Well, the comic creator's freedom of speech isn't really an issue here since the Federal Government didn't do anything to stop the comic. The individual newspapers said "We won't publish it because we're afraid of being murdered by the self-proclaimed Religion of Peace."
There are people who have invisible friends. Why is there a line in making fun of their belief? There really isn't. You don't get to draw lines in the sand when it comes to free speech. Once you put one restriction on it it is no longer free.
If they can't take the soft stuff when they're kids (and when you're a kid, that's all it is), how are you supposed to handle being an ADULT?
All this toned-down crap for kids is preparing them to fail when they become adults. In baseball for kids now they don't keep score and nobody wins or loses, everyone gets the same sized trophy. Well, in the real world it doesn't work that way.
I can understand a parent wanting to protect their child, but that goes too far. Everyone experiences failure, why not prepare your child for the first time a girl turns him down (or the 94th time), the first time he's fired from a job, the first time he gets robbed, and so on. Your child may be your beautiful perfect child, but they will experience loss and failure in the real world just like everyone else. By not preparing them for that you're only making it harder for them when they experience it for the first time.
"Unfortunately, with the exception of so few games I could count them on one hand, the 360 (for me anyway) is "winning" this generation hands down..."
The 360 has been out over a year longer than the Wii and yet the Wii has passed it in console sales. The first party games Nintendo is offering for the Wii (and the ones about to come out this holiday season) are their BIG games. Mario Kart, Metroid, Mario Galaxy.. Nintendo's going to start pulling away and it's not just because of their lower price or the games they're offering. It's because Sony dropped the ball and had that "They'll buy it even if has no games" attitude. And because both Sony and Microsoft had the "People want a media center first and a gaming console second" attitude. Nintendo had the "People want to play fun games and don't want to have to take out a loan to do so" attitude and they're winning.
The only big exclusive title the 360 can offer is Halo, which isn't even a very good shooter. The PS3 has a few exclusives but from what I've heard from even the big Sony fanboys is that they're only "OK"
I believe the number of Sony Fanboys in the US is higher than that in any other country. Our dumb consumers buy that crap even when it doesn't work.
But wouldn't it be funny if Sony's announcement of a better PS3 on the way gets people to stop buying them?
On a semi-related note, I've talked with 3 middle-aged people who are trying to find Wiis for themselves and can't, while I see Best Buy has 20 PS3s in stock. Good work, Sony.
I'm using a sample size of *The people who aren't in open revolt* to determine that the Chinese people aren't willing to fight for their right (to party).
You put people at risk by getting in your car. If you sneeze or yawn you could lose control.
Being drunk doesn't mean you're going to hurt anyone. Arresting someone for drunk driving is like arresting someone for thinking about committing a crime (also known as Conspiracy).
If nobody gets hurt nobody should be punished. It's that simple. If they hit a car/person/tree/whatever sure, arrest 'em. But if they get home without damaging anything what have they done that a sober person hasn't?
I worked with a woman who drove home drunk after a party. Her boyfriend drove her there but he was too drunk to drive her home. So she drove herself home. When she got into her driveway she turned her vehicle off, got out, and was almost inside when a police car pulled up behind her and gave her a ticket. She's now a convicted felon because of that incident and has lost her ability to vote. She was HOME and hadn't hit ANYTHING. Where's the harm in what she did? And don't tell me what she COULD HAVE done, because yesterday when I deposited my paycheck I COULD HAVE robbed the bank.
Drunk drivers have the ABILITY to kill families of 4, but who doesn't have that ability sober? Anyone in a car could kill anyone else around them. Punishing someone for BEING ABLE to do something is crap, and all the drunk driving laws are total garbage.
If you put it on the street it's fair game unless it has a sealed lid on it. If you TRY to keep it secure it's legally secure. That's what the laws are there for.
It's like any other censoring. On TV, people can point their index finger, thumb, pinky, and ring finger. So blurring out the middle finger doesn't hide SHIT.
So which quote did you want included? Please log in and inform me of what possible REAL quote from Mr. Gates could apply.
Quote from an interview: QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"
ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
I have read about it, and I do know about it. As I mentioned, I spoke to a girl in China and she thought the idea of the American Bill of Rights was quite interesting.
