that's retarded. so you would rather see the world pay the price of having to acquiesce to whatever extortionate demands Verisgn/ICANN want to impose on the registration of domain names just because the people who have brought the corruption to light and want to fight it happen to be affiliated with spammers?
when has the ICJ attacked our constitution or subverted our sovereignty as a nation. is any kind of global cooperation considered "surrendering our sovereignty?" well gee, maybe we all ought to boycott our government's own court system too because it takes away our sovereignty as individuals.
the U.N. is not some foreign country trying to subject the U.S. to its own self-interested rule. it's an international organization run by representatives from each member state. despite what you may have been told, the U.S. is not perfect, and certain situations do require an international court. what would you propose that people do in these situations? simply say might is right and solve everything with war? step out of your sollipsistic world for a second and see that America is not the only country in the world, and the opinions of those currently in control of the American governemnt are not the only ones that matter.
They probably wouldn't. I know saying anything in a sarcastic matter-of-factly tone makes you sound witty, but there's not much merit or logical basis for assuming that the U.N. would make the same kind of abuses. The U.N. is not a for-profit organization, and U.N. commitee members cannot profit from such unethical practices. They don't have shareholders whom they are obligated to turn a profit for. As such, it makes them much more suitable for running a global communication infrastructure that's just as important to our global society as other shared public infrastructures such as roads and sewage systems. So if anything, these abuses by ICANN should make us reconsider the legitimacy of their monopolistic control.
I see its lack of a tight editorial policy as one of its strengths. There are plenty of conventional publications, periodicals, references, etc. with strict editorial policies. And while this can sometimes make the information provided more accurate, it often results in the exclusion of less popular views or views that are simply contrary to the position of the editors from a discussion. With mainstream media sources being consolidated and exclusively owned by corporations and people with very similar perspectives/worldviews and shared interests, the issue of media diversity is often neglected and overlooked.
Take a look at the U.S. media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Due to media consolidation there is only one perspective that is covered by mainstream American sources. This is no surprise when corporate America, especially the arms industry which has many of the same shareholders as a large number of U.S. media outlets, has such a vested economic interest in the area and has been actively using political posturing to exploit the situation for financial gains.
I think assuming that simply because a media source employs paid editors that their information is 100% accurate and unbiased is much more dangerous than having a wide variety of perspectives on any given topic and very limited editorial policies. And if you sacrifice media diversity for strict editorial policies then you must trust the editors to be completely knowledgeable/unbiased/ethical.
OTOH, with sources like Wikipedia you don't need to make those assumptions or place that kind of deference in the editorial staff. It's good practice to always be skeptical with "facts" that you are presented with and critically scrutinize information before you accept it as true. The benefits, and indeed necessity, of such practices are very apparent when you are presented with information through a source like Wikipedia, but you will not likely see CNN preface any of their news coverage with the warning: "some of the details about this topic are disputed" even when they are covering a controversial topic where may be more than one point of view.
Seriously. Our war on drugs/terror/Iraq has killed far more people than anything China has done recently, and the Bush administration has openly admitted to lying/presenting falsified data to the U.N. and to the public on more than one account to proceed with our own imperialistic foreign policy. Right now, least of all, Americans should not be criticizing other governments when we should be focusing on keeping our own "democracy" on the right track.
China announces that they've succeeded in putting a man in space, and our first reaction is that they're lying. But when Bush tries to claim a connection between 9/11 or Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, the only secular ruler in the Arab world--one which Bin Laden had offer to assassinate for the U.S. when we were allied with his militants, we believe it unquestioningly against the face of all logic.
I think America's arrogance and ethnocentrism has reached an all time high since the 80's with the post 9/11 surge of blind nationalism. It's sad how caught up our society is in all the superficial displays of patriotism that we blindly following our government leaders into war yet relinquish our democratic perogative to think critically about the actions of our government. It's no wonder that a nation so arrogant and self-righteous faces the problem of intellectual stagnation and is quickly losing its competitive edge in academic and intellectual spheres to other cultures.
You know, you're probably right. I mean, they are communists after all. America being superior to the rest of the world in all ways, if our democratic nation's own space agency is having such a hard time safely putting man in space, how can those godless communists possibly manage to do it?
