Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Copyright infringment is not unethical. Whats unethical is that a company owns "happy birthday" and charges thousands of dollars if you want to use it. If i have similar thoughts as someone before me, can a company come along and say "we own those thoughts" and lock me up for thinking them?
one day in the future, when everything is owned, you will be owned too.
I can see the future, you know. One day, if the world were to suffer a change that knocked it back into a "Dark Age", will people be using windows xp that needs to activate with a central server? How will humanity access the sum of the worlds knowledge to rebuild, if its all in proprietary formats? This is the danger of owning information. Information loss, decay or managed destruction. No one thinks of the possible future reprecusions of owning information/art. Would the people who made that art, who recorded that information, be sorry when in 1000 years its lost because some greedy millionaire wanted to make an extra g-note at the turn of the 21st century?
Culture is whats important. This has nothing to do with software, but you mentioned music which is culture so thats more what im talking about. Would the bible have survived without being freely given away? Is it not the worlds most popular book?
Oh and btw i would LOVE to see the source of that quote from maynard.. oh wait, it isnt even a quote. its just a collection of made up words that you invented and included for aeffect.
"The difference between *you* going to kill someone by saying "you are at war" is a farcry then a lawful, authorized, and acknowledged organization like the government."
bwahahahaahaha... if you cant trust the government who can you trust?
"The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down"
The defense, i was just following orders, has been used to justify many atrocities. I guess the lower rank SS officers were not guilty of anything because hitler was at the top and it all came down to him, right?
This is the problem with people who believe in god. Lack of personal responsibility. God did not tell you to murder soldiers from the other side, you made a concious decision. Anything less than that reeks of moral cowardice.
"I personally don't have a problem if a someone knows who many times I day I shit, what kind of tea I buy, what party I vote, etc. so I have real trouble comprehending this strange fear"
Please kindly reply to this comment with the following:
1) your full name and home address 2) a history of your shopping record, including times and dates so i can pattern match to see when your most likely to be not at home 3) Detailed purchase information from your local big box store so that when i come to your house and murder your wife, i can do it with a recently purchased like model knife or blunt object.
Honestly, the only people who are for mass databases really have no imgination.
Well this fellow seems to have a "conspiricy theory" that fits with your question
" Now while the arab islamic population was going crazy over the outrage created by their government's media over these cartoons, their governments was benifitting from its people's distraction. The Saudi royal Family used it to distract its people from the outrage over the Hajj stampede. The Jordanian government used it to distract its people from their new minimum wage law demanded by their labor unions. The Syrian Government used it to create secterian division in Lebanon and change the focus on the Harriri murder. And, finally, the Egyptian government is using it to distract us while it passes through the new Judiciary reforms and Social Security Bill- which will cut over $300 million dollars in benefits to some of Egypt's poorest families. But, see, the people were not paying attention, because they were too busy defending the prophet by sending out millions of e-mails and SMS-messages, boycotting cheese and Lego and burning Butter and the danish Flag. Let's not even mention the idiots who went the usual route of "It's a jewish conspiracy", spouted the stupid argument about the Holocaust, or went on a diatribe with the old favorite "There is an organized campaign-headed by the west and the jews- to attack and discredit Islam, and we have to defend it". They proved, once again, that the arab world is retarded and deserves no better than its leaders."
personally, I see the problem as being religion. I dont expect anyone to deny other people freedom based on their sexual orientation either, but you have that in the USA. If anything, I would say that the islamists are more ready enmasse for violence than the americans which let their governement handle the violence for them.
Yeah you obviously didnt grow up with friends whoes parents were gay/lesbian. I did. They are way less fucked up than me and not gay.
So yeah it is bigotry. Its exactly like saying a single father cant raise a well rounded child. Most people would consider that statement offensive. Especially the single fathers. You do realize that just because you want to fuck a certain sex, doesnt make you any different than anyone else right? right?
People have been making music since the dawn of time. Paying for it in little bite sized disks is a fairly new invention. If you dont want people to hear your music, then don't release it. The point of releasing music is to get other people to hear it. It is not to make money. especially in the internet age where you dont even have to go out and buy little plastic disks, which do have a real world cost.
