>> What possible advantage could there be in setting up a non-expert, non-gamer with Windows?
There are two. The first is hardware. For the dental practices that I support for a living, the digital xray sensors are Windows only. These people are not gamers, unless you count insane amounts of Freecell. They certainly are not experts on computers. But, they need their hardware.
The second is that users are often just used to Windows, and refuse to try something else. If all of the other women in her sewing circle use Windows, Gramma may be hesitant to change... no matter how much I beg, plead, cry, or cajole. Sometimes it's just easier to go through the hassle of Windows than it is to go through the pain of dealing with an angry customer/relative/nuisance.
Well I can answer number one for you. A million college students will (for credit) power the process with a sort of exercise bike. The college students will be powered by burritos. The problem with this is that the methane introduced into the atmosphere by eating all of those students digesting all of those burritos will utterly destroy life on Earth within days.
Ok, I'm being flip, but I'm trying to illustrate your insightful point - in order to actually do what is suggested, a lot of fuel must be burned. And burning fuel of various types is what got us here in the first place.
Honestly, I'm not smart enough to say whether this idea is total nonsense or not, but even a simple caveman like me suspects that we'd need some kind of "too cheap to meter" free energy machine to pull this off. And if we can do that, global warming wouldn't be much of an issue, because we'd all just bail on this issue-ridden planet in the freakin' STARSHIP ENTERPRISE... pew pew pew!!!!
Good point. There are no free lunches, it's just that the costs are often indirect, obscure, or simply trivial. In the case of FOSS, the developers donated their time. The software wasn't free, in the TANSTAAFL sense. It was donated to the users. And those good folks who donated their time did expect something in return. It might be the good feeling that comes from making the world a better place, the recognition of their peers, or something to put on a resume. Maybe they needed to write some software to help them do their job better, and they saw no reason not to share that labor with the world.
FOSS is not utterly free - it requires time and energy to make. No developer would create free software if they felt they got nothing out of the experience. It's just sad that some people don't get that there are other rewards for creating things besides money.
Colloquially, herpes means HSV II. Most people know that this definition is incorrect or at best incomplete, but not many can tell you why. Misinformation, rumor, and conjecture abound on this most sensitive of topics.
Few people realize that the orally transmitted version know as "mono" (the one that 90 percent of adults has) is another critter from the same family.
I think that your concern is valid, and has a pretty obvious solution: you tax the drugs, and put that money into the healthcare system. Problem solved.
That should go for cigarettes, snowboards, and anything else dangerous that is likely to incur extra health care costs. That seems like a pretty sensible way to force the people who are doing the most dangerous things to bear the burden.
No, but when I see those Video Professor ads, it sure does seem like they're the same type of organization. I was with epowerandprofits.com. They used to run a late night infomercial starring Chuck Woolery, of Love Connection fame. Sleaze!
It is absolutely shocking how easy it seems to be to set up a business that has no intention of offering the services that they claim to offer. Most people quickly see through these shams, but sadly, there really is a sucker born every minute, if not more frequently.
I once spent a few days working for a company that claimed to offer assistance with using eBay. It seemed legitimate enough at first. They sold an instructional book and a couple of CDs, and they offered a few other services like hosting images for your auctions.
But it quickly became clear that the whole thing was a scam. They ran infomercials late at night, which convinced people that it was trivially easy to make money online. Once the dupe called in, they were connected with a bored phone jockey who blazed through a rather lengthy terms of service. Buried in there somewhere was "oh by the way, we'll be dinging your credit card for 29.95 a month from now till doomsday".
Getting out was not easy, as the phone lines were always jammed. A 45 minute wait to cancel service was typical. And, once you got an operator, they were trained to stall, distract, or convince you to keep the service. It made canceling AOL seem very easy by comparison.
And the actual "service" that they offered was similar... an hour wait to talk to a human being, and when you got them, they didn't know much about eBay, and they certainly didn't have any secrets on how to get rich. They just tried to upsell you ever more expensive "services". Not making money yet? Must be because you need us to make you a custom web store, for another 2 thousand dollars.
