What the fans want is the prequels rewritten and refilmed with good actors
The sad part is that almost all of those actors ARE good actors. Natalie Portman is *amazing* as is Ewan McGregor and even Hayden Christensen is pretty solid in every other role except Anakin Skywalker.
It's really sad, actually... it could have been so good...
I wish I had mod points for this.../me wipes tears of laughter from his eyes...
Re:Be careful about conflating things
on
iPad Jailbroken
·
· Score: 1
For instance, Apple couldn't have turned "not vetted by mothership" into warnings rather than errors and let the user proceed anyways. Then the user can have all the benefits of someone else's auditing and their own freedom.
Just a quick observation. I think the biggest difference between Apple with the iPhone, Google with Android, etc. is that Apple provides free tech support to their customers via the Genius Bar. When it comes to iPhones, having a known "approved" setup that is easy to identify reduces troubleshooting overhead costs substantially.
Actually, looking at it like that, it seems like a very Enterprise-ish thing to do... just with a worldwide customer base. Huh.
I still don't buy from iTunes because 1) they do tag them and 2) they do AAC and not mp3.
This is an inane argument.
First, you rail against the fact that iTunes tags the music you BUY with YOUR email. Why would you be upset with the fact that something you bought is labeled as your property? This does not infringe on your ability to spread out your media across your devices. It doesn't keep you from putting it anywhere. Hell, it doesn't even keep you from sharing it with your friends (though that is against the license agreement). All it does is provide some kind of accountability for your actions should you decide to buy the newest Beyonce CD and upload it to TPB.
Remember accountability? That thing your parents were supposed to have taught you before kindergarten?
And I don't even pretend to get your anti-AAC argument. Duradin summed it up much better than I can:
They probably think it means Apple Audio Codec and not Advanced Audio and that it is entirely a creation of Apple and not a standard part of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 that even the Zune plays.
I know dozens of people who think that way. They're the people on the budgets.
I've seen it consistently at my mother-in-law's consignment shop and she confirms the behavior over the entire lifetime of the business (which has been in business for 14 years). Price it at $X.99 instead of $X+1 and you'll see almost twice as many sales. Similarly--though much more confusingly--people tend to buy stuff marked "Buy One, Get One 50% off," instead of "Buy One, Get One Free!"
And no, I don't give much of a crap why it's not suitable for you or your grandma, it's a superbly geek-friendly phone that (unlike openmoko...) performs very very well.
Relax, I was just playing around.
Since you asked though, at the end of the day I really enjoy my iPhone. The touchscreen keyboard works well for me, the interface is intuitive, I have a free app that gives me SSH access and other apps that let me monitor my servers and various other things.
All that said, I don't know what I want in a phone until I want it and with my iPhone I can generally get it right then. It's pretty much the only platform where I let myself be a typical consumer. On an actual computer I would rather script or code my own solution--especially on my Mac--rather than use a shortcut app. But on my iPhone I just want to tap buttons...
So hopefully that helps clarify what *I* want in a phone. It isn't going to help with others much, but coming from a fellow geek, maybe it will offer some insight into the mindset.
Incidentally... I'd KILL for tethering sometime soon. This paying-for-hotspots-while-I-have-full-3G-signal shit is killing me...
What part of my argument did I blow, exactly? The part where I said I am only really interested in staying away from them or that I respect that you can own a gun, just don't expect to own any gun without regulation?
Seriously, I want to know.
Oh, and can you tell me if you found Demonspawn's credibility to be shot when he revealed that he is ex-Army? Or is that different for some reason?
More importantly, if an object caused me to experience physical revulsion, I'd really have to do some soul searching as to why.
I think I know why: I can't stand the thought of killing another person and I'm happy with that. The thing that confuses me is that other people don't share the same feeling, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone; we're all different and we need people who aren't like me and can do this sort of thing.
Why on earth would I know this? Do you know that I have a degree in English and a dog named Copernicus?
Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.
I don't believe that at all. I've done significant research into it and I have no doubt that the human race will continue killing itself for various reasons until we no longer exist, however that comes along. I agree with you entirely.
But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.
Would you feel better if I used an actual gun to get what I want? There is no cognitive dissonance involved in this. Actually, I'll just cite the Third Amendment:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Given your loose interpretation of "militia," I think we can pretty easily extend the term "soldier" to most folks--especially considering the Miltia Acts--though I would prefer to only apply it to armed citizens rather than unarmed. That said, it seems that I am perfectly in my rights to request that you keep them away from me in my home.
