I can never figure out the huge demand for this sort of thing. Are you in the habit of toting your console around to starbucks?
Or perhaps its much easier to have WiFi than run cables all over your house? I'm glad with Wii comes with wireless; since i already have a wireless network, I was up and running after plugging it in, no need for me to figure out how to run cables through a wall.
I pointed to the news only as a symptom of what has happened; ask anyone on the street where Black Friday came from, and they'll say "busiest shopping day of the year." Hence the reason its on Snopes, its become a popular myth. So that when most people say "black friday" they are infact refering to "high sales." Just like the OP to which I responded.
By the way, my involvement in this thread was to say that high sales = Black Friday is in fact a myth.. maybe you jumped in too late?
Anecdotally, no one I've ever talked to refered to black friday as meaning "more stress for cashiers." I myself was not aware of the true origin until I went to Snopes, and I only did that to disprove the "highest sales" theory.
Really? Go watch some news casts, I've yet to see one associate Black Friday and "sucks to be a cashier." The only angle ever given is "busiest shopping day of the year." It may have started that way, but that's not what is meant today.
Go up the thread, even the poster to which I responded used it in this way (i.e., highest sales, not high stress).
If you're not spending, you're not shopping. You're just walking around looking at things.
The red-to-black has always been the theory explaining why its called Black Friday. I don't think I've ever heard anyone not say before. Yes, anectode I know, but when every news channel in every city I've ever been in explains it the same way... well.
Anyway like I said, if you're not spending, you're not shopping. You're walking around. My wife and I do this alot (not this time of year though); we often walk through a mall and browse the stores, even though we never have any intention of buying anything.
Actually society has a definition, and its not yours, and says nothing about "universal improvement." From Wikipedia: "A society is a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society may be a particular people, such as the Nuer, a nation state, such as Switzerland, or a broader cultural group, such as Western society. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization."
So it is as arbitrary as I describe.
Try again tax evader.
I see you're retarded. Where did I say I didn't pay taxes?
Except that society (or government) can't protect you from being killed, sold into slavery or raped. These things still happen, right here in the US. They can only look into these things after the fact. You're delusional if you believe something other than yourself is protecting you. Fortunately, most people are good and don't want to do those things anyway.. again likely due to enlightened self-interest.
And again, usual punishment for breaking the law is jail and / or a fine. Not violence.
Finally, given the cost of the war (on various things), I'd say that taxes are mostly detrimental, yet armed thugs are still taking your money from you. To continue to support that is just stupid.
If you're shortsighted, you would think that. There is a benefit to you to not stealing or murdering, because you want others not to steal from or murder you. Its enlightened self-interest.
That is a pretty accurate description of what happens, yes. I don't claim that it's moral, but it's generally to society's benefit.
I'd argue its not. Keep going down that road, and you end up at dictatorships and other governments.
Even if we put aside our disagreement on whether it is benefical or not, how do you quantify how benefical it is? How much of society must benefit? 51%? 90%? What exactly is a society? Everyone sharing the same citizenship papers? You can also argue that Jewish communities are their own seperate society; likewise with Italian neighborhoods. You can have many distinct societies in one major city.
How can you possibly say that taxes and enforcement of many of the laws is a benefit to society when you can't even really define who is in society? Even if you can, you're still left with quantifying how something is a benefit or not. If you can't quantify it, you're hard pressed to even say if something is detrimental or benefical.
That's why I favor our Founders take on human rights; individials have rights, not societies.
If you actually talked to a significant number of people that were in jail, you'd see that those stories are greatly exaggerated. It happens, but no where on the scale you think it does.
Well the study says "aggression." You can be aggressive and not actually physically or mentally injury someone. Indeed being more aggressive may be a good thing; people may not let others take advantage of them.
Violence can also be constructive and beneficial to society. For example, the threat of violence from the state convinces many people (who would be otherwise disinclined) to pay their taxes and more or less obey the law.
So what you're saying is armed thugs take what you've rightfully earned, and give it to someone else for purposes you probably don't agree with, and that violence keeps people doing what they are told, even when it may not be to their benefit.
