Stupidity should be painful; ignorance should be expensive. If they want to learn, good for them; if they don't, fuck em.
...So, people are losing their homes, prices are falling because supply is up and money is harder to borrow, which makes MY house worth less!
It's one thing when only the stupid pay or feel the pain, but as you point out you're made to pay or feel the pain as well.
Having said that, I kind of find it ironic how big a deal has been made about Bush's plan with the big mortgage lenders to help those behind in their payments. It's not just those who are behind that are in trouble, the lenders are too. For a long tyme it's been a pretty basic standard operating policy for lenders to work with borrowers to allow them to state in the home as the lender loses when they have to foreclose. Besides the costs of foreclosure when a house is sold it may not sell for as much as is still owed on it, foreclosure reduces the value as well. At the first sign a borrower will have trouble paying they should contact the lender to work out a plan to repay the loan, maybe they can pay the interest only until their income rises.
Yea, it's a good thing government can track everything you do. NOT!!! Because of anonymity many people were willing to fight again the Red Coats during the American Revolution. Fact is is anonymity is important because if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous they will be less willing to use political speech or fight for what they believe in. Most of those who wrote in support of the revolution did so anonymously. One of the few who signed his work was Thomas Paine, who wrote "This are the times that try men's souls" while he was serving under George Washington.
I consider myself to have a reasonable technical knowledge (e.g. I've just written a telnet client from scratch in c++) and I don't use a virus scanner when online banking or at any other time; they're a complete waste of space.
For now you can get by without a virus scanner if you're using OS X or another of the Unices but one is needed for online banking using Windows, even Vista with it's nagware notices. Many will turn off the "Need your permission to continue" prompts. And with today's hdds approaching terabyte sizes space isn't nearly as much of a concern as it used to be. I've got a 500 GB external hdd I can stick in one of my pants' or shorts' pockets. And I used to use a cassette tape for storage.
No, they are the Inuit, living in Nunavut. That is the Canadian Inuits, others live in Iceland while related groups live in northern Europe. Such as the Sami and Lapps.
I know a lot of people who use Google as their primary search engine, I know lots of people who use Yahoo for searching and mail, I even know people who prefer to use Ask.
I use Google as my primary search engine, but it's not the only one. For some searches I go to About.com first now. What's ironic is that that's because of Google, some searches I did Google led me to About.com, an About.com page was one of if not Google's first result. And when Google fails to provide me with what I'm looking for I use either Teoma, now Ask.com, or Mooter, they will return what I look for if Google doesn't.
I however use Yahoo! mail, but if MS acquires it I will switch. I am also a member of some Yahoo! groups I'll leave as well.
Yahoo must have a mountain of email accounts that perhaps MS wants to eat up in order to integrate them with the new MS email/office combination.
And Yahoo! will lose one of them, mine, and I bet others will switch as well if Microsoft acquires Yahoo!.
I must say, google and the rest of the world are slacking on getting onlnie apps out. At this rate MS is going to eat them alive and google is going to have some shitty plain Ajax wordprocessor to pretend to be competative against Word online.
I couldn't care less if Google, MS, or anyone else wins with online apps. To tell the truth this kind of puzzles me. Personal computers became such a big market, taking market share away from mainframes and minis, because people wanted to run software and store data locally. Now they want to go back to timesharing. Me, I still want to run my apps locally and to have my data local as well, unless I'm traveling but then I can use my laptop and vpn into my home server if I need to.
The difference is that Yahoo and MS are sustainable, and Google is reliant on ad revene. Though, you could say Yahoo isn't all that susnstainable in the long run, but google is BY FAR not sustainable.
Shouldn't you let all those financial analysts know what they're doing wrong?
As soon as ad spending goes down, so does Google's revenue with it.
And when ad revenue goes back up so will Google's.
Google is being more and more exploited everyday and in time it's highly unlikely it can keep it's good reputation and without a doubt it's search results aren't as good as they used to be.
Yea, as tyme goes by I use Teoma, now ask.com, and Mooter more for searches. However Google isn't totally dependent on searches, with adwords Google places a lot of ads on blogs as well as other websites.
You must be very young to believe Microsoft simply BOUGHT all of their products, or that everything successful is simply the result of their money.(Did I mention MS Office?)
