Hummers should be banned from roads for a very simple fact...
SUVs aren't meant to be road vehicles.
Guess what? If I knock the catalytic converters clean on my Mustang, it becomes a "race only application" and I can get in a lot of trouble for driving it on the street. So, why is a Suburban, which is billed as an off road / work vehicle, allowed to be driven strictly as a common transportation street vehicle? Heavy vehicles such as, for example, a Suburban, cause additional strain on roadways. They pollute much more. They're dangerous. Why are they street legal? Why do SUV owners get it both ways? Either use it for work, or use it strictly off road. Why can't I drive my "race application" Mustang on the street?
Most SUVs should be banned from the roads for very practical, simple reasons. Never mind environmental impact.
The way they are built, they are an excessive road hazard to most other vehicle types on the road. They are built the way they are built because they are not meant to be driven at highway speeds on a regular basis. The majority of SUV owners do not care about this little inconvenient fact, and they drive them - often well in excess of highway speeds like so many other drivers - on the highway all the time.
Granted, a solar car could probably get ripped to shreds by a Toyota Echo, but the fact remains that vehicles on the road NOW are highly susceptible to devastating impacts because of some stupid trend, and solar powered vehicles getting hit by stupid soccer moms preening over themselves in their big old Expedition as they rip through the parking lot will have a very high fatality rate.
Given all that, I think that alluding to the irresponsibility of a large number of yuppie morons and their lack of respect for their chosen mode of transportation is perfectly valid.
Jesus... are you really this stupid, or are you just a troll?
Your analogy is false. If you compare the capability of a typical ferrari to the capability of a typical chevy, the ferrari wins.
However, since you weren't comparing capability, you were comparing maintenance costs, and the maintenance costs of a ferrari are far higher than those of a typical chevy, the ferrari is a worse car for maintenance costs.
Therefore, if maintenance is an issue, and it turns out that it is cheaper for CA to maintain a Windows setup and proprietary solutions, and the proprietary solutions serve their needs just fine, the proprietary solutions are better.
QED, moron.
OS software can easilly do what MS software requires an extra 20K to do.
Prove it.
O.S. has a higer degree of granularity.
That doesn't mean anything. Stop making things up, you sound dumb enough already.
but then again you probably think pintos are better cars than Mercedes Benzez
Wow. This would be brilliant if it weren't for two little facts: it has nothing to do with open source and proprietary software, and there's no such thing as a Mercedes Benzez.
you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.
Screw the subjects... I'd be happy if we could at least get back to the point where we're not intentionally holding brighter people back or trying to keep their accomplishments covered up so we don't hurt the dumb and average people's feelings.
I'm not going to go into the "commercial software licensing is bad" spiel, but if you don't like it, don't use it. It's that simple.
Shhhhh!
Don't you know!? On Slashdot, you don't have to pay for the value of a product if you feel that the price outweighs it! if the CD costs too much, you don't just NOT BUY IT! What the hell are you thinking man? You STEAL IT!
If the software uses draconian licensing terms, you don't just not install it, you CRACK IT!
If people try to enforce their legal rights on you, you don't admit you were wrong, you CRY FOUL!
Sheesh. Get with the program. You act like people should have to act like responsible consumers or something.
Editorial note: the above post contains a significant amount of sarcastic banter... if you were too dumb to pick it up, please foe me now so that I have a record of the fact that you're a proactive idiot.
It's not a matter of open source, it's a matter of a corporation using the public education system to indoctrinate people. I have similar beefs with Subway, Coca Cola, etc. - all of whom have encroached on my old High School in the name of hooking kids on their brand early. There's a particular marketing term for the practice of impressing a brand on people before they're old enough to make decisions (so they later decide on that brand), but I don't recall it at the moment.
The BSA has a specific agenda that they most certainly will benefit from financially if they can impress it on kids early on and make it stick. If they were only teaching the facts about copyright laws or providing those materials that do so, that's fine. However, this reaks of marketing and promotion, not education. That doesn't belong in a public school. If they think that copyright laws need to receive more focus, they can go to school board meetings like everyone else.
