I remember going camping for a week with three friends when we were 13 - packing our own stuff (food, etc), catching the train for four hours, walking an hour or so to the camp site, and staying there for a week. No cell phones and with no way to be contacted at all. I suspect the parents would be thrown in jail today...
Oh thank god, I was starting to think that I was the only one who did stuff like this as a child. So I'm not the only opponent of super-micro-management parenting...
Re:Why complain about choice?
on
Lulu Introduces DRM
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".
There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible. Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai. (Exodus 32). Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.
Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites. After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and children, Moses commands them to go back and slaughter all the child and non-virgin women, but to keep the virgin women for themselves, effectively to use a fuck toys. (Numbers 31)
There's dozens of other examples of God's "righteous wrath" being used as the sole reasons to slaughter thousands of people and destroy any religious artifact that doesn't make God happy. (Hell, even when people are TRYING to make God happy but don't do it quite the right way, he tortures and/or kills them)
So to summarize your post: the reviewer doesn't make any solid arguments to support his position that Google Wave is not very exciting, and you heartily assert that it's the best thing ever.
So to summarize your post: You summarized his post.
Why do you lump UNIX and Linux together under the regular expression *NIX when "Linux" clearly does not match that expression (even ignoring capitalization)?
Don't we want to encourage more fuel-efficient road vehicles? Seems like upping the gas tax would be a good way to do that.
Yes, this would absolutely encourage more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that's a good thing.
The problem is that it's only a temporary band-aid on the road wear-n-tear situation. In 5 years we'll be back in the same boat discussing some sort of per-mileage tax, but now raising gas tax isn't an option anymore.
Like I said, I think this GPS idea is a poor one, because there are a number of very serious privacy considerations that (probably) don't have a good solution. However, the discussion needs to happen, because at some point the funding is going to run out unless we think up some sort of good idea.
If I'm driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, why should I pay the same amount as someone who's car had to burn 5 times as much gasoline to go the same distance?
Because if you went the same distance, then you drove on the same amount of road. The reason this tax is even being discussed is because the existing gas tax doesn't look like it's going to be able to continue funding our road repairs. As electric cars start getting several hundred miles per gallon of gasoline, the gas tax will not longer be able to cover the wear and tear done to the roads. While I don't think this GPS tracking idea is the correct solution, I can see why it has been proposed.
By that definition, every product that is ever announced but isn't immediately available for purchase (specifically at Walmart or Best Buy) is vaporware. In other words, virtually every tech gadget that has ever existed has been vaporware for at least a few days, and every product that is currently on the way is vaporware -- including all the Apple products in this article.
The Zii EGG, although it's not being marketed by Creative directly to consumers, is already available to purchase as a developer product. There are videos of people using it that ordered it from Creative.
The Zune HD is also available for pre-order, being released on the 15th. There are countless videos demonstrating its use.
1) New better performing cards don't always draw less power than an older single card (GTX 285 needs more power than a 8800 GTS 512).
2) Yes, they do usually make less noise and heat
3) Less space--never. Go from a 8800 GTS 512 to a GTX 285 or a 4870, check it out.
He was talking about a single new card compared to two older cards in SLI.
1) A GTX 285 needs more power than a GTS 8800 512, but it DEFINITELY does not need more power than two GTS 8800 512 cards.
2) Newer cards almost invariably make less noise and heat than older cards, and certainly less than two older cards.
3) I don't care how big your single new card is, it still takes less space than two older cards. Even the ridiculously-sized GTX 2XX series only take up about the same amount of space as two other cards.
You didn't "fix" anything, you just swapped some words around in the sentence to express that you hold the opposite opinion as the OP.
You also turned it into a quote that no one ever said.
You also made yourself sound like a tyrannical would-be vigilante who obsesses about "punishing the wicked" with no regard to the actual effects on society.
Yes, it was consensual (assuming you aren't one of those people who believes the argument that someone under the age of 18 is incapable of giving consent). Sorry for not being explicit, I thought it was clear from my tone.
I agree that kind of thing needs be to dealt with. However, you can't make the rules based on the exceptions. The vast, vast majority of people will never attempt to show off their privates to a child while pretending to pee. A much larger number of people, however, will get drunk and pee in public at some point. We're punishing 1000 people in order to protect us from 1.
You consider 'dangerous' as a binary: Either you are and you should be locked up, or you are not and you should have all the rights that everyone else has. The real world is just not that simple...
Agreed, he over simplified "dangerous" into a binary attribute, and it isn't that simple. However...
an in-between form (you are not in prisson but you get watched very carefully) may allow offenders to return to freedom at least in some sense, while the higher probability of this person to commit a crime again is also addressed.
The "watched very closely" thing can be worse than jail. A buddy of mine is guilty of having sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 (and a senior in high school), and spent time in prison for it. Now that he is out, he is being "watched very closely", just in case he decides to have sex with any girls only two years younger than him (???).
