Sorry, without the yelling and the being demeaned, your offer is not attractive enough. I've got a complex personality to maintain, being nice to me would just ruin everything.
In the world without copyright that Stallman seems to want,
That's an extremely retarded statement. Stallman is all for copyright. In fact, he is in favor of powerful copyright so that authors can retain control over their creations. Just because he uses a "Free" license doesn't mean his work is not copyrighted, oir that he somehow opposes copyright. Where did you get that idea from?
I'm all for draconian copyright enforcement, because it will lead to widespread civil disobedience and ultimately, a changing of the laws in what the public deems it's interest.
Yeah right. In happy fantasy land with little green elves, that will happen. In the real world, people won't engage in civil disobedience. How many people do you know are willing to go to jail over "unjust copyright law"? Please get a grip. Civil disobedience is extremely unpopular. If people get caught doing something illegal, they will usually make some excuse and try to argue repentance for a reduced sentence. Almost nobody will say "Yes, I intended to break this law because it is unjust. Throw the book at me." when faces with charges.
Fellow/.ers, help me fight aganst the evil Sony agents and mod this up.
You deserve to be modded down just for asking to be modded up, regardless of the quality of your post. Only a stupid fucknuckle asks to be modded up. Why can't you let your post stand on its own merits, without the insecure pleas for positive moderation?
So I disagree that Apple has had that great an influence on the world.
So, because you've never bought an Apple product, they haven't influenced the world? How ridiculous! Windows is currently the world's most popular OS, and it was a copy of MacOS. The mouse was popularized by Apple, and today everybody uses a mouse with their computer. Mainstream desktop publishing was basically invented on the Mac, and today everybody does it. Photoshop was originally a Mac-only application, and today "photoshop" is used as a synonym to "manipulate digital images" and is an immensely sought-after application.
The examples go on and on. Anyone who knows history and has their head in reality cannot deny that Apple has influenced the world in numerous ways.
Firstly, what you describe can be done with just about any MP3 player at about 1/4 the cost of an iPod.
Can you please tell me which MP3 players can hold your entire CD collection, and cost 1/4 as much as the iPods? Most MP3 players of any significant capacity cost around the same price as an iPod.
The post said that the iPod had 32MB of RAM. The PJB-100 had only 12MB. That makes a big difference in how often the hard-drive has to spin up, in practical terms. Especially when a 128kbps AAC file sounds as good as a 160k or even 192k MP3, it makes an even bigger difference.
Right - and if people want to use their parallel-port printers, you can also get adapters for that sort of thing. So, why should we include these obsolete ports on modern systems, any more than we should include a punch-card reader?
Those are the types of "save the trees" militants I was talking about.
So, why didn't you say that? Why did you imply that anybody with an interest in environmentalism was a militant?
There are some very militant conservationist groups.
And they are an extreme minority.
Some of the "save the trees" and "don't eat animals' groups are just as batshiat crazy as the militant "white power," "black power" and "j00z are teh evil" asshats.
So, why didn't you focus on extremist actions, and instead chose to impugn environmentalism in general? As I said, the vast majority of environmentalists are peaceful. In fact, I'd say that statistically, environmentalists are more peaceful on average than the average citizen of the total population. However, the average white supremecist is likely to be far more violent than average.
You are mostly responding to propaganda, which paints a picture of the "violent environmentalist" which is extremely rare, and usually a distortion of the truth. The reality is that it's a very peaceful movement for all but a tiny minority, and even the actions of that minority get exaggerated into this cartoonish image you have.
And how the hell did you get "save the animals" into the "save the trees" category? Animal liberation is a very different movement, which usually has little to do with environmentalism.
Your point? Pedophiles are also excluded from being leaders. As are felons.
So, why the need to exclude gay leaders?
Boy scouts are young men, not children.
What's your point? That young men shouldn't be around older men or women?
In some circumstances. Scouting is one of them.
Why? Give me a good reason for this. If these people are young men, then wouldn't it be doing a disservice by shielding them from the real world, just before they gain majority legal status? Shouldn't leaders and their charges be taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming things on sexual orientation?
It seems rather obvious to me... because the potential sexual interest, particularly between the leader and the older boys, may interfere in a variety of ways, some mild, some severe.
But most pedophiles who molest boys label themselves as heterosexual, and usually have wives. Meanwhile, many homosexuals are able to not think of children as sexual objects. Are you saying that only men should teach boys, and only women should teach girls?
When you burn down housing developments, turn loose rodents that kill livestock and pets, and "adopt" pets from animal shelters to kill them, that's what I'd call militant.
Where does the statement "save the trees" contain anything about burning down housing developments, or anything about radical animal liberation? The vast majority of people who would use that phrase would support things like planting more trees and reducing logging, not burning down housing developments. You seem very confused. I'm not even sure hopw you managed to associate those things with "save the trees," as they are completely unrelated.
If the grandparent poster had said "save the trees by burning things down" - then that would be militant. But he didn't include that part, so how can the statement as quoted be considered militant?
Slashdot Mirror
The skateboarder? That guy rocks.
Mmmm, SPAM rolls, home delivered? Delicious and convenient. Why would anyone object to that? ... Oh, you must have meant "spam."
