I'm not defending those that call Obama extreme terms. I'm asking what exactly defines someone as "Center."
The political compass seems to be a bit... biased. Or at least opinionated/non-neutral "One of Palin's evangelical supporters reminded us that Obama's background was as a mere community organiser. Well yes, but so was Jesus, while Pontius Pilate was a governor." They don't mention that the Obama side said the same things about Palin - no experience, etc.
Also, I don't quite see how Obama/Biden are closer to Libertarian than all the rest of the mainstream candidates. I understand how you could tip the scales on Left/Right enough so that someone is right of Center, but I don't understand how they are more Libertarian. That could just be ignorance on my part, of course. Feel free to enlighten.:)
Ok, granted, it could be due to hardware, drivers, or some software. Adobe Premiere ran awfully on it.
I didn't run games on it, either, but the apps I was using weren't 64 bit versions, since this was before everyone started adopting it. I'd have to admit that I haven't tried XP x64 recently with newer hardware and good x64 drivers/software.
On the other hand, I recently tried 32-bit XP on a one to two year old hardware hodgepodge. It started freezing on boot after a couple of hours of installing fairly only a couple programs and drivers. Wiped it with Windows 7 and it had none of those issues. No clue what the deal was with that.
You're making a bad analogy. In this case, you ARE receiving the product, in this case illegally, and thus not buying it from the store.
It's not like you're actually "going without." You're going "with" and not paying. And, just in case someone tells me this isn't theft of a real item, I wasn't the one who made the analogy;)
To me, this is more like someone using someone's rental property without permission and without paying. You're using/gaining/whatever from something that you don't have permission to use/gain/play/download/whatever. You may not be ultimately costing them money, you may leave the place better than you found it, but you're still not paying.
Whether or not it should be legal or illegal is one thing. Whether or not is IS legal or illegal is quite another. And the terms used don't make it legal or not legal, do they? In ordinary discussions, people would say "oh stop with the semantics already." Somehow, the "piracy" thing is given special treatment, where semantics are used to make a case for something somehow being legal or at least morally upstanding/ethically okay/even "good," even though it's clearly illegal according to current law.
Incidentally, this is also a curious place where we don't want to have different laws for digital stuff. That doesn't occur with all somewhat-analogous digital things... e.g., stealing information. We want companies to be liable for information they shouldn't be keeping, whether they got it from a physical camera taking a picture of me holding up my credit card or whether they got it from intercepting a packet. Well, clearly, those aren't the same - one's digital, one is physical - but we seem to want to think of them in the same way. When it comes to physical goods vs. digital "goods," we want to separate them and say it's ok to take digital media without paying for it, and not okay to take physical media without paying for it.
Interestingly enough, the price put on physical media was never simply the cost to produce the physical media, there was always profit in there. CDs didn't cost the amount it takes to burn, label, and package a CD.
I didn't have the same experience, nor anyone I talked to. It was buggy and unstable. One installation I did eventually ended up having disk IO almost come to a halt after about 15 minutes of usage. Some 32 bit applications didn't like running on it too much, either.
I've had none of those problems with Vista/7.
Anecdotal, of course... but I, and others that tried it in my circle of friends/acquaintances (including system administrator at work), all agreed that it crashed a lot and was generally unstable, and much inferior to XP x86-32, and seemed like a "hack" more than a 64-bit OS.
Again, YMMV, and I am not implying you're lying about your experience or anything.
What exactly are you arguing for? I have broken Linux installations trying to get video cards to work. I haven't had much experience with Macs at all, so can't comment on them. I've found that it's harder to "break" a computer in Windows than it is in Linux, actually.
And... what is it that people want that they confuse Windows for?
I'm confused. You changed to Windows 7 from XP because it's better but claim there is nothing new in Windows 7? Isn't "better" something new? That's not a sarcastic comment, I'm serious. Any increase in quality is "new." Bug fixes, security fixes, better interface, better performance... it's not necessarily new functionality, but it's new.
Plus, Windows 7 DOES have new things. You may not use them, but there are new things. Frankly, I didn't upgrade because of any new functionality, I upgraded because it was actually much more stable than XP was on my hardware. YMMV. Also, it was x64 and I wanted to [natively] use more than 3.5gb RAM, and Linux wasn't an option for some of my software.
The good/stable 64 bit version of Windows alone is a good reason to move from XP to 7.
