Big deal. The main bulk of CDs and DVDs are for structural integrity. So, they reduced the amount of plastic use to keep the disc from falling apart. That's a little like (using the traditionally bad car analogy) making a hummer out of paper... bragging that it only weighs 200lbs... Then having to warn people that the car will collapse if you lean on it.
Unless your prepared to make sure little Johnny can't get his hands on $300, you can forget about your router. Of course you could always make sure your kid never holds down a job, and stays away from any kind of business that might offer free or easily hacked wifi. Oh, you are probably going to want to move far enough out that you don't have any nieghbors that might have a wifi connection that reaches your house. You will have to keep them out of school too, because the school might be close enough to a business or home that might have or get wifi.
Worse yet is if they don't go crazy when they get out, because they have become used to 24 hour surveillance, and feel that being spied on is for their own good.
Oh, and if my who house blows down, I can pick up my VIOP box... go to most hotels in the country... plug my Vonage VOIP box into the internet connection at the hotel. Guess what. I have my regular phone service back. Can't do that with POTS, and I'm highly doubting that you can do it with any of the ISP/Cable services.
"Don't be upset because a group of people got organized. Organize yourself and get out there."
"I think it's misguided to be "bitter" that one group garners more attention than the other, when one group isn't doing as much as the other to bring attention, publicity and resources to their cause. You're right, this isn't about a competition, this about who is doing what for their "own"."
Wow, that could be taken right from a Klan pamphlet.
Really it's not the size of womens tits that matter most. It's what I call the "T to T ratio." That would be the Tits to tummy ratio. So, a woman with a ratio of 4/3 will have a more attractive body than one with a ratio of 2/2 or 5/6.
I would have to agree. There are just more men who will admit to sleeping with women for their looks than there are women who will admit that they are sleeping with men for money.
Of course most men would be happier if the followed a simple mantra:
"The best looking women are the ones that will sleep with me."
And in the case of Germany, the rewards are great for the losers. I'm no historian, but everything presented so far leads me to believe that Germany was much better off after WWII than it was before. I suspect Japan is too, but it may be that I am looking though too thick a cloud of cultural bias.
Of course, women love a man with a huge... bank account. Did this suprise you?
Re:The problem with guis is they don't work
on
GUIs Get a Makeover
·
· Score: 1
At the age of 1, my son could turn on his computer and load any of his programs from the GUI. He learned this from just watching me, and trial and error. I can tell you with all honesty that as much as I would love to believe he is a super genius, there is no way that he could have learned to use his system that young if he had to use a command line. In fact I would still be loading any programs that he would run, and those programs would have their own GUI.
Funny, my wife dropped out of high school, and it never affected her ability to get a job at all. She ended up getting a GED many years later as a 'just because', but to date, neither her nor I have ever had anyone ask to see a diploma. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who has ever been asked to produce a diploma.
I would have to suspect that the reason your ex-girlfriend had a hard time being taken seriously was because she just wasn't very bright. If your dumb enough to go around advertising that you don't have a diploma, (that includes not putting a regular H.S.'s name on an application/resume) then your probably doing all sorts of things that draw attention to your limited mental capabilities, and don't even realize it.
"Not anymore, because we figured out cigarette smoke was bad for you. But not so long ago, flight attendants, bartenders, and spouses of smokers spent a lot of time in under ventilated spaces with cigarrette smoke. And all had distinctly elevated cancer risk."
And not so long ago mechanics had even less ventalation. Your argument is that people used to inhale more cigeratte smoke than mechanics do now? Apples. Oranges.
"If professional mechanics are inhaling significant quantities of car exaust, their employers are in serious violation of OSHA rules, and are in danger of serious fines."
A) Welcome to the real world. B) Have you ever been in a garage? Even with ventilation, you are still inhaling huge quantities of exaust. C) Amatures don't follow OSHA.
"I did not mean to imply that. I meant to state that the general public is not in remotely as much danger from car exaust as smokers are from cigarrette smoke."
