Their attempts to expand human rights. I mean, I'd like the right to free healthcare, free housing, and a minimum standard of living. Sure I don't know who will actually provide said healthcare, build said housing, or develop said minimum standard of living, but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me. I'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments can't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech.
Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in? And why the fuck are these things "rights"? Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they don't give you these free services? I realize this is Slashdot, but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will?
And you really don't see anything wrong in literally forcing everyone else to bear the financial burden of your education?
Higher education is and should be a choice, not a right, and it's unfair to force people who either don't have the ability or the desire to pursue a higher education to shoulder the burden for those who do.
That doesn't mean governments shouldn't encourage education by offering (zero or very low interest) loans to individuals for education, or perhaps limiting the interest and payment options on educational loans (although I think that will force lenders to not borrow to risky individuals). I never met someone with high interest rate student loans who hadn't previously nuked their credit prior to school, and most of the people I met who've borrowed vast sums of money for school have done so because they have an inability to manage money: they buy expensive toys (even cars) and vacations, refuse to work at all, or choose to pay outrageous out-of-state tuition fees instead of going to a state school or community college.
And while I have no doubt we'll continue our inevitable slide towards socialism/communism/whatever and continue to gain "rights" on the labor of our fellow men (because hey, it's for the greater good, right? And nothing evil has ever been done in the name of the greater good...), there are far more logical and efficient ways of educating our populace than the nightmare of throwing truckloads of money at the problem.
Maybe "society" would be better with universal healthcare/education/etc, and while I realize that you may understand that every pound your government gave you someone else had to earn, there are a hundred or a thousand others who do not. People seem to forget these days that companies and governments aren't the source of wealth, and that every dollar/pound/yuan that governments give out (be it to corporations OR individuals) at no cost to them came at some cost to some individual (or in the case of printing money, at a cost to all of us).
I can't believe America fought a war for independence and a civil war to end the institution of slavery just so slavery could be gradually and democratically reinstated over generations; not on a single group, but on everyone with the audacity to live.
You don't really want lower interest rates on student loans; you want the government to spend more on making higher education affordable for those who qualify for it.
Who decides those qualifications? How will they be fair? Consider the FAFSA loans, which dangerously assumes your parents will pick up at least some of the tab of your education. But if your parents are well off and (*gasp*) tell you "son, you have to do this the hard way like we did" then you're up shit creek. I'm all for improving access to education for those who *deserve* it, but thinking everyone should go to college is as stupid as GWB's "No Child Left Behind" crap. Giving a generation of kids free money for college is just going to create a generation of baristas and wait{ers|resses} with communication degrees who are too busy daydreaming about their carefree glory days of the easy life in college to get your order correct.
My opinion: Improve access to science and engineering first and let the market handle the rest. Rich or poor, white or black, if you're smart and have the determination required to become a science or engineering student you shouldn't be concerned about how you're going to pay for it. Abort/drop out/fail and you're on the hook for the loan: discourage freeloaders. Scientists and engineers are the job creators: if it weren't for them we'd still be a agrarian society (or worse). So long as you give access to these loans based on ability, you'll probably never saturate or dilute the market with these skills or degrees, plus you'll still have ditch diggers and janitors.
The real problem now isn't access to or cost of higher education, it's that a bachelors degree has become the new high school diploma. This is not because we're any smarter now than we were 40 years ago, it's because everyone with a child thinks their child should go to college regardless of what their child wants and/or is capable of. Instead, a vast majority of college students are graduating with majors in communication, psychology, anthropology, etc, all of which I assume had some value 40 years ago but are now little more than very expensive consolation prizes. Even from relatively prestigious schools these degrees rarely mean little more than "I am able to google and write an essay on ______ the night before said essay is due". All we've done is cheapen what once were respectable degrees and careers, while raising a generation of people who feel entitled to success because it was given to them at such a young age. How sad is that?
Divert more kids to trade schools and community colleges. Free up Universities and private colleges for graduate programs and those dedicated and smart enough to get through community college. Don't give me that bullshit about the "college experience": the purpose of college is education, and the purpose of education is to learn; not to party, play online poker, or be promiscuous. Make science and engineering degrees available (but not free) for anyone willing and able to pursue it and you'll see the American economy take off like it did after WW2.
Finally, there's a lot more to life than school and work. Show some respect for the people who find happiness close to home or in the "simple" things in life. Don't presume that just because you've traveled all over Europe or have some initials after your name you have the right to tell someone else how to live or how to be happy: what made this country great is the freedom we have as individuals to choose our own destiny and make our own way. The more we treat people as individuals and not members of various social classes the better off our civilization will be.
