So in other words, the EU is punishing Microsoft because people are mindless sheep?
So, does that mean stores like Best Buy should no longer be able to sell overpriced items to mindless sheep who don't go down the street to some other store and get it cheaper?
Or how about insurance companies that charge more than this other insurance company?
And this is all ignoring the fact that a LOT of software is bundled with an OS that "competes" with other software. I'm guessing Mindsweeper has a monopoly on its niche, too. What exactly is Microsoft being accused of, here? Making IE TOO easily available? "Forcing" people that don't know any better to use it? Computer distributors can already put whatever they want on, can't they? Nothing is stopping Dell from shipping a Windows box with Firefox installed, that I know of.
This makes no sense. Even Linux computers file-system browsers (e.g., konqueror) are sometimes browsers. Microsoft has integrated "Explorer" (explorer.exe) to be both a filesystem and web browser. Microsoft has also, by now, made it relatively easy to not use Internet Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc., at all. It's easy to change the program defaults.
According to wikipedia, IE has about 68% of the browser "market" share (odd to call it a "market" since they are typically free pieces of software). That other 32% is distributed amongst Firefox (large percentage, 20-something %) and Chrome/Safari/Opera/etc.
So what's the deal? So what if people are lazy and don't look for an alternative?
As an aside, I wonder if the EC distinguishes Microsoft's versions of Windows? Or is it that Microsoft itself isn't allowed to provide this or that software with their OS? What about the calculator that comes by default, isn't that an unfair monopoly to CalculatorMakerCompany2000 (TM) who wants to get into the computer based calculator market?
As one poster said... this makes lawyers happy. That's about it. For the rest of us, we already know how to use Firefox instead of IE.
He does hint at it, but nowhere else in my reading (I've read a lot of Tolkien) have I seen any other ring that caused the wearer to become invisible.:)
Well, we CAN play around with radioactive spiders, that's not new.
Probably would lose more experimental subjects that way, though. I am guessing that the life expectancy of radioactive-spider-bite testers is fairly low.:)
Throwing an alarm clock against the wall would be more an example of time suddenly stopping and coming crashing down, wouldn't it? A very special and localized case of the end of time, so to speak.
Assassins that could make themselves invisible? No, not really. People that could hide very well? Yes. There is no "Shadow Dancer" a la Neverwinter Nights in the LOTR books. What you had were little hobbits that were hard to see in the first place, and could walk without making noise (that's a lot easier to do when you're three feet tall and have hair all over your feet;) ). You also had "magical" (usually Elven) stuff that would blend in with nature. Also, you did have the rings of power, and they did cause the wearer to become invisible... or at least, the One Ring did. I'm not sure if any of the others actually did that or not.
Actual invisibility only occurs in the books when someone is wearing THE ring. Very-hard-to-see happens quite often with Gollum and hobbits.
IMO, for the most part, the books don't describe extremely powerful people, other than a few of the elves, Gandalf, and a few of the Nazgul... basically, people with rings of power (Galadriel, Gandalf, the ring-wraiths, and Elrond all have rings). Very skilled warriors (Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli), very knowledgeable people, and a lot of "good luck" tend to be what makes the events possible, not so much having lots of level 50 fighters =P
In my experience they were 30+ years behind the times in some areas. Some better, some worse.
[citation needed]? Even anecdotal, since you mention it was in your experience? I have a little bit of a hard time believing the 30 year figure. That would place them around 1979 right now, in some areas? Curious what areas these might be.
If I had to choose between the two, which apparently I would (not that my decision makes ANY difference whatsoever), I'd have to go with the dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots, however good they may be, in a business and not a "cushy government job."
Of course we all like to believe what agrees with our own beliefs... but you're right, still. One study links the two and the other study distances the two, and most will just choose (based on no study) which one is valid and which one is invalid.
Of course, with this study, there's the interesting idea that someone may be over-analyzing themselves. If someone asked ME what I liked in a game, I wouldn't say "VIOLENCE DUDE, I LOVE KILLING PEOPLE!!!" I'd probably be quite geeky and say "Well, I like a game that I can get good at, that I become proficient in, that lets me do things based on my abilities that I've earned. I also like getting into the game like in an RPG, I love story-driven games."
But that doesn't explain why some games are very popular even though they aren't all that great (IMO) graphically, immersively, etc. Games like Halo come to mind immediately ("it's the multiplayer options!".. oh, multiplayer isn't available on most games?).
