Libertarians would say fuck 911, go found your own fucking police and fire departments and let them compete New York City 1860s style! Hooray for free markets!
*sigh* Again, the attitude is incorrect. If you can mitigate, even if it doesn't 'balance out' as you require, you are still mitigating, and you are still having a positive effect compared to doing nothing.
Essentially, your logic is saying "Well, the car already burns gas. Why make it more efficient? It's still going to burn gas!"
If environmental regulators used your reasoning, we never would have made the vast improvements that have been made to power plants and other large industrial sources of pollution. The idea of cutting pollution bit-by-bit is well accepted in the environmental community (see "Pollution Prevention Planning")
No one is expecting a pollution-free computer from start to finish. However, we can make it better. At the same time, the governments where PCs are manufactured should be tightening the screws and cutting down on the wastes generated there. Realistically, this probably isn't happening.
You're right.. It is this way in NJ as well.. I guess I forgot because few people actually do it (Well, some people do, but then there are those who feel it is their God-given mission to slow you down in the left lane. I'm not joking.).
A lot of traffic accidents and general traffic problems are caused by individuals acting separate from the "herd" of cars that are obeying traffic laws.
It can also be the other way around. Take an example where someone is driving the speed limit in the left lane of a major urban expressway. On most of these roads, when traffic permits, the left lane moves at least 10 mph faster than the speed limit. Someone driving the speed limit, obeying the law, will cause drivers behind them to back up and try and go around on the right side, which creates a hazard.
What you say about traffic/accidents being caused by one person separate from the "herd" is correct.. it's just that the "herd" may not necessarily be the ones following the law.
Some people out there aren't that appreciative of being forced to have airbags, ABS, seat belts, etc.
Well that's too fucking bad. Driving on public roadways is not a right.
Personal safety just effects you.
That's horseshit and this attitude is completely wrong. Health care and safety are social, not personal, issues. When you get into an accident, who is coming to pick you up and take you to the hospital? You gonna crawl there yourself? Who subsidized or directly paid for the building of that hospital? Who subsidizes the education of the workers in the hospital? That's right, we all do. If you have health insurance through your employment, then you penalize your co-workers when you make a claim because you were too fucking arrogant to wear a seat belt.
Right, so because computers contain some toxic substances that are not emitted to the air or ground during normal use, that means we shouldn't attempt to mitigate the environmental impact computer use?
+5, Insightful, but only if you're a simple-minded idiot.
That had you requested it, by law they must provide you with an ID number to use in lieu of an SSN
No. The SSA FAQ (get your own link) says that businesses cannot require your SSN. However, if you do not wish to provide your SSN, they do not have to provide their service to you. Tough titties, eh?
The real answer to your points (based mostly on assumptions, btw) is this:
As long as the consumer knows up front that Yahoo may change the price at any time, that continued subscription is required to keep what you've 'bought' (I don't know if this is even true for the Yahoo service), then what the hell is your problem? Just don't subscribe if you don't like those terms.
Regarding copying for your friends.. that is not 'fair use'. If a service doesn't let you (easily) copy music, that may be a draw back of the service, but it is not the human rights violation that some make it out to be. It's a condition of the music companies license to the service.
The whole bit about MS deleting all your music? Please. Let's talk about reality. MS certified hardware? Hilarious. Why do you kooks always assume that 'Trusted Computing' is a given? Furthermore, why do you think that MS will deliberately piss off all of its customers?
That's correct. It's assumed in this discussion that support is desired.. this discussion stemmed from a situation where a person had an application that was not working properly, which is a situation where one generally desires support from the vendor.
No, I think it's you (or whoever other ACs) that don't "get it"...
I'm not arguing for or against anything in my posts here. I'm simply raising discussion points and wasting time at work. Not everyone has an ideological agenda.
You can't assume that people will simply understand the concept of 'Libre Software' overnight, do you? The word "free" has different meanings. Because we live in a capitalist society, in the context of goods and services, free is generally assumed to mean "without cost". So when you say "Free Software" most people are thinking 'Hey, software for no money!' That's great. Now you take someone who is in charge of purchasing decisions, tell them "Hey, we want to use Free Software on this project. The support will cost $xxx." Most people will say "Free? Then why the fuck does it cost $xxx? That's not free!"
If you don't understand how this confusion can occur at this point, don't bother replying.
Well, that certainly seems to depend on who you ask.. those shouting "Lower TCO!!" seem to be focused on cost, no?
One must also recall that the context of a "what's the point of using a free program if you have to pay for the support?" comment is a managerial context. i.e., many people here talk about how to convince management to switch to OSS. One of these reasons is cost. Management generally isn't interested in ideological bullshit.
