Actually I dont know how you can say this. Real player is the most bloated, privacy infringing piece of crap I have ever seen. Who cares if its cross platform when its advertising model is so restrictive that you have to create plan on how you are going to navigate through all of the options to get it to work the way you want. And then when you actually get that done then you have to deal with ad spamming and it overwriting your file types with out asking.
No I dont think i have any baggage about this toppic but maybe i could have said it better. Im tring to understand this topic better, thank you for your comment you have a good point. Im not saying being gay is wrong. I just dont know what impact it would have if natural reproduction didnt happen.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
Actually I think you are complicating the issue. Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women. If two homosexual people would like to get together, Why not just call it something else? I know it would be difficult to get all the rights of a married couple but its better then trying to get the term marriage to include homosexual unions? I could be out of the loop but this seams to make sense?
So if you think that, why bother crafting such a goofy argument above? Guess what? A gay couple not being able to reproduce IS normal! What more do you want? Also, there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children for one or more of a variety of reasons. Should they not have children because they are abnormal? The whole argument is just stupid.
Im not sure im following your logic here. I think being gay is just fine, but I dont see how this would work out when it comes to reproducing. If everyone was gay, we would not be reproducing. How is not being able to reproduce normal? You can do so by artificial means, but Im not sure how that would impact our society of everyone started to reproduce in this fashion on a large scale.
*Please check yourself internally, before responding to this post. Let go of any mental position you have that has created a emotional barrier to being able to talk civilly about this important topic. I and will try to do the same*
A crashed PC boots into Linux from the iPod, after which you get all kinds of rescue & restore functionality... web browsing and all, even if the PC's drive is totally hosed. All this while the iPod keeps working normally as a music player as it would
Please stand by while the recovery files are loaded into memeory..
(Sound Cutting Out From Head phones) " Awwwww!!! It ai.. my.. lt, DID I DO THAT?, It aint my fault... It ai.. my.
(Sound of static on headset)
(Smoke pouring out of Ipod)
File load error, please check hard drive for disk errors, or better yet, buy a fast enough drive to handle this, good bye.
Acutally Id remember him as the guy that knowns what he wants out of life and steped up to the plate instead of complaining on company time about how much visual studio sucks and how much he would hate using it.
Personally I think that people are way getting lazy when it comes to remembering passwords. Granted I work in IT, but I can remember 20 digit passwords pretty quickley. All it takes is a number of times having to type it in by memory to get it into your system. People get all scared now when they are asked to remember a 5 digit passwords with numbers in it. It not that hard.
Probably too late to respond to this, but I wanted to anyway.
In a way I do see it as a zero sum game. profit is important, but its not more fundamental then public good. The balance should all ways lean in the publics direction. And IMHO trade secrets don't, in anyway shape or form help the public good. Personal I don't sign anything I wouldnt be able to agree to, but I still support the right for people to disclose under certain circumstances, especially if it is in the interest of public awareness. No company should be able to force someone to maintain silence when their motivation do not protect the public good.
A company doesn't not equal a person, they shouldn't have equal rights what so ever. people have a rights. A right to privacy and what not, but the main goal of companies IMHO is to help the common man live a better life, and reap the benefits in conjunction to that. when the focus is based on the opposite you pretty much all ways have a situation where the common man suffers. Personal I don't think its right.
Too many people in America think money is the end all to everything. its just MONEY. it helps you get from point a to b. It should never become so important that we stop helping people because they dont make a six figure salary.
Money distorts the true meaning of life when its used as a focal point, if more people took to the time to learn how empathize with their fellow humans we wouldnt have problems like greed and selfishness.
Re:Other considerations, and identity of Nick dePl
on
Think Secret Gets Lawyer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here's the problem many people overlook: many states have specific laws making it illegal to divulge information from someone where it can be reasonably known or assumed that a binding confidentiality agreement was breached. (Don't like the law(s)? That's another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the first amendment.)
Sometimes its nessasary to break the law to get it overturned. Secondly, what reason should I have to follow a law that does not have the publics interest at heart? Laws are made to protect the public good, personally I dont see this law as something that protects my rights as an individual. its just another step in the chain of events that takes away freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Companies dont have a god given right to the protection of profits.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
Ethically? please. its legally wrong but thats about it. Laws like this are created to give the wealth power and they directly take away from the interests of the public. Whats more important? Interests of Profit or Public? Its the wellbeing of people, and free exchange of ideas, that should always come before Profit. Why the hell would anyone want to obey a law that does not benifit the public is beyond me. Ohh I forgot, business interests come first right? sorry but I could care less about corporate interests, its just money.. they have to compete in an age where information cannot be controlled, so learn to work around it or die.
