Correct. Apple just works. Linux is quite often a pain unless you have the most generic/common hardware and you want to run the most generic/common apps.
"Linux is cheaper". More bullshit. Why? It's kinda...free...
"Windows doesn't work". More bullshit. Why? Have you never experienced the joys of a public Windows computer with no firewall behind it?:-)
He's right, but he has his logic kinda backwards. If (hypothetically) I were to go on a school shooting, I'd follow what I know from FPSes. But does that mean that because I know how FPSes want you to shoot stuff, that I'd do so in real life? No.
Or how about this: suppose a bioweapons researcher went rampant and decided to kill a few people. I'd bet that he'd use some bacterial agent instead of using a gun (it's hard to get a significant number of kills with a gun in real life). But does that mean that these researchers are likely to poison people? No.
It doesn't even say anything about whether researchers or gamers are more likely to kill people. It just says how they would once they've decided to kill people in the first place. And that's the problem we should be worrying about.
Re:Ha! You call that a solar death ray?
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
This isn't such a "generic" site...it references "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Senators", and even "Monica Lewinsky." It's intended to make money off of her popularity. (I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding the latter...it's pretty much guaranteed to anger Sen. Clinton.)
Have you even used Office? It takes a total of 30 seconds to disable the introductory features, and another 5 minutes to customize the toolbars the way you like them.
You sound exactly like a Word user would when sitting down at vi for the first time.
if theres only one good track on an album, maybe you shouldn't bother buying the piece of shit.
Isn't that the same philosophy as, "If you don't like the DRM, maybe you shouldn't bother buying online music?" If you want a product, "maybe you shouldn't bother" isn't an appropriate response to having the product sold through two unacceptable channels.
Of course, I personally never listen to (commercial) music, so I'm not one to speak.
I know this is a troll, but it raises two interesting points. (There's nothing wrong with a troll stimulating proper discussion, just a problem if it stimulates angry responses.)
A: Would the blacklist work? Of course there's a lot of pirates, but the RIAA can use their resources to enforce a blacklist at most record stores. The only problem is that it'll of course have a negative effect (loss of sales to pirates) for those who implement it, long before it has a positive one.
B: Why don't you just become a bookseller or something? When there's disruptive technology like the Internet and MP3s, the smartest thing to do is change your industry. It's only your problem if you can't maintain your old business paradigm.
"How do you plan to exercise your fair use rights on material that you can't access? "
Maybe they'll...I don't know... BUY THE CD?
Nice troll. You missed the point. We're looking for a good alternative to CD buying.
overpay for DRM'd music
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll reiterate that buying a CD for one good song is even more overpriced (looking at price alone) than any DRM'd music.
I don't know about you, but I really don't feel like going down in history as an activist champion of downloading rights. If you want progress, there's millions of things more important than commercial music.
No. He's not hurting any record labels. He's hurting the legitimate consumer*.
Remember in grade school when the teacher threatened to punish the whole class if anyone's disruptive? The RIAA is a lot like that teacher. One (popular) person subverting their systems is reason enough for them to take away legal downloadable music.
How do you plan to exercise your fair use rights on material that you can't access? If they take this away, your rights are pretty much buying a CD (which we've decided is bad) or pirating it (which is definitely not fair use).
Your half-law, half-idealism mix makes me shudder.
*And only the legitimate consumer. Illegal downloaders are having a field day with his products, but I don't think that's such a good thing.
custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.
No, I still don't get it, and no, I do not write Mac software. I'm an end user. Why should I be expected to know the programmatic reasons behind Camino to answer the question "why Camino over Firefox"?
Of course the custom widgets behave differently. Firefox is supposed to use the same widgets across platforms so it behaves consistently. Is the only difference that Camino conforms better than Firefox to Macintosh standards?
Does a government have a right to impose its will on it's citizens? If so, is there any limit to the governments right to impose its will?
The citizens have a right, as a consensus or a majority, to run the government. As the unified sensible voice of the citizens, they have full right to impose a will on themselves.
