You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.
Failing to undertake this could result in children being left behind. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. Thus, we must allow not allow inflexible principles of mathematics to handicap the education of our children or the development of society as a whole.
(Just in case it's not clear: This post is sarcastic.)
"like those herbal juices you see advertised on the back of peoples cars"
You mean the ones that get sold with a pitch that makes them out to be some elixir of eternal youth? While the scheme may be legitimate, I've yet to see it being used in conjunction with a product that wasn't a load of horseshit.
Are you counting the time from an empty desktop, or are you ignoring the time it takes to load your browser? If you want to have your browser pre-loaded then that's cheating. If MS pre-loaded all the Office APIs and libraries we'd all whine about how bloated they were making Windows.
Also, you're not a real spreadsheet user if you think Google Docs even remotely compares with Excel, nor could you work on anything non-trivial if you can substitute the minimalist notepad that is the Google Apps word processor for MS Word.
I like how the Microsoft icon is Bill Gates as a Borg, but Google is just the logo.
Given that Google is the company spending its endless flow of advertising dollars acquiring everything in sight, the icons really ought to be the other way around.
I use Linux primarily, but I find Win7 to be quite good actually. My experience was kinda like this. So this jury member has decided, and for the apps I use it for (Adobe Premiere/Photoshop) it performs very well, looks pretty and it not too bad from an interface point of view.
Yea, it really bugs me how 95% of a web site's load time and processing load is accounted for by a few pretty features like rounded corners and drop shadows.
How about we put those effects into CSS where they below and not induce massive load by simulating them with 5mb of JavaScript?
I think it's codephrase for "the government must step in to prevent the Internet from continuing to be open to all rather than protected like its bedfellows in traditional media".
Yea, imagine the exodus from the neighborhood when they know that a spammer moves into the street. You know, coz spammers only cause problems for their neighbors.
Oh, for the days when fighting spam meant catching the asshole who persisted on ignoring your "no junk mail" sign.
I'm not talking about denying adults the right to movies, however I just cannot fathom how anyone could argue that the availability of movies like the Saw series is in the public interest.
As much as I hate censorship, I do agree with this sentiment. Has anyone actually sat down and watched a kids' show? Ben10 has something like 10 violent acts every 3 minutes.
Being anti-censorship does not mean "anything goes". I am the primary carer (uncle for my adopted nephew) for a 4 year old, and I can tell you there is a marked increase in hyperactive behavior, aggression and general lack of control for hours after watching Nickelodeon. Consequently, I have banned TV in my house. It was a few days of tantrums, but he's gotten over it, and the improvement in behavior is astonishing.
I flatly refuse to accept that what we watch does not affect us. Movies like Saw and Hostel simply cannot be psychologically inert, the content is just too potent.
"Down with censorship" and "down with psychologically and socially destructive media" are NOT mutually exclusive in the same way that "down with government control" and "down with harming your neighbor" are also not mutually exclusive. Lets grow up past the idea that any control of media that has a negative social impact is censorship and should be fought. Media *can* have a negative impact on social behavior and mental health. Get over it.
I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance. Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.
I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice. It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily. Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine. Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
The recent article about GPS games needs to be updated with a new one: Battleship with real ships! It's far more fun if you know people are actually dying!
Yea, because giving members of the military access to social networking sites is really going to increase the risk of security breaches. It was better when we kept all military personnel in an off-grid facility in the middle of the desert with no cellphones and a ban on using fire in case they sent smoke signals to the nearest town.
I pirate stuff myself. I just don't try to fool myself that it's morally inert. I guess you *could* argue that I wouldn't watch movies if they weren't free (which is probably true in the vast majority of cases).
In any case, we're talking about WiFi. If you use your neighbor's wifi, you deprive him the use of the quota that you used, however little it may be. You're also using a certain percentage of his quota, which you did not pay for.
Don't try to fool yourself with flimsy technicalities in a childish attempt to screw with your moral compass. No amount of post-hoc justification can make a wrong right, it'll just fuck up your moral compass.
The article is also bung. The blog post, that is. Using your neighbour's WiFi is stealing, every single one of the vast array of arguments the blogger puts forward is either shallow, misdirected, based on false assumptions, predicated on absurd analogy, plain stupid, or some combination thereof.
If you're on a WiFi that you don't have reasonable grounds to conclude was intended by the owner to be free, then it is stealing. End of story. Now, can we stop it with the absurd excuses? It's even more disingenuous than the proposition that copying movies is not stealing. It is, people just do it anyway. Let's stop retroactively justifying ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, as a Slashdotter, impotence should be a non-issue.
You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.
Failing to undertake this could result in children being left behind. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. Thus, we must allow not allow inflexible principles of mathematics to handicap the education of our children or the development of society as a whole.
(Just in case it's not clear: This post is sarcastic.)
"like those herbal juices you see advertised on the back of peoples cars"
You mean the ones that get sold with a pitch that makes them out to be some elixir of eternal youth? While the scheme may be legitimate, I've yet to see it being used in conjunction with a product that wasn't a load of horseshit.