As far as emacs - emacs is the one true editor!!!.... oops... sorry, wrong discussion;)
I don't think learning about the GNU - if it was relevant to the class - would be bad, but RMS is not the best person to be teaching it. The nice thing is, since it's OSS, you could always take that out. I'm not a particularly big fan of RMS, and I only use the GPL when I have no intention of using the code I write commercially...
That's because Slashdotters are smarter than the average gym user and won't pay $75 a month to walk on a moving belt when they can just go out the front door.
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
We don't outlaw gun manufacturers, although the overwhelming usage is for criminal purposes.
Just out of curiosity... are you a troll, stupid, or a stupid troll? Because that was a pretty stupid statement that looks a lot like a troll, but it looks to much like a troll to be an effective troll.
I did get it for free. The reason they sent it to me for free was that I'm a target audience for their advertisers, which is where this sort of publication gets the majority of its money.
Heh heh... ironically, the CueCat wasn't exactly the height of security back in the day, and most Slashdotters who have one have probably long since removed the eeprom that transmitted the cat's real unique id.
I just visited girl.com . It's just a stupid squatter trying to make ad revenue with yet another bullshit web portal. Wouldn't want to send people there:\
Unfortunately for each of us, the world is not built around our personal interests. Now, you are going into a deeper problem: copyright "protection" is too badly flawed in its current incarnation. Unfortunately, although you and I know this, the sheeple don't. Since the majority opinion is what matters here (or, at least enough opinion to get the movement going), you have a few legitimate options:
Suck it up and live without it. A sucky option, yes, but if this is the worst wrong you ever suffer in your life, you should feel glad.
Start or join an informational campaign to get people to understand why things are wrong and why they need to change.
We are suffereing at the hand of our own stubbornly uninformed neighbors when it comes to this subject. You have legitimate options, however, so you are NOT justified in doing illegal things to circumvent it.
Again. Come back and talk to me when they try to mandate how many purchases each person must make a year, and I'll reconsider my position absent of other, legitimate ways of making your point.
How can you have "experts" on the best candidate for a public position? Isn't a running candidate supposed to be representative of the majority of votes (and, theoretically, people)? Wouldn't that imply that the experts know what's best for the public? Why not just let them pick the candidates then? Unless they're lousy experts...
Wow. That's the dumbest post I've seen all day long. Congratulations. I think my IQ dropped about three points from the sheer stupidity of that statement.
I don't know which is worse, the idea that you think your statement comparing legal and universally physical boundaries is somehow logical, or the fact that "matter replicator" actually became a part of that brainfart you called a post.
Go ahead, try to exert moral supremacy all you want. It all comes down to one thing:
You don't need what they're selling, and nobody is making you pay their prices, because you don't have to buy it.
You are in the wrong. If the RIAA could come up with a legitimate means for positively identifying p2p users who host their content illegally, I would be 100% supportive of their own (non-taxpayer funded) efforts to sue you all into the 9th level of Hell. You're just a bunch of selfishly childish pests who want something and aren't willing to pay for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hummers should be banned from roads for a very simple fact...
SUVs aren't meant to be road vehicles.
Guess what? If I knock the catalytic converters clean on my Mustang, it becomes a "race only application" and I can get in a lot of trouble for driving it on the street. So, why is a Suburban, which is billed as an off road / work vehicle, allowed to be driven strictly as a common transportation street vehicle? Heavy vehicles such as, for example, a Suburban, cause additional strain on roadways. They pollute much more. They're dangerous. Why are they street legal? Why do SUV owners get it both ways? Either use it for work, or use it strictly off road. Why can't I drive my "race application" Mustang on the street?
Most SUVs should be banned from the roads for very practical, simple reasons. Never mind environmental impact.
SUVs. Are. Not. Street. Vehicles.
