If he had been arrested for exercising his 5th amendment rights (i.e. not talking), he could've brought up, without being silly, the original reason he was detained at security in the first place. That reason being a comic book well within his guaranteed 1st amendment rights to have and to have authored. The fact that it did not get that far is a relief, I suppose, but like the OP said, it would've forced some sort of action on just how far we're all going to let the government piss on our rights in the name of "safety."
Exactly. They want to eliminate the right of first sale, selling licenses only, but do not want the burden of replacing media, and support of the license that they enjoy now as "you bought it, now give us $20 for a replacement disc". It's getting pretty stupid, and soon even the die-hards will abandon the whole thing because of the incessant inconvenience of being a "valued customer." Both Gamestop and eBay will suffer if the games lose their first sale... and with giants like Best Buy and Amazon going after the used market... perhaps there will be more pushback from the retail community than we anticipate. Here's to hoping.:)
He is the same as Congress, yet we voted the "other" party back into power. Funny that. If this isn't PROOF FUCKING POSITIVE that there IS no two-party system anymore, I'll eat my hat. Don't give him such a free pass, though. If you blamed Bush for anything in the last 8 years, you can't now NOT blame Obama for the same fucking things.
There is no free pass. Obama has the bully pulpit (the press), and could conceivably do better if he were actually DIFFERENT from the last moron in charge. But it's clear that he IS NOT. Change indeed. What fucking change? I blame Obama as much as Bush for raping the Constitution. They both have left their retarded DNA all over our sacred document. The same with Congress.... so cutting Obama slack because he's "just a puppet" and vilifying Shrub for the same thing is a double standard. Blame them all appropriately and maybe, just fucking maybe, we'll get some REAL change with an ACTUAL different party. But I won't hold my breath... sentiment like yours is exactly why we never change... we find ways to avoid blaming THEM ALL, and doing what the Founders said... GET RID OF THEM. *sigh* I am really close to giving up... but Obama, like Shrub, is pissing me off entirely too much to throw in the towel just yet. It's close though.
The games aren't so bad on the 360.. if the damn thing'd ever work reliably, it'd be a nice console. The Ps3 is my multiplatform game choice simply because I'm on my 4th 360 and only my 1st PS3 (bought at launch... I waited a bit for the 360 to calm down... but relatively launch-worthy.). I just don't want to put hours into a game only to have the console die on me at a critical point in the game and wait a week or two to get it back. It's just not worth the hassle, considering the price of games to begin with...
And regarding #3, Microsoft got HAMMERED for shuffling the original Xbox out to pasture too soon for people. They won't make that mistake again. They would lose what little goodwill they have left (*cough* shitty hardware *cough*) if they orphaned the 360 in the same timeframe as the original Xbox.
You've made some excellent points... and as an AC no less.:) I tend to lean towards games being better than last-gen, because I simply play more of them now than I did last gen I suppose. But you're right, People aren't going to spend even $200 to $300 for a console now and all of a sudden next year be burdened with ANOTHER console that little Timmy whines about. And as for the PS3, it's WAY more of a wallet hit initially (and worth it IMHO) and replacing it in 2-3 years is corporate suicide. Sony likes longevity... Microsoft doesn't... but MS isn't in a position to dictate to the longsuffering fans "we've got ANOTHER $400 console for you, and in only 5 YEARS!)
Whah, whah, whah. We got users actually taking advantage of our "unlimited" offer... now we don't like it and we want to charge them through the nose for going over some arbitrary limit (absurdly low in the era of VOD etc.), or gouge them with an "unlimited plan" that costs hundreds of dollars (over the cost of the cable TV if they have it.)
Sorry, if they didn't want people using it "unlimited", then don't advertise it like that and then change TOS while the customer has your service. Either man up and friggin' say it's "X" GB a month (like they SUED Comcast into doing), or don't put a cap on it at all. Throttle the up/down speed past a certain amount (certainly more than 50GB).
The cable companies made serious bank off the benevolence of imminent domain, using federal subsidies to lay the cable (meaning using OUR money to do it). Now they complain people are using "too much"? Bite me. Why didn't TWC try any tiered pricing in places where there was competition? Because it's a BAD IDEA. And if TWC does go through with their plans (try #2), you might well be the only one on their network. Good luck with that. The internet is filled with actual studies that prove your points to be incorrect regarding bandwidth caps and usage, not some "whining" by people who don't feel like being gouged by TWC.
Culturally speaking, you missed the point (again.) As a fellow American, you no doubt have read the Founders' writings, otherwise, you're just parroting the party line. Your argument for the cultural basis for guns simply misrepresents what the 2nd amendment stands for. As I have stated many times, and I guess I have to do it again, is that simply because the government has "bigger guns" doesn't have them automatically overpowering the 2nd Amendment's fundamental principle. The government is made up of the people... and the people are not of one mind. Simply saying that if the people had enough of it, and enough people had enough, there's no nuclear arsenal that would stop change. The 2nd Amendment is the bedrock of that. You may think it changes, but that doesn't make it true. You're completely free to come to your own conclusion, but the facts do not bear your argument out.
I already have a conceal carry permit for my state (Texas), and I do carry. I can assure you that as a gun owner, in a state where guns are "prevalent" (and it's no accident that they are), the sense of security and autonomy is not only enhanced by what I wear on my waist, but encouraged by it. No one in Texas, criminal or otherwise, knows who carries and who doesn't. Those who wish to do harm take a bigger risk here than many other states. That is not a guarantee, just a perk. And it is completely in the Founders' intent to do so. Their writings and speeches bear this out, though no one is apparently listening at this point (Feinstein, I'm looking at you.)
