Either people should have the right to not be called by people whom they haven't solicited, or they shouldn't. If they should, then they should have the right to not be called by anyone whose call they didn't solicit, regardless of whether their motive for calling is earning profit (commercial), gaining more political power (political), or asking for help in changing the world according to their views (non-profit). However, if people don't have the right to not be called by people whose calls they didn't solicit, then anyone can implicitly call them (until explicitly told otherwise).
This doesn't damn the current law, which amounts to giving people a venue to explicitly tell some others that they don't want to be called--everyone still retains the equal implicit right to make unsolicited calls. However, since this is handled by the government, the selectivity of the law is inappropriate. If they felt that people wanted to distinguish between commercial, political, and non-profit calls, they should have made do not call lists for all of the categories. It's unfair to allow people to explicitly opt out of commercial calls without also giving them the option to opt out of political and non-profit calls. Further, the costs of making three lists as opposed to one are negligible.
Geek guys like this sort of stuff and geek girls don't. So ladies, my question is, what gives?
Your sample isn't representative. I'm a guy, and I find collecting pointless (what function does it serve?), and one of my friends is a girl who does collect (she bragged about how many old gaming systems she has).
Bullcrap. If I walk up to you and knife you in the back, then I, though a member of the "private sector", have successfully employed my power to violate your rights.
Yeah. I suspected I'd get a literal-minded prick like you who'd read my words with the least charitable interpretation possible, but for some reason decided not to correct myself. You didn't actually think that I was saying that it's impossible for a private individual to violate someone's rights, of course.
As for your claim that corporations are gaining the power to violate other people's rights: if they have that power, they are government entities, by definition, and a libertarian will oppose their competing with the private sector. You are ascribing to the libertarian party the exact opposite of their views.
Yeah, right. The only thing that stops corporations from using child labor, paying 25 cents an hour to workers and completely trashing the environment is the government.
Of course. But those are all different things, and they're not all legitimate. Stopping people from thrashing the environment is a legitimate function of the government, since polluting someone else's property is a violation of his property rights. Contracts apply to adults, not to children, and so anti-child labor laws might be compatible with the libertarian framework (you'd have to ask someone more knowledgable). Minimum wage laws are an illegitimate initiation of force because they prevent two willing parties from engaging in contractual trade. (They also cause unemployment, BTW.)
The notion that the free market alone will punish companies for their misdeeds is not only wrong, it is folly.
You're confusing what the "free" market means. It doesn't mean that companies are free to violate others' rights. It means that government doesn't interfere in agreements where both parties are adult, willing participants, and that it doesn't initiate force in the form of taxation.
Yes. Copyright protection is there for "promoting science and useful arts". Dead artist can be hardly encouraged by any law. His/her heirs add nothing to progress.
Making copyright protection expire with the death of the creator is analogous to putting a price on the creator's head. Kill the artist, get to use his work. It's the worst possible copyright protection expiration date.
Funny how it is, though, that when you get down to brass tacks with a libertarian, you can never actually get them to admit to a concrete example of a corporation doing wrong, because they always fall back on their circular logic that the market will "punish" bad corporations, rather than admit that corporations acting badly is what the market is really all about.
Of course corporations miscalculate and occasionally break the law. You're still not getting that the argument is not "corporations don't do wrong" but "corporations do better than the government."
The reason for this is that the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies. In order to get a company to reverse its decisions, people need simply do nothing--as long as they're ignorant of the company's product and don't do business with it, the company is losing money. By contrast, in order to punish governmental malinvestment, you must learn of it and take positive action to inform people of the bad decision in order to punish the politicians responsible. Further, corporations invest money which they either earned before or which people willingly lend them--having specifically determined that their money is better invested here than elsewhere (or having chosen another person to make that call for them). Politicians, on the other hand, spend tax money which they don't have to earn, and which people never decided to let them invest. There is simply much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs. And wealth spent one way is so much less wealth that can be spent the other way.
The arguments aren't simple, and lend themselves to easy misrepresentation.
The programme of the Fascists, as drafted in 1919, was vehemently anti-capitalistic. The most radical New Dealers and even communists could agree with it. When the Fascists came to power, they had forgotten those points of their programme which referred to the liberty of thought and the press and the right of assembly. In this respect they were conscientious disciples of Bukharin and Lenin. Moreover they did not suppress, as they had promised, the industrial and financial corporations. Italy badly needed foreign credits for the development of its industries. The main problem for Fascism, in the first years of its rule, was to win the confidence of the foreign bankers. It would have been suicidal to destroy the Italian corporations.
