We've had prisons since at least the Roman era. The idea also lies behind the slave galley, the road crew, and the continent of Australia.
In all honesty, you're putting criminals in with a bunch of other criminals that got CAUGHT. What are they going to do, learn to be more incompetent? Besides, if living free and surrounded by mostly law-abiding citizens turned them into criminals, why wouldn't being confined with a bunch of incompetent criminals turn them straight?
Wachowski brothers are a bad example. Firstly, they didn't really create their own reality so much as they assembled it from a couple Japanese cartoons and Tron. Secondly, a theatrical production involves a hell of a lot of interpersonal interactions; you have to constantly deal with actors, various production teams, and funders.
Douglas Adams died while going to the gym, so he wasn't exactly locking himself in a room. Stephen King may or may not actually be healthy, it's an iffy question. If he is, I'd imagine he's fairly capable of separating himself from his own stories. I don't know enough about Stan Lee to comment on that one, though, he may be a valid example.
Enough evidence to get someone aquitted is not necessarily enough evidence to conclusively prove them innocent. Our system is designed to aquit on a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies on the person attempting to indicate guilt, not the one attempting to indicate innocence. As a result, a lot of the cases you're citing are probably examples of guilty men going free due to unrelated evidence which nonetheless induces reasonable doubt, rather than innocent men recieving their due.
The irony being that the razor/blade business model is (or at least was) the demesne of Microsoft, while Apple follows the "charge too much for everything" model, and has for a decade or so.
Yes, I can really see the point of this article/post. Apple's Ipod marketing strategy is just like the razor/blade model, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the razor/blade model in any way. Definitely a relevant and revealing article.
if a group of people occupying a certain region doesn't want to be governed by some other group of people in another region, they shouldn't have to be.
That statement isn't protesting military agression, it's protesting centralized government, i.e. enforcement by police. Get your own head checked.
Yeah, the tolerance of the Democrats regarding an outdated method of judging personal worth that no one uses anymore is truly astounding. Now, if they could just learn to be tolerant about, you know, actual cultural differences, they'd be set.
I'd say that people who voted for Bush understand the principles and value of democracy better than you do, given that you're condemning them for not voting the way you wanted them to, and they aren't cursing you for "voting the wrong way".
If you actually cared about democracy, you'd be bowing to the will of the majority. Of course, you don't have to do so if you're in the USA, because we aren't a democracy (hint: Republic).
That the concept of "rights" is a figment of a couple nutters in western history. I mean, had it been worded "a ruler should not overly restrict the actions of his followers, except when necessary", it would have gone over a little better in China. And been called "Taoism". As it is, it's worded as "Freedom and democracy are basic human rights" implying that the universe itself somehow favors these things, which is something... well, completely factually wrong. In fact, the entirety of Locke's "because I said so" philosophy is kind of ideally geared to simply annoy the hell out of whoever doesn't already share the guy's viewpoint... I'm not particularly suprised that the Chinese haven't jumped on the "natural rights of man" bandwagon.
Yeah, but to be fundamentalist they'd have to agree on a set of fundamental christian principles. Given the state of the church in the US, that, frankly, is about as likely as all the particles in my body spontaneously tunneling five feet down, landing me in the apartment lobby without crossing the intervening space. That is, the possibility is only impreceptibly above 0.
Imperialism and unity result in stability, and thus survival for the great fraction of humanity. That's what makes it OK. Rule of law, the only competing system, has been demonstrated only to work when enforced by violence, i.e. conquering and imperialism. In all honesty, your blatant disregard for the realities of human nature disturbs me just as much as the lack of ability for everyone to start their own sovereign nation apparrently disturbs you. Seriously... when did social freedom come to outweigh cultural and genetic survival? Ick.
But from a practical standpoint, without the occasional war to keep civillization ordered, the world would balkanize and we'd live in what would amount to a state of eternal war with all 20 of the countries within 5 miles of us. Right of war and nationalism keep things from being as bad as they could be, and thus they have my general support.
There's this thing called immigration. You're born in China, you immigrate to the US, you apply for US citizenship and renounce your Chinese citizenship. *bam* American born Chinese.
Just because they released a design first doesn't mean that it was an original concept at the time. Don't attribute Apple with more inspiration than they have.
My impression was that it was a failure IN geek circles, what with most of apple's products being designed for noobs. It was in the standard-user category that they sold 8 jillion ipods.
I personally attributed this to the penny arcade factor (My cd player doesn't skip either, it's padded by a couple hundred dollars in cash), but perhaps the geeks i hang out with are just atypical.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because of all those murderers in minimum security prison.
sigh. "thousands of computers", not "thousands of his computers". It appears I'm not that bright either.
The guy is dumb enough to release a worm... that affects thousands of his computers... with his NAME on it.
I wouldn't trust this kid to tie his own shoelaces, much less contribute to society.
We've had prisons since at least the Roman era. The idea also lies behind the slave galley, the road crew, and the continent of Australia.
In all honesty, you're putting criminals in with a bunch of other criminals that got CAUGHT. What are they going to do, learn to be more incompetent? Besides, if living free and surrounded by mostly law-abiding citizens turned them into criminals, why wouldn't being confined with a bunch of incompetent criminals turn them straight?
would you reward me if I helped you find out that you forgot to lock your door by going into the kitchen and setting your house on fire?
