Your silly Capitalist dogma would only be true if there were an infinite number of businesses offering an infinite number of options to people, including a vast library of Amazon's size less rights-restricted than Amazon proposes.
This is obviously not so; thus your dogma is untrue. But don't let that prevent you from believing in it.
No they don't play any nicer with Mac. Adobe apps look Fisher-Price, run slowly and crash -- basically since OS X Adobe has said, Screw you, to the Macintosh. The worst thing was Adobe flat-out refusing to support OS X's best new graphics stuff in Photoshop. Rumor has it too that an important VP at Adobe keeps saying the Mac is dead, and it's a fact that he's written forewards for Adobe books saying, Windows is a better platform than Mac. That's not cool since the Macintosh basically put them on the map...
Re:It's as if icons peaked 2-4 years ago
on
A History of Icons
·
· Score: 1
It's a pretty brilliant artist that can do both -- photorealism and strong symbolism -- and I don't know that anyone but whomever it was Apple hired has pulled it off effectively. I'm looking at my Dock now, and pretty much every icon fails in one way or the other except the Apple apps icons. Maybe this is actually a failure on Apple's part -- raising the bar too high.
Now I'll be sure to keep NAV on all the Macs in my business, since Symantec has deliberately insulted Macs (only safe because of dumb luck) and Mac-users (only buy for style, not legitimate reasons). Symantec sure knows how to attract customers, I'll give them that.
You: " I think I remember something about believing that the pursuit of happiness being a more central issue..."
Ding. We have a winner.
Simple fact -- anyone saying, The Founders said "apple" but meant "potato", is an underhanded idealog. What's more, he slanders the Founders and my intelligence. Does it piss me off to be condescended to? A little. Does it anger me to have our nation's Founders condescended to? Some. Does it upset me when idealogs astroturf the world with their narrow greedy opinions -- and intelligence and balance be damned? Hell yes -- and discourse and true comprehension suffer for it.
As a great man once said: "Stop. Stop hurting America."
Brilliant. Now why did they "decide to change it"? Just to mix things up? Laughs on future generations? Needed a break from all the solemnity? In-joke with their main man Locke?
The word "property" is indiscernable from the word "happiness" only to King Midas and Randists such as you.
You: " 'Pursuit of happiness', a reference to Locke's 'pursuit of property'..."
Another example of an idealogue (who again just happens to be Libertarian) assuming the Founders were drooling illiterates. If they'd meant "pursuit of property", they could have said "pursuit of property". If they didn't know the difference between the words "property" and "happiness", what makes you think they knew the sameness of the words "pursuit" and "pursuit"? So your argument is more than cynical -- it undermines itself by rendering the entire document unreliable.
1. The Act is written in such a way as to hamper investigation of its results. The built-in secrecy is such that Congress has raised alarms in the past, citing its inability to monitor results of the Act.
2. The truth about an accusation often falls somewhere in the middle of what is alleged and what is finally admitted. It isn't easy to prove something against government in the best cases.
3. Whether any evil can be proved to result from tyranny is no excuse for tyranny. Patrick Henry did not declaim: Give me liberty unless tyranny will make me live easier!
The PATRIOT Act is simply unamerican, and no one who loves this country will rest until it is reversed or expired.
So according to you the problem with robbing and plundering is "that it's not a sustainable business model" and that to rob those with the most money would require facing military force? You're nearly as ridiculous as the first poster, and equally reprehensible.
The "problem" with robbing and plundering is that it is tyrannical and harms others. That is why powers "have tanks" that they would point at you -- it doesn't feel well to be robbed and plundered, and they will do what they can (which is in their case a great lot) to prevent suffering it. So you seem to be saying tyrannize those who can't tyrannize you back is the basis of successful society.
This thinking may be "Capitalist" but it doesn't belong in a free country. In a free country, someone gives you his money, freely, because he's glad for the great service that you, freely, provide him. Trickery and coercion aren't admirable, aren't "sustainable business models", and its victims don't deserve to "shut up cause X is just trying to make money".
Tyranny of a business sort, like tyranny of any other sort, simply has no place in the Land of the Free.