I think the Russians were lying about their space exploration feats as well--They were communists too under the Soviet government. Nothing good has ever come out of a country that is ideologically opposed to the U.S.!
Meanwhile, I know I can perfectly trust our democratic government to be completely honest, just as American mainstream media sources are always 100% accurate. I mean, c'mon it's not like CNN has army psy-ops personnel watching over their operations. And our president would never lie to us about anything.
sorry, you're right since cannabinoids aren't nitrogenous, but other than that they do bind to a shared group of receptors and activate a shared set of biological pathways, which is how they are categorized--by their pharmacological similarities.
that's a bad analogy. we're not talking about two substances that simply have similar chemical properties. we're talking about two alkaloids that have similar pharmacological properties. a closer analogy would be comparing two different kinds of exogenous opioids like diacetylmorphine(heroin) and morphine, or codeine and morphine, or a fentanyl analog and morphine, etc., all of which activate a shared set of receptors in the brain. cannabinoids also share a lot of common receptor sites with each other--by definition--thus they're more likely to have similar pharmacological actions. ethanol and methanol don't bind to neurotransmitter receptors in the brain.
Actually, the research talks about "cannabinoids." Cannabinoids are the primary psychoactive alkaloids contained in cannabis, of which, THC is the most concentrated in most strains, although each strain contains different levels of each. THC is a cannabinoid so it likely has very similar pharmacological effects as HU-210.
Actually, that attitude is closer to what mainstream media wants you to think. Anyone who's ever worked with PETA or talked to PETA members would know that the organization is primarily about disseminating information and raising awareness about animal rights. It's funny how easily people buy into the astroturfing and FUD spread by corporate entities that dislike PETA but never take the time to even visit the PETA website or pick up a flier and read about actual campaigns.
Contrary to popular beliefs, 99.9% of PETA members are not extremists (unless holding public talks, organizing vegetarian potlucks, and handing out fliers about animal rights are acts of terrorism). Even though the media likes to only cover radical actions taken by members of progressive movements these incidences are rarely representative of the movement as a whole. It's just a way to undermine their message by using red herring arguments magnifying the actions of a few radicals to take attention away from the real issues at hand. It's easier to say "they're a bunch of terrorists" than it is to defend draize tests that produce no useful scientific data or other immoral business practices.
Umm... have you ever been to any country other than the U.S.? Have you ever lived in other cultures? Canada and Europe have much more progressive cultures than the U.S. currently does, and as a result, their governments are also more liberal and progressive. Saying that politicians and voters are the same everywhere simply defies common sense and observable reality. Even if politicians are the same everywhere, that's no justification for unwise and unethical government policies which only the U.S. employs.
Amnesty International is also the first to "bitch" about oppressive regimes and human rights violators, but that says little to justify those transgressions.
you're talking about an entirely different--and already addressed--issue completely. food producers are already required to list the ingredients contained in their products, however, because of poor quality control sometimes unwanted--and unlisted--"ingredients" get into the food product. this allows people to trace it back to the responsible party when there is a production chain.
secondly, if there are companies that you don't trust or that you dislike due to their business practices then you can avoid buying foods produced by them indirectly, such as foods linked to farms that use excessive insecticides, or foods made from the meat of animals that are treated unethically, or foods that are linked to a company that has a history of poor quality control, etc.
Re:Is money enough? What?
on
Space Tourism?
·
· Score: 1
Well, the problem I see with that is that space tourists aren't paying for all the expenses that are required for getting them to space. Public tax dollars pay for much more of the R&D and other program costs than do the space tourists, so it's not exactly fair for someone to go to space at the rest of the public's expense. Your analogy is a bit flawed. If these were private space travel agencies, such as car manufacturers, it'd be a different story. The situation is quite different.
So you don't use public roads, public education, the postal service, etc.? Wow, I'm impressed. I'm sure you also see no need for any kind of law enforcement agency to protect you from criminals, right? Now, in your ideal capitalist society who would take care of the disabled, mentally handicapped, and other people who may not be able to pay for these basic societal necessities or basic needs such as food, water, healthcare, and education themselves?
