Well, my only experience with a union was my previous job. The unioned employees kept blaming each other for quality problems (this was a printing company). Ultimately, the company was shut down because of some HUGE problems. Its sister companies did not have the same problems, and none of them had unions..
Outside of that, my perception has been that union people do get better pay and benefits, but also seemed to do less work. I know road construction jobs are unionized here, and I see the workers usually standing around doing nothing..
I assume you're in WV, so I'll ask you. What are the competitors that Verizon complains about? It seems that Verizon is quickly becoming the old Ma Bell, because I haven't lived in a city that didn't have them for service... nor was I away of any competitors.
Where I am, the city formed its own private telecom company that offers TV, phone and internet. Its the only competition Verizon has for phone service, and it just started last year..
I don't see the problem honestly. Again, it seems it would be better if we didn't let an MS baby come into this life. At the end of the day, it only affects a few people (the woman and her husband, partner or whatever). I don't see why society should dictate on this issue at all.
Not particularly, no. Should I be angry because my taxes are going to fund public schools despite the fact that I have no children nor do I ever want any? Should I feel slighted because I pay property taxes for road maintenance when I don't own a car and don't see myself purchasing one any time in the next decade?
I would think you should. Personally I don't like that my property taxes are skyrocketing to fund education for someone else's kids. Especially when the schools are only 1/3 utilized and they could consoldate them now, yet the parents of said kids want 'neighborhood' schools (god forbid they attend a school 15 minutes away..). As far as roads go, in the US almost all funding for roads is via the gasoline tax. And there's a clear benefit to having roads; you don't have a car, but the EMS can get to you becaus of roads.
I certainly wish circumstances were different and that I didn't require as much of the health care pie as I do, but I had no choice in the matter. I *do* try to be responsible with my use of health care: I try to combine problems into single visits, I arrange prescription refills so that I don't need special appointments for such things, and while I probably should have gone to the ER a few times in the last month, in my experience, they usually do very little and it's a waste of my time and our money, so I refrain and wait for gastroenterologist appointments, where it is much more likely that things will get done.
That's certainly considerate of you. Unfortunately (again, in the US) most aren't like that. The majority of gastric bypass patients where my wife used to work were on medicare / medicaid. For a surgury that doesn't solve the problem (overeating) and has many complications and can also be treated by telling these people to eat less and exercise more. Worse, the number of fat people is increasing. Why should I have more and more of my taxes taken becaus some fatty can't stop eating donuts?
While I'm not poor, I'm probably lower-middle class currently. I would gladly trade my ailment for poverty; at least then I could derive the satisfaction of being a productive member of society instead of being confined to wait for an unspecified period of time (i.e. until I go into remission or find a drug cocktail to which I respond well) for that privilege. Laying in bed for weeks at a time unable to even go buy groceries is not only unpleasant but emotionally distressing, at least for me.
I certainly feel empathy for your situation. At the same time though, I'm sliding down the class scale trying to fund other people's needs. If things keep up like they are, I won't be able to take care of my needs. And I'm not talking about video games, I'm talking about basic things like fixing the leak in my bathroom, the rotting floor under the sliding door and replacing my collapsing fence.
What's worse, now the people in the US want me to pay for their healthcare as well? I take care of myself; I am eating better and exercising now, but soon i'll be paying for those that can't be bothered to. Not a prospect I very much like.
It mentions real places and real time and real events that really happened. From a historical perspective this is unrefuted and actually supported by documentation and archaeological evidence too. And no, What I am saying is that events in the bible have been determined to have actually happened. What I am not saying is that they happened exactly as the bible says. But then we are translating languages that doesn't alway cap out as the original intent.
Interesting logic. So because some movie mentions 9/11, that means the movie is fact. Please tell me, they actually deteremined that a burning bush talked to someone? Or that an actual person suddenly turned into a pillar of salt? I'm interested in your take on how the translation changed the meaning of things in such fundamental ways.