Every other comment on Slashdot seems to comprise one of you Capitalist gurus saying "X is in the business of making money" by way of answer to anything from customer complaints to Congressional displeasure. And you don't say it as an excuse either, but with some sort of righteous triumph. This argument won't wash.
Think about this: If Google is "in the business of making money", not in the business of helping people "find things on the internet", then what are they bothering with all that search engine nonsense for? Wouldn't their duty be to rob and plunder, as the directest route to the cash? How can they justify wasting time on any method less efficient or, God forbid, helpful to others? This is how the argument by such as you comes to a logical conclusion: The truly necessary and moral act is financial rape.
Too much of academe seems to have a twisted, inbred sense of what is right and wrong. Without delving into the many perverse ethical ideas in obscurer philosophy &c. I'll note that this Harvard case is just one practical example. It reminds me of the time I was browsing some.edu site where a prof had posted a scan of an antique book's pages, or something, and I edited the URL from ".../images/ximage" to ".../images", looking for more. Up popped a page with "What you are doing is very naughty and is being logged" on it. Huh? This sort of thing is the product of minds too isolated and with too much time on their hands.
It's called English bright boy. Our language is not some kind of semantical musical chairs. And here's one for you: If the English of the Framers is opaque and needs "divining", what exactly did Scalia read to arrive at his interpretation? The French of neighboring Indian tribes? The Klingon of alien observers?
It's one thing to say there are nuances and history to a writing that give it more fullness, and it's a whole other thing to say that a writing doesn't at all mean what it means. Scalia is insulting my intelligence, but I'll let you speak for your own.
I've walked off many jobs for many reasons, and it's something I've never regretted. An attitude of success -- or really just one of earnestness and imagination -- will have its limits dealing with mediocrity or injustice. An attitude of daring won't fear any consequences of good action. And it's just such attitudes that create better and better things for the person who holds them. I am very glad for where I am in life and career right now, and I am very glad for quitting every job I've quit.
An argument such as Scalia's requires, to be effective, that its auditor be as dumb as it pretends the Framers were. If the Framers wished to say "differing from local statute" they could have said it. Someone's living a few hundred years ago does not render him mentally incompetent.
But Scalia is frequently this specious. His is the demeanor of earnest scholar, but an examination of his arguments will show that they in fact violate other arguments he has made at other times. He has no qualms warping reason to politics. A simple example: He is for the states' rights to execute whom and how they will, but he is against the states' rights to regulate marijuana or voting procedures or many other things.
There are few statesmen nowadays, but evoking statesmanship or scholarship is popular public relations for politicians of many stripes.
Absolutely. Spending large sums of personal money for the privilege of jumping through mindless hoops to please an intellectually-incestuous cabal of bureaucrats, all in order to achieve a piece of paper that may or may not impress future employers -- this is not what academies and universities were intended to be in the golden days of learning. It fills me with disgust, and I really agree with Mr. Gates that the system is flawed and is flawing society.
How do we expect people to become imaginative, self-reliant members of a free society when we trap them for decades in thoguht-deadening, authoritarian institutions? How can we expect a robust democracy from people who are raised socialistically?
The academies of Germany and the universities of England are superior examples of education and put America's to shame. We should learn from these, and also not be afraid to innovate. Foremost, the educational cabal -- the teachers' unions, the university illuminati -- must be broken and dispersed.
They do have "OS Lite" -- Simple Finder. Set her shell as Simple Finder in the Accounts preferences -- put the few applications she truly needs in the Dock -- put her Documents folder in the Dock -- everything large and clearly-marked.
I can only hope HP comes down on this woman with the full force of the DMCA. Once consumer defiance begins, even in these small ways, if is not promptly stifled it is impossible to gauge the devastating repurcussions it will have on the economic market.
On the contrary, there is a great deal ethical in that explanation. A thing's being legal does not exclude its being ethical. You Modernist chaps can't see the forest for the trees.
The real money will be in designing the offspring of rich, vain people.
"Would you like little Bobby with blond or --"
"Doctor, he will be more attractive, smarter, and stronger than all the other chldren in the world, won't he?"
"How much are you willing to spend?"
Slashdot Mirror
Your silly Capitalist dogma would only be true if there were an infinite number of businesses offering an infinite number of options to people, including a vast library of Amazon's size less rights-restricted than Amazon proposes.