1. Go to community college. Pretty much saves you like 50% on your tuition costs. This is such a ridiculously good idea it should be required.
2. Work during school. Yes, it's hard. But you get both work experience (invaluable if its related to your major, still good if its not) and money.
3. Don't go out of state.
4. Live at home if you can. Yeah, it sucks, but in some parts of the country it'll save you 10k/year or more.
5. Don't go to school. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not for everyone. I know a lot of psych/lit/communications/music majors that left school >40k in debt and starting below the people who worked right out of high school.
And that's the way it should be. "Society" shouldn't be the religion of the 21st century, punishing us for our success and demonizing us for our humanity, all the while demanding we tithe to a new God.
Self interest is why we're alive. It's why we have kids, it's why we fall in love, and it's why we go to work. Why isn't it good enough for a law-abiding, hard working citizen to live his or her life without the new original sin that is a "debt to society" for thier success? Maybe if everyone was more concerned about how they live *their* lives and less concerned with how their neighbors are living their's the world would be a better place.
When UO first came out (almost 11 years ago now) there was really very little grinding. Things got harder as the in game mechanics were adjusted, but macroing took a lot of the monotony out of the repetitive tasks required to raise skills.
Of course when UO came out, it was raw, untamed, and breaking new ground in gaming. There was a lot more risk involved and a lot less rules enforcing any kind of social behavior; looking back, I miss watching the enforcement of social order by the players and not the game. It was an exciting if sometimes frustrating time in gaming. As "hardcore" as games like EQ and WoW turned out to be, they don't even compare to UO in a lot of ways.
In the end, it was crushed by its own popularity - things have a way of inevitably declining into mediocrity as their popularity explodes, only to die a slow death as they breath life into new stars around them.
But if there's one phrase I would never use to describe UO, it would be "monotonous grindfest."
Can someone explain to those of us "stuck in the west" exactly what an "Asian Style" MMO is? Is it a game where the men look like women and the women are hot?
Mouse-driven gaming sounds scary, kind of like using Macs before the switch to OSX and multi-button mice.
Uh, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the threat of imminent bodily harm "I'm going to kill him" is just a TAD different than the at-best oral contract "I'll give you a million dollars if you can jump on one foot."
You've made an excellent distinction, but both systems are in error.
I think class-based law is hypocritical in a nation "Where all men are created equal." Having a tiered law system smacks of "separate but equal" combined with a form of hyper-political correctness, neither of which are healthy for an open, democratic society. Discrimination is a property of Humanity, to deny it is foolhardy; all points of view have a place but are not all equal, to equate them all tips the scale in favor of anarchy over order. The concept that skinheads murdering a black man is a "hate crime", as if it were any worse than skinheads murdering anyone else, appalls me: murder is murder and the punishment for murder should be based on that fact alone. You shouldn't be punished for who you target, but for what actions you take and the consequences thereof - yet "hate crime" legislation does just the opposite.
I believe in equal protection and equal punishment. That includes things like killing law enforcers or heads of state - the balance is in the fact that we give police rights above and beyond that of ordinary citizens to protect themselves and we provide private or military security for heads of state. So you can stop wondering about that.
Lady Justice is blind, not telepathic, and we do disservice to ourselves and our society by pretending otherwise.
Just wait until b.net starts adding xbox/wii/ps3 "features" such as avatars, achievements, etc, etc. You know, the bullshit that contributes nothing to gameplay but allows the marketing department to include "social networking" on the product description. Yup, I can definitely see how lag, random disconnects, and chat rooms full of prepubescent retards will improve the "quality" of my experience.
I had immense fun playing Blizzard's classics on LAN (and to a lesser degree on b.net), ranging from WC2 to Diablo 2. Saying I'm disappointed is an understatement; I'm fucking outraged.
I don't understand why Blizzard has arrived at the illogical conclusion that this is an anti piracy/quality measure, as loyal customers like me aren't going to shell out $60 for a crippled game and are all too familiar with b.net's "quality". If you want to stop piracy, lower prices and cease punishing your returning customer base.
Shit like b.net is just built in DRM, so that when Blizzard inevitably closes their doors all their games cease functioning as well. So much for posterity.
I don't think I'd say China is "cooperating extensively," or else they'd crack down on the massive theft of American IP/piracy and would trade "dollar for dollar," instead of the huge deficit America is incurring.
They also purposely keep their currency weak/deflated to maintain the cheap price of Chinese manufactured goods on the international market, a deliberately anti-competitive (and anti-free market) move.
Don't get me wrong, our economic relationship with China has been good for America, but it has been and will continue to be much, much better for China.