This could be turned around on you, you must be very young to believe MS Office was innovative or the first office suite. All MS did was bundle different apps together. And even then though my memory is rusty I believe WordPerfect bundled an office suite before MS did... Yeap, whereas MS Office was first created in 1989, for the Mac, WordPerfect Library/Office was created in 1986.
Love them or hate them, but you would be foolish to think Microsoft never built anything on their own towards their success. They didn't buy Excel, they didn't buy Exchange Server, which spawned Active Directory, so give them their due.
MS did nothing innovative, as far as software is concerned or hardware either, though.
I mean, if you forget the theories of MS having malicious intent etc., the math becomes a lot simpler. Yahoo has 20% of market share and MS want to buy that 20%. Plain and simple.
However MS has to know it won't get all of Yahoo!'s market share. Sure it will get some but others who use Yahoo! will switch if MS acquires it.
If the RIAA associated labels go down to selling only ~1,000,000 units per year (the amount of vinyl sold last year according to Time, yes I would be pleased.:-)
Prints? Stock licensing? A portfolio for selling further services?
I plan on selling digital files online, and perhaps join one or more microstock websites, and having an online portfolio. One thing some photographers are doing now is shooting for families or groups, say a child playing Little League baseball or skating, then letting people download photos from a website. From what I've read this is popular with weddings. Now as for what I want to shoot, I love outdoor and nature photography as well as cultural scenes. I also would like to try fine art macro photography and astrophotography. The problem I'd have with astrophotography is that I live in a big city and there isn't anyplace within a 100 miles with a good view of the stars and no light pollution. I'm also interested in photojournalism.
Please, Falconwolf, can you respond to my question? I asked if you could see the difference between killing an innocent person accidentally
You didn't ask a question, not about "killing an innocent person accidentally". Here's what you say about it: "If you want to make the case that because some innocent people will accidentally be killed, it's not worth it, you can make that case. But that's accidentally kililng innocent people." There is no question there.
Do you see the difference between killing someone who is thought to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and kiling someone who is known to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Apparently you keep missing the fact that not everyone has your beliefs. A fetus isn't "somebody" to everyone.
We're just going around and around in circles, so I'm ending this discussion.
I'm a professional web/graphic designer, and an amateur (hack, but working on it) photographer.
I'd like to combine the two in a way, photography and web development. What I want do is sale photographs online. A number of other photographers want to create websites, some if only for an online portfolio. When last in college for, computer science, I also took photo classes and talked to a bunch of people majoring in it. So what I was thinking was packaging together open source projects and creating templates whereby I could setup photography websites for other photographers. One problem though is that I don't know much at all about design and page layout.
Use something like Microsoft Project to setup a flow chart. Know what you are going to have on your front page, knwo what menus you are going to have, and submenus. Have this designed before you start coding.
Actually what's better than MS Project, and cheaper, is a drawing or sketch pad. Sketch out a Story Board of the layout of each page with labels for links such as with storyboards here.
You can identify these people as the ones that back up their claims that they know how to design websites by saying they know HTML and Photoshop.
I don't think you can blame them for that. If you look through books on web design most of them will be about coding with graphics added. Very few books go over colours, page layouts, and such.
I'm one of them. I'm more of a master of computer science than I am graphic design, but I do both professionally. The designers I've worked with who had the most talent were evenly split male to female, with by far the best being male. Unlike IT, the design world has been pretty well co-ed for a really long time now.
I'm coming from a computer science background, well really my major was Computer Engineering before I had an accident. But now I'm hoping to break into photography, I started with photography at the sane tyme I did with computers, and I'm wondering how well the principles of photography translate into web design. Such as the Rule of Thirds. I know it can be used generically, with the most important stuff on the top of the page and navigation or blurbs going down the left or right side. Otherwise I'm not sure such as with lines and curves.
