You need to look at the weird math they used to make up what a drink is. I.e. 1 drink = 0.5 oz. He even gives you 1 beer = 24 drinks. So, 40 drinks would be about 2 (12 oz.) beers. This seems reasonable if you use if for every money transaction.
The human condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition is an interesting thing to research, but I find it odd that you take offense that he posted it under a username rather than anonymously. There is no doubt most will find the post to be trollish and uncalled for in the discussion, but how is it really any different than from "Anonymous Cowered" ? The fact that he is not hiding who he is just means that for better or worse, he's not ashamed of who he is (not that the account actually identifies who you are).
I'm not defending the trolling, but I find it ironic that he is more confident in letting people know who he is when trolling than you, who is arguably on the higher ground, rebuking the troll.
It might be just my crack-pot theory, so take it with a grain of salt...
I would thing the main reason to want the hearings televised goes to how there scare tactics work. Sinister motives or not, reading articles and watching video have very different impacts on how people perceive the information. I can write a ton of articles saying pirates are thieves, copying music makes baby Jesus cry, you'll get a life sentence for not paying every time you listen to a song, etc; but the actual court preceding will be very different. Even if they make those exact claims, it will not be in the same tone as attack media will be.
Real court proceedings are very dry, and will not support the fear image that they want. Plus it will be clear that they are suing for copyright violation and not theft. I'm sure there are various other concerns too.
That is not surprising, considering this "leaked" video is probably just a marketing stunt to begin with. Everyone wants a little time in the spot light, and there is no better way to generate hype that having "leaked footage" on some random blog.
Not necessarily to contradict your point, but your analogy does not paint the picture that I interpreted from your second paragraph. Consider this;
I certainly would not want harm to befall my daughter, but like me, she still chose to be an organ donor. If the worst should happen, our loss might still bring a benefit to others. The pain aside, if she was killed in a say, a car accident, I would be fine allowing her organs to be taken to save someone else. As I'm sure the recipient might feel empathy for our loss, they would be happy to accept the life saving gift. Now say instead, they murdered her to take her organs to help the dying patient. Is it ok then?
Heartless as it may seem, this becomes a grey area. Because of course I'm opposed to the murder of my child, but I'm not opposed to organ donation. As I'm sure the recipient is happy to accept a donated organ, but a stolen via murder organ presents a dim light on it. Obviously if you are opposed to organ donors all together, this becomes a moot point; but if the act is just, then we are really talking about the circumstances involved.
Now I hope to never have to face this choice, but if the latter was true, would I still donate the organs? She is already dead, and any legal (or not) actions I take afterward will still not change that fact. So at what point is it a principle of ill gotten gains and as such ok to refuse the possibility to save someone's life? On the other hand knowing that in a way, I was supporting the "ends" of the horrid means, might not be a point I would be acceptable with. I'm sure the recipient might have to choose the line they are willing to live with as well.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that the issues does not hinge on a didactic set of options. There is of complexity of issues that are involved when considering the morality of ESC. Most people are not going to agree to murder people who are already living their lives (children or not), but the potential for life is the gray area. I'm sure the main contention is at the point of where life begins, as such, it becomes "killing a cell" to "murdering a baby." As a meat eater might be picky as to what types of meat they eat, and what is involved before it's given to them; to a vegetarian, there is only one choice.
"jail != prison" Is a true statement, but there is actually a difference between them. Jails are mainly for people waiting trail, conviction, sentencing or for convicted misdemeanors under a year. They are locally run, usually by the sheriff's department. Prisons are for people charged and could not post bail, people convicted of an offense, and sentences over a year. Given that he was given 15 months, it would usually default to a prison anyway.
This is not to contradict your original point that it might have been a bit extreme of a sentence, but the choice of where he was held up was probably the default decision.
Actually one of the anti-air defense missiles is a giant dong I made out of bordom. It's pretty hilarious watching those bombard a fighter craft.