The way they are built, they are an excessive road hazard to most other vehicle types on the road. They are built the way they are built because they are not meant to be driven at highway speeds on a regular basis. The majority of SUV owners do not care about this little inconvenient fact, and they drive them - often well in excess of highway speeds like so many other drivers - on the highway all the time.
Granted, a solar car could probably get ripped to shreds by a Toyota Echo, but the fact remains that vehicles on the road NOW are highly susceptible to devastating impacts because of some stupid trend, and solar powered vehicles getting hit by stupid soccer moms preening over themselves in their big old Expedition as they rip through the parking lot will have a very high fatality rate.
Given all that, I think that alluding to the irresponsibility of a large number of yuppie morons and their lack of respect for their chosen mode of transportation is perfectly valid.
Jesus... are you really this stupid, or are you just a troll?
Your analogy is false. If you compare the capability of a typical ferrari to the capability of a typical chevy, the ferrari wins.
However, since you weren't comparing capability, you were comparing maintenance costs, and the maintenance costs of a ferrari are far higher than those of a typical chevy, the ferrari is a worse car for maintenance costs.
Therefore, if maintenance is an issue, and it turns out that it is cheaper for CA to maintain a Windows setup and proprietary solutions, and the proprietary solutions serve their needs just fine, the proprietary solutions are better.
QED, moron.
OS software can easilly do what MS software requires an extra 20K to do.
Prove it.
O.S. has a higer degree of granularity.
That doesn't mean anything. Stop making things up, you sound dumb enough already.
but then again you probably think pintos are better cars than Mercedes Benzez
Wow. This would be brilliant if it weren't for two little facts: it has nothing to do with open source and proprietary software, and there's no such thing as a Mercedes Benzez.
Well, now, with such an intelligent, compelling argument, it's no wonder Microsoft and other proprietary vendors are hurting so bad.....
Oh wait.
you know, those strange subjects they used to teach in school before everyone decided they were too hard and made the less bright kids feel bad.
Screw the subjects... I'd be happy if we could at least get back to the point where we're not intentionally holding brighter people back or trying to keep their accomplishments covered up so we don't hurt the dumb and average people's feelings.
The more people that get negatively affected by the current laws, the more that will be proponents for change.
Yes. Good idea. Let's just run out and change the law because the big, bad music industry won't let us have their product for free.
Those horrible, horrible bastards.
I'm not going to go into the "commercial software licensing is bad" spiel, but if you don't like it, don't use it. It's that simple.
Shhhhh!
Don't you know!? On Slashdot, you don't have to pay for the value of a product if you feel that the price outweighs it! if the CD costs too much, you don't just NOT BUY IT! What the hell are you thinking man? You STEAL IT!
If the software uses draconian licensing terms, you don't just not install it, you CRACK IT!
If people try to enforce their legal rights on you, you don't admit you were wrong, you CRY FOUL!
Sheesh. Get with the program. You act like people should have to act like responsible consumers or something.
Editorial note: the above post contains a significant amount of sarcastic banter... if you were too dumb to pick it up, please foe me now so that I have a record of the fact that you're a proactive idiot.
It's not a matter of open source, it's a matter of a corporation using the public education system to indoctrinate people. I have similar beefs with Subway, Coca Cola, etc. - all of whom have encroached on my old High School in the name of hooking kids on their brand early. There's a particular marketing term for the practice of impressing a brand on people before they're old enough to make decisions (so they later decide on that brand), but I don't recall it at the moment.
The BSA has a specific agenda that they most certainly will benefit from financially if they can impress it on kids early on and make it stick. If they were only teaching the facts about copyright laws or providing those materials that do so, that's fine. However, this reaks of marketing and promotion, not education. That doesn't belong in a public school. If they think that copyright laws need to receive more focus, they can go to school board meetings like everyone else.