I'm not saying everyone IS thinking they love violence... but I think it's a bigger part than most people actually like to admit.
I've never had a problem with TD, either, and have bought quite a few items. No local wharehouse, unfortunately.
I've also gone to Fry's quite a bit for the immediate computer needs or heavy items. I've never had a problem there, either. Yeah, the reps aren't that great, but I don't need a rep, I know where everything is anyways... since I've been there enough. Usually in and out in about 20 minutes if I know what I want but not which one.
Except that they were able to match a "big chain" retailer... and do it with far better service, with the friendly local atmosphere, and built a customer "I think I'll go back to them" relationship.
Frankly, very few people that I know shop entirely mercenarily (is that a word? probably not). They tend to like going somewhere they know and/or trust and/or feel comfortable and/or the people are friendly and pay a little more for the same item.
Many of them are unashamedly taken out of context (e.g., not shaving/not cutting hair was a specific Nazarite vow that could be taken, it wasn't just a generic ceremonial law). Since it's obvious this was taken from a list of "stupid Bible quotes," I'll move on.
As to the laws no longer being valid, that's sorta true but not really the way you explained it. The NT didn't "supersede" it in that it abolished it, but rather rendered it ineffective and unnecessary, because Christ conquered death/grave and fulfilled the law. It's kind of a long story. Roughly 66 books long.
It's also interesting to note that the Bible is quite clear that the OT laws never saved anyone, but only pointed out the need to be saved. Unfortunately, most of the time, I think most people that comment on the Bible are like me if I commented on scientific fiction novels. I have no clue what is in the novels and no clue really what I'm talking about, so I'd be going mostly based off of wikipedia pages with citations necessary:)
But its much easier to blame it on the gays, regardless of the fact that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years.
Well, I mentioned it since we're specifically talking about homosexuality, are we not?
But since you press me, yes. Divorce, adultery, polygamy, bestiality, homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, cross-dressers, murder, and many other things contribute to degeneration of the family unit.
As to it being around for thousands of years, I fail to see how that applies to much of anything - nothing is really new, is it? Especially not the rise of nations and the fall of nations, nor is the degeneration of the family unit, or morality, or ethics, etc.
But I guess if it's been around long enough, it's probably fine. Of course, that does not appear to apply to religion, hm? People like to blame everything on that (including Prop 8 and its associated evils?). Regardless of the fact that religion has been around for thousands of years. (not to say I condone all religions... most definitely not)
I do find it slightly entertaining that you allowed him to generalize the entire Bible in about 10 words, and yet I bring up something specific and a citation is needed...
Greeks had a word "pornea" that referred to a lot of stuff, including homosexuality, immorality, adultery, etc. The Greeks did not appear to be particularly AGAINST pornea, but New Testament writers used it to refer to things
In addition to the Corinthians passage already cited, I'd bring up Romans 1.
26 For this reason(AV) God gave them up to(AW) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I'm not sure it can be any clearer. Men (and women, respectively) giving up natural relations with women and committing "shameless acts" with men. Pretty clear to me. Especially since Paul is talking very specifically about human depravity in the chapter.
It's harder than that, though. Why can't I just marry everyone I know, and thus get all the benefits? I know that's "ridiculous" and a "silly example," but I think it would become very real. The question isn't necessarily a moral or religious one, but simply this - where IS the line drawn. It has to be drawn somewhere, or the government will have to recognize dogs as legal marriage partners, which elevates them to the same status, which means they can have life insurance, which means when a car hits the dog the insurance company pays $500,000 and the driver gets sued for murder..
If we altogether eliminate intersection of law and religion, we are left with no moral or ethic standing at all, unless it's simple democracy that chooses it. But that won't work either, as people are religious and thus vote religious. So we're left with oligarchy. They differ in opinions and backgrounds as well, so even they are tainted. Monarchy?
Question still stands, IM[H]O - where do any laws that deal with any form of social morality stand? Even punishment of crime is a moral issue, is it not? What punishment is fair to the crime, and why. There's an inherent authority question there.
You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...
Actually did not know this one. I do think a civil union should entitle one to that...
You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...
You're not? That's weird. I could have gotten insurance for my spouse if she was my domestic partner. There were separate forms and such, but it was definitely an option. As were other forms of "dependent" people.
You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.