*Sigh*... And this is where you just lost your argument, and confirmed the parents view (bias as it may be) on all the people in SL. I think if you had omitted this little anecdote, the merit of your argument might have still carried weight.
I have nothing against SL even if it's not for me. It's an avenue of entertainment like any other vice; we all have them.
I agree with your basis, but it does help if they have at least a working knowledge of the topic they are making decisions on. In short, a "Jack of all trades, Ace of none" style of president would be ideal. They could support their short comings with experts in the field, yet still understand it enough to make informed, logical decision on the matter.
Of course is won't. If a private person were to develop and test this out, he would likely be spending the next 20 years in prison (looking less and less "exaggerated" as time goes on.) The fact that this is for cooperate gains; it will be largely over looked. Yes, I might be lost in cynicism, but life seems to be supporting my case thus far.
That's just plainly absurd. If a B-52 bomber crashed in a dense suburban neighborhood it would already be more than a "mere inconvenience"; nukes or not. Sure, having nukes on the wing might add to the problem, but so would transporting any hazardous materials. The focus of the problem is more than "what if it crashed".
My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different.
It is true that faulting any group in it's entirety base on a few people, or and basis of them not being part of "your" group is bad platform to stand on. I do however think you miss the underline basis that the parent is doting. Which is that atheism is not a group in the same sense that religions are. For starters, religions are usually based on what they believe, not what they don't believe. Try defining Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, by describing what they don't believe in. You almost inevitably will not come to an accurate description of any group without describing what that group does believe in. Atheism is IMO a poorly misused term for simply stating they don't believe in the "something" known as god. There is no set of beliefs that can be attached to atheist that can make it a standard group. No more so then saying all people who "don't believe corvettes are fast" are a group similar to a religion.
For example, saying "Republicans are stupid party", is dissimilar to saying "people who don't believe apples are the best fruit are stupid". Obviously one should be more constructive in their dislikes and not going around hating "republicans" or "apple haters"; but the grouping is very different and should not be assumed to be the same.
More elaboration could be told, but in short (heh), comments directed at "atheists" is non-descriptive of similar people, like comments directed at religions. I will reiterate that I am not condoning generalizing insults on a particular group, just stating that you correlation to his statement was a bit off.
"People in Japan at NCL [Nintendo Co. Ltd.] are making the best decisions that they can about which products get shipped to which market and when."
Well I like to take the ignorant and arrogant stance of "It should be in MY market, and it should be here NOW." Unfortunately my talks with these companies are not going so well...
It's not really surprising that the older generations are getting into online games. With the trend of computers and technology being an integral part of almost all aspects of society, it's only natural that everyone eventually gets involved. The stereotype of old people viewing modern technology as "evil" or "weird" is left to the fading past.
It's also interesting to see the outlet for older people to conversers and interact with a larger, and broader group of people. Not saying that the elderly don't get out, but games and online experience do allow them to "get out" on a larger scale.
Your comment is mainly correct, with one slight error. The whole concept that the book Flatland was trying to point out, was the perception of other dimensions. It wasn't that a sphere didn't exist in a 2D world; it was more that in a 2D world, they couldn't perceive a sphere, thus only observed a circle. A 4D object exists in a 3D world the same as a 3D object exists in a 2D world. The limiting factor is that the whole of the object can't be observed, or be totally captured in the lower dimension. A true circle in a 2D world will have different properties than a sphere observed as a circle would under the same factors.
Now, we can fight about word usage and semantics of the statement; however, to simplify my point, If a 4D object can't exist in space, then focusing purely on a smaller scale doesn't then allow it to exist. You can't use two separate criteria to define existence on two different scales and expect the relation to be equal.
From TFA: On the one hand, it seems a shame that the group should narrow the scope of its activities to focus on a single project. Linux may be the open source poster child du jour, but it's hardly the only worthwhile project around.