Incidentally, I never said anything about concealed weapons or your right to own them being incorrect; you assumed that. Sure, I'll give you that the founding fathers apparently thought the "right to bear arms" was an inalienable right, but they also wrote it when there was no standing army, no support for a government military--or even a militia. Everything changed pretty quickly after the amendment was passed.
The bottom line at this point is that I don't know of Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment to continue this debate any further. The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the law and they have done so... actually, I'll give one example and then I'm out of here.
In a recent case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court stated:
'[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."'
Like it or not, there is gun regulation of a sort in place, as determined by the Supreme Court upon analysis of the case and the amendment. Whether you want to argue about the Supreme Court or not, it is in their power to make these rulings.
A) Find out what "well regulated militia" means (it's not what you think it is).
Enlighten me, oh beacon of wisdom. I'm sure it must mean this, given the tone of the rest of your post: "Everyone." However, as I mention below, that is incorrect.
B) Find out who was in the militia at the time of the 2nd Amendment (hrm.. every man over the age of 18).
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was passed before the Militia Acts of 1792, which stated that every "free able-bodied white male citizen," between the ages of 18-45 was conscripted into a state managed (i.e. REGULATED) milita. Before that, the idea of a militia is skewed by history as we had just come out of the American Revolution. Just because most people *had* been in a milita during that time, does not mean that everyone *was* in a militia. In fact, the main reason that the militia idea stood was because there was overwhelming opposition to a standing army at the time. This was mitigated in part because of our losses in the War of 1812 (Sacking of Washington D.C.) and resulted in a standing army, which I suggest became the new "militia."
D) Talk to an English teacher sometime and have them remove the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Everything before the comma is the explanation WHY this right is so important. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we were always citizens and never subjects.
I am well aware of how to read the document. What you refuse to see is that the WHY includes a definition of HOW. "... well-regulated militia..."
2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw. Either one can cause great harm when used improperly, but rarely causes harm when used properly.
Someone else touched on this already, but here is my counter: the purpose of a table saw is not to injure or kill a thing. A gun is.
3) Damn straight I prefer 7.62 over 5.56. 5.56 is designed to wound. 7.62 is designed to kill. If I need to use my rifle I'm not concerned with creating battlefield casualties to strain the logistics and support of the enemy, I'm concerned with killing people dead so they can't counterattack.
This is stupid. Stop acting like you're on a battlefield, fighting the good fight. Don't insult soldiers who are actually trying to do something for their country with this type of misconception. You want a gun that fires large bullets so you can feel better about yourself under the guise of patriotism or whatever you want to call it.
All Slashdot ranting aside, I want to make something clear:
I don't care if you own a gun. I don't care if you own extremely powerful guns. All I care about is that you have to register said gun when you purchase it and that you keep it away from me.
I despise guns; I don't know why. I was raised with them around, I've been taught to shoot properly, I've been hunting, target shooting, etc. However, whenever one of those things gets in my hands, I get a little nauseous. I hate the idea of a gun and that there is a real use for it in the world and I know I'm not alone in this.
So feel free to call me a pansy or whatever you'd like, but at this point my aversion to guns is just as applicable as your desire for them. The amendment, as written, leaves the room for both of us to be happy.
Gun laws are illegal for starters but hey, why let a little thing like that prevent the government from centralizing and wresting power from the hands of the people.
I for one find a nation where the government has no need to fear the people very scary indeed.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?
As some others pointed out already: it is not illegal to own a gun. You have to go through an established process to get them because GUNS ARE DANGEROUS.
That said, why don't you just go buy a.22 rifle? There are pretty much no restrictions, no background check or anything else in place (in NY, at least)? Hell, I know someone who is on anti-depressants who walked in and walked out with a.22 rifle.
But that isn't what you want, is it? You want a 3.06, an automatic/semi-automatic assault rifle, or a high-powered handgun.
Everyone always forgets the first part of the second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm not aware of the legal precedent since its inception, but to me, that statement means that I should be happy to have the privilege to purchase arms given that I'm not part of a "well regulated militia."
If I were doing the interpretation here, I'd say that if you want to own weapons, you should join the National Guard, but that's just me.
You HAD to save your files to your shared drive. If you rebooted the PC, the entire PC was reimaged back to a 'clean' state.
