There are more shades to the debate than just "lets sue everyone and impose rootkit drm" and "all content should be free man!".
Indeed, but the way you argue just makes you sound like a dick. Nobody is going to argue shades of gray when you froth at the mouth like a rabid clown screaming about evil people who are stealing your brain.
I believe that someone deserves the amount of wealth they achieve through individual or team work.
That simply doesn't describe the world we live in. The people who do the least work, generally get the most wealth (executive/CEO/stock investor, trust fund baby, etc.) while those who do the hardest work (janitors, EMCs, teachers) often get the least wealth.
In particular, I'd say that someone having children who is unable to support them and doesn't have any reasonable expectation of being able to support them is guilty of what should be criminal stupidity.
So, we should just take out this resentment on the child? The child should suffer, because you think the mother is stupid or undeserving? That's a human being to. I think this attitude will only lead to more generations of of stupidity and carelessness. Why not break the cycle?
the point was that the word "greedy" was being used correctly according to the definition. If you don't like it, don't feel it is accurate, well then point out how the facts are different than the perception. Taking umbrage with a word without without even bothering to look up it's meaning just makes it obvious how shallow your argument is.
But you seem to be judging people lazy simply because they are on welfare. How do you know whether someone accepting welfare is lazy or not? How do you know their ciurcumstances? Seems you are just judging based on stereotypes. I know the meaning of the word - I was just questioning why you are using it.
I don't think my argument is shallow - in fact, it seems a lot more nuanced and complex than youirs. Care to explain how it is shallow?
England, through CCTV, has shown that it's no better than the US when it comes to privacy.
Say what? What's the privacy issue with the CCTV cameras in Britain? They are in public places, where there's no expectation of privacy. This is completely different to the wholesale tapping of private phone conversations and other communications.
Greed - excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
So, how do you judge the amount of wealth that a person "deserves"? Does the CEO of a big company deserve more wealth than a mother caring for her children?
The solution is to support people of religion who are not fundamentalists,
Why should I support "people of religion", even if they are "moderates" or non-fundamentalists. They are as much of a problem as the fundamentalists are. In many ways they are more of a problem. Fundamentalists are easily dismissed - but it's the moderates who choose to believe in fairytales who give the fundamentalists power. The solution is to abandon religion.
Which is why the driver won't get to do diddly other than tell the car the destination or if the carputer asks for help. The car will use all kinds of sensors and wireless to coordinate with the other cars and navigate.
Did you even read the article? the "flying car" we are discussing here does not fly itself. It is not full of computers. It's basically an ordinary light aircraft, which has wings that fold up so it can be driven on the road. No "carputer." No high-tech navigation.
there will always be greedy lazy people and we can't hope to change that, so we need to change the program to exclude those people from it.
How does the "greedy" fit in here? If someone was greedy, why would they go on welfare? You get a pittance from that, not a luxurious life. If you were greedy, you'd fulfil your greed much more readily by being an business executive or a drug dealer, than by being on welfare.
"Greedy" seems a more apt description of the mainstream workers who are climbing over one another in a rat race to buy a new car or other status symbol.
We prop up citizens that could take care of themselves but won't because its much easier to have 15 kids all on everyone else's nickel and take the handouts. Having 15 kids is "easy"? I think it would be a lot easier to work a job and not have kids.
And so few are outraged that that traffic (or at least the connections) will more than likely be logged by the government against the will of the people.
And the iPhone created government surveillance of telephone calls... how?
Believe it or not, humans can multitask. We can be both excited about a new phone, and outraged over government corruption at the same time! Or should we give up any technological progress until we have perfect government and laws? Somehow I don't think that if Apple refused to release the iPhone, the government would stop tapping phones.
(almost everyone had at least one class in 32-123, which held around 300 people, regardless of their major) You may wish to familiarize yourself with the meaning of the comma:-P
The comma's just a pause or separator, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence above. You see, "regardless of their major" comes immediately after "300 people" - when it should come after "almost everyone."
So, the BBC should show some balls and tell them that they are smoking cheap crack that's only hurting them - not immediately cave, and waste hundreds of millions of dollars to appease them. They need the BBC more than the BBC needs them.
It is significantly harder to make an operating system that will run in an unknown hostile environment
Hostile environment? What the hell does that mean in this context? It's not as if Windows (or Linux for that matter) is running on hardware that is somehow opposed to running Windows or Linux. In fact, much of the hardware has stickers on it touting how it is "ready for Windows" or somesuch.
(almost everyone had at least one class in 32-123, which held around 300 people, regardless of their major)
One would assume that the room would have the same seating capacity regardless of the occupants' major. Or are CS majors on average much larger people than other students?