So, what you were implying was that smokers are in more danger than non-mechanics? The comparison is mechanics to smokers and the general public with second hand smoke to the general public with car exhaust. Again, Apples. Oranges.
""Just" and "extremely" are not technical terms; arguing which one is correct is obviously stupid."
So, you used the word 'extremely' in an attempt to make smoking sound worse than it is, knowing that when someone called you on it, you could duck taking responsibility for your words by claiming that 'extremely' is not a technical word? That makes you exactly the kind of person described in my original post. Pardon the pun, but your arguments become all smoke and mirrors when you argue specifically that smoking is 'extremely' dangerous, and then back peddle by saying it is not a technical term, so arguing is stupid. The whole argument has been between 'just' bad and 'extremely' bad.
"Smoking is not as bad for you as bullets in the head. Going by rates of heart & lung disease it's orders of magnitude worse for you than breathing inner-city levels of car exaust every day."
It sure would seem that way when all the people that die from inner-city levels of car exaust get counted as 'Smoking related deaths'.
"My arguments are not based on any industry; they are based on rates of disease in smokers versus non-smokers."
Total denial. So, your saying that the statistics your claiming do not come from paid studies. That the numbers are collected and analysed entirely by volenteers.
"But note that the cigarrette industry brings in a heck of a lot more than you're so-called anti-smoking industry."
What does that have to do with anything? The anti-smoking industry must be telling the truth because they don't make as many billions of dollars as the tabacco industry? That makes absolutly no sense.
Who are these "people" you talk about that sit in poorly ventelated rooms with smokers. Neither I, nor anyone I know falls into that category. Of course I know people that do sit in poorly ventelated rooms with cars. Many, many mechanics, both amature and professional, inhale large quantities of car exaust. As for frequency. You have to be kidding when you imply that the general public is exposed to more cigerette smoke than car exaust. It is everywhere.
As for the money. You simply have your head in the sand. Just here in California, just one anti-smoking industry recipient takes in 700 million a year! First 5 That money is going somewhere. It's people like you that keep the anti-smoking industry alive. You take something that is bad for you, and villinize it to the point that people are afraid to call the industry on it's lies. I mean really, do you think the actors in the anti-smoking commercials are volenteers? Do you think the TV stations just give that air time away? Heck, vertually every daycare in California is part of the anti-smoking industry. (I don't know if other states have similare situations.) If you are unwilling to even question an industry that is bringing in billions of dollars a year, your arguments simply carry no wieght.
No doubt you breath better when you quit smoking. That's why it is in the "just" bad for you category. Things that are "Extremely" hazardous kill most people that do them in a short period of time.
Um, dude, learn some statistics. The statistics that are thrown around by the anti-smoking industry are often contradictory, and have been clearly skewed to increase revenue. I'll tell you what. You and I can try an experiment to see what is really bad for you. I'll lock myself in a poorly ventelated 10' x 10' room with a smoker for 8 hours. You lock yourself in a poorly ventelated 10' x 10' room with a running car for 8 hours. Then we can discuss what is "extremely" bad for you.
I can list off dozens of things people inhale that are "extremely" bad for you, but smoking is not one of them. Smoking fits into the "just" bad for you category. You have been duped by the anti-smoking industy.
I really hate hearing that term. The anti-smoking industry (yes, it is a huge money grubbing industry) has convinced the public that smoking is killing X number of people by making up this term 'Smoking related illeness'. For example Lung Cancer. If you die of lung cancer, you are immediatly added to the total number of people that died of 'smoking related illness' This is irrelevent to whether you would run 10 miles every day out in the desert, and consistently inhailed sand particles that were blown up in the air, and scratched the hell out of your lungs every day for 30 years. It must have been the evil second hand smoke!!!
I cannot believe for one second that inhailing the crap spewing out of the back of cars does not lead to 'Smoking related illness'.
Some of my favorite commercials that have come from the anti-smoking industry were, one where a half dozen early 20'ers are driving around in a beat up old van with nasty chemicals spewing from the tailpipe, while screaming over a megaphone at the houses of tabaco executives.
