Yeah, little ethical difference in shopping in a background or adding a fake missile to cover the fact that one of Iran's missiles failed instead of succeeded, trying to give the US and Isreal the impression of a better military than they had. Little difference.
If by coexist you meant get along, then no. If by coexist you meant alive at the same time, mammals have been around since the Jurassic. This is based on mammalian jaw structure. Fur is believed to be much older.
Wrong on many counts, dumbass. He was in his front yard and Obama walked up with cameras in tow. He wasn't a liar (provide cite, chum) and unless the Reps bought his house in a neighborhood they knew Obama would canvas years later, had him go outside to play catch with his kids when they knew Obama would walk by and ask him a question, you're stretching the definition of plant beyond ken.
And a hero can be properly defined as "someone who gets other people killed".
Getting your philosophy from a movie is a bad idea. It simultaneously makes you look shallow and dumb. Make a note for the future that said line was delivered by someone robbing a payroll shipment and holding innocent people hostage at gunpoint after her leader proclaimed that should anyone raise their head "violence will ensue".
"What they can't do is get their customer reliant on some bit of closed software, and then jack up the cost of that software a couple of years down the line when replacing it with something else is almost impossible."
And they don't now. They write the software for the firm and the firm owns it and the source code. You're creating a straw argument. That's for in-house.
The software you're railing against is leased. If you were to remove the possibility of firms accessing propietary products, the one and only thing you'd accomplish is to pare off the best working suites. Those firms lease those products knowingly. It's called choice. The open products simply do not cut it and the firms don't want to support in-house programming staff.
Not that I've ever seen. A support license is less than a year's salary unless it's for a large-scale license, in which case you'll need more than one person for support.
Maybe it's the dreams that are in err? I graduated with no debt at all. Ooh, hard.
Why don't we forgive? Because no one held a gun to their heads. WTF is some people's idea about forgiving stupid decisions, thus penalizing others who didn't make bad ones? How about this instead? Let the stupid pay for their mistakes and the smarter ones get ahead. Those are the ones we want succeeding you know.
"These people aren't criminals. These are people responding to marketing. Marketing that emphasises seeing the movie."
By breaking the law by not paying to see the movie.
So, it's the poor little babies can't resist the temptations of the big, bad marketers? What condescending bullshit. Those people make choices and they chose to rip off. They aren't sheeple, blindly following the advertising word because they have no choice and you know it. Suggesting so is deceptive at best.
"... the speed limit is broken by some,... some stow away in cars that only legally hold a certain number of people.... Are any of these people really criminals?"
Yes, presuming in the second case that exceeds the number.
I'm hard core atheist and every blog I post on knows it. I've received more crap from atheists than the few uberChristians. All I do is point out their hypocracy and whammo, they lose their nut.
For instance, I'm not excluded from any blog at all, no one actively tried to suppress my education or rights or those of my daughter or her children. You list a line of talking points that don't stand up on scrutiny and I seriously doubt your every time statement. Sounds more like pompous self-aggrandizement than truth. Also, the 'true teachings' statement is similar to that made by religious bigots because they 'hold the understanding'. I live in Bible belt country and rarely hear local conservative politicos spit hate and venom.
"... current biodiversity crisis and the anthropogenic impact on climate are as true as the theory of evolution."
That is only a portionally true statement. We don't know the extent of anthro impact.
An aside. Your writing style undoubtedly made many skip your post. Learn paragraphing, it improves your readership.
You fall into the same emotional appeal PnT do. Yes, species restricted to small ranges are more likely to go extinct. That goes with the definition as ranges change constantly. A caldera eruption will likely exterminate thousands of species. No problem. A subdivision will likely exterminate one species. A problem. Why? Simply because academia has decided humans are bad, no more.
Slashdot Mirror
"We all know it's gone again a few days later..."
No. It's not. Maybe for you.
If indeed you were being humorous and I missed it, apologies. Else wise, horse shit.
"by which this guy meant that Obama supporters are terrorists. See?"
Horse shit. You're projecting.
Yeah, little ethical difference in shopping in a background or adding a fake missile to cover the fact that one of Iran's missiles failed instead of succeeded, trying to give the US and Isreal the impression of a better military than they had. Little difference.
If by coexist you meant get along, then no. If by coexist you meant alive at the same time, mammals have been around since the Jurassic. This is based on mammalian jaw structure. Fur is believed to be much older.