That's the whole reason why the quote is funny. And the reason that everyone laughs at the original quote (even though it's not real, since nobody who knows anything about computers would ever state that anything is enough).
But thank you for pointing out why it's funny.
And let me get a "They'll use more than 64 to get Vista running properly!" comment in before I go.
And did they give up or are they still trying? If you want something that your government says you can't have you need to TAKE it and defend it.
I talked to a nice girl from China who had no idea there were places you could have multiple children. She thought that everything her Government did was good and for her protection. If they want their freedom, they're sure not trying to get it. They seem to be happy to live under the control of their government.
If the people of China wanted to be free, the 1.3bn of them would rise up and free themselves.
It's fine to help people who want to be free once they've attempted to free themselves. But they have to want it enough to be willing to die so their children can have it.
You can't GIVE someone freedom, but if they want it you can help them get it.
Not only is that not a car analogy, but it's not even correct.
It would be if the water utility connected your house for a single monthly fee and not by gallons used, and got pissed when you actually used the connection that they never set a limit on. Which is how current ISPs operate.
I've been struck with a sudden car analogy. It's like a dealership selling you a Mustang for the price of a Yugo and getting pissed when you drive fast?
No.. that's not right. Can anyone think of a better one?
The problem with tool-free is that when you're transporting your computer things tend to pop out. I prefer to at least use thumbscrews for the expensive bits.
Slashdot Mirror
I think what he meant was you can install but not use the app while logged in as an Administrator account, encouraging people to log in as users.
Well, the comic creator's freedom of speech isn't really an issue here since the Federal Government didn't do anything to stop the comic. The individual newspapers said "We won't publish it because we're afraid of being murdered by the self-proclaimed Religion of Peace."
There are people who have invisible friends. Why is there a line in making fun of their belief? There really isn't. You don't get to draw lines in the sand when it comes to free speech. Once you put one restriction on it it is no longer free.
If they can't take the soft stuff when they're kids (and when you're a kid, that's all it is), how are you supposed to handle being an ADULT?
All this toned-down crap for kids is preparing them to fail when they become adults. In baseball for kids now they don't keep score and nobody wins or loses, everyone gets the same sized trophy. Well, in the real world it doesn't work that way.
I can understand a parent wanting to protect their child, but that goes too far. Everyone experiences failure, why not prepare your child for the first time a girl turns him down (or the 94th time), the first time he's fired from a job, the first time he gets robbed, and so on. Your child may be your beautiful perfect child, but they will experience loss and failure in the real world just like everyone else. By not preparing them for that you're only making it harder for them when they experience it for the first time.
"Unfortunately, with the exception of so few games I could count them on one hand, the 360 (for me anyway) is "winning" this generation hands down..."
The 360 has been out over a year longer than the Wii and yet the Wii has passed it in console sales. The first party games Nintendo is offering for the Wii (and the ones about to come out this holiday season) are their BIG games. Mario Kart, Metroid, Mario Galaxy.. Nintendo's going to start pulling away and it's not just because of their lower price or the games they're offering. It's because Sony dropped the ball and had that "They'll buy it even if has no games" attitude. And because both Sony and Microsoft had the "People want a media center first and a gaming console second" attitude. Nintendo had the "People want to play fun games and don't want to have to take out a loan to do so" attitude and they're winning.
The only big exclusive title the 360 can offer is Halo, which isn't even a very good shooter. The PS3 has a few exclusives but from what I've heard from even the big Sony fanboys is that they're only "OK"
I believe the number of Sony Fanboys in the US is higher than that in any other country. Our dumb consumers buy that crap even when it doesn't work.
But wouldn't it be funny if Sony's announcement of a better PS3 on the way gets people to stop buying them?
On a semi-related note, I've talked with 3 middle-aged people who are trying to find Wiis for themselves and can't, while I see Best Buy has 20 PS3s in stock. Good work, Sony.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that both your posts are because of the drugs you're on.
Also, nobody gives a fuck about your laser eye surgery. Not one person.
And in conclusion, fuck you.
I'm using a sample size of *The people who aren't in open revolt* to determine that the Chinese people aren't willing to fight for their right (to party).
