The secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, Carnivore, and Echelon all existed under Clinton. Moreover, he and his administration were big pushers of Echelon (quite likely bigger pushers of it than the current administration).
Obtaining classified information on our intelligence practices and reporting them to the public has always been a crime. There is no freedom of speech issue here. News sources are not permitted to identify rape victims or undercover police officers either. Does national security take a back seat to those?
Perhaps political pressure is a better term. I am not talking about downward pressure on a demand curve or anything like that.
Economically, there are a few major factors at play. For me, these would mostly be the drastically lower standard of living (and therefor cost of labor) in China combined with some pretty stiff import laws and high tariffs. The US wants to put pressure on China's government to alleviate the latter.
Personally, I can not fathom the stupidity of allowing a country to export to you what they will not import from you.
They are not wasting time -- only money on legal fees. This is just maneuvering by their lawyers. In all fairness to Creative, I remember seeing the Nomad out quite a few years before the iPod and would not be surprised if there is some validity to their claims.
I never made the claim that dolphin art was not pretty. My whole underlying point is that we are special (for reasons already stated in other posts I am sure you read in full), not just overall superior. Assigning the notion of creative drive to any animal who makes what we feel compelled to call "art" is projection, not science. The DSM-IV defines it as a behavioral fallacy. It is not scientific evidence of a damn thing, and if one feels compelled to argue that it is, they had better have evidence (not a Wikipedia article) of every cognitive ability required for creativity to be present.
I do not give enough of a damn to quibble point-for-point with people on Slashdot. I am not inclined to chop up the parent post so I can respond to each sentence. I respond to the underlying sentiment (if one exists) unless I think they are blatantly factually inaccurate (I take issue with very little of what you posted). Whether it is dolphin art or bird art is quite simply irrelevant.
To be perfectly frank, most of the posts I respond to are ones where the poster is ignorant of the facts requires to formulate an accurate assessment of the issues at hand. I am assuming your example of my insolence was my response to the whole "MS is a monopoly" argument where the poster was only vaguely familiar with the logistics of the anti-trust case against MS and evidently completely ignorant what constitutes a monopoly. Given those two conditions, he should not argue with me, but persisted in doing so.
Well, I am from Massachusetts and I can not begin to tell you how much media attention southern states get for teaching Creationism. Although teaching students in a science classroom that there is a possibility of a centiant being that created us hardly seems to challenge science to me. Contesting the teaching of such a notion just strikes me as some kind of pop science (didn't you know cigarettes kill more people than anything else?). Science class is supposed to be about examination of evidence and theories, not teaching children what is correct and incorrect. Science is not about whether Creationism is right or wrong, it is about defining a theory and examining its supporting evidence. At any rate, I have no desire to push your buttons on the topic.
I've never seen an animal build a 100 story building with high speed elevators, mile long suspension bridge, orbiting satellites, etc. Beyond that, any notion that an animal does anything for a specific reason, such as to attract a mate, is speculative and in my humble opinion fundamentally flawed by our human inclination to examine what is foreign to us by putting it in our perspective.
Animals do not have formal language, it is speculated that at *best* they can communicate simple desires. At worst, it is noise that sometimes insights appropriate action from another animal.
We are superior, pure and simple. This does not bring me joy nor pain. The simple and undeniable reality is that we are the ones in control.
Do you mean evidence to back up my assertion that applying relativist principles in this case does not hold? No, I have no such evidence, mainly because such evidence can not scientifically exist (prove aliens don't exist). Nonetheless, there is a lack of evidence of what thoughts go threw animals' minds, leaving only speculation as to their mental capacity, motivations, and thought processes. [To be fair, no one other than us knows what goes through our minds.]
You mentioned dolphins. Whether their "art" is a ludicrous example made by you or not is not germane, since the relativist concept you are applying does not exempt them.
I will sum it up for you bluntly: We are special because of our dominance over the animals. We can control their birth through breeding, death through killing, and actions through training. We are capable of doing this deliberately, calculatingly, and precisely -- not by some accident or insinct. We have free will and cognitive abilities no other creature on this planet has. If this strikes you as backwards thinking, then I ask you if my mind is really so closed while yours is open?