You may feel that there is not a logical reason for gun ownership, but you'd be wrong. Like I said... read the Founders' writings and you'll see the logical, well thought out, and sound arguments for gun ownership. It simply just "is", is missing the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Because if it simply "is", the culture of Australia, Germany, and places like that would have even more gun ownership and gun enthusiasm, simply because their cultures have embraced that in the past. It's not cultural if it lasts. Australia is proof of that. It is essential to our way of life, and if you don't think so, why bother getting a concealed carry permit?
As for the Muslims in French ghettos, I don't see the French government changing. I don't see the French government capitulating. Sure, on the little things, they're flexible. Just like here. Tocqueville said when the government realizes it can bribe its citizens with their own money, our experiment is finished. What you see is not cultural but mere apathy. As long as 400 channels and shiny new things get pumped into society, the people will sleep. It's rather the "bread and circuses" tactic of ages past. I am not asleep. And there is an increasing number of people who are waking up as things degenerate because the one-party system is losing its mask. That is where the Bill of Rights come in. They are listed for times just like these.
And with a hit rate of 28% at less distance than most people sit in front of their televisions, you are still clinging to the "better trained" argument that means the average gun owner is useless. I still don't know where this is coming from, or why it even matters. It's fairly obvious you have a specific line and you stick to it. Good for you. But stop for a moment, read some Jefferson and realize your line is very faint... At least you'll learn some interesting facts about the Founders you weren't meant to know (if CNN and the like had their way)... If you come away with the same assumption you have now, feel free to sell your guns, because they are useless. Why bother? That sort of defeatist attitude got us into this mess we're in now... it'll take more than "your argument doesn't hold up because I say so", to really, truly, honestly understand the nature of the constitution and what it really means for us as a free people. The rest of the world can go to hell. I will defend the Constitution with my last breath because I believe in it that strongly. I
Fine if you don't agree with me. I didn't "make up" the quote. It's from the Founders. The people who wrote the Constitution. And the ATF didn't go in with "bigger guns" in Waco... the nutjob running the place decided it was time to meet god. He had a little help from the ATF, but you can bet your ass Waco didn't take weeks on end because the government didn't have bigger guns or more firepower. I live in Texas... you can bet the turn of events didn't go down as the media claimed it (especially the initial ATF raid). But that's for another debate. Let CNN tell you the news and you'll miss some of the finer points of the truth and facts in general. so if you need to cite something to support your argument, pick an actual success.
You obviously don't read the news or even watch a little TV... there have been many incidents where the police were outmatched in an attempt to raid a house (sometimes the wrong house...) Remember the robbers in LA who went on a shooting spree, killing cops left and right? The only thing they had was body armor on... and the cops couldn't take them down until the perps' guns jammed. It's comical. The accuracy rating of Police officers in the line of duty who have to shoot is 28%. That's not fear-inducing to me... considering most incidents with police happen at less than 30 feet. So much for their "training." I can shoot better than that, and I don't have to...nor was it hard to train myself to do so. If you have a gun and can't shoot someone because of some buddhist belief or fear, you have no business owning a gun, because you will be shot with it. Guns are used to kill things. If you can't manage that, what good is the 2nd Amendment? I have no hesitation when it comes to shooting anyone or anything attempting to harm me or my family. You will leave my premises in a black zipper bag if you try to come in when you're not welcome. (Trust me, I am referring to the "royal you", not you in particular.) I practice on the gun range weekly. I know how to shoot my guns. That's the first half of the 2nd Amendment. The assumption that most gun owners aren't willing to shoot them to defend themselves or their families is a gross oversimplification and completely devoid of facts or any basis in reality. Sure there are some who will hesitate... the same as a soldier or a cop who hesitates. But to assume that all gun owners are poorly trained (point at what you want to kill, pull the trigger... what more is there), smacks of a bias you won't readily admit. the right to keep and bear arms isn't limited to those who are a crack shot. It's a right, not a privilege.
You have the strange assumption that because the government "has bigger guns" they are automatically making the 2nd amendment moot and people who bear arms idiots for even trying. Glad to hear you have a high opinion of those who own guns. Of course your last comment speaks volumes. You hate guns, therefore the "gun culture" in the US is stupid, outdated, and yet so ingrained into our society that before it implodes on itself in a mass of lemming-like hysteria fueled by Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Feel free to be incensed about the gun culture and its absurdity. The only rights worth keeping are those worth fighting for... you've obviously given up a while back, so enjoy the servitude.
We do indeed have more rights... but the core of the liberty we enjoy can be enumerated in 10 amendments. Without those 10, the other rights are moot. Those 10 are not granted by the Constitution, but written down so the government cannot overstep its bounds. Specifically, we need all 10 intact if we are to remain a free people. Bringing up the increase in gun death AFTER a ban on guns took effect merely underscores the importance of our 2nd Amendment to individual liberty as a whole. It is, as George Washington said, the linchpin that all other rights connect to. People who advocate the removal of guns, whether by political pandering or a genuinely misguided attempt at some noble goal, advocate the removal of a freedom that the Founders held as dear as a free press.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. Gun deaths do not disappear with bans on guns (Australia proves that analytically), and like I said before, the 2nd amendment is not about gun ownership so much as it is about individual liberty, which most of Europe and the rest of the world are slowly eroding (and if we're not careful, ours will erode further too.) It isn't about "the greater good". Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control. We were Europeans before we were colonists, so the idea of gun ownership is something that didn't originate in the "Wild West" or out of Wayne LaPierre's rucksack. Millions of people died so that we can have the liberty we enjoy today. It would be a metaphorical smack in the face to those brave souls if we allowed the government to rob those rights in the name of "Safety" or "the greater good". I won't allow it, and neither should anyone who believes in individual liberty.