However, that isn't the bad part. The bad part is that when he moved, he was forced to go door to door and tell people he was a sex offender. In under a year, he has had his house vandalized three times (people throw rocks through his windows or spray paint stuff like "RAPIST" on the front of his house). He is harassed on a fairly regular basis, despite his trying to explain the circumstances of his conviction. People in the neighborhood stare and point at him like he's a lesser form of life -- I'm honestly surprised no idiot redneck has tried to play superhero and run him over in the street.
I'm starting to turn red as I'm get angrier and angrier, sitting here thinking about how fucking stupid people can be. When we allow arbitrary laws to label people as "sex offenders" under an utterly ridiculous set of rules, and then encourage people to outcast those "sex offenders" with little iPhone apps like this, we lose our humanity. We no longer rely on common sense to define our morals -- we let laws and toys do it for us. It's nothing short of absurd.
Oh, and should you ever have a daughter, they come without the right developement tools so they may very well end up a little different than you hoped them to be.
I hope with every fiber of my existence that my daughter is never harmed by some depraved rapist. However, with that same energy I also hope that the existing laws will be reformed dramatically (and soon) so that my son will never be labeled an outcast because he drank too much and peed on a tree.
to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity
Meriam-Webster definition of commodity (truncated):
...4: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (as brand name) other than price...
How do you think the Mars landers communicate with Earth?
I think they waited approximately fifteen minutes for the signal to travel each direction. Would you want your HTTP requests to take fifteen minutes? You'd lose your stiff every time you clicked to the next porn image.
I think you're neglecting a few small problems. For example, the fact that communications satellites are typically 35,000km above the earth, while Mars is 274,500,000km from the earth. The signal would need to travel 7,843 times farther, and we already have bad lag times waiting for satellite internet. Imagine waiting for your HTTP requests to come back -- especially the ones that get lost every time a planet/comet/other gets between the satellite and your ship.
TV might be reasonable as long as you're ok with your TV being two weeks old and it cutting out every time those aforementioned objects block the transmission. Oh, and building a new satellite purely for the purpose of transmitting that signal to the ship.
So if it sucks so bad, why do you want it? You (and everyone else) are perfectly free to listen to any 'give it away for free' music you want right now. If that is all you want, we don't need to discuss copyright, do we?
(Assuming you are the AC I originally responded to)
You're taking my point in the wrong direction. Your original point was that without copyright laws on music, many important music artists would never have made music (because they only wanted to make money and would have no incentive). My point in response was that without those copyright laws, several of those artists would still make music for other reasons. However, the fact that they could make money too... well, why the hell not?
Again, to clarify: I don't believe that, without copyright laws, we would lose any significant part of our important musical creations. I could be wrong.
What people like you fail to grasp is that the only reason many people choose to enter the music business is to make money, and YOU are the richer for it.
Richer how? You mean because of the RIAA I get to hear all kinds of lovely hits from Chamillionaire about his awesome car and fly bitches?
Artists who create music purely for the money are usually artists that suck. Though I don't have a metric to prove it, I'd stake my life that artists who create music purely because they love it or because they have something to say are creating much better music -- and those artists are the types who the RIAA doesn't like to sign.
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.
Woah woah woah. That's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now: We, the content providers, do not tell the customer what browser to use; rather, the customer tells us what browser they're willing to use to view our content.
Why do you think so many "IE6 approved" sites still exist? Because those website's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6? No, they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try "force" others to use.
As someone else pointed out above, the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait. When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility, their response to the problem will NOT be "Oh, Apple is just being douchebags. I'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora." Instead, what they'll probably say is, "Hey, flash videos work in every browser. Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag?"
They wanted a metric measure and a standard measure. Meters per second is a reasonable metric measure for something slow(er than a car), and miles per hour... is basically the only speed measure that Americans understand. (No flaming, I'm American).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't need audio
I would argue that you are not a typical desktop user, which is clearly what the GP was getting at.
I remember going camping for a week with three friends when we were 13 - packing our own stuff (food, etc), catching the train for four hours, walking an hour or so to the camp site, and staying there for a week. No cell phones and with no way to be contacted at all. I suspect the parents would be thrown in jail today...
Oh thank god, I was starting to think that I was the only one who did stuff like this as a child. So I'm not the only opponent of super-micro-management parenting...
I have yet to see anything in any religion that says "Thou shalt kill everyone that doesn't believe the same things as you".
There may not be a commandment that reflects those ideals, but it's sure as hell implied very frequently in the Christian bible. Moses was commanded by God to, with his army of Levi priests, slaughter 3000 Israelites who had started worshiping a golden cow at the bottom of Mount Sinai. (Exodus 32). Sounds like God-directed ethnic cleansing to me.