Since I have no clue why you believe relativist behavioral theory and evolution are mutually exclusive, I am not sure what you insinuation is with respect to that comment on Creationists. At any rate, I can take the flaimbait and ask you why there are those living in the Northeast US who feel compelled to ridicule the creationist beliefs of Baptist Christians in the South.
The actions of human beings are far more structured, calculated, and deliberate than those of any other species. This whole relativist perspective might be nifty at first, but eventually just leads to some sort of infinite regression.
Comparing a dolphin holding a paint brush and moving it to make marks on a canvas or sheet of paper to the act of a human being sculpting an intricate statue is ludicrous. There is nothing arbitrary about calling the former an unintentional act unappreciated by its actor and the latter a fully intentional act with significance.
Are you willing to stipulate that nuclear warfare and an attack by a swarm of bees are analogous as well? I'd hope not.
Second, I find nothing more intuitive or easier about GNOME or KDE. They are more customizable, sure, but what percentage of users have the desire to customize the interfaces to the level at which they would have an appreciable amount of increased usability?
Unless the point here is simply that Windows sucks and GNOME r0xorz, I don't get it.
I fail to see any real difference, except that I would rather press two keys sequentially than concurrently. At any rate, his remark just sounded asinine.
They are not a monopoly. They are far from the only supplier, the barriers to entry for new companies is low, and there are substitutes for what they sell. There is no monopoly. There were monopolistic practices like trying to strong arm PC manufacturers into using Windows. A hot dog vendor can be held liable for monopolistic practices.
I guess I missed the "m$ is teh sux0r" part of the settlement agreement that bars them from distributing software which uses services that they make money off of.
Call it quibbling if you want, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most of your knowledge of the case comes from reading comments and article summaries on Slashdot. But hey, its okay, I am the troll here.
I suppose I am a troll since I am not going to fall in line with the half-informed Slashdot collective knowledge. Of course the hordes here whose legal insight comes from Wikipedia are +5 Wankfest.
Existing as a monopoly is not a crime. Microsoft was not found guilty of being an illegal monopoly. Aside from that, Microsoft is not a monopoly as it fails to satisfy several of the key criteria used to define a monopoly. The DOJ was awarded a victory when it sued MS in Federal Court for monopolistic business practices.
I've already broken this down for someone else, so I suppose I can do it for you too:
Being a monopoly is not a crime.
Using monopolistic business practices is a crime.
One can be a monopoly without using monopolistic business practices.
One can use monopolistic business practices without being a monopoly.
Save yourself the effort and don't click the Reply link next time. Just because the Linux fanboys of Slashdot think you are smart does not mean the small minority here with half a brain don't realize how ill-informed you are.
Let me get this straight... According to the holy Slashdot antitrust law:
It is okay for the Mozilla Foundation to distribute a browser that defaults to Google for a search engine.
It is okay for Google to distribute a browser that defaults to Google for a search engine so long as it is not pre-installed on a Google operating system.
I am also guessing it is okay for Apple to distribute a browser that defaults to Google for a search engine, even when it is pre-installed on the operating system since the operating system is not made by Google.
But, it is not okay for Microsoft to distribute their web browser set to default to their search engine because it was installed on Microsoft's operating system.
Yet I am the troll? Do both of us a favor and never respond to any of my posts again.
Then read back to my first comment in this thread. The implication is that both are packaging software that defaults to use services that they make money off of. This is the accusation being made of MS in this topic. Whether the DOJ would be able to win a lawsuit against either one for this is not something I am willing to speculate on.
Anti-trust violations do not constitute a monopoly either. If monopolistic practices in and of themselves constitute a monopoly, then take a look at Apple (they control the hardware and software while using their position to lockout competition) in addition to Google. Neither one is a monopoly. Here is a URL for you too.
A small breakdown for you:
Being a monopoly is not a crime.
Using monopolistic business practices is a crime.
One can be a monopoly without using monopolistic business practices.
One can use monopolistic business practices without being a monopoly.
