"Why do these creatures want to form governments anyway. With drastically different evolutionary time lines, one creature has probably evolved past war, another so evolved that all of the others seem more like suitable pets, another so unevolved that it's unaware that the others exist."
Evolution isn't some story of linear progress in line with values that are currently fashionable. Worth keeping in mind. A propensity for violence is adaptive in some environments, maladaptive in other circumstances.
Why is it scary? Would it kill you to have a somewhat faster processor than you absolutely need? One of the bottom line celerons should be just fine for your needs, at pretty much negligible cost. (Newegg has the AMD Duron 1,6 GHz, for instance, at a whooping $43.99)
Re:Marketing people love you!
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just a few comments here - it's important to flesh out these fallacies a bit more:
1.) "Appeal to authority" is usually a nice, rational way to go. After all, if successful people are taking path X, why shouldn't I?
2.) "Appeal to popularity" - this is also a nice way of economizing with regards to time and processing power - if other people with similar tastes like X, that could very well be an indication that X is good for me too.
I.e - the requirement for the above mentioned ways of analyzing your surroundings being fallacious is that the facts supporting them are somehow wrong or distorted.
Don't underestimate the geek factor here - who do people go to for free computer support? That's right - geeks.
I have personally switched probably around 10 people, most of them rather clueless. (Co-employees, relatives, friends, etc.)
Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that geeks are also better at complaining about stuff like standards compliance. I complained about the non-standard compliant parts of my employer's website and got them to fix it pretty easily. So I wouldn't expect Firefox uptake to die off quite so easily just because the core geek market has been filled.
"Right, because music is so easy to make, taking only massive time and dedication to become good at,"...which people mostly to for pure pleasure. Or to get famous. Or to get laid. Or for cash (Concert money would still be a major source of revenue) People have been doing it for these reasons for thousands and thousands of years. And would a (slight) de-professionalization of the business really hurt consumers in a tangible way?
"Whereas programming is very hard, requiring both time and dedication to master?"
Well, certain kinds of programming are certainly done for pleasure. There would probably not be any shortage of small, clever utilities if copyright was abolished, for instance. (That's why my statement was rather qualified.) Large, complex database apps? Quality games? Fuggeddabouit. Keep in mind that concepts like the GPL go down the ditch when we ditch copyright.
"Or because good music only requires very expensive instruments and recording equipment,
Whereas programming requires an expensive computer?"
Equipment really isn't the largest input into copyrighted works (usually) - time is. And I would say most of the stuff considered timeless music today was produced without most of the wiz-bang tech of recent years. The same does not stand true for, say, movies and computer programming. (People would not accept having 0-budget movies only, or only Public Domain software - 0 budget music becomes hits fairly regularly, however.)
Ah, nothing like little word-games only intended to jam communications...
As for the actual debate, there are legitimate gripes regarding the constant expansion of copyright in areas where their actual usefulness is in doubt.
Regarding music for instance, it would be very interesting to see what would happen if copyright collapsed - my guess is we would only see a modest decline in customer satisfaction, if any.
With regards to computer games, advanced proprietary software and movies however, the effects of outright copyright collapse would most likely be disastrous. My point made short:
The need for copyright:
1.) Is determined by the incentive and / or technological structure of the field of activity.
2.) The least possible amount of copyright protection needed to maintain the industries in question should always be used - as copyright is in effect a government ban on creative use of information.
Thus, I would prefer to see a constant re-evaluation of the need for copyright protections from field to field.
Well, part of the beauty of the law is the rubber phrasing - this allows for constant expansion, until the courts hit the occational public-relations snag, like the Green case. (Of course, the prosecutor, who has appealed to the Supreme Court does not agree with your judgement wrt the Green case...)
This is incorrect. The law regarding "Hets mot folkgrupp" deems "missaktning" or "disrespect" towards an ethnic, religious or sexual group to be a criminal offense.
Of course it is real - as real as grass, penguins, or insensitive clods. "Value" is a neurological phenomena - chemistry and electricity in wonderful unity - which is very real indeed. It's a tool we use to get around in the world.
1) Last time I looked, the teaching of creationism (Or "ID", or whatever they call it) - is banned by judicial decree. If some fundie parents out in hicksville make a fuss with teachers from time to time, that's really not going to change things very much.
(And there really is no such thing as a "blue state" - there is the Red suburbia/countryside and the Blue urban areas.)
2) Now, there is no stopping someone from making a false accusation - if people with anti-Bush bumper stickers were actually in some kind of trouble with the law, we would be hearing a hell of a lot more about it.