The idea you are arguing this in this way proves my point about the failures of people claiming to be scientific rejecting stuff because they don't agree with it and not because of the validity of the evidence. And to boot, you are going in search of ways and means to brag about your denials of such. The bible, in many respects is as accurate as a high school history book.
Well, I can write a book too about things that really happened, and then add in my comments that God told me why this event happened or that event happened. The parts that back up your belief that there even is a god (or that the world just popped into existence in seven days) you have no proof of, and no evidence of.
Lol.. I have admitted no such thing. Up until this post I have said nothing about the validity of the evidence except it is there and people are showing proof of it. I like the way you place words into my thoughts as if I said them in order to impose your view. I wonder how many other views you have that are tainted in this way.
So you have shreds of evidence that you can't even claim is valid? Is that a fair statement? Its funny that you claim I have tainted views, yet when asked directly for your evidence, you provided nothing. Interesting.
As for "it could have happened". This is funny too. The revolutionary war could have happened. Napoleon could have been a ruler of france. It doesn't mean he wasn't and the common belief is that the evidence shows both happened. It is the same type of evidence that shows parts of the bibles for it's historical accuracy.
Well we have proof that the revolutionary war happened. We can dig up relics that match the time and events. As for your bible though, where's the proof that God was involved in any of the events which you claim happened? Even if david killed golith with a slingshot (which is fairly unlikely, even for those best at using a slingshot), does that suddenly mean god exists? In fact, there's not really evidence that David existed as the bible claims at all.
Maybe you need to look at it again. and this time without your prejudice mind getting in the way. Maybe you should look into more then what people on Internet boards are saying where you can trip them up and put words in their statements to come to a conclusion of denial.
You have it backwards; I actually did believe that crap for quite a while.. but when I started thinking for myself, and looking into things more I realized that there really wasn't any proof of anything at all.
You see, unlike yourself, people aren't seeking you out to make you a believer. They don't take every opportunity to trash your beliefs based on fictitious statements centered around the inability to view evidence objectively combined with animosity to your claims. And if some do, the few that are doing it are just repeating what they were told but not on the same level as they were told it. But like you, they don't know what they are talking about and think they do.
I can think of quite a few laws that seem to exist only because they are based in religous (christian) beliefs, because there's really no basis for them otherwise. Fortunately, a great many
Actually yes. Please point out where in the Constitution that the Federal goverment has the power to implement such programs. Unlike what Bush would like you to believe there is no such thing as 'implicit' powers. Just the opposite. Unless the Constitution says the Federal government has the right to do something, they expressly DO NOT have that right.
Just having it available makes it harder? Please. If google really makes a great desktop search product, people will go out of their way to use it, just like people go out of their way to use FF.
I hope they don't require that. If I didn't have my old 802.11b router / WEP, I would either to have to live without Wii accessing the internet, or I'd have to move from WPA-EAS to WPA-PSK. I find the EAS setup more secure, because you can't brute force it.
This right here is proof as far as I'm concerned that anybody who seriously thinks that the US Government staged 9/11, shot down TWA 800, killed JFK or faked the Apollo landings really needs to have their head examined.
Right... because some office worker is dumb (or simply didn't know the need to strip the data), it then follows that EVERYONE in the government is just as dumb / incompetent.
fortunately, I don't have the added stress of medical bills or even the worry that I could be completely denied treatment because of no group insurance coverage.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but do you think about the people that are barely able to make ends meet, yet are paying taxes to help keep you going? Does it bother you that you may be making other people's lives harder?
So, who's better about genetic selection? The actual environment, or some person (or worse yet, committee?)
Its been a while since we let environment decide. We keep finding new ways to keep people with MS alive, hell we even keep 900lbs people alive when their weight should have already crushed their air ducts.
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
No, but its wrong for them to raise rates because of speeding... but that's because driving fast does not increase your chance of an accident. There are studies proving this. There are also studies that prove setting a limit most people would not normally pick for themselves DOES increase the chances of an accident.
Is it to our long-term interests to force insurers to operate in ignorance?