Isn't that kinda how businesses work? Try to make more revenue without wasting?
To a certain extent, of course... but isn't that just trying to be efficient? Maximum sales, least amount of work?
I mean, there are other things too, like developing good products, having good developers, etc. But I find it hard to fault a business owner for wanting to expand sales and not have to expand the company by an equal amount... that would mean his profit isn't going to go up much.
Where you live, what you make, and what ails you is a lot of info. Facebook doesn't necessarily grab that... yes, everyone is in the same boat, but so is everyone on Facebook;)
Yes, deception by Facebook is bad. I'm not defending that. Of course, the same people that run FB run the government. We're all rather prone to deception and corruption and what not, it would seem. Jokes about politicians and corrupt people being redundant terms abound, why should I trust them with my personal information more than Facebook?
Of course, probably, they already have it. heh.
I agree, practically, it's almost involuntary. My original point, though, was that what the person I was responding to was criticizing capitalism (apparently) for is no better in any other system of government, and perhaps more common in other forms of government out of necessity.
The problem is, the social welfare programs themselves are messed up and corrupt, as are the people running them. It seems to end up no more "morally" or ethically run than a business. Probably because it's the same people running it. And this doesn't touch any arguments about, for example, who decides how much a given person should earn and thus how much they get compensated, or whatever. We already have mismanaged social welfare programs, and the mismanagement isn't because there isn't enough money. I'm not against "socialism" as an idea, but we have some socialist programs already, and they don't seem to work that efficiently... so it'll take a lot to convince me to expand it.:)
Regarding "records of the beneficiaries" vs. large firms selling products... well, let's see. We're talking about Facebook, as a capitalistic thing, being bad, right? Socialism, by its very nature of how it works, would HAVE to "violate" your privacy much more than Facebook does. And Facebook is completely voluntary, even if you want to argue that it's deceptive. It's still completely voluntary... as opposed to most social welfare systems, which don't work out too well if it's voluntary.
So... you used to drive [cheap] American cars, now you drive a [non-cheap] German car. You then appear to claim that cheap priced American cars are cheap quality, and non-cheap quality American cars are not cheap priced. And yet, you only switched to a German car when you could afford it. In other words, your anecdotal comparison is between Cheap Priced/Cheaply Made American Cars and Expensive German Car.
It's not like all German cars are well-made, either.
And I'm not at all saying you need to drive American, just poking at your argument. You're perfectly free to drive whatever car you want, I don't care. It's no more patriotic to drive a Ford than a Toyota, or BMW, or whatever.
If Facebook is the best example of everything that's wrong with capitalism, capitalism would appear to be a pretty good system. I doubt socialism is an inherently privacy-valuing system... it would seem to me that for a socialistic model to work, more of your privacy would have to be violated?
That's simply ridiculously reducing the argument. I might as well argue that you should not be typing on Slashdot on your computer/phone/whatever... I mean, should we really turn all of the world's resources into electronics?
I'm fine with governments reserving land, within reason of course. Public parks, forests, etc. I'm not fine with governments selling me (eventually, through a long line of private owners) land and then telling me I can't use it, even though I paid for it and "own" it.
... so if I buy some land in the country... I can't level land and cut trees down to build a house? Granted, a plane is a bit different... but if I own my own property?
When a president you like is in office and doesn't do "enough," you claim that the President doesn't really have a lot of power and is more of a figurehead, like royalty.
When a president you dislike is in office and doesn't do "enough," you claim that the President should be doing more.
When a president you like is out of office, you blame everything that went wrong in his term on Congress.
When a president you dislike is out of office, you blame everything that went wrong in his term on him.
When a president you like is in office and something bad is happening (e.g., the economy), you blame it on the previous administration, because economic problems take a while to develop.
When a president you dislike is in office and something bad is happening (e.g., the economy), you blame it on the current President or the previous Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
FWIW, I ended up being one point more Right and one point more Libertarian than center. Apparently, I'm pretty wacky in comparison to the US. ;)
I'm not defending those that call Obama extreme terms. I'm asking what exactly defines someone as "Center."
The political compass seems to be a bit ... biased. Or at least opinionated/non-neutral "One of Palin's evangelical supporters reminded us that Obama's background was as a mere community organiser. Well yes, but so was Jesus, while Pontius Pilate was a governor." They don't mention that the Obama side said the same things about Palin - no experience, etc.