In addition, violence and the threat of violence is one way to avoid tragedy-of-the-commons scenarios. Finally, violence and the threat of violence can deter future violence from occurring.
No. Threat of getting caught can be a deterrent. What good is threat of violence if there is no real threat? Being put in jail is not violent, so its not violence deterring anyone.
Its not that I disagree that sometimes violence is called for (the Revolutionary War, for example), just don't agree with your examples.
Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.
And you believe this is what Asus did, based on what? The fact that they are a large corporation?
They may have the code written, but its not as easy as you suggest to distribute it (those cds cost money). They don't even need to include it at all; just make it available to someone who asks for it.
Back on topic, why do you simply believe this not to be a mistake? How many other products used GPL code prior to this one? If the answer is "none to very few" I think we can chalk that up to forgetting, not mallice.
I'm going to guess you're not a parent since you may not have noticed that whooshing sound that was my point going over your head. You don't need to know some specific piece of knowledge to be a caring, loving human being, this being bar none the most important quality of a good parent.
I got your point; its crap. Being a good parent goes far beyond being "caring, loving human being." You need to actually teach them stuff, and no, being loving isn't more important than being knowledgeable. You can love your child to the point that you fail to teach them how to do anything on their own; that you're always cleaning up their messes. To the point where that child becomes a self-important, entitled brat, that can't think beyond the next ten minutes.
Furthermore, as a historical note, the concept of negative numbers didn't exist until around 100 BC. we were well out of caves by that point, and in fact there had been a significant amount of philosophy, engineering and other sciences prior to this time.
And yet here we are in a world that requires knowledge of negative numbers to survive. You at least need basic math (and 0 and less than 0 isn't that hard to understand) to make change or ensure you're getting the proper change. In other words, what we needed to know then is irrelevant, it's what you need to know TODAY to live in the modern world.
As for throwing rocks, again, I think rocks would be better than bunker busters and tactical nuclear weapons, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.
Of course if you only look at negatives, you'll get that. Of course we can use that same weapon tech to meet our energy needs, we also have medical advances so that people don't die of a simple cut which becomes infected, we can repair bones, damaged hearts, we can feed a huge population and have a chance to help people after some natural disaster. With technology, there will always been a negative side, but the positives cannot be ignored either. I'd rather we have nukes and the ability to heal a broken leg than have only rock throwing ability and having to leave someone with a broken leg to die because they can no longer hunt on their own.
No, they don't "get it." They want to new spectrum to remain closed (the opposite of what Google is pushing for) so that when the FCC finally does agree to let it remain closed, VZW will nix their open access shortly after.
No, you're way off the mark. The only way to "distribute porn to children" would be to actually hand them porn. That's not what the law offices did, they defended their client.
His only credentals are that he's a lawyer. Take that away, and what would he be an expert in? Its not like he's retiring, he's being told he acted unethically. I think anyone would be hard pressed to try to use him as an "expert" anymore.
No, no, no! If you didn't notice, I just copied and pasted the parent post, and swapped batteries and hydrogen. Guess what? I ended up with a valid post, one that you felt should be responded to.
I did notice, but your post didn't turn out to be valid. The purpose of my post was to explain why (and why I agree with the GP that EVs are the way to go, not hydrogen).
I know enough about both technologies that I could do the same with your post. Battery and hydrogen vehicles are neck-and-neck right now, in terms of cost and performance. They're both promising technologies. In fact, I feel that batteries are ever so slightly in the lead.
I don't know how you can say they are neck and neck. But please, if you know alot, fill me in on 1) how we are going to generate enough H2 to be a viable) and 2) what safety features will prevent a hydrogen powered car from exploding in an accident. Telsa Motors is RIGHT NOW building a car with specific safety features to prevent elecrocution and explosion of the battery cells. They've done quite a bit of testing on prototypes.
Also, please explain why we might want to go hydrogen when we already have a system to distribute elecrtricy now (which costs very little.. it more or less moves itself, with little loss).
If hydrogen is up to par in these regards, I'd honestly like to hear about it.