I'd have to agree with you here. I don't think that fat people, or people that smoke should be charged the same as somebody that takes care of their body (actually, I think having smokers in your company does affect your group rates.. which I find unfair).
I think we need to re-evaluate a lot of things regarding new human life. Is it worth it to help keep a baby alive that is born with MS? Especially given that the child WILL suffer while it is alive. I find myself answering no, and that at some point the cost to society becomes too great.
I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree that actually terminating a pregnancy due to very small unfavorable genetic traits such as those you mentioned is completely wrong.
I would argue that most level-headed people would not be interfering with the private affairs of others, especially when what those others do does not affect them.
If nothing else, the majority of the bible is a history book and the times, location and stuff for most of it has been verified to be accurate.
Nope. Just because it mentions real places and times does not make it accurate. What you're doing is saying something like Law & Order is real because it depicts a place and time accurately, when its not history at all, but a fictional story.
The problem isn't that there isn't any evidence. it is that you are rejecting it before looking and holding this rejection to validate your own beliefs. I'm not saying you would be converted or anything of the sorts. But I am saying you are flat out wrong and possibly intentionally lieing when you make comments like that.
No, actually I have looked at the evidence. And I continue to do so whenever presented to me. The closest any thing has come is 'it could have happened,' but to even get that far you have to stretch things and throw out a lot of details, and there are a thousand other things that could have happened. You even admit your 'evidence' is really anything at all. If it were, it would convience me to believe again (yes, I was raised Catholic).
More likely though, you are so desperately trying to make things fit that you don't see the lack of evidence that proves your point, and ignore anything that could threaten your beliefs.
If coal and oil don't take that long to make, please start making some, God knows we could use more of it!
It does two things. It take the meaning of life away and then it empowers people like you who seem compelled to force that opinion on others because you don't agree with what they have come up with.
I don't believe in that useless drivel, yet I find plenty of meaning in life. The problem people like me have is that you believe all that crap without one shred of evidence. Fortunately some people decided that's not the best way to learn, and here we are much better off because of it. If everyone believed in your non-sense you wouldn't have a computer connected to the internet to post your non-sense on.
So are you against all fiction books, cartoons and television?
People who dedicate their lives to star wars, D&D, star trek and so forth, don't harm anyone... it's not as extreme as protesting or building churches... but entertainment no less.
The difference is that no one in the latter group REALLY BELIEVES they are living in a Star Trek / Wars world. These religous nuts actually believe this non-sense in the bible.
When you attack that religion you are attacking that freedom.
No, you're attacking that freedom. Your freedom to believe in some fairy in the clouds that's also a dove and human doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to tell you you're a nut. Nor is trying to sway your belief. Its called a free exchange of ideas.
Now, if I suddenly forbad you to practice said religon, or read its teachings, or whatever, THAT is attacking religous freedom. Even that seems to be OK in the US if you're a minority religon though.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
As any true believer will explain to you, its not possible to mess up the translation, because they are writing the Word Of God.
It doesn't matter. I can use his methods. Why would i waste time coming up with different ones? I haven't agreed to any dubius EULA that says i can't overcome "technical limitations" however they decide to define them.
I guess that answers the question I asked earlier as to whether or not developers have the right to market their product how they see fit. It seems your answer is "no." Notice how I never mentioned the EULA though..
No kidding. I don't have to address that because no one disagrees about that (unless you do). And it's their choice to stop selling it or giving it away if they want to.
It seems you certainly do. You seem to have no problem using Jamies method. Its their choice to to stop the Express version, but don't kid yourself by blaming MS if they choose to do so. If they can't ship the Express version like they want to because of Jamie's action, I can't fault them for no longer shipping the product at all.
Who said that? You need to read more carefully. Are you suggesting that someone is stopping MS from doing business?
Someone is interfering with MS' right to ship the Express version without add-ins.
No, that doesn't make it a pretty lousy OS. Lots of things don't fail without competition. Having something not fail is not an indication of it being lousy.
OS Warp did have competition though, and it failed. That make it a lousy OS.