I love Deep Freeze, Centurion Guard, Drive Shield, etc... but it's not fool proof.
At one of my former employers, we had something like 700 Windows PCs out in various labs and all equipped with Drive Shield. If one of them got infected, reboot and all was well... right?
Well, kind of. Since we were not allowed to automatically reboot these machines (24/7 labs), some of these stayed up for weeks, which opened them up to all sorts of fun stuff. In short, I spent about 200-300 man hours manually rebooting machines, convincing the administration to change the policies on automatic reboots, and working with the guy in charge of our PC lab image to implement security features to protect against this sort of thing in the future (automatic A/V update on boot, for example).
Comparably, it took me about 40 hours to build a Terminal Server and another 60 to build and install Thin Clients to replace a bunch of those machines...
Technically... But not really. I mean, good luck watching anything on YouTube without Flash installed. Which is what we're talking about here - video playback. If you want to play back video on the web these days, you're basically stuck installing Flash. Yeah, a couple sites here and there use QuickTime or something else... But it's generally flash.
FYI: YouTube has an Opt-In HTML5 video setup that you might want to take a look at. Until you posted that, I'd forgotten I signed up for it and have been using it since it was available. It's just as good visually, but the videos seem to cache and load a bit faster. YMMV
Thus, not a real power issue... that's just the excuse some people make.
I won't disagree that Apple uses a heavy, and many times unfair, hand in management of their apps, but when the 3.0 firmware came out and things like Push notifications and Apple-built multitasking apps came to the fore, a lot ofpeople started seeing substantial battery drainage. Add to this the introduction of 3G and the battery life plummets.
I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only reason, but I think it has a lot more to do with the current lack of multitasking than any conspiracy by all of the upper level execs at Apple.
This isn't a really good example of why they limited multitasking, though someone probably said it in the marketing staff meeting. I think it has a lot more to do with iPhone battery life than anything else... it's short enough as it is without AIM, Pandora and Echofon using more.
If this is true, hopefully they figured out a software way to expand battery life.
I'm lucky in this respect because I chose my degree solely because I thought it was an interesting and engaging subject - I've always been fascinated in how things work and how they're put together.
That's great and I'm happy for you that you picked a subject that allows that. History is big, there is a lot of it, and humans are unpredictable given a sample set covering 3,000 years, so applying known rules to keep it in order is nigh impossible. I *specialized* in the Middle Ages which covers ~1000 years, depending on when you decide to start and end it. Despite the fact that most TV historians like to claim that things stagnated during that time, events proceeded very much the same as it always had; i.e. the rules of humanity changed every generation.
During the early Middle Ages, the church wasn't dominant, Rome got sacked by Germanic "tribes", and the Roman Empire up and moved. This is all incredibly interesting stuff, but it is all tied together with strands that can be incredibly boring, but if you aren't aware of these, then the whole picture becomes murky and you start using phrases like, "The Dark Ages."
I think what these arguments are coming down to--not just with you--is that I don't believe anyone who says they haven't zoned out during a class or been distracted by the girl sitting in front of them in Psychology 101 wearing the thong and low pants.
My point remains that if there is a chance to introduce another distraction into the already tenuous environment that is a classroom, it has a much greater chance of being a negative force than a positive.
As a matter of fact I'm in a UK university. Not sure what you were getting at with the point about profanities, but bullshit is universal and so is cock (I don't use the other c-word). Even using cock and BS was for the benefit of the US readers; I doubt many of you would have appreciated my native curses. I wanted to use Twat and Wank respectively but the latter would probably have elicited a few 'whooshes'.
Sorry about the misattributed nationality. I am probably one of the few folks that would have picked up on the (more common) British curses as I've had a bunch of British friends over the years...
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it?
I agree. I didn't say that I didn't find the international trade routes of the 18th century world interesting, I said that I found learning about them boring. I wanted to learn. I needed to learn. But I would have been much more tempted to do something else *in addition to* trying to learn during those classes with the excuse, "I can multitask..."
Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
So you *never* do anything else in class then? Always on the up-and-up with the note taking and attention giving? it kind of sounds like you are currently in college and--if you are in the US, which I would bet you are from your preferred profanities--then there is a good chance you are in class, going to class, or coming from class.
Since you only take classes that you could never find boring, I imagine that the rant above *must* have been posted during the latter two options... no way you posted during class.
I see your point though. There have been classes that dispute my greatest interest in the material the profs. would literally bore me to tears.
Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I spent most of my time in one of three places: a history class (of some sort), an english class (of some sort) or managing the first and second tier IT services at the University.
I always figured it was because they spent too much time partying and not drinking enough coffee.
I didn't party until my senior year--and then only on Saturdays--and I didn't start drinking coffee until I hit the work force after college (bad timing on my part). That said, I ran what ended up being a six year long D&D campaign (started my freshman year and ended a year before I left the area; we continued playing for two years after graduation) sometimes twice a week. Our game nights usually started at 5PM and went until 5AM.
I'm pretty sure that is why I was always so damn tired...:p
Granted, but are you telling me that every day you showed up with a smile, a polished apple for the teacher and an unquenchable desire to learn?
Maybe you did and I'm the weird one, but I *loved* 95% of my classes and I still found myself dozing every now and then. I find it much easier to stay awake when my fight-or-flight instinct is running wild...
Mod this guy up. This is the biggest difference between High School and college and most students never get this.
I've had long conversations with professors in various fields and they all agreed on that statement. Some of them have actually left their respective universities because of this ridiculous shift toward undergraduate simply becoming extended high school.
Don't worry about ElectricTurtle. He's all over this thread spewing this detritus on anyone who disagrees with him.
If he is true to form, I'm sure there will be another mocking post explaining how you're obviously slow and he and others like him are Super-Fun-Time-Awesome. I think he's used the following line three times already...
Your anecdote only demonstrates your own sensitivity.
I'm kind of having fun just following along now...:p
Slashdot Mirror
What the fans want is the prequels rewritten and refilmed with good actors
The sad part is that almost all of those actors ARE good actors. Natalie Portman is *amazing* as is Ewan McGregor and even Hayden Christensen is pretty solid in every other role except Anakin Skywalker.
It's really sad, actually... it could have been so good...
Good point; only the Mac Pros and Xserves (yes, the Xserves).
NOW GET OFF HIS LAWN!
I wish I had mod points for this... /me wipes tears of laughter from his eyes...
For instance, Apple couldn't have turned "not vetted by mothership" into warnings rather than errors and let the user proceed anyways. Then the user can have all the benefits of someone else's auditing and their own freedom.
Just a quick observation. I think the biggest difference between Apple with the iPhone, Google with Android, etc. is that Apple provides free tech support to their customers via the Genius Bar. When it comes to iPhones, having a known "approved" setup that is easy to identify reduces troubleshooting overhead costs substantially.
Actually, looking at it like that, it seems like a very Enterprise-ish thing to do... just with a worldwide customer base. Huh.
I still don't buy from iTunes because 1) they do tag them and 2) they do AAC and not mp3.
This is an inane argument.
First, you rail against the fact that iTunes tags the music you BUY with YOUR email. Why would you be upset with the fact that something you bought is labeled as your property? This does not infringe on your ability to spread out your media across your devices. It doesn't keep you from putting it anywhere. Hell, it doesn't even keep you from sharing it with your friends (though that is against the license agreement). All it does is provide some kind of accountability for your actions should you decide to buy the newest Beyonce CD and upload it to TPB.
Remember accountability? That thing your parents were supposed to have taught you before kindergarten?
And I don't even pretend to get your anti-AAC argument. Duradin summed it up much better than I can:
They probably think it means Apple Audio Codec and not Advanced Audio and that it is entirely a creation of Apple and not a standard part of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 that even the Zune plays.
I know dozens of people who think that way. They're the people on the budgets.
I've seen it consistently at my mother-in-law's consignment shop and she confirms the behavior over the entire lifetime of the business (which has been in business for 14 years). Price it at $X.99 instead of $X+1 and you'll see almost twice as many sales. Similarly--though much more confusingly--people tend to buy stuff marked "Buy One, Get One 50% off," instead of "Buy One, Get One Free!"
I really don't get that one...
Flash crashed in Chrome, no less. Oh, the ...
FYI... I just grabbed a random link. No idea what will happen if you follow that.
And no, I don't give much of a crap why it's not suitable for you or your grandma, it's a superbly geek-friendly phone that (unlike openmoko...) performs very very well.
Relax, I was just playing around.
Since you asked though, at the end of the day I really enjoy my iPhone. The touchscreen keyboard works well for me, the interface is intuitive, I have a free app that gives me SSH access and other apps that let me monitor my servers and various other things.