The law really needs to change, to make scams like this less easy. The two owners of this shitty company were both quite well off. Once a number of complaints built up about their company, they just scrapped it. They always already two or three new schemes already in motion.
I quit without notice before I completed my second week. And this was during the dark times of the dotbust, when I was desperate for work. But not THAT desperate.
I think you're the one who didn't think it through. Or, it would seem, rtfa.
The republicans, according to this analogy, are not zombies. The zombies are (if we are to take this analogy seriously) like homeless people because they are dirty, clad in rags, and mumble to themselves They want to harm the innocent, hardworking living folks.
Also, the Democrats are not vampires. In the Dem version of the analogy, it's the aristocracy (as in the prototype, Count Dracula), who feed off the blood (hard work) of the poor peasants. That's what the Dems would have you believe.
So, you had it backwards. Got is straight now? Good.
These remarks are interesting and I believe true, but they don't address the whole equation. Suppliers of content are one part, but there also has to be a supplier of hosting bandwidth for blogs and other free content to continue in the present way. With corporations looking to tighten the books, charitable giving will surely decrease.
So I think it's fair to say that things will be effected by the bad economy, but to me saying "eliminate" is preposterous.
I do think it's entirely possible that Obama actually did fill out that questionnaire. It's entirely possible that when he was running for office in an urban and crime-ridden area, he took a more anti-gun stance. And then when he stepped out on to a larger stage, his opinion magically changed. The guy is a politician, after all. He does not walk on water.
That's not enough to get me to vote for McCain, mostly because I honestly do believe that, like Clinton, Obama would mostly posture for his base on guns, and then actually do little. To me, even suggesting a nationwide ban on handguns is preposterous. People would be up in arms - quite literally. I sure as shit ain't going to be coming to your house demanding that you turn your guns over to me. They couldn't pay me enough to do that. I value my freedoms and my carcass too much for that.
First off - a quarter at 50 feet? That is impressive. I think when Obama wins, he's gonna need guys like you to watch his butt. Have you applied for the Secret Service yet? The first black president is going to be a tempting target for the loonies of the world!
But seriously Crimson, I'm glad we had this discussion, because I do feel like we discovered that we agree more than we disagree. I do know the difference between Conservative and Neocon, and I think that what disturbed me so much about the last 8 years was how quickly so many Republicans seemed to abandon key parts of their conservative ideology in order to stay on the same page as the president. Whether Obama or McCain wins, I do think our nation will be in much much better hands. McCain has done some things that I strongly agreed with, like his campaign finance work (although much more still needs to be done in that area).
It might seem paradoxical to you, but I consider myself to be a liberal, and I also believe in small government and low taxes. I think that Clinton had a great record of fiscal responsibility. He mainly accomplished that by slashing the military budget. I hope that Obama can make some headway on our national debt by doing the same thing.
It sounds like you're a military man yourself, and if so, I thank you for your service. My father and both grandfathers served, and because of them and people like you, I didn't have to serve. I'm grateful for that. If Obama cuts the military budget and that puts you or any of your buddies out of work, I do feel bad about that, but I'm sure that a smart guy like you who has a record of military service will have no trouble finding a good job.
I wish you all the best in these troubled times. Keep your powder dry!
>No shit? I don't remember saying you did. They're questions. See the question marks at the end? Suggestive, sure. But, hey, get a grip.
Oh I have a grip. You're the one carrying a concealed weapon, not me. Good luck in your shoot out
>>Giving money to people who don't work hard? Nope, I'm against it.
>Well, that's not very left of you.
I don't need you to tell me what is and is not liberal, thanks.
>>And I'm also against spending trillions of dollars on a war against a nation that posed little threat to us.
>You make it sound like that's a conservative principle. It's not.