Hell, I'd even wager it was more dangerous to be sporting a "Go Bushie!" sticker this last election than a "Kerry Kerry" one...
3) "Happened" to be shown. Heh, yea - the PBS just happened to stumble across one of the many lesbian-owned sugar maple farms in the country.
Still, if this is your evidence of "The Forces of Darkness" taking over America and forcing it back to the middle ages, I really can't take you *that* seriously.
4) That of course doesn't mean that things are "coming up roses" - there are plenty of (social) problems to go around. However, Liberals are in a poor position to handle these problems, as they are primarily concentrated to the Black and Latino communities. As are Conservatives, for the very same reason.
5) People have enough trouble keeping their nation states together at the moment - attempting "world government" at this stage of human development would be a clusterfuck of huge proportions.
Heck, I live in the EU, and that's about as popular as... well, it's not terribly popular at all. It's tolerated, and that's about it. ("remote", "corrupt", "undemocratic", and so on...)
To sum it up, I kinda think we are going to have to stick with nation states for a while longer.
Let's not forget the primary reason for young kids dominating the handheld scene: Sex. After all, computer gaming has a rather serious geek factor.
Before puberty, it's kinda ok to be nerdy in public - afterwards, you'd rather keep your gaming in your parents' basement. This is going to be a semi-major hurdle to climb for Sony with the PSP...
(This is of course why cell phones are such great gaming platforms - they're stealthy!)
"Science and education have no value."
Just thought I'd add that the education premium has probably never been higher than today, income-wise. (Perhaps too high...)
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked there were no killer robots on the Sweden-Norway frontier. (Still, that might have changed) :P
"Why do these creatures want to form governments anyway. With drastically different evolutionary time lines, one creature has probably evolved past war, another so evolved that all of the others seem more like suitable pets, another so unevolved that it's unaware that the others exist." Evolution isn't some story of linear progress in line with values that are currently fashionable. Worth keeping in mind. A propensity for violence is adaptive in some environments, maladaptive in other circumstances.
This actually made me laugh out loud - great stuff! :) Bring on the funny mods!
I got to see Clones for free in the theatre. Let's just say I was happy it was free.
Well, given that the scale of distribution is the problem here, it doesn't really matter that other picture categories have grown as much or more.
Ah, the Straussian conspiracy widens!
Why is it scary? Would it kill you to have a somewhat faster processor than you absolutely need? One of the bottom line celerons should be just fine for your needs, at pretty much negligible cost. (Newegg has the AMD Duron 1,6 GHz, for instance, at a whooping $43.99)
Ah - the standard "cynical" litany 1 A. How unimaginative.
"Banks already analize thier data..." Ouch, wouldn't want to be that data...
We don't need to use no stinkin' PDFs to keep track of those pinko commies. They tend to be rather easy to keep an eye on...
h urchill_sf_anarchist_bookfair_march_26_2005/156-56 35_IMG.JPG
http://www.zombietime.com/churchill_in_bay_area/c
Just a few comments here - it's important to flesh out these fallacies a bit more:
1.) "Appeal to authority" is usually a nice, rational way to go. After all, if successful people are taking path X, why shouldn't I?
2.) "Appeal to popularity" - this is also a nice way of economizing with regards to time and processing power - if other people with similar tastes like X, that could very well be an indication that X is good for me too.
I.e - the requirement for the above mentioned ways of analyzing your surroundings being fallacious is that the facts supporting them are somehow wrong or distorted.
C'mon - you're giving us Swedes a bad rep as humorless stuckups. Bork Bork! / Döbeln
You can't just compare the P4 (Or P4M) architecture with the P-M architecture MHz-wise. The P-M gets a lot more done per clock than the P4.
Don't underestimate the geek factor here - who do people go to for free computer support? That's right - geeks.
I have personally switched probably around 10 people, most of them rather clueless. (Co-employees, relatives, friends, etc.)
Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that geeks are also better at complaining about stuff like standards compliance. I complained about the non-standard compliant parts of my employer's website and got them to fix it pretty easily. So I wouldn't expect Firefox uptake to die off quite so easily just because the core geek market has been filled.
"Right, because music is so easy to make, taking only massive time and dedication to become good at," ...which people mostly to for pure pleasure. Or to get famous. Or to get laid. Or for cash (Concert money would still be a major source of revenue) People have been doing it for these reasons for thousands and thousands of years. And would a (slight) de-professionalization of the business really hurt consumers in a tangible way?