I'm still curious though; if this situation were reversed, and MS was enabling a feature in one of his product lines that he didn't want enabled, would you be angry at Jamie for taking action against MS? Or would you simply say MS is bullying some poor developer again?
Ha, ha. my attempt to derail the thread? You brought up some sort of bomb threat scenario.
Yup, your attempt. I'm sure you can think of dozens of other examples that explain the situation.
Disrupting an amicable agreement? please.
You don't think the people using Express want to? Please provide some proof.
OS warp would not have failed if it was the only choice you had.
I guess that makes it a pretty lousy OS then huh?
The fact that other people came into the market and "disrupted" people's business methods made OS Warp fail. You don't hear IBM blaming MS for their discontinuing of OS Warp.
Really? MS came in and stopped IBM from trying to do business? Interesting.
MS is trying to agressively segment the market so they "own" all of it but don't canablize their own sales. They've just done it so agressively that it is easy to add functionality that eats into their higher end IDEs.
Just like Honda "segments" the market by offering different packages on each model of car right? Please. I guess you don't build software; its far easier to disable functionality than to rip it all out. The fact remains VS is their product and they can sell it (or give it away) any way they like. Its their right, because its their product. You never address that.
If we want to remove all questions, I could use the methods he used to develop a plug-in for Express and MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on if i didn't agree to the Express EULA. So none of your other arguments hold water if he isn't found to be violating the EULA or if they find that he violated the EULA and so is simply no longer allowed to use Express.
I doubt you could do so without copying his methods though. As in, come up with the method on your own (or having someone help you by having them install Express).
Sorry, I guess I'm just one of those people that believes 'say what you mean, and mean what you say.' I don't care is a pretty broad statement to make..
That's true to an extent, but you could license it in such a way as to forbid it (or derivatives) from being exported or sold to certain countries. Would it stop said countries? Maybe not, but it may slow them down, and you have a better chance then if you just threw it out there..
It is a serious question. I would certainly care if my software was being used to purposefully harm people, and its something I would put in the license. "This software may not be exported to." I release enforcement would be difficult, but its better than saying I simply don't care.
This is the only part of your rant that made any sort of sense to me, unless there's some corporation somewhere I don't know about whos charter includes "do evil" as a higher priority than making money. "The medical industry" is not a company. We're certainly in bad shape if competition in the medical industy becomes so weak that a drug company could actually pull this off without being undercut by thier competitors (and I admit that the complete absense of a free market in health insurance since WWII might have in fact created this exact problem).
You honestly don't think that companies can figure out on their own that focusing on aleviating symptoms might be more profitable than a one time cure? Many companies are trying to figure out how to move to a subscription model because there's only inital costs, and after that almost pure profit. Health insurance has nothing to do with it.
Of course, if we add enough "socialized" to medicine I'm sure we could reach that level of lack of competition - just remove enough financial incentives for inventing new wonder drugs, and the best and brightest researchers will certainly move elsewhere.
Who said the doctors wouldn't be paid? I don't know about you, but every one I've talked to doing professional work in the public sector tell me the pay is great.
By the way, do you really believe that an old man should be prevented from deciding on his own between a longer life with sex and a shorter life without? Are you really ready to take away his freedom just because you disagree with his choice?
Nice stawman. So my freedom is being taken away when no one produces a product I might want? My grandmother's freedom was taken because no one is producing a cure for diabetes? The choices you give are wrong anyway; the choices you should have given is a shorter life with sex or a longer one without.
I am anonymous since I was flamed for having criticized Google's hand on open-source, who modify and tune up the linux kernel without giving back their optimisations to the communinity
They ARE following the GPL. Did they distribute a binary of their code somewhere? Nope. So they are under no obligation to distribute the changes they made. You just want to benefit from their work (and cost).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my only experience with a union was my previous job. The unioned employees kept blaming each other for quality problems (this was a printing company). Ultimately, the company was shut down because of some HUGE problems. Its sister companies did not have the same problems, and none of them had unions..
