yes, the coding proletariat will rise up in a bloody revolution against the bourgeoisie in which all the computers are told to destroy the wage system and electronically deed over ownership of the companies to the proletariat
no, voting for a 3rd party, if that is who you want to represent you, is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Some people claim that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a "waste of a vote."
as far as i am concerned, voting for someone you don't like is a waste of a vote. so if you want Harry Brown as your candidate, but vote for Kerry cuz you hate bush, then you are selling your voice short by saying "hey my voice doesn't count unless it's agreeing with most people"
you, my friend are wrong...at the very least, a vote for a third party candidate says to the other 2 candidates that the 3rd party is doing something that makes you want to vote for them...the other two guys say "why is this?" and change.
it's an attitude like that which allow your opinions to be marginalized
no facts to support it in my post...i just wanted to fire off a quick "God i hate that douschebag who invaded my TV every friday night when Wonderful World of Disney came on...
i have a muvo...it's nice and all...
however there are things wrong...
for one, seeking is not possible through trakcs
for another skipping to a certain track takes a while, even if you only have 15 songs on it...gotta wait a split second between each press of the 'skip track' button
for another there is no display to see what song you are about to play...to see if you got the right song, gotta wait until the song is loud and faded in so you can pick up on it to determine if you have the right song playing.
so in summary: the muvo is sexy enough to where my japanese friends see at and say "OMG IT"S SO SMALL!" (which is always a good thing to hear from the land of all-is-small), but has a horrible interface for -real- music listening
well first, because everyone is in some major pissing contest over their typing speeds:
105 wpm; after error adjustment (retarded idea): 102 wpm
i remember reading somewhere that the average english speaker only speaks at a rate of 150-170wpm: here
additionally, QWERTY keyboards were designed to slow a typist down...back in the day of typewriters, you couldn't have people typing so fast because the arms of the keys would jam together (i used one when i was in elementary school and i did this ^_^;;;)
that being said, a dude named Dvorak created a new keyboard layout and it was much easier to use...much more efficient...i'm sure most slashdotters have heard of Dvorak layout before...another interesting thing is that recently, i read that a computer program was written to derive the "most efficient" keyboard layout, and it turned out VERY similar to Dvorak...wish i had a link for that article tho
Re:AT LAST - A NON-UBERGEEK approach!
on
Moving To Linux
·
· Score: 1
man i don't know who YOU've been talking to, but i have NEVER encountered that attitude, and i -literally- mean i've -never- encountered that attitude...never ever ever, and i am a linux noob as well...
do you IRC? that is where i get the best help...i've even asked questions like "how do i get to a console on Debian" and things equally simple (the answer is like ctrl+alt+f1-6 or something like that ^_^;;;)
not to start an alt-shell war, but i use geoshell and MAN HOLY CRAP is it soooo much faster than explorer...and very few resources...my explorer used like 15-20 MB and geoshell...well my setup uses FOUR MB...yes, FOUR.
if you want SPEED and a minimalistic appearance with lots of nice plugins (and a friendly community of users), check it out at www.geoshell.com ^_^
that kind of reminds me of an article i read...quite interesting...explaining why traditional british english as i understand it used billion to mean a million million (10^12) versus american english which has always (to the best of my knowledge) used million as 10^9. apparently through some history i can't quite remember from the article, france began to use million as 10^9.
since france was the shit when it came to science around the time americans started to worry about big numbers ^_^ (look ma! i can count w/o my toes! joke joke joke), we looked to france of course, and inherited 10^9
some of the history of billion is here
and here, if you read german
ok ok ok jeez i've been only talking about DC games, nothing else...that being said...
if your computer has those specs, can you seriously RUN DC games on it?!? i'm not talking your games, i mean real DC games...because you were saying you didn't know why people would bother with using a DC when they could just emulate the games...well guess what? until VERY recently, -you couldn't-. this is all i've been saying.
second, i don't have a DC. my friend got his offa ebay for 15 bucks.
as far as controllers, i meant that you had to buy controllers anyways, so don't factor those into how your method is cheaper...i realize i didn't make that clear...