Since when does a foundation, group, or organization have to have a broad scope on there activities? If they only want to focus on one aspect of a field, that's their choice. Sure, there are more "worthwhile" projects out there, and there also are more organizations out there. This one is focused on Linux; which shouldn't be a discriminating factor just because they don't include all the other possibilities in there activities.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the article was IMO poorly written. It makes wild assumptions without much meat to back it up. Not only that, but they don't have any working models to help develop the theory. I don't mean to be hating, but the amount of applicable date in the article is about the same level as every story from an 8 yr old starting with "Wouldn't it be cool if..."
from TFA: "The black Saturn can only exist in a space with four dimensions, rather than the three we inhabit. In 3D, a black ring is impossible, so there are no big black saturns out there for astronomers to spot - but at a microscopic level, they might really exist.
This statement annoyed me the most. Either it does or does not exist, not both. There might be properties we can't observe in a 3D model, but that doen't negate the existance of it; nor does the difference of "out there" and "the microscopic level" have a relation to something really existing... but maybe you don't want to hear me rant, so basically, I don't feel the actual article was worth the read.
The funny part is, even though the relation you are joking about is obviously not the original intent; the article doesn't do much better. The need to relate a look or description to a common object is very standard in media. Saturn is not the only object surround by a ring, nor does it really relate to the ring that the article is taking about. It just make a more personal relationship to the concept by stating that it's like Saturn.
Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).
'Should' is not the same as 'is'. There is a lot of things you should be able to do with the stuff you buy, but that doesn't stop it from still being illegal
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
If the reprisal isn't going to be in legal form, then what are they going to do? Call you names, or stop selling Apple products to you? The fact is, people fear the legal reprisals from Apple, nothing else.
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.
I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to look at the weird math they used to make up what a drink is. I.e. 1 drink = 0.5 oz. He even gives you 1 beer = 24 drinks. So, 40 drinks would be about 2 (12 oz.) beers. This seems reasonable if you use if for every money transaction.
The human condition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition is an interesting thing to research, but I find it odd that you take offense that he posted it under a username rather than anonymously. There is no doubt most will find the post to be trollish and uncalled for in the discussion, but how is it really any different than from "Anonymous Cowered" ? The fact that he is not hiding who he is just means that for better or worse, he's not ashamed of who he is (not that the account actually identifies who you are).
I'm not defending the trolling, but I find it ironic that he is more confident in letting people know who he is when trolling than you, who is arguably on the higher ground, rebuking the troll.
It might be just my crack-pot theory, so take it with a grain of salt...
I would thing the main reason to want the hearings televised goes to how there scare tactics work. Sinister motives or not, reading articles and watching video have very different impacts on how people perceive the information. I can write a ton of articles saying pirates are thieves, copying music makes baby Jesus cry, you'll get a life sentence for not paying every time you listen to a song, etc; but the actual court preceding will be very different. Even if they make those exact claims, it will not be in the same tone as attack media will be.
Real court proceedings are very dry, and will not support the fear image that they want. Plus it will be clear that they are suing for copyright violation and not theft. I'm sure there are various other concerns too.
That is not surprising, considering this "leaked" video is probably just a marketing stunt to begin with. Everyone wants a little time in the spot light, and there is no better way to generate hype that having "leaked footage" on some random blog.
Not necessarily to contradict your point, but your analogy does not paint the picture that I interpreted from your second paragraph. Consider this;
I certainly would not want harm to befall my daughter, but like me, she still chose to be an organ donor. If the worst should happen, our loss might still bring a benefit to others. The pain aside, if she was killed in a say, a car accident, I would be fine allowing her organs to be taken to save someone else. As I'm sure the recipient might feel empathy for our loss, they would be happy to accept the life saving gift. Now say instead, they murdered her to take her organs to help the dying patient. Is it ok then?
Heartless as it may seem, this becomes a grey area. Because of course I'm opposed to the murder of my child, but I'm not opposed to organ donation. As I'm sure the recipient is happy to accept a donated organ, but a stolen via murder organ presents a dim light on it. Obviously if you are opposed to organ donors all together, this becomes a moot point; but if the act is just, then we are really talking about the circumstances involved.