But to suggest that one has a significant advantage over the other is, in my opinion, a troll. The main difference is that batteries lose capacity every year, and need to be replaced every few years. This is a sizeable cost, especially for lithium-ion batteries. On the other hand, hydrogen costs more to produce in the first place.
I don't feel that H2 generation, distribution and safety in vehicals is there yet. But if you have information otherwise, I'd love to hear it. As far as electricity goes, we already produce and distribute it rather safey, so figuring out a distribution network to power EV cars is right now a non-issue. Can the same be said about H2?
I like the Tesla Roadster vs FCX Clarity example, because these cars are almost identical in terms of cost vs performance. FCX Clarity has more seats, goes a bit farther, but the Roadster has that awesome acceleration. Clarity costs more to fill up, but the Roadster needs its batteries periodically replaced. There are safety improvements in the Roadster's battery back, many sensors act on the batteries and shut down those that show signs of deformation or overheating. And there are improvements in hydrogen tanks also. 10,000 psi tanks have been certified for use in automobiles in Germany, for example.
How much more does Clarity cost? The Roadster's battery should last about 100,000 miles. My four year old car is just now approaching that mark. They also claim that 100,000 is peak performance. It certainly sounds you could push it much farther as it 'gradually degrades.'
Even if H2 is as safe, how do we generate it? Again, if the answer is electrolysis, I have to ask, why? I'll gladly read up on H2 if you can provide more info.
Their site works out to cost about $0.01 per mile. Of course it will vary depending on your rate; the charging system plugs into your standard home outlets, and they say it takes 3.5 hours to charge a completely dead battery.
You can figure that out yourself using your own electric rates.
Slashdot Mirror
I can never figure out the huge demand for this sort of thing. Are you in the habit of toting your console around to starbucks?
Or perhaps its much easier to have WiFi than run cables all over your house? I'm glad with Wii comes with wireless; since i already have a wireless network, I was up and running after plugging it in, no need for me to figure out how to run cables through a wall.
Unlike botnets though, problems associated with drugs would dry up if they simply removed laws banning said drugs.
I pointed to the news only as a symptom of what has happened; ask anyone on the street where Black Friday came from, and they'll say "busiest shopping day of the year." Hence the reason its on Snopes, its become a popular myth. So that when most people say "black friday" they are infact refering to "high sales." Just like the OP to which I responded.
By the way, my involvement in this thread was to say that high sales = Black Friday is in fact a myth.. maybe you jumped in too late?
Anecdotally, no one I've ever talked to refered to black friday as meaning "more stress for cashiers." I myself was not aware of the true origin until I went to Snopes, and I only did that to disprove the "highest sales" theory.
One; to call fascilities and have them come out and do it.
Really? Go watch some news casts, I've yet to see one associate Black Friday and "sucks to be a cashier." The only angle ever given is "busiest shopping day of the year." It may have started that way, but that's not what is meant today.
Go up the thread, even the poster to which I responded used it in this way (i.e., highest sales, not high stress).
No, its still pointless, since the a good chunk of Wiis won't be sold in a department store.
If you're not spending, you're not shopping. You're just walking around looking at things.
The red-to-black has always been the theory explaining why its called Black Friday. I don't think I've ever heard anyone not say before. Yes, anectode I know, but when every news channel in every city I've ever been in explains it the same way... well.
Anyway like I said, if you're not spending, you're not shopping. You're walking around. My wife and I do this alot (not this time of year though); we often walk through a mall and browse the stores, even though we never have any intention of buying anything.
Ahh, sorry that you meantion black friday as it relates to ONE STORE. Seems kind of pointless in regards to a story about the Wii, doesn't it?
Maybe you should check this out.
Anecdote isn't evidence, and your friends in retail don't know what they are talking about.
Black Friday is a myth. The busiest shopping day is Christmas Eve.
Actually society has a definition, and its not yours, and says nothing about "universal improvement." From Wikipedia: "A society is a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. Members of a society may be from different ethnic groups. A society may be a particular people, such as the Nuer, a nation state, such as Switzerland, or a broader cultural group, such as Western society. An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization."