It most certainly is. How many Republicans (self-proclaimed conservatives, every one) were against the invasion of Iraq? Few, if any. I agree that it's not what conservatives say they believe in. But I don't care what they say, nearly so much as I care what they do. And what they do is support this war that has helped to bankrupt us.
>>Of course, the constitution does say that I have that right in the context of a well-regulated militia, does it not?
>Clause analysis aside (sorry, kind of in a hurry), I tend to look at the "shall not be infringed".
Well, this is one point where the founding fathers were about as clear as mud. The two phrases "well regulated" and "not be infringed" would seem to be in direct conflict with each other. But, if one studies the intent of the framers, I think it becomes clear that they were talking about state militias in the second amendment, which were to be a check on the military power of the federal government.
My attitude is that you can't just pick and choose which phrases matter to you and which you think are not that big of a deal. Either the constitution matters, or it doesn't. You can't just draw a line through "well regulated militia" because it conflicts with your sad Dirty Harry fantasies.
>>Is that more important to you than the collapse of the dollar?
>No, it is one issue of many.
And to me, the collapse of the dollar dwarfs things like whether or not it's ok to have a concealed handgun. How can I ever feel a sense of this personal safety that you mentioned if I have no job, no home, and no way to feed myself? And the Republican record on the economy is very clear. It's poor.
>>So do you have any specifics to talk about, or just the same old untrue talking points you got from Sean Hannity?
>Sean Hannity is a tool. I hate his fucking guts.
I'm glad that we finally found some common ground!
I appreciate you finding those Obama quotes. I had not heard any opinions from him on the subject. But, it's not like you won my vote with this new information. I don't really care about "concealed carry". Where in the constitution does it say that we have a right to bare concealed arms? It doesn't.
Also, I dispute your statement that Obama supports a total ban on handguns. All you've got to support you on that is a questionnaire that he supposedly filled out in 1996. The Obama campaign says that a staffer filled that out incorrectly. Besides, even if he really wanted to do that, do you think he could get it passed? Of course not. This is a non-issue, and just a distraction from the Republican record of incompetence over the last 8 years.
Honestly, I think it's a total fantasy for you to think that you're going to win a shootout with the bad guys. Fact is, if that happened with any frequency, the cops would support your position. But they don't. Virtually every police organization in the country supports tough gun control laws. Why do you suppose that is? Because they have to mop up the mess.
My point, once again, is that we have bigger fish to fry. With a healthy economy, your odds of ever needing to defend yourself with a gun are small. But we all know that crime rates rise as the economy goes downhill... and we are really picking up speed in our race to the bottom.
I think it's crazy to focus on guns right now, when our nation faces such huge problems. I don't think I've heard Obama mention guns or gun control once. So who is this boogie man who is trying to take your guns away?
We get it - you're fixated on your phallic symbol because you're an insecure person. How nice for you. Care to discuss any real issues?
Yes, I agree. Red vs blue is really just a distraction compared to the power of the almighty green of the dollar. After we just socialized our banks, I don't see how anyone in Washington can claim to be a real conservative. I think Barry Goldwater would have lit himself on fire on the floor of the Senate in protest if he was still around.
I didn't say any of that stuff, and you sure don't impress me much (or anyone else) by attempting to put words in my mouth.
Giving money to people who don't work hard? Nope, I'm against it. And I'm also against spending trillions of dollars on a war against a nation that posed little threat to us. That's my liberal definition of fiscal responsibility - don't run up the largest deficit in US history.
Also, I'm very protective of my right to bear arms. Of course, the constitution does say that I have that right in the context of a well-regulated militia, does it not? So things like the assault weapons ban that Joe Biden wrote would seem to fall under "regulation" to me. Is it really a huge problem for you that you're not allowed to own an AK-47? Is that more important to you than the collapse of the dollar?
So do you have any specifics to talk about, or just the same old untrue talking points you got from Sean Hannity?
I think it's ignorant and rude for you to suggest that liberals don't work as hard as conservatives, or don't love America as much. How do you know how hard I work? And how can you possibly see into my heart and tell me how much I love America? The fact is, you're simply spouting stereotypes that reflect your political bias.