Just as isolated citizens may decide to go against society's norms, though, isolated government officials may go power-crazed. And I think you're seeing this in a minor yet pervasive stage. Our problem is not so much taxes or the existence of government but how to maintain popular sovreignty without resorting to a direct democracy.
But I would never want to say that the only way to run a country is the current way I see before me. Because then we stop thinking of better ways to do things. And as I said before, questioning the current way we do things is why we no longer have slavery and women have the right to vote etc.
I disagree with this. We didn't have a large brainstorming session to see what reform ideas we could pull out of thin air. You can see, theoretically, why even 200 years ago someone might think that women ought to vote and blacks should be free. You see capable women and you see capable free blacks, and someone might think that there's, e.g., no innate difference between free blacks and slaves. It follows from what you see, even if you don't see it directly. (Well...maybe not about the women's votes: women didn't have as many rights in general, but several women showed themselves as adept as men, so you would have first seen why someone might supported equality. Women's suffrage is almost as far away a political topic from those times as, say, tort reform. That would have required the brainstorming session.)
It's a lot easier to get rid of evils (e.g., end slavery) than to create goods (e.g., find a better system of government).
So personally, I like the idea of individuals, willingly contributing to a group or society that they feel is worth contributing towards. I'm not a big fan of being born into obligations that you may not agree with. Is that government or taxation? I dunno.:)
The problem with that is that a voluntary cooperative "government" cannot sustain itself beyond large numbers. That's why your examples were small tribes of Africans and Native Americans. There will always be trolls in society, and as society grows it becomes increasingly more vulnerable to them. Moreover, it's harder to convince people to support a large impersonal government of their own free will. It's a lot easier to get them to support a small group of people that they can see or a government they can directly take part in.
I like the idea too, but it's too idealist, and it "doesn't scale well" -- nobody will cooperate to finance road projects three states away; if they do, it'll only because they're hoping for that state to finance their projects. And that's the same mentality that gets Congress to pass pork projects today. I do agree that the US gov't is out of control, but there's really not a better immediate option. (I don't support crucible plans, where society is destroyed to reforge a potentially better one. What happens while it's down? And what happens if it's no better?)
You may have an idea in supporting small government in the sense of small jurisdictions: let my neighborhood have one governing council of people who know everyone in the neighborhood, the next neighborhood have another, etc. Yet many tribes have an endless problem with war and conflict between tribes, however good a small society may be internally. Can you get over that hurdle?
Another weird thing about the US is that pretty much the entire world wants to know your social-security number.
My high school recently instituted a program called "Web Attendance." Apart from the myriad problems with taking roll via our extremely flaky intranet, the web app displays the Social Security numbers of everyone in the class next to their names and DOB.
Right. "Common sense" wasn't really the best word to use.
But what about the argument that I roughly outlined? Assuming a government is necessary, it's got to pay its employees and buy its stuff somehow. I don't think printing extra money is the economically sound answer.
And a funny thing happened, the people we call the founding fathers of the United States, you know, those guys who said that "all men are created equal", told the king to stuff it.
Heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? A couple of guys got angry at still having to pay taxes after the revolution, and started to cause trouble. Washington sent in the army, and he won (unlike the other George). I have no doubt that even if he lost, the new government would still have demanded taxes.
You gotta pay taxes. That's not natural rights, that's not law, that's common sense. You need a government (which is a discussion for another day), and that government has to have money to pay employees, buy materials, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You just watch. One day we'll decide that every qubit deserves its own IP address.
So the BitTorrent is..uh...pirating a pirate flag movie?
That's almost as bad as Pirates_of_the_Carribean.torrent.
"Linux just works". Bullshit.
:-)
Correct. Apple just works. Linux is quite often a pain unless you have the most generic/common hardware and you want to run the most generic/common apps.
"Linux is cheaper". More bullshit.
Why? It's kinda...free...
"Windows doesn't work". More bullshit.
Why? Have you never experienced the joys of a public Windows computer with no firewall behind it?