Despite your criticisms of republicans and conservatives, that is basically what you are. And the problem with that kind of thinking is that it's selfish and myopic. Sure, maybe you don't need society to help you, but some people do. Socialism is designed to help people who do need help--this means distributing the cost of basic necessary societal resources such as education, healthcare, etc. across the entire society. Ofcourse individuals of privilege who have never considered that there may be people less fortunate than them see it as an unfair burden to have a sense of community and altruism. But then again these individuals have probably never had to choose between seeing a doctor and keeping food on the table, and have probably never had to worry about being evicted from their home and forced to live on the streets.
Also, you might want to look up in the dictionary what "common" in "common good" means. I don't think it means what you think it means.
That's one volunteer. Maybe that individual is just a little slow. I've had to help people who are pretty much computer-illiterate use the computer and I can honestly say, most of the time it's not the fault of the software designers.
A lot of times older folks or people who just don't know how to use a computer will get frustrated and angry at a piece of software designed a certain way just because they're too impatient to learn how to use the software or don't fully understand basic computing concepts (such as the difference between files and folders, wallpaper and screen saver, websites and programs, and other things that are just common knowledge to most computer users).
You can't always cater to the lowest common denominator. And designing software to cater towards people who can't exercise commonsense and refuse to take the time to learn basic computing skills is bad for the software.
What standard commercial features are MySQL missing that other databases have? How is MySQL behind the times?
I'm just curious because despite how long of a post you've made, you're claims against MySQL are awfully vague. It'd be nice to know some specifics as to why MySQL wouldn't hold up against other database servers in most heavy applications.
Sorry to break this to you, but when you buy a CD from Best Buy, or Tower Records, or any retail chain, or even by mail order from the record label directly, the artists don't ever see any of that money either. In fact, the only money that artists make directly off of selling CDs is through their merch booth when they're on tour, and even then they have to buy those CDs from the record label they're signed to, who handle the printing and distribution of the albums and have, legally at least, exclusive rights to the music.
Just like when I download an album for free off of bit torrent, if I like the artists, I will go to their shows, purchase actual copies of their albums, or other merchandise like t-shirts, stickers, etc.
So allofmp3.com just sounds like a site that is publicizing these artists and giving them exposure over the net without the consent of the record labels. Sure, they're making money too, but they're not exactly hurting the artists. They're leaching off of actual musicians only as much as record labels do. I mean, should you feel bad when a friend plays an album for you or even burns you a copy of a CD because they want to expose you to the band?
This is only a bad thing if you assume that people who buy the music off of these sites and don't buy the actual album or support the artists in any other way would have given the artists some money directly otherwise. This is an illogical assumption and doesn't sound like most people who are music fans.
Sorry, but that's just as daft. And your point about "centralized" is just picking at symantics. He said "centralized lists" so this could be on a single server or multiple servers manage by different people. Either way, each individually maintained list faces the same problems as a single list created by a single authority, and changing it to a system where you have to aggregate multiple lists from different sites(creating your own centralized list) doesn't do much to solve the problem that you, or the system administrator, has to keep track of all "good" software and then make the assumption that all other software is malware.
A list of "good" software is useless to most people. Unless you're grandma or grandpa, who's practically computer illiterate and lacks the technological common sense to distinguish between malware and legitimate applications, what use is a list of "good" software? Unlike the case with security vulnerabilities/exploits in software, the "good" far outnumbers the "bad" in the case of legitimate software versus malware.
A list of "good" would bar users from using most new applications, or applications written by independent developers, programming enthusiasts, or anyone else who might not be included in popular "good" software lists--which would likely be a lot of legitimate programmers. Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize how impractical this alternative is. Every software developer would be forced to submit their application to CERT and hope that it's approved as "good" software. And even if developers don't have to submit their application for approval with every revision, which they would likely have to do in order to ensure that newly added code does not contain malicious operations, CERT would still be faced with an overwhelming amount of code to review.
This scenario would be even worse with multiple list servers since it'd be impossible for most software developers to keep track of all "good" software lists (who's going to provide a list of "good" "good" software lists?) so it'd only be feasible to submit their application to the most popular lists, and then their application would not be used by any users who happen to not use those particular lists.