11 words.
The Linux kernel would not be securely accessible remotely without OpenSSH.
Are you counting the time from an empty desktop, or are you ignoring the time it takes to load your browser? If you want to have your browser pre-loaded then that's cheating. If MS pre-loaded all the Office APIs and libraries we'd all whine about how bloated they were making Windows.
Also, you're not a real spreadsheet user if you think Google Docs even remotely compares with Excel, nor could you work on anything non-trivial if you can substitute the minimalist notepad that is the Google Apps word processor for MS Word.
I like how the Microsoft icon is Bill Gates as a Borg, but Google is just the logo.
Given that Google is the company spending its endless flow of advertising dollars acquiring everything in sight, the icons really ought to be the other way around.
I use Linux primarily, but I find Win7 to be quite good actually. My experience was kinda like this. So this jury member has decided, and for the apps I use it for (Adobe Premiere/Photoshop) it performs very well, looks pretty and it not too bad from an interface point of view.
Yea, it really bugs me how 95% of a web site's load time and processing load is accounted for by a few pretty features like rounded corners and drop shadows.
How about we put those effects into CSS where they below and not induce massive load by simulating them with 5mb of JavaScript?
I think it's codephrase for "the government must step in to prevent the Internet from continuing to be open to all rather than protected like its bedfellows in traditional media".
I was wondering why the Internet left some toiletries in my bathroom the other night.
n/t
Yea, imagine the exodus from the neighborhood when they know that a spammer moves into the street. You know, coz spammers only cause problems for their neighbors.
Oh, for the days when fighting spam meant catching the asshole who persisted on ignoring your "no junk mail" sign.
Release their personal details to the public. It'll take about 24 hours for vigilantes to solve the problem.
I'm not talking about denying adults the right to movies, however I just cannot fathom how anyone could argue that the availability of movies like the Saw series is in the public interest.
Err, that crap is not based on any medical study or scientific research.
Furthermore, reading it on that site is like reading climate change research on exxon.com
As much as I hate censorship, I do agree with this sentiment. Has anyone actually sat down and watched a kids' show? Ben10 has something like 10 violent acts every 3 minutes.
Being anti-censorship does not mean "anything goes". I am the primary carer (uncle for my adopted nephew) for a 4 year old, and I can tell you there is a marked increase in hyperactive behavior, aggression and general lack of control for hours after watching Nickelodeon. Consequently, I have banned TV in my house. It was a few days of tantrums, but he's gotten over it, and the improvement in behavior is astonishing.
I flatly refuse to accept that what we watch does not affect us. Movies like Saw and Hostel simply cannot be psychologically inert, the content is just too potent.
"Down with censorship" and "down with psychologically and socially destructive media" are NOT mutually exclusive in the same way that "down with government control" and "down with harming your neighbor" are also not mutually exclusive. Lets grow up past the idea that any control of media that has a negative social impact is censorship and should be fought. Media *can* have a negative impact on social behavior and mental health. Get over it.
The size of the whoosh you just received will cause tears, as well as tears.
I think that's what the county is trying to force them to do.
I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance. Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.
I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice. It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily. Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine. Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
So you're saying it's time for a new national byline eh.
"Arbitrariness, Security and Hidden Agendas"
No, doesn't flow off the tongue right.
"Commercialized warfare, industrial subjugation and for-profit courts"
No, that's too wordy...
"Injustice, slavery and lies"
Hmm... I think we have a winner!
The recent article about GPS games needs to be updated with a new one: Battleship with real ships! It's far more fun if you know people are actually dying!
Yea, because giving members of the military access to social networking sites is really going to increase the risk of security breaches. It was better when we kept all military personnel in an off-grid facility in the middle of the desert with no cellphones and a ban on using fire in case they sent smoke signals to the nearest town.
I pirate stuff myself. I just don't try to fool myself that it's morally inert. I guess you *could* argue that I wouldn't watch movies if they weren't free (which is probably true in the vast majority of cases).
In any case, we're talking about WiFi. If you use your neighbor's wifi, you deprive him the use of the quota that you used, however little it may be. You're also using a certain percentage of his quota, which you did not pay for.
Don't try to fool yourself with flimsy technicalities in a childish attempt to screw with your moral compass. No amount of post-hoc justification can make a wrong right, it'll just fuck up your moral compass.
The article is also bung. The blog post, that is. Using your neighbour's WiFi is stealing, every single one of the vast array of arguments the blogger puts forward is either shallow, misdirected, based on false assumptions, predicated on absurd analogy, plain stupid, or some combination thereof.
If you're on a WiFi that you don't have reasonable grounds to conclude was intended by the owner to be free, then it is stealing. End of story. Now, can we stop it with the absurd excuses? It's even more disingenuous than the proposition that copying movies is not stealing. It is, people just do it anyway. Let's stop retroactively justifying ourselves.