Bullshit. A reasonable level of taxation to fulfill the obligations of government is understandable, an unreasonable level of taxation to expand the role of government far, far, far, far beyond it's purpose is NOT understandable, particularly in a nation which expounds freedom as a way of life. How is it "patriotic" to starve our businesses of competitiveness and growth?
Private property IS one of those freedoms we enjoy, and the fruits of our labors ARE our private property.
For a crowd that is so pro-privacy and civil liberties I do not understand why the slashdot readers are so ready to accept a government which continues to expand faster than population growth + inflation. Private property IS a civil liberty and it IS patriotic to protect it.
I would die for this country, but I will be damned if I support the ever-growing gov't dependent class which continually sets the standard of freedom lower.
There should be zero corporate taxes. I would much rather see corporations retain/hire employees than pay the federal government protection money - let the people do that.
If you think manufacturing will ever move back to CA, you don't live in CA. China, India, South America, Russia, Africa, and Eastern Europe are all far cheaper than anti-business CA. There's a reason Apple manufacturers all those ipods in China, and it's not because CA is a wonderful state to live in with a worker OR corporate friendly tax code.
What kind of backwards fucking world do we live in that thinks a bigger government is the solution to all our problems? Did you people read 1984? Animal Farm? The Constitution of the USA? Any history between 1700-1900? The Federalist Papers?
Have you ever heard the phrase "Good enough for government work?" Is that the attitude you people want from the people managing the healthcare of you and your family? Do you really not see that government-controlled anything is the ULTIMATE MONOPOLY, because there is NO competition, NO desire for efficiency (it will cost jobs, waaaah), because there will be far too low qualifications for workers?
Christ, it's like asking everything in userland to run in ring 0 instead.
1. If it saves money why does it cost more and necessitate raising taxes?
2. If you want to save money simply deny people access to medical care if they aren't willing to sign a financial liability waiver (this would be signed by your legal guardian at first and then yourself upon emancipation). This would essentially be a contract saying you're required to meet your financial obligations after receiving care, be it through your health insurance, in cash, a loan repayment, or wage garnishment.
3. If you must have socialized health care, deny health care to felons (until their probation is complete) and illegal immigrants. You shouldn't get a free ride courtesy of the tax payer if you can't be bothered to obey the law or aren't a citizen. (Don't like it? Leave the fucking country.)
Frankly, society (I mean tax payers) do not "owe" you free medical care and the medical industry isn't some kind of subservient slave class. It's as stupid as the UN's "right to housing" - who builds your houses? where is your house? how big is your house? who decides who gets the nicest house and where? If we're going to slide into communism, let's do it quick so that the rest of us who actually appreciate individual freedom, responsibility, and a powerful but limited in breadth federal government can get to work restoring the Constitution instead of these shenanigans where we are so willing to sacrifice liberty for tyranny, be it to Capital Hill or to The People.
...No, in Communism, there is no private property and all property is publicly owned, and everyone is paid according to their need and not necessarily their ability. I'd say that's a bit more than just a political structure.
Because then you get labeled as a "right-wing fringe" Libertarian and no one will take you seriously, regardless of any rationality and logic in your arguments. They're the unfairly labeled internet trolls of the political world.
Personally, I find Libertarians to be a perfect blend of fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and laissez-faire social values. Much less emphasis on the Federal government's one-size fits all approach to problems also appeals to me. After all, I like my Federal Gov't like I like my kernels: small, fast, and unnoticeable, none of which describes the Fed. under R&D's.
More socially open minded than Republicans, but less socialist than Democrats, and with a greater emphasis on personal liberty and fiscal responsibility than either, Libertarians are the silently ignored third option.
The AC was a douchebag, but I have to call shenanigans as well...maybe you meant "circa-2001"? You did NOT have a laptop that did 1400x1050 in 1991. The first Mac PowerBooks's came out in '91, and they had tiny monochrome screens, while the IBM thinkpads had some of the early 10" TFT LCDs. Most computers still used VGA, and were doing what...320x240 or 640x480 at the time?
Hell, I'd like to know how 1.6 million processors can fit in just 96 racks. That's more than 16 thousand processors per rack. Either these aren't standard microprocessors or someone got their numbers a couple of orders of magnitude off.
Even if you could get 16000 modern server processors into a rack, the power density alone would probably cause it to burst into flames (>1.6 MW)!
I'm sure I'll just get marked as troll/flamebait/whatever for this, but I have the karma to burn.
