Is it necessary for people, in every single Microsoft article, to make a completely random reference to Microsoft Bob and expect to get skyrocketed up to "+5 Funny"?
Thanks for the link. But before I try it, how slow is it? email2pop took over 5 hours to do less then a hundred e-mails. I've amassed a lot more then that since.
I may have heard of it, but I can't say it's name stuck if I did.
It is a flawed reasoning and any first year ethics student can tell you all about it.
Now how is it flawed? Person Abab has lived a moral life beating up his wife. Person Jake has lived a moral life saving wife's from being beaten. Both Jake's and Abab's societies morals say that they are both moral people. I don't see how it's possible to prove one is more moral then the other without using someone's moral code.
Ethics are objective. Otherwise ethics are necessarily meaningless.
It isn't meaningless at all. I myself believe ethics isn't objective, shown by the fact my own ethics have changed numerous times over the years. But I still (try to) live an ethical life (based on my ethics).
Interesting reads by the way, thanks for the links. But I saw nothing saying how moral relativism is flawed. I saw some hints of flaws, such as life without a Christian God leads to chaos, right and wrong do exist (but with nothing to complement that statement it is meaningless). But it didn't go on in any detail to explain them.
Then he was framed for drug dealing by a fellow black who was offered a deal - instead of fifty years in prison, he'd get ten if he fingered all of his relatives
What sort of sick justice system do you have in the U.S of A?
Broadcasting should always be cheaper than distributing static media. Most of the stuff that worth watching is still only worth watching once anyway. I mean, aside from the pack-rat mentality, why else would you need a permanant copy of something that you're probably never going to watch again?
Well let's use Australian prices to see what is more viable. All of the numbers are of course only estimates.
I've recently started watching Star Trek: Next Generation from a friend and I've nearly watched all 7 seasons. Now it would take my cable company about 3 years to show all the episodes (assuming they ran the show from episode 1 till the last one which they don't like to do). That would cost about $1,800. Now if I were to buy all of the box-sets it would cost $1,400.
Two sorts of people will look at that and come to 2 conclusions. 1 conclusion is that I'd get a better deal from cable and will argue I get the benefit of all the other shows. The other conclusion is that I'd get a better deal with buying the box-sets as I don't watch too many other shows on cable (at the very most I'd only watch 2 or so other shows), I get the convenience of watching the shows on my own pace, I am guranteed on not having episodes skipped or shows stopped halfway through a season.
I'm the latter. Cable companies DO suck. They change times consistently, they air episodes at random and stop broadcasting the show at random. I'd say there's a lot more then just "pack-rat mentality" causing people to buy their shows on DVD.
ALSO if I truly did only want to watch the show once and never again, I could easily sell it on ebay and while I won't make all my money back, I'd make a fair chunk of it.
Why don't they just say "Sorry, but we only support Internet Explorer on Windows in the United States. We don't plan on supporting anything or anyone else".
Which is why it's not a mystery the market is only very small. While American Windows IE users aren't insignificant, I imagine they wouldn't be overly large in comparison to the movie consumers.
Now, of course, with the latest california bill on p2p file sharing, sharing linux iso without giving one's email can land the person in jail.
What clever misinformation. However it is untrue. You only have to provide an e-mail if you don't have the copyright holder's permission to redistribute.
Slashdot Mirror
I never knew SCO was stationed in India now.
Is it necessary for people, in every single Microsoft article, to make a completely random reference to Microsoft Bob and expect to get skyrocketed up to "+5 Funny"?
You're new here aren't you?
Thanks for the link. But before I try it, how slow is it? email2pop took over 5 hours to do less then a hundred e-mails. I've amassed a lot more then that since.
I may have heard of it, but I can't say it's name stuck if I did.
It is a flawed reasoning and any first year ethics student can tell you all about it.
Now how is it flawed? Person Abab has lived a moral life beating up his wife. Person Jake has lived a moral life saving wife's from being beaten. Both Jake's and Abab's societies morals say that they are both moral people. I don't see how it's possible to prove one is more moral then the other without using someone's moral code.
Ethics are objective. Otherwise ethics are necessarily meaningless.
It isn't meaningless at all. I myself believe ethics isn't objective, shown by the fact my own ethics have changed numerous times over the years. But I still (try to) live an ethical life (based on my ethics).