He's right, but he has his logic kinda backwards. If (hypothetically) I were to go on a school shooting, I'd follow what I know from FPSes. But does that mean that because I know how FPSes want you to shoot stuff, that I'd do so in real life? No.
Or how about this: suppose a bioweapons researcher went rampant and decided to kill a few people. I'd bet that he'd use some bacterial agent instead of using a gun (it's hard to get a significant number of kills with a gun in real life). But does that mean that these researchers are likely to poison people? No.
It doesn't even say anything about whether researchers or gamers are more likely to kill people. It just says how they would once they've decided to kill people in the first place. And that's the problem we should be worrying about.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
You forgot libstdcpp.
double welding
I really wish you could weld in Halo. It would take some of the sting out of the new destructible vehicles system...
This isn't such a "generic" site...it references "Hillary Rodham Clinton", "Senators", and even "Monica Lewinsky." It's intended to make money off of her popularity. (I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding the latter...it's pretty much guaranteed to anger Sen. Clinton.)
Have you even used Office? It takes a total of 30 seconds to disable the introductory features, and another 5 minutes to customize the toolbars the way you like them.
You sound exactly like a Word user would when sitting down at vi for the first time.
if theres only one good track on an album, maybe you shouldn't bother buying the piece of shit.
Isn't that the same philosophy as, "If you don't like the DRM, maybe you shouldn't bother buying online music?" If you want a product, "maybe you shouldn't bother" isn't an appropriate response to having the product sold through two unacceptable channels.
Of course, I personally never listen to (commercial) music, so I'm not one to speak.
So what does that make me? PostScript Kenobi? Adobe eBook Skywalker? Darth Preview.app?
I know this is a troll, but it raises two interesting points. (There's nothing wrong with a troll stimulating proper discussion, just a problem if it stimulates angry responses.)
A: Would the blacklist work? Of course there's a lot of pirates, but the RIAA can use their resources to enforce a blacklist at most record stores. The only problem is that it'll of course have a negative effect (loss of sales to pirates) for those who implement it, long before it has a positive one.
B: Why don't you just become a bookseller or something? When there's disruptive technology like the Internet and MP3s, the smartest thing to do is change your industry. It's only your problem if you can't maintain your old business paradigm.
For hardware clients, we're just not sure yet
Wait...can't you always plug in a line-in cable instead of speakers to the hardware device?
Unless they intend to make on-the-fly DRM-decrypting headphones. Now that's a scary thought.
"How do you plan to exercise your fair use rights on material that you can't access? "
Maybe they'll...I don't know... BUY THE CD?
Nice troll. You missed the point. We're looking for a good alternative to CD buying.
overpay for DRM'd music
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll reiterate that buying a CD for one good song is even more overpriced (looking at price alone) than any DRM'd music.
I don't know about you, but I really don't feel like going down in history as an activist champion of downloading rights. If you want progress, there's millions of things more important than commercial music.
No. He's not hurting any record labels. He's hurting the legitimate consumer*.
Remember in grade school when the teacher threatened to punish the whole class if anyone's disruptive? The RIAA is a lot like that teacher. One (popular) person subverting their systems is reason enough for them to take away legal downloadable music.
How do you plan to exercise your fair use rights on material that you can't access? If they take this away, your rights are pretty much buying a CD (which we've decided is bad) or pirating it (which is definitely not fair use).
Your half-law, half-idealism mix makes me shudder.
*And only the legitimate consumer. Illegal downloaders are having a field day with his products, but I don't think that's such a good thing.
custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.
No, I still don't get it, and no, I do not write Mac software. I'm an end user. Why should I be expected to know the programmatic reasons behind Camino to answer the question "why Camino over Firefox"?
Of course the custom widgets behave differently. Firefox is supposed to use the same widgets across platforms so it behaves consistently. Is the only difference that Camino conforms better than Firefox to Macintosh standards?
Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.
Yeah, but...so what?
Does a government have a right to impose its will on it's citizens? If so, is there any limit to the governments right to impose its will?
