PS: My wife's traveling on business most weekends over the next couple of months. If you wanted to, you know, mail me an advanced copy... Just tossing that out there.
is that what she tells you?
To cover anything but the top 8 big cities would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of WiFi access points.
at 100 bucks a pop (and I am pretty sure you can get decent ones for a heck of a lot less. And actually why not, you know, make them?), that's really not a lot of money for a company valued at aprox 80B with 3B of cash in the bank.
check out http://rottentomatoes.com/
it's a reviews aggregator. you'll get a zillion reviews, from sources like the NYT to iamanewmoviecriticandsuck.com, and an average score, between other things.
This is a bad argument. I am sure that on that agreement you signed the company reserves the right to change it as they see fit. Tomorrow they will add VoIP to the SMTP, HTTP, FTP, etc list, and charge you more for it.
Don't missundertand the following. I've been a VoIP user for two years now; but is now the time to complain to the FCC about ISPs blocking smtp/http/ftp also?
What's the difference?
Firefox is a lot of things, but faster it ain't. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but mainly it's because a bunch of IE used libraries are run at start up.
britney spears is the most popular query, but it's 4th on the list of public figures, while paris hilton did not even make the list.
On the tech stuff category, *kazaa* is the first one and *mp3* the third one, yet *kazaa* did not even make it to the most popular queries one, while mp3 is the tenth string most searched for.
There are also other inconsistencies, between for example the *most popular male* category and *most popular male celebrity*. (btw, what's the diff?)
We're talking about different things.
I am not critizicing, or justifying, the vote for either candidate. I am sure tons of people had good and very valid reasons to vote for Bush. I am sure tons of these were well thought out and rational. I might not agree, but I certainly respect them.
When confronted w/ the question *why?* on polls, an interesting % of people agreed that *matching moral values* were very important. Now, the fact that *your moral compass points in the same direction as the president's* is not a good reason to justify your decision with, and is one that is not easy to justify.
Slashdot's crowd is not representative of anything. People here is *usually* better informed and have better thought out opinions because they care about these subjects, else they wouldn't be here to begin with. Slashdot's crowd is more critical and for this more difficult to manipulate. Bush won (and to a lesser degree, the same would have happened if Kerry had won, and the same happens in probably every democracy in the world) by manipulating the perception of the majority of the people. Bush did not win the election because of his politics. He did not win it because of his ideals. He certainly did not win it because of his *potential* (the guy proved over and over that he's an idiot). He won the election because he had the better marketing team. And this is exactly what is wrong w/ democracy as we know it today. (and no, I do not know how to fix it)
Because it is not relevant to his/her ability to rule a country whether he believes in a god, any god (believing in one is as random as believing in hundreds, rt?), or not.
I am not saying your moral values are not important. I am saying that when chosing a leader, you shouldn't just chose one because his moral values matches yours. Look at his moral values from an objective and rational perspective. Ask yourself: "would his moral values make him a fit leader for my beloved country given its current situation?". Don't just vote him because he, likes you, goes to church on Sunday and believes gay marriage should be banned. Example: Regardless of your feelings about war in general, you wouldn't have wanted a president during WWII which moral values prohibited him to send the country to war under any circumstances.
Moral values? First, you perceive what they want you to perceive. But anyway, take away all that is religion-related and tell me what is it that you find so admirable in any of these folks.
Maybe I shouldn't have said *educated*. Maybe I should have said well informed, with thought out opinions that can be rationalized, exposed and explained. In certain ways, a country is a like a company, and the president the people's employee. With democracy, everybody is a hiring manager equally powerful. I hope I don't need to explain why this idea is absolutely ridiculous.
Spirit of anti-Christianity: absolutely. I could say tons of things against Christianity and religion in general. I'd have to admit that most of them have been said already, by probably smarter people than me, some of which have dedicated great part of their lives to the subject. I could refer you to Nietzsche or Russell. Sartre, Heidegger or Hobbes. But that is probably beyond the point
The point is not *better humans*. The point is *more qualified when it comes to pick a leader for the right reasons*. I am sure you will agree w/ me when I say some reasons are objectively stronger than others. Voting because *God speaks through him* doesn't carry the same value as *voting because I think for A, B and C reasons that his economic plan will succeed*.
This time, Bush won because people voted for him for the *wrong* reasons. Nobody in his right mind could vote a lunatic claiming to be the chosen one. I'd like to say that nobody could vote for somebody that pledged unconditional allegiance to an entity other than the country he's trying to preside over (but then again, these two idiots did that w/ Skull and Bones). Nobody moderately informed can believe that the war on Iraq has anything to do w/ the war on terror. Shall I keep going?