Interesting reads by the way, thanks for the links. But I saw nothing saying how moral relativism is flawed. I saw some hints of flaws, such as life without a Christian God leads to chaos, right and wrong do exist (but with nothing to complement that statement it is meaningless). But it didn't go on in any detail to explain them.
Go back to molesting your livestock
:)
I'm sorry you're thinking of new zealanders. The jailing refugees is DEFINITELY us though
Well duh
I'm assuming you mean gmail. How is this pop3 access done? It isn't e-mail2pop (or a similar name) is it? Or is it merely in the works still?
I would think this wouldn't have gotten past the eds...
You're new here aren't you?
I don't know why it doesn't open in your browser
I do. I was using IE (please don't hate me, I was at university, which incidently does have Firefox, I just forget that it has firefox).
it's still definitely not ethical.
Ethics are not objective, they vary from person to person so therefore saying it's not ethical in an argument isn't a very good argument.
And I can write them in Windows without paying Adobe 500$. Pretty cool, huh?
Oh, and by the way, you put the $ in front of the amount in America, Australia and Canada (one of those is most likely where you're from).
I get asked to save a file when I try to click that link. What is it?
With a FREE software firewall, I've never been hacked
;)
As far as you know
Yeah I was pissed about that too. Why do WE get all the planes people think have bombs? Why can't we get a non-bomb infested plane. Just once.
Then he was framed for drug dealing by a fellow black who was offered a deal - instead of fifty years in prison, he'd get ten if he fingered all of his relatives
What sort of sick justice system do you have in the U.S of A?
or fix the laws so people aren't comitting crimes (if there are no laws there are no crimes ;)).
Seems like a waste of article space on slashdot.
You're new here aren't you?
I'm dissapointed. I thought this would be about open-source porn :(
Simpler solution: Stop making the fucking commentaries.
Broadcasting should always be cheaper than distributing static media. Most of the stuff that worth watching is still only worth watching once anyway. I mean, aside from the pack-rat mentality, why else would you need a permanant copy of something that you're probably never going to watch again?
Well let's use Australian prices to see what is more viable. All of the numbers are of course only estimates.
I've recently started watching Star Trek: Next Generation from a friend and I've nearly watched all 7 seasons. Now it would take my cable company about 3 years to show all the episodes (assuming they ran the show from episode 1 till the last one which they don't like to do). That would cost about $1,800. Now if I were to buy all of the box-sets it would cost $1,400.
Two sorts of people will look at that and come to 2 conclusions. 1 conclusion is that I'd get a better deal from cable and will argue I get the benefit of all the other shows. The other conclusion is that I'd get a better deal with buying the box-sets as I don't watch too many other shows on cable (at the very most I'd only watch 2 or so other shows), I get the convenience of watching the shows on my own pace, I am guranteed on not having episodes skipped or shows stopped halfway through a season.
I'm the latter. Cable companies DO suck. They change times consistently, they air episodes at random and stop broadcasting the show at random. I'd say there's a lot more then just "pack-rat mentality" causing people to buy their shows on DVD.
ALSO if I truly did only want to watch the show once and never again, I could easily sell it on ebay and while I won't make all my money back, I'd make a fair chunk of it.
Ground Zero, have developed a new process for storing nuclear waste that lasts two hundred thousand years
:P
I won't believe them until they have done it just once. Until then it theoretically lasts two hundred thousand years
Why don't they just say "Sorry, but we only support Internet Explorer on Windows in the United States. We don't plan on supporting anything or anyone else".
Which is why it's not a mystery the market is only very small. While American Windows IE users aren't insignificant, I imagine they wouldn't be overly large in comparison to the movie consumers.
Now, of course, with the latest california bill on p2p file sharing, sharing linux iso without giving one's email can land the person in jail.
What clever misinformation. However it is untrue. You only have to provide an e-mail if you don't have the copyright holder's permission to redistribute.
they had strange answers when I asked about the chinese gov., libery
Don't worry you'll get strange answers from Australians when you ask about libery. It's not just a Chinese thing. It's an English-language thing.
manned by Ewoks.
Don't be ridiculous. It would be ewoked by Ewoks.