ok see i thought we were discussing playing DC games, so there is no emulator being used there on your DC, only on your PC (see in my post that i said DC games weren't emulatable until recently on PCs)
and umm...i don't think factoring the PC in is fair, as if you play it on an emulator on your -PC-, then you already have one! and as nearly all of PCs sold to consumers right now have CD burners already on them, that may not be so good either to factor in...even so, if you don't have a burner you always say "hey friend, burn this cd for me plz" takes a few extra minutes, and in a college setting? fuggidaboutit 2 seconds and you'd have your selfboot from someone in the dorm...i just moved outta one, i know what it's like ^_^
so both your price arguments are pretty much invalid...we have a dreamcast system bought (15 bucks?) versus a ps-usb converter (15 bucks), extra controllers (10 bucks apiece?) etc etc ^_^
but personally i do it your way...just that you seemed rather clueless about the fact that playing DC games on a DC is -much- easier than playing them on a PC
However, this is "vigilante justice" and if this is allowed, then many people will take punishment into their own hands, more often than not doling out punishment more severe than what is warranted by the law...
so i have to disagree on your statement that the revenge shouldnt' be punishable...it should be punishable
emotions deserve no place in our determining of sentence...pure logic...pure logic...pure logic ^_^
ok i'll admit here i'm treading on loose ground...(and i really am trying to get at a pretty sound logical conclusion so -do- point out holes)
when we lock someone up out of the "protection of society" justification as i call it, it is not to protect people for the length of their sentence if it is a non-life non-death sentence...it is more to induce reform, thereby protecting society...
let's also assume that no one would ever succeed in killing an entire race off, or a gender, or a sexual orientation or some other discriminated-against class of people. Therefore, after your killing(s) and subsequent incarceration, you are either 1)reformed, or 2)not reformed, or 3)dead
--if you are reformed, it is the length you served that reformed you...therefore, the actual amount of people you had previously posed a threat to is irrelevant, as that number does not affect how quickly you reform --if you are not reformed, then you still pose a threat to people you left alive, so your period of incarceration was not long enough...additionally, the actual amount of people you pose a threat to is irrelevant, as ONE new murder would make you a threat again (so basically as long as you didn't kill off nearly the entire group, this process would continue indefinitely)...again the number of potential victims does not affect how poorly you reformed in prison --if you are dead, then this whole argument is irrelevant ^_^
so i've tried to argue that a sentenced based on how many people you pose a threat to (if the group is large enough -- race, gender, religion, etc as opposed to a family or a single group of teachers) is not a good way to sentence someone...however, sentencing someone by how many crimes they DID commit, is valid. So we still have a valid punishment for people like Hitler and Stalin.
Oh I agree with the cases you present. However, they are two difference scenarios: self-defense (protected aaaall over the place in law), versus murder.
However, if you gunned down my family, but there was no evidence of you coming after me, then my actions to kill you are in vengeance, and therefore murder also. Revenge should be equally punishable.
Now, I realize that I strayed greatly from what you were arguing. I hope the first part of my post was sufficient argument against what you said.
Perhaps I phrased my statement wrong. Murder is murder no matter what the motivation. Self-defense and manslaughter are different things, because they are fundamentally different. In self-defense, we have the preservation of human life at the expense of another human life, where the dead one would possibly have taken additional lives at a later date. In murder, someone intentionally kills. In manslaughter, it is an accident. So let's leave manslaughter out since our discussion is on intent.
Laws (in my opinion, but hopefully most peoples' opinions, too) exist to preserve the rights of the people. At least US law, which was founded at least partially upon the philosophies of John Locke, shares this original belief. So in self-defense, if someone intends to murder you, they intend to deprive you of your right to live. You are therefore just to protect your right to live. In murder, you merely are depriving someone of their right to live. You therefore should be punished.
Now to tie into the...great-grandparent was it?...a hate crime (in my example, murder) punishment is dual: once a punishment of murder, and second a punishment of discrimination. You killed him because he's a Muslim. This is a greater infraction than killing him period.
The outcome of this hate crime legislation is that, well, say I murder a Hindu. Hate crime stuff goes down, I get 40 years. Now say that same Hindu had murdered me. He gets 20 years, because he was not prosecuted under hate crime legislation. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that killing him was a greater offense than him killing me. Therefore, again the only logical conclusion I see is that his life is more valued than mine. But aren't all men created equal? Contradiction. So something needs to be remedied
I for one hope after law school to work with the EFF or FSF somehow...maybe not as an employee, but volunteering my legal services...much the same way i believe Richard Stallman and others have been doing as counsel for the FSF...