:)
The citizens have a right, as a consensus or a majority, to run the government. As the unified sensible voice of the citizens, they have full right to impose a will on themselves.
Just as isolated citizens may decide to go against society's norms, though, isolated government officials may go power-crazed. And I think you're seeing this in a minor yet pervasive stage. Our problem is not so much taxes or the existence of government but how to maintain popular sovreignty without resorting to a direct democracy.
But I would never want to say that the only way to run a country is the current way I see before me. Because then we stop thinking of better ways to do things. And as I said before, questioning the current way we do things is why we no longer have slavery and women have the right to vote etc.
I disagree with this. We didn't have a large brainstorming session to see what reform ideas we could pull out of thin air. You can see, theoretically, why even 200 years ago someone might think that women ought to vote and blacks should be free. You see capable women and you see capable free blacks, and someone might think that there's, e.g., no innate difference between free blacks and slaves. It follows from what you see, even if you don't see it directly. (Well...maybe not about the women's votes: women didn't have as many rights in general, but several women showed themselves as adept as men, so you would have first seen why someone might supported equality. Women's suffrage is almost as far away a political topic from those times as, say, tort reform. That would have required the brainstorming session.)
It's a lot easier to get rid of evils (e.g., end slavery) than to create goods (e.g., find a better system of government).
So personally, I like the idea of individuals, willingly contributing to a group or society that they feel is worth contributing towards. I'm not a big fan of being born into obligations that you may not agree with. Is that government or taxation? I dunno.
The problem with that is that a voluntary cooperative "government" cannot sustain itself beyond large numbers. That's why your examples were small tribes of Africans and Native Americans. There will always be trolls in society, and as society grows it becomes increasingly more vulnerable to them. Moreover, it's harder to convince people to support a large impersonal government of their own free will. It's a lot easier to get them to support a small group of people that they can see or a government they can directly take part in.
I like the idea too, but it's too idealist, and it "doesn't scale well" -- nobody will cooperate to finance road projects three states away; if they do, it'll only because they're hoping for that state to finance their projects. And that's the same mentality that gets Congress to pass pork projects today. I do agree that the US gov't is out of control, but there's really not a better immediate option. (I don't support crucible plans, where society is destroyed to reforge a potentially better one. What happens while it's down? And what happens if it's no better?)
You may have an idea in supporting small government in the sense of small jurisdictions: let my neighborhood have one governing council of people who know everyone in the neighborhood, the next neighborhood have another, etc. Yet many tribes have an endless problem with war and conflict between tribes, however good a small society may be internally. Can you get over that hurdle?
Why would Hasbro pay Jared? What are they getting out of it exactly?
He ate the Scrabble chips and lost weight.
Another weird thing about the US is that pretty much the entire world wants to know your social-security number.
My high school recently instituted a program called "Web Attendance." Apart from the myriad problems with taking roll via our extremely flaky intranet, the web app displays the Social Security numbers of everyone in the class next to their names and DOB.
Why!?
"No Child Left Behind"
Think about those words for a second. How else do you not leave a child behind unless you hold everyone else back with him?
2700 city BLOCKS???
No, just 2700 cities.
Right. "Common sense" wasn't really the best word to use.
But what about the argument that I roughly outlined? Assuming a government is necessary, it's got to pay its employees and buy its stuff somehow. I don't think printing extra money is the economically sound answer.
All your oranges are belong to us.
No, no, all your orange are belong to us!
Take off every "S"! For great grammar!
And a funny thing happened, the people we call the founding fathers of the United States, you know, those guys who said that "all men are created equal", told the king to stuff it.
Heard of the Whiskey Rebellion? A couple of guys got angry at still having to pay taxes after the revolution, and started to cause trouble. Washington sent in the army, and he won (unlike the other George). I have no doubt that even if he lost, the new government would still have demanded taxes.
You gotta pay taxes. That's not natural rights, that's not law, that's common sense. You need a government (which is a discussion for another day), and that government has to have money to pay employees, buy materials, etc.