All that said, I don't know what I want in a phone until I want it and with my iPhone I can generally get it right then. It's pretty much the only platform where I let myself be a typical consumer. On an actual computer I would rather script or code my own solution--especially on my Mac--rather than use a shortcut app. But on my iPhone I just want to tap buttons...
So hopefully that helps clarify what *I* want in a phone. It isn't going to help with others much, but coming from a fellow geek, maybe it will offer some insight into the mindset.
Incidentally... I'd KILL for tethering sometime soon. This paying-for-hotspots-while-I-have-full-3G-signal shit is killing me...
Does it have anything I want besides tethering? No.
But come on... tethering...
What part of my argument did I blow, exactly? The part where I said I am only really interested in staying away from them or that I respect that you can own a gun, just don't expect to own any gun without regulation?
Seriously, I want to know.
Oh, and can you tell me if you found Demonspawn's credibility to be shot when he revealed that he is ex-Army? Or is that different for some reason?
More importantly, if an object caused me to experience physical revulsion, I'd really have to do some soul searching as to why.
I think I know why: I can't stand the thought of killing another person and I'm happy with that. The thing that confuses me is that other people don't share the same feeling, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone; we're all different and we need people who aren't like me and can do this sort of thing.
You realize I'm Ex-Army, correct?
Why on earth would I know this? Do you know that I have a degree in English and a dog named Copernicus?
Pansy? No, just someone suffering from cognitive dissonance. In your mind you think that "civilized society" is above violence, but it simply isn't. All societies require violence to function.
I don't believe that at all. I've done significant research into it and I have no doubt that the human race will continue killing itself for various reasons until we no longer exist, however that comes along. I agree with you entirely.
But on the other hand, you're incorrect about applicability. My right to carry a gun is a personal right. Your "right" to not have guns around you means you need to enforce your will on others.... and you wish to use the guns of the State to get that compliance.
Would you feel better if I used an actual gun to get what I want? There is no cognitive dissonance involved in this. Actually, I'll just cite the Third Amendment:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Given your loose interpretation of "militia," I think we can pretty easily extend the term "soldier" to most folks--especially considering the Miltia Acts--though I would prefer to only apply it to armed citizens rather than unarmed. That said, it seems that I am perfectly in my rights to request that you keep them away from me in my home.
Incidentally, I never said anything about concealed weapons or your right to own them being incorrect; you assumed that. Sure, I'll give you that the founding fathers apparently thought the "right to bear arms" was an inalienable right, but they also wrote it when there was no standing army, no support for a government military--or even a militia. Everything changed pretty quickly after the amendment was passed.
The bottom line at this point is that I don't know of Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment to continue this debate any further. The Supreme Court has the right to interpret the law and they have done so... actually, I'll give one example and then I'm out of here.
In a recent case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court stated:
'[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."'
Like it or not, there is gun regulation of a sort in place, as determined by the Supreme Court upon analysis of the case and the amendment. Whether you want to argue about the Supreme Court or not, it is in their power to make these rulings.
A) Find out what "well regulated militia" means (it's not what you think it is).
Enlighten me, oh beacon of wisdom. I'm sure it must mean this, given the tone of the rest of your post: "Everyone." However, as I mention below, that is incorrect.
B) Find out who was in the militia at the time of the 2nd Amendment (hrm.. every man over the age of 18).
Wrong. The 2nd Amendment was passed before the Militia Acts of 1792, which stated that every "free able-bodied white male citizen," between the ages of 18-45 was conscripted into a state managed (i.e. REGULATED) milita. Before that, the idea of a militia is skewed by history as we had just come out of the American Revolution. Just because most people *had* been in a milita during that time, does not mean that everyone *was* in a militia. In fact, the main reason that the militia idea stood was because there was overwhelming opposition to a standing army at the time. This was mitigated in part because of our losses in the War of 1812 (Sacking of Washington D.C.) and resulted in a standing army, which I suggest became the new "militia."
D) Talk to an English teacher sometime and have them remove the comma: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [because] a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Everything before the comma is the explanation WHY this right is so important. Our founding fathers wanted to ensure we were always citizens and never subjects.
I am well aware of how to read the document. What you refuse to see is that the WHY includes a definition of HOW. "... well-regulated militia..."
2) Guns are no more dangerous than a table saw. Either one can cause great harm when used improperly, but rarely causes harm when used properly.
Someone else touched on this already, but here is my counter: the purpose of a table saw is not to injure or kill a thing. A gun is.