Fascist economic policy did not--at the beginning--essentially differ from those of all other Western nations. It was a policy of interventionism. As the years went on, it more and more approached the Nazi pattern of socialism. When Italy, after the defeat of France, entered the second World War, its economy was by and large already shaped according to the Nazi pattern. The main difference was that the Fascists were less efficient and even more corrupt than the Nazis.
But Mussolini could not long remain without an economic philosophy of his own invention. Fascism posed as a new philosophy, unheard of before and unknown to all other nations. It claimed to be the gospel which the resurrected spirit of ancient Rome brought to the decaying democratic peoples whose barbarian ancestors had once destroyed the Roman empire. It was the consummation both of the Rinascimento and the Risorgimento in every respect, the final liberation of the Latin genius from the yoke of foreign ideologies. Its shining leader, the peerless Duce, was called to find the ultimate solution for the burning problems of society's economic organization and of social justice.
From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and outside of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted--but need not be--as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.
It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted. But there was no question of the corporazione's self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody's interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter.
The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.
That's a strawman. I know many Libertarians, and I don't know a single one who believes that a corporation can do no wrong. The actual position is that the private sector, since it doesn't have the power to violate other people's rights (by definition), should be preferred over government "solutions" in productive matters. Note that you have to misrepresent the Libertarian position in order to attack it.
How do you deal with computers mailing you? You just made an eBay account and want to receive confirmation that you won an auction, but you don't know which email address the message will arrive from. Your message bounces back to eBay and is ignored by the computer. This is true for many sites. You go to the TypeTango MBTI personals site and make an account--how do you know which email address you're going to be receiving a confirmation email from?
You could have an email account especially for that, but then you'll be dealing with spam on that account.
Actually, you're trying to tack on terms AFTER you already sent it.
The EULA is presented before installation of the program, not imposed on you after you've already been using the program. It applies only to future action, not to past. If you refuse to accept the EULA and the seller refuses to refund your money, you should be able to take them to court.
if you really one someone to be bound by your terms, send them a paper contract to sign.
A contract is an agreement between two entities. There's nothing special about papers and signatures; they are just a way of proving that there was an agreement. The only reason that issue would be relevant is if you want to argue that you somehow installed the program without clicking on "I agree to the above terms." If you clicked on "I agree to the above terms," you agreed to the seller's terms. It's no different than a paper and signature contract in that respect.
So if you can't put any clause you like in your agreement, you cannot have any terms?
If ignorance of the terms is a valid defense against complying with the terms, then I cannot have any terms at all because anyone can claim ignorance whenever they wish it.
the point is that some of the terms are ridiculous. The whole point of the parent poster was that the terms be reasonable.
The point of the post I replied to was that a EULA is analogous to a "warning in a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says 'beware of the leopard.'" If that analogy were true, it would mean that doing something which you explicitly said you would do in a EULA amounts to fraud, because you willfully misled the buyer.
I don't think that requirement prevents you from writing terms at all.
That the terms be "reasonable" as opposed to "ridiculous" is not an objective requirement. Every person will have a different view of which terms belong in which set. If this is the requirement, then the terms are not under my control. They may at any point be labeled "ridiculous," and my rights as a creator are gone.
The terms of the EULA are properly the condition under which the seller is willing to sell the product to the buyer. The only limitation they should have is that they apply only to the buyer and the seller (i.e., they can't involve a violation of someone else's rights).
Don't like the word? Don't use it. But don't wish an attack on someone because you find time in your day to hate a contraction.
Why, it's his insensitive wishing that's probably responsible for this tragedy in the first place. What would we do without right-thinking people like you to show us the way?
It's also common knowledge that EULA's aren't read (by gurus and newbies alike).
That's no excuse. If I'm willing to sell you something I created only under certain terms, and I make it impossible for you to install my product without telling me that you agree to those terms, you can't afterward claim that you shouldn't be bound by the terms because you were ignorant of them.
They might as well put the warning in a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says "beware of the leopard".
Your example is analagous to making the EULA accessible only by going to Help->EULA after the program is installed or something. EULAs are typically presented before program installation, and the strongest measures are taken to encourage you to read them (such as requiring you to click "I agree to the above terms" before being able to continue with the installation).
1. Internet - the Internet is a worldwide, universally accessible network because of private action. That the original concept was conceived by defense researchers doesn't make it a government project. It was built by the market.