What about the artists! they say... how will they get paid? my answer would be, that will work itself out*. Its not like lack of money = lack of music. I guarantee that if you remove the superstar golden sharktank profits from the industry, the general quality of music will improve.
A good example has to do with the band Nickleback. Someone has kindly remixed 2 nickleback songs together. the left channel is their first song, and the rigth channel is their latest hit. Listen to it, and tell me if manufactured music for profit is the way you want things to go.
* The thinking of the industry is not aimed in this direction yet. If it was, you would see an itunes like revolution in the way music is done.
"I do find your priorities rather odd - the default volume setting being more important than video quality?"
we arent talking about home cinema videos here we are talking about short videos downloaded from the internet. quality doesnt matter. considering i find cam'ed movies fine quality wise most of the time, might give you some idea of what my expectations are.
I did not know it was possible to use media player classic (which i use for most video files) to play embeded video off the web. all i ever get with quicktime is this like, you know, 5 inch by 5 inch screen with the volume turned up. Quicktime does a fantastic job of stealing every programs file associations, even when specifically asking it not to do so. Additionally, I have never been able to figure out how to get a full screen web video with quicktime. its about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the google video.
divx isnt a bastardization. unless thats what you call the most popular video format for full length movies on the internet. Honestly, ive never seen a full length (~2hrs).mov or.qt video so i cant really say how much different the size and quality are. I just tried to download a video from the quicktime website to see how big it is, but unfortuantely they are all embeded.
basically, quicktime isnt userfriendly - or more specifically, like itunes, its very user friendly if you are a certain type of user, and completely useless if you stray from the norm. Not remembering volume settings is a big deal when you have the volume set at 5% because the computer is the preamp to your stereo. Then a quicktime file will come along and jack it up to 100. Is it even possible to view embeded files with media player classic?
i really dont have that great of an argument but you know, one little thing like stealing file associations (i have always rememberd this program doing this, even on windows 3.11), or unconfigurable volume settings, make a stain in my mind for a product. Not to mention the fact that you have to buy the "pro" version to use alot of the features, and things like divx encoders can be had completly free. the most important thing i learned i guess, is that blowing out your speakers tends to taint the product that did the blowing.
well id rather have crappyier(sp?) video quality and a player that can actually REMEMBER MY VOLUME SETTINGS... something that apple has failed to master.
I blew out a cone on my speaker because of stupid quicktime starting all videos at max volume. AT least google video doesnt own my hardware:P
as for owning video quality, (which i would argue is not the reason why google video is nice anyways), the compromise between size and quality goes to divx. qt files are huge comparatively.
"By which I mean that yes, they have formidable analytic capability, but it is centered around publically accessible information."
Um lol? Every professional big time website that i have worked behind does some sort of metrics on its users. Do you honestly think google doesnt have a big ole log of everything accessed by every IP?
how else would they fine tune their advertising business?
trust me your not at all anonymous when you use google, or any website for that matter. because of googles position, they have the most power though. A simple http_referer log would alone generate tonnes of useful data that the public has no access to.
Should google stop doing business in america because they are tacitly supporting the torture going on in the USA's secret prisions with the taxes they pay? are they evil because they support the government of the country that they operate in? wheres the difference.
why do americans think that they can dicate to the rest of the world what good and evil are??? this is exactly why america has so many foreign affairs issues.
I didnt know i had a high karma level. Im only +1 and i think thats because im logged in and not a troll (much).
there is no correlation between truth and highly moderated comments on slashdot. anyone who thinks differently is crazy.
but what he said was true and it really doesnt matter if its modded highly or not.
"My real point is that you get all these people on here self congratulating and acting like they are really going out on a limb by writing stuff they clearly know is the majority/. view."
My point i guess is that you get all these people on here critizing modded up comments and attributing the mod down of oposing viewpoints to the slashdot group think. these people act like they are really going out on a limb trying to fight through the awesome power of slashdot collective will. did you ever consider that everyone on slashdot is completly different and that perhaps the things that are modded up are modded up on their own merits? thats why idiots get modded up as much as insightful posts. every thread has a "why was this modded up" post, which pretty much shows that lots of crap is modded up all the time. groupthink or no.