What are they protecting? A dieing distribution model, thats it. Im sorry to be the one to break it to you, but this is the wave of the future. If media companies dont figure out a way to make content cheap and easily accessable, they are going to loose every time. Or they are going make things so tuff on the public that its going to cause a revolution. Either way the media companies need to move on with there lives, this shit reminds me of being stalked my x-girlfriends. They just wont take no for an answer.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Finnish police acted independently, with no input from any of those 'evil American copyright owners'
Yea, you keep telling yourself that, until you believe it. Mean time, who the fuck cares about the distribution model of copyrighted works accept.... Guess who? RIAA, and the MPAA?
I hear what you are saying, but I still think the focus is misguided, I would hope I would never trade my beliefs for a price... no amount of money is worth what happens to you when you sacrifce somthing you belive in. It changes you beyong comprehension. Life is only worth living when you are in tune with what you believe in, when you give up on that, money isnt going to save you from yourself.
Im just referring to business practices, not the personal information their account holders.
But then there are rights already setup that protect private information for an individual. we dont need to give personal rights to large body where no one person is held accountable for actions the company takes as a whole. If you ever get a chance go see, "Corporation". Its a clear indication of why capitalism is so messed up. People before profit, not the other way around.
I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'
Companies should never have the same rights as people, they need to be held accountable for their actions. And they wont do that unless business pratices are made open to the public.
What is money? It only makes your life easier, it doesnt make you happy. Happyness can only be found inside of yourself. I understand why you would say this, i just think its mis-guided.
Re:Bungie has done it again, allight
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Ack, sorry for the spelling errors.
Bungie has done it again, allight
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Again? What have they dont again? delivered a completely different gamming experince that was expected after microsoft bought bungie?
To me its just another borning consle arcade shooter with no innovation beyond looks.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"; said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
Gee, thanx for showing us how smart you are, but I thought the essance of this story was about doing something that has not be done before. Small steps.
Why do smart people need to ruin a perfectly good story by tring to look like they are smarter than everyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
Thats a really good exmaple IMHO.
Actually I dont know how you can say this. Real player is the most bloated, privacy infringing piece of crap I have ever seen. Who cares if its cross platform when its advertising model is so restrictive that you have to create plan on how you are going to navigate through all of the options to get it to work the way you want. And then when you actually get that done then you have to deal with ad spamming and it overwriting your file types with out asking.
Thanks for your input, im not saying its bad, im just questioning where our species would be in the future if natural reproduction didnt happen.
You make a good point about over population though. Maybe it was built into our species to slow down reproduction? or over population?
No I dont think i have any baggage about this toppic but maybe i could have said it better. Im tring to understand this topic better, thank you for your comment you have a good point. Im not saying being gay is wrong. I just dont know what impact it would have if natural reproduction didnt happen.
The republican party found one single issue they can bank on. As long as the republicans supply a candidate who is for defending marrige as defined between a man and a woman, they will keep winning elections. It is the ONLY reason bush won the last election.
You're probably right. But just because most people are unethical and want to tell other people what is and is not morally right and wrong (as if they were some sort of authority) a few of us like to vote our consciences, even if we are a minority. You see a hundred years ago the majority of people thought black people were an inferior race. Two hundred years ago the majority of people thought women were inferior to men, weaker and less intelligent and should not be allowed to own property of their own. Four hundred years ago anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun was declared an evil heretic who had to be burned to protect society.
Actually I think you are complicating the issue. Marriage is a term that applies to a union between a man and a women. If two homosexual people would like to get together, Why not just call it something else? I know it would be difficult to get all the rights of a married couple but its better then trying to get the term marriage to include homosexual unions? I could be out of the loop but this seams to make sense?
So if you think that, why bother crafting such a goofy argument above? Guess what? A gay couple not being able to reproduce IS normal! What more do you want? Also, there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children for one or more of a variety of reasons. Should they not have children because they are abnormal? The whole argument is just stupid.
Im not sure im following your logic here. I think being gay is just fine, but I dont see how this would work out when it comes to reproducing. If everyone was gay, we would not be reproducing. How is not being able to reproduce normal? You can do so by artificial means, but Im not sure how that would impact our society of everyone started to reproduce in this fashion on a large scale.
*Please check yourself internally, before responding to this post. Let go of any mental position you have that has created a emotional barrier to being able to talk civilly about this important topic. I and will try to do the same*
Good for him, we dont need embarassment anyway, its a quick way to limit your life.
Please stand by while the recovery files are loaded into memeory..
(Sound Cutting Out From Head phones) " Awwwww!!! It ai.. my.. lt, DID I DO THAT?, It aint my fault... It ai.. my.
(Sound of static on headset)
(Smoke pouring out of Ipod) File load error, please check hard drive for disk errors, or better yet, buy a fast enough drive to handle this, good bye.