2. A continent-spanning highway system would have happened without government action. It wouldn't have been as expensive because it would have grown along with the demand for it, and it would have happened later. The money saved would have been directed by the market into more productive activities than paying for an idle highway system.
3. Educational system. Everything in the free market is first affordable only to the rich, and slowly becomes affordable to all. Computers and cars are a good examples. Only government action interferes in this process.
4. Manned space program. Wouldn't have happened yet. There's no profit in it. The money spent on it would be instead spent on activities which are more valuable to people.
Incidentally, saying that the absence of those things means that your statements are supported, is like saying that if AOL never wrote AIM, an instant messenger would never exist.
who thinks that a jaded congress is going to vote a new space station
Hopefully they won't. I like the idea of expanding into space (for a number of reasons), but I'm tired of congress throwing other people's money on the program. Most people I know have more important values to spend their money on, and I'd rather congress didn't force them to sponsor another space station.
Besides, I don't want my money being thrown on other people's pet programs.
If the Internet depended on "market forces," it wouldn't exist -- we'd be living in a world of multiple incompatible networks with users of any one network unable to communicate with those of others. If the highway system depended on "market forces," there would be no way in hell you could drive from one coast to the other. If education depended on "market forces," only the children of the rich would ever get an education. Etc. And if space exploration depends on "market forces," then you can kiss any chance you or your great-grandchildren have of ever getting off this planet goodbye.
I wonder how far away you are from the world record for the most unsupported statements per paragraph.
my biggest problem with M$ (all other important issues aside, lots of those too) is that it doesn't work, and when i am forced to work on M$, i have to pull my hair and curse.
I don't have such problems. I frequently work on Macs at work, and I find them relatively unstable and clunky (OS9 though). The latter is probably in part due to my greater familiarity with the Windows GUI. But it doesn't bother me that someone else prefers to use different software.
You, however, make false accusations about M$, while referring to M$ software as "stacks of M$ crack" in your signature. I don't give a damn what your opinion of M$ is, but when you're making false claims about their software, you should to be called on them. And your signature makes it hard to believe that you're just a well-meaning user who was misinformed about a particular M$ program.
I criticized you for being impolite. I do know about this.
Lying about something that's in plain sight of all is also a bad idea. It makes you look not only dishonest, but stupid.
Or are you going to try to argue that this is criticising me for being impolite: "Nice test, but not exhaustive. In fact, is is a fairly mild test, as only the background is invalid in any way. No values like 1FFFFF were tested."
did you spot this guy is a MAC advocate not a linux advocate
Didn't notice.
or do you Microsheep bundle them all into one big enemy?
He does seem to share a level of hysteria with the linux zealots on slashdot.
I was hoping someone would reply here with something along the lines of "see, when we bullshit about M$, we lose credibility; let's clean up our act, etc." I love those posts. Oh well.
I would guess that 111111 would be interpreted as decimal 111,111 rather than hex 111111
That's easy to test, and demonstrably false. If you do "background-color: 000099", it displays 0 red, 153 blue, 0 green. Take a screen shot and check if you don't believe me. If it assumed decimal, it would do 0 red, 99 green, and undefined blue.
It's not a good idea to criticize other people on subjects you know nothing about.
Slashdot Mirror
Either people should have the right to not be called by people whom they haven't solicited, or they shouldn't. If they should, then they should have the right to not be called by anyone whose call they didn't solicit, regardless of whether their motive for calling is earning profit (commercial), gaining more political power (political), or asking for help in changing the world according to their views (non-profit). However, if people don't have the right to not be called by people whose calls they didn't solicit, then anyone can implicitly call them (until explicitly told otherwise).
This doesn't damn the current law, which amounts to giving people a venue to explicitly tell some others that they don't want to be called--everyone still retains the equal implicit right to make unsolicited calls. However, since this is handled by the government, the selectivity of the law is inappropriate. If they felt that people wanted to distinguish between commercial, political, and non-profit calls, they should have made do not call lists for all of the categories. It's unfair to allow people to explicitly opt out of commercial calls without also giving them the option to opt out of political and non-profit calls. Further, the costs of making three lists as opposed to one are negligible.
Geek guys like this sort of stuff and geek girls don't. So ladies, my question is, what gives?
Your sample isn't representative. I'm a guy, and I find collecting pointless (what function does it serve?), and one of my friends is a girl who does collect (she bragged about how many old gaming systems she has).
the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies.
You mean like the way the market punished Enron?
No. I'm referring to malinvestment. It's not the market's place to punish fraud--that's the government's job.