Um... define different? See, here's where I think there's a problem. What IS religiou discrimination? Is anti-homosexuality actually only a religious belief? Pretty soon, ALL morals will be melted down to "religious" belief. Or, the other side is that morals are what society decides they are, right? If there's no higher power to decide, then it seems like the majority rules. Well, so far in California, the majority HAS ruled, and it gets put down to religious belief anyway. What happened to the social-determination of national ethics?
Inevitably, bad stuff gets brought up at this point. "So, the majority should be able to rule that murder is ok?" Well, some atheists I've talked to do think that. Most religious people do not. So the burden is not on the religious person to say where morals/ethics come from, the burden is on the non-religious person.
So here's the bottom line question. If something like gay marriage (or marrying an animal, polygamy, or any other range of that sort of thing) should be legal because it shouldn't be not-legal due to religious belief, then where do any of our laws come from? Not democracy, apparently, as California's voters have tried that and people still don't like it.
Rationalism? Whose rationalism, then, and why is your non-religious rationality better than my religious rationality?
Nature? Well, as far as I can tell, if you take an evolutionary stance when looking at the world, homosexuality is just not the way to go. It's generally not what happens in nature, and besides that, reproduction is what the theory of evolution is founded on anyway, and reproduction has to be done with strange means in the case of homosexual couples. My understanding of a boiling down evolution was that the easier it is to reproduce (or perhaps, the fewest amount of variables necessary) made the race more likely to survive. Man+Woman = reproduction. Man+Man requires a Woman (and a lot of technology) to reproduce. 2 So, if you do want to say that no-homosexual-marriage is religious discrimination, then I would be interested to hear where you think ethics/morals should be decided. The only one I can think of is rationalism, but then it comes down to who is doing the rationalizing, because one can logically arrive to different conclusions, especially on social issues.
Slashdot Mirror
So in other words, the EU is punishing Microsoft because people are mindless sheep?
So, does that mean stores like Best Buy should no longer be able to sell overpriced items to mindless sheep who don't go down the street to some other store and get it cheaper?
Or how about insurance companies that charge more than this other insurance company?
And this is all ignoring the fact that a LOT of software is bundled with an OS that "competes" with other software. I'm guessing Mindsweeper has a monopoly on its niche, too. What exactly is Microsoft being accused of, here? Making IE TOO easily available? "Forcing" people that don't know any better to use it? Computer distributors can already put whatever they want on, can't they? Nothing is stopping Dell from shipping a Windows box with Firefox installed, that I know of.
This makes no sense. Even Linux computers file-system browsers (e.g., konqueror) are sometimes browsers. Microsoft has integrated "Explorer" (explorer.exe) to be both a filesystem and web browser. Microsoft has also, by now, made it relatively easy to not use Internet Explorer, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc., at all. It's easy to change the program defaults.
According to wikipedia, IE has about 68% of the browser "market" share (odd to call it a "market" since they are typically free pieces of software). That other 32% is distributed amongst Firefox (large percentage, 20-something %) and Chrome/Safari/Opera/etc.
So what's the deal? So what if people are lazy and don't look for an alternative?
As an aside, I wonder if the EC distinguishes Microsoft's versions of Windows? Or is it that Microsoft itself isn't allowed to provide this or that software with their OS? What about the calculator that comes by default, isn't that an unfair monopoly to CalculatorMakerCompany2000 (TM) who wants to get into the computer based calculator market?
As one poster said... this makes lawyers happy. That's about it. For the rest of us, we already know how to use Firefox instead of IE.
He does hint at it, but nowhere else in my reading (I've read a lot of Tolkien) have I seen any other ring that caused the wearer to become invisible. :)
Well, we CAN play around with radioactive spiders, that's not new.
Probably would lose more experimental subjects that way, though. I am guessing that the life expectancy of radioactive-spider-bite testers is fairly low. :)
Throwing an alarm clock against the wall would be more an example of time suddenly stopping and coming crashing down, wouldn't it? A very special and localized case of the end of time, so to speak.
Assassins that could make themselves invisible? No, not really. People that could hide very well? Yes. There is no "Shadow Dancer" a la Neverwinter Nights in the LOTR books. What you had were little hobbits that were hard to see in the first place, and could walk without making noise (that's a lot easier to do when you're three feet tall and have hair all over your feet ;) ). You also had "magical" (usually Elven) stuff that would blend in with nature. Also, you did have the rings of power, and they did cause the wearer to become invisible... or at least, the One Ring did. I'm not sure if any of the others actually did that or not.
