Maybe you should take a look at that list and see how many of those people have suffered drug/alcohol related deaths (John Belushi, Chris Farley, Lane Staley, Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley) or serious setbacks in their careers (Robert Downey Jr., Members of Aerosmith in the early 80's (luckily they turned it around)etc.). In general, drugs taken for non-medicinal purposes are not good for you. I now imagine you sitting around in your parent's basement shooting up or smoking and trying desperately to justify it, but if that works for you, by all means carry on.
Have you ever seen a hardcore meth or crack addict? They are unproductive because all they can focus on is their next fix. That's why I didn't pick cocaine or some other more benign amphetamine drug. Heroin might have been a better example for pure addictiveness.
Are you drunk right now?!! That was exactly my point. Meth addicts and crack heads are unproductive, therefore they don't have jobs. They do have addictions to crack and meth, so they need money to buy more. This leads to meth addicts and crackheads committing crimes to get money.
I don't know whay you think the price would be so much lower. If they were legalized, the taxes would be enormous. I mean a pack of cigarettes probably costs $1.00 and has $5.00 more tacked on in taxes.
Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive. Crack and meth certainly do. A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth. Legalization would reduce crime associated with distribution, but it ain't gonna happen so the whole argument is pointless.
Nice try, really. You completely failed to explain how you justify having a copy of a song without paying for it, when you know full well you should be paying for it.
Way to toe the party line there buddy, but when you take something for free knowing full well that you are supposed to pay for it, you've committed theft. Of course, if this lame rationalization helps you sleep at night, by all means carry on. Feel free to explain how my argument is false. If you download a song for free knowing you ought to pay for it, how is it not theft? I will agree that breaking DRM for something you've purchased is not theft.
I've used this example before, but I'll use it again here. Go into a massage parlor and get a massage and then walk out without paying the bill. No "taking" has occurred, but I guarantee if the authorities get you, you will be charged with theft.
Wow, you have real issues. You have no argument. You speculate that non-neutral access is inevitable for no reason then you swear at me and accuse me of not living in the real world. In the real world, nothing has happened yet. NOTHING. There is a theory floating around that ISPs may go non-neutral. Irrational people (like yourself) flip out and demand something be done to solve a problem that may or may not ever exist. If an ISP does go non-neutral and you don't like it, you have to walk. That's how you let them know you are dissatisfied.
And let's just say an ISP does decide to do a tiered pricing plan. What are they going to do when NOBODY signs up for the extra cost? Or, they just increase their prices overall. That may or may not work. I think a lot of people are close to their limit for what they will pay for broadband. It's internet, not water, people can live without it. So they will lose customers that way, with or without choice. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that you have no choice. You do have a choice no matter what. You can not have internet. If enough people are good consumers and don't just bend over when faced with a rate hike, this will never work.
P.S. From now on consider yourself dismissed. I'm glad you're proud of the way you conduct yourself, but it really is pathetic. I mean if you get this worked up over something that HASN'T HAPPENED YET, I would hate to see what you would do when faced with real adversity. Good day.
Well, last I checked I lived in the real world and I made absolutely no "smug assertions". Personally, I have lived in a very rural area where I had both cable and DSL (from two different providers no less) and I have lived in a couple of different suburban areas. Where I currently live, I have a choice between two cable companies (which I will admit is extremely rare) and a couple of DSL providers. I am sure that some ISP will pick up the slack if a region is unhappy with their current provider. It's just simply good business.
As a side note, you may want to learn to state your argument without swearing and generally flying off the handle. It's really easy to dismiss someone who comes off as a low-class loudmouth.
Exactly!!! The first ISP to say that you can't look at MySpace or Google without paying us a premium will be absolutely flooded with calls to cancel their service. Every other ISP will gladly take these customers. This is one area where the free market will absolutely work.
As I said in reply to the post above yours, I sincerely doubt that MS will lose much market share in the OS business in the near future. When and if they do, it will not be to a clone of Windows. Microsoft is not run by complete idiots, as others would have you believe. They are pretty good about pleasing corporations, universities, gov't agencies etc. I think they will push DRM and anti-piracy as far as they can, but the second it appears that it will impact their market share, it will be gone.