Disclaimer: While I might be a little arrogant, I am not an elitist.
Some erudits in the subject believe that one of the weakest points of democracy is the fact that the uninformed vote casted by, say, religion pseudo-fanatics (like in Ohio) voting for the person that proclaimed itself as the one God has chosen to carry his voice to the unwashed masses shouldn't count as much as the vote of the educated, informed person that votes w/ a clear head and choses his candidate for rational reasons, whatever those might be.
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the
food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a huge failure...
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant
so these people are *losing* quite a bit of money on this; or maybe the music industry is pitching in? I am sure they are not really happy w/ iTunes getting as big as it is.
MS conspiracy theorists will have a feast.
*somebody* has to be pitching in... isn't real a fairly small company?
Give a greater percentage of the money to the artist, and take the costs for the things the label supposedly provides (marketing, production, distribution) out of the label's share instead of the artist's.
How many of your average monkey do you think knows, or cares for that mattter, how much money britney gets for each CD she sales?
Stop treating your customers like criminals. If you treat them like they're criminals, they're going to disregard the law. If you're tolerant of them making as many copies as they want to, of them ripping and sending favorite songs to friends, etc. they'll be more inclined to obey just laws. And you'll make more money.
Nobody cares about this either. It's on the news, the people get outraged for a little bit, and within hours they are at CC or BB again buying CDs.
Destroy ClearChannel. Utterly. Simply refuse to deal with them. Replace them with small local stations that are in tune with their audience. This will allow people to discover music that they like.
Before these guys went after howard stern, nobody ever knew they existed.
Repeat after me: PEOPLE ARE NOT WELL INFORMED, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE WELL INFORMED, AND EVEN WHEN YOU, AGAINST THEIR WILL, INFORM THEM, THE LATEST BRITNEY CD IS APPARENTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREE SPEECH, else how can you explain that these people are still selling as many CDs as they sell?
By the way, please don't confuse my attitude with that one of an elitist. I am just a pragmatist.
Slashdot Mirror
that really doesn't give you access to the bookmarks you make at home, at work, now does it?
PS: My wife's traveling on business most weekends over the next couple of months. If you wanted to, you know, mail me an advanced copy... Just tossing that out there.
is that what she tells you?
To cover anything but the top 8 big cities would take hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of WiFi access points.
at 100 bucks a pop (and I am pretty sure you can get decent ones for a heck of a lot less. And actually why not, you know, make them?), that's really not a lot of money for a company valued at aprox 80B with 3B of cash in the bank.
check out http://rottentomatoes.com/ it's a reviews aggregator. you'll get a zillion reviews, from sources like the NYT to iamanewmoviecriticandsuck.com, and an average score, between other things.
This is a bad argument. I am sure that on that agreement you signed the company reserves the right to change it as they see fit. Tomorrow they will add VoIP to the SMTP, HTTP, FTP, etc list, and charge you more for it.
Don't missundertand the following. I've been a VoIP user for two years now; but is now the time to complain to the FCC about ISPs blocking smtp/http/ftp also? What's the difference?
yeah, because there aren't any rootkits for Linux, right? Remember, we're talking about the user *executing* something.
Firefox is a lot of things, but faster it ain't. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but mainly it's because a bunch of IE used libraries are run at start up.
+5 Insightful!
britney spears is the most popular query, but it's 4th on the list of public figures, while paris hilton did not even make the list.
On the tech stuff category, *kazaa* is the first one and *mp3* the third one, yet *kazaa* did not even make it to the most popular queries one, while mp3 is the tenth string most searched for.There are also other inconsistencies, between for example the *most popular male* category and *most popular male celebrity*. (btw, what's the diff?)
Can somebody shed some insight into this?it's where aaallll the cool kids go for coffee
what the heck are *you* doing there, then?
The principle is as old as Plato. He makes a very good case for it in The republic.
We're talking about different things. I am not critizicing, or justifying, the vote for either candidate. I am sure tons of people had good and very valid reasons to vote for Bush. I am sure tons of these were well thought out and rational. I might not agree, but I certainly respect them.
When confronted w/ the question *why?* on polls, an interesting % of people agreed that *matching moral values* were very important. Now, the fact that *your moral compass points in the same direction as the president's* is not a good reason to justify your decision with, and is one that is not easy to justify.Slashdot's crowd is not representative of anything. People here is *usually* better informed and have better thought out opinions because they care about these subjects, else they wouldn't be here to begin with. Slashdot's crowd is more critical and for this more difficult to manipulate. Bush won (and to a lesser degree, the same would have happened if Kerry had won, and the same happens in probably every democracy in the world) by manipulating the perception of the majority of the people. Bush did not win the election because of his politics. He did not win it because of his ideals. He certainly did not win it because of his *potential* (the guy proved over and over that he's an idiot). He won the election because he had the better marketing team. And this is exactly what is wrong w/ democracy as we know it today. (and no, I do not know how to fix it)
Why should I take away "religion-related"?