Outside of that, my perception has been that union people do get better pay and benefits, but also seemed to do less work. I know road construction jobs are unionized here, and I see the workers usually standing around doing nothing..
I assume you're in WV, so I'll ask you. What are the competitors that Verizon complains about? It seems that Verizon is quickly becoming the old Ma Bell, because I haven't lived in a city that didn't have them for service... nor was I away of any competitors.
Where I am, the city formed its own private telecom company that offers TV, phone and internet. Its the only competition Verizon has for phone service, and it just started last year..
I don't see the problem honestly. Again, it seems it would be better if we didn't let an MS baby come into this life. At the end of the day, it only affects a few people (the woman and her husband, partner or whatever). I don't see why society should dictate on this issue at all.
Not particularly, no. Should I be angry because my taxes are going to fund public schools despite the fact that I have no children nor do I ever want any? Should I feel slighted because I pay property taxes for road maintenance when I don't own a car and don't see myself purchasing one any time in the next decade?
I would think you should. Personally I don't like that my property taxes are skyrocketing to fund education for someone else's kids. Especially when the schools are only 1/3 utilized and they could consoldate them now, yet the parents of said kids want 'neighborhood' schools (god forbid they attend a school 15 minutes away..). As far as roads go, in the US almost all funding for roads is via the gasoline tax. And there's a clear benefit to having roads; you don't have a car, but the EMS can get to you becaus of roads.
I certainly wish circumstances were different and that I didn't require as much of the health care pie as I do, but I had no choice in the matter. I *do* try to be responsible with my use of health care: I try to combine problems into single visits, I arrange prescription refills so that I don't need special appointments for such things, and while I probably should have gone to the ER a few times in the last month, in my experience, they usually do very little and it's a waste of my time and our money, so I refrain and wait for gastroenterologist appointments, where it is much more likely that things will get done.
That's certainly considerate of you. Unfortunately (again, in the US) most aren't like that. The majority of gastric bypass patients where my wife used to work were on medicare / medicaid. For a surgury that doesn't solve the problem (overeating) and has many complications and can also be treated by telling these people to eat less and exercise more. Worse, the number of fat people is increasing. Why should I have more and more of my taxes taken becaus some fatty can't stop eating donuts?
While I'm not poor, I'm probably lower-middle class currently. I would gladly trade my ailment for poverty; at least then I could derive the satisfaction of being a productive member of society instead of being confined to wait for an unspecified period of time (i.e. until I go into remission or find a drug cocktail to which I respond well) for that privilege. Laying in bed for weeks at a time unable to even go buy groceries is not only unpleasant but emotionally distressing, at least for me.
I certainly feel empathy for your situation. At the same time though, I'm sliding down the class scale trying to fund other people's needs. If things keep up like they are, I won't be able to take care of my needs. And I'm not talking about video games, I'm talking about basic things like fixing the leak in my bathroom, the rotting floor under the sliding door and replacing my collapsing fence.
What's worse, now the people in the US want me to pay for their healthcare as well? I take care of myself; I am eating better and exercising now, but soon i'll be paying for those that can't be bothered to. Not a prospect I very much like.
It mentions real places and real time and real events that really happened. From a historical perspective this is unrefuted and actually supported by documentation and archaeological evidence too. And no, What I am saying is that events in the bible have been determined to have actually happened. What I am not saying is that they happened exactly as the bible says. But then we are translating languages that doesn't alway cap out as the original intent.
Interesting logic. So because some movie mentions 9/11, that means the movie is fact. Please tell me, they actually deteremined that a burning bush talked to someone? Or that an actual person suddenly turned into a pillar of salt? I'm interested in your take on how the translation changed the meaning of things in such fundamental ways.
The idea you are arguing this in this way proves my point about the failures of people claiming to be scientific rejecting stuff because they don't agree with it and not because of the validity of the evidence. And to boot, you are going in search of ways and means to brag about your denials of such. The bible, in many respects is as accurate as a high school history book.