Also, I don't quite see how Obama/Biden are closer to Libertarian than all the rest of the mainstream candidates. I understand how you could tip the scales on Left/Right enough so that someone is right of Center, but I don't understand how they are more Libertarian. That could just be ignorance on my part, of course. Feel free to enlighten. :)
If American Democrats are "right of center" ... what is Center?
Ok, granted, it could be due to hardware, drivers, or some software. Adobe Premiere ran awfully on it.
I didn't run games on it, either, but the apps I was using weren't 64 bit versions, since this was before everyone started adopting it. I'd have to admit that I haven't tried XP x64 recently with newer hardware and good x64 drivers/software.
On the other hand, I recently tried 32-bit XP on a one to two year old hardware hodgepodge. It started freezing on boot after a couple of hours of installing fairly only a couple programs and drivers. Wiped it with Windows 7 and it had none of those issues. No clue what the deal was with that.
Want my copy of XP x64? ;)
You're making a bad analogy. In this case, you ARE receiving the product, in this case illegally, and thus not buying it from the store.
It's not like you're actually "going without." You're going "with" and not paying. And, just in case someone tells me this isn't theft of a real item, I wasn't the one who made the analogy ;)
To me, this is more like someone using someone's rental property without permission and without paying. You're using/gaining/whatever from something that you don't have permission to use/gain/play/download/whatever. You may not be ultimately costing them money, you may leave the place better than you found it, but you're still not paying.
Whether or not it should be legal or illegal is one thing. Whether or not is IS legal or illegal is quite another. And the terms used don't make it legal or not legal, do they? In ordinary discussions, people would say "oh stop with the semantics already." Somehow, the "piracy" thing is given special treatment, where semantics are used to make a case for something somehow being legal or at least morally upstanding/ethically okay/even "good," even though it's clearly illegal according to current law.
Incidentally, this is also a curious place where we don't want to have different laws for digital stuff. That doesn't occur with all somewhat-analogous digital things... e.g., stealing information. We want companies to be liable for information they shouldn't be keeping, whether they got it from a physical camera taking a picture of me holding up my credit card or whether they got it from intercepting a packet. Well, clearly, those aren't the same - one's digital, one is physical - but we seem to want to think of them in the same way. When it comes to physical goods vs. digital "goods," we want to separate them and say it's ok to take digital media without paying for it, and not okay to take physical media without paying for it.
Interestingly enough, the price put on physical media was never simply the cost to produce the physical media, there was always profit in there. CDs didn't cost the amount it takes to burn, label, and package a CD.
Summary: we're hypocritical and cheap. :)
I didn't have the same experience, nor anyone I talked to. It was buggy and unstable. One installation I did eventually ended up having disk IO almost come to a halt after about 15 minutes of usage. Some 32 bit applications didn't like running on it too much, either.
I've had none of those problems with Vista/7.
Anecdotal, of course... but I, and others that tried it in my circle of friends/acquaintances (including system administrator at work), all agreed that it crashed a lot and was generally unstable, and much inferior to XP x86-32, and seemed like a "hack" more than a 64-bit OS.
Again, YMMV, and I am not implying you're lying about your experience or anything.
What exactly are you arguing for? I have broken Linux installations trying to get video cards to work. I haven't had much experience with Macs at all, so can't comment on them. I've found that it's harder to "break" a computer in Windows than it is in Linux, actually.
And ... what is it that people want that they confuse Windows for?
I'm confused. You changed to Windows 7 from XP because it's better but claim there is nothing new in Windows 7? Isn't "better" something new? That's not a sarcastic comment, I'm serious. Any increase in quality is "new." Bug fixes, security fixes, better interface, better performance... it's not necessarily new functionality, but it's new.
Plus, Windows 7 DOES have new things. You may not use them, but there are new things. Frankly, I didn't upgrade because of any new functionality, I upgraded because it was actually much more stable than XP was on my hardware. YMMV. Also, it was x64 and I wanted to [natively] use more than 3.5gb RAM, and Linux wasn't an option for some of my software.
The good/stable 64 bit version of Windows alone is a good reason to move from XP to 7.
Isn't that kinda how businesses work? Try to make more revenue without wasting?
To a certain extent, of course... but isn't that just trying to be efficient? Maximum sales, least amount of work?