No, I think he was trying to make the case that any crime is equally bad, regardless of motivation. If I murder you, it shouldn't matter if I murdered you because you were black, or because you read slashdot. -This- is common fucking sense, as you so eloquently put it.
A crime is a crime. The only intent that should matter is if you -meant- to kill them, or it was an accident, as punishment for a crime is meant to do 2 things: 1) punish the person for breaking the law 2) protect society from the criminal in an accidental death (as an example), the person does not need a punishment to learn his lesson, as there is no lesson to be learned (don't do it again! -- you can't prevent accidents)...additionally, there is no protection warranted, as the person did nothing on purpose and can do nothing to prevent another accident from occurring. The question then comes to how do you prevent harm from befalling society from this person again. If they are mentally affected, then seal them up until they are safe. But this, in an ideal world, should occur no matter whether this person has committed a crime or not. But I digress. If they are blind, keep them from driving. Etc.
I really shouldn't have gotten onto such a wild tangent. I guess I was just trying to defent my statement -- preemptively -- that murder punishments can indeed be based -solely- on 'intent to harm' as opposed to 'intent to harm a [insert minority here]' or some other blahblah too tired to finish why'd i even start this post
because proportionally spaced fonts pale in comparison to the mighty Courier New (i have no idear if that font is on non-windows machines, but it rocks)
i wonder if i could find out something cool about PS3...i live in austin where some companies (notably ibm and intel) have been getting sony ppl from japan in to help engineer ps3...i teach english to some of their wives and generally chill with them...so maybe i have an 'in'??? ^o^ hohoho!
note: this post was only done to see if gaming nerds would bow down to me...apparently they did not...please disregard this post ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
whoops, i forgot to add "in soviet russia" :P
yes, the coding proletariat will rise up in a bloody revolution against the bourgeoisie in which all the computers are told to destroy the wage system and electronically deed over ownership of the companies to the proletariat
no, voting for a 3rd party, if that is who you want to represent you, is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
Some people claim that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a "waste of a vote."
as far as i am concerned, voting for someone you don't like is a waste of a vote. so if you want Harry Brown as your candidate, but vote for Kerry cuz you hate bush, then you are selling your voice short by saying "hey my voice doesn't count unless it's agreeing with most people"
you, my friend are wrong...at the very least, a vote for a third party candidate says to the other 2 candidates that the 3rd party is doing something that makes you want to vote for them...the other two guys say "why is this?" and change.
it's an attitude like that which allow your opinions to be marginalized
those DRM dirty apes!
that's michael eisner for you...
no facts to support it in my post...i just wanted to fire off a quick "God i hate that douschebag who invaded my TV every friday night when Wonderful World of Disney came on...
umm...i think you posted this to the wrong subject...you wanted the "2.4GHz-Friendly Phones?" topic, not the "Disney suggests..." topic
i have a muvo...it's nice and all... however there are things wrong... for one, seeking is not possible through trakcs for another skipping to a certain track takes a while, even if you only have 15 songs on it...gotta wait a split second between each press of the 'skip track' button for another there is no display to see what song you are about to play...to see if you got the right song, gotta wait until the song is loud and faded in so you can pick up on it to determine if you have the right song playing. so in summary: the muvo is sexy enough to where my japanese friends see at and say "OMG IT"S SO SMALL!" (which is always a good thing to hear from the land of all-is-small), but has a horrible interface for -real- music listening
well first, because everyone is in some major pissing contest over their typing speeds: 105 wpm; after error adjustment (retarded idea): 102 wpm
i remember reading somewhere that the average english speaker only speaks at a rate of 150-170wpm: here
additionally, QWERTY keyboards were designed to slow a typist down...back in the day of typewriters, you couldn't have people typing so fast because the arms of the keys would jam together (i used one when i was in elementary school and i did this ^_^;;;)
that being said, a dude named Dvorak created a new keyboard layout and it was much easier to use...much more efficient...i'm sure most slashdotters have heard of Dvorak layout before...another interesting thing is that recently, i read that a computer program was written to derive the "most efficient" keyboard layout, and it turned out VERY similar to Dvorak...wish i had a link for that article tho
man i don't know who YOU've been talking to, but i have NEVER encountered that attitude, and i -literally- mean i've -never- encountered that attitude...never ever ever, and i am a linux noob as well...
