The one place that I can see people doing photo printing at home is with 'personal' photos. When I was a kid, I remember walking through the photo lab that my mother worked at and seeing all of the naked pictures on peoples desks who had made an extra copies to keep for themselves. I would guess that the hobby of taking naked pictures is still pretty prevalent, and not all of the people that take part in it are willing to risk the photos showing up on the web. I have no idea what the cross section of people that both like to take nudie pics, are worried about the Long's employees seeing the pics, and are completely unsatisfied by the quality of a laser printout is like.
So, there may still be a niche market for ink jet.
It really isn't surprising that a person in a trade would tell people that are not in that trade that they cannot do the work themselves. I have seen some contracts written by people who specialize in the field of law. Most of the time they are boiler plate contracts. No doubt there are times when an individual needs some help with a contract, buy given that most of the ones I've seen have been boiler plate anyway, I'm going to chalk up the advice that store bought contracts 'have a high probability of being nullified in court' to someone who is rationalizing his industries contribution to society.
Besides, correcting someone on spelling or grammar is just a euphemisms on forums. They translate to something along the lines of "I agree with each and every point you make, so I'll complain about your spelling."
Of course, in this case, the report is by someone who thinks that women are inferior, and thus need to be congratulated for coming in second in a two gender race.
I would disagree with the idea that everyone should only buy from the company that has the absolute best tech at that moment. As you said, one side would win. Sometimes Intel is the best, sometimes AMD is the best. The problem is that if no one bought AMD when they were not #1, there would be no AMD, and Intel would not get better. So, perhaps, sometimes, fanboys do us all some good by keeping a company afloat during the hard times. Whether their propping up of crappy products from the current top dog does more harm than the good done by keeping an underdog around.
No, the original poster said that he refused to reauthenticate. Very likely because he did not want to pay the soft costs associated with the call to MS. The place that he did not want to have to make a purchase was concerning Office. He did not want to have to buy an unneeded copy of MS Windows because MS has a monopoly in the Office space.
Because if having been the victim of a crime is allowed to be an excuse for committing crimes yourself, we fall into a downward spiral. By that logic, the OP should feel free of guilt for going out and victimizing the next person. I have yet to meet anyone that has never been the victim of some kind of crime. That means that the OP feels that anyone should be able to commit crimes against anyone else at any time because It's Not their Fault. The OP thought that he should not be angry about being victimized because the perpetrator was a victim them selves. This kind of attitude is unhealthy and verges on insanity. It is certainly destructive to society as a whole.
Your not familiar with 'Soft Costs' are you? Requiring a person to do work that is totally unnecessary to get access to their own data is certainly not "no cost".
Yes, it was condecending, but then so was the GPP when he called anyone bright enough to see past right now a savage animal. The GPP also is exactly the kind of attitude that promotes crime. He did very clearly make the thief out to be the "victim". The GPP, and you, are trying to make out this criminal as some poor sole, who had to break into a car and steal a stereo just to have a loaf of bread to eat. Well, that is highly unlikely. More likely is that the thief only had a TV in the living room, and wanted enough money to put a second one in his bedroom. Or, wanted to go out a party with his pals this Friday, and doesn't get paid until Monday. Playing the 'he must be so poor that he HAS to resort to crime' is absolutely an attempt to make the criminal a victim. So, yes. If someone robs you, and you think that THEY are the victim, you have a mental disorder.
"You could argue that eliminating them saves this problem too, but then we're no better than savage animals, and what's the point of doing anything then?"
That is absolutely wrong. A savage animal thinks about the moment. it does not think about the future, and the surrounding facts. When faced with an invader that is taking their resources, a savage animal is just as happy to have the invader run away as it is to kill the invader. The problem is that savage animals are stupid, and they don't understand that if they don't permanently take care of the problem, they will be faced with the same problem again later. So, in reality, the path that you suggest is the one of a savage animal. Only thinking of the moment.
"I would have just given them the contents of the car if they really needed it that badly."
You are clearly just rationalizing. I don't believe for a second that you truly believe that just because someone steals from you, that they must 'need it badly'. The guy that stole your stereo didn't need it. He just realized that he could take it from you, and there was nothing you could do about it. Assuming that someone who robs you is the victim is pretty sick, and you might want to seek help with that.
Animals do go to war. They also fight over politics. Not all of them, but the smarter they are, the more likely they are to fight over long term gains instead of instant gains. War is not the result of being human. It is the result of being smart enough to understand long term and complex effects. Humans have the most complex and longest fights because we are the most capable of understanding what we can get out of it.