No, we happen to have a little document called the Constitution that enumerates the rights we are born with so the government knows where it can't go. We the people allow the government to exist, and when we are tired of how they piss on our rights, we remove them. We can even do it by force (Read Jefferson if you don't believe the Founders were very clear on the role of government as subservient to the PEOPLE.. and not the other way around.) The handout crowd has missed that, and I fear we've lost that core belief. It's sad, really.
Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.
Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.
No. Why is it hard for you people to get? We uphold ALL the Bill of Rights. Not just the ones you like. I'll repeat it for the cheap seats, and you, since you might not be an American:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
And the Supreme Court has upheld this. It's pretty simple really. Michael Moore, Dianne Feinstein, etc. can hate guns all they want. It doesn't change our rights to keep and bear arms. If they don't like it, the freedom exists for them NOT to own any guns. Let's analyze that a little closer... The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. You're free to be a gun-free zone at your house, car, closet, yard. But you have no right to tell me I can't carry/bear arms. (And forget the felon racket crap... felons broke the law, and half of the time they can't even vote.) Mod me troll if you must, but I'm getting TIRED of the broken record "modify the gun laws" "ban 'assault weapons'" nonsense. Get over it.
Pick another "feel good" cause and leave the guns alone. It's cliche, but bears repeating: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It may be a worn out phrase, but it's true. So stop the insanity and leave the Bill of Rights alone... God knows the government tries to assrape the Constitution every chance it gets... We don't need anti-gun morons gangraping the 2nd amendment under some nebulous "for the children" crap. Makes me sick and ashamed that people can actually be for this yet cry foul when the First Amendment is trampled, and when the 4th (even in the "new" Obama administration) gets gutted. We need to start standing up for individual liberty and stop this nonsensical garbage that undermines the very document that wrote down what we already should've known... I mean, really, folks. Is it that hard?
I'd guess the bee's pissing them off more. Usually that means things are working in our (read: not the conglomerates) favor. Sometimes it's just a show of bravado, but I think in this case, they're really grasping at straws... DRM is becoming less and less useful (though it's not dead yet), and the conglomerates are slowly realizing that too many pissed off customers means no money.:) That doesn't change their behavior, mind you... but it does piss them off. First they ignore you... (well you get the idea...) At some point, they'll get the message. Trouble is, I think it'll be when they run completely out of money (which isn't any time soon, I fear.)
Yes, but unfortunately the overstepping DOJ claim that the Government itself was beyond the law in this case means they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. They give lip-service to civil liberties at this point, and their actions speak volumes about their true intent. Rather like the "I'm not coming for your guns" arguments during the campaign. (See HR 45 for step 1.) It's disturbing to me as much as the last administration was.
I guess it depends now on how this goes through the system. Are they poll-oriented like the Clintons, or is Obama's admin really going to curtail the excesses of the last presidency? They have embraced the tenets of the Patriot Act wholeheartedly without a wink of curtailing the power built up from that.
From the new DOJ's public filings on the matter, I think Obma & Co. are the former... just throwing out scraps to keep the half-hearted from mounting a full-blown protest (and attempting to maintain the democratic majority past midterm elections). Couple that with the sonuvabitch *AA lawyers staffing the Obama DOJ, I have little hope the latter will ever come about. As I've said before... "change indeed."
Oh, and just so you know... stealing my car or my belongings is NOT (nor ever has been) the same as copyright infringement. Depriving me of my property is theft... copying something while not depriving you of the original is NOT THEFT. Get that straight before you go off on too far a tangent stealing people's stuff.
Sorry, you're still missing the point. If someone copies your program and doesn't pay you $9, they did NOT steal $9 from you. Your logic is flawed. Did you have $9 less in your wallet after the copy? No? Then they didn't steal from you. You're equating stealing a car/ring/something tangible with "intellectual property". It's not the same, and it never has been. We've attached arbitrary value to "intellectual property." Try reading John Locke and see if he mentions "Intellectual Property" once....
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT. It's a tort. It's a license violation. There _IS_ and never _WAS_ theft involved. That sort of misinformation is why we're in the mess we are in. Try arresting someone for copying your program. No criminal act was committed if there was no actual damages (as in they didn't resell it to someone else, which _is_ criminal copyright infringement, and you can go to jail for that.)
Every person who has downloaded and used it has stolen 9 dollars from me.
BZZZT! Thanks for playing, but no. Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue or profit. It never has. If you truly lost $9 from that person, write it off on your taxes... see how much the IRS will believe you when you put in "piracy losses"... or "copyright infringement losses" as a deduction.
Copyright gives you control over how your creations are to be used, not the power of absolute profit and cashflow. It may be the *AA's taint seeping in, or you may be simply ignorant of the copyright model itself, but nowhere does it say "copyright guarantees money." You can copyright something and not charge for it, so where's the revenue lost when someone uses that work without the conditions laid out by the creator? (credit, wearing a pink hat... whatever...)