And as to the spending, Bush had a republican congress for most of his reign, and they managed to get our government and our country into a pretty deep financial hole. Living below your means? What a joke.
My answer to this problem is simple. Fill up your hdd with legal but really gross images. Old people doing sexy times would be a good way to go. Then, the snoopes are forced to get an eyefull of some saggy luvin! I guess you are too, to some degree. But punishing fascists is never painless!
The times it doesn't hold true are when there are non-capitalist distortions to the system.
Yup, that's when it doesn't work. Which is ALWAYS. When your government hands over 700 billion dollars (to start) to private firms, without requiring much of anything in return, the very notion of a free market is laughable. When your government hands out massive contracts without bids, I ask you where the free markets are? When your tiny little labor dispute is engulfed in the larger non-free markets... then what the heck are you even talking about?
Your mythical free markets just don't exist. There is ALWAYS a market-warping externality... always. By the way, have you seen any unicorns lately? I hear they do very well in free markets.
That's not it. Most consumers have no clue that there is DRM on Bluray movies. The vast majority of the public has no clue what Bluray means. They don't understand what high def is, either.
I'm convinced that at least a third of consumers lack the visual acuity to tell HD from SD. And a third of consumers (at least) lack the mental acuity to select all the needed components and then hook them up properly. And I'm pretty sure that more than a third of consumers lack the funds to buy an HD set.
One can certainly belong to more than one of the groups mentioned above, or all three. And obviously those numbers are just guesses based on my personal observations. But membership in any one of those groups means that Bluray is pretty much useless to you.
I just don't think DRM is a factor here. Far too many people are too clueless to note that watching an SD cable feed on an HD capable set with the default settings results in a grossly distorted picture, where supermodels look chubby and Shaq looks short. And they just don't give a crap! How can you sell those people Bluray?
This is not super relevant to the article, but since you mention DVI, I wonder if you have a moment or two to clear up some confusion for me...
I'm curious as to why you have a strong preference for DVI over VGA. I know that it's a digital signal rather than analog, but I don't see much difference when I switch from one to the other. Also, I have yet to purchase a monitor that didn't have a VGA input. In fact, lots of the LCD TVs on the market these days have a VGA but not a DVI input.
Also, isn't DVI sorta on the way out, what with HDMI emerging recently? I have to say, I'm not super crazy about HDMI connectors... it doesn't sit in there firmly like a USB, and it can't be screwed in like VGA or DVI. I do like that it carries sound as well, however.
Amen. Free markets are a total illusion. How can there be free markets without free people? Open up any economics textbook and it will tell you that in a free market, all players play by the same rules. Obviously, this is not the case in the global economy. The road to serfdom indeed!
To me, the problem with the commercialization of the Internet so far has been that there's no way to tell what is a good business model, because things are too distorted by stock speculation. Google is fat with loads of cash from their stock sales. They don't need to pay their employees as much as they might have, because so many of them have made money on the stock. The stock price distorts the natural flow of the business model in countless other ways as well.
Being over-valued is not a business model, because you can't count on it to last. I should know, I was working at Yahoo when the 1.0 bubble burst.
The only way to know if the ad model is a good one or not is to see if people are willing to put up with those ads to get to the content. It worked for broadcast TV for years. But since the Internet in general is not really a free-standing economy, but rather one propped up by speculators, there is no way to know.
Yeah, the Sopranos ending didn't bother me either. David Chase was in such a predicament. Whether Tony lived or died, a lot of people would be pissed. So I thought he took a pretty clever way out - sort of a Kobiashi Maru for writers.
I'm so anti-spoiler that I won't even read reviews of novels or movies until after I'm done. Even when they think they're being nice and not spoilering, they still give away things that I'd prefer to discover on my own. With a writer that I have enjoyed as much as Stephenson, I'll just read anything he writes, regardless of reviews. His work is far from perfect, but certainly I consider him worth my time.