I've never met anyone who actually maintains this position when pressed. Some will come out and say "no abortions, no exceptions"
My experiences are different in that almost every pro-lifer I've talked didn't want any exceptions. Then again that's a small number or people, most of those that I knew their position on abortion were pro-choice. And that I know of personally I only know one person who did have an abortion, which was a sad case. My best friend's girlfriend at the tyme got pregnant and they were looking forward to having a baby. All 3 of us hanged out together almost all the tyme and we all smoked. To make it easier for her to quit smoking we all quit together. After a couple of weeks or so though her doctor told her that more than likely the baby would be born with defects and may not survive. When she originally went in and had a test it came back negative so the doc ordered other tests, including Xrays. Then a pregnancy test came back positive. The doc warned her that the Xrays probably caused damage to the fetus. So for some days there was some agonizing thinking about whether to have the baby or to have an abortion, finally she decided to have an abortion.
That doesn't change the fact that an execution of a criminal is the killing of someone
Ah, if they were innocent then they weren't a criminal.
The contention that pro-lifers are being coercive in some way that is systemically bad or different from other law is ludicrous.
But they are being coercive and are forcing those who disagree with them to live the way they want them to live. It's one thing to try to convince people to live a life of a certain faith but it's ludicrous to force them to do so, which is what some laws are all about.
The hackneyed responses all apply: should abolitionists have shut up because they have no right to "demand everyone else follow their rules".
Yea, it's a hackneyed argument pro-lifers bring up. Whereas slaves were capable of self sufficiency most fetuses aren't. What they are are parasites.
if you've ruled out the 3rd party (the unborn human beings) you've already embraced the cental tenet of the pro-choice side: that the unborn human being has no right to life.
No I haven't. Notice before I said I was pro-life, however I will not force my personal beliefs on someone else.
Falcon
Oh, when I said fetuses were parasites, those aren't my words. A female friend once argued that and it's stuck to me.
It's frustrating sometimes... which is why I carry a Constitution in my pocket so people can see in print what they are so ignorant of these days.
I've thought about getting a pocket edition myself. Reminds me of when I was in jr high or high school, I had to memorize both the "Declaration of Independence" and the preamble of the Constitution.
Here's to hoping. The founding fathers are rolling, spinning, and banging on the top of their coffins at the state of our grand experiment, I think.
I think this may be why Thomas Jefferson said that there should be a revolution every 20 years. When people don't have to fight to preserve their freedom they get apathetic.
It depends on how you accept contributions. If you require copyright assignment, then you can re-license the contribution however you see fit, because the author has given you the right to copy. This is what Apache and the FSF do.
Does the GPL require copyright assignment though? Wasn't one of the issues Linus brought up about Linux using GPL v3 was that many people held copyright to code in the kernel and they wouldn't agree to go with v3?
It's a big fucking problem, and hopefully GWB will go down in history as a war monger and a destroyer of economies. Not like when people these days try to claim Regan was some kind of hero.
Yea, I don't understand how people can say Reagan was a small government conservative. Reagan expanded government more than many apparently believe. Some tyme back "Reason" magazine had a feature going through many of the things Reagan did to expand the federal government.
There is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life (fetus gets human rights) and making an exception for the life of the mother and for serious threats to the mother's health.
Ah but many don't accept an exemption for a mother's life as I stated before. The inconsistence is when there is no exception.
There's no hypocrisy at all to say "you can't allow innocent human beings to be killed at the discretion of other human beings" and then say "but you can allow convicted criminals to be killed after due process"
Some of those who were convicted were in fact innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Look at Illinois and Texas. A number of people on death row in both states have been cleared of committing the crime. The Illinois governor halted all executions until all death row cases could be examined. At least as long as a person's alive they can be cleared but once they're dead it's too late for them. Just as Thomas Jefferson believed I believe it's better to free 10 guilty than it is to falsely convict one innocent.
What people say is irrelevant. This isn't a popularity contest.
You're right it's not a popularity contest. Those who believe in choice don't go around saying everyone has to have an abortion but so called pro-lifers demand everyone else follow their rules. As if they don't have enough faith in their message so they have to mandate it.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the link. I like the layout of the front page. Being in the Twin Cities, are you a member of IFP Minneasota?
FalconStupidity should be painful; ignorance should be expensive. If they want to learn, good for them; if they don't, fuck em.
...So, people are losing their homes, prices are falling because supply is up and money is harder to borrow, which makes MY house worth less!
It's one thing when only the stupid pay or feel the pain, but as you point out you're made to pay or feel the pain as well.