3) Damn straight I prefer 7.62 over 5.56. 5.56 is designed to wound. 7.62 is designed to kill. If I need to use my rifle I'm not concerned with creating battlefield casualties to strain the logistics and support of the enemy, I'm concerned with killing people dead so they can't counterattack.
This is stupid. Stop acting like you're on a battlefield, fighting the good fight. Don't insult soldiers who are actually trying to do something for their country with this type of misconception. You want a gun that fires large bullets so you can feel better about yourself under the guise of patriotism or whatever you want to call it.
All Slashdot ranting aside, I want to make something clear:
I don't care if you own a gun. I don't care if you own extremely powerful guns. All I care about is that you have to register said gun when you purchase it and that you keep it away from me.
I despise guns; I don't know why. I was raised with them around, I've been taught to shoot properly, I've been hunting, target shooting, etc. However, whenever one of those things gets in my hands, I get a little nauseous. I hate the idea of a gun and that there is a real use for it in the world and I know I'm not alone in this.
So feel free to call me a pansy or whatever you'd like, but at this point my aversion to guns is just as applicable as your desire for them. The amendment, as written, leaves the room for both of us to be happy.
Gun laws are illegal for starters but hey, why let a little thing like that prevent the government from centralizing and wresting power from the hands of the people. I for one find a nation where the government has no need to fear the people very scary indeed.
No offense, but what the hell are you talking about?
As some others pointed out already: it is not illegal to own a gun. You have to go through an established process to get them because GUNS ARE DANGEROUS.
That said, why don't you just go buy a .22 rifle? There are pretty much no restrictions, no background check or anything else in place (in NY, at least)? Hell, I know someone who is on anti-depressants who walked in and walked out with a .22 rifle.
But that isn't what you want, is it? You want a 3.06, an automatic/semi-automatic assault rifle, or a high-powered handgun.
Everyone always forgets the first part of the second amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'm not aware of the legal precedent since its inception, but to me, that statement means that I should be happy to have the privilege to purchase arms given that I'm not part of a "well regulated militia."
If I were doing the interpretation here, I'd say that if you want to own weapons, you should join the National Guard, but that's just me.
You HAD to save your files to your shared drive. If you rebooted the PC, the entire PC was reimaged back to a 'clean' state.
I love Deep Freeze, Centurion Guard, Drive Shield, etc... but it's not fool proof.
At one of my former employers, we had something like 700 Windows PCs out in various labs and all equipped with Drive Shield. If one of them got infected, reboot and all was well... right?
Well, kind of. Since we were not allowed to automatically reboot these machines (24/7 labs), some of these stayed up for weeks, which opened them up to all sorts of fun stuff. In short, I spent about 200-300 man hours manually rebooting machines, convincing the administration to change the policies on automatic reboots, and working with the guy in charge of our PC lab image to implement security features to protect against this sort of thing in the future (automatic A/V update on boot, for example).
Comparably, it took me about 40 hours to build a Terminal Server and another 60 to build and install Thin Clients to replace a bunch of those machines...
Technically... But not really. I mean, good luck watching anything on YouTube without Flash installed. Which is what we're talking about here - video playback. If you want to play back video on the web these days, you're basically stuck installing Flash. Yeah, a couple sites here and there use QuickTime or something else... But it's generally flash.
FYI: YouTube has an Opt-In HTML5 video setup that you might want to take a look at. Until you posted that, I'd forgotten I signed up for it and have been using it since it was available. It's just as good visually, but the videos seem to cache and load a bit faster. YMMV
Thus, not a real power issue... that's just the excuse some people make.
I won't disagree that Apple uses a heavy, and many times unfair, hand in management of their apps, but when the 3.0 firmware came out and things like Push notifications and Apple-built multitasking apps came to the fore, a lot of people started seeing substantial battery drainage. Add to this the introduction of 3G and the battery life plummets.
I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only reason, but I think it has a lot more to do with the current lack of multitasking than any conspiracy by all of the upper level execs at Apple.
Damn straight! Best way to spend a Thursday afternoon!
This isn't a really good example of why they limited multitasking, though someone probably said it in the marketing staff meeting. I think it has a lot more to do with iPhone battery life than anything else... it's short enough as it is without AIM, Pandora and Echofon using more.
If this is true, hopefully they figured out a software way to expand battery life.
As a counter to your example, I tried a Nexus One a couple weeks ago and still prefer my iPhone 3G. Just putting it out there.