I didn't say you blamed linux... I was referring to the salesperson. The knee-jerk reaction of the sales droids is what I wanted to counter, all told. I was never pissed off, just sarcastic.:) It's hard to do without a tag. (which I should put in from time to time.) I defended my post with a heap too much sarcasm, actually. Because in all fairness, posts like yours are initially perceived as thread-crapping... just disagreeing to disagree.... and there's enough of that going on to fill the Superdome. If there were fewer threadcrappers, I think I'd have used a lot less sarcasm and pissy adjectives.:-)
I feel like you're missing the bigger picture... it's not necessarily the problem that this particular salesperson said it was linux, and free software in general, it's that the prevailing attitude is that "free != good" in most novices eyes. Market share is all about perception. Linux is great at most things (games not so much), but it really is all some people would ever need. Hell, even my dad uses ubuntu on his HP MediaCenter PC (granted, he doesn't give two shits about the Media Center stuff, but I could set it up for him with MythTV if he so chose). He HATES computers. They are a tool a bit lower than a crescent wrench to him. I just want the perception to be changed... and it takes defending linux now and again, not in the typical fanboy way, but by showing my netbook in action... or showing one of my desktops work seamlessly like a Mac would... You can always attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.;) Not that we're using much honey in this thread...:P
I never wanted to come off as pissed... I wasn't intending, but this is the internet and who the hell knows anyway right?:) Anyhow, you do make good points... I just feel the perception problem needs work more than anything. I mean, think of the BSOD perception of windows. Most Windows XP machines (and so forth) are up for months without troubles and never BSOD, but the perception, held early on by the half-assed win95/98/Me crapola, sticks with people. (and it's still a running joke...) If someone is just starting out, they're going to remember the first thing they heard about linux... and with this salesperson, it created the germ of an idea that "free != good", and if the person had been a newbie, they'd most definitely recall this each time they encountered linux in the future. It's a shame really... but perception's a bitch... just ask the car companies:)
who's got attitude? You threadcrap and ask "what the hell" something has to do with a discussion, rather than your rational responses (albeit in the eye of the beholder)... Stop your highhorse ranting and maybe we can discuss something. You weren't polite to start with, so get over it. You remind me of the typical internet commenter that disagrees with anyone... no matter what. The HP Mini is a very similarly configured box to the Asus (albeit with some more open-source friendly equipment).... The only real "extra" drivers you need are (if I had to guess) the non-free wireless drivers. The Xandros distro that Asus uses has Asus-specific fuck-ups in it... so if you want to blame someone blame Asus, not Linux. THAT is the entire point of view. It's not Linux and it's not "free". People who sell these things should have a basic grasp of things... I don't care if they get paid minimum wage.... spreading irrational nonsense is wrong no matter what you bring home after taxes.
you should heed your own advice and stop being a dick too, and then pretending to be sane after someone calls you on it. lose the high and mighty asshole attitude, and maybe people won't actually suspect what a twit you are in real life.
I do. The RIAA consists of member companies, who most of the time are in lock-step with the RIAA, but as of late, the media companies are seeing the RIAA wasting their membership dollars and are beginning to question the motives (not so much as to stop treating customers like criminals, but hey, it's a start.) Still, since it is a funding entity and consists of people who may or may not be CEO's of the media companies (and others), it's just simpler to write "RIAA" or "MPAA".:)
The RIAA, or *AA's is also easier to write than the "media conglomerates." I get tired of typing more than 4 letters, and "assholes" just doesn't narrow it down. Obama's DOJ is by far worse than Shrub's ever was... and this is what we like to call "change"? I'm out... Count me out of this "change"....
MY laptop worked with a GENERIC linux distro. It's all about the components you choose. When windows fucks up, people blame drivers, not Microsoft. When Linux fucks up, people blame Linux. THAT is a misconception we ALL need to dispel. My experience is RELEVANT, Mr. Moderator, because out of the box, with a downloaded ISO from ubuntu, my HP netbook worked FLAWLESSLY. It's not Linux's fault that the moron salesperson felt the need to blame Linux for the failure... because if Windows BSOD'ed on him, he'd have blamed the writers of the driver for the card, not Microsoft.
Why in the hell do you bother reading? I was talking about Netbooks that work with Linux seamlessly, so much so that the idiot salesperson would've been able to get it working in spite of his extra chromosome.
But I do my work away from my office, and my office has 3 linux computers in it (and a Sun box, but that's another matter.) Not everyone is chained to XP at their job, and more and more people are noticing that just because XP is on the desk at work, the linux box at home works just as well (in some cases better), and there's no need to "have the same as the crap on my desk." And what I do isn't a niche, so while we all may think that the business world _is_ Windows, that stereotype is slowly but surely hitting the skids... and none too soon, considering Vista.
YMMV... but that doesn't mean that linux isn't just as useful, even if you have a windows machine at work.
I preferred the HP's keyboard over all the other netbooks. Sure it was $349 on sale, but it was a 60GB drive bluetooth enabled version... and with a wonderful keyboard, I think I got a great deal. I don't use the HP branded ubuntu (that they put on some minis), simply because I like to do things myself, but I'm sure it's not terribly difficult for the novice to take their Win netbook to Linux. *shrug*
The netbook makers should really work on making the linux work as flawlessly as it does on desktops... I think some of the netbook companies are just putting linux on as an afterthought... I know the Asus guys once remarked the 2:1 ratio (or something like that) of windows vs linux netbook sales compelled them to rethink their position in the linux netbook arena (or words to that effect.) Meaning, they're too damn lazy to make a decent build for their machines. If it works, great... if not, meh. That's not the attitude of a company who's really behind linux. Which is why I didn't bother trying one of their machines. (It was a tossup between a Wind and the mini 1000)...
Slashdot Mirror
If he had been arrested for exercising his 5th amendment rights (i.e. not talking), he could've brought up, without being silly, the original reason he was detained at security in the first place. That reason being a comic book well within his guaranteed 1st amendment rights to have and to have authored. The fact that it did not get that far is a relief, I suppose, but like the OP said, it would've forced some sort of action on just how far we're all going to let the government piss on our rights in the name of "safety."