Well, I can write a book too about things that really happened, and then add in my comments that God told me why this event happened or that event happened. The parts that back up your belief that there even is a god (or that the world just popped into existence in seven days) you have no proof of, and no evidence of.
Lol.. I have admitted no such thing. Up until this post I have said nothing about the validity of the evidence except it is there and people are showing proof of it. I like the way you place words into my thoughts as if I said them in order to impose your view. I wonder how many other views you have that are tainted in this way.
So you have shreds of evidence that you can't even claim is valid? Is that a fair statement? Its funny that you claim I have tainted views, yet when asked directly for your evidence, you provided nothing. Interesting.
As for "it could have happened". This is funny too. The revolutionary war could have happened. Napoleon could have been a ruler of france. It doesn't mean he wasn't and the common belief is that the evidence shows both happened. It is the same type of evidence that shows parts of the bibles for it's historical accuracy.
Well we have proof that the revolutionary war happened. We can dig up relics that match the time and events. As for your bible though, where's the proof that God was involved in any of the events which you claim happened? Even if david killed golith with a slingshot (which is fairly unlikely, even for those best at using a slingshot), does that suddenly mean god exists? In fact, there's not really evidence that David existed as the bible claims at all.
Maybe you need to look at it again. and this time without your prejudice mind getting in the way. Maybe you should look into more then what people on Internet boards are saying where you can trip them up and put words in their statements to come to a conclusion of denial.
You have it backwards; I actually did believe that crap for quite a while.. but when I started thinking for myself, and looking into things more I realized that there really wasn't any proof of anything at all.
You see, unlike yourself, people aren't seeking you out to make you a believer. They don't take every opportunity to trash your beliefs based on fictitious statements centered around the inability to view evidence objectively combined with animosity to your claims. And if some do, the few that are doing it are just repeating what they were told but not on the same level as they were told it. But like you, they don't know what they are talking about and think they do.
I can think of quite a few laws that seem to exist only because they are based in religous (christian) beliefs, because there's really no basis for them otherwise. Fortunately, a great many
Actually yes. Please point out where in the Constitution that the Federal goverment has the power to implement such programs. Unlike what Bush would like you to believe there is no such thing as 'implicit' powers. Just the opposite. Unless the Constitution says the Federal government has the right to do something, they expressly DO NOT have that right.
Just having it available makes it harder? Please. If google really makes a great desktop search product, people will go out of their way to use it, just like people go out of their way to use FF.
I hope they don't require that. If I didn't have my old 802.11b router / WEP, I would either to have to live without Wii accessing the internet, or I'd have to move from WPA-EAS to WPA-PSK. I find the EAS setup more secure, because you can't brute force it.
This right here is proof as far as I'm concerned that anybody who seriously thinks that the US Government staged 9/11, shot down TWA 800, killed JFK or faked the Apollo landings really needs to have their head examined.
Right... because some office worker is dumb (or simply didn't know the need to strip the data), it then follows that EVERYONE in the government is just as dumb / incompetent.
Very good logic there.
fortunately, I don't have the added stress of medical bills or even the worry that I could be completely denied treatment because of no group insurance coverage.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean here, but do you think about the people that are barely able to make ends meet, yet are paying taxes to help keep you going? Does it bother you that you may be making other people's lives harder?
So, who's better about genetic selection? The actual environment, or some person (or worse yet, committee?)
Its been a while since we let environment decide. We keep finding new ways to keep people with MS alive, hell we even keep 900lbs people alive when their weight should have already crushed their air ducts.
If I have speeding tickets, and my auto insurance carrier finds out about it, is that discrimination?
No, but its wrong for them to raise rates because of speeding... but that's because driving fast does not increase your chance of an accident. There are studies proving this. There are also studies that prove setting a limit most people would not normally pick for themselves DOES increase the chances of an accident.
Is it to our long-term interests to force insurers to operate in ignorance?
I'd have to agree with you here. I don't think that fat people, or people that smoke should be charged the same as somebody that takes care of their body (actually, I think having smokers in your company does affect your group rates.. which I find unfair).