Because it is not relevant to his/her ability to rule a country whether he believes in a god, any god (believing in one is as random as believing in hundreds, rt?), or not.
I am not saying your moral values are not important. I am saying that when chosing a leader, you shouldn't just chose one because his moral values matches yours. Look at his moral values from an objective and rational perspective. Ask yourself: "would his moral values make him a fit leader for my beloved country given its current situation?". Don't just vote him because he, likes you, goes to church on Sunday and believes gay marriage should be banned. Example: Regardless of your feelings about war in general, you wouldn't have wanted a president during WWII which moral values prohibited him to send the country to war under any circumstances.
Moral values? First, you perceive what they want you to perceive. But anyway, take away all that is religion-related and tell me what is it that you find so admirable in any of these folks.
Maybe I shouldn't have said *educated*. Maybe I should have said well informed, with thought out opinions that can be rationalized, exposed and explained. In certain ways, a country is a like a company, and the president the people's employee. With democracy, everybody is a hiring manager equally powerful. I hope I don't need to explain why this idea is absolutely ridiculous.
Let's try this again.
[...]prejudice and hatred[...] Toward what?
Spirit of anti-Christianity: absolutely. I could say tons of things against Christianity and religion in general. I'd have to admit that most of them have been said already, by probably smarter people than me, some of which have dedicated great part of their lives to the subject. I could refer you to Nietzsche or Russell. Sartre, Heidegger or Hobbes. But that is probably beyond the point
The point is not *better humans*. The point is *more qualified when it comes to pick a leader for the right reasons*. I am sure you will agree w/ me when I say some reasons are objectively stronger than others. Voting because *God speaks through him* doesn't carry the same value as *voting because I think for A, B and C reasons that his economic plan will succeed*.
This time, Bush won because people voted for him for the *wrong* reasons. Nobody in his right mind could vote a lunatic claiming to be the chosen one. I'd like to say that nobody could vote for somebody that pledged unconditional allegiance to an entity other than the country he's trying to preside over (but then again, these two idiots did that w/ Skull and Bones). Nobody moderately informed can believe that the war on Iraq has anything to do w/ the war on terror. Shall I keep going?
Disclaimer: While I might be a little arrogant, I am not an elitist.
Some erudits in the subject believe that one of the weakest points of democracy is the fact that the uninformed vote casted by, say, religion pseudo-fanatics (like in Ohio) voting for the person that proclaimed itself as the one God has chosen to carry his voice to the unwashed masses shouldn't count as much as the vote of the educated, informed person that votes w/ a clear head and choses his candidate for rational reasons, whatever those might be.
you mean, women vote in the US? Nevemind... that would explain a lot.
so you're flying on a plane, the plane falls and you die... all your family can claim is the $$ you paid for the ticket?
Remember that at this point hollywood did not know how well would DVDs sell.
If at the end the player is too expensive for whatever reason (>USD150?), the MPAA *will* subsidize it. They want to sell DVDs.
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was a huge failure...
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
And in the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant
so these people are *losing* quite a bit of money on this; or maybe the music industry is pitching in? I am sure they are not really happy w/ iTunes getting as big as it is.
MS conspiracy theorists will have a feast.
*somebody* has to be pitching in... isn't real a fairly small company?
-Facun.you must be a lawyer
How many of your average monkey do you think knows, or cares for that mattter, how much money britney gets for each CD she sales?
Stop treating your customers like criminals. If you treat them like they're criminals, they're going to disregard the law. If you're tolerant of them making as many copies as they want to, of them ripping and sending favorite songs to friends, etc. they'll be more inclined to obey just laws. And you'll make more money.
Nobody cares about this either. It's on the news, the people get outraged for a little bit, and within hours they are at CC or BB again buying CDs.
Destroy ClearChannel. Utterly. Simply refuse to deal with them. Replace them with small local stations that are in tune with their audience. This will allow people to discover music that they like.
Before these guys went after howard stern, nobody ever knew they existed. Repeat after me: PEOPLE ARE NOT WELL INFORMED, PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE WELL INFORMED, AND EVEN WHEN YOU, AGAINST THEIR WILL, INFORM THEM, THE LATEST BRITNEY CD IS APPARENTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FREE SPEECH, else how can you explain that these people are still selling as many CDs as they sell?
By the way, please don't confuse my attitude with that one of an elitist. I am just a pragmatist.
-Facun.