Later, Moses takes his army and goes to war against the Midianites. After his soldiers report that they've killed every man in the city but spared the women and children, Moses commands them to go back and slaughter all the child and non-virgin women, but to keep the virgin women for themselves, effectively to use a fuck toys. (Numbers 31)
There's dozens of other examples of God's "righteous wrath" being used as the sole reasons to slaughter thousands of people and destroy any religious artifact that doesn't make God happy. (Hell, even when people are TRYING to make God happy but don't do it quite the right way, he tortures and/or kills them)
So to summarize your post: the reviewer doesn't make any solid arguments to support his position that Google Wave is not very exciting, and you heartily assert that it's the best thing ever.
So to summarize your post: You summarized his post.
I would recommend looking up the concept called 'burden of proof'. It typically falls on the party making the assertions, not on the detractors.
What? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
In other words, semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
Oh, ok, now I get it!
In fact, I find *NIX ...
Why do you lump UNIX and Linux together under the regular expression *NIX when "Linux" clearly does not match that expression (even ignoring capitalization)?
Don't we want to encourage more fuel-efficient road vehicles? Seems like upping the gas tax would be a good way to do that.
Yes, this would absolutely encourage more fuel-efficient vehicles, and that's a good thing.
The problem is that it's only a temporary band-aid on the road wear-n-tear situation. In 5 years we'll be back in the same boat discussing some sort of per-mileage tax, but now raising gas tax isn't an option anymore.
Like I said, I think this GPS idea is a poor one, because there are a number of very serious privacy considerations that (probably) don't have a good solution. However, the discussion needs to happen, because at some point the funding is going to run out unless we think up some sort of good idea.
If I'm driving a fuel-efficient vehicle, why should I pay the same amount as someone who's car had to burn 5 times as much gasoline to go the same distance?
Because if you went the same distance, then you drove on the same amount of road. The reason this tax is even being discussed is because the existing gas tax doesn't look like it's going to be able to continue funding our road repairs. As electric cars start getting several hundred miles per gallon of gasoline, the gas tax will not longer be able to cover the wear and tear done to the roads. While I don't think this GPS tracking idea is the correct solution, I can see why it has been proposed.
By that definition, every product that is ever announced but isn't immediately available for purchase (specifically at Walmart or Best Buy) is vaporware. In other words, virtually every tech gadget that has ever existed has been vaporware for at least a few days, and every product that is currently on the way is vaporware -- including all the Apple products in this article.
Really?
The Zii EGG, although it's not being marketed by Creative directly to consumers, is already available to purchase as a developer product. There are videos of people using it that ordered it from Creative.
The Zune HD is also available for pre-order, being released on the 15th. There are countless videos demonstrating its use.
Do you even know what vaporware is?
1) New better performing cards don't always draw less power than an older single card (GTX 285 needs more power than a 8800 GTS 512). 2) Yes, they do usually make less noise and heat 3) Less space--never. Go from a 8800 GTS 512 to a GTX 285 or a 4870, check it out.
He was talking about a single new card compared to two older cards in SLI.
1) A GTX 285 needs more power than a GTS 8800 512, but it DEFINITELY does not need more power than two GTS 8800 512 cards.
2) Newer cards almost invariably make less noise and heat than older cards, and certainly less than two older cards.
3) I don't care how big your single new card is, it still takes less space than two older cards. Even the ridiculously-sized GTX 2XX series only take up about the same amount of space as two other cards.
You didn't "fix" anything, you just swapped some words around in the sentence to express that you hold the opposite opinion as the OP.
You also turned it into a quote that no one ever said.
You also made yourself sound like a tyrannical would-be vigilante who obsesses about "punishing the wicked" with no regard to the actual effects on society.
Yes, it was consensual (assuming you aren't one of those people who believes the argument that someone under the age of 18 is incapable of giving consent). Sorry for not being explicit, I thought it was clear from my tone.
I agree that kind of thing needs be to dealt with. However, you can't make the rules based on the exceptions. The vast, vast majority of people will never attempt to show off their privates to a child while pretending to pee. A much larger number of people, however, will get drunk and pee in public at some point. We're punishing 1000 people in order to protect us from 1.
You consider 'dangerous' as a binary: Either you are and you should be locked up, or you are not and you should have all the rights that everyone else has. The real world is just not that simple...
Agreed, he over simplified "dangerous" into a binary attribute, and it isn't that simple. However...
an in-between form (you are not in prisson but you get watched very carefully) may allow offenders to return to freedom at least in some sense, while the higher probability of this person to commit a crime again is also addressed.
The "watched very closely" thing can be worse than jail. A buddy of mine is guilty of having sex with a 16 year old when he was 18 (and a senior in high school), and spent time in prison for it. Now that he is out, he is being "watched very closely", just in case he decides to have sex with any girls only two years younger than him (???).