I think we need to re-evaluate a lot of things regarding new human life. Is it worth it to help keep a baby alive that is born with MS? Especially given that the child WILL suffer while it is alive. I find myself answering no, and that at some point the cost to society becomes too great.
I'm sure that most level-headed people would agree that actually terminating a pregnancy due to very small unfavorable genetic traits such as those you mentioned is completely wrong.
I would argue that most level-headed people would not be interfering with the private affairs of others, especially when what those others do does not affect them.
There are shreds of evidence.
Such as?
If nothing else, the majority of the bible is a history book and the times, location and stuff for most of it has been verified to be accurate.
Nope. Just because it mentions real places and times does not make it accurate. What you're doing is saying something like Law & Order is real because it depicts a place and time accurately, when its not history at all, but a fictional story.
The problem isn't that there isn't any evidence. it is that you are rejecting it before looking and holding this rejection to validate your own beliefs. I'm not saying you would be converted or anything of the sorts. But I am saying you are flat out wrong and possibly intentionally lieing when you make comments like that.
No, actually I have looked at the evidence. And I continue to do so whenever presented to me. The closest any thing has come is 'it could have happened,' but to even get that far you have to stretch things and throw out a lot of details, and there are a thousand other things that could have happened. You even admit your 'evidence' is really anything at all. If it were, it would convience me to believe again (yes, I was raised Catholic).
More likely though, you are so desperately trying to make things fit that you don't see the lack of evidence that proves your point, and ignore anything that could threaten your beliefs.
If coal and oil don't take that long to make, please start making some, God knows we could use more of it!
It does two things. It take the meaning of life away and then it empowers people like you who seem compelled to force that opinion on others because you don't agree with what they have come up with.
I don't believe in that useless drivel, yet I find plenty of meaning in life. The problem people like me have is that you believe all that crap without one shred of evidence. Fortunately some people decided that's not the best way to learn, and here we are much better off because of it. If everyone believed in your non-sense you wouldn't have a computer connected to the internet to post your non-sense on.
So are you against all fiction books, cartoons and television?
People who dedicate their lives to star wars, D&D, star trek and so forth, don't harm anyone... it's not as extreme as protesting or building churches... but entertainment no less.
The difference is that no one in the latter group REALLY BELIEVES they are living in a Star Trek / Wars world. These religous nuts actually believe this non-sense in the bible.
When you attack that religion you are attacking that freedom.
No, you're attacking that freedom. Your freedom to believe in some fairy in the clouds that's also a dove and human doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to tell you you're a nut. Nor is trying to sway your belief. Its called a free exchange of ideas.
Now, if I suddenly forbad you to practice said religon, or read its teachings, or whatever, THAT is attacking religous freedom. Even that seems to be OK in the US if you're a minority religon though.
5) Am I the only one that finds it odd that a bunch of nutballs who don't even bother to read their own holy book swear that the it is the literal word God even though it was originally written in Aramaic, translated in to Hebrew, then to Latin, then to Greek, and the back to Latin, and then to English? And that's a best case scenario for most of the books of the "Bible".
As any true believer will explain to you, its not possible to mess up the translation, because they are writing the Word Of God.
It doesn't matter. I can use his methods. Why would i waste time coming up with different ones? I haven't agreed to any dubius EULA that says i can't overcome "technical limitations" however they decide to define them.
I guess that answers the question I asked earlier as to whether or not developers have the right to market their product how they see fit. It seems your answer is "no." Notice how I never mentioned the EULA though..
No kidding. I don't have to address that because no one disagrees about that (unless you do). And it's their choice to stop selling it or giving it away if they want to.
It seems you certainly do. You seem to have no problem using Jamies method. Its their choice to to stop the Express version, but don't kid yourself by blaming MS if they choose to do so. If they can't ship the Express version like they want to because of Jamie's action, I can't fault them for no longer shipping the product at all.
Who said that? You need to read more carefully. Are you suggesting that someone is stopping MS from doing business?
Someone is interfering with MS' right to ship the Express version without add-ins.
