduce the threat of terrorism.
http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl
That is absolutely true. For me as an individual that would be bad. However in the long run, maybe it would be better for more people if things were more economically even. It seems like most people who I meet that come to work in America, don't come for our culture, but because that is where the money is. If other countries (besides those where the standard of living is already as good, or better then in the U.S), were to develop their economies further, maybe the economic development will result in a viable middle class, which could lead to the good things we benefit from. I guess that is a lot of ifs and maybes though.
He draws some interesting parallels, but it would be nice to have some numbers to back up his statements. It is easy to talk doom and gloom, and everyone is quick to jump on that bandwagon, but lets see some hard data.
He may be right though, but would that be so bad? I am an American, and I love America, but I would like to see a world where there there is a little more balance of economic power. Would that be so bad for the average American?
Of course I didn't read the artcile, but maybe there is a good side-effect to the fact that that they are motivated by profit, as all corporations are and must be.
Isn't one of the problems with antibiotics that they become ineffective because they are too widely prescribed? Having it be used less because of cost could keep it effective longer, until the bacteria out-evolve it.
I know that is pretty useless to you if you can't get it.
I have used P2P, and found them very convenient to get things that I want. I hope that they do not shut them down. However this post is a really well thought out argument to examine them.
Does anyone have a halfway decent couter-argument to this? I can kind of see where the government is coming from after reading this. Why has no one modded this up?