Bullcrap. If I walk up to you and knife you in the back, then I, though a member of the "private sector", have successfully employed my power to violate your rights.
Yeah. I suspected I'd get a literal-minded prick like you who'd read my words with the least charitable interpretation possible, but for some reason decided not to correct myself. You didn't actually think that I was saying that it's impossible for a private individual to violate someone's rights, of course.
As for your claim that corporations are gaining the power to violate other people's rights: if they have that power, they are government entities, by definition, and a libertarian will oppose their competing with the private sector. You are ascribing to the libertarian party the exact opposite of their views.
Yeah, right. The only thing that stops corporations from using child labor, paying 25 cents an hour to workers and completely trashing the environment is the government.
Of course. But those are all different things, and they're not all legitimate. Stopping people from thrashing the environment is a legitimate function of the government, since polluting someone else's property is a violation of his property rights. Contracts apply to adults, not to children, and so anti-child labor laws might be compatible with the libertarian framework (you'd have to ask someone more knowledgable). Minimum wage laws are an illegitimate initiation of force because they prevent two willing parties from engaging in contractual trade. (They also cause unemployment, BTW.)
The notion that the free market alone will punish companies for their misdeeds is not only wrong, it is folly.
You're confusing what the "free" market means. It doesn't mean that companies are free to violate others' rights. It means that government doesn't interfere in agreements where both parties are adult, willing participants, and that it doesn't initiate force in the form of taxation.
Yes. Copyright protection is there for "promoting science and useful arts". Dead artist can be hardly encouraged by any law. His/her heirs add nothing to progress.
Making copyright protection expire with the death of the creator is analogous to putting a price on the creator's head. Kill the artist, get to use his work. It's the worst possible copyright protection expiration date.
Funny how it is, though, that when you get down to brass tacks with a libertarian, you can never actually get them to admit to a concrete example of a corporation doing wrong, because they always fall back on their circular logic that the market will "punish" bad corporations, rather than admit that corporations acting badly is what the market is really all about.
Of course corporations miscalculate and occasionally break the law. You're still not getting that the argument is not "corporations don't do wrong" but "corporations do better than the government."
The reason for this is that the market will punish bad decisions of corporations much more efficiently than the electoral system will punish bad decisions of government bodies. In order to get a company to reverse its decisions, people need simply do nothing--as long as they're ignorant of the company's product and don't do business with it, the company is losing money. By contrast, in order to punish governmental malinvestment, you must learn of it and take positive action to inform people of the bad decision in order to punish the politicians responsible. Further, corporations invest money which they either earned before or which people willingly lend them--having specifically determined that their money is better invested here than elsewhere (or having chosen another person to make that call for them). Politicians, on the other hand, spend tax money which they don't have to earn, and which people never decided to let them invest. There is simply much less motivation to spend wealth wisely among politicians than among CEOs. And wealth spent one way is so much less wealth that can be spent the other way.
The arguments aren't simple, and lend themselves to easy misrepresentation.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power" -- Mussolini
More information about this (section titled "7 Fascism"). Particularly the following:
The programme of the Fascists, as drafted in 1919, was vehemently anti-capitalistic. The most radical New Dealers and even communists could agree with it. When the Fascists came to power, they had forgotten those points of their programme which referred to the liberty of thought and the press and the right of assembly. In this respect they were conscientious disciples of Bukharin and Lenin. Moreover they did not suppress, as they had promised, the industrial and financial corporations. Italy badly needed foreign credits for the development of its industries. The main problem for Fascism, in the first years of its rule, was to win the confidence of the foreign bankers. It would have been suicidal to destroy the Italian corporations.
Fascist economic policy did not--at the beginning--essentially differ from those of all other Western nations. It was a policy of interventionism. As the years went on, it more and more approached the Nazi pattern of socialism. When Italy, after the defeat of France, entered the second World War, its economy was by and large already shaped according to the Nazi pattern. The main difference was that the Fascists were less efficient and even more corrupt than the Nazis.
But Mussolini could not long remain without an economic philosophy of his own invention. Fascism posed as a new philosophy, unheard of before and unknown to all other nations. It claimed to be the gospel which the resurrected spirit of ancient Rome brought to the decaying democratic peoples whose barbarian ancestors had once destroyed the Roman empire. It was the consummation both of the Rinascimento and the Risorgimento in every respect, the final liberation of the Latin genius from the yoke of foreign ideologies. Its shining leader, the peerless Duce, was called to find the ultimate solution for the burning problems of society's economic organization and of social justice.