By who? RMS and the EFF? Majority market share does not constitute a monopoly. If it did, most industries would be monopoly-dominated. Get past the hyperbolic bullshit you read from Linux and Mac evangalists on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
The secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, Carnivore, and Echelon all existed under Clinton. Moreover, he and his administration were big pushers of Echelon (quite likely bigger pushers of it than the current administration).
Obtaining classified information on our intelligence practices and reporting them to the public has always been a crime. There is no freedom of speech issue here. News sources are not permitted to identify rape victims or undercover police officers either. Does national security take a back seat to those?
Perhaps political pressure is a better term. I am not talking about downward pressure on a demand curve or anything like that.
Economically, there are a few major factors at play. For me, these would mostly be the drastically lower standard of living (and therefor cost of labor) in China combined with some pretty stiff import laws and high tariffs. The US wants to put pressure on China's government to alleviate the latter.
Personally, I can not fathom the stupidity of allowing a country to export to you what they will not import from you.
You know I meant on.
It puts pressure no the Chinese, pure and simple.
They are not wasting time -- only money on legal fees. This is just maneuvering by their lawyers. In all fairness to Creative, I remember seeing the Nomad out quite a few years before the iPod and would not be surprised if there is some validity to their claims.
I never made the claim that dolphin art was not pretty. My whole underlying point is that we are special (for reasons already stated in other posts I am sure you read in full), not just overall superior. Assigning the notion of creative drive to any animal who makes what we feel compelled to call "art" is projection, not science. The DSM-IV defines it as a behavioral fallacy. It is not scientific evidence of a damn thing, and if one feels compelled to argue that it is, they had better have evidence (not a Wikipedia article) of every cognitive ability required for creativity to be present.
I do not give enough of a damn to quibble point-for-point with people on Slashdot. I am not inclined to chop up the parent post so I can respond to each sentence. I respond to the underlying sentiment (if one exists) unless I think they are blatantly factually inaccurate (I take issue with very little of what you posted). Whether it is dolphin art or bird art is quite simply irrelevant.
To be perfectly frank, most of the posts I respond to are ones where the poster is ignorant of the facts requires to formulate an accurate assessment of the issues at hand. I am assuming your example of my insolence was my response to the whole "MS is a monopoly" argument where the poster was only vaguely familiar with the logistics of the anti-trust case against MS and evidently completely ignorant what constitutes a monopoly. Given those two conditions, he should not argue with me, but persisted in doing so.
Well, I am from Massachusetts and I can not begin to tell you how much media attention southern states get for teaching Creationism. Although teaching students in a science classroom that there is a possibility of a centiant being that created us hardly seems to challenge science to me. Contesting the teaching of such a notion just strikes me as some kind of pop science (didn't you know cigarettes kill more people than anything else?). Science class is supposed to be about examination of evidence and theories, not teaching children what is correct and incorrect. Science is not about whether Creationism is right or wrong, it is about defining a theory and examining its supporting evidence. At any rate, I have no desire to push your buttons on the topic.
I've never seen an animal build a 100 story building with high speed elevators, mile long suspension bridge, orbiting satellites, etc. Beyond that, any notion that an animal does anything for a specific reason, such as to attract a mate, is speculative and in my humble opinion fundamentally flawed by our human inclination to examine what is foreign to us by putting it in our perspective.
Animals do not have formal language, it is speculated that at *best* they can communicate simple desires. At worst, it is noise that sometimes insights appropriate action from another animal.
We are superior, pure and simple. This does not bring me joy nor pain. The simple and undeniable reality is that we are the ones in control.
Do you mean evidence to back up my assertion that applying relativist principles in this case does not hold? No, I have no such evidence, mainly because such evidence can not scientifically exist (prove aliens don't exist). Nonetheless, there is a lack of evidence of what thoughts go threw animals' minds, leaving only speculation as to their mental capacity, motivations, and thought processes. [To be fair, no one other than us knows what goes through our minds.]
You mentioned dolphins. Whether their "art" is a ludicrous example made by you or not is not germane, since the relativist concept you are applying does not exempt them.