This is obviously not so; thus your dogma is untrue. But don't let that prevent you from believing in it.
No they don't play any nicer with Mac. Adobe apps look Fisher-Price, run slowly and crash -- basically since OS X Adobe has said, Screw you, to the Macintosh. The worst thing was Adobe flat-out refusing to support OS X's best new graphics stuff in Photoshop. Rumor has it too that an important VP at Adobe keeps saying the Mac is dead, and it's a fact that he's written forewards for Adobe books saying, Windows is a better platform than Mac. That's not cool since the Macintosh basically put them on the map ...
It's a pretty brilliant artist that can do both -- photorealism and strong symbolism -- and I don't know that anyone but whomever it was Apple hired has pulled it off effectively. I'm looking at my Dock now, and pretty much every icon fails in one way or the other except the Apple apps icons. Maybe this is actually a failure on Apple's part -- raising the bar too high.
Now I'll be sure to keep NAV on all the Macs in my business, since Symantec has deliberately insulted Macs (only safe because of dumb luck) and Mac-users (only buy for style, not legitimate reasons). Symantec sure knows how to attract customers, I'll give them that.
You: " I think I remember something about believing that the pursuit of happiness being a more central issue ..."
Ding. We have a winner.
Simple fact -- anyone saying, The Founders said "apple" but meant "potato", is an underhanded idealog. What's more, he slanders the Founders and my intelligence. Does it piss me off to be condescended to? A little. Does it anger me to have our nation's Founders condescended to? Some. Does it upset me when idealogs astroturf the world with their narrow greedy opinions -- and intelligence and balance be damned? Hell yes -- and discourse and true comprehension suffer for it.
As a great man once said: "Stop. Stop hurting America."
And in which clause of the Constitution is the phrase "pursuit of happiness" to be found? Idiots like me don't find it.
Brilliant. Now why did they "decide to change it"? Just to mix things up? Laughs on future generations? Needed a break from all the solemnity? In-joke with their main man Locke?
The word "property" is indiscernable from the word "happiness" only to King Midas and Randists such as you.
You: " 'Pursuit of happiness', a reference to Locke's 'pursuit of property' ..."
Another example of an idealogue (who again just happens to be Libertarian) assuming the Founders were drooling illiterates. If they'd meant "pursuit of property", they could have said "pursuit of property". If they didn't know the difference between the words "property" and "happiness", what makes you think they knew the sameness of the words "pursuit" and "pursuit"? So your argument is more than cynical -- it undermines itself by rendering the entire document unreliable.
Let's remember several things:
1. The Act is written in such a way as to hamper investigation of its results. The built-in secrecy is such that Congress has raised alarms in the past, citing its inability to monitor results of the Act.
2. The truth about an accusation often falls somewhere in the middle of what is alleged and what is finally admitted. It isn't easy to prove something against government in the best cases.3. Whether any evil can be proved to result from tyranny is no excuse for tyranny. Patrick Henry did not declaim: Give me liberty unless tyranny will make me live easier!
The PATRIOT Act is simply unamerican, and no one who loves this country will rest until it is reversed or expired.
I responded to the portion of your post to which I responded.
So according to you the problem with robbing and plundering is "that it's not a sustainable business model" and that to rob those with the most money would require facing military force? You're nearly as ridiculous as the first poster, and equally reprehensible.
The "problem" with robbing and plundering is that it is tyrannical and harms others. That is why powers "have tanks" that they would point at you -- it doesn't feel well to be robbed and plundered, and they will do what they can (which is in their case a great lot) to prevent suffering it. So you seem to be saying tyrannize those who can't tyrannize you back is the basis of successful society.
This thinking may be "Capitalist" but it doesn't belong in a free country. In a free country, someone gives you his money, freely, because he's glad for the great service that you, freely, provide him. Trickery and coercion aren't admirable, aren't "sustainable business models", and its victims don't deserve to "shut up cause X is just trying to make money".
Tyranny of a business sort, like tyranny of any other sort, simply has no place in the Land of the Free.
Every other comment on Slashdot seems to comprise one of you Capitalist gurus saying "X is in the business of making money" by way of answer to anything from customer complaints to Congressional displeasure. And you don't say it as an excuse either, but with some sort of righteous triumph. This argument won't wash.