Now I hope to never have to face this choice, but if the latter was true, would I still donate the organs? She is already dead, and any legal (or not) actions I take afterward will still not change that fact. So at what point is it a principle of ill gotten gains and as such ok to refuse the possibility to save someone's life? On the other hand knowing that in a way, I was supporting the "ends" of the horrid means, might not be a point I would be acceptable with. I'm sure the recipient might have to choose the line they are willing to live with as well.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, that the issues does not hinge on a didactic set of options. There is of complexity of issues that are involved when considering the morality of ESC. Most people are not going to agree to murder people who are already living their lives (children or not), but the potential for life is the gray area. I'm sure the main contention is at the point of where life begins, as such, it becomes "killing a cell" to "murdering a baby." As a meat eater might be picky as to what types of meat they eat, and what is involved before it's given to them; to a vegetarian, there is only one choice.
Of course, just send me $1000 and I'll hook you up to my E-meter here . . .
"jail != prison" Is a true statement, but there is actually a difference between them. Jails are mainly for people waiting trail, conviction, sentencing or for convicted misdemeanors under a year. They are locally run, usually by the sheriff's department. Prisons are for people charged and could not post bail, people convicted of an offense, and sentences over a year. Given that he was given 15 months, it would usually default to a prison anyway.
This is not to contradict your original point that it might have been a bit extreme of a sentence, but the choice of where he was held up was probably the default decision.
Actually one of the anti-air defense missiles is a giant dong I made out of bordom. It's pretty hilarious watching those bombard a fighter craft.
*Sigh* ... And this is where you just lost your argument, and confirmed the parents view (bias as it may be) on all the people in SL. I think if you had omitted this little anecdote, the merit of your argument might have still carried weight.
I have nothing against SL even if it's not for me. It's an avenue of entertainment like any other vice; we all have them.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself. 1 euro is not equal to 1 dollar. 950 euros is roughly $1495 give or take the exchange rate.
I agree with your basis, but it does help if they have at least a working knowledge of the topic they are making decisions on. In short, a "Jack of all trades, Ace of none" style of president would be ideal. They could support their short comings with experts in the field, yet still understand it enough to make informed, logical decision on the matter.
Of course is won't. If a private person were to develop and test this out, he would likely be spending the next 20 years in prison (looking less and less "exaggerated" as time goes on.) The fact that this is for cooperate gains; it will be largely over looked. Yes, I might be lost in cynicism, but life seems to be supporting my case thus far.
That's just plainly absurd. If a B-52 bomber crashed in a dense suburban neighborhood it would already be more than a "mere inconvenience"; nukes or not. Sure, having nukes on the wing might add to the problem, but so would transporting any hazardous materials. The focus of the problem is more than "what if it crashed".
My primary assertion is that humans tend to fall into this trap of thinking every other group is full of idiots but their group is somehow different.
It is true that faulting any group in it's entirety base on a few people, or and basis of them not being part of "your" group is bad platform to stand on. I do however think you miss the underline basis that the parent is doting. Which is that atheism is not a group in the same sense that religions are. For starters, religions are usually based on what they believe, not what they don't believe. Try defining Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, by describing what they don't believe in. You almost inevitably will not come to an accurate description of any group without describing what that group does believe in. Atheism is IMO a poorly misused term for simply stating they don't believe in the "something" known as god. There is no set of beliefs that can be attached to atheist that can make it a standard group. No more so then saying all people who "don't believe corvettes are fast" are a group similar to a religion.
For example, saying "Republicans are stupid party", is dissimilar to saying "people who don't believe apples are the best fruit are stupid". Obviously one should be more constructive in their dislikes and not going around hating "republicans" or "apple haters"; but the grouping is very different and should not be assumed to be the same.