A malware list, on the other hand, would be quite useful, especially coming from an authority like CERT whose duty it is to deal with and investigate/research computer & internet-related threats. Tracking most popular pieces of malware and finding out how to remove them/prevent them from spreading would also provide a lot of useful resources to most computer users, or atleast be more useful than tracking "good" software. I mean, it's kinda like creating a task force to keep track of criminals veruses keeping track of law-abiding citizens. What do you think would be more useful to society/law-enforce, a list of law-abiding citizens, or a list of criminals?
Also, having a federal agency track malware also means identifying and defining characteristics of popular pieces of malware. This could lead to the possibility of taking legal actions against companies that employ the use of malware to promote their business. Malware is basically, in 99.9% of the cases atleast, a virus that is used for marketing/advertising purposes--usually by businesses seen and legally regarded as legitimate (ie. not drug cartels, black market dealers, etc.) despite using underhanded methods to promote their product/services. For this reason, it has been a problem largely ignored by the (U.S.) government and condoned by the powers that be since we're a capitalist society where the legal system is in favor of big business and corporate CEOs in most cases.
At least in the case of software viruses, the government actively prosecutes their creators and legal action can be taken against those using/spreading them. But so far, there is no legal action that one can take against companies that spread or indirectly employ malware. Having a federal agency track popular pieces of malware,
Well, I think you're right about the movie industry(or atleast the executives and people who control the capital) being reactionary forces holding back the industry causing their own downfall. But in regards to your DVD playability/region restrictions problem, I just want to let you know that there are affordable solutions available.
I'd recommend checking out the Philips DVP-642. I just bought this DVD player for a friend and helped him set it up and have been trying it out myself. It can easily be configured to be region-free and play DVDs from all region codes or even ones without a region code simply by punching a few buttons on the remote--this is considered a "hack," but it's really more like entering a cheat code in a videogame than actually modifying the system's hardware or software. But the best part is, it plays a plethora of media formats straight out the box including MPEG-4, DivX and XviD, JPEG images, and MP3s, as well as regular DVDs, and the DVD player also reads most media types including CD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW.
I got the player for $60 with free shipping, and it was definitely worth every penny. Region codes are total bullshit, and it's also stupid that most American DVD players can only play NTSC DVDs not PAL, but atleast there are some DVD players that get past that. It's also nice to be able to fit 6-7 DivX/XviD movies on a single DVD and watch that on the DVP-642.
"There's no content that I know of that does not have variable pricing,"
Except for music/movie rentals and movie theater tickets. Are they going to start telling blockbuster that each rental CD should be individually priced?
Sorry to break this to you, but Americans aren't the ones bringing freedom to the world. Oppressed peoples earn their own freedom through grassroot movements and popular revolutions. In many cases, the American military are the ones who are subverting the voice/will of the people.
Many young American men from lower-class families are lured into the armed services and sent overseas under the pretense of being benevolent liberators bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. But they are merely pawns in a game of deception and ruthless amassment of wealth, manipulated to carry out the exploitation of developing nations by corporate America.
And it's this ignorant conceit, that Americans are the selfless and unappreciated vanguards of democracy and freedom, that allows these neo-colonialistic policies to be put into action. Open your eyes, the foreign policy of the U.S. has always been self-interested. The only thing Americans are dying(or killing) to bring to the rest of the world is free markets for American corporations to expand into. Capitalism != freedom and democracy.
If we were interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, we would not try to overthrow, assassinate, or otherwise depose democratically elected foreign leaders and popular governments in order to lift their protectionist national policies that are in the way of American corporations exploiting these foreign economies. All we're interested in is political and economic posturing to set-up one-way trade relationships with these developing nations.
the first living, intelligent and connected lamp..
on
Nabaztag the WiFi Bunny
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
ok, i believe the connected part. but how is it living and intelligent? because it's got colored lights that change colors?
i dunno, these "smart" objects seem like pretty stupid and useless novelties with very mundane technology that's just hyped up with dumb descriptions for marketing like calling them "smart objects" that are living and intelligent, or a lamp that can blush just because it can change colors.