I've always thought that the solution to spam was to implement a white listing mechanism into the SMTP process. Something like having a new deliver command that only accepts an email address. This would allow the receiving server and/or email clients to get a 'Request To Communicate' message. Users/ISPs could then set up servers and clients to only receive full messages from white listed systems. This way, ISPs could massively reduce the bandwidth traffic as they would only receive a very small amount of data on a RTC, and could outright block any message that was not white listed.
For users, they could largely ignore the request list, as most people don't get a ton of email from people they don't know. If adding a friend's/business associate's/newsletter's email address was just looking at the list of recent request and clicking on the ones you want white listed, more people would do it.
Like most solutions, I doubt it would be 100% effective, but it sure would help, and would only add trivial costs to the cost of email.
You had me there till the collage line. The collages have many of the same kinds of issues as the Unions. They both have their place, and if managed responsibly wouldn't be a problem, but neither of them are.
Now, I understand what Bush meant when he said he was a uniter. If you get everyone chasing you down with torches and pitchforks, they will be united. Hmm...
Sure it does. Every time I get one of those questions, I tell the person that Sony (or whoever it is that sold the media) ripped you off. They gave you a rental model when you paid for the purchase model, and that is wrong.
I agree. I don't really expect people to put themselves in the category of denial, lying, or being dumber than a 2 year old. I expect them to stop playing the "computers are to hard" card. It may have been true 20 years ago, but it is not the case today.
Yes, the point was that their installation is extremely simple. Of course, he also learned how to load the programs he liked to use, with no instruction on my part, other than showing him that when he moved the mouse, the arrow on the screen moved, that the buttons on the keyboard made things happen on the computer, and that the mouse also had buttons. He was using Ubuntu competently as a user at about 14 months old.
Now, lets for the sake of argument, say that my kid is a super genius. Perhaps he is just average, but I don't want to overstate just how simple Ubuntu is to install and use, so lets just say he is as smart as kids twice his age. That means that Ubuntu is simple enough for the average 3 year old to use for web browsing, games, listening to music, and general typing. I say typing because while he liked to load and play on Open Office, I wouldn't call what he was doing at 1, 'word processing'. This also means that the average 6 year old can install a usable Ubuntu system on reasonably supported hardware.
While I support Ubuntu's push to become even easier to use, I truly believe that anyone denying that Ubuntu is easy enough for everyone is either in denial, lying, or dumb enough that their opinion doesn't matter in adult conversations.
I probably sounded like an ass when I would say it, and I am not saying it to you, but I'm sticking with the idea that if you (plural, as in somebody. Not you specifically.) as an adult cannot do, or learn to do with little effort, what my 2 year old son can do, then you are to stupid to have your opinion matter in adult conversations.
I'm not sure I can use my kid as a benchmark anymore, because I'm not sure if it is fair to expect most adults to be as smart as a three year old.
My son installed Ubuntu 5.10 just before his third birthday. I had him do it just as an experiment. I wanted to see if how easy it was to install was just my imagination or not. No, it was not. He was not able to get through a Windows install on his own right after that. The reason was that he could not read yet. Of course, with Ubuntu, you don't even have to know how to read to get up and running.
For me, what label an album is released on is the major criterion in determining how it will be procured - surely I am not the only one? No, you are not. I don't buy many CDs anymore, as I'm not interested in Defective Recording Mechanisms. I also am not interested in funding what I consider to be a truly evil organization. But when a pal sent me a link to a band that he thought I might like, Immortal Avenger, I went to their MySpace page (yeah, yeah, I know...) and found that I could listen to their entire EP. After listening to the entire EP for free, I also noticed that they were not RIAA associated, so I bought the CD. If they had been an RIAA band, I wouldn't have.
Which is why I never said it.
The result is that you can run the "minimal firmware" which for most consumers is still a brick.
What do you think the point of having a "minimal firmware" is, if not to get the device working enough to correct the problem?
The ability to "flash" program devices has led to a significant drop in the quality of embedded firmware in recent years. When correcting bugs meant having the customer return a system or having a technician come out to fix it, there was a much greater effort to "do it right the first time".
The reason that the ability to flash program devices "has led to a significant drop in quality" is because the manufacturer can produce a product dramatically cheaper and generally have little to no problems with it. If a major problem does crop up, they can fix it. So, basically your point about lower quality firmware directly counters your argument about increased support cost, unless your going to use the argument that shifting the cost center in a company improves a products profitability. No code can be assured of being 100% bug free. As you get closer to 100% confidence, the cost of testing gets exponentially higher. After all, if not allowing up dates improves quality of code, you should support that in every place that code goes. Would you want a video card that couldn't receive driver updates? How about a network card, or your OS?