Slashdot Mirror
>> What possible advantage could there be in setting up a non-expert, non-gamer with Windows?
There are two. The first is hardware. For the dental practices that I support for a living, the digital xray sensors are Windows only. These people are not gamers, unless you count insane amounts of Freecell. They certainly are not experts on computers. But, they need their hardware.
The second is that users are often just used to Windows, and refuse to try something else. If all of the other women in her sewing circle use Windows, Gramma may be hesitant to change... no matter how much I beg, plead, cry, or cajole. Sometimes it's just easier to go through the hassle of Windows than it is to go through the pain of dealing with an angry customer/relative/nuisance.
Well I can answer number one for you. A million college students will (for credit) power the process with a sort of exercise bike. The college students will be powered by burritos. The problem with this is that the methane introduced into the atmosphere by eating all of those students digesting all of those burritos will utterly destroy life on Earth within days.
Ok, I'm being flip, but I'm trying to illustrate your insightful point - in order to actually do what is suggested, a lot of fuel must be burned. And burning fuel of various types is what got us here in the first place.
Honestly, I'm not smart enough to say whether this idea is total nonsense or not, but even a simple caveman like me suspects that we'd need some kind of "too cheap to meter" free energy machine to pull this off. And if we can do that, global warming wouldn't be much of an issue, because we'd all just bail on this issue-ridden planet in the freakin' STARSHIP ENTERPRISE... pew pew pew!!!!
Good point. There are no free lunches, it's just that the costs are often indirect, obscure, or simply trivial. In the case of FOSS, the developers donated their time. The software wasn't free, in the TANSTAAFL sense. It was donated to the users. And those good folks who donated their time did expect something in return. It might be the good feeling that comes from making the world a better place, the recognition of their peers, or something to put on a resume. Maybe they needed to write some software to help them do their job better, and they saw no reason not to share that labor with the world.
FOSS is not utterly free - it requires time and energy to make. No developer would create free software if they felt they got nothing out of the experience. It's just sad that some people don't get that there are other rewards for creating things besides money.
Colloquially, herpes means HSV II. Most people know that this definition is incorrect or at best incomplete, but not many can tell you why. Misinformation, rumor, and conjecture abound on this most sensitive of topics.
Few people realize that the orally transmitted version know as "mono" (the one that 90 percent of adults has) is another critter from the same family.
I think that your concern is valid, and has a pretty obvious solution: you tax the drugs, and put that money into the healthcare system. Problem solved.
That should go for cigarettes, snowboards, and anything else dangerous that is likely to incur extra health care costs. That seems like a pretty sensible way to force the people who are doing the most dangerous things to bear the burden.
No, but when I see those Video Professor ads, it sure does seem like they're the same type of organization. I was with epowerandprofits.com. They used to run a late night infomercial starring Chuck Woolery, of Love Connection fame. Sleaze!
It is absolutely shocking how easy it seems to be to set up a business that has no intention of offering the services that they claim to offer. Most people quickly see through these shams, but sadly, there really is a sucker born every minute, if not more frequently.
I once spent a few days working for a company that claimed to offer assistance with using eBay. It seemed legitimate enough at first. They sold an instructional book and a couple of CDs, and they offered a few other services like hosting images for your auctions.
But it quickly became clear that the whole thing was a scam. They ran infomercials late at night, which convinced people that it was trivially easy to make money online. Once the dupe called in, they were connected with a bored phone jockey who blazed through a rather lengthy terms of service. Buried in there somewhere was "oh by the way, we'll be dinging your credit card for 29.95 a month from now till doomsday".
Getting out was not easy, as the phone lines were always jammed. A 45 minute wait to cancel service was typical. And, once you got an operator, they were trained to stall, distract, or convince you to keep the service. It made canceling AOL seem very easy by comparison.
And the actual "service" that they offered was similar... an hour wait to talk to a human being, and when you got them, they didn't know much about eBay, and they certainly didn't have any secrets on how to get rich. They just tried to upsell you ever more expensive "services". Not making money yet? Must be because you need us to make you a custom web store, for another 2 thousand dollars.