Slashdot Mirror
that's retarded. so you would rather see the world pay the price of having to acquiesce to whatever extortionate demands Verisgn/ICANN want to impose on the registration of domain names just because the people who have brought the corruption to light and want to fight it happen to be affiliated with spammers?
when has the ICJ attacked our constitution or subverted our sovereignty as a nation. is any kind of global cooperation considered "surrendering our sovereignty?" well gee, maybe we all ought to boycott our government's own court system too because it takes away our sovereignty as individuals.
the U.N. is not some foreign country trying to subject the U.S. to its own self-interested rule. it's an international organization run by representatives from each member state. despite what you may have been told, the U.S. is not perfect, and certain situations do require an international court. what would you propose that people do in these situations? simply say might is right and solve everything with war? step out of your sollipsistic world for a second and see that America is not the only country in the world, and the opinions of those currently in control of the American governemnt are not the only ones that matter.
They probably wouldn't. I know saying anything in a sarcastic matter-of-factly tone makes you sound witty, but there's not much merit or logical basis for assuming that the U.N. would make the same kind of abuses. The U.N. is not a for-profit organization, and U.N. commitee members cannot profit from such unethical practices. They don't have shareholders whom they are obligated to turn a profit for. As such, it makes them much more suitable for running a global communication infrastructure that's just as important to our global society as other shared public infrastructures such as roads and sewage systems. So if anything, these abuses by ICANN should make us reconsider the legitimacy of their monopolistic control.
I thought it was common knowledge that slapping on a V-TEC sticker and installing ground effects adds 200 HP to your car.
I see its lack of a tight editorial policy as one of its strengths. There are plenty of conventional publications, periodicals, references, etc. with strict editorial policies. And while this can sometimes make the information provided more accurate, it often results in the exclusion of less popular views or views that are simply contrary to the position of the editors from a discussion. With mainstream media sources being consolidated and exclusively owned by corporations and people with very similar perspectives/worldviews and shared interests, the issue of media diversity is often neglected and overlooked.
Take a look at the U.S. media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Due to media consolidation there is only one perspective that is covered by mainstream American sources. This is no surprise when corporate America, especially the arms industry which has many of the same shareholders as a large number of U.S. media outlets, has such a vested economic interest in the area and has been actively using political posturing to exploit the situation for financial gains.
I think assuming that simply because a media source employs paid editors that their information is 100% accurate and unbiased is much more dangerous than having a wide variety of perspectives on any given topic and very limited editorial policies. And if you sacrifice media diversity for strict editorial policies then you must trust the editors to be completely knowledgeable/unbiased/ethical.
OTOH, with sources like Wikipedia you don't need to make those assumptions or place that kind of deference in the editorial staff. It's good practice to always be skeptical with "facts" that you are presented with and critically scrutinize information before you accept it as true. The benefits, and indeed necessity, of such practices are very apparent when you are presented with information through a source like Wikipedia, but you will not likely see CNN preface any of their news coverage with the warning: "some of the details about this topic are disputed" even when they are covering a controversial topic where may be more than one point of view.
Seriously. Our war on drugs/terror/Iraq has killed far more people than anything China has done recently, and the Bush administration has openly admitted to lying/presenting falsified data to the U.N. and to the public on more than one account to proceed with our own imperialistic foreign policy. Right now, least of all, Americans should not be criticizing other governments when we should be focusing on keeping our own "democracy" on the right track.
China announces that they've succeeded in putting a man in space, and our first reaction is that they're lying. But when Bush tries to claim a connection between 9/11 or Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, the only secular ruler in the Arab world--one which Bin Laden had offer to assassinate for the U.S. when we were allied with his militants, we believe it unquestioningly against the face of all logic.
I think America's arrogance and ethnocentrism has reached an all time high since the 80's with the post 9/11 surge of blind nationalism. It's sad how caught up our society is in all the superficial displays of patriotism that we blindly following our government leaders into war yet relinquish our democratic perogative to think critically about the actions of our government. It's no wonder that a nation so arrogant and self-righteous faces the problem of intellectual stagnation and is quickly losing its competitive edge in academic and intellectual spheres to other cultures.
You know, you're probably right. I mean, they are communists after all. America being superior to the rest of the world in all ways, if our democratic nation's own space agency is having such a hard time safely putting man in space, how can those godless communists possibly manage to do it?