Slashdot Mirror
The one place that I can see people doing photo printing at home is with 'personal' photos. When I was a kid, I remember walking through the photo lab that my mother worked at and seeing all of the naked pictures on peoples desks who had made an extra copies to keep for themselves. I would guess that the hobby of taking naked pictures is still pretty prevalent, and not all of the people that take part in it are willing to risk the photos showing up on the web. I have no idea what the cross section of people that both like to take nudie pics, are worried about the Long's employees seeing the pics, and are completely unsatisfied by the quality of a laser printout is like.
So, there may still be a niche market for ink jet.
It really isn't surprising that a person in a trade would tell people that are not in that trade that they cannot do the work themselves. I have seen some contracts written by people who specialize in the field of law. Most of the time they are boiler plate contracts. No doubt there are times when an individual needs some help with a contract, buy given that most of the ones I've seen have been boiler plate anyway, I'm going to chalk up the advice that store bought contracts 'have a high probability of being nullified in court' to someone who is rationalizing his industries contribution to society.
Besides, correcting someone on spelling or grammar is just a euphemisms on forums. They translate to something along the lines of "I agree with each and every point you make, so I'll complain about your spelling."
Of course, in this case, the report is by someone who thinks that women are inferior, and thus need to be congratulated for coming in second in a two gender race.
Yes, they are idiots.
I would disagree with the idea that everyone should only buy from the company that has the absolute best tech at that moment. As you said, one side would win. Sometimes Intel is the best, sometimes AMD is the best. The problem is that if no one bought AMD when they were not #1, there would be no AMD, and Intel would not get better. So, perhaps, sometimes, fanboys do us all some good by keeping a company afloat during the hard times. Whether their propping up of crappy products from the current top dog does more harm than the good done by keeping an underdog around.
No, the original poster said that he refused to reauthenticate. Very likely because he did not want to pay the soft costs associated with the call to MS. The place that he did not want to have to make a purchase was concerning Office. He did not want to have to buy an unneeded copy of MS Windows because MS has a monopoly in the Office space.
Because if having been the victim of a crime is allowed to be an excuse for committing crimes yourself, we fall into a downward spiral. By that logic, the OP should feel free of guilt for going out and victimizing the next person. I have yet to meet anyone that has never been the victim of some kind of crime. That means that the OP feels that anyone should be able to commit crimes against anyone else at any time because It's Not their Fault. The OP thought that he should not be angry about being victimized because the perpetrator was a victim them selves. This kind of attitude is unhealthy and verges on insanity. It is certainly destructive to society as a whole.
Clearly you don't understand what the word 'disingenuous' means as the original poster did claim the perpetrator was the victim.
"they really needed it that badly."
"I was angry, then sad for who these people must be, then frustrated I couldn't do anything to fix the situation."
"these people have empty holes in their lives"
How can you possibly think that these statements are not depicting a victim? Perhaps a little introspection is in order.
Your not familiar with 'Soft Costs' are you? Requiring a person to do work that is totally unnecessary to get access to their own data is certainly not "no cost".
Yes, it was condecending, but then so was the GPP when he called anyone bright enough to see past right now a savage animal. The GPP also is exactly the kind of attitude that promotes crime. He did very clearly make the thief out to be the "victim". The GPP, and you, are trying to make out this criminal as some poor sole, who had to break into a car and steal a stereo just to have a loaf of bread to eat. Well, that is highly unlikely. More likely is that the thief only had a TV in the living room, and wanted enough money to put a second one in his bedroom. Or, wanted to go out a party with his pals this Friday, and doesn't get paid until Monday. Playing the 'he must be so poor that he HAS to resort to crime' is absolutely an attempt to make the criminal a victim. So, yes. If someone robs you, and you think that THEY are the victim, you have a mental disorder.
"You could argue that eliminating them saves this problem too, but then we're no better than savage animals, and what's the point of doing anything then?"
That is absolutely wrong. A savage animal thinks about the moment. it does not think about the future, and the surrounding facts. When faced with an invader that is taking their resources, a savage animal is just as happy to have the invader run away as it is to kill the invader. The problem is that savage animals are stupid, and they don't understand that if they don't permanently take care of the problem, they will be faced with the same problem again later. So, in reality, the path that you suggest is the one of a savage animal. Only thinking of the moment.
"I would have just given them the contents of the car if they really needed it that badly."
You are clearly just rationalizing. I don't believe for a second that you truly believe that just because someone steals from you, that they must 'need it badly'. The guy that stole your stereo didn't need it. He just realized that he could take it from you, and there was nothing you could do about it. Assuming that someone who robs you is the victim is pretty sick, and you might want to seek help with that.