Exactly. They want to eliminate the right of first sale, selling licenses only, but do not want the burden of replacing media, and support of the license that they enjoy now as "you bought it, now give us $20 for a replacement disc". It's getting pretty stupid, and soon even the die-hards will abandon the whole thing because of the incessant inconvenience of being a "valued customer." Both Gamestop and eBay will suffer if the games lose their first sale... and with giants like Best Buy and Amazon going after the used market... perhaps there will be more pushback from the retail community than we anticipate. Here's to hoping. :)
He is the same as Congress, yet we voted the "other" party back into power. Funny that. If this isn't PROOF FUCKING POSITIVE that there IS no two-party system anymore, I'll eat my hat. Don't give him such a free pass, though. If you blamed Bush for anything in the last 8 years, you can't now NOT blame Obama for the same fucking things.
There is no free pass. Obama has the bully pulpit (the press), and could conceivably do better if he were actually DIFFERENT from the last moron in charge. But it's clear that he IS NOT. Change indeed. What fucking change? I blame Obama as much as Bush for raping the Constitution. They both have left their retarded DNA all over our sacred document. The same with Congress.... so cutting Obama slack because he's "just a puppet" and vilifying Shrub for the same thing is a double standard. Blame them all appropriately and maybe, just fucking maybe, we'll get some REAL change with an ACTUAL different party. But I won't hold my breath... sentiment like yours is exactly why we never change... we find ways to avoid blaming THEM ALL, and doing what the Founders said... GET RID OF THEM. *sigh* I am really close to giving up... but Obama, like Shrub, is pissing me off entirely too much to throw in the towel just yet. It's close though.
The games aren't so bad on the 360.. if the damn thing'd ever work reliably, it'd be a nice console. The Ps3 is my multiplatform game choice simply because I'm on my 4th 360 and only my 1st PS3 (bought at launch... I waited a bit for the 360 to calm down... but relatively launch-worthy.). I just don't want to put hours into a game only to have the console die on me at a critical point in the game and wait a week or two to get it back. It's just not worth the hassle, considering the price of games to begin with...
:) I tend to lean towards games being better than last-gen, because I simply play more of them now than I did last gen I suppose. But you're right, People aren't going to spend even $200 to $300 for a console now and all of a sudden next year be burdened with ANOTHER console that little Timmy whines about. And as for the PS3, it's WAY more of a wallet hit initially (and worth it IMHO) and replacing it in 2-3 years is corporate suicide. Sony likes longevity... Microsoft doesn't... but MS isn't in a position to dictate to the longsuffering fans "we've got ANOTHER $400 console for you, and in only 5 YEARS!)
And regarding #3, Microsoft got HAMMERED for shuffling the original Xbox out to pasture too soon for people. They won't make that mistake again. They would lose what little goodwill they have left (*cough* shitty hardware *cough*) if they orphaned the 360 in the same timeframe as the original Xbox.
You've made some excellent points... and as an AC no less.
Whah, whah, whah. We got users actually taking advantage of our "unlimited" offer... now we don't like it and we want to charge them through the nose for going over some arbitrary limit (absurdly low in the era of VOD etc.), or gouge them with an "unlimited plan" that costs hundreds of dollars (over the cost of the cable TV if they have it.)
Sorry, if they didn't want people using it "unlimited", then don't advertise it like that and then change TOS while the customer has your service. Either man up and friggin' say it's "X" GB a month (like they SUED Comcast into doing), or don't put a cap on it at all. Throttle the up/down speed past a certain amount (certainly more than 50GB).
The cable companies made serious bank off the benevolence of imminent domain, using federal subsidies to lay the cable (meaning using OUR money to do it). Now they complain people are using "too much"? Bite me. Why didn't TWC try any tiered pricing in places where there was competition? Because it's a BAD IDEA. And if TWC does go through with their plans (try #2), you might well be the only one on their network. Good luck with that. The internet is filled with actual studies that prove your points to be incorrect regarding bandwidth caps and usage, not some "whining" by people who don't feel like being gouged by TWC.
Culturally speaking, you missed the point (again.) As a fellow American, you no doubt have read the Founders' writings, otherwise, you're just parroting the party line. Your argument for the cultural basis for guns simply misrepresents what the 2nd amendment stands for. As I have stated many times, and I guess I have to do it again, is that simply because the government has "bigger guns" doesn't have them automatically overpowering the 2nd Amendment's fundamental principle. The government is made up of the people... and the people are not of one mind. Simply saying that if the people had enough of it, and enough people had enough, there's no nuclear arsenal that would stop change. The 2nd Amendment is the bedrock of that. You may think it changes, but that doesn't make it true. You're completely free to come to your own conclusion, but the facts do not bear your argument out.
I already have a conceal carry permit for my state (Texas), and I do carry. I can assure you that as a gun owner, in a state where guns are "prevalent" (and it's no accident that they are), the sense of security and autonomy is not only enhanced by what I wear on my waist, but encouraged by it. No one in Texas, criminal or otherwise, knows who carries and who doesn't. Those who wish to do harm take a bigger risk here than many other states. That is not a guarantee, just a perk. And it is completely in the Founders' intent to do so. Their writings and speeches bear this out, though no one is apparently listening at this point (Feinstein, I'm looking at you.)
You may feel that there is not a logical reason for gun ownership, but you'd be wrong. Like I said... read the Founders' writings and you'll see the logical, well thought out, and sound arguments for gun ownership. It simply just "is", is missing the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Because if it simply "is", the culture of Australia, Germany, and places like that would have even more gun ownership and gun enthusiasm, simply because their cultures have embraced that in the past. It's not cultural if it lasts. Australia is proof of that. It is essential to our way of life, and if you don't think so, why bother getting a concealed carry permit?