Why was it OK for Obama to sidestep the real, legal, and very Constitutional issue of his place of birth? All he had to do to quell the dissenters was release a single piece of paper and yet he provided what is unarguably a falsified document. Is this not a lie worthy of our attention? Shouldn't we require our government officials to be transparent in this regard, especially someone who's going to be the "Leader of the Free World"? The charges aren't anywhere near as far fetched or nutty as the truthers or the NASA-haters, but the sheer popularity of the man demands they be dismissed. Instead, people dismiss it out of hand not because Obama is beyond reproach, but because people permit him to be.
The fact of the matter is, we live in a place and time in the world where society picks and chooses which laws our leaders can and can't be held accountable for. Very few people care about the "rule of law" in any absolute terms and both political parties actively revoke and limit our Constitutional rights, disturbingly often with the support of private citizens. We gleefully revoke rights of our neighbors in the name of safety and security. This generation of Americans is a spiteful, self-loathing, hateful group, asking not what can they do for their country but demanding what their country can do for them.
Not to you, slashdotter, who sees these logos all the time. To the casually stroller-by, who sees tech logos once per fortnight, they will easily be confused. What is red, green, and blue and deals with computers? If today it is AVG / Google / MS and tomorrow it is something else then there _will_ be confusion and brand dilution.
The letter g might be confused with the letter g? Say it aint so!
I guess it depends on how you define the college "experience": if it's to get wasted and have fun, then you probably don't belong in college. But if you're going to/study/ something you love - astronomy, art, history, whatever - then it's OK.
I think we're both trying to say the same thing: if you're not going to take your education seriously, just don't go.;)
There are way too many people going to college just for the experience.
Granted, I went to a liberal arts college so my perspective may be somewhat different from most here, but I don't think that there's anything necessarily wrong with this. Going to college to get an education, even one that you won't use in your career (assuming you even decide to have a career) isn't wrong as long as you know that that's why you're going and you're OK with it. I know quite a few folks who got degrees that they've never used to make a dime, but are glad that they go the degrees for the way that that education has enriched their lives.
But there IS something wrong with this. People go to college for many different reasons, but a *lot* of people go because it's expected of them, either by their parents, their high school, or the local culture they grew up in. Going to college IS wrong if you're just looking for a (very expensive) 4-year vacation. People who do this end up learning little, are unprepared for the real world, and even more unprepared for the debts they're now saddled with.
It's one thing to go to college because you're genuinely interested in the subject you've chosen and another thing entirely to want to party/be independent/have fun. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but if your reason to go is the later one then I suggest you get out of the way for people who are more serious about their educations and find a different path in life.
Then don't buy the fucking products. It's not NASA's job to take patents and turn them into business opportunities for itself. FFS, I expect a level of stupidity on/., but this the shit on here today is exceptional.
This is nothing but a good thing. NASA gets money back. Industry gets stuff to make new products/services from, which creates jobs and possibly new peripheral technology...how is this anything than a bad thing? Is NASA supposed to commercialize it's patents and sell you shit for cheap? Were you fucking born yesterday? Some people here need to grow the fuck up and realize shit isn't free.
Your first line is pretty trollish, but I agree with some of the points you make later. But first...
Are you actually naive enough to buy this "our sales and performance are bad because Vista isn't optimized, omg!" bullshit? Do you think XP, OSX, and for that matter, Linux, are generally "optimized for SSDs"? This is a plea to investors and market analysts, saying "look, it's not our fault our numbers suck...it's Vista! Blame them!" It's a little after the fact to be blaming Vista on your shitty performance - Vista has been around long enough for them to get their act together.
I remember the backlash when XP became mainstream and MSFT was everyone's favorite whipping boy because "Windows 98SE had better performance" and "Windows 2000 doesn't have a playskool theme." Now everyone swears by XP. Not that Vista is a fantastic or even decent OS - but it's become everyone's favorite whipping boy, the George Bush of the technology industry, and it's more than a little retarded.
I'd like to see MSFT bring modularity and optionality to more of it's core components (read: remove IE and WMP). And they absolutely should leverage their Hypervisor tech, using it as a foundation for backwards compatibility - how great would it be to be able to run your legacy apps in a well-hidden (previous) Windows virtual machine?
But the fact of the matter is, MSFT has the tech world by the balls, and the day when "openoffice experience" and "Microsoft Office experience" are equivalent on a secretaries resume are a long, long way off.
Slashdot Mirror
Their attempts to expand human rights. I mean, I'd like the right to free healthcare, free housing, and a minimum standard of living. Sure I don't know who will actually provide said healthcare, build said housing, or develop said minimum standard of living, but since I have the god given right to it I expect someone to get off their ass and give it to me. I'm just sooooo glad things like that are on the list when governments can't be bothered to permit something as simple as free speech.