"Fundementalism, dogmatism, tyranny of the majority and FUD thrive in the slashdot world to as great a degree as you brave souls seem to believe is happening in the "real world.""
"So, you're a bag of meat? Why is it then, that almost every civilization in history makes it a crime to kill a fellow bag of meat?"
um because they are the same as you? thats why we can kill pigs, cows and sheep and no one cares. Bags of meat (mt) that are the same as me (read human beings) should have the same rights as me. Including the right not to die if they so chose. I dont see what the difference is between saying "bag of meat" and "human". Its not like because you dont believe in the existence of a soul you suddenly become less than human or something.
"With this sort of argument, there are many people (myself included) who have a hard time believing that a 1 day old baby is somehow different than a 4 month old fetus."
putting aside the fact that there are different terms for each ( baby, fetus ) and getting to the real point i think your making, that consciousness starts at conception, would allow me to respond to the root point. The difference is that a fetus is not a person. If anything, its a parasite/growth in a womens uterus. If some day it were found that all animals, bugs, plants etc.. are actually conscious of everything that goes on around them, would you also favor not removing things like tapeworms, lice, etc? no... of course not. The fundamental idea regarding abortion and also stem cells, is that the baby is part of the women. its not part of god, the universe, or even the man whoes seed is in her. She should have the right to say what happens to it. If she doesn't feel like she should take care of it, or cannot take care of it, it shouldn't be born.
To get back on topic, if you are growing stem cells for the purposes of research or to aid the living, then thats why that collection of cells has come into being. There is no obligation to do anything more with them, any more than the obligation to set free cows who have been bread for slaughter. the organism would not exist if a scientist/farmer didn't grow it.
"Consider assisted suicide, euthanasia, death penalties, etc. It's all a question of ethics. Sure, religion has its thoughts on the matter, but it's not about religion."
thoughts derived from religious ethics arent about religion? I dont know what to say to that. Most people would say that there is no ethical dilemma in cutting your finger nails, so i dont see why there should be one about growing stem cells. Its just cells. life begins when your born, not when you get knocked up/touched by god. The only people who dont think that, believe in god. This is why its a religious issue.
you obviously dont have kids. If parents cant feed their kids 3 meals a day, they probably need all the help they can get.
are you seriously arguing that feeding hungry children so that they can learn is not something schools should be doing? if so then i think your possibly the most morally irresponsible disgusting piece of human filth i have ever read something said by.
The problem with all this is that religion is not harmless to society. Infact i would argue that having organized religion is a method to control the populace and make them obedient. It teaches you to not challenge authority, to be humble, to not take risks and many other detrimental things. The concept of good and evil, for one, was invented by religion. There is no "good and evil" "black and white" only shades of grey. If nothing else, that this ONE FACT, could be disseminated and ingrained into people as much as the concepts of good and evil, i would be a happy man.
Another societal problem caused by religion is that, most religious people believe that things happen for a reason. This leads people to assign blame, and to think things like poverty and social status are 'just'. Some of my conservative friends are baffled when i bring up the close relationship between religion and the far right. They say to me: " i dont get why the conservatives are always bringing up god. thats the only thing i really disagree with ". To me its obvious. They are there for the same aims. To "educate" to indoctrinate and to control.
A good practical example of where religion is hurting society is the whole stem cell nonsense. There you have an example of an active assault on a promising scientific field because of childish notions of what it means to be alive. Youre a bag of meat whose consciousness has been brought forth to keep your cells alive. Thats it. No grand plan, no meaning except for what YOU yourself decide to make of it. This is why I am actively against religion and will shun religious people. This is the same idea as shunning racists. Personally, i couldnt care if in your head your the most racist or god fearing. Its when those sorts of people interact with society that I get upset. It is impossible to keep the crazy in just your head. I get the fact that religion is a nice way to meet people, to be social and interact, but really, I hope it evolves into a club and disassociates itself with all these dogmatic fairy tales and absolute 'truths'.