The onion tells me he granted himself 18 dexterity and 20 charisma. That's pretty useful.
Wachowski brothers are a bad example. Firstly, they didn't really create their own reality so much as they assembled it from a couple Japanese cartoons and Tron. Secondly, a theatrical production involves a hell of a lot of interpersonal interactions; you have to constantly deal with actors, various production teams, and funders.
Douglas Adams died while going to the gym, so he wasn't exactly locking himself in a room. Stephen King may or may not actually be healthy, it's an iffy question. If he is, I'd imagine he's fairly capable of separating himself from his own stories. I don't know enough about Stan Lee to comment on that one, though, he may be a valid example.
Enough evidence to get someone aquitted is not necessarily enough evidence to conclusively prove them innocent. Our system is designed to aquit on a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof lies on the person attempting to indicate guilt, not the one attempting to indicate innocence. As a result, a lot of the cases you're citing are probably examples of guilty men going free due to unrelated evidence which nonetheless induces reasonable doubt, rather than innocent men recieving their due.
"Wow, no one would ever find a hidden jedi here on Dagobah. Especially if he were colored to match the surroundings and had a low, hunced profile."
"Yeah, I wanted X-wings, but the TIEs were cheaper, and I'm sure a few maneuverability issues won't ever make a difference."
The irony being that the razor/blade business model is (or at least was) the demesne of Microsoft, while Apple follows the "charge too much for everything" model, and has for a decade or so.
Yes, I can really see the point of this article/post. Apple's Ipod marketing strategy is just like the razor/blade model, except for the fact that it has nothing to do with the razor/blade model in any way. Definitely a relevant and revealing article.
if a group of people occupying a certain region doesn't want to be governed by some other group of people in another region, they shouldn't have to be.
That statement isn't protesting military agression, it's protesting centralized government, i.e. enforcement by police. Get your own head checked.
Yeah, the tolerance of the Democrats regarding an outdated method of judging personal worth that no one uses anymore is truly astounding. Now, if they could just learn to be tolerant about, you know, actual cultural differences, they'd be set.
I'd say that people who voted for Bush understand the principles and value of democracy better than you do, given that you're condemning them for not voting the way you wanted them to, and they aren't cursing you for "voting the wrong way".
If you actually cared about democracy, you'd be bowing to the will of the majority. Of course, you don't have to do so if you're in the USA, because we aren't a democracy (hint: Republic).
Be fair, now. Democrats want gun controls and forced homogenization. They just don't have the power to enforce either at the moment.
That the concept of "rights" is a figment of a couple nutters in western history. I mean, had it been worded "a ruler should not overly restrict the actions of his followers, except when necessary", it would have gone over a little better in China. And been called "Taoism". As it is, it's worded as "Freedom and democracy are basic human rights" implying that the universe itself somehow favors these things, which is something... well, completely factually wrong. In fact, the entirety of Locke's "because I said so" philosophy is kind of ideally geared to simply annoy the hell out of whoever doesn't already share the guy's viewpoint... I'm not particularly suprised that the Chinese haven't jumped on the "natural rights of man" bandwagon.
Yeah, but to be fundamentalist they'd have to agree on a set of fundamental christian principles. Given the state of the church in the US, that, frankly, is about as likely as all the particles in my body spontaneously tunneling five feet down, landing me in the apartment lobby without crossing the intervening space. That is, the possibility is only impreceptibly above 0.
Hm. My bad. Yeah, the bio guy down the hall tells me i'm wrong, too. Sorry about that, guess I had a flash of false expert syndrome.
Imperialism and unity result in stability, and thus survival for the great fraction of humanity. That's what makes it OK. Rule of law, the only competing system, has been demonstrated only to work when enforced by violence, i.e. conquering and imperialism. In all honesty, your blatant disregard for the realities of human nature disturbs me just as much as the lack of ability for everyone to start their own sovereign nation apparrently disturbs you. Seriously... when did social freedom come to outweigh cultural and genetic survival? Ick.
But from a practical standpoint, without the occasional war to keep civillization ordered, the world would balkanize and we'd live in what would amount to a state of eternal war with all 20 of the countries within 5 miles of us. Right of war and nationalism keep things from being as bad as they could be, and thus they have my general support.
That "whoosh" you heard was the sound of the point of the grandparent flying over your head at top speed :)
No, it isn't.
There's this thing called immigration. You're born in China, you immigrate to the US, you apply for US citizenship and renounce your Chinese citizenship. *bam* American born Chinese.
I blame Star Trek, actually. They had those nifty tablet things.
Just because they released a design first doesn't mean that it was an original concept at the time. Don't attribute Apple with more inspiration than they have.
My impression was that it was a failure IN geek circles, what with most of apple's products being designed for noobs. It was in the standard-user category that they sold 8 jillion ipods.
I personally attributed this to the penny arcade factor (My cd player doesn't skip either, it's padded by a couple hundred dollars in cash), but perhaps the geeks i hang out with are just atypical.