The one where they tell you that someone living with a smoke is more likely to die because the second hand smoke in so much more dangerous than the directly inhaled smoke. Completely ignoring the fact that the smoker will be breathing significantly more second hand smoke than anyone they live with.
And the one where they the tabaco industry MUST be advertising to kids, because 34 years ago one of their market researchers noticed that kids like sweets. Of course its a good thing that we got those secret documents, because we would have never know that kids like sweet otherwise, and after all, no adults like sweets.
The biggest here is that once an idea gets to a certain point, the proponents of that idea can just start out right lying. Then anyone that calls them on their lies gets villinized. After all, think of the children.
It's real simple. Smoking is bad for you. Anything that you inhail into your lungs that is not air (with a few medical exceptions) is bad for you. Smoking is NOT as bad as the smoking industry wants to make it out to be. If it was, 20% of our population would be dead within the next few year, and our society would be in freefall.
If you want a perfect example, look at the American Lung Association's website. If you can't see any questionable 'fact' in there, you have already drank the cool-aid.
The problem that the 'environmentalists' have is that their side of the global warming debate has been playing the same game as the anti-smoking industry. They have made many outragous claims, and frequently request or demand that people change their lives based on questionable data at best. Does that mean that we shouldn't work for cleaner air? No. Does it mean that global warming isn't happening? Who knows! What it does mean is that the issue IS in question, and when the global warming zeleots start claiming that the proof is undeniable, they are just adding to the distrust.
I would go so far as to say that 'Trojan' is the perfect description. Lets see:
* The recipient and suppler are in a long term conflict
* The suppler is hiding something nasty inside of an attractive piece of art
* Many of the pieces of art are actually "Given" to the recipient
* Most recipients do not know or understand that this weapon is inside their piece of art.
* The suppler is hoping that they can sneak their weapon into the recipients home so that they can win this conflict once and for all.
"Now, as for violationg the CC-license, the CC song is still available freely,"
That is no different than saying "Now, as for violationg the Copyright, the Copyrighted song is still available for a fee,"
Microsoft has clearly created a device that simplifies copyright violations by automating the violation. (Notice I didn't use the word steal. That is because copyright violation is not stealing. Of course if one insists on calling it stealing, then they can say that Microsoft has developed a device designed to steal music.)
I am not saying that at all. Obeying the bylaws is part of their Fiduciary responsibility. The question is... What do the bylows of Google say? Do they say "make a profit at all cost", or do they say 'make a good faith effort to make a profit while upholding the companies principals as stated in the the companies mission statement'?
If the former, then they have publicly stated that 'do no evil is a lie'. If the later, they have a responsibility, and a legal requirement to 'do no evil'.
The 'The have to maximize profits' line is because in theory they have to obey the will of their share holders, also known as owners. To do otherwise is a breach of their fuduciary (sp?) responsabilities. It is assumed that the reason for purchasing the stock was for profit, and thus the need to maximize profits. Of course if at the time of the sale of those stocks, the company was being very loud about their 'do no evil' policy, it is reasonable to assume that the share holders (owners of the company) purchased their stock with the express purpose of providing a service to humanity while doing no evil. To go directly against the will of the stock holders is what is cause for lawsuit, not the lack of maximizing profits. In fact there is likely a case to be made that if Google chooses to 'do evil', they have breached their fuduciary reponsibility and thus are liable for 'damages'.
Of course if we get to the point that the real reason for liability is forgotten and we, through precidence, decide that corporations must make profit at any cost, we will have then set up a situation where by definition, corporations are evil. That would be disasterous for our economy as moral people would only do business with sole proprietorships, and sole proprietorships have far less potential for growth. Not to mention that they also would require the concentration of wealth.
It doesn't really matter how hard it is to hit the $150 price point. Fry's electronics does it all the time. They have an add in their flyer just about every week for a brand spanking new x86 PC for $150.