You put people at risk by getting in your car. If you sneeze or yawn you could lose control.
Being drunk doesn't mean you're going to hurt anyone. Arresting someone for drunk driving is like arresting someone for thinking about committing a crime (also known as Conspiracy).
If nobody gets hurt nobody should be punished. It's that simple. If they hit a car/person/tree/whatever sure, arrest 'em. But if they get home without damaging anything what have they done that a sober person hasn't?
I worked with a woman who drove home drunk after a party. Her boyfriend drove her there but he was too drunk to drive her home. So she drove herself home. When she got into her driveway she turned her vehicle off, got out, and was almost inside when a police car pulled up behind her and gave her a ticket. She's now a convicted felon because of that incident and has lost her ability to vote. She was HOME and hadn't hit ANYTHING. Where's the harm in what she did? And don't tell me what she COULD HAVE done, because yesterday when I deposited my paycheck I COULD HAVE robbed the bank.
Drunk drivers have the ABILITY to kill families of 4, but who doesn't have that ability sober? Anyone in a car could kill anyone else around them. Punishing someone for BEING ABLE to do something is crap, and all the drunk driving laws are total garbage.
The head of the network for my entire school district back when I was in HS called NICs "Network Interface NIC Cards"
And, for some odd reason, the schools called me and my friend before him when they had computer problems.
If you put it on the street it's fair game unless it has a sealed lid on it. If you TRY to keep it secure it's legally secure. That's what the laws are there for.
It's like any other censoring. On TV, people can point their index finger, thumb, pinky, and ring finger. So blurring out the middle finger doesn't hide SHIT.
So which quote did you want included? Please log in and inform me of what possible REAL quote from Mr. Gates could apply.
Quote from an interview:
QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"
ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time."
I have read about it, and I do know about it. As I mentioned, I spoke to a girl in China and she thought the idea of the American Bill of Rights was quite interesting.
The mini's a very entry-level Mac. It can be used as a media center and for basic use. It's not a hardcore gaming machine.
The iMac is the mid-range desktop solution, it comes with an OK graphics card.
The Power Mac is a powerhouse, but it's mostly for professionals.
The Macbook is somewhere between the Mini and the iMac. It's the entry level mobile platform.
The Macbook Pro is the professional powerhouse mobile offering. It has a pretty good (DX10 actually) video card.
Macs aren't aimed at gamers, since in the past most Mac users have been audio/video professionals and basic internet/im types.
Apple isn't a gaming company. They've never claimed that. But they CAN be used to play games, just like any PC.
That's the whole reason why the quote is funny. And the reason that everyone laughs at the original quote (even though it's not real, since nobody who knows anything about computers would ever state that anything is enough).
But thank you for pointing out why it's funny.
And let me get a "They'll use more than 64 to get Vista running properly!" comment in before I go.
Well, is there a publication that documents Mr. Gates saying that? Or did some anti-ms fanboy make it up?
I'm not a MS lover, I'm a Mac user, but I dislike people bringing that quote up so often.
And did they give up or are they still trying? If you want something that your government says you can't have you need to TAKE it and defend it.
I talked to a nice girl from China who had no idea there were places you could have multiple children. She thought that everything her Government did was good and for her protection. If they want their freedom, they're sure not trying to get it. They seem to be happy to live under the control of their government.
And I was 4 years old in 1989.
If the people of China wanted to be free, the 1.3bn of them would rise up and free themselves.
It's fine to help people who want to be free once they've attempted to free themselves. But they have to want it enough to be willing to die so their children can have it.
You can't GIVE someone freedom, but if they want it you can help them get it.
Well, I'm just saying that Mr. Gates never actually said you people continue to insist that he did.
Not only is that not a car analogy, but it's not even correct.
It would be if the water utility connected your house for a single monthly fee and not by gallons used, and got pissed when you actually used the connection that they never set a limit on. Which is how current ISPs operate.
The one he never said, you mean?
I've been struck with a sudden car analogy. It's like a dealership selling you a Mustang for the price of a Yugo and getting pissed when you drive fast?
No.. that's not right. Can anyone think of a better one?
The problem with tool-free is that when you're transporting your computer things tend to pop out. I prefer to at least use thumbscrews for the expensive bits.