I think the Russians were lying about their space exploration feats as well--They were communists too under the Soviet government. Nothing good has ever come out of a country that is ideologically opposed to the U.S.!
Meanwhile, I know I can perfectly trust our democratic government to be completely honest, just as American mainstream media sources are always 100% accurate. I mean, c'mon it's not like CNN has army psy-ops personnel watching over their operations. And our president would never lie to us about anything.
sorry, you're right since cannabinoids aren't nitrogenous, but other than that they do bind to a shared group of receptors and activate a shared set of biological pathways, which is how they are categorized--by their pharmacological similarities.
i said similar not same. just like different exogenous opioids produce very similar effects, but obviously aren't exactly the same.
that's a bad analogy. we're not talking about two substances that simply have similar chemical properties. we're talking about two alkaloids that have similar pharmacological properties. a closer analogy would be comparing two different kinds of exogenous opioids like diacetylmorphine(heroin) and morphine, or codeine and morphine, or a fentanyl analog and morphine, etc., all of which activate a shared set of receptors in the brain. cannabinoids also share a lot of common receptor sites with each other--by definition--thus they're more likely to have similar pharmacological actions. ethanol and methanol don't bind to neurotransmitter receptors in the brain.
Actually, the research talks about "cannabinoids." Cannabinoids are the primary psychoactive alkaloids contained in cannabis, of which, THC is the most concentrated in most strains, although each strain contains different levels of each. THC is a cannabinoid so it likely has very similar pharmacological effects as HU-210.
Actually, that attitude is closer to what mainstream media wants you to think. Anyone who's ever worked with PETA or talked to PETA members would know that the organization is primarily about disseminating information and raising awareness about animal rights. It's funny how easily people buy into the astroturfing and FUD spread by corporate entities that dislike PETA but never take the time to even visit the PETA website or pick up a flier and read about actual campaigns.
Contrary to popular beliefs, 99.9% of PETA members are not extremists (unless holding public talks, organizing vegetarian potlucks, and handing out fliers about animal rights are acts of terrorism). Even though the media likes to only cover radical actions taken by members of progressive movements these incidences are rarely representative of the movement as a whole. It's just a way to undermine their message by using red herring arguments magnifying the actions of a few radicals to take attention away from the real issues at hand. It's easier to say "they're a bunch of terrorists" than it is to defend draize tests that produce no useful scientific data or other immoral business practices.
Umm... have you ever been to any country other than the U.S.? Have you ever lived in other cultures? Canada and Europe have much more progressive cultures than the U.S. currently does, and as a result, their governments are also more liberal and progressive. Saying that politicians and voters are the same everywhere simply defies common sense and observable reality. Even if politicians are the same everywhere, that's no justification for unwise and unethical government policies which only the U.S. employs.
Amnesty International is also the first to "bitch" about oppressive regimes and human rights violators, but that says little to justify those transgressions.
you're talking about an entirely different--and already addressed--issue completely. food producers are already required to list the ingredients contained in their products, however, because of poor quality control sometimes unwanted--and unlisted--"ingredients" get into the food product. this allows people to trace it back to the responsible party when there is a production chain.
secondly, if there are companies that you don't trust or that you dislike due to their business practices then you can avoid buying foods produced by them indirectly, such as foods linked to farms that use excessive insecticides, or foods made from the meat of animals that are treated unethically, or foods that are linked to a company that has a history of poor quality control, etc.
Well, the problem I see with that is that space tourists aren't paying for all the expenses that are required for getting them to space. Public tax dollars pay for much more of the R&D and other program costs than do the space tourists, so it's not exactly fair for someone to go to space at the rest of the public's expense. Your analogy is a bit flawed. If these were private space travel agencies, such as car manufacturers, it'd be a different story. The situation is quite different.
I assume you've never been into a Yahoo! or AIM chatroom?
So you don't use public roads, public education, the postal service, etc.? Wow, I'm impressed. I'm sure you also see no need for any kind of law enforcement agency to protect you from criminals, right? Now, in your ideal capitalist society who would take care of the disabled, mentally handicapped, and other people who may not be able to pay for these basic societal necessities or basic needs such as food, water, healthcare, and education themselves?