The law really needs to change, to make scams like this less easy. The two owners of this shitty company were both quite well off. Once a number of complaints built up about their company, they just scrapped it. They always already two or three new schemes already in motion.
I quit without notice before I completed my second week. And this was during the dark times of the dotbust, when I was desperate for work. But not THAT desperate.
I think you're the one who didn't think it through. Or, it would seem, rtfa.
The republicans, according to this analogy, are not zombies. The zombies are (if we are to take this analogy seriously) like homeless people because they are dirty, clad in rags, and mumble to themselves They want to harm the innocent, hardworking living folks.
Also, the Democrats are not vampires. In the Dem version of the analogy, it's the aristocracy (as in the prototype, Count Dracula), who feed off the blood (hard work) of the poor peasants. That's what the Dems would have you believe.
So, you had it backwards. Got is straight now? Good.
These remarks are interesting and I believe true, but they don't address the whole equation. Suppliers of content are one part, but there also has to be a supplier of hosting bandwidth for blogs and other free content to continue in the present way. With corporations looking to tighten the books, charitable giving will surely decrease.
So I think it's fair to say that things will be effected by the bad economy, but to me saying "eliminate" is preposterous.
I do think it's entirely possible that Obama actually did fill out that questionnaire. It's entirely possible that when he was running for office in an urban and crime-ridden area, he took a more anti-gun stance. And then when he stepped out on to a larger stage, his opinion magically changed. The guy is a politician, after all. He does not walk on water.
That's not enough to get me to vote for McCain, mostly because I honestly do believe that, like Clinton, Obama would mostly posture for his base on guns, and then actually do little. To me, even suggesting a nationwide ban on handguns is preposterous. People would be up in arms - quite literally. I sure as shit ain't going to be coming to your house demanding that you turn your guns over to me. They couldn't pay me enough to do that. I value my freedoms and my carcass too much for that.
First off - a quarter at 50 feet? That is impressive. I think when Obama wins, he's gonna need guys like you to watch his butt. Have you applied for the Secret Service yet? The first black president is going to be a tempting target for the loonies of the world!
But seriously Crimson, I'm glad we had this discussion, because I do feel like we discovered that we agree more than we disagree. I do know the difference between Conservative and Neocon, and I think that what disturbed me so much about the last 8 years was how quickly so many Republicans seemed to abandon key parts of their conservative ideology in order to stay on the same page as the president. Whether Obama or McCain wins, I do think our nation will be in much much better hands. McCain has done some things that I strongly agreed with, like his campaign finance work (although much more still needs to be done in that area).
It might seem paradoxical to you, but I consider myself to be a liberal, and I also believe in small government and low taxes. I think that Clinton had a great record of fiscal responsibility. He mainly accomplished that by slashing the military budget. I hope that Obama can make some headway on our national debt by doing the same thing.
It sounds like you're a military man yourself, and if so, I thank you for your service. My father and both grandfathers served, and because of them and people like you, I didn't have to serve. I'm grateful for that. If Obama cuts the military budget and that puts you or any of your buddies out of work, I do feel bad about that, but I'm sure that a smart guy like you who has a record of military service will have no trouble finding a good job.
I wish you all the best in these troubled times. Keep your powder dry!
>>I didn't say any of that stuff
>No shit? I don't remember saying you did. They're questions. See the question marks at the end? Suggestive, sure. But, hey, get a grip.
Oh I have a grip. You're the one carrying a concealed weapon, not me. Good luck in your shoot out
>>Giving money to people who don't work hard? Nope, I'm against it.
>Well, that's not very left of you.
I don't need you to tell me what is and is not liberal, thanks.
>>And I'm also against spending trillions of dollars on a war against a nation that posed little threat to us.
>You make it sound like that's a conservative principle. It's not.