I'm lucky in this respect because I chose my degree solely because I thought it was an interesting and engaging subject - I've always been fascinated in how things work and how they're put together.
That's great and I'm happy for you that you picked a subject that allows that. History is big, there is a lot of it, and humans are unpredictable given a sample set covering 3,000 years, so applying known rules to keep it in order is nigh impossible. I *specialized* in the Middle Ages which covers ~1000 years, depending on when you decide to start and end it. Despite the fact that most TV historians like to claim that things stagnated during that time, events proceeded very much the same as it always had; i.e. the rules of humanity changed every generation.
During the early Middle Ages, the church wasn't dominant, Rome got sacked by Germanic "tribes", and the Roman Empire up and moved. This is all incredibly interesting stuff, but it is all tied together with strands that can be incredibly boring, but if you aren't aware of these, then the whole picture becomes murky and you start using phrases like, "The Dark Ages."
I think what these arguments are coming down to--not just with you--is that I don't believe anyone who says they haven't zoned out during a class or been distracted by the girl sitting in front of them in Psychology 101 wearing the thong and low pants.
My point remains that if there is a chance to introduce another distraction into the already tenuous environment that is a classroom, it has a much greater chance of being a negative force than a positive.
As a matter of fact I'm in a UK university. Not sure what you were getting at with the point about profanities, but bullshit is universal and so is cock (I don't use the other c-word). Even using cock and BS was for the benefit of the US readers; I doubt many of you would have appreciated my native curses. I wanted to use Twat and Wank respectively but the latter would probably have elicited a few 'whooshes'.
Sorry about the misattributed nationality. I am probably one of the few folks that would have picked up on the (more common) British curses as I've had a bunch of British friends over the years...
My attitude is if you don't find it interesting then why are you studying it?
I agree. I didn't say that I didn't find the international trade routes of the 18th century world interesting, I said that I found learning about them boring. I wanted to learn. I needed to learn. But I would have been much more tempted to do something else *in addition to* trying to learn during those classes with the excuse, "I can multitask..."
Calculus may have been dry and mechanics may have been (still is) difficult but they're both still interesting. If anything, the only part so far that has bored me has been the 'Professional Development' BS that businesses want us to learn: seems like everyone has to have the same "we're all special" wishy-washy, touchy-feely PHB mindset.
So you *never* do anything else in class then? Always on the up-and-up with the note taking and attention giving? it kind of sounds like you are currently in college and--if you are in the US, which I would bet you are from your preferred profanities--then there is a good chance you are in class, going to class, or coming from class.
Since you only take classes that you could never find boring, I imagine that the rant above *must* have been posted during the latter two options... no way you posted during class.
Right?
I see your point though. There have been classes that dispute my greatest interest in the material the profs. would literally bore me to tears.
Yeah, that's where I'm coming from. I spent most of my time in one of three places: a history class (of some sort), an english class (of some sort) or managing the first and second tier IT services at the University.
I always figured it was because they spent too much time partying and not drinking enough coffee.
I didn't party until my senior year--and then only on Saturdays--and I didn't start drinking coffee until I hit the work force after college (bad timing on my part). That said, I ran what ended up being a six year long D&D campaign (started my freshman year and ended a year before I left the area; we continued playing for two years after graduation) sometimes twice a week. Our game nights usually started at 5PM and went until 5AM.
I'm pretty sure that is why I was always so damn tired... :p
Granted, but are you telling me that every day you showed up with a smile, a polished apple for the teacher and an unquenchable desire to learn?
Maybe you did and I'm the weird one, but I *loved* 95% of my classes and I still found myself dozing every now and then. I find it much easier to stay awake when my fight-or-flight instinct is running wild...
No, the professor is there to help you learn.
Mod this guy up. This is the biggest difference between High School and college and most students never get this.
I've had long conversations with professors in various fields and they all agreed on that statement. Some of them have actually left their respective universities because of this ridiculous shift toward undergraduate simply becoming extended high school.
Sorry I struck a nerve.
Don't worry about ElectricTurtle. He's all over this thread spewing this detritus on anyone who disagrees with him.
If he is true to form, I'm sure there will be another mocking post explaining how you're obviously slow and he and others like him are Super-Fun-Time-Awesome. I think he's used the following line three times already...
Your anecdote only demonstrates your own sensitivity.
I'm kind of having fun just following along now... :p