So it is as arbitrary as I describe.
Try again tax evader.
I see you're retarded. Where did I say I didn't pay taxes?
Except that society (or government) can't protect you from being killed, sold into slavery or raped. These things still happen, right here in the US. They can only look into these things after the fact. You're delusional if you believe something other than yourself is protecting you. Fortunately, most people are good and don't want to do those things anyway.. again likely due to enlightened self-interest.
And again, usual punishment for breaking the law is jail and / or a fine. Not violence.
Finally, given the cost of the war (on various things), I'd say that taxes are mostly detrimental, yet armed thugs are still taking your money from you. To continue to support that is just stupid.
If you're shortsighted, you would think that. There is a benefit to you to not stealing or murdering, because you want others not to steal from or murder you. Its enlightened self-interest.
That is a pretty accurate description of what happens, yes. I don't claim that it's moral, but it's generally to society's benefit.
I'd argue its not. Keep going down that road, and you end up at dictatorships and other governments.
Even if we put aside our disagreement on whether it is benefical or not, how do you quantify how benefical it is? How much of society must benefit? 51%? 90%? What exactly is a society? Everyone sharing the same citizenship papers? You can also argue that Jewish communities are their own seperate society; likewise with Italian neighborhoods. You can have many distinct societies in one major city.
How can you possibly say that taxes and enforcement of many of the laws is a benefit to society when you can't even really define who is in society? Even if you can, you're still left with quantifying how something is a benefit or not. If you can't quantify it, you're hard pressed to even say if something is detrimental or benefical.
That's why I favor our Founders take on human rights; individials have rights, not societies.
If you actually talked to a significant number of people that were in jail, you'd see that those stories are greatly exaggerated. It happens, but no where on the scale you think it does.
Well the study says "aggression." You can be aggressive and not actually physically or mentally injury someone. Indeed being more aggressive may be a good thing; people may not let others take advantage of them.
Violence can also be constructive and beneficial to society. For example, the threat of violence from the state convinces many people (who would be otherwise disinclined) to pay their taxes and more or less obey the law.
So what you're saying is armed thugs take what you've rightfully earned, and give it to someone else for purposes you probably don't agree with, and that violence keeps people doing what they are told, even when it may not be to their benefit.
In addition, violence and the threat of violence is one way to avoid tragedy-of-the-commons scenarios. Finally, violence and the threat of violence can deter future violence from occurring.
No. Threat of getting caught can be a deterrent. What good is threat of violence if there is no real threat? Being put in jail is not violent, so its not violence deterring anyone.
Its not that I disagree that sometimes violence is called for (the Revolutionary War, for example), just don't agree with your examples.
Neither are they trying to comply with it, unless someone points out their mistake.
And you believe this is what Asus did, based on what? The fact that they are a large corporation?
They may have the code written, but its not as easy as you suggest to distribute it (those cds cost money). They don't even need to include it at all; just make it available to someone who asks for it.
Back on topic, why do you simply believe this not to be a mistake? How many other products used GPL code prior to this one? If the answer is "none to very few" I think we can chalk that up to forgetting, not mallice.
I'm going to guess you're not a parent since you may not have noticed that whooshing sound that was my point going over your head. You don't need to know some specific piece of knowledge to be a caring, loving human being, this being bar none the most important quality of a good parent.
I got your point; its crap. Being a good parent goes far beyond being "caring, loving human being." You need to actually teach them stuff, and no, being loving isn't more important than being knowledgeable. You can love your child to the point that you fail to teach them how to do anything on their own; that you're always cleaning up their messes. To the point where that child becomes a self-important, entitled brat, that can't think beyond the next ten minutes.
Furthermore, as a historical note, the concept of negative numbers didn't exist until around 100 BC. we were well out of caves by that point, and in fact there had been a significant amount of philosophy, engineering and other sciences prior to this time.