Right, but it's a bastardization. MM is 'thousand thousand', or million. Its usage is common in the engineering fields, but I generally only see it used by older engineers. I imagine it comes from the days when you wanted as few characters as possible. For instance, you still sometimes see the use of "#" instead of "lbs."
Oh my, an anectode! Clearly MS support isn't worth shit because they didn't help you!
Anyway, it basically comes down to the question of "What is support?"
Does support mean that the vendor guarantees a bug-free program and will work to fix any bugs? Some would say yes. Personally, I don't think this is realistic for all cases. Sometimes shit happens, like in your case.
Some might argue that at least a bug listing of "you're fucked" is more support than nothing.
Does OO not have the "self executing" capability of PP?
i.e., in PP you can save a file that includes the presentation content as well as a small app to display the presentation, in case PP isn't installed on the machine.
I believe the Bible says something about casting the first stone? Not that I'm religious, but there's some wisdom to be found in that.
IMO, if you examine this line of thinking, it becomes clear that it is not wise. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" basically says that if you've ever done wrong, you are unfit to punish someone else for doing wrong. No exceptions are made as to context, severity, etc. As such, since we have all done wrong at some point, any dissent or just punishment is essentially banned.
I think it's a good principle in theory, but in the end it is unworkable and counter-productive to society.
Not really. N's 3rd law says that the officer will be subject to the same force. If they are standing in the traditional Weaver stance, their body will be able to absorb a lot more energy without falling than someone who is, say, off balance, or running, etc. Also, as finkployd has said about 800 times on this thread, how the bullet strikes the target is a factor, among other things.
There are accidents where you can do nothing to prevent them. However with 4 that is not the case.
I'm amazed at how you can determine the circumstances of OP's accidents based solely upon the number of accidents they have had. Please, give us more insight, oh mighty Kreskin!
Slashdot Mirror
You believe scientific research should be funded and run by the federal government? How is that not a communistic principle?
Let's try it the other way round. How is it a communistic principle?
You can easily track which links get clicked without tracking who (or what machine) is clicking those links.
Libertarians would say fuck 911, go found your own fucking police and fire departments and let them compete New York City 1860s style! Hooray for free markets!
ADA does not apply. Think about the keyboard, video game controller, or remote control, to name a few. Are those devices accessible?
*sigh* Again, the attitude is incorrect. If you can mitigate, even if it doesn't 'balance out' as you require, you are still mitigating, and you are still having a positive effect compared to doing nothing.
Essentially, your logic is saying "Well, the car already burns gas. Why make it more efficient? It's still going to burn gas!"
If environmental regulators used your reasoning, we never would have made the vast improvements that have been made to power plants and other large industrial sources of pollution. The idea of cutting pollution bit-by-bit is well accepted in the environmental community (see "Pollution Prevention Planning")
No one is expecting a pollution-free computer from start to finish. However, we can make it better. At the same time, the governments where PCs are manufactured should be tightening the screws and cutting down on the wastes generated there. Realistically, this probably isn't happening.
You're right.. It is this way in NJ as well.. I guess I forgot because few people actually do it (Well, some people do, but then there are those who feel it is their God-given mission to slow you down in the left lane. I'm not joking.).
A lot of traffic accidents and general traffic problems are caused by individuals acting separate from the "herd" of cars that are obeying traffic laws.
It can also be the other way around. Take an example where someone is driving the speed limit in the left lane of a major urban expressway. On most of these roads, when traffic permits, the left lane moves at least 10 mph faster than the speed limit. Someone driving the speed limit, obeying the law, will cause drivers behind them to back up and try and go around on the right side, which creates a hazard.
What you say about traffic/accidents being caused by one person separate from the "herd" is correct.. it's just that the "herd" may not necessarily be the ones following the law.
Some people out there aren't that appreciative of being forced to have airbags, ABS, seat belts, etc.
Well that's too fucking bad. Driving on public roadways is not a right.
Personal safety just effects you.
That's horseshit and this attitude is completely wrong. Health care and safety are social, not personal, issues. When you get into an accident, who is coming to pick you up and take you to the hospital? You gonna crawl there yourself? Who subsidized or directly paid for the building of that hospital? Who subsidizes the education of the workers in the hospital? That's right, we all do. If you have health insurance through your employment, then you penalize your co-workers when you make a claim because you were too fucking arrogant to wear a seat belt.
Also, its not as if I'm constantly rebuiling my system... on averge I do a complete rebuild every 6 months
You know, for some people every 6 months IS "constantly rebuilding".
Right, so because computers contain some toxic substances that are not emitted to the air or ground during normal use, that means we shouldn't attempt to mitigate the environmental impact computer use?