do you IRC? that is where i get the best help...i've even asked questions like "how do i get to a console on Debian" and things equally simple (the answer is like ctrl+alt+f1-6 or something like that ^_^;;;)
any street fighter game ^_^
not to start an alt-shell war, but i use geoshell and MAN HOLY CRAP is it soooo much faster than explorer...and very few resources...my explorer used like 15-20 MB and geoshell...well my setup uses FOUR MB...yes, FOUR.
if you want SPEED and a minimalistic appearance with lots of nice plugins (and a friendly community of users), check it out
at www.geoshell.com ^_^
that kind of reminds me of an article i read...quite interesting...explaining why traditional british english as i understand it used billion to mean a million million (10^12) versus american english which has always (to the best of my knowledge) used million as 10^9. apparently through some history i can't quite remember from the article, france began to use million as 10^9.
since france was the shit when it came to science around the time americans started to worry about big numbers ^_^ (look ma! i can count w/o my toes! joke joke joke), we looked to france of course, and inherited 10^9
some of the history of billion is here
and here, if you read german
ok ok ok jeez i've been only talking about DC games, nothing else...that being said...
if your computer has those specs, can you seriously RUN DC games on it?!? i'm not talking your games, i mean real DC games...because you were saying you didn't know why people would bother with using a DC when they could just emulate the games...well guess what? until VERY recently, -you couldn't-. this is all i've been saying.
second, i don't have a DC. my friend got his offa ebay for 15 bucks.
as far as controllers, i meant that you had to buy controllers anyways, so don't factor those into how your method is cheaper...i realize i didn't make that clear...
ok see i thought we were discussing playing DC games, so there is no emulator being used there on your DC, only on your PC (see in my post that i said DC games weren't emulatable until recently on PCs)
and umm...i don't think factoring the PC in is fair, as if you play it on an emulator on your -PC-, then you already have one! and as nearly all of PCs sold to consumers right now have CD burners already on them, that may not be so good either to factor in...even so, if you don't have a burner you always say "hey friend, burn this cd for me plz" takes a few extra minutes, and in a college setting? fuggidaboutit 2 seconds and you'd have your selfboot from someone in the dorm...i just moved outta one, i know what it's like ^_^
so both your price arguments are pretty much invalid...we have a dreamcast system bought (15 bucks?) versus a ps-usb converter (15 bucks), extra controllers (10 bucks apiece?) etc etc ^_^
but personally i do it your way...just that you seemed rather clueless about the fact that playing DC games on a DC is -much- easier than playing them on a PC
i change your quote to my needs:
Jees... I don't get why people bother. Just load a flippin' disc into the emulator on your dreamcast.
maybe think about the fact that your setup has cost more than the DC way, and you weren't able to play DC games on the PC until about a month ago
However, this is "vigilante justice" and if this is allowed, then many people will take punishment into their own hands, more often than not doling out punishment more severe than what is warranted by the law... so i have to disagree on your statement that the revenge shouldnt' be punishable...it should be punishable emotions deserve no place in our determining of sentence...pure logic...pure logic...pure logic ^_^
Hey server monkey, come tighten these screws!
you mean monkey wrench, don't you?
ok i'll admit here i'm treading on loose ground...(and i really am trying to get at a pretty sound logical conclusion so -do- point out holes)
when we lock someone up out of the "protection of society" justification as i call it, it is not to protect people for the length of their sentence if it is a non-life non-death sentence...it is more to induce reform, thereby protecting society...
let's also assume that no one would ever succeed in killing an entire race off, or a gender, or a sexual orientation or some other discriminated-against class of people. Therefore, after your killing(s) and subsequent incarceration, you are either
1)reformed, or
2)not reformed, or
3)dead
--if you are reformed, it is the length you served that reformed you...therefore, the actual amount of people you had previously posed a threat to is irrelevant, as that number does not affect how quickly you reform
--if you are not reformed, then you still pose a threat to people you left alive, so your period of incarceration was not long enough...additionally, the actual amount of people you pose a threat to is irrelevant, as ONE new murder would make you a threat again (so basically as long as you didn't kill off nearly the entire group, this process would continue indefinitely)...again the number of potential victims does not affect how poorly you reformed in prison
--if you are dead, then this whole argument is irrelevant ^_^
so i've tried to argue that a sentenced based on how many people you pose a threat to (if the group is large enough -- race, gender, religion, etc as opposed to a family or a single group of teachers) is not a good way to sentence someone...however, sentencing someone by how many crimes they DID commit, is valid. So we still have a valid punishment for people like Hitler and Stalin.