Actual invisibility only occurs in the books when someone is wearing THE ring. Very-hard-to-see happens quite often with Gollum and hobbits.
IMO, for the most part, the books don't describe extremely powerful people, other than a few of the elves, Gandalf, and a few of the Nazgul... basically, people with rings of power (Galadriel, Gandalf, the ring-wraiths, and Elrond all have rings). Very skilled warriors (Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Legolas, Gimli), very knowledgeable people, and a lot of "good luck" tend to be what makes the events possible, not so much having lots of level 50 fighters =P
Well, seeing how they were elven cloaks and not particularly amazingly rare, I'm sure many other elves wore them from time to time. :)
Obviously you have done zero research into these two candidates.
Correct. I'm not voting for either one ;) :)
In my experience they were 30+ years behind the times in some areas. Some better, some worse.
[citation needed]? Even anecdotal, since you mention it was in your experience? I have a little bit of a hard time believing the 30 year figure. That would place them around 1979 right now, in some areas? Curious what areas these might be.
The article isn't talking about it having a positive effect on media sales. Even the summary said this:
even though this costs the media industry some profit.
He posts via telnet. :)
If I had to choose between the two, which apparently I would (not that my decision makes ANY difference whatsoever), I'd have to go with the dude from Cisco. He at least has his roots, however good they may be, in a business and not a "cushy government job."
that was three (and a half, depending on how you numerically represent a hyphenated word). :)
that's a crazy and horribly intriguing idea.
So if you ask someone to "turn on the light," what are you referring to? The radio? ;)
When pitting "light" against "radio" waves, the implication seems to be plain that he's talking about visible light.
+1
Of course we all like to believe what agrees with our own beliefs... but you're right, still. One study links the two and the other study distances the two, and most will just choose (based on no study) which one is valid and which one is invalid.
Of course, with this study, there's the interesting idea that someone may be over-analyzing themselves. If someone asked ME what I liked in a game, I wouldn't say "VIOLENCE DUDE, I LOVE KILLING PEOPLE!!!" I'd probably be quite geeky and say "Well, I like a game that I can get good at, that I become proficient in, that lets me do things based on my abilities that I've earned. I also like getting into the game like in an RPG, I love story-driven games."
But that doesn't explain why some games are very popular even though they aren't all that great (IMO) graphically, immersively, etc. Games like Halo come to mind immediately ("it's the multiplayer options!" .. oh, multiplayer isn't available on most games?).
I'm not saying everyone IS thinking they love violence... but I think it's a bigger part than most people actually like to admit.
Some parents. Mine weren't. And I actually thought they were rather gross (at least the killing off part).
shortly followed by confusion.
shortly followed by confusion? I think that's SFC not SOA... [/humor]
I've never had a problem with TD, either, and have bought quite a few items. No local wharehouse, unfortunately.
I've also gone to Fry's quite a bit for the immediate computer needs or heavy items. I've never had a problem there, either. Yeah, the reps aren't that great, but I don't need a rep, I know where everything is anyways... since I've been there enough. Usually in and out in about 20 minutes if I know what I want but not which one.
Except that they were able to match a "big chain" retailer... and do it with far better service, with the friendly local atmosphere, and built a customer "I think I'll go back to them" relationship.
Frankly, very few people that I know shop entirely mercenarily (is that a word? probably not). They tend to like going somewhere they know and/or trust and/or feel comfortable and/or the people are friendly and pay a little more for the same item.
As to the laws no longer being valid, that's sorta true but not really the way you explained it. The NT didn't "supersede" it in that it abolished it, but rather rendered it ineffective and unnecessary, because Christ conquered death/grave and fulfilled the law. It's kind of a long story. Roughly 66 books long.
It's also interesting to note that the Bible is quite clear that the OT laws never saved anyone, but only pointed out the need to be saved. Unfortunately, most of the time, I think most people that comment on the Bible are like me if I commented on scientific fiction novels. I have no clue what is in the novels and no clue really what I'm talking about, so I'd be going mostly based off of wikipedia pages with citations necessary :)
But its much easier to blame it on the gays, regardless of the fact that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years.
Well, I mentioned it since we're specifically talking about homosexuality, are we not?
But since you press me, yes. Divorce, adultery, polygamy, bestiality, homosexuality, bisexuality, transvestites, cross-dressers, murder, and many other things contribute to degeneration of the family unit.