Does anyone really take the U.N. seriously considering who they let in? And why the fuck are these things "rights"? Are doctors and contractors going to go to jail if they don't give you these free services? I realize this is Slashdot, but is anyone actually naive enough to believe we're ever going to achieve some star trekesque utopia without physically removing whatever region of the brain provides free will?
And you really don't see anything wrong in literally forcing everyone else to bear the financial burden of your education?
Higher education is and should be a choice, not a right, and it's unfair to force people who either don't have the ability or the desire to pursue a higher education to shoulder the burden for those who do.
That doesn't mean governments shouldn't encourage education by offering (zero or very low interest) loans to individuals for education, or perhaps limiting the interest and payment options on educational loans (although I think that will force lenders to not borrow to risky individuals). I never met someone with high interest rate student loans who hadn't previously nuked their credit prior to school, and most of the people I met who've borrowed vast sums of money for school have done so because they have an inability to manage money: they buy expensive toys (even cars) and vacations, refuse to work at all, or choose to pay outrageous out-of-state tuition fees instead of going to a state school or community college.
And while I have no doubt we'll continue our inevitable slide towards socialism/communism/whatever and continue to gain "rights" on the labor of our fellow men (because hey, it's for the greater good, right? And nothing evil has ever been done in the name of the greater good...), there are far more logical and efficient ways of educating our populace than the nightmare of throwing truckloads of money at the problem.
Maybe "society" would be better with universal healthcare/education/etc, and while I realize that you may understand that every pound your government gave you someone else had to earn, there are a hundred or a thousand others who do not. People seem to forget these days that companies and governments aren't the source of wealth, and that every dollar/pound/yuan that governments give out (be it to corporations OR individuals) at no cost to them came at some cost to some individual (or in the case of printing money, at a cost to all of us).
I can't believe America fought a war for independence and a civil war to end the institution of slavery just so slavery could be gradually and democratically reinstated over generations; not on a single group, but on everyone with the audacity to live.
So what if they do want "to get rich with no risk"? It's their money and it's not like anyone is forced into borrowing from them.
I'm guessing you're "Libertarian" in name only, since I can't imagine a libertarian demanding that a lender be forced to lend on a borrower's terms.
You don't really want lower interest rates on student loans; you want the government to spend more on making higher education affordable for those who qualify for it.
Who decides those qualifications? How will they be fair? Consider the FAFSA loans, which dangerously assumes your parents will pick up at least some of the tab of your education. But if your parents are well off and (*gasp*) tell you "son, you have to do this the hard way like we did" then you're up shit creek. I'm all for improving access to education for those who *deserve* it, but thinking everyone should go to college is as stupid as GWB's "No Child Left Behind" crap. Giving a generation of kids free money for college is just going to create a generation of baristas and wait{ers|resses} with communication degrees who are too busy daydreaming about their carefree glory days of the easy life in college to get your order correct.
My opinion: Improve access to science and engineering first and let the market handle the rest. Rich or poor, white or black, if you're smart and have the determination required to become a science or engineering student you shouldn't be concerned about how you're going to pay for it. Abort/drop out/fail and you're on the hook for the loan: discourage freeloaders. Scientists and engineers are the job creators: if it weren't for them we'd still be a agrarian society (or worse). So long as you give access to these loans based on ability, you'll probably never saturate or dilute the market with these skills or degrees, plus you'll still have ditch diggers and janitors.
The real problem now isn't access to or cost of higher education, it's that a bachelors degree has become the new high school diploma. This is not because we're any smarter now than we were 40 years ago, it's because everyone with a child thinks their child should go to college regardless of what their child wants and/or is capable of. Instead, a vast majority of college students are graduating with majors in communication, psychology, anthropology, etc, all of which I assume had some value 40 years ago but are now little more than very expensive consolation prizes. Even from relatively prestigious schools these degrees rarely mean little more than "I am able to google and write an essay on ______ the night before said essay is due". All we've done is cheapen what once were respectable degrees and careers, while raising a generation of people who feel entitled to success because it was given to them at such a young age. How sad is that?
Divert more kids to trade schools and community colleges. Free up Universities and private colleges for graduate programs and those dedicated and smart enough to get through community college. Don't give me that bullshit about the "college experience": the purpose of college is education, and the purpose of education is to learn; not to party, play online poker, or be promiscuous. Make science and engineering degrees available (but not free) for anyone willing and able to pursue it and you'll see the American economy take off like it did after WW2.