No, that doesn't make it a pretty lousy OS. Lots of things don't fail without competition. Having something not fail is not an indication of it being lousy.
OS Warp did have competition though, and it failed. That make it a lousy OS.
I'm still curious though; if this situation were reversed, and MS was enabling a feature in one of his product lines that he didn't want enabled, would you be angry at Jamie for taking action against MS? Or would you simply say MS is bullying some poor developer again?
Ha, ha. my attempt to derail the thread? You brought up some sort of bomb threat scenario.
Yup, your attempt. I'm sure you can think of dozens of other examples that explain the situation.
Disrupting an amicable agreement? please.
You don't think the people using Express want to? Please provide some proof.
OS warp would not have failed if it was the only choice you had.
I guess that makes it a pretty lousy OS then huh?
The fact that other people came into the market and "disrupted" people's business methods made OS Warp fail. You don't hear IBM blaming MS for their discontinuing of OS Warp.
Really? MS came in and stopped IBM from trying to do business? Interesting.
MS is trying to agressively segment the market so they "own" all of it but don't canablize their own sales. They've just done it so agressively that it is easy to add functionality that eats into their higher end IDEs.
Just like Honda "segments" the market by offering different packages on each model of car right? Please. I guess you don't build software; its far easier to disable functionality than to rip it all out. The fact remains VS is their product and they can sell it (or give it away) any way they like. Its their right, because its their product. You never address that.
If we want to remove all questions, I could use the methods he used to develop a plug-in for Express and MS wouldn't have a leg to stand on if i didn't agree to the Express EULA. So none of your other arguments hold water if he isn't found to be violating the EULA or if they find that he violated the EULA and so is simply no longer allowed to use Express.
I doubt you could do so without copying his methods though. As in, come up with the method on your own (or having someone help you by having them install Express).
Sorry, I guess I'm just one of those people that believes 'say what you mean, and mean what you say.' I don't care is a pretty broad statement to make..
That's true to an extent, but you could license it in such a way as to forbid it (or derivatives) from being exported or sold to certain countries. Would it stop said countries? Maybe not, but it may slow them down, and you have a better chance then if you just threw it out there..
It is a serious question. I would certainly care if my software was being used to purposefully harm people, and its something I would put in the license. "This software may not be exported to ." I release enforcement would be difficult, but its better than saying I simply don't care.
This is the only part of your rant that made any sort of sense to me, unless there's some corporation somewhere I don't know about whos charter includes "do evil" as a higher priority than making money. "The medical industry" is not a company. We're certainly in bad shape if competition in the medical industy becomes so weak that a drug company could actually pull this off without being undercut by thier competitors (and I admit that the complete absense of a free market in health insurance since WWII might have in fact created this exact problem).
You honestly don't think that companies can figure out on their own that focusing on aleviating symptoms might be more profitable than a one time cure? Many companies are trying to figure out how to move to a subscription model because there's only inital costs, and after that almost pure profit. Health insurance has nothing to do with it.
Of course, if we add enough "socialized" to medicine I'm sure we could reach that level of lack of competition - just remove enough financial incentives for inventing new wonder drugs, and the best and brightest researchers will certainly move elsewhere.
Who said the doctors wouldn't be paid? I don't know about you, but every one I've talked to doing professional work in the public sector tell me the pay is great.
By the way, do you really believe that an old man should be prevented from deciding on his own between a longer life with sex and a shorter life without? Are you really ready to take away his freedom just because you disagree with his choice?
Nice stawman. So my freedom is being taken away when no one produces a product I might want? My grandmother's freedom was taken because no one is producing a cure for diabetes? The choices you give are wrong anyway; the choices you should have given is a shorter life with sex or a longer one without.
I am anonymous since I was flamed for having criticized Google's hand on open-source, who modify and tune up the linux kernel without giving back their optimisations to the communinity
They ARE following the GPL. Did they distribute a binary of their code somewhere? Nope. So they are under no obligation to distribute the changes they made. You just want to benefit from their work (and cost).