However, that isn't the bad part. The bad part is that when he moved, he was forced to go door to door and tell people he was a sex offender. In under a year, he has had his house vandalized three times (people throw rocks through his windows or spray paint stuff like "RAPIST" on the front of his house). He is harassed on a fairly regular basis, despite his trying to explain the circumstances of his conviction. People in the neighborhood stare and point at him like he's a lesser form of life -- I'm honestly surprised no idiot redneck has tried to play superhero and run him over in the street.
I'm starting to turn red as I'm get angrier and angrier, sitting here thinking about how fucking stupid people can be. When we allow arbitrary laws to label people as "sex offenders" under an utterly ridiculous set of rules, and then encourage people to outcast those "sex offenders" with little iPhone apps like this, we lose our humanity. We no longer rely on common sense to define our morals -- we let laws and toys do it for us. It's nothing short of absurd.
Oh, and should you ever have a daughter, they come without the right developement tools so they may very well end up a little different than you hoped them to be.
I hope with every fiber of my existence that my daughter is never harmed by some depraved rapist. However, with that same energy I also hope that the existing laws will be reformed dramatically (and soon) so that my son will never be labeled an outcast because he drank too much and peed on a tree.
That's a wiley thing to say
Maybe he's a coyote.
+1 so unfunny it's funny
What you're not seeing is Google's strategic intent (I work for Google, but this stuff is public).
Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on.
That isn't what commodify means!
Meriam-Webster definition of commodify:
Meriam-Webster definition of commodity (truncated):
Emphasis mine in both cases.
How do you think the Mars landers communicate with Earth?
I think they waited approximately fifteen minutes for the signal to travel each direction. Would you want your HTTP requests to take fifteen minutes? You'd lose your stiff every time you clicked to the next porn image.
You're joking right? A lot of people already get their TV from space and some even get their Internet access that way too.
I think you're neglecting a few small problems. For example, the fact that communications satellites are typically 35,000km above the earth, while Mars is 274,500,000km from the earth. The signal would need to travel 7,843 times farther, and we already have bad lag times waiting for satellite internet. Imagine waiting for your HTTP requests to come back -- especially the ones that get lost every time a planet/comet/other gets between the satellite and your ship.
TV might be reasonable as long as you're ok with your TV being two weeks old and it cutting out every time those aforementioned objects block the transmission. Oh, and building a new satellite purely for the purpose of transmitting that signal to the ship.
Where exactly are you going to get your TV/Internet signal from in space?
So if it sucks so bad, why do you want it? You (and everyone else) are perfectly free to listen to any 'give it away for free' music you want right now. If that is all you want, we don't need to discuss copyright, do we?
(Assuming you are the AC I originally responded to)
You're taking my point in the wrong direction. Your original point was that without copyright laws on music, many important music artists would never have made music (because they only wanted to make money and would have no incentive). My point in response was that without those copyright laws, several of those artists would still make music for other reasons. However, the fact that they could make money too... well, why the hell not?
Again, to clarify: I don't believe that, without copyright laws, we would lose any significant part of our important musical creations. I could be wrong.
What people like you fail to grasp is that the only reason many people choose to enter the music business is to make money, and YOU are the richer for it.
Richer how? You mean because of the RIAA I get to hear all kinds of lovely hits from Chamillionaire about his awesome car and fly bitches?
Artists who create music purely for the money are usually artists that suck. Though I don't have a metric to prove it, I'd stake my life that artists who create music purely because they love it or because they have something to say are creating much better music -- and those artists are the types who the RIAA doesn't like to sign.
'deeply concerned' about Prof. Nesson's apparent 'blatant disregard" of her order.'
When you cut off your nose to spite your face, you never look better.
Sometimes it is better to lose the battle to win the war.
I agree. If we can just hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.
Woah woah woah. That's a huge misconception that needs to be squashed right now: We, the content providers, do not tell the customer what browser to use; rather, the customer tells us what browser they're willing to use to view our content.
Why do you think so many "IE6 approved" sites still exist? Because those website's operators desperately want people to continue using IE6? No, they do it because a very large number of people are still using IE6 and are going to continue using IE6 regardless of what browser we mighty developers to try "force" others to use.
As someone else pointed out above, the problem with trying to hardball Apple into playing nice is that Apple will just sit and wait. When website developers go to create their sites and try to ensure cross-browser compatibility, their response to the problem will NOT be "Oh, Apple is just being douchebags. I'll just not bother supporting Safari until they support Theora." Instead, what they'll probably say is, "Hey, flash videos work in every browser. Why should I bother using this stupid VIDEO tag?"
They wanted a metric measure and a standard measure. Meters per second is a reasonable metric measure for something slow(er than a car), and miles per hour... is basically the only speed measure that Americans understand. (No flaming, I'm American).