As to it being around for thousands of years, I fail to see how that applies to much of anything - nothing is really new, is it? Especially not the rise of nations and the fall of nations, nor is the degeneration of the family unit, or morality, or ethics, etc.
But I guess if it's been around long enough, it's probably fine. Of course, that does not appear to apply to religion, hm? People like to blame everything on that (including Prop 8 and its associated evils?). Regardless of the fact that religion has been around for thousands of years. (not to say I condone all religions... most definitely not)
I do find it slightly entertaining that you allowed him to generalize the entire Bible in about 10 words, and yet I bring up something specific and a citation is needed...
Greeks had a word "pornea" that referred to a lot of stuff, including homosexuality, immorality, adultery, etc. The Greeks did not appear to be particularly AGAINST pornea, but New Testament writers used it to refer to things
In addition to the Corinthians passage already cited, I'd bring up Romans 1.
26 For this reason(AV) God gave them up to(AW) dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,(AX) men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
I'm not sure it can be any clearer. Men (and women, respectively) giving up natural relations with women and committing "shameless acts" with men. Pretty clear to me. Especially since Paul is talking very specifically about human depravity in the chapter.
It's harder than that, though. Why can't I just marry everyone I know, and thus get all the benefits? I know that's "ridiculous" and a "silly example," but I think it would become very real. The question isn't necessarily a moral or religious one, but simply this - where IS the line drawn. It has to be drawn somewhere, or the government will have to recognize dogs as legal marriage partners, which elevates them to the same status, which means they can have life insurance, which means when a car hits the dog the insurance company pays $500,000 and the driver gets sued for murder..
If we altogether eliminate intersection of law and religion, we are left with no moral or ethic standing at all, unless it's simple democracy that chooses it. But that won't work either, as people are religious and thus vote religious. So we're left with oligarchy. They differ in opinions and backgrounds as well, so even they are tainted. Monarchy?
Question still stands, IM[H]O - where do any laws that deal with any form of social morality stand? Even punishment of crime is a moral issue, is it not? What punishment is fair to the crime, and why. There's an inherent authority question there.
You won't be allowed to see your same-sex partner in the hospital dying, because you're not "family"...
Actually did not know this one. I do think a civil union should entitle one to that...
You're not entitled to any kind of partner benefits (e.g. insurance of any kind) because you're not "family"...
You're not? That's weird. I could have gotten insurance for my spouse if she was my domestic partner. There were separate forms and such, but it was definitely an option. As were other forms of "dependent" people.
You're forced to live different from other people because you don't obey a certain religious belief. That's the textbook definition of religious discrimination and anyone ought to be able to see that it's a violation of the constitution.
Um... define different? See, here's where I think there's a problem. What IS religiou discrimination? Is anti-homosexuality actually only a religious belief? Pretty soon, ALL morals will be melted down to "religious" belief. Or, the other side is that morals are what society decides they are, right? If there's no higher power to decide, then it seems like the majority rules. Well, so far in California, the majority HAS ruled, and it gets put down to religious belief anyway. What happened to the social-determination of national ethics?
Inevitably, bad stuff gets brought up at this point. "So, the majority should be able to rule that murder is ok?" Well, some atheists I've talked to do think that. Most religious people do not. So the burden is not on the religious person to say where morals/ethics come from, the burden is on the non-religious person.
So here's the bottom line question. If something like gay marriage (or marrying an animal, polygamy, or any other range of that sort of thing) should be legal because it shouldn't be not-legal due to religious belief, then where do any of our laws come from? Not democracy, apparently, as California's voters have tried that and people still don't like it.
Rationalism? Whose rationalism, then, and why is your non-religious rationality better than my religious rationality?
Nature? Well, as far as I can tell, if you take an evolutionary stance when looking at the world, homosexuality is just not the way to go. It's generally not what happens in nature, and besides that, reproduction is what the theory of evolution is founded on anyway, and reproduction has to be done with strange means in the case of homosexual couples. My understanding of a boiling down evolution was that the easier it is to reproduce (or perhaps, the fewest amount of variables necessary) made the race more likely to survive. Man+Woman = reproduction. Man+Man requires a Woman (and a lot of technology) to reproduce. 2 So, if you do want to say that no-homosexual-marriage is religious discrimination, then I would be interested to hear where you think ethics/morals should be decided. The only one I can think of is rationalism, but then it comes down to who is doing the rationalizing, because one can logically arrive to different conclusions, especially on social issues.