Slashdot Mirror
Big deal. The main bulk of CDs and DVDs are for structural integrity. So, they reduced the amount of plastic use to keep the disc from falling apart. That's a little like (using the traditionally bad car analogy) making a hummer out of paper... bragging that it only weighs 200lbs... Then having to warn people that the car will collapse if you lean on it.
Unless your prepared to make sure little Johnny can't get his hands on $300, you can forget about your router. Of course you could always make sure your kid never holds down a job, and stays away from any kind of business that might offer free or easily hacked wifi. Oh, you are probably going to want to move far enough out that you don't have any nieghbors that might have a wifi connection that reaches your house. You will have to keep them out of school too, because the school might be close enough to a business or home that might have or get wifi.
Worse yet is if they don't go crazy when they get out, because they have become used to 24 hour surveillance, and feel that being spied on is for their own good.
Oh, and if my who house blows down, I can pick up my VIOP box... go to most hotels in the country... plug my Vonage VOIP box into the internet connection at the hotel. Guess what. I have my regular phone service back. Can't do that with POTS, and I'm highly doubting that you can do it with any of the ISP/Cable services.
Of course, my Vonage service works when the phone lines go down.
"Don't be upset because a group of people got organized. Organize yourself and get out there."
"I think it's misguided to be "bitter" that one group garners more attention than the other, when one group isn't doing as much as the other to bring attention, publicity and resources to their cause. You're right, this isn't about a competition, this about who is doing what for their "own"."
Wow, that could be taken right from a Klan pamphlet.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I thought I was the only person that realized just how crappy FF is.
Really it's not the size of womens tits that matter most. It's what I call the "T to T ratio." That would be the Tits to tummy ratio. So, a woman with a ratio of 4/3 will have a more attractive body than one with a ratio of 2/2 or 5/6.
I would have to agree. There are just more men who will admit to sleeping with women for their looks than there are women who will admit that they are sleeping with men for money.
Of course most men would be happier if the followed a simple mantra:
"The best looking women are the ones that will sleep with me."
And in the case of Germany, the rewards are great for the losers. I'm no historian, but everything presented so far leads me to believe that Germany was much better off after WWII than it was before. I suspect Japan is too, but it may be that I am looking though too thick a cloud of cultural bias.
Of course, women love a man with a huge... bank account. Did this suprise you?
At the age of 1, my son could turn on his computer and load any of his programs from the GUI. He learned this from just watching me, and trial and error. I can tell you with all honesty that as much as I would love to believe he is a super genius, there is no way that he could have learned to use his system that young if he had to use a command line. In fact I would still be loading any programs that he would run, and those programs would have their own GUI.
Funny, my wife dropped out of high school, and it never affected her ability to get a job at all. She ended up getting a GED many years later as a 'just because', but to date, neither her nor I have ever had anyone ask to see a diploma. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who has ever been asked to produce a diploma.
I would have to suspect that the reason your ex-girlfriend had a hard time being taken seriously was because she just wasn't very bright. If your dumb enough to go around advertising that you don't have a diploma, (that includes not putting a regular H.S.'s name on an application/resume) then your probably doing all sorts of things that draw attention to your limited mental capabilities, and don't even realize it.
Ok, every person too stupid to bring ear plugs when they know they are going to be in a crowd and want silence, raise your hand!
"Not anymore, because we figured out cigarette smoke was bad for you. But not so long ago, flight attendants, bartenders, and spouses of smokers spent a lot of time in under ventilated spaces with cigarrette smoke. And all had distinctly elevated cancer risk."
And not so long ago mechanics had even less ventalation. Your argument is that people used to inhale more cigeratte smoke than mechanics do now? Apples. Oranges.
"If professional mechanics are inhaling significant quantities of car exaust, their employers are in serious violation of OSHA rules, and are in danger of serious fines."
A) Welcome to the real world. B) Have you ever been in a garage? Even with ventilation, you are still inhaling huge quantities of exaust. C) Amatures don't follow OSHA.
"I did not mean to imply that. I meant to state that the general public is not in remotely as much danger from car exaust as smokers are from cigarrette smoke."