Oh I agree with the cases you present. However, they are two difference scenarios: self-defense (protected aaaall over the place in law), versus murder.
However, if you gunned down my family, but there was no evidence of you coming after me, then my actions to kill you are in vengeance, and therefore murder also. Revenge should be equally punishable.
Now, I realize that I strayed greatly from what you were arguing. I hope the first part of my post was sufficient argument against what you said.
Perhaps I phrased my statement wrong. Murder is murder no matter what the motivation. Self-defense and manslaughter are different things, because they are fundamentally different. In self-defense, we have the preservation of human life at the expense of another human life, where the dead one would possibly have taken additional lives at a later date. In murder, someone intentionally kills. In manslaughter, it is an accident. So let's leave manslaughter out since our discussion is on intent.
Laws (in my opinion, but hopefully most peoples' opinions, too) exist to preserve the rights of the people. At least US law, which was founded at least partially upon the philosophies of John Locke, shares this original belief. So in self-defense, if someone intends to murder you, they intend to deprive you of your right to live. You are therefore just to protect your right to live.
In murder, you merely are depriving someone of their right to live. You therefore should be punished.
Now to tie into the...great-grandparent was it?...a hate crime (in my example, murder) punishment is dual: once a punishment of murder, and second a punishment of discrimination. You killed him because he's a Muslim. This is a greater infraction than killing him period.
The outcome of this hate crime legislation is that, well, say I murder a Hindu. Hate crime stuff goes down, I get 40 years. Now say that same Hindu had murdered me. He gets 20 years, because he was not prosecuted under hate crime legislation. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that killing him was a greater offense than him killing me. Therefore, again the only logical conclusion I see is that his life is more valued than mine. But aren't all men created equal? Contradiction. So something needs to be remedied
I for one hope after law school to work with the EFF or FSF somehow...maybe not as an employee, but volunteering my legal services...much the same way i believe Richard Stallman and others have been doing as counsel for the FSF...
No, I think he was trying to make the case that any crime is equally bad, regardless of motivation. If I murder you, it shouldn't matter if I murdered you because you were black, or because you read slashdot. -This- is common fucking sense, as you so eloquently put it.
A crime is a crime. The only intent that should matter is if you -meant- to kill them, or it was an accident, as punishment for a crime is meant to do 2 things:
1) punish the person for breaking the law
2) protect society from the criminal
in an accidental death (as an example), the person does not need a punishment to learn his lesson, as there is no lesson to be learned (don't do it again! -- you can't prevent accidents)...additionally, there is no protection warranted, as the person did nothing on purpose and can do nothing to prevent another accident from occurring. The question then comes to how do you prevent harm from befalling society from this person again. If they are mentally affected, then seal them up until they are safe. But this, in an ideal world, should occur no matter whether this person has committed a crime or not. But I digress. If they are blind, keep them from driving. Etc.
I really shouldn't have gotten onto such a wild tangent. I guess I was just trying to defent my statement -- preemptively -- that murder punishments can indeed be based -solely- on 'intent to harm' as opposed to 'intent to harm a [insert minority here]' or some other blahblah too tired to finish why'd i even start this post
because proportionally spaced fonts pale in comparison to the mighty Courier New (i have no idear if that font is on non-windows machines, but it rocks)
proportionally spaced fonts are overrated
"You could get a nasty robot bite, but it wouldn't require a trip to the neurosurgeon."
yeah, cuz man! when you stick your BRAIN/SPINE into the thing.....
neurosurgeon?!? ^_~
i wonder if i could find out something cool about PS3...i live in austin where some companies (notably ibm and intel) have been getting sony ppl from japan in to help engineer ps3...i teach english to some of their wives and generally chill with them...so maybe i have an 'in'??? ^o^ hohoho!
note: this post was only done to see if gaming nerds would bow down to me...apparently they did not...please disregard this post ^_^
three words for you:
were they hot?