Finally, there's a lot more to life than school and work. Show some respect for the people who find happiness close to home or in the "simple" things in life. Don't presume that just because you've traveled all over Europe or have some initials after your name you have the right to tell someone else how to live or how to be happy: what made this country great is the freedom we have as individuals to choose our own destiny and make our own way. The more we treat people as individuals and not members of various social classes the better off our civilization will be.
No kidding.
There are tons of options:
1. Go to community college. Pretty much saves you like 50% on your tuition costs. This is such a ridiculously good idea it should be required.
2. Work during school. Yes, it's hard. But you get both work experience (invaluable if its related to your major, still good if its not) and money.
3. Don't go out of state.
4. Live at home if you can. Yeah, it sucks, but in some parts of the country it'll save you 10k/year or more.
5. Don't go to school. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not for everyone. I know a lot of psych/lit/communications/music majors that left school >40k in debt and starting below the people who worked right out of high school.
And that's the way it should be. "Society" shouldn't be the religion of the 21st century, punishing us for our success and demonizing us for our humanity, all the while demanding we tithe to a new God.
Self interest is why we're alive. It's why we have kids, it's why we fall in love, and it's why we go to work. Why isn't it good enough for a law-abiding, hard working citizen to live his or her life without the new original sin that is a "debt to society" for thier success? Maybe if everyone was more concerned about how they live *their* lives and less concerned with how their neighbors are living their's the world would be a better place.
When UO first came out (almost 11 years ago now) there was really very little grinding. Things got harder as the in game mechanics were adjusted, but macroing took a lot of the monotony out of the repetitive tasks required to raise skills.
Of course when UO came out, it was raw, untamed, and breaking new ground in gaming. There was a lot more risk involved and a lot less rules enforcing any kind of social behavior; looking back, I miss watching the enforcement of social order by the players and not the game. It was an exciting if sometimes frustrating time in gaming. As "hardcore" as games like EQ and WoW turned out to be, they don't even compare to UO in a lot of ways.
In the end, it was crushed by its own popularity - things have a way of inevitably declining into mediocrity as their popularity explodes, only to die a slow death as they breath life into new stars around them.
But if there's one phrase I would never use to describe UO, it would be "monotonous grindfest."
Can someone explain to those of us "stuck in the west" exactly what an "Asian Style" MMO is? Is it a game where the men look like women and the women are hot? Mouse-driven gaming sounds scary, kind of like using Macs before the switch to OSX and multi-button mice.
Uh, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the threat of imminent bodily harm "I'm going to kill him" is just a TAD different than the at-best oral contract "I'll give you a million dollars if you can jump on one foot."
I'll just leave it at that.
You've made an excellent distinction, but both systems are in error.
I think class-based law is hypocritical in a nation "Where all men are created equal." Having a tiered law system smacks of "separate but equal" combined with a form of hyper-political correctness, neither of which are healthy for an open, democratic society. Discrimination is a property of Humanity, to deny it is foolhardy; all points of view have a place but are not all equal, to equate them all tips the scale in favor of anarchy over order. The concept that skinheads murdering a black man is a "hate crime", as if it were any worse than skinheads murdering anyone else, appalls me: murder is murder and the punishment for murder should be based on that fact alone. You shouldn't be punished for who you target, but for what actions you take and the consequences thereof - yet "hate crime" legislation does just the opposite.
I believe in equal protection and equal punishment. That includes things like killing law enforcers or heads of state - the balance is in the fact that we give police rights above and beyond that of ordinary citizens to protect themselves and we provide private or military security for heads of state. So you can stop wondering about that.
Lady Justice is blind, not telepathic, and we do disservice to ourselves and our society by pretending otherwise.
Just wait until b.net starts adding xbox/wii/ps3 "features" such as avatars, achievements, etc, etc. You know, the bullshit that contributes nothing to gameplay but allows the marketing department to include "social networking" on the product description. Yup, I can definitely see how lag, random disconnects, and chat rooms full of prepubescent retards will improve the "quality" of my experience.
I had immense fun playing Blizzard's classics on LAN (and to a lesser degree on b.net), ranging from WC2 to Diablo 2. Saying I'm disappointed is an understatement; I'm fucking outraged.
I don't understand why Blizzard has arrived at the illogical conclusion that this is an anti piracy/quality measure, as loyal customers like me aren't going to shell out $60 for a crippled game and are all too familiar with b.net's "quality". If you want to stop piracy, lower prices and cease punishing your returning customer base.
Shit like b.net is just built in DRM, so that when Blizzard inevitably closes their doors all their games cease functioning as well. So much for posterity.
I don't think I'd say China is "cooperating extensively," or else they'd crack down on the massive theft of American IP/piracy and would trade "dollar for dollar," instead of the huge deficit America is incurring.