"So, call a spade a spade. If people are going to whine and bitch about confusing "theft" and "copyright infringement", then they should also whine and bitch about confusing "sharing" and "distributing"."
As long as they arent "distributing" for profit, i dont see what the harm is. Or are you of the opinion that when, one day, we can make exact copies of objects - matter - by combining raw atoms, that people should pay a fee to license the patterns / tech? Trying to control an infinite resource to create artificial scarcity is one of the worst practices that any business can get involved with. Its the same thing as debeers with their warehouses full of diamonds. Controlling the supply has created artifical scarcity.
The philisophical argument doesnt change just because its on a grander scale.
you must have used a br because otherwise your text would be right above ["reply to this"] (or your sig) as this will probably be. br and p are the ownage.. i dont see why we need more than html 3. its good enough for everyone.
I had no job for almost 2 years after graduating. I did program and learn on for myself, helped a little on some open source projects, went on backpacking tours etc. But I never went for a crappy job, just because I needed the money. I was living from what I have accumulated during studies (sounds strange, but I actually had lots of money left after studying, that's what happens when you are a geek and barely go out;) ). I was living for to years off the money I now make in one month.
So i can gather a few things from this statement. 1) you didnt have to pay rent when you didnt have a job 2) someone else baught you food. well i have news for you, but alot (most?) people do not have this luxury. Its either get a job or you starve.
I would never hire anyone that wasnt currently in a job, or who sat around for a year being unemployed. This is for the simple reason that they have proved by having a shitty job, delivering pizzas or whatever, that they want/need to work. This is a good work ethic. Your work ethic of "Doing things you love on other peoples terms just for the money is just prostitution." is naieve and childish. grow up. most people work to survive.
"But I never went for a crappy job, just because I needed the money." This is because you never really needed the money.
"and a teenager doing drugs that will ruin the rest of his life. "
WTF? thats kinda outta left field dont you think?
let me be the first to say that being a teenager and doing drugs will NOT ruin your life. Infact the oposite might be true. But yeah, some people dont realize the glory of hacking their minds till way too late in life, if ever. Thats how it goes i guess. If you fail at life its not the drugs your taking or not taking, its you.
Slashdot Mirror
one day in the future, when everything is owned, you will be owned too.
I can see the future, you know. One day, if the world were to suffer a change that knocked it back into a "Dark Age", will people be using windows xp that needs to activate with a central server? How will humanity access the sum of the worlds knowledge to rebuild, if its all in proprietary formats? This is the danger of owning information. Information loss, decay or managed destruction. No one thinks of the possible future reprecusions of owning information/art. Would the people who made that art, who recorded that information, be sorry when in 1000 years its lost because some greedy millionaire wanted to make an extra g-note at the turn of the 21st century?
Culture is whats important. This has nothing to do with software, but you mentioned music which is culture so thats more what im talking about. Would the bible have survived without being freely given away? Is it not the worlds most popular book?
Oh and btw i would LOVE to see the source of that quote from maynard.. oh wait, it isnt even a quote. its just a collection of made up words that you invented and included for aeffect.
"The difference between *you* going to kill someone by saying "you are at war" is a farcry then a lawful, authorized, and acknowledged organization like the government."
bwahahahaahaha... if you cant trust the government who can you trust?
"The guy who ordered the soldier to kill does not necessarily have murder on his hands, he may have been given an order (as things flow down"
The defense, i was just following orders, has been used to justify many atrocities. I guess the lower rank SS officers were not guilty of anything because hitler was at the top and it all came down to him, right?
This is the problem with people who believe in god. Lack of personal responsibility. God did not tell you to murder soldiers from the other side, you made a concious decision. Anything less than that reeks of moral cowardice.
"I personally don't have a problem if a someone knows who many times I day I shit, what kind of tea I buy, what party I vote, etc. so I have real trouble comprehending this strange fear"
Please kindly reply to this comment with the following:
1) your full name and home address
2) a history of your shopping record, including times and dates so i can pattern match to see when your most likely to be not at home
3) Detailed purchase information from your local big box store so that when i come to your house and murder your wife, i can do it with a recently purchased like model knife or blunt object.