Acutally Id remember him as the guy that knowns what he wants out of life and steped up to the plate instead of complaining on company time about how much visual studio sucks and how much he would hate using it.
Well someone mod this up please?
Personally I think that people are way getting lazy when it comes to remembering passwords. Granted I work in IT, but I can remember 20 digit passwords pretty quickley. All it takes is a number of times having to type it in by memory to get it into your system. People get all scared now when they are asked to remember a 5 digit passwords with numbers in it. It not that hard.
Use your memory or loose it.
and that the open source development model is 'fundamentally flawed.'
Yea more fundamentally flawed then the windows model right?
GMAFB.
Probably too late to respond to this, but I wanted to anyway.
In a way I do see it as a zero sum game. profit is important, but its not more fundamental then public good. The balance should all ways lean in the publics direction. And IMHO trade secrets don't, in anyway shape or form help the public good. Personal I don't sign anything I wouldnt be able to agree to, but I still support the right for people to disclose under certain circumstances, especially if it is in the interest of public awareness. No company should be able to force someone to maintain silence when their motivation do not protect the public good.
A company doesn't not equal a person, they shouldn't have equal rights what so ever. people have a rights. A right to privacy and what not, but the main goal of companies IMHO is to help the common man live a better life, and reap the benefits in conjunction to that. when the focus is based on the opposite you pretty much all ways have a situation where the common man suffers. Personal I don't think its right.
Too many people in America think money is the end all to everything. its just MONEY. it helps you get from point a to b. It should never become so important that we stop helping people because they dont make a six figure salary.
Money distorts the true meaning of life when its used as a focal point, if more people took to the time to learn how empathize with their fellow humans we wouldnt have problems like greed and selfishness.
Sometimes its nessasary to break the law to get it overturned. Secondly, what reason should I have to follow a law that does not have the publics interest at heart? Laws are made to protect the public good, personally I dont see this law as something that protects my rights as an individual. its just another step in the chain of events that takes away freedom of speech and freedom of choice. Companies dont have a god given right to the protection of profits.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Further, whether or not Nick should be publishing it is a subject of further debate, but he's the one person who knows who these people are. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws (the one I spoke of in the first paragraph) to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
Ethically? please. its legally wrong but thats about it. Laws like this are created to give the wealth power and they directly take away from the interests of the public. Whats more important? Interests of Profit or Public? Its the wellbeing of people, and free exchange of ideas, that should always come before Profit. Why the hell would anyone want to obey a law that does not benifit the public is beyond me. Ohh I forgot, business interests come first right? sorry but I could care less about corporate interests, its just money.. they have to compete in an age where information cannot be controlled, so learn to work around it or die.
LOL!!! omg that was fucking funny,.
What are they protecting? A dieing distribution model, thats it. Im sorry to be the one to break it to you, but this is the wave of the future. If media companies dont figure out a way to make content cheap and easily accessable, they are going to loose every time. Or they are going make things so tuff on the public that its going to cause a revolution. Either way the media companies need to move on with there lives, this shit reminds me of being stalked my x-girlfriends. They just wont take no for an answer.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Finnish police acted independently, with no input from any of those 'evil American copyright owners'
Yea, you keep telling yourself that, until you believe it. Mean time, who the fuck cares about the distribution model of copyrighted works accept.... Guess who? RIAA, and the MPAA?
I hear what you are saying, but I still think the focus is misguided, I would hope I would never trade my beliefs for a price... no amount of money is worth what happens to you when you sacrifce somthing you belive in. It changes you beyong comprehension. Life is only worth living when you are in tune with what you believe in, when you give up on that, money isnt going to save you from yourself.
Im just referring to business practices, not the personal information their account holders.
But then there are rights already setup that protect private information for an individual. we dont need to give personal rights to large body where no one person is held accountable for actions the company takes as a whole. If you ever get a chance go see, "Corporation". Its a clear indication of why capitalism is so messed up. People before profit, not the other way around.
I believe in privacy, personally, and I don't think the public has a "right" to know everything.'
Companies should never have the same rights as people, they need to be held accountable for their actions. And they wont do that unless business pratices are made open to the public.
What is money? It only makes your life easier, it doesnt make you happy. Happyness can only be found inside of yourself. I understand why you would say this, i just think its mis-guided.
Ack, sorry for the spelling errors.
Again? What have they dont again? delivered a completely different gamming experince that was expected after microsoft bought bungie?
To me its just another borning consle arcade shooter with no innovation beyond looks.
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?"; said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
- p.411, Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED, Signet Books, NY, 1957
Gee, thanx for showing us how smart you are, but I thought the essance of this story was about doing something that has not be done before. Small steps.
Why do smart people need to ruin a perfectly good story by tring to look like they are smarter than everyone else?