I mean, there are other things too, like developing good products, having good developers, etc. But I find it hard to fault a business owner for wanting to expand sales and not have to expand the company by an equal amount... that would mean his profit isn't going to go up much.
Er, what? I can't seem to fit your response in to what I was asking a citation for...
Where you live, what you make, and what ails you is a lot of info. Facebook doesn't necessarily grab that... yes, everyone is in the same boat, but so is everyone on Facebook ;)
Yes, deception by Facebook is bad. I'm not defending that. Of course, the same people that run FB run the government. We're all rather prone to deception and corruption and what not, it would seem. Jokes about politicians and corrupt people being redundant terms abound, why should I trust them with my personal information more than Facebook?
Of course, probably, they already have it. heh.
I agree, practically, it's almost involuntary. My original point, though, was that what the person I was responding to was criticizing capitalism (apparently) for is no better in any other system of government, and perhaps more common in other forms of government out of necessity.
I doubt Linux compatibility is high on the usage list for Windows phones...
The problem is, the social welfare programs themselves are messed up and corrupt, as are the people running them. It seems to end up no more "morally" or ethically run than a business. Probably because it's the same people running it. And this doesn't touch any arguments about, for example, who decides how much a given person should earn and thus how much they get compensated, or whatever. We already have mismanaged social welfare programs, and the mismanagement isn't because there isn't enough money. I'm not against "socialism" as an idea, but we have some socialist programs already, and they don't seem to work that efficiently... so it'll take a lot to convince me to expand it. :)
Regarding "records of the beneficiaries" vs. large firms selling products... well, let's see. We're talking about Facebook, as a capitalistic thing, being bad, right? Socialism, by its very nature of how it works, would HAVE to "violate" your privacy much more than Facebook does. And Facebook is completely voluntary, even if you want to argue that it's deceptive. It's still completely voluntary... as opposed to most social welfare systems, which don't work out too well if it's voluntary.
So... you used to drive [cheap] American cars, now you drive a [non-cheap] German car. You then appear to claim that cheap priced American cars are cheap quality, and non-cheap quality American cars are not cheap priced. And yet, you only switched to a German car when you could afford it. In other words, your anecdotal comparison is between Cheap Priced/Cheaply Made American Cars and Expensive German Car.
It's not like all German cars are well-made, either.
And I'm not at all saying you need to drive American, just poking at your argument. You're perfectly free to drive whatever car you want, I don't care. It's no more patriotic to drive a Ford than a Toyota, or BMW, or whatever.
[citation needed]
Hm. By default? I don't know, but the article mentions testing the exploit on Ubuntu 10.04 x64.
On 10.04 and 10.10, my wireless connection flips out with full screen flash video. It's weird, and annoying.
most likely: woosh :)
If Facebook is the best example of everything that's wrong with capitalism, capitalism would appear to be a pretty good system. I doubt socialism is an inherently privacy-valuing system... it would seem to me that for a socialistic model to work, more of your privacy would have to be violated?
That's simply ridiculously reducing the argument. I might as well argue that you should not be typing on Slashdot on your computer/phone/whatever ... I mean, should we really turn all of the world's resources into electronics?
I'm fine with governments reserving land, within reason of course. Public parks, forests, etc. I'm not fine with governments selling me (eventually, through a long line of private owners) land and then telling me I can't use it, even though I paid for it and "own" it.
Audacity vs. Pro-Tools? Depending on your dad's audio business, that may not be comparable.
(I use Audacity and Reaper, but have also used Cubase and Pro-Tools)
... so if I buy some land in the country ... I can't level land and cut trees down to build a house? Granted, a plane is a bit different... but if I own my own property?
Oh, I completely agree. But [sarcasm] if you admit he was wrong, you're not being a good supporter of your party/president. [/sarcasm]
:)
That's going to be a really long status... ;)
How to be a good supporter of your candidate:
When a president you like is in office and doesn't do "enough," you claim that the President doesn't really have a lot of power and is more of a figurehead, like royalty.
When a president you dislike is in office and doesn't do "enough," you claim that the President should be doing more.
When a president you like is out of office, you blame everything that went wrong in his term on Congress.
When a president you dislike is out of office, you blame everything that went wrong in his term on him.
When a president you like is in office and something bad is happening (e.g., the economy), you blame it on the previous administration, because economic problems take a while to develop.
When a president you dislike is in office and something bad is happening (e.g., the economy), you blame it on the current President or the previous Congress.