As for the Muslims in French ghettos, I don't see the French government changing. I don't see the French government capitulating. Sure, on the little things, they're flexible. Just like here. Tocqueville said when the government realizes it can bribe its citizens with their own money, our experiment is finished. What you see is not cultural but mere apathy. As long as 400 channels and shiny new things get pumped into society, the people will sleep. It's rather the "bread and circuses" tactic of ages past. I am not asleep. And there is an increasing number of people who are waking up as things degenerate because the one-party system is losing its mask. That is where the Bill of Rights come in. They are listed for times just like these.
And with a hit rate of 28% at less distance than most people sit in front of their televisions, you are still clinging to the "better trained" argument that means the average gun owner is useless. I still don't know where this is coming from, or why it even matters. It's fairly obvious you have a specific line and you stick to it. Good for you. But stop for a moment, read some Jefferson and realize your line is very faint... At least you'll learn some interesting facts about the Founders you weren't meant to know (if CNN and the like had their way)... If you come away with the same assumption you have now, feel free to sell your guns, because they are useless. Why bother? That sort of defeatist attitude got us into this mess we're in now... it'll take more than "your argument doesn't hold up because I say so", to really, truly, honestly understand the nature of the constitution and what it really means for us as a free people. The rest of the world can go to hell. I will defend the Constitution with my last breath because I believe in it that strongly. I
Fine if you don't agree with me. I didn't "make up" the quote. It's from the Founders. The people who wrote the Constitution. And the ATF didn't go in with "bigger guns" in Waco... the nutjob running the place decided it was time to meet god. He had a little help from the ATF, but you can bet your ass Waco didn't take weeks on end because the government didn't have bigger guns or more firepower. I live in Texas... you can bet the turn of events didn't go down as the media claimed it (especially the initial ATF raid). But that's for another debate. Let CNN tell you the news and you'll miss some of the finer points of the truth and facts in general. so if you need to cite something to support your argument, pick an actual success.
You obviously don't read the news or even watch a little TV... there have been many incidents where the police were outmatched in an attempt to raid a house (sometimes the wrong house...) Remember the robbers in LA who went on a shooting spree, killing cops left and right? The only thing they had was body armor on... and the cops couldn't take them down until the perps' guns jammed. It's comical. The accuracy rating of Police officers in the line of duty who have to shoot is 28%. That's not fear-inducing to me... considering most incidents with police happen at less than 30 feet. So much for their "training." I can shoot better than that, and I don't have to...nor was it hard to train myself to do so. If you have a gun and can't shoot someone because of some buddhist belief or fear, you have no business owning a gun, because you will be shot with it. Guns are used to kill things. If you can't manage that, what good is the 2nd Amendment? I have no hesitation when it comes to shooting anyone or anything attempting to harm me or my family. You will leave my premises in a black zipper bag if you try to come in when you're not welcome. (Trust me, I am referring to the "royal you", not you in particular.) I practice on the gun range weekly. I know how to shoot my guns. That's the first half of the 2nd Amendment. The assumption that most gun owners aren't willing to shoot them to defend themselves or their families is a gross oversimplification and completely devoid of facts or any basis in reality. Sure there are some who will hesitate... the same as a soldier or a cop who hesitates. But to assume that all gun owners are poorly trained (point at what you want to kill, pull the trigger... what more is there), smacks of a bias you won't readily admit. the right to keep and bear arms isn't limited to those who are a crack shot. It's a right, not a privilege.
You have the strange assumption that because the government "has bigger guns" they are automatically making the 2nd amendment moot and people who bear arms idiots for even trying. Glad to hear you have a high opinion of those who own guns. Of course your last comment speaks volumes. You hate guns, therefore the "gun culture" in the US is stupid, outdated, and yet so ingrained into our society that before it implodes on itself in a mass of lemming-like hysteria fueled by Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Feel free to be incensed about the gun culture and its absurdity. The only rights worth keeping are those worth fighting for... you've obviously given up a while back, so enjoy the servitude.
We do indeed have more rights... but the core of the liberty we enjoy can be enumerated in 10 amendments. Without those 10, the other rights are moot. Those 10 are not granted by the Constitution, but written down so the government cannot overstep its bounds. Specifically, we need all 10 intact if we are to remain a free people. Bringing up the increase in gun death AFTER a ban on guns took effect merely underscores the importance of our 2nd Amendment to individual liberty as a whole. It is, as George Washington said, the linchpin that all other rights connect to. People who advocate the removal of guns, whether by political pandering or a genuinely misguided attempt at some noble goal, advocate the removal of a freedom that the Founders held as dear as a free press.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. Gun deaths do not disappear with bans on guns (Australia proves that analytically), and like I said before, the 2nd amendment is not about gun ownership so much as it is about individual liberty, which most of Europe and the rest of the world are slowly eroding (and if we're not careful, ours will erode further too.) It isn't about "the greater good". Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control. We were Europeans before we were colonists, so the idea of gun ownership is something that didn't originate in the "Wild West" or out of Wayne LaPierre's rucksack. Millions of people died so that we can have the liberty we enjoy today. It would be a metaphorical smack in the face to those brave souls if we allowed the government to rob those rights in the name of "Safety" or "the greater good". I won't allow it, and neither should anyone who believes in individual liberty.