I'm saying that the idea of ReactOS is kludgey. Why reinvent the squeaky wheel. I don't see any corporation getting so fed up with MS that they want to switch operating systems but then they switch to a clone of an older version of windows. If they get fed up with MS that much, then they will move to Macs, Linux, BSD... whatever. Also, if this happens the software vendors will be more than happy to port over to the OS of choice. All that being said, in a few years most people, businesses, government offices etc. etc. will be running Vista.
There may not be a need to go to Vista but most people will do it. ReactOS will never be a sensible migration path. You either stay with Windows or you go to something else. No corporation would go to some OS that is a kludgey combination of both!
It's not so much that the design has been lost. The real problem is that it would cost less and be easier to design a whole new rocket now than it would be to recreate the Saturn.
...(which of course lacks real statistical information) because only the cell phone users hit the simulated car - and none of the drunks.
While it may be true that the statistical size of the experiment is not good. The fact that only cell phone users and none of the drunks were in accidents is actually pretty interesting statistical information.
I tend to agree with you (oddly enough given my/. nickname), except that, if it can be shown conclusively that cell phones figure into a large number of accidents then it would be better to have tried to prevent the accidents than to "severely" punish the cell phone driver. A dead person's family member isn't going to get a lot of satisfaction from a stiff penalty issued to the person who killed their loved one.
I would imagine that they would leave the shuttle attached until the next shuttle or soyuz came to take them back. Then they would release the damaged shuttle and land it remotely. Then if something were to happen to the ISS, you could take your chances with the shuttle. Regardless, strapping yourself to millions of gallons of explosive fuel and then traveling 20,000 miles/hr in a relatively lightweight and flimsy vehicle is always going to be dangerous, but there will never be a shortage of people signing up to do it.
One guy says that net neutrality is bad. Another guy counters(?) that net neutrality is bad. I thought I was getting an argument, not two different statements of the same opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should take a look at that list and see how many of those people have suffered drug/alcohol related deaths (John Belushi, Chris Farley, Lane Staley, Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley) or serious setbacks in their careers (Robert Downey Jr., Members of Aerosmith in the early 80's (luckily they turned it around)etc.). In general, drugs taken for non-medicinal purposes are not good for you. I now imagine you sitting around in your parent's basement shooting up or smoking and trying desperately to justify it, but if that works for you, by all means carry on.
Specifically why I didn't use cocaine or weed in my example. Heroin would have been a better example.
No argument here. You've done the research :)
Have you ever seen a hardcore meth or crack addict? They are unproductive because all they can focus on is their next fix. That's why I didn't pick cocaine or some other more benign amphetamine drug. Heroin might have been a better example for pure addictiveness.
Are you drunk right now?!! That was exactly my point. Meth addicts and crack heads are unproductive, therefore they don't have jobs. They do have addictions to crack and meth, so they need money to buy more. This leads to meth addicts and crackheads committing crimes to get money.
I don't know whay you think the price would be so much lower. If they were legalized, the taxes would be enormous. I mean a pack of cigarettes probably costs $1.00 and has $5.00 more tacked on in taxes.
Cigarettes don't cause people to become unproductive. Crack and meth certainly do. A crackhead or a meth addict aren't going to have means to buy legal crack or meth. Legalization would reduce crime associated with distribution, but it ain't gonna happen so the whole argument is pointless.
Only if it's free. If it still costs money to buy, the crime doesn't go away.
Nice try, really. You completely failed to explain how you justify having a copy of a song without paying for it, when you know full well you should be paying for it.
Way to toe the party line there buddy, but when you take something for free knowing full well that you are supposed to pay for it, you've committed theft. Of course, if this lame rationalization helps you sleep at night, by all means carry on. Feel free to explain how my argument is false. If you download a song for free knowing you ought to pay for it, how is it not theft? I will agree that breaking DRM for something you've purchased is not theft.
I've used this example before, but I'll use it again here. Go into a massage parlor and get a massage and then walk out without paying the bill. No "taking" has occurred, but I guarantee if the authorities get you, you will be charged with theft.
Well, here are the first two keys, you can work out the rest for yourself.