Toaded the wet sprocket.
Jesus could probably save him, as long as he had help from his best friend Santa.
It's a virtual Virtual World, in which you become a virtual designer of Virtual Worlds.
Sorry, without the yelling and the being demeaned, your offer is not attractive enough. I've got a complex personality to maintain, being nice to me would just ruin everything.
That's an extremely retarded statement. Stallman is all for copyright. In fact, he is in favor of powerful copyright so that authors can retain control over their creations. Just because he uses a "Free" license doesn't mean his work is not copyrighted, oir that he somehow opposes copyright. Where did you get that idea from?
So, what does this comment have to do with the topic of discussion? Environmentalists have very little support from government.
Yeah right. In happy fantasy land with little green elves, that will happen. In the real world, people won't engage in civil disobedience. How many people do you know are willing to go to jail over "unjust copyright law"? Please get a grip. Civil disobedience is extremely unpopular. If people get caught doing something illegal, they will usually make some excuse and try to argue repentance for a reduced sentence. Almost nobody will say "Yes, I intended to break this law because it is unjust. Throw the book at me." when faces with charges.
You deserve to be modded down just for asking to be modded up, regardless of the quality of your post. Only a stupid fucknuckle asks to be modded up. Why can't you let your post stand on its own merits, without the insecure pleas for positive moderation?
Hell, why not add in a George Foreman grill while you're at it?
Uhhh, because it installs its own malware? Why do you think it's a good thing to have some scam software installed on your machine?
So, because you've never bought an Apple product, they haven't influenced the world? How ridiculous! Windows is currently the world's most popular OS, and it was a copy of MacOS. The mouse was popularized by Apple, and today everybody uses a mouse with their computer. Mainstream desktop publishing was basically invented on the Mac, and today everybody does it. Photoshop was originally a Mac-only application, and today "photoshop" is used as a synonym to "manipulate digital images" and is an immensely sought-after application.
The examples go on and on. Anyone who knows history and has their head in reality cannot deny that Apple has influenced the world in numerous ways.
Can you please tell me which MP3 players can hold your entire CD collection, and cost 1/4 as much as the iPods? Most MP3 players of any significant capacity cost around the same price as an iPod.
Shouldn't that be "Bruce's your uncle"?
The post said that the iPod had 32MB of RAM. The PJB-100 had only 12MB. That makes a big difference in how often the hard-drive has to spin up, in practical terms. Especially when a 128kbps AAC file sounds as good as a 160k or even 192k MP3, it makes an even bigger difference.
Yes. It's "mouses" when talking about computer peripherals. "Mice" refers to a group of animals. "Meeses" refers to cartoon rodents.
Right - and if people want to use their parallel-port printers, you can also get adapters for that sort of thing. So, why should we include these obsolete ports on modern systems, any more than we should include a punch-card reader?
Because of powerful industrial and political interests which are beholden to the US. The people did not support it, and did not get to vote on it.
So, why didn't you say that? Why did you imply that anybody with an interest in environmentalism was a militant?
There are some very militant conservationist groups.
And they are an extreme minority.
Some of the "save the trees" and "don't eat animals' groups are just as batshiat crazy as the militant "white power," "black power" and "j00z are teh evil" asshats.
So, why didn't you focus on extremist actions, and instead chose to impugn environmentalism in general? As I said, the vast majority of environmentalists are peaceful. In fact, I'd say that statistically, environmentalists are more peaceful on average than the average citizen of the total population. However, the average white supremecist is likely to be far more violent than average.
You are mostly responding to propaganda, which paints a picture of the "violent environmentalist" which is extremely rare, and usually a distortion of the truth. The reality is that it's a very peaceful movement for all but a tiny minority, and even the actions of that minority get exaggerated into this cartoonish image you have.
And how the hell did you get "save the animals" into the "save the trees" category? Animal liberation is a very different movement, which usually has little to do with environmentalism.
So, why the need to exclude gay leaders?
Boy scouts are young men, not children.
What's your point? That young men shouldn't be around older men or women?
In some circumstances. Scouting is one of them.
Why? Give me a good reason for this. If these people are young men, then wouldn't it be doing a disservice by shielding them from the real world, just before they gain majority legal status? Shouldn't leaders and their charges be taking responsibility for their actions, rather than blaming things on sexual orientation?
So, can I make a patch for molesting boys or stealing cars?
But most pedophiles who molest boys label themselves as heterosexual, and usually have wives. Meanwhile, many homosexuals are able to not think of children as sexual objects. Are you saying that only men should teach boys, and only women should teach girls?
Not one bit.
Sexual harasment on-the-job, short of rape with physical battery, is essentially a dead issue thanks to the "Clinton Defense".
Bullshit.
Where does the statement "save the trees" contain anything about burning down housing developments, or anything about radical animal liberation? The vast majority of people who would use that phrase would support things like planting more trees and reducing logging, not burning down housing developments. You seem very confused. I'm not even sure hopw you managed to associate those things with "save the trees," as they are completely unrelated.
If the grandparent poster had said "save the trees by burning things down" - then that would be militant. But he didn't include that part, so how can the statement as quoted be considered militant?