No, we happen to have a little document called the Constitution that enumerates the rights we are born with so the government knows where it can't go. We the people allow the government to exist, and when we are tired of how they piss on our rights, we remove them. We can even do it by force (Read Jefferson if you don't believe the Founders were very clear on the role of government as subservient to the PEOPLE.. and not the other way around.) The handout crowd has missed that, and I fear we've lost that core belief. It's sad, really.
Individual liberty (or "individualistic" for the "it takes a village" crowd) is the hallmark of American society. Was it always practiced fairly? No. Is it essential to the continuation of this great nation? Yes.
Please tell me, why did the homicide rate (gun-related) in Australia tripled AFTER the ban was initiated? Please enlighten me on your logic for that little tidbit. Either you had a stroke halfway through your post or you really don't understand what that statistic means for your argument.
No. Why is it hard for you people to get? We uphold ALL the Bill of Rights. Not just the ones you like. I'll repeat it for the cheap seats, and you, since you might not be an American:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
And the Supreme Court has upheld this. It's pretty simple really. Michael Moore, Dianne Feinstein, etc. can hate guns all they want. It doesn't change our rights to keep and bear arms. If they don't like it, the freedom exists for them NOT to own any guns. Let's analyze that a little closer... The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. End of story. You're free to be a gun-free zone at your house, car, closet, yard. But you have no right to tell me I can't carry/bear arms. (And forget the felon racket crap... felons broke the law, and half of the time they can't even vote.) Mod me troll if you must, but I'm getting TIRED of the broken record "modify the gun laws" "ban 'assault weapons'" nonsense. Get over it.
Pick another "feel good" cause and leave the guns alone. It's cliche, but bears repeating: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." It may be a worn out phrase, but it's true. So stop the insanity and leave the Bill of Rights alone... God knows the government tries to assrape the Constitution every chance it gets... We don't need anti-gun morons gangraping the 2nd amendment under some nebulous "for the children" crap. Makes me sick and ashamed that people can actually be for this yet cry foul when the First Amendment is trampled, and when the 4th (even in the "new" Obama administration) gets gutted. We need to start standing up for individual liberty and stop this nonsensical garbage that undermines the very document that wrote down what we already should've known... I mean, really, folks. Is it that hard?
Hell no! I thought it was hilarious! :) (and I own 3 Macs!) *applause*
Well said. If only the RIAA and MPAA would GET that... :)
I'd guess the bee's pissing them off more. Usually that means things are working in our (read: not the conglomerates) favor. Sometimes it's just a show of bravado, but I think in this case, they're really grasping at straws... DRM is becoming less and less useful (though it's not dead yet), and the conglomerates are slowly realizing that too many pissed off customers means no money. :) That doesn't change their behavior, mind you... but it does piss them off. First they ignore you... (well you get the idea...) At some point, they'll get the message. Trouble is, I think it'll be when they run completely out of money (which isn't any time soon, I fear.)
Yes, but unfortunately the overstepping DOJ claim that the Government itself was beyond the law in this case means they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. They give lip-service to civil liberties at this point, and their actions speak volumes about their true intent. Rather like the "I'm not coming for your guns" arguments during the campaign. (See HR 45 for step 1.) It's disturbing to me as much as the last administration was.
I guess it depends now on how this goes through the system. Are they poll-oriented like the Clintons, or is Obama's admin really going to curtail the excesses of the last presidency? They have embraced the tenets of the Patriot Act wholeheartedly without a wink of curtailing the power built up from that.
From the new DOJ's public filings on the matter, I think Obma & Co. are the former... just throwing out scraps to keep the half-hearted from mounting a full-blown protest (and attempting to maintain the democratic majority past midterm elections). Couple that with the sonuvabitch *AA lawyers staffing the Obama DOJ, I have little hope the latter will ever come about. As I've said before... "change indeed."
Oh, and just so you know... stealing my car or my belongings is NOT (nor ever has been) the same as copyright infringement. Depriving me of my property is theft... copying something while not depriving you of the original is NOT THEFT. Get that straight before you go off on too far a tangent stealing people's stuff.
Sorry, you're still missing the point. If someone copies your program and doesn't pay you $9, they did NOT steal $9 from you. Your logic is flawed. Did you have $9 less in your wallet after the copy? No? Then they didn't steal from you. You're equating stealing a car/ring/something tangible with "intellectual property". It's not the same, and it never has been. We've attached arbitrary value to "intellectual property." Try reading John Locke and see if he mentions "Intellectual Property" once....
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT. It's a tort. It's a license violation. There _IS_ and never _WAS_ theft involved. That sort of misinformation is why we're in the mess we are in. Try arresting someone for copying your program. No criminal act was committed if there was no actual damages (as in they didn't resell it to someone else, which _is_ criminal copyright infringement, and you can go to jail for that.)
Every person who has downloaded and used it has stolen 9 dollars from me.
BZZZT! Thanks for playing, but no. Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue or profit. It never has. If you truly lost $9 from that person, write it off on your taxes... see how much the IRS will believe you when you put in "piracy losses"... or "copyright infringement losses" as a deduction.
Copyright gives you control over how your creations are to be used, not the power of absolute profit and cashflow. It may be the *AA's taint seeping in, or you may be simply ignorant of the copyright model itself, but nowhere does it say "copyright guarantees money." You can copyright something and not charge for it, so where's the revenue lost when someone uses that work without the conditions laid out by the creator? (credit, wearing a pink hat... whatever...)