From the dust-heap of discarded socialist utopias, the Fascist scholars salvaged the scheme of guild socialism. Guild socialism was very popular with British socialists in the last years of the first World War and in the first years following the Armistice. It was so impracticable that it disappeared very soon from socialist literature. No serious statesman ever paid any attention to contradictory and confused plans of guild socialism. It was almost forgotten when the Fascists attached it to a new label, and flamboyantly proclaimed corporativism as the new social panacea. The public inside and outside of Italy was captivated. Innumerable books, pamphlets and articles were written in praise of the stato corporativo. The governments of Austria and Portugal very soon declared that they were committed to the noble principles of corporativism. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) contained some paragraphs which could be interpreted--but need not be--as an approval of corporativism. In France its ideas found many eloquent supporters.
It was mere idle talk. Never did the Fascists make any attempt to realize the corporativist programme, industrial self-government. They changed the name of the chambers of commerce into corporative councils. They called corporazione the compulsory organizations of the various branches of industry which were the administrative units for the execution of the German pattern of socialism they had adopted. But there was no question of the corporazione's self-government. The Fascist cabinet did not tolerate anybody's interference with its absolute authoritarian control of production. All the plans for the establishment of the corporative system remained a dead letter.
The Libertarians' flawed belief that a Corporation Can Do No Wrong is what got us into this situation in the first place.
That's a strawman. I know many Libertarians, and I don't know a single one who believes that a corporation can do no wrong. The actual position is that the private sector, since it doesn't have the power to violate other people's rights (by definition), should be preferred over government "solutions" in productive matters. Note that you have to misrepresent the Libertarian position in order to attack it.
wouldn't it be nice if someone filtered the responses and provided a digest?
Browse at +5
How do you deal with computers mailing you? You just made an eBay account and want to receive confirmation that you won an auction, but you don't know which email address the message will arrive from. Your message bounces back to eBay and is ignored by the computer. This is true for many sites. You go to the TypeTango MBTI personals site and make an account--how do you know which email address you're going to be receiving a confirmation email from?
You could have an email account especially for that, but then you'll be dealing with spam on that account.
No, +1 Appropriate. After all the Objectivist motto is "I've got mine. Fuck the rest of you."
That's an interesting* interpretation of the position that initiation of physical force is immoral.
* I lied. It's not interesting at all. It's unoriginal and fuckwitted to the extreme.
Actually, you're trying to tack on terms AFTER you already sent it.
The EULA is presented before installation of the program, not imposed on you after you've already been using the program. It applies only to future action, not to past. If you refuse to accept the EULA and the seller refuses to refund your money, you should be able to take them to court.
if you really one someone to be bound by your terms, send them a paper contract to sign.
A contract is an agreement between two entities. There's nothing special about papers and signatures; they are just a way of proving that there was an agreement. The only reason that issue would be relevant is if you want to argue that you somehow installed the program without clicking on "I agree to the above terms." If you clicked on "I agree to the above terms," you agreed to the seller's terms. It's no different than a paper and signature contract in that respect.
So if you can't put any clause you like in your agreement, you cannot have any terms?
If ignorance of the terms is a valid defense against complying with the terms, then I cannot have any terms at all because anyone can claim ignorance whenever they wish it.
the point is that some of the terms are ridiculous. The whole point of the parent poster was that the terms be reasonable.
The point of the post I replied to was that a EULA is analogous to a "warning in a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says 'beware of the leopard.'" If that analogy were true, it would mean that doing something which you explicitly said you would do in a EULA amounts to fraud, because you willfully misled the buyer.
I don't think that requirement prevents you from writing terms at all.
That the terms be "reasonable" as opposed to "ridiculous" is not an objective requirement. Every person will have a different view of which terms belong in which set. If this is the requirement, then the terms are not under my control. They may at any point be labeled "ridiculous," and my rights as a creator are gone.
The terms of the EULA are properly the condition under which the seller is willing to sell the product to the buyer. The only limitation they should have is that they apply only to the buyer and the seller (i.e., they can't involve a violation of someone else's rights).
if you're writing completely outrageous terms based on the knowledge that most people won't read them, what's that make you?
A bad brand.
the people writing the EULA shouldn't be excused either simply because the people who agreed to it didn't know any better.
They most certainly should be (legally) excused. The alternative is that I as a creator have no say over the terms under which my product is sold.
Whether it's legal or not is not the point.
No, but whether it should be legal or not is.
Don't like the word? Don't use it. But don't wish an attack on someone because you find time in your day to hate a contraction.