Honestly, the only people who are for mass databases really have no imgination.
from http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/bo
personally, I see the problem as being religion. I dont expect anyone to deny other people freedom based on their sexual orientation either, but you have that in the USA. If anything, I would say that the islamists are more ready enmasse for violence than the americans which let their governement handle the violence for them.
"Close your eyes. Put your hand three inches from your face. Feel the heat around your lips?"
Yeah um im pretty sure thats just you exhaling warm breath/nose air. Nice try though.
"Ars points out that the upshot of this is that it will not be possible to build your own DVRs using CableCARDs."
How is not being able to do something an "upshot" of owning hardware?
less is more?
Yeah you obviously didnt grow up with friends whoes parents were gay/lesbian. I did. They are way less fucked up than me and not gay.
So yeah it is bigotry. Its exactly like saying a single father cant raise a well rounded child. Most people would consider that statement offensive. Especially the single fathers. You do realize that just because you want to fuck a certain sex, doesnt make you any different than anyone else right? right?
you do realize that in most cities, you only own something like 10ft (if that much) underneath your property right?
They would simply lay them down deep enough as to be in the cities land.
"I tell them to buy a Mac, 'cause it's all I know. I also tell them to make sure they buy an extended warranty , because they will Sure Need It."
im confused.. you want people to buy a reliable computer, but then you say if they buy a mac they "sure will need" the extended warranty?
do you work for best buy?
Why should i pay for music?
People have been making music since the dawn of time. Paying for it in little bite sized disks is a fairly new invention. If you dont want people to hear your music, then don't release it. The point of releasing music is to get other people to hear it. It is not to make money. especially in the internet age where you dont even have to go out and buy little plastic disks, which do have a real world cost.
What about the artists! they say... how will they get paid?
my answer would be, that will work itself out*. Its not like lack of money = lack of music. I guarantee that if you remove the superstar golden sharktank profits from the industry, the general quality of music will improve.
A good example has to do with the band Nickleback. Someone has kindly remixed 2 nickleback songs together. the left channel is their first song, and the rigth channel is their latest hit. Listen to it, and tell me if manufactured music for profit is the way you want things to go.
* The thinking of the industry is not aimed in this direction yet. If it was, you would see an itunes like revolution in the way music is done.
"I do find your priorities rather odd - the default volume setting being more important than video quality?"
.mov or .qt video so i cant really say how much different the size and quality are. I just tried to download a video from the quicktime website to see how big it is, but unfortuantely they are all embeded.
we arent talking about home cinema videos here we are talking about short videos downloaded from the internet. quality doesnt matter. considering i find cam'ed movies fine quality wise most of the time, might give you some idea of what my expectations are.
I did not know it was possible to use media player classic (which i use for most video files) to play embeded video off the web. all i ever get with quicktime is this like, you know, 5 inch by 5 inch screen with the volume turned up. Quicktime does a fantastic job of stealing every programs file associations, even when specifically asking it not to do so. Additionally, I have never been able to figure out how to get a full screen web video with quicktime. its about 1/2 to 1/3rd the size of the google video.
divx isnt a bastardization. unless thats what you call the most popular video format for full length movies on the internet. Honestly, ive never seen a full length (~2hrs)
basically, quicktime isnt userfriendly - or more specifically, like itunes, its very user friendly if you are a certain type of user, and completely useless if you stray from the norm. Not remembering volume settings is a big deal when you have the volume set at 5% because the computer is the preamp to your stereo. Then a quicktime file will come along and jack it up to 100. Is it even possible to view embeded files with media player classic?
i really dont have that great of an argument but you know, one little thing like stealing file associations (i have always rememberd this program doing this, even on windows 3.11), or unconfigurable volume settings, make a stain in my mind for a product. Not to mention the fact that you have to buy the "pro" version to use alot of the features, and things like divx encoders can be had completly free. the most important thing i learned i guess, is that blowing out your speakers tends to taint the product that did the blowing.
well id rather have crappyier(sp?) video quality and a player that can actually REMEMBER MY VOLUME SETTINGS... something that apple has failed to master.