And yet here we are in a world that requires knowledge of negative numbers to survive. You at least need basic math (and 0 and less than 0 isn't that hard to understand) to make change or ensure you're getting the proper change. In other words, what we needed to know then is irrelevant, it's what you need to know TODAY to live in the modern world.
As for throwing rocks, again, I think rocks would be better than bunker busters and tactical nuclear weapons, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.
Of course if you only look at negatives, you'll get that. Of course we can use that same weapon tech to meet our energy needs, we also have medical advances so that people don't die of a simple cut which becomes infected, we can repair bones, damaged hearts, we can feed a huge population and have a chance to help people after some natural disaster. With technology, there will always been a negative side, but the positives cannot be ignored either. I'd rather we have nukes and the ability to heal a broken leg than have only rock throwing ability and having to leave someone with a broken leg to die because they can no longer hunt on their own.
No, they don't "get it." They want to new spectrum to remain closed (the opposite of what Google is pushing for) so that when the FCC finally does agree to let it remain closed, VZW will nix their open access shortly after.
No, you're way off the mark. The only way to "distribute porn to children" would be to actually hand them porn. That's not what the law offices did, they defended their client.
Obviously with THAT attitude you are not a Christian!
His only credentals are that he's a lawyer. Take that away, and what would he be an expert in? Its not like he's retiring, he's being told he acted unethically. I think anyone would be hard pressed to try to use him as an "expert" anymore.
No, no, no! If you didn't notice, I just copied and pasted the parent post, and swapped batteries and hydrogen. Guess what? I ended up with a valid post, one that you felt should be responded to.
I did notice, but your post didn't turn out to be valid. The purpose of my post was to explain why (and why I agree with the GP that EVs are the way to go, not hydrogen).
I know enough about both technologies that I could do the same with your post. Battery and hydrogen vehicles are neck-and-neck right now, in terms of cost and performance. They're both promising technologies. In fact, I feel that batteries are ever so slightly in the lead.
I don't know how you can say they are neck and neck. But please, if you know alot, fill me in on 1) how we are going to generate enough H2 to be a viable) and 2) what safety features will prevent a hydrogen powered car from exploding in an accident. Telsa Motors is RIGHT NOW building a car with specific safety features to prevent elecrocution and explosion of the battery cells. They've done quite a bit of testing on prototypes.
Also, please explain why we might want to go hydrogen when we already have a system to distribute elecrtricy now (which costs very little.. it more or less moves itself, with little loss).
If hydrogen is up to par in these regards, I'd honestly like to hear about it.
But to suggest that one has a significant advantage over the other is, in my opinion, a troll. The main difference is that batteries lose capacity every year, and need to be replaced every few years. This is a sizeable cost, especially for lithium-ion batteries. On the other hand, hydrogen costs more to produce in the first place.
I don't feel that H2 generation, distribution and safety in vehicals is there yet. But if you have information otherwise, I'd love to hear it. As far as electricity goes, we already produce and distribute it rather safey, so figuring out a distribution network to power EV cars is right now a non-issue. Can the same be said about H2?
I like the Tesla Roadster vs FCX Clarity example, because these cars are almost identical in terms of cost vs performance. FCX Clarity has more seats, goes a bit farther, but the Roadster has that awesome acceleration. Clarity costs more to fill up, but the Roadster needs its batteries periodically replaced. There are safety improvements in the Roadster's battery back, many sensors act on the batteries and shut down those that show signs of deformation or overheating. And there are improvements in hydrogen tanks also. 10,000 psi tanks have been certified for use in automobiles in Germany, for example.
How much more does Clarity cost? The Roadster's battery should last about 100,000 miles. My four year old car is just now approaching that mark. They also claim that 100,000 is peak performance. It certainly sounds you could push it much farther as it 'gradually degrades.'
Even if H2 is as safe, how do we generate it? Again, if the answer is electrolysis, I have to ask, why? I'll gladly read up on H2 if you can provide more info.
Their site works out to cost about $0.01 per mile. Of course it will vary depending on your rate; the charging system plugs into your standard home outlets, and they say it takes 3.5 hours to charge a completely dead battery.
You can figure that out yourself using your own electric rates.