+5, Insightful, but only if you're a simple-minded idiot.
That had you requested it, by law they must provide you with an ID number to use in lieu of an SSN
No. The SSA FAQ (get your own link) says that businesses cannot require your SSN. However, if you do not wish to provide your SSN, they do not have to provide their service to you. Tough titties, eh?
Subscription models *do not* work.
You're right. Subscription models based on assinine assumptions like jacking the price to $1000/month do not work.
The real answer to your points (based mostly on assumptions, btw) is this:
As long as the consumer knows up front that Yahoo may change the price at any time, that continued subscription is required to keep what you've 'bought' (I don't know if this is even true for the Yahoo service), then what the hell is your problem? Just don't subscribe if you don't like those terms.
Regarding copying for your friends.. that is not 'fair use'. If a service doesn't let you (easily) copy music, that may be a draw back of the service, but it is not the human rights violation that some make it out to be. It's a condition of the music companies license to the service.
The whole bit about MS deleting all your music? Please. Let's talk about reality. MS certified hardware? Hilarious. Why do you kooks always assume that 'Trusted Computing' is a given? Furthermore, why do you think that MS will deliberately piss off all of its customers?
That's correct. It's assumed in this discussion that support is desired.. this discussion stemmed from a situation where a person had an application that was not working properly, which is a situation where one generally desires support from the vendor.
No, I think it's you (or whoever other ACs) that don't "get it"...
I'm not arguing for or against anything in my posts here. I'm simply raising discussion points and wasting time at work. Not everyone has an ideological agenda.
You can't assume that people will simply understand the concept of 'Libre Software' overnight, do you? The word "free" has different meanings. Because we live in a capitalist society, in the context of goods and services, free is generally assumed to mean "without cost". So when you say "Free Software" most people are thinking 'Hey, software for no money!' That's great. Now you take someone who is in charge of purchasing decisions, tell them "Hey, we want to use Free Software on this project. The support will cost $xxx." Most people will say "Free? Then why the fuck does it cost $xxx? That's not free!"
If you don't understand how this confusion can occur at this point, don't bother replying.
Well, that certainly seems to depend on who you ask.. those shouting "Lower TCO!!" seem to be focused on cost, no?
One must also recall that the context of a "what's the point of using a free program if you have to pay for the support?" comment is a managerial context. i.e., many people here talk about how to convince management to switch to OSS. One of these reasons is cost. Management generally isn't interested in ideological bullshit.
Right, but it's a bastardization. MM is 'thousand thousand', or million. Its usage is common in the engineering fields, but I generally only see it used by older engineers. I imagine it comes from the days when you wanted as few characters as possible. For instance, you still sometimes see the use of "#" instead of "lbs."
True, but as others have noted, what's the point of using a free program if you have to pay for the support?
This isn't to say that the MS-style is better, but I think it hurts the idea of "Free Software" when there's a big catch -- gotta pay for support.
Oh my, an anectode! Clearly MS support isn't worth shit because they didn't help you!
Anyway, it basically comes down to the question of "What is support?"
Does support mean that the vendor guarantees a bug-free program and will work to fix any bugs? Some would say yes. Personally, I don't think this is realistic for all cases. Sometimes shit happens, like in your case.
Some might argue that at least a bug listing of "you're fucked" is more support than nothing.
Does OO not have the "self executing" capability of PP?
i.e., in PP you can save a file that includes the presentation content as well as a small app to display the presentation, in case PP isn't installed on the machine.
I've noticed that the North has a remarkably large number of rude assholes
Yeah. You got a fuckin problem with that?
At least we don't insist that everyone else be an asshole. It's completely your option.
I believe the Bible says something about casting the first stone? Not that I'm religious, but there's some wisdom to be found in that.
IMO, if you examine this line of thinking, it becomes clear that it is not wise. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" basically says that if you've ever done wrong, you are unfit to punish someone else for doing wrong. No exceptions are made as to context, severity, etc. As such, since we have all done wrong at some point, any dissent or just punishment is essentially banned.
I think it's a good principle in theory, but in the end it is unworkable and counter-productive to society.
Not really. N's 3rd law says that the officer will be subject to the same force. If they are standing in the traditional Weaver stance, their body will be able to absorb a lot more energy without falling than someone who is, say, off balance, or running, etc. Also, as finkployd has said about 800 times on this thread, how the bullet strikes the target is a factor, among other things.
There are accidents where you can do nothing to prevent them. However with 4 that is not the case.
I'm amazed at how you can determine the circumstances of OP's accidents based solely upon the number of accidents they have had. Please, give us more insight, oh mighty Kreskin!
FYI, the poor pay very little taxes, if any.