Despite your criticisms of republicans and conservatives, that is basically what you are. And the problem with that kind of thinking is that it's selfish and myopic. Sure, maybe you don't need society to help you, but some people do. Socialism is designed to help people who do need help--this means distributing the cost of basic necessary societal resources such as education, healthcare, etc. across the entire society. Ofcourse individuals of privilege who have never considered that there may be people less fortunate than them see it as an unfair burden to have a sense of community and altruism. But then again these individuals have probably never had to choose between seeing a doctor and keeping food on the table, and have probably never had to worry about being evicted from their home and forced to live on the streets.
Also, you might want to look up in the dictionary what "common" in "common good" means. I don't think it means what you think it means.
That's one volunteer. Maybe that individual is just a little slow. I've had to help people who are pretty much computer-illiterate use the computer and I can honestly say, most of the time it's not the fault of the software designers.
A lot of times older folks or people who just don't know how to use a computer will get frustrated and angry at a piece of software designed a certain way just because they're too impatient to learn how to use the software or don't fully understand basic computing concepts (such as the difference between files and folders, wallpaper and screen saver, websites and programs, and other things that are just common knowledge to most computer users).
You can't always cater to the lowest common denominator. And designing software to cater towards people who can't exercise commonsense and refuse to take the time to learn basic computing skills is bad for the software.
What standard commercial features are MySQL missing that other databases have? How is MySQL behind the times?
I'm just curious because despite how long of a post you've made, you're claims against MySQL are awfully vague. It'd be nice to know some specifics as to why MySQL wouldn't hold up against other database servers in most heavy applications.
Sorry to break this to you, but when you buy a CD from Best Buy, or Tower Records, or any retail chain, or even by mail order from the record label directly, the artists don't ever see any of that money either. In fact, the only money that artists make directly off of selling CDs is through their merch booth when they're on tour, and even then they have to buy those CDs from the record label they're signed to, who handle the printing and distribution of the albums and have, legally at least, exclusive rights to the music.
Just like when I download an album for free off of bit torrent, if I like the artists, I will go to their shows, purchase actual copies of their albums, or other merchandise like t-shirts, stickers, etc.
So allofmp3.com just sounds like a site that is publicizing these artists and giving them exposure over the net without the consent of the record labels. Sure, they're making money too, but they're not exactly hurting the artists. They're leaching off of actual musicians only as much as record labels do. I mean, should you feel bad when a friend plays an album for you or even burns you a copy of a CD because they want to expose you to the band?
This is only a bad thing if you assume that people who buy the music off of these sites and don't buy the actual album or support the artists in any other way would have given the artists some money directly otherwise. This is an illogical assumption and doesn't sound like most people who are music fans.
Sorry, but that's just as daft. And your point about "centralized" is just picking at symantics. He said "centralized lists" so this could be on a single server or multiple servers manage by different people. Either way, each individually maintained list faces the same problems as a single list created by a single authority, and changing it to a system where you have to aggregate multiple lists from different sites(creating your own centralized list) doesn't do much to solve the problem that you, or the system administrator, has to keep track of all "good" software and then make the assumption that all other software is malware.
A list of "good" software is useless to most people. Unless you're grandma or grandpa, who's practically computer illiterate and lacks the technological common sense to distinguish between malware and legitimate applications, what use is a list of "good" software? Unlike the case with security vulnerabilities/exploits in software, the "good" far outnumbers the "bad" in the case of legitimate software versus malware.
A list of "good" would bar users from using most new applications, or applications written by independent developers, programming enthusiasts, or anyone else who might not be included in popular "good" software lists--which would likely be a lot of legitimate programmers. Anyone with a shred of common sense would realize how impractical this alternative is. Every software developer would be forced to submit their application to CERT and hope that it's approved as "good" software. And even if developers don't have to submit their application for approval with every revision, which they would likely have to do in order to ensure that newly added code does not contain malicious operations, CERT would still be faced with an overwhelming amount of code to review.