They also purposely keep their currency weak/deflated to maintain the cheap price of Chinese manufactured goods on the international market, a deliberately anti-competitive (and anti-free market) move.
Don't get me wrong, our economic relationship with China has been good for America, but it has been and will continue to be much, much better for China.
Bullshit. A reasonable level of taxation to fulfill the obligations of government is understandable, an unreasonable level of taxation to expand the role of government far, far, far, far beyond it's purpose is NOT understandable, particularly in a nation which expounds freedom as a way of life. How is it "patriotic" to starve our businesses of competitiveness and growth?
Private property IS one of those freedoms we enjoy, and the fruits of our labors ARE our private property.
For a crowd that is so pro-privacy and civil liberties I do not understand why the slashdot readers are so ready to accept a government which continues to expand faster than population growth + inflation. Private property IS a civil liberty and it IS patriotic to protect it.
I would die for this country, but I will be damned if I support the ever-growing gov't dependent class which continually sets the standard of freedom lower.
There should be zero corporate taxes. I would much rather see corporations retain/hire employees than pay the federal government protection money - let the people do that.
If you think manufacturing will ever move back to CA, you don't live in CA. China, India, South America, Russia, Africa, and Eastern Europe are all far cheaper than anti-business CA. There's a reason Apple manufacturers all those ipods in China, and it's not because CA is a wonderful state to live in with a worker OR corporate friendly tax code.
What kind of backwards fucking world do we live in that thinks a bigger government is the solution to all our problems? Did you people read 1984? Animal Farm? The Constitution of the USA? Any history between 1700-1900? The Federalist Papers?
Have you ever heard the phrase "Good enough for government work?" Is that the attitude you people want from the people managing the healthcare of you and your family? Do you really not see that government-controlled anything is the ULTIMATE MONOPOLY, because there is NO competition, NO desire for efficiency (it will cost jobs, waaaah), because there will be far too low qualifications for workers?
Christ, it's like asking everything in userland to run in ring 0 instead.
1. If it saves money why does it cost more and necessitate raising taxes?
2. If you want to save money simply deny people access to medical care if they aren't willing to sign a financial liability waiver (this would be signed by your legal guardian at first and then yourself upon emancipation). This would essentially be a contract saying you're required to meet your financial obligations after receiving care, be it through your health insurance, in cash, a loan repayment, or wage garnishment.
3. If you must have socialized health care, deny health care to felons (until their probation is complete) and illegal immigrants. You shouldn't get a free ride courtesy of the tax payer if you can't be bothered to obey the law or aren't a citizen. (Don't like it? Leave the fucking country.)
Frankly, society (I mean tax payers) do not "owe" you free medical care and the medical industry isn't some kind of subservient slave class. It's as stupid as the UN's "right to housing" - who builds your houses? where is your house? how big is your house? who decides who gets the nicest house and where? If we're going to slide into communism, let's do it quick so that the rest of us who actually appreciate individual freedom, responsibility, and a powerful but limited in breadth federal government can get to work restoring the Constitution instead of these shenanigans where we are so willing to sacrifice liberty for tyranny, be it to Capital Hill or to The People.
...No, in Communism, there is no private property and all property is publicly owned, and everyone is paid according to their need and not necessarily their ability. I'd say that's a bit more than just a political structure.
Socialism is a stepping stone towards Communism.
Because then you get labeled as a "right-wing fringe" Libertarian and no one will take you seriously, regardless of any rationality and logic in your arguments. They're the unfairly labeled internet trolls of the political world.
Personally, I find Libertarians to be a perfect blend of fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and laissez-faire social values. Much less emphasis on the Federal government's one-size fits all approach to problems also appeals to me. After all, I like my Federal Gov't like I like my kernels: small, fast, and unnoticeable, none of which describes the Fed. under R&D's.
More socially open minded than Republicans, but less socialist than Democrats, and with a greater emphasis on personal liberty and fiscal responsibility than either, Libertarians are the silently ignored third option.
The AC was a douchebag, but I have to call shenanigans as well...maybe you meant "circa-2001"? You did NOT have a laptop that did 1400x1050 in 1991. The first Mac PowerBooks's came out in '91, and they had tiny monochrome screens, while the IBM thinkpads had some of the early 10" TFT LCDs. Most computers still used VGA, and were doing what...320x240 or 640x480 at the time?
2000 called, they want their troll back.
Hell, I'd like to know how 1.6 million processors can fit in just 96 racks. That's more than 16 thousand processors per rack. Either these aren't standard microprocessors or someone got their numbers a couple of orders of magnitude off.