As far as emacs - emacs is the one true editor!!! .... oops... sorry, wrong discussion ;)
I don't think learning about the GNU - if it was relevant to the class - would be bad, but RMS is not the best person to be teaching it. The nice thing is, since it's OSS, you could always take that out. I'm not a particularly big fan of RMS, and I only use the GPL when I have no intention of using the code I write commercially...
Ummm.... why does the BSA have a file named "young_girl.mpg"?
Yea... Kazaa scared the shit out of me some time ago... I'm not clicking that one.
My power of speech left me while trying to comment on this. I have to look after it.
That's one of those things that is just so absolutely braindead that you can just let it speak for itself...
Thanks for proving that slashdotters have never even seen a gym.
Don't worry, I don't get jokes either.
That's because Slashdotters are smarter than the average gym user and won't pay $75 a month to walk on a moving belt when they can just go out the front door.
How about a decleration of war should require 2 of the 3 government bodies, instead of the foolish thing congress did in giving it to bush???
.....?
Ever try thinking before you type? Think about it for a minute: TWO out of three bodies. CONGRESS gave the BUSH administration....
Therefore, how many out of three were instrumental in moving the war effort forward? I'm sure if you think hard enough it will come to you...
So, if I don't have a screen in my window people should be able to climb into my house through it just because screens exist and I don't have one in?
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
We don't outlaw gun manufacturers, although the overwhelming usage is for criminal purposes.
Just out of curiosity... are you a troll, stupid, or a stupid troll? Because that was a pretty stupid statement that looks a lot like a troll, but it looks to much like a troll to be an effective troll.
I conclude, therefore, that you're just an idiot.
I did get it for free. The reason they sent it to me for free was that I'm a target audience for their advertisers, which is where this sort of publication gets the majority of its money.
Congratulations on being the first individual to wander along and comment on my purported action without reading TFA. From the aforementioned FA:
It is Ziff Davis (ZDNet) that has forced us to remove the story mentioned above. The original story was on eWeek.
Therefore, whatever parent company harrassed them must have been involved with eWeek.
QED.
Well, it's an obvious sign that they don't want people reading their publications.
So, I canceled my eWeek subscription.
Heh heh... ironically, the CueCat wasn't exactly the height of security back in the day, and most Slashdotters who have one have probably long since removed the eeprom that transmitted the cat's real unique id.
I just visited girl.com . It's just a stupid squatter trying to make ad revenue with yet another bullshit web portal. Wouldn't want to send people there :\
Unfortunately for each of us, the world is not built around our personal interests. Now, you are going into a deeper problem: copyright "protection" is too badly flawed in its current incarnation. Unfortunately, although you and I know this, the sheeple don't. Since the majority opinion is what matters here (or, at least enough opinion to get the movement going), you have a few legitimate options:
We are suffereing at the hand of our own stubbornly uninformed neighbors when it comes to this subject. You have legitimate options, however, so you are NOT justified in doing illegal things to circumvent it.
Again. Come back and talk to me when they try to mandate how many purchases each person must make a year, and I'll reconsider my position absent of other, legitimate ways of making your point.
How can you have "experts" on the best candidate for a public position? Isn't a running candidate supposed to be representative of the majority of votes (and, theoretically, people)? Wouldn't that imply that the experts know what's best for the public? Why not just let them pick the candidates then? Unless they're lousy experts...
Wow. That's the dumbest post I've seen all day long. Congratulations. I think my IQ dropped about three points from the sheer stupidity of that statement.
I don't know which is worse, the idea that you think your statement comparing legal and universally physical boundaries is somehow logical, or the fact that "matter replicator" actually became a part of that brainfart you called a post.
Go ahead, try to exert moral supremacy all you want. It all comes down to one thing:
You don't need what they're selling, and nobody is making you pay their prices, because you don't have to buy it.
You are in the wrong. If the RIAA could come up with a legitimate means for positively identifying p2p users who host their content illegally, I would be 100% supportive of their own (non-taxpayer funded) efforts to sue you all into the 9th level of Hell. You're just a bunch of selfishly childish pests who want something and aren't willing to pay for it.