Having said that, I kind of find it ironic how big a deal has been made about Bush's plan with the big mortgage lenders to help those behind in their payments. It's not just those who are behind that are in trouble, the lenders are too. For a long tyme it's been a pretty basic standard operating policy for lenders to work with borrowers to allow them to state in the home as the lender loses when they have to foreclose. Besides the costs of foreclosure when a house is sold it may not sell for as much as is still owed on it, foreclosure reduces the value as well. At the first sign a borrower will have trouble paying they should contact the lender to work out a plan to repay the loan, maybe they can pay the interest only until their income rises.
FalconIgnore it if you want.
FalconYea, it's a good thing government can track everything you do. NOT!!! Because of anonymity many people were willing to fight again the Red Coats during the American Revolution. Fact is is anonymity is important because if a person can't reasonably expect to remain anonymous they will be less willing to use political speech or fight for what they believe in. Most of those who wrote in support of the revolution did so anonymously. One of the few who signed his work was Thomas Paine, who wrote "This are the times that try men's souls" while he was serving under George Washington.
FalconI consider myself to have a reasonable technical knowledge (e.g. I've just written a telnet client from scratch in c++) and I don't use a virus scanner when online banking or at any other time; they're a complete waste of space.
For now you can get by without a virus scanner if you're using OS X or another of the Unices but one is needed for online banking using Windows, even Vista with it's nagware notices. Many will turn off the "Need your permission to continue" prompts. And with today's hdds approaching terabyte sizes space isn't nearly as much of a concern as it used to be. I've got a 500 GB external hdd I can stick in one of my pants' or shorts' pockets. And I used to use a cassette tape for storage.
FalconA small tribe near the Arctic Circle.
No, they are the Inuit, living in Nunavut. That is the Canadian Inuits, others live in Iceland while related groups live in northern Europe. Such as the Sami and Lapps.
FalconI know a lot of people who use Google as their primary search engine, I know lots of people who use Yahoo for searching and mail, I even know people who prefer to use Ask.
I use Google as my primary search engine, but it's not the only one. For some searches I go to About.com first now. What's ironic is that that's because of Google, some searches I did Google led me to About.com, an About.com page was one of if not Google's first result. And when Google fails to provide me with what I'm looking for I use either Teoma, now Ask.com, or Mooter, they will return what I look for if Google doesn't.
I however use Yahoo! mail, but if MS acquires it I will switch. I am also a member of some Yahoo! groups I'll leave as well.
FalconSure, to the average joe it is hard to see the win, but if Yahoo loses revenues MS will begin to take them (what Google doesn't get anyway).
However it's Google that Microsoft, er Balmer, wants to kill and with MS acquiring Yahoo! Google could gain market share not lose any.
FalconYahoo must have a mountain of email accounts that perhaps MS wants to eat up in order to integrate them with the new MS email/office combination.
And Yahoo! will lose one of them, mine, and I bet others will switch as well if Microsoft acquires Yahoo!.
I must say, google and the rest of the world are slacking on getting onlnie apps out. At this rate MS is going to eat them alive and google is going to have some shitty plain Ajax wordprocessor to pretend to be competative against Word online.
I couldn't care less if Google, MS, or anyone else wins with online apps. To tell the truth this kind of puzzles me. Personal computers became such a big market, taking market share away from mainframes and minis, because people wanted to run software and store data locally. Now they want to go back to timesharing. Me, I still want to run my apps locally and to have my data local as well, unless I'm traveling but then I can use my laptop and vpn into my home server if I need to.
The difference is that Yahoo and MS are sustainable, and Google is reliant on ad revene. Though, you could say Yahoo isn't all that susnstainable in the long run, but google is BY FAR not sustainable.
Shouldn't you let all those financial analysts know what they're doing wrong?
As soon as ad spending goes down, so does Google's revenue with it.
And when ad revenue goes back up so will Google's.
Google is being more and more exploited everyday and in time it's highly unlikely it can keep it's good reputation and without a doubt it's search results aren't as good as they used to be.
Yea, as tyme goes by I use Teoma, now ask.com, and Mooter more for searches. However Google isn't totally dependent on searches, with adwords Google places a lot of ads on blogs as well as other websites.