This scenario would be even worse with multiple list servers since it'd be impossible for most software developers to keep track of all "good" software lists (who's going to provide a list of "good" "good" software lists?) so it'd only be feasible to submit their application to the most popular lists, and then their application would not be used by any users who happen to not use those particular lists.
A malware list, on the other hand, would be quite useful, especially coming from an authority like CERT whose duty it is to deal with and investigate/research computer & internet-related threats. Tracking most popular pieces of malware and finding out how to remove them/prevent them from spreading would also provide a lot of useful resources to most computer users, or atleast be more useful than tracking "good" software. I mean, it's kinda like creating a task force to keep track of criminals veruses keeping track of law-abiding citizens. What do you think would be more useful to society/law-enforce, a list of law-abiding citizens, or a list of criminals?
Also, having a federal agency track malware also means identifying and defining characteristics of popular pieces of malware. This could lead to the possibility of taking legal actions against companies that employ the use of malware to promote their business. Malware is basically, in 99.9% of the cases atleast, a virus that is used for marketing/advertising purposes--usually by businesses seen and legally regarded as legitimate (ie. not drug cartels, black market dealers, etc.) despite using underhanded methods to promote their product/services. For this reason, it has been a problem largely ignored by the (U.S.) government and condoned by the powers that be since we're a capitalist society where the legal system is in favor of big business and corporate CEOs in most cases.
At least in the case of software viruses, the government actively prosecutes their creators and legal action can be taken against those using/spreading them. But so far, there is no legal action that one can take against companies that spread or indirectly employ malware. Having a federal agency track popular pieces of malware,
Well, I think you're right about the movie industry(or atleast the executives and people who control the capital) being reactionary forces holding back the industry causing their own downfall. But in regards to your DVD playability/region restrictions problem, I just want to let you know that there are affordable solutions available.
I'd recommend checking out the Philips DVP-642. I just bought this DVD player for a friend and helped him set it up and have been trying it out myself. It can easily be configured to be region-free and play DVDs from all region codes or even ones without a region code simply by punching a few buttons on the remote--this is considered a "hack," but it's really more like entering a cheat code in a videogame than actually modifying the system's hardware or software. But the best part is, it plays a plethora of media formats straight out the box including MPEG-4, DivX and XviD, JPEG images, and MP3s, as well as regular DVDs, and the DVD player also reads most media types including CD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW.
I got the player for $60 with free shipping, and it was definitely worth every penny. Region codes are total bullshit, and it's also stupid that most American DVD players can only play NTSC DVDs not PAL, but atleast there are some DVD players that get past that. It's also nice to be able to fit 6-7 DivX/XviD movies on a single DVD and watch that on the DVP-642.
"There's no content that I know of that does not have variable pricing,"
Except for music/movie rentals and movie theater tickets. Are they going to start telling blockbuster that each rental CD should be individually priced?
Sorry to break this to you, but Americans aren't the ones bringing freedom to the world. Oppressed peoples earn their own freedom through grassroot movements and popular revolutions. In many cases, the American military are the ones who are subverting the voice/will of the people.
Many young American men from lower-class families are lured into the armed services and sent overseas under the pretense of being benevolent liberators bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. But they are merely pawns in a game of deception and ruthless amassment of wealth, manipulated to carry out the exploitation of developing nations by corporate America.
And it's this ignorant conceit, that Americans are the selfless and unappreciated vanguards of democracy and freedom, that allows these neo-colonialistic policies to be put into action. Open your eyes, the foreign policy of the U.S. has always been self-interested. The only thing Americans are dying(or killing) to bring to the rest of the world is free markets for American corporations to expand into. Capitalism != freedom and democracy.
If we were interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, we would not try to overthrow, assassinate, or otherwise depose democratically elected foreign leaders and popular governments in order to lift their protectionist national policies that are in the way of American corporations exploiting these foreign economies. All we're interested in is political and economic posturing to set-up one-way trade relationships with these developing nations.
ok, i believe the connected part. but how is it living and intelligent? because it's got colored lights that change colors?
i dunno, these "smart" objects seem like pretty stupid and useless novelties with very mundane technology that's just hyped up with dumb descriptions for marketing like calling them "smart objects" that are living and intelligent, or a lamp that can blush just because it can change colors.