It most certainly is. How many Republicans (self-proclaimed conservatives, every one) were against the invasion of Iraq? Few, if any. I agree that it's not what conservatives say they believe in. But I don't care what they say, nearly so much as I care what they do. And what they do is support this war that has helped to bankrupt us.
>>Of course, the constitution does say that I have that right in the context of a well-regulated militia, does it not?
>Clause analysis aside (sorry, kind of in a hurry), I tend to look at the "shall not be infringed".
Well, this is one point where the founding fathers were about as clear as mud. The two phrases "well regulated" and "not be infringed" would seem to be in direct conflict with each other. But, if one studies the intent of the framers, I think it becomes clear that they were talking about state militias in the second amendment, which were to be a check on the military power of the federal government.
My attitude is that you can't just pick and choose which phrases matter to you and which you think are not that big of a deal. Either the constitution matters, or it doesn't. You can't just draw a line through "well regulated militia" because it conflicts with your sad Dirty Harry fantasies.
>>Is that more important to you than the collapse of the dollar?
>No, it is one issue of many.
And to me, the collapse of the dollar dwarfs things like whether or not it's ok to have a concealed handgun. How can I ever feel a sense of this personal safety that you mentioned if I have no job, no home, and no way to feed myself? And the Republican record on the economy is very clear. It's poor.
>>So do you have any specifics to talk about, or just the same old untrue talking points you got from Sean Hannity?
>Sean Hannity is a tool. I hate his fucking guts.
I'm glad that we finally found some common ground!
I appreciate you finding those Obama quotes. I had not heard any opinions from him on the subject. But, it's not like you won my vote with this new information. I don't really care about "concealed carry". Where in the constitution does it say that we have a right to bare concealed arms? It doesn't.
Also, I dispute your statement that Obama supports a total ban on handguns. All you've got to support you on that is a questionnaire that he supposedly filled out in 1996. The Obama campaign says that a staffer filled that out incorrectly. Besides, even if he really wanted to do that, do you think he could get it passed? Of course not. This is a non-issue, and just a distraction from the Republican record of incompetence over the last 8 years.
Honestly, I think it's a total fantasy for you to think that you're going to win a shootout with the bad guys. Fact is, if that happened with any frequency, the cops would support your position. But they don't. Virtually every police organization in the country supports tough gun control laws. Why do you suppose that is? Because they have to mop up the mess.
My point, once again, is that we have bigger fish to fry. With a healthy economy, your odds of ever needing to defend yourself with a gun are small. But we all know that crime rates rise as the economy goes downhill... and we are really picking up speed in our race to the bottom.
I think it's crazy to focus on guns right now, when our nation faces such huge problems. I don't think I've heard Obama mention guns or gun control once. So who is this boogie man who is trying to take your guns away?
We get it - you're fixated on your phallic symbol because you're an insecure person. How nice for you. Care to discuss any real issues?
Yes, I agree. Red vs blue is really just a distraction compared to the power of the almighty green of the dollar. After we just socialized our banks, I don't see how anyone in Washington can claim to be a real conservative. I think Barry Goldwater would have lit himself on fire on the floor of the Senate in protest if he was still around.
I didn't say any of that stuff, and you sure don't impress me much (or anyone else) by attempting to put words in my mouth.
Giving money to people who don't work hard? Nope, I'm against it. And I'm also against spending trillions of dollars on a war against a nation that posed little threat to us. That's my liberal definition of fiscal responsibility - don't run up the largest deficit in US history.
Also, I'm very protective of my right to bear arms. Of course, the constitution does say that I have that right in the context of a well-regulated militia, does it not? So things like the assault weapons ban that Joe Biden wrote would seem to fall under "regulation" to me. Is it really a huge problem for you that you're not allowed to own an AK-47? Is that more important to you than the collapse of the dollar?
So do you have any specifics to talk about, or just the same old untrue talking points you got from Sean Hannity?
I think it's ignorant and rude for you to suggest that liberals don't work as hard as conservatives, or don't love America as much. How do you know how hard I work? And how can you possibly see into my heart and tell me how much I love America? The fact is, you're simply spouting stereotypes that reflect your political bias.