FalconYou must be very young to believe Microsoft simply BOUGHT all of their products, or that everything successful is simply the result of their money.(Did I mention MS Office?)
This could be turned around on you, you must be very young to believe MS Office was innovative or the first office suite. All MS did was bundle different apps together. And even then though my memory is rusty I believe WordPerfect bundled an office suite before MS did... Yeap, whereas MS Office was first created in 1989, for the Mac, WordPerfect Library/Office was created in 1986.
Love them or hate them, but you would be foolish to think Microsoft never built anything on their own towards their success. They didn't buy Excel, they didn't buy Exchange Server, which spawned Active Directory, so give them their due.
MS did nothing innovative, as far as software is concerned or hardware either, though.
FalconWhat did Microsoft make that was cool or innovative? That is other than Atari BASIC?
FalconI mean, if you forget the theories of MS having malicious intent etc., the math becomes a lot simpler. Yahoo has 20% of market share and MS want to buy that 20%. Plain and simple.
However MS has to know it won't get all of Yahoo!'s market share. Sure it will get some but others who use Yahoo! will switch if MS acquires it.
FalconIf the RIAA associated labels go down to selling only ~1,000,000 units per year (the amount of vinyl sold last year according to Time, yes I would be pleased. :-)
However vinyl record sales are increasing.
FalconPrints? Stock licensing? A portfolio for selling further services?
I plan on selling digital files online, and perhaps join one or more microstock websites, and having an online portfolio. One thing some photographers are doing now is shooting for families or groups, say a child playing Little League baseball or skating, then letting people download photos from a website. From what I've read this is popular with weddings. Now as for what I want to shoot, I love outdoor and nature photography as well as cultural scenes. I also would like to try fine art macro photography and astrophotography. The problem I'd have with astrophotography is that I live in a big city and there isn't anyplace within a 100 miles with a good view of the stars and no light pollution. I'm also interested in photojournalism.
FaqlconPlease, Falconwolf, can you respond to my question? I asked if you could see the difference between killing an innocent person accidentally
You didn't ask a question, not about "killing an innocent person accidentally". Here's what you say about it: "If you want to make the case that because some innocent people will accidentally be killed, it's not worth it, you can make that case. But that's accidentally kililng innocent people." There is no question there.
Do you see the difference between killing someone who is thought to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and kiling someone who is known to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?
Apparently you keep missing the fact that not everyone has your beliefs. A fetus isn't "somebody" to everyone.
We're just going around and around in circles, so I'm ending this discussion.
FalconI'm a professional web/graphic designer, and an amateur (hack, but working on it) photographer.
I'd like to combine the two in a way, photography and web development. What I want do is sale photographs online. A number of other photographers want to create websites, some if only for an online portfolio. When last in college for, computer science, I also took photo classes and talked to a bunch of people majoring in it. So what I was thinking was packaging together open source projects and creating templates whereby I could setup photography websites for other photographers. One problem though is that I don't know much at all about design and page layout.
FalconUse something like Microsoft Project to setup a flow chart. Know what you are going to have on your front page, knwo what menus you are going to have, and submenus. Have this designed before you start coding.
Actually what's better than MS Project, and cheaper, is a drawing or sketch pad. Sketch out a Story Board of the layout of each page with labels for links such as with storyboards here.
FalconYou can identify these people as the ones that back up their claims that they know how to design websites by saying they know HTML and Photoshop.
I don't think you can blame them for that. If you look through books on web design most of them will be about coding with graphics added. Very few books go over colours, page layouts, and such.
FalconI'm one of them. I'm more of a master of computer science than I am graphic design, but I do both professionally. The designers I've worked with who had the most talent were evenly split male to female, with by far the best being male. Unlike IT, the design world has been pretty well co-ed for a really long time now.
I'm coming from a computer science background, well really my major was Computer Engineering before I had an accident. But now I'm hoping to break into photography, I started with photography at the sane tyme I did with computers, and I'm wondering how well the principles of photography translate into web design. Such as the Rule of Thirds. I know it can be used generically, with the most important stuff on the top of the page and navigation or blurbs going down the left or right side. Otherwise I'm not sure such as with lines and curves.