I will sum it up for you bluntly: We are special because of our dominance over the animals. We can control their birth through breeding, death through killing, and actions through training. We are capable of doing this deliberately, calculatingly, and precisely -- not by some accident or insinct. We have free will and cognitive abilities no other creature on this planet has. If this strikes you as backwards thinking, then I ask you if my mind is really so closed while yours is open?
Since I have no clue why you believe relativist behavioral theory and evolution are mutually exclusive, I am not sure what you insinuation is with respect to that comment on Creationists. At any rate, I can take the flaimbait and ask you why there are those living in the Northeast US who feel compelled to ridicule the creationist beliefs of Baptist Christians in the South.
The actions of human beings are far more structured, calculated, and deliberate than those of any other species. This whole relativist perspective might be nifty at first, but eventually just leads to some sort of infinite regression.
Comparing a dolphin holding a paint brush and moving it to make marks on a canvas or sheet of paper to the act of a human being sculpting an intricate statue is ludicrous. There is nothing arbitrary about calling the former an unintentional act unappreciated by its actor and the latter a fully intentional act with significance.
Are you willing to stipulate that nuclear warfare and an attack by a swarm of bees are analogous as well? I'd hope not.
That's funny. Just about everyone I know, including church-goers, insists we are descended from chimps.
Do you people really expect me to spell everything out for you?
So shortsighted...
Intel is responding to pressure from Microsoft to help repel the quasi-geek fanboys from Apple, ultimately leading to their assimilation by Microsoft.
Could it be any clearer?
this sounds like the work of Microsoft!
First, no.
Second, I find nothing more intuitive or easier about GNOME or KDE. They are more customizable, sure, but what percentage of users have the desire to customize the interfaces to the level at which they would have an appreciable amount of increased usability?
Unless the point here is simply that Windows sucks and GNOME r0xorz, I don't get it.
What's bugging me is that it is a mini-review of the OS and has nothing to do with monolithic vs. micro kernel debate.
Windows: Window key, r, notepad, enter.
GNOME: Alt+F2, gedit, enter
KDE: Alt+F2, kate, enter
I fail to see any real difference, except that I would rather press two keys sequentially than concurrently. At any rate, his remark just sounded asinine.
You know professional programmers and administrators for Windows who can't find Notepad?
Are you one of those people who believes we are in a recession now? Brush up on your economics please.
Shhh. Don't bring irrelevant things like financial return and opportunity cost into this. The really issue here is that M$ is teh sux0r!!!
They are not a monopoly. They are far from the only supplier, the barriers to entry for new companies is low, and there are substitutes for what they sell. There is no monopoly. There were monopolistic practices like trying to strong arm PC manufacturers into using Windows. A hot dog vendor can be held liable for monopolistic practices.
I guess I missed the "m$ is teh sux0r" part of the settlement agreement that bars them from distributing software which uses services that they make money off of.
Call it quibbling if you want, but I have a sneaking suspicion that most of your knowledge of the case comes from reading comments and article summaries on Slashdot. But hey, its okay, I am the troll here.
Existing as a monopoly is not a crime. Microsoft was not found guilty of being an illegal monopoly. Aside from that, Microsoft is not a monopoly as it fails to satisfy several of the key criteria used to define a monopoly. The DOJ was awarded a victory when it sued MS in Federal Court for monopolistic business practices.
I've already broken this down for someone else, so I suppose I can do it for you too:
Save yourself the effort and don't click the Reply link next time. Just because the Linux fanboys of Slashdot think you are smart does not mean the small minority here with half a brain don't realize how ill-informed you are.
Let me get this straight... According to the holy Slashdot antitrust law:
Yet I am the troll? Do both of us a favor and never respond to any of my posts again.
Then read back to my first comment in this thread. The implication is that both are packaging software that defaults to use services that they make money off of. This is the accusation being made of MS in this topic. Whether the DOJ would be able to win a lawsuit against either one for this is not something I am willing to speculate on.
A small breakdown for you:
By who? RMS and the EFF? Majority market share does not constitute a monopoly. If it did, most industries would be monopoly-dominated. Get past the hyperbolic bullshit you read from Linux and Mac evangalists on Slashdot.