And as to the spending, Bush had a republican congress for most of his reign, and they managed to get our government and our country into a pretty deep financial hole. Living below your means? What a joke.
My answer to this problem is simple. Fill up your hdd with legal but really gross images. Old people doing sexy times would be a good way to go. Then, the snoopes are forced to get an eyefull of some saggy luvin! I guess you are too, to some degree. But punishing fascists is never painless!
Yup, that's when it doesn't work. Which is ALWAYS. When your government hands over 700 billion dollars (to start) to private firms, without requiring much of anything in return, the very notion of a free market is laughable. When your government hands out massive contracts without bids, I ask you where the free markets are? When your tiny little labor dispute is engulfed in the larger non-free markets... then what the heck are you even talking about?
Your mythical free markets just don't exist. There is ALWAYS a market-warping externality... always. By the way, have you seen any unicorns lately? I hear they do very well in free markets.
That's not it. Most consumers have no clue that there is DRM on Bluray movies. The vast majority of the public has no clue what Bluray means. They don't understand what high def is, either.
I'm convinced that at least a third of consumers lack the visual acuity to tell HD from SD. And a third of consumers (at least) lack the mental acuity to select all the needed components and then hook them up properly. And I'm pretty sure that more than a third of consumers lack the funds to buy an HD set.
One can certainly belong to more than one of the groups mentioned above, or all three. And obviously those numbers are just guesses based on my personal observations. But membership in any one of those groups means that Bluray is pretty much useless to you.
I just don't think DRM is a factor here. Far too many people are too clueless to note that watching an SD cable feed on an HD capable set with the default settings results in a grossly distorted picture, where supermodels look chubby and Shaq looks short. And they just don't give a crap! How can you sell those people Bluray?
This is not super relevant to the article, but since you mention DVI, I wonder if you have a moment or two to clear up some confusion for me...
I'm curious as to why you have a strong preference for DVI over VGA. I know that it's a digital signal rather than analog, but I don't see much difference when I switch from one to the other. Also, I have yet to purchase a monitor that didn't have a VGA input. In fact, lots of the LCD TVs on the market these days have a VGA but not a DVI input.
Also, isn't DVI sorta on the way out, what with HDMI emerging recently? I have to say, I'm not super crazy about HDMI connectors... it doesn't sit in there firmly like a USB, and it can't be screwed in like VGA or DVI. I do like that it carries sound as well, however.
Amen. Free markets are a total illusion. How can there be free markets without free people? Open up any economics textbook and it will tell you that in a free market, all players play by the same rules. Obviously, this is not the case in the global economy. The road to serfdom indeed!
To me, the problem with the commercialization of the Internet so far has been that there's no way to tell what is a good business model, because things are too distorted by stock speculation. Google is fat with loads of cash from their stock sales. They don't need to pay their employees as much as they might have, because so many of them have made money on the stock. The stock price distorts the natural flow of the business model in countless other ways as well.
Being over-valued is not a business model, because you can't count on it to last. I should know, I was working at Yahoo when the 1.0 bubble burst.
The only way to know if the ad model is a good one or not is to see if people are willing to put up with those ads to get to the content. It worked for broadcast TV for years. But since the Internet in general is not really a free-standing economy, but rather one propped up by speculators, there is no way to know.
Yeah, the Sopranos ending didn't bother me either. David Chase was in such a predicament. Whether Tony lived or died, a lot of people would be pissed. So I thought he took a pretty clever way out - sort of a Kobiashi Maru for writers.
I'm so anti-spoiler that I won't even read reviews of novels or movies until after I'm done. Even when they think they're being nice and not spoilering, they still give away things that I'd prefer to discover on my own. With a writer that I have enjoyed as much as Stephenson, I'll just read anything he writes, regardless of reviews. His work is far from perfect, but certainly I consider him worth my time.
What about it made it seem rushed, if not loose ends in the plot?