Think about this: If Google is "in the business of making money", not in the business of helping people "find things on the internet", then what are they bothering with all that search engine nonsense for? Wouldn't their duty be to rob and plunder, as the directest route to the cash? How can they justify wasting time on any method less efficient or, God forbid, helpful to others? This is how the argument by such as you comes to a logical conclusion: The truly necessary and moral act is financial rape.
Ridiculous.
Too much of academe seems to have a twisted, inbred sense of what is right and wrong. Without delving into the many perverse ethical ideas in obscurer philosophy &c. I'll note that this Harvard case is just one practical example. It reminds me of the time I was browsing some .edu site where a prof had posted a scan of an antique book's pages, or something, and I edited the URL from ".../images/ximage" to ".../images", looking for more. Up popped a page with "What you are doing is very naughty and is being logged" on it. Huh? This sort of thing is the product of minds too isolated and with too much time on their hands.
It's called English bright boy. Our language is not some kind of semantical musical chairs. And here's one for you: If the English of the Framers is opaque and needs "divining", what exactly did Scalia read to arrive at his interpretation? The French of neighboring Indian tribes? The Klingon of alien observers?
It's one thing to say there are nuances and history to a writing that give it more fullness, and it's a whole other thing to say that a writing doesn't at all mean what it means. Scalia is insulting my intelligence, but I'll let you speak for your own.
I've walked off many jobs for many reasons, and it's something I've never regretted. An attitude of success -- or really just one of earnestness and imagination -- will have its limits dealing with mediocrity or injustice. An attitude of daring won't fear any consequences of good action. And it's just such attitudes that create better and better things for the person who holds them. I am very glad for where I am in life and career right now, and I am very glad for quitting every job I've quit.
"Are p2p networks covered by our right to gather? Our right to associate? Our right to privacy?"
Why not all of the above? And do not forget Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
An argument such as Scalia's requires, to be effective, that its auditor be as dumb as it pretends the Framers were. If the Framers wished to say "differing from local statute" they could have said it. Someone's living a few hundred years ago does not render him mentally incompetent.
But Scalia is frequently this specious. His is the demeanor of earnest scholar, but an examination of his arguments will show that they in fact violate other arguments he has made at other times. He has no qualms warping reason to politics. A simple example: He is for the states' rights to execute whom and how they will, but he is against the states' rights to regulate marijuana or voting procedures or many other things.
There are few statesmen nowadays, but evoking statesmanship or scholarship is popular public relations for politicians of many stripes.
There is no real limitation to the window managers you can run in OS X, using X11.
"Airlines are private companies."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ahem. Haha.
Good one.
Absolutely. Spending large sums of personal money for the privilege of jumping through mindless hoops to please an intellectually-incestuous cabal of bureaucrats, all in order to achieve a piece of paper that may or may not impress future employers -- this is not what academies and universities were intended to be in the golden days of learning. It fills me with disgust, and I really agree with Mr. Gates that the system is flawed and is flawing society. How do we expect people to become imaginative, self-reliant members of a free society when we trap them for decades in thoguht-deadening, authoritarian institutions? How can we expect a robust democracy from people who are raised socialistically? The academies of Germany and the universities of England are superior examples of education and put America's to shame. We should learn from these, and also not be afraid to innovate. Foremost, the educational cabal -- the teachers' unions, the university illuminati -- must be broken and dispersed.
They do have "OS Lite" -- Simple Finder. Set her shell as Simple Finder in the Accounts preferences -- put the few applications she truly needs in the Dock -- put her Documents folder in the Dock -- everything large and clearly-marked.
Brilliant.
I can only hope HP comes down on this woman with the full force of the DMCA. Once consumer defiance begins, even in these small ways, if is not promptly stifled it is impossible to gauge the devastating repurcussions it will have on the economic market.
On the contrary, there is a great deal ethical in that explanation. A thing's being legal does not exclude its being ethical. You Modernist chaps can't see the forest for the trees.
The real money will be in designing the offspring of rich, vain people. "Would you like little Bobby with blond or --" "Doctor, he will be more attractive, smarter, and stronger than all the other chldren in the world, won't he?" "How much are you willing to spend?"