Even if you could get 16000 modern server processors into a rack, the power density alone would probably cause it to burst into flames (>1.6 MW)!
I'm sure I'll just get marked as troll/flamebait/whatever for this, but I have the karma to burn.
Why was it OK for Obama to sidestep the real, legal, and very Constitutional issue of his place of birth? All he had to do to quell the dissenters was release a single piece of paper and yet he provided what is unarguably a falsified document. Is this not a lie worthy of our attention? Shouldn't we require our government officials to be transparent in this regard, especially someone who's going to be the "Leader of the Free World"? The charges aren't anywhere near as far fetched or nutty as the truthers or the NASA-haters, but the sheer popularity of the man demands they be dismissed. Instead, people dismiss it out of hand not because Obama is beyond reproach, but because people permit him to be.
The fact of the matter is, we live in a place and time in the world where society picks and chooses which laws our leaders can and can't be held accountable for. Very few people care about the "rule of law" in any absolute terms and both political parties actively revoke and limit our Constitutional rights, disturbingly often with the support of private citizens. We gleefully revoke rights of our neighbors in the name of safety and security. This generation of Americans is a spiteful, self-loathing, hateful group, asking not what can they do for their country but demanding what their country can do for them.
Not to you, slashdotter, who sees these logos all the time. To the casually stroller-by, who sees tech logos once per fortnight, they will easily be confused. What is red, green, and blue and deals with computers? If today it is AVG / Google / MS and tomorrow it is something else then there _will_ be confusion and brand dilution.
The letter g might be confused with the letter g? Say it aint so!
I guess it depends on how you define the college "experience": if it's to get wasted and have fun, then you probably don't belong in college. But if you're going to /study/ something you love - astronomy, art, history, whatever - then it's OK.
;)
I think we're both trying to say the same thing: if you're not going to take your education seriously, just don't go.
Granted, I went to a liberal arts college so my perspective may be somewhat different from most here, but I don't think that there's anything necessarily wrong with this. Going to college to get an education, even one that you won't use in your career (assuming you even decide to have a career) isn't wrong as long as you know that that's why you're going and you're OK with it. I know quite a few folks who got degrees that they've never used to make a dime, but are glad that they go the degrees for the way that that education has enriched their lives.
But there IS something wrong with this. People go to college for many different reasons, but a *lot* of people go because it's expected of them, either by their parents, their high school, or the local culture they grew up in. Going to college IS wrong if you're just looking for a (very expensive) 4-year vacation. People who do this end up learning little, are unprepared for the real world, and even more unprepared for the debts they're now saddled with.
It's one thing to go to college because you're genuinely interested in the subject you've chosen and another thing entirely to want to party/be independent/have fun. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but if your reason to go is the later one then I suggest you get out of the way for people who are more serious about their educations and find a different path in life.
Then don't buy the fucking products. It's not NASA's job to take patents and turn them into business opportunities for itself. FFS, I expect a level of stupidity on /., but this the shit on here today is exceptional.
This is nothing but a good thing. NASA gets money back. Industry gets stuff to make new products/services from, which creates jobs and possibly new peripheral technology...how is this anything than a bad thing? Is NASA supposed to commercialize it's patents and sell you shit for cheap? Were you fucking born yesterday? Some people here need to grow the fuck up and realize shit isn't free.
Your first line is pretty trollish, but I agree with some of the points you make later. But first... Are you actually naive enough to buy this "our sales and performance are bad because Vista isn't optimized, omg!" bullshit? Do you think XP, OSX, and for that matter, Linux, are generally "optimized for SSDs"? This is a plea to investors and market analysts, saying "look, it's not our fault our numbers suck...it's Vista! Blame them!" It's a little after the fact to be blaming Vista on your shitty performance - Vista has been around long enough for them to get their act together. I remember the backlash when XP became mainstream and MSFT was everyone's favorite whipping boy because "Windows 98SE had better performance" and "Windows 2000 doesn't have a playskool theme." Now everyone swears by XP. Not that Vista is a fantastic or even decent OS - but it's become everyone's favorite whipping boy, the George Bush of the technology industry, and it's more than a little retarded. I'd like to see MSFT bring modularity and optionality to more of it's core components (read: remove IE and WMP). And they absolutely should leverage their Hypervisor tech, using it as a foundation for backwards compatibility - how great would it be to be able to run your legacy apps in a well-hidden (previous) Windows virtual machine? But the fact of the matter is, MSFT has the tech world by the balls, and the day when "openoffice experience" and "Microsoft Office experience" are equivalent on a secretaries resume are a long, long way off.