"Whereas programming is very hard, requiring both time and dedication to master?"
Well, certain kinds of programming are certainly done for pleasure. There would probably not be any shortage of small, clever utilities if copyright was abolished, for instance. (That's why my statement was rather qualified.) Large, complex database apps? Quality games? Fuggeddabouit. Keep in mind that concepts like the GPL go down the ditch when we ditch copyright.
"Or because good music only requires very expensive instruments and recording equipment,
Whereas programming requires an expensive computer?"
Equipment really isn't the largest input into copyrighted works (usually) - time is. And I would say most of the stuff considered timeless music today was produced without most of the wiz-bang tech of recent years. The same does not stand true for, say, movies and computer programming. (People would not accept having 0-budget movies only, or only Public Domain software - 0 budget music becomes hits fairly regularly, however.)
"Property is by nature theft".
Ah, nothing like little word-games only intended to jam communications...
As for the actual debate, there are legitimate gripes regarding the constant expansion of copyright in areas where their actual usefulness is in doubt.
Regarding music for instance, it would be very interesting to see what would happen if copyright collapsed - my guess is we would only see a modest decline in customer satisfaction, if any.
With regards to computer games, advanced proprietary software and movies however, the effects of outright copyright collapse would most likely be disastrous. My point made short:
The need for copyright:
1.) Is determined by the incentive and / or technological structure of the field of activity.
2.) The least possible amount of copyright protection needed to maintain the industries in question should always be used - as copyright is in effect a government ban on creative use of information.
Thus, I would prefer to see a constant re-evaluation of the need for copyright protections from field to field.
Well, part of the beauty of the law is the rubber phrasing - this allows for constant expansion, until the courts hit the occational public-relations snag, like the Green case. (Of course, the prosecutor, who has appealed to the Supreme Court does not agree with your judgement wrt the Green case...)
This is incorrect. The law regarding "Hets mot folkgrupp" deems "missaktning" or "disrespect" towards an ethnic, religious or sexual group to be a criminal offense.
It's kinda hard to translate sarcasm accurately across cultures. ---- Swede
The iron rule: Anecdotal evidence does not substitute for data. Repeat 1000 times, or until hoarse.
That last thing will never change, but at least working competition reduces what level of "extraction" is possible...
Of course it is real - as real as grass, penguins, or insensitive clods. "Value" is a neurological phenomena - chemistry and electricity in wonderful unity - which is very real indeed. It's a tool we use to get around in the world.
1) Last time I looked, the teaching of creationism (Or "ID", or whatever they call it) - is banned by judicial decree. If some fundie parents out in hicksville make a fuss with teachers from time to time, that's really not going to change things very much.
/countryside and the Blue urban areas.)
(And there really is no such thing as a "blue state" - there is the Red suburbia
2) Now, there is no stopping someone from making a false accusation - if people with anti-Bush bumper stickers were actually in some kind of trouble with the law, we would be hearing a hell of a lot more about it.
Hell, I'd even wager it was more dangerous to be sporting a "Go Bushie!" sticker this last election than a "Kerry Kerry" one...
3) "Happened" to be shown. Heh, yea - the PBS just happened to stumble across one of the many lesbian-owned sugar maple farms in the country.
Still, if this is your evidence of "The Forces of Darkness" taking over America and forcing it back to the middle ages, I really can't take you *that* seriously.
4) That of course doesn't mean that things are "coming up roses" - there are plenty of (social) problems to go around. However, Liberals are in a poor position to handle these problems, as they are primarily concentrated to the Black and Latino communities. As are Conservatives, for the very same reason.
5) People have enough trouble keeping their nation states together at the moment - attempting "world government" at this stage of human development would be a clusterfuck of huge proportions.
Heck, I live in the EU, and that's about as popular as... well, it's not terribly popular at all. It's tolerated, and that's about it. ("remote", "corrupt", "undemocratic", and so on...)
To sum it up, I kinda think we are going to have to stick with nation states for a while longer.
/ Dobeln
Let's not forget the primary reason for young kids dominating the handheld scene: Sex. After all, computer gaming has a rather serious geek factor.
Before puberty, it's kinda ok to be nerdy in public - afterwards, you'd rather keep your gaming in your parents' basement. This is going to be a semi-major hurdle to climb for Sony with the PSP...
(This is of course why cell phones are such great gaming platforms - they're stealthy!)
"Science and education have no value." Just thought I'd add that the education premium has probably never been higher than today, income-wise. (Perhaps too high...)