:P
I blew out a cone on my speaker because of stupid quicktime starting all videos at max volume. AT least google video doesnt own my hardware
as for owning video quality, (which i would argue is not the reason why google video is nice anyways), the compromise between size and quality goes to divx. qt files are huge comparatively.
"By which I mean that yes, they have formidable analytic capability, but it is centered around publically accessible information."
Um lol? Every professional big time website that i have worked behind does some sort of metrics on its users. Do you honestly think google doesnt have a big ole log of everything accessed by every IP?
how else would they fine tune their advertising business?
trust me your not at all anonymous when you use google, or any website for that matter. because of googles position, they have the most power though. A simple http_referer log would alone generate tonnes of useful data that the public has no access to.
"Google, please don't repeat the Google Video fiasco."
Fiasco? did i miss that? Google video owns, i get links forwarded to content they host all the time... want proof?
look no further!
and its WAY better than WMP or quicktime video *shudder*
indeed mr ac indeed.
Should google stop doing business in america because they are tacitly supporting the torture going on in the USA's secret prisions with the taxes they pay? are they evil because they support the government of the country that they operate in? wheres the difference.
why do americans think that they can dicate to the rest of the world what good and evil are??? this is exactly why america has so many foreign affairs issues.
I didnt know i had a high karma level. Im only +1 and i think thats because im logged in and not a troll (much).
/. view."
there is no correlation between truth and highly moderated comments on slashdot. anyone who thinks differently is crazy.
but what he said was true and it really doesnt matter if its modded highly or not.
"My real point is that you get all these people on here self congratulating and acting like they are really going out on a limb by writing stuff they clearly know is the majority
My point i guess is that you get all these people on here critizing modded up comments and attributing the mod down of oposing viewpoints to the slashdot group think. these people act like they are really going out on a limb trying to fight through the awesome power of slashdot collective will. did you ever consider that everyone on slashdot is completly different and that perhaps the things that are modded up are modded up on their own merits? thats why idiots get modded up as much as insightful posts. every thread has a "why was this modded up" post, which pretty much shows that lots of crap is modded up all the time. groupthink or no.
"Fundementalism, dogmatism, tyranny of the majority and FUD thrive in the slashdot world to as great a degree as you brave souls seem to believe is happening in the "real world.""
yeah thats humans for you.
"So, you're a bag of meat? Why is it then, that almost every civilization in history makes it a crime to kill a fellow bag of meat?"
um because they are the same as you? thats why we can kill pigs, cows and sheep and no one cares. Bags of meat (mt) that are the same as me (read human beings) should have the same rights as me. Including the right not to die if they so chose. I dont see what the difference is between saying "bag of meat" and "human". Its not like because you dont believe in the existence of a soul you suddenly become less than human or something.
"With this sort of argument, there are many people (myself included) who have a hard time believing that a 1 day old baby is somehow different than a 4 month old fetus."
putting aside the fact that there are different terms for each ( baby, fetus ) and getting to the real point i think your making, that consciousness starts at conception, would allow me to respond to the root point. The difference is that a fetus is not a person. If anything, its a parasite/growth in a womens uterus. If some day it were found that all animals, bugs, plants etc.. are actually conscious of everything that goes on around them, would you also favor not removing things like tapeworms, lice, etc? no... of course not. The fundamental idea regarding abortion and also stem cells, is that the baby is part of the women. its not part of god, the universe, or even the man whoes seed is in her. She should have the right to say what happens to it. If she doesn't feel like she should take care of it, or cannot take care of it, it shouldn't be born.
To get back on topic, if you are growing stem cells for the purposes of research or to aid the living, then thats why that collection of cells has come into being. There is no obligation to do anything more with them, any more than the obligation to set free cows who have been bread for slaughter. the organism would not exist if a scientist/farmer didn't grow it.