So, what you were implying was that smokers are in more danger than non-mechanics? The comparison is mechanics to smokers and the general public with second hand smoke to the general public with car exhaust. Again, Apples. Oranges.
""Just" and "extremely" are not technical terms; arguing which one is correct is obviously stupid."
So, you used the word 'extremely' in an attempt to make smoking sound worse than it is, knowing that when someone called you on it, you could duck taking responsibility for your words by claiming that 'extremely' is not a technical word? That makes you exactly the kind of person described in my original post. Pardon the pun, but your arguments become all smoke and mirrors when you argue specifically that smoking is 'extremely' dangerous, and then back peddle by saying it is not a technical term, so arguing is stupid. The whole argument has been between 'just' bad and 'extremely' bad.
"Smoking is not as bad for you as bullets in the head. Going by rates of heart & lung disease it's orders of magnitude worse for you than breathing inner-city levels of car exaust every day."
It sure would seem that way when all the people that die from inner-city levels of car exaust get counted as 'Smoking related deaths'.
"My arguments are not based on any industry; they are based on rates of disease in smokers versus non-smokers."
Total denial. So, your saying that the statistics your claiming do not come from paid studies. That the numbers are collected and analysed entirely by volenteers.
"But note that the cigarrette industry brings in a heck of a lot more than you're so-called anti-smoking industry."
What does that have to do with anything? The anti-smoking industry must be telling the truth because they don't make as many billions of dollars as the tabacco industry? That makes absolutly no sense.
Who are these "people" you talk about that sit in poorly ventelated rooms with smokers. Neither I, nor anyone I know falls into that category. Of course I know people that do sit in poorly ventelated rooms with cars. Many, many mechanics, both amature and professional, inhale large quantities of car exaust. As for frequency. You have to be kidding when you imply that the general public is exposed to more cigerette smoke than car exaust. It is everywhere.
As for the money. You simply have your head in the sand. Just here in California, just one anti-smoking industry recipient takes in 700 million a year! First 5 That money is going somewhere. It's people like you that keep the anti-smoking industry alive. You take something that is bad for you, and villinize it to the point that people are afraid to call the industry on it's lies. I mean really, do you think the actors in the anti-smoking commercials are volenteers? Do you think the TV stations just give that air time away? Heck, vertually every daycare in California is part of the anti-smoking industry. (I don't know if other states have similare situations.) If you are unwilling to even question an industry that is bringing in billions of dollars a year, your arguments simply carry no wieght.
No doubt you breath better when you quit smoking. That's why it is in the "just" bad for you category. Things that are "Extremely" hazardous kill most people that do them in a short period of time.
Um, dude, learn some statistics. The statistics that are thrown around by the anti-smoking industry are often contradictory, and have been clearly skewed to increase revenue. I'll tell you what. You and I can try an experiment to see what is really bad for you. I'll lock myself in a poorly ventelated 10' x 10' room with a smoker for 8 hours. You lock yourself in a poorly ventelated 10' x 10' room with a running car for 8 hours. Then we can discuss what is "extremely" bad for you.
I can list off dozens of things people inhale that are "extremely" bad for you, but smoking is not one of them. Smoking fits into the "just" bad for you category. You have been duped by the anti-smoking industy.
And that is insightful!
I really hate hearing that term. The anti-smoking industry (yes, it is a huge money grubbing industry) has convinced the public that smoking is killing X number of people by making up this term 'Smoking related illeness'. For example Lung Cancer. If you die of lung cancer, you are immediatly added to the total number of people that died of 'smoking related illness' This is irrelevent to whether you would run 10 miles every day out in the desert, and consistently inhailed sand particles that were blown up in the air, and scratched the hell out of your lungs every day for 30 years. It must have been the evil second hand smoke!!!
I cannot believe for one second that inhailing the crap spewing out of the back of cars does not lead to 'Smoking related illness'.
Some of my favorite commercials that have come from the anti-smoking industry were, one where a half dozen early 20'ers are driving around in a beat up old van with nasty chemicals spewing from the tailpipe, while screaming over a megaphone at the houses of tabaco executives.