Animals do go to war. They also fight over politics. Not all of them, but the smarter they are, the more likely they are to fight over long term gains instead of instant gains. War is not the result of being human. It is the result of being smart enough to understand long term and complex effects. Humans have the most complex and longest fights because we are the most capable of understanding what we can get out of it.
I've always thought that the solution to spam was to implement a white listing mechanism into the SMTP process. Something like having a new deliver command that only accepts an email address. This would allow the receiving server and/or email clients to get a 'Request To Communicate' message. Users/ISPs could then set up servers and clients to only receive full messages from white listed systems. This way, ISPs could massively reduce the bandwidth traffic as they would only receive a very small amount of data on a RTC, and could outright block any message that was not white listed.
For users, they could largely ignore the request list, as most people don't get a ton of email from people they don't know. If adding a friend's/business associate's/newsletter's email address was just looking at the list of recent request and clicking on the ones you want white listed, more people would do it.
Like most solutions, I doubt it would be 100% effective, but it sure would help, and would only add trivial costs to the cost of email.
You had me there till the collage line. The collages have many of the same kinds of issues as the Unions. They both have their place, and if managed responsibly wouldn't be a problem, but neither of them are.
Hasn't this been done to death with people suing over FICO scores?
To go completely off topic.
Now, I understand what Bush meant when he said he was a uniter. If you get everyone chasing you down with torches and pitchforks, they will be united. Hmm...
Is it too much to ask that you explain these words you use as not all of use know what EVERY and ANY mean.
Sure it does. Every time I get one of those questions, I tell the person that Sony (or whoever it is that sold the media) ripped you off. They gave you a rental model when you paid for the purchase model, and that is wrong.
I agree. I don't really expect people to put themselves in the category of denial, lying, or being dumber than a 2 year old. I expect them to stop playing the "computers are to hard" card. It may have been true 20 years ago, but it is not the case today.
Nope, the middle of March. While he IS extremely smart, I think that most people massively underestimate just how easy Ubuntu is to install and use.
Yes, the point was that their installation is extremely simple. Of course, he also learned how to load the programs he liked to use, with no instruction on my part, other than showing him that when he moved the mouse, the arrow on the screen moved, that the buttons on the keyboard made things happen on the computer, and that the mouse also had buttons. He was using Ubuntu competently as a user at about 14 months old.
Now, lets for the sake of argument, say that my kid is a super genius. Perhaps he is just average, but I don't want to overstate just how simple Ubuntu is to install and use, so lets just say he is as smart as kids twice his age. That means that Ubuntu is simple enough for the average 3 year old to use for web browsing, games, listening to music, and general typing. I say typing because while he liked to load and play on Open Office, I wouldn't call what he was doing at 1, 'word processing'. This also means that the average 6 year old can install a usable Ubuntu system on reasonably supported hardware.
While I support Ubuntu's push to become even easier to use, I truly believe that anyone denying that Ubuntu is easy enough for everyone is either in denial, lying, or dumb enough that their opinion doesn't matter in adult conversations.
I probably sounded like an ass when I would say it, and I am not saying it to you, but I'm sticking with the idea that if you (plural, as in somebody. Not you specifically.) as an adult cannot do, or learn to do with little effort, what my 2 year old son can do, then you are to stupid to have your opinion matter in adult conversations.
I'm not sure I can use my kid as a benchmark anymore, because I'm not sure if it is fair to expect most adults to be as smart as a three year old.
My son installed Ubuntu 5.10 just before his third birthday. I had him do it just as an experiment. I wanted to see if how easy it was to install was just my imagination or not. No, it was not. He was not able to get through a Windows install on his own right after that. The reason was that he could not read yet. Of course, with Ubuntu, you don't even have to know how to read to get up and running.
Ubuntu, so easy a 2 year old can install it.
Sure, and when you sabotage yourself by building an fixable product, it gets even more expensive.
The result is that you can run the "minimal firmware" which for most consumers is still a brick.
What do you think the point of having a "minimal firmware" is, if not to get the device working enough to correct the problem?
The ability to "flash" program devices has led to a significant drop in the quality of embedded firmware in recent years. When correcting bugs meant having the customer return a system or having a technician come out to fix it, there was a much greater effort to "do it right the first time".
The reason that the ability to flash program devices "has led to a significant drop in quality" is because the manufacturer can produce a product dramatically cheaper and generally have little to no problems with it. If a major problem does crop up, they can fix it. So, basically your point about lower quality firmware directly counters your argument about increased support cost, unless your going to use the argument that shifting the cost center in a company improves a products profitability. No code can be assured of being 100% bug free. As you get closer to 100% confidence, the cost of testing gets exponentially higher. After all, if not allowing up dates improves quality of code, you should support that in every place that code goes. Would you want a video card that couldn't receive driver updates? How about a network card, or your OS?