More elaboration could be told, but in short (heh), comments directed at "atheists" is non-descriptive of similar people, like comments directed at religions. I will reiterate that I am not condoning generalizing insults on a particular group, just stating that you correlation to his statement was a bit off.
Sorry, I should have used my backup joke then:
Buy illegal weapons on the street: $100
Trip to Mexico City: 20,000 Paco's
Walking into a police station with an AK-47, and walking out with a new computer : Priceless
They forget to mention that this computer is a community one that you can use in your prison cell for the next X years.
"People in Japan at NCL [Nintendo Co. Ltd.] are making the best decisions that they can about which products get shipped to which market and when."
Well I like to take the ignorant and arrogant stance of "It should be in MY market, and it should be here NOW." Unfortunately my talks with these companies are not going so well...
It's not really surprising that the older generations are getting into online games. With the trend of computers and technology being an integral part of almost all aspects of society, it's only natural that everyone eventually gets involved. The stereotype of old people viewing modern technology as "evil" or "weird" is left to the fading past.
It's also interesting to see the outlet for older people to conversers and interact with a larger, and broader group of people. Not saying that the elderly don't get out, but games and online experience do allow them to "get out" on a larger scale.
Yeah, it helps to read TFA, I first thought the term was literal, but the company paints a different picture on the title.
Your comment is mainly correct, with one slight error. The whole concept that the book Flatland was trying to point out, was the perception of other dimensions. It wasn't that a sphere didn't exist in a 2D world; it was more that in a 2D world, they couldn't perceive a sphere, thus only observed a circle. A 4D object exists in a 3D world the same as a 3D object exists in a 2D world. The limiting factor is that the whole of the object can't be observed, or be totally captured in the lower dimension. A true circle in a 2D world will have different properties than a sphere observed as a circle would under the same factors.
Now, we can fight about word usage and semantics of the statement; however, to simplify my point, If a 4D object can't exist in space, then focusing purely on a smaller scale doesn't then allow it to exist. You can't use two separate criteria to define existence on two different scales and expect the relation to be equal.
From TFA: On the one hand, it seems a shame that the group should narrow the scope of its activities to focus on a single project. Linux may be the open source poster child du jour, but it's hardly the only worthwhile project around.
Since when does a foundation, group, or organization have to have a broad scope on there activities? If they only want to focus on one aspect of a field, that's their choice. Sure, there are more "worthwhile" projects out there, and there also are more organizations out there. This one is focused on Linux; which shouldn't be a discriminating factor just because they don't include all the other possibilities in there activities.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the article was IMO poorly written. It makes wild assumptions without much meat to back it up. Not only that, but they don't have any working models to help develop the theory. I don't mean to be hating, but the amount of applicable date in the article is about the same level as every story from an 8 yr old starting with "Wouldn't it be cool if ..."
from TFA: "The black Saturn can only exist in a space with four dimensions, rather than the three we inhabit. In 3D, a black ring is impossible, so there are no big black saturns out there for astronomers to spot - but at a microscopic level, they might really exist.
This statement annoyed me the most. Either it does or does not exist, not both. There might be properties we can't observe in a 3D model, but that doen't negate the existance of it; nor does the difference of "out there" and "the microscopic level" have a relation to something really existing... but maybe you don't want to hear me rant, so basically, I don't feel the actual article was worth the read.
The funny part is, even though the relation you are joking about is obviously not the original intent; the article doesn't do much better. The need to relate a look or description to a common object is very standard in media. Saturn is not the only object surround by a ring, nor does it really relate to the ring that the article is taking about. It just make a more personal relationship to the concept by stating that it's like Saturn.
Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).
'Should' is not the same as 'is'. There is a lot of things you should be able to do with the stuff you buy, but that doesn't stop it from still being illegal
No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.
If the reprisal isn't going to be in legal form, then what are they going to do? Call you names, or stop selling Apple products to you? The fact is, people fear the legal reprisals from Apple, nothing else.
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.
I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.
Around the same time all game walkthroughs, FAQs, forums, etc. get shut down.