The one where they tell you that someone living with a smoke is more likely to die because the second hand smoke in so much more dangerous than the directly inhaled smoke. Completely ignoring the fact that the smoker will be breathing significantly more second hand smoke than anyone they live with.
And the one where they the tabaco industry MUST be advertising to kids, because 34 years ago one of their market researchers noticed that kids like sweets. Of course its a good thing that we got those secret documents, because we would have never know that kids like sweet otherwise, and after all, no adults like sweets.
The biggest here is that once an idea gets to a certain point, the proponents of that idea can just start out right lying. Then anyone that calls them on their lies gets villinized. After all, think of the children.
It's real simple. Smoking is bad for you. Anything that you inhail into your lungs that is not air (with a few medical exceptions) is bad for you. Smoking is NOT as bad as the smoking industry wants to make it out to be. If it was, 20% of our population would be dead within the next few year, and our society would be in freefall.
If you want a perfect example, look at the American Lung Association's website. If you can't see any questionable 'fact' in there, you have already drank the cool-aid.
The problem that the 'environmentalists' have is that their side of the global warming debate has been playing the same game as the anti-smoking industry. They have made many outragous claims, and frequently request or demand that people change their lives based on questionable data at best. Does that mean that we shouldn't work for cleaner air? No. Does it mean that global warming isn't happening? Who knows! What it does mean is that the issue IS in question, and when the global warming zeleots start claiming that the proof is undeniable, they are just adding to the distrust.
Ok, rant over....
I would go so far as to say that 'Trojan' is the perfect description. Lets see:
* The recipient and suppler are in a long term conflict
* The suppler is hiding something nasty inside of an attractive piece of art
* Many of the pieces of art are actually "Given" to the recipient
* Most recipients do not know or understand that this weapon is inside their piece of art.
* The suppler is hoping that they can sneak their weapon into the recipients home so that they can win this conflict once and for all.
That has to be the most clear and concise description of the current situation that I have read in a very long time.
"Now, as for violationg the CC-license, the CC song is still available freely,"
That is no different than saying "Now, as for violationg the Copyright, the Copyrighted song is still available for a fee,"
Microsoft has clearly created a device that simplifies copyright violations by automating the violation. (Notice I didn't use the word steal. That is because copyright violation is not stealing. Of course if one insists on calling it stealing, then they can say that Microsoft has developed a device designed to steal music.)
I am not saying that at all. Obeying the bylaws is part of their Fiduciary responsibility. The question is... What do the bylows of Google say? Do they say "make a profit at all cost", or do they say 'make a good faith effort to make a profit while upholding the companies principals as stated in the the companies mission statement'?
If the former, then they have publicly stated that 'do no evil is a lie'. If the later, they have a responsibility, and a legal requirement to 'do no evil'.
The 'The have to maximize profits' line is because in theory they have to obey the will of their share holders, also known as owners. To do otherwise is a breach of their fuduciary (sp?) responsabilities. It is assumed that the reason for purchasing the stock was for profit, and thus the need to maximize profits. Of course if at the time of the sale of those stocks, the company was being very loud about their 'do no evil' policy, it is reasonable to assume that the share holders (owners of the company) purchased their stock with the express purpose of providing a service to humanity while doing no evil. To go directly against the will of the stock holders is what is cause for lawsuit, not the lack of maximizing profits. In fact there is likely a case to be made that if Google chooses to 'do evil', they have breached their fuduciary reponsibility and thus are liable for 'damages'.
Of course if we get to the point that the real reason for liability is forgotten and we, through precidence, decide that corporations must make profit at any cost, we will have then set up a situation where by definition, corporations are evil. That would be disasterous for our economy as moral people would only do business with sole proprietorships, and sole proprietorships have far less potential for growth. Not to mention that they also would require the concentration of wealth.
It doesn't really matter how hard it is to hit the $150 price point. Fry's electronics does it all the time. They have an add in their flyer just about every week for a brand spanking new x86 PC for $150.