"Consider assisted suicide, euthanasia, death penalties, etc. It's all a question of ethics. Sure, religion has its thoughts on the matter, but it's not about religion."
thoughts derived from religious ethics arent about religion? I dont know what to say to that. Most people would say that there is no ethical dilemma in cutting your finger nails, so i dont see why there should be one about growing stem cells. Its just cells. life begins when your born, not when you get knocked up/touched by god. The only people who dont think that, believe in god. This is why its a religious issue.
you obviously dont have kids. If parents cant feed their kids 3 meals a day, they probably need all the help they can get.
are you seriously arguing that feeding hungry children so that they can learn is not something schools should be doing? if so then i think your possibly the most morally irresponsible disgusting piece of human filth i have ever read something said by.
+4 insightful?!!?
what
the
fuck...
The problem with all this is that religion is not harmless to society. Infact i would argue that having organized religion is a method to control the populace and make them obedient. It teaches you to not challenge authority, to be humble, to not take risks and many other detrimental things. The concept of good and evil, for one, was invented by religion. There is no "good and evil" "black and white" only shades of grey. If nothing else, that this ONE FACT, could be disseminated and ingrained into people as much as the concepts of good and evil, i would be a happy man.
Another societal problem caused by religion is that, most religious people believe that things happen for a reason. This leads people to assign blame, and to think things like poverty and social status are 'just'. Some of my conservative friends are baffled when i bring up the close relationship between religion and the far right. They say to me: " i dont get why the conservatives are always bringing up god. thats the only thing i really disagree with ". To me its obvious. They are there for the same aims. To "educate" to indoctrinate and to control.
A good practical example of where religion is hurting society is the whole stem cell nonsense. There you have an example of an active assault on a promising scientific field because of childish notions of what it means to be alive. Youre a bag of meat whose consciousness has been brought forth to keep your cells alive. Thats it. No grand plan, no meaning except for what YOU yourself decide to make of it. This is why I am actively against religion and will shun religious people. This is the same idea as shunning racists. Personally, i couldnt care if in your head your the most racist or god fearing. Its when those sorts of people interact with society that I get upset. It is impossible to keep the crazy in just your head. I get the fact that religion is a nice way to meet people, to be social and interact, but really, I hope it evolves into a club and disassociates itself with all these dogmatic fairy tales and absolute 'truths'.
"Or, bring on the Score:5, Insightful for bravely posting what the overwhelming majority of /. readers wish to read"
yeah people like being told the truth instead of FUD. who knew?
grand parent got schooled.
"So, call a spade a spade. If people are going to whine and bitch about confusing "theft" and "copyright infringement", then they should also whine and bitch about confusing "sharing" and "distributing"."
As long as they arent "distributing" for profit, i dont see what the harm is. Or are you of the opinion that when, one day, we can make exact copies of objects - matter - by combining raw atoms, that people should pay a fee to license the patterns / tech? Trying to control an infinite resource to create artificial scarcity is one of the worst practices that any business can get involved with. Its the same thing as debeers with their warehouses full of diamonds. Controlling the supply has created artifical scarcity.
The philisophical argument doesnt change just because its on a grander scale.
you must have used a br because otherwise your text would be right above ["reply to this"] (or your sig) as this will probably be. br and p are the ownage.. i dont see why we need more than html 3. its good enough for everyone.
So i can gather a few things from this statement. 1) you didnt have to pay rent when you didnt have a job 2) someone else baught you food. well i have news for you, but alot (most?) people do not have this luxury. Its either get a job or you starve.
I would never hire anyone that wasnt currently in a job, or who sat around for a year being unemployed. This is for the simple reason that they have proved by having a shitty job, delivering pizzas or whatever, that they want/need to work. This is a good work ethic. Your work ethic of "Doing things you love on other peoples terms just for the money is just prostitution." is naieve and childish. grow up. most people work to survive.
"But I never went for a crappy job, just because I needed the money."
This is because you never really needed the money.
"Tis better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all."
thats a crock of shit
"and a teenager doing drugs that will ruin the rest of his life. "
WTF? thats kinda outta left field dont you think?
let me be the first to say that being a teenager and doing drugs will NOT ruin your life. Infact the oposite might be true. But yeah, some people dont realize the glory of hacking their minds till way too late in life, if ever. Thats how it goes i guess. If you fail at life its not the drugs your taking or not taking, its you.