KEY 1: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000
KEY 2: 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000001
Wow, you have real issues. You have no argument. You speculate that non-neutral access is inevitable for no reason then you swear at me and accuse me of not living in the real world. In the real world, nothing has happened yet. NOTHING. There is a theory floating around that ISPs may go non-neutral. Irrational people (like yourself) flip out and demand something be done to solve a problem that may or may not ever exist. If an ISP does go non-neutral and you don't like it, you have to walk. That's how you let them know you are dissatisfied.
And let's just say an ISP does decide to do a tiered pricing plan. What are they going to do when NOBODY signs up for the extra cost? Or, they just increase their prices overall. That may or may not work. I think a lot of people are close to their limit for what they will pay for broadband. It's internet, not water, people can live without it. So they will lose customers that way, with or without choice. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that you have no choice. You do have a choice no matter what. You can not have internet. If enough people are good consumers and don't just bend over when faced with a rate hike, this will never work.
P.S. From now on consider yourself dismissed. I'm glad you're proud of the way you conduct yourself, but it really is pathetic. I mean if you get this worked up over something that HASN'T HAPPENED YET, I would hate to see what you would do when faced with real adversity. Good day.
Well, last I checked I lived in the real world and I made absolutely no "smug assertions". Personally, I have lived in a very rural area where I had both cable and DSL (from two different providers no less) and I have lived in a couple of different suburban areas. Where I currently live, I have a choice between two cable companies (which I will admit is extremely rare) and a couple of DSL providers. I am sure that some ISP will pick up the slack if a region is unhappy with their current provider. It's just simply good business.
As a side note, you may want to learn to state your argument without swearing and generally flying off the handle. It's really easy to dismiss someone who comes off as a low-class loudmouth.
Exactly!!! The first ISP to say that you can't look at MySpace or Google without paying us a premium will be absolutely flooded with calls to cancel their service. Every other ISP will gladly take these customers. This is one area where the free market will absolutely work.
As I said in reply to the post above yours, I sincerely doubt that MS will lose much market share in the OS business in the near future. When and if they do, it will not be to a clone of Windows. Microsoft is not run by complete idiots, as others would have you believe. They are pretty good about pleasing corporations, universities, gov't agencies etc. I think they will push DRM and anti-piracy as far as they can, but the second it appears that it will impact their market share, it will be gone.
I'm saying that the idea of ReactOS is kludgey. Why reinvent the squeaky wheel. I don't see any corporation getting so fed up with MS that they want to switch operating systems but then they switch to a clone of an older version of windows. If they get fed up with MS that much, then they will move to Macs, Linux, BSD... whatever. Also, if this happens the software vendors will be more than happy to port over to the OS of choice. All that being said, in a few years most people, businesses, government offices etc. etc. will be running Vista.
There may not be a need to go to Vista but most people will do it. ReactOS will never be a sensible migration path. You either stay with Windows or you go to something else. No corporation would go to some OS that is a kludgey combination of both!
It's not so much that the design has been lost. The real problem is that it would cost less and be easier to design a whole new rocket now than it would be to recreate the Saturn.
While it may be true that the statistical size of the experiment is not good. The fact that only cell phone users and none of the drunks were in accidents is actually pretty interesting statistical information.
I tend to agree with you (oddly enough given my /. nickname), except that, if it can be shown conclusively that cell phones figure into a large number of accidents then it would be better to have tried to prevent the accidents than to "severely" punish the cell phone driver. A dead person's family member isn't going to get a lot of satisfaction from a stiff penalty issued to the person who killed their loved one.
"But I can put my phone down, I can't stop being drunk." Except that people don't put the phone down, they crash.
I would imagine that they would leave the shuttle attached until the next shuttle or soyuz came to take them back. Then they would release the damaged shuttle and land it remotely. Then if something were to happen to the ISS, you could take your chances with the shuttle. Regardless, strapping yourself to millions of gallons of explosive fuel and then traveling 20,000 miles/hr in a relatively lightweight and flimsy vehicle is always going to be dangerous, but there will never be a shortage of people signing up to do it.
Coral Cache should die if the don't get serious about using port 80 so I (and most people at work) can see TFA!!!
One guy says that net neutrality is bad. Another guy counters(?) that net neutrality is bad. I thought I was getting an argument, not two different statements of the same opinion.
Try the following. Go to a massage parlor. Get a massage. Walk out without paying. You've just committed theft of service.