Why, it's his insensitive wishing that's probably responsible for this tragedy in the first place. What would we do without right-thinking people like you to show us the way?
It's also common knowledge that EULA's aren't read (by gurus and newbies alike).
That's no excuse. If I'm willing to sell you something I created only under certain terms, and I make it impossible for you to install my product without telling me that you agree to those terms, you can't afterward claim that you shouldn't be bound by the terms because you were ignorant of them.
They might as well put the warning in a locked filing cabinet stored in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that says "beware of the leopard".
Your example is analagous to making the EULA accessible only by going to Help->EULA after the program is installed or something. EULAs are typically presented before program installation, and the strongest measures are taken to encourage you to read them (such as requiring you to click "I agree to the above terms" before being able to continue with the installation).
1. Internet - the Internet is a worldwide, universally accessible network because of private action. That the original concept was conceived by defense researchers doesn't make it a government project. It was built by the market.
2. A continent-spanning highway system would have happened without government action. It wouldn't have been as expensive because it would have grown along with the demand for it, and it would have happened later. The money saved would have been directed by the market into more productive activities than paying for an idle highway system.
3. Educational system. Everything in the free market is first affordable only to the rich, and slowly becomes affordable to all. Computers and cars are a good examples. Only government action interferes in this process.
4. Manned space program. Wouldn't have happened yet. There's no profit in it. The money spent on it would be instead spent on activities which are more valuable to people.
Incidentally, saying that the absence of those things means that your statements are supported, is like saying that if AOL never wrote AIM, an instant messenger would never exist.
who thinks that a jaded congress is going to vote a new space station
Hopefully they won't. I like the idea of expanding into space (for a number of reasons), but I'm tired of congress throwing other people's money on the program. Most people I know have more important values to spend their money on, and I'd rather congress didn't force them to sponsor another space station.
Besides, I don't want my money being thrown on other people's pet programs.
If the Internet depended on "market forces," it wouldn't exist -- we'd be living in a world of multiple incompatible networks with users of any one network unable to communicate with those of others. If the highway system depended on "market forces," there would be no way in hell you could drive from one coast to the other. If education depended on "market forces," only the children of the rich would ever get an education. Etc. And if space exploration depends on "market forces," then you can kiss any chance you or your great-grandchildren have of ever getting off this planet goodbye.
I wonder how far away you are from the world record for the most unsupported statements per paragraph.
my biggest problem with M$ (all other important issues aside, lots of those too) is that it doesn't work, and when i am forced to work on M$, i have to pull my hair and curse.
I don't have such problems. I frequently work on Macs at work, and I find them relatively unstable and clunky (OS9 though). The latter is probably in part due to my greater familiarity with the Windows GUI. But it doesn't bother me that someone else prefers to use different software.
You, however, make false accusations about M$, while referring to M$ software as "stacks of M$ crack" in your signature. I don't give a damn what your opinion of M$ is, but when you're making false claims about their software, you should to be called on them. And your signature makes it hard to believe that you're just a well-meaning user who was misinformed about a particular M$ program.
I criticized you for being impolite. I do know about this.
Lying about something that's in plain sight of all is also a bad idea. It makes you look not only dishonest, but stupid.
Or are you going to try to argue that this is criticising me for being impolite: "Nice test, but not exhaustive. In fact, is is a fairly mild test, as only the background is invalid in any way. No values like 1FFFFF were tested."
did you spot this guy is a MAC advocate not a linux advocate
Didn't notice.
or do you Microsheep bundle them all into one big enemy?
He does seem to share a level of hysteria with the linux zealots on slashdot.
I was hoping someone would reply here with something along the lines of "see, when we bullshit about M$, we lose credibility; let's clean up our act, etc." I love those posts. Oh well.
Keep in mind I know nothing about this
I guessed as much.
I would guess that 111111 would be interpreted as decimal 111,111 rather than hex 111111
That's easy to test, and demonstrably false. If you do "background-color: 000099", it displays 0 red, 153 blue, 0 green. Take a screen shot and check if you don't believe me. If it assumed decimal, it would do 0 red, 99 green, and undefined blue.
It's not a good idea to criticize other people on subjects you know nothing about.
This page should crash the living buhjeezus out of your win xp/2k with ie6.
It didn't crash WinMe & IE6* here. I asked a friend who's running WinXP & IE6** to try it, and he says:
drumroll
"that didn't crash me."
Other WinXP & IE6 users are encouraged to try it. Don't worry, it's quite safe.
*=6.0.2800.1106
**=6.00.2600.0000