Well, there goes another good idea. No sense in downloading protest songs on my iPod to incite the masses! :)
I didn't say you blamed linux... I was referring to the salesperson. The knee-jerk reaction of the sales droids is what I wanted to counter, all told. I was never pissed off, just sarcastic. :) It's hard to do without a tag. (which I should put in from time to time.) I defended my post with a heap too much sarcasm, actually. Because in all fairness, posts like yours are initially perceived as thread-crapping... just disagreeing to disagree.... and there's enough of that going on to fill the Superdome. If there were fewer threadcrappers, I think I'd have used a lot less sarcasm and pissy adjectives. :-)
;) Not that we're using much honey in this thread... :P
:) Anyhow, you do make good points... I just feel the perception problem needs work more than anything. I mean, think of the BSOD perception of windows. Most Windows XP machines (and so forth) are up for months without troubles and never BSOD, but the perception, held early on by the half-assed win95/98/Me crapola, sticks with people. (and it's still a running joke...) If someone is just starting out, they're going to remember the first thing they heard about linux... and with this salesperson, it created the germ of an idea that "free != good", and if the person had been a newbie, they'd most definitely recall this each time they encountered linux in the future. It's a shame really... but perception's a bitch... just ask the car companies :)
I feel like you're missing the bigger picture... it's not necessarily the problem that this particular salesperson said it was linux, and free software in general, it's that the prevailing attitude is that "free != good" in most novices eyes. Market share is all about perception. Linux is great at most things (games not so much), but it really is all some people would ever need. Hell, even my dad uses ubuntu on his HP MediaCenter PC (granted, he doesn't give two shits about the Media Center stuff, but I could set it up for him with MythTV if he so chose). He HATES computers. They are a tool a bit lower than a crescent wrench to him. I just want the perception to be changed... and it takes defending linux now and again, not in the typical fanboy way, but by showing my netbook in action... or showing one of my desktops work seamlessly like a Mac would... You can always attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I never wanted to come off as pissed... I wasn't intending, but this is the internet and who the hell knows anyway right?
who's got attitude? You threadcrap and ask "what the hell" something has to do with a discussion, rather than your rational responses (albeit in the eye of the beholder)... Stop your highhorse ranting and maybe we can discuss something. You weren't polite to start with, so get over it. You remind me of the typical internet commenter that disagrees with anyone... no matter what. The HP Mini is a very similarly configured box to the Asus (albeit with some more open-source friendly equipment).... The only real "extra" drivers you need are (if I had to guess) the non-free wireless drivers. The Xandros distro that Asus uses has Asus-specific fuck-ups in it... so if you want to blame someone blame Asus, not Linux. THAT is the entire point of view. It's not Linux and it's not "free". People who sell these things should have a basic grasp of things... I don't care if they get paid minimum wage.... spreading irrational nonsense is wrong no matter what you bring home after taxes.
you should heed your own advice and stop being a dick too, and then pretending to be sane after someone calls you on it. lose the high and mighty asshole attitude, and maybe people won't actually suspect what a twit you are in real life.
I do. The RIAA consists of member companies, who most of the time are in lock-step with the RIAA, but as of late, the media companies are seeing the RIAA wasting their membership dollars and are beginning to question the motives (not so much as to stop treating customers like criminals, but hey, it's a start.) Still, since it is a funding entity and consists of people who may or may not be CEO's of the media companies (and others), it's just simpler to write "RIAA" or "MPAA". :)
The RIAA, or *AA's is also easier to write than the "media conglomerates." I get tired of typing more than 4 letters, and "assholes" just doesn't narrow it down. Obama's DOJ is by far worse than Shrub's ever was... and this is what we like to call "change"? I'm out... Count me out of this "change"....
MY laptop worked with a GENERIC linux distro. It's all about the components you choose. When windows fucks up, people blame drivers, not Microsoft. When Linux fucks up, people blame Linux. THAT is a misconception we ALL need to dispel. My experience is RELEVANT, Mr. Moderator, because out of the box, with a downloaded ISO from ubuntu, my HP netbook worked FLAWLESSLY. It's not Linux's fault that the moron salesperson felt the need to blame Linux for the failure... because if Windows BSOD'ed on him, he'd have blamed the writers of the driver for the card, not Microsoft.
See the distinction? I'm guessing not.
Why in the hell do you bother reading? I was talking about Netbooks that work with Linux seamlessly, so much so that the idiot salesperson would've been able to get it working in spite of his extra chromosome.
Switch to decaf, moron.
But I do my work away from my office, and my office has 3 linux computers in it (and a Sun box, but that's another matter.) Not everyone is chained to XP at their job, and more and more people are noticing that just because XP is on the desk at work, the linux box at home works just as well (in some cases better), and there's no need to "have the same as the crap on my desk." And what I do isn't a niche, so while we all may think that the business world _is_ Windows, that stereotype is slowly but surely hitting the skids... and none too soon, considering Vista.
YMMV... but that doesn't mean that linux isn't just as useful, even if you have a windows machine at work.
I preferred the HP's keyboard over all the other netbooks. Sure it was $349 on sale, but it was a 60GB drive bluetooth enabled version... and with a wonderful keyboard, I think I got a great deal. I don't use the HP branded ubuntu (that they put on some minis), simply because I like to do things myself, but I'm sure it's not terribly difficult for the novice to take their Win netbook to Linux. *shrug*
The netbook makers should really work on making the linux work as flawlessly as it does on desktops... I think some of the netbook companies are just putting linux on as an afterthought... I know the Asus guys once remarked the 2:1 ratio (or something like that) of windows vs linux netbook sales compelled them to rethink their position in the linux netbook arena (or words to that effect.) Meaning, they're too damn lazy to make a decent build for their machines. If it works, great... if not, meh. That's not the attitude of a company who's really behind linux. Which is why I didn't bother trying one of their machines. (It was a tossup between a Wind and the mini 1000)...