Zone Improvement Plan
Wrong on many counts, dumbass. He was in his front yard and Obama walked up with cameras in tow. He wasn't a liar (provide cite, chum) and unless the Reps bought his house in a neighborhood they knew Obama would canvas years later, had him go outside to play catch with his kids when they knew Obama would walk by and ask him a question, you're stretching the definition of plant beyond ken.
And a hero can be properly defined as "someone who gets other people killed".
Getting your philosophy from a movie is a bad idea. It simultaneously makes you look shallow and dumb. Make a note for the future that said line was delivered by someone robbing a payroll shipment and holding innocent people hostage at gunpoint after her leader proclaimed that should anyone raise their head "violence will ensue".
"... but arguably software progress has slowed down since 1979."
You have absolutely nothing but supposition to base that on.
"... the causes."
Found your problem. What makes you think your "cause" is my "cause"?
"What they can't do is get their customer reliant on some bit of closed software, and then jack up the cost of that software a couple of years down the line when replacing it with something else is almost impossible."
And they don't now. They write the software for the firm and the firm owns it and the source code. You're creating a straw argument. That's for in-house.
The software you're railing against is leased. If you were to remove the possibility of firms accessing propietary products, the one and only thing you'd accomplish is to pare off the best working suites. Those firms lease those products knowingly. It's called choice. The open products simply do not cut it and the firms don't want to support in-house programming staff.
No, it is not soon going to be the situation unless you call a hundred years or so 'soon'.
"But damned if they should be able to prevent me having an artificial visual memory superior to base human abilities."
They don't. Just pay for it cheapskate.
Keep in mind that civil disobedience carries with it the willingness to suffer the consequences.
"Tell these corporate bastards we're not going to pay anymore."
Completely within your rights as they stand now. Don't buy and don't receive -- simple.
"It's their turn to give something back, rather than just take, take, take."
They already do, it's called exchange. What is it you're willing to give them for their work? Oh yeah -- "To hell with the law!".
Not that I've ever seen. A support license is less than a year's salary unless it's for a large-scale license, in which case you'll need more than one person for support.
The rule there, I'll take your word. The rule in the workplace in general, numerically not possible.
Maybe it's the dreams that are in err? I graduated with no debt at all. Ooh, hard.
Why don't we forgive? Because no one held a gun to their heads. WTF is some people's idea about forgiving stupid decisions, thus penalizing others who didn't make bad ones? How about this instead? Let the stupid pay for their mistakes and the smarter ones get ahead. Those are the ones we want succeeding you know.
Good luck getting the techno know it alls to agree with any model.
"These people aren't criminals. These are people responding to marketing. Marketing that emphasises seeing the movie."
By breaking the law by not paying to see the movie.
So, it's the poor little babies can't resist the temptations of the big, bad marketers? What condescending bullshit. Those people make choices and they chose to rip off. They aren't sheeple, blindly following the advertising word because they have no choice and you know it. Suggesting so is deceptive at best.
"... the speed limit is broken by some, ... some stow away in cars that only legally hold a certain number of people. ... Are any of these people really criminals?"
Yes, presuming in the second case that exceeds the number.
Nothing for Guthrie, everything for everyone else.
Sounds cool, but define the difference between a wink and a blink.
"For how much longer will we still be using keyboards, mice and joysticks?"
We've been using pencils and paper how long now? Just because a cool tech shows up doesn't mean the old tech will go away.
I'm hard core atheist and every blog I post on knows it. I've received more crap from atheists than the few uberChristians. All I do is point out their hypocracy and whammo, they lose their nut.
For instance, I'm not excluded from any blog at all, no one actively tried to suppress my education or rights or those of my daughter or her children. You list a line of talking points that don't stand up on scrutiny and I seriously doubt your every time statement. Sounds more like pompous self-aggrandizement than truth. Also, the 'true teachings' statement is similar to that made by religious bigots because they 'hold the understanding'. I live in Bible belt country and rarely hear local conservative politicos spit hate and venom.
"... current biodiversity crisis and the anthropogenic impact on climate are as true as the theory of evolution."
That is only a portionally true statement. We don't know the extent of anthro impact.
An aside. Your writing style undoubtedly made many skip your post. Learn paragraphing, it improves your readership.
You fall into the same emotional appeal PnT do. Yes, species restricted to small ranges are more likely to go extinct. That goes with the definition as ranges change constantly. A caldera eruption will likely exterminate thousands of species. No problem. A subdivision will likely exterminate one species. A problem. Why? Simply because academia has decided humans are bad, no more.
To whomever modded this troll. It was a joke on the word red.