FalconI've never met anyone who actually maintains this position when pressed. Some will come out and say "no abortions, no exceptions"
My experiences are different in that almost every pro-lifer I've talked didn't want any exceptions. Then again that's a small number or people, most of those that I knew their position on abortion were pro-choice. And that I know of personally I only know one person who did have an abortion, which was a sad case. My best friend's girlfriend at the tyme got pregnant and they were looking forward to having a baby. All 3 of us hanged out together almost all the tyme and we all smoked. To make it easier for her to quit smoking we all quit together. After a couple of weeks or so though her doctor told her that more than likely the baby would be born with defects and may not survive. When she originally went in and had a test it came back negative so the doc ordered other tests, including Xrays. Then a pregnancy test came back positive. The doc warned her that the Xrays probably caused damage to the fetus. So for some days there was some agonizing thinking about whether to have the baby or to have an abortion, finally she decided to have an abortion.
That doesn't change the fact that an execution of a criminal is the killing of someone
Ah, if they were innocent then they weren't a criminal.
The contention that pro-lifers are being coercive in some way that is systemically bad or different from other law is ludicrous.
But they are being coercive and are forcing those who disagree with them to live the way they want them to live. It's one thing to try to convince people to live a life of a certain faith but it's ludicrous to force them to do so, which is what some laws are all about.
The hackneyed responses all apply: should abolitionists have shut up because they have no right to "demand everyone else follow their rules".
Yea, it's a hackneyed argument pro-lifers bring up. Whereas slaves were capable of self sufficiency most fetuses aren't. What they are are parasites.
if you've ruled out the 3rd party (the unborn human beings) you've already embraced the cental tenet of the pro-choice side: that the unborn human being has no right to life.
No I haven't. Notice before I said I was pro-life, however I will not force my personal beliefs on someone else.
Falcon
Oh, when I said fetuses were parasites, those aren't my words. A female friend once argued that and it's stuck to me.It's frustrating sometimes... which is why I carry a Constitution in my pocket so people can see in print what they are so ignorant of these days.
I've thought about getting a pocket edition myself. Reminds me of when I was in jr high or high school, I had to memorize both the "Declaration of Independence" and the preamble of the Constitution.
Here's to hoping. The founding fathers are rolling, spinning, and banging on the top of their coffins at the state of our grand experiment, I think.
I think this may be why Thomas Jefferson said that there should be a revolution every 20 years. When people don't have to fight to preserve their freedom they get apathetic.
FalconOkay, thanks. I hope I can recall that as my memory is bad.
FalconIt depends on how you accept contributions. If you require copyright assignment, then you can re-license the contribution however you see fit, because the author has given you the right to copy. This is what Apache and the FSF do.
Does the GPL require copyright assignment though? Wasn't one of the issues Linus brought up about Linux using GPL v3 was that many people held copyright to code in the kernel and they wouldn't agree to go with v3?
FalconIt's a big fucking problem, and hopefully GWB will go down in history as a war monger and a destroyer of economies. Not like when people these days try to claim Regan was some kind of hero.
Yea, I don't understand how people can say Reagan was a small government conservative. Reagan expanded government more than many apparently believe. Some tyme back "Reason" magazine had a feature going through many of the things Reagan did to expand the federal government.
FalconThere is nothing inconsistent about being pro-life (fetus gets human rights) and making an exception for the life of the mother and for serious threats to the mother's health.
Ah but many don't accept an exemption for a mother's life as I stated before. The inconsistence is when there is no exception.
There's no hypocrisy at all to say "you can't allow innocent human beings to be killed at the discretion of other human beings" and then say "but you can allow convicted criminals to be killed after due process"
Some of those who were convicted were in fact innocent of the crime they were convicted of. Look at Illinois and Texas. A number of people on death row in both states have been cleared of committing the crime. The Illinois governor halted all executions until all death row cases could be examined. At least as long as a person's alive they can be cleared but once they're dead it's too late for them. Just as Thomas Jefferson believed I believe it's better to free 10 guilty than it is to falsely convict one innocent.
What people say is irrelevant. This isn't a popularity contest.
You're right it's not a popularity contest. Those who believe in choice don't go around saying everyone has to have an abortion but so called pro-lifers demand everyone else follow their rules. As if they don't have enough faith in their message so they have to mandate it.
Falcon