The committee in charge of choosing a design - picked a design represented by essentially nothing more than a few bar napkin sketches by an artist, mostly because it was 'beautiful and evocative'. No engineering, no studies, no analysis, no nothing.
And they ended up with one of the world's great buildings and landmarks. Looks like they made the right decision, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, but the way you argue just makes you sound like a dick. Nobody is going to argue shades of gray when you froth at the mouth like a rabid clown screaming about evil people who are stealing your brain.
Maybe you should choose another line of work. This one doesn't seem to be making you happy.
That simply doesn't describe the world we live in. The people who do the least work, generally get the most wealth (executive/CEO/stock investor, trust fund baby, etc.) while those who do the hardest work (janitors, EMCs, teachers) often get the least wealth.
In particular, I'd say that someone having children who is unable to support them and doesn't have any reasonable expectation of being able to support them is guilty of what should be criminal stupidity.So, we should just take out this resentment on the child? The child should suffer, because you think the mother is stupid or undeserving? That's a human being to. I think this attitude will only lead to more generations of of stupidity and carelessness. Why not break the cycle?
the point was that the word "greedy" was being used correctly according to the definition. If you don't like it, don't feel it is accurate, well then point out how the facts are different than the perception. Taking umbrage with a word without without even bothering to look up it's meaning just makes it obvious how shallow your argument is.But you seem to be judging people lazy simply because they are on welfare. How do you know whether someone accepting welfare is lazy or not? How do you know their ciurcumstances? Seems you are just judging based on stereotypes. I know the meaning of the word - I was just questioning why you are using it.
I don't think my argument is shallow - in fact, it seems a lot more nuanced and complex than youirs. Care to explain how it is shallow?
No, I don't bite the heads off chickens at carnivals. I thought Slashdot was for nerds.
Bullshit. You might want to learn a few things about the rest of the world.
Say what? What's the privacy issue with the CCTV cameras in Britain? They are in public places, where there's no expectation of privacy. This is completely different to the wholesale tapping of private phone conversations and other communications.
How is that an oxymoron?
What will happen? How would you know what is going to happen? Sounds more like a science-fiction fantasy of what you want to happen.
So, how do you judge the amount of wealth that a person "deserves"? Does the CEO of a big company deserve more wealth than a mother caring for her children?
Sure, why not? It's all a part of the same delusion.
Why should I support "people of religion", even if they are "moderates" or non-fundamentalists. They are as much of a problem as the fundamentalists are. In many ways they are more of a problem. Fundamentalists are easily dismissed - but it's the moderates who choose to believe in fairytales who give the fundamentalists power. The solution is to abandon religion.
Why? It would take at least a couple of hours to take quality architectural photos of a building's exterior.
Wait, do you mean to tell me that such people actually exist? Doesn't sound plausible to me.
Did you even read the article? the "flying car" we are discussing here does not fly itself. It is not full of computers. It's basically an ordinary light aircraft, which has wings that fold up so it can be driven on the road. No "carputer." No high-tech navigation.
How does the "greedy" fit in here? If someone was greedy, why would they go on welfare? You get a pittance from that, not a luxurious life. If you were greedy, you'd fulfil your greed much more readily by being an business executive or a drug dealer, than by being on welfare.
"Greedy" seems a more apt description of the mainstream workers who are climbing over one another in a rat race to buy a new car or other status symbol.
... you are probably completely out of touch with ordinary users of these devices, therefore your opinion doesn't carry much weight.
And the iPhone created government surveillance of telephone calls... how?
Believe it or not, humans can multitask. We can be both excited about a new phone, and outraged over government corruption at the same time! Or should we give up any technological progress until we have perfect government and laws? Somehow I don't think that if Apple refused to release the iPhone, the government would stop tapping phones.
WTF? Those are classic geek occupations. How the hell does a non-geek get a job as a doctor or naval navigator? Those jobs require geekiness.
How can they ethically give M&Ms to an animal? Depraved scientists, inflicting harm just for the fun of it.
The comma's just a pause or separator, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence above. You see, "regardless of their major" comes immediately after "300 people" - when it should come after "almost everyone."
So, the BBC should show some balls and tell them that they are smoking cheap crack that's only hurting them - not immediately cave, and waste hundreds of millions of dollars to appease them. They need the BBC more than the BBC needs them.
Hostile environment? What the hell does that mean in this context? It's not as if Windows (or Linux for that matter) is running on hardware that is somehow opposed to running Windows or Linux. In fact, much of the hardware has stickers on it touting how it is "ready for Windows" or somesuch.
One would assume that the room would have the same seating capacity regardless of the occupants' major. Or are CS majors on average much larger people than other students?
And they ended up with one of the world's great buildings and landmarks. Looks like they made the right decision, eh?