Uhh, what? It's still an ethical stance, even if you don't agree with it. Different people have different ethical rules.
Tell me why then they try so hard yet fail to make everything look and taste like e.g. a burger.
Who exactly are you talking about? I know plenty of vegetarians and vegans who don't do that shit. Even if they do, I'm not sure what your point is.
Watch any vege show, watch how what they make looks like dogshit. Watch how they don't even get excited when eating it, even when faking it.
You're taking your opinions on vegetarianism from fucking TV?? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Except for chemicals, oh so now that's OK to eat. Manufactured chemicals are way better than naturally grown products.
Again, plenty of veggies are also pro-organic and don't eat processed foods. Some even grow most of their own food.
Ethics has nothing to do with it. It's about being cool, hip, fitting in, like a typical high schooler.
For some people maybe, but not for all. Your statement doesn't make a lot of sense, because vegans and vegetarians are a minority, and don't typically "fit in" and often have problems doing so.
No, you are the one with an ignorance of shit. Resting is essential for many types of meat (not all, though). It is the way it should be cooked. Steak, lamb roasts, that kind of thing definitely benefits. It's not a myth.
You don't understand yet? We are living in the age of the blogger, the twitterer, the ultimate narcissist. To these people, their every bowel movement is a significant event that deserves public attention. In their minds, taking a photo of their food is something that might earn them a Pulitzer Prize, and the adoration of millions.
There seem to be so many problems with people eating unhealthy food, or eating too much food, and wasting food, and so on, that I sometimes wish people would just take a utilitarian attitude towards food.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach. Many top chefs advocate "nose to tail" eating, where every part of the animal is used. They have no problems enjoying things that many people consider "gross" as delicacies. They understand not wasting food.
So, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish your goal is actually to encourage the aesthetic, artistic, "gourmet" approach of the foodie, rather than rejecting our tastes. Enhance our tastes to enjoy more variety, rather than the limited range of taste the non-foodie subsists on.
Of course, the sight and smell are reasons I can't stand any kind of seafood, long before the taste hits my palate and informs me I should have known better than to believe the jackass who swears that this kind of fish, cooked in this particular way doesn't taste fishy...
It's impossible to take the opinion of someone who doesn't like any seafood seriously, when it comes to talking about food. I'd say the same about people who dismiss any broad category of food (meat, vegetables, fish, grain) out-of-hand. With the possible exception of those who don't eat certain categories for ethical reasons (i.e: vegetarians). I'd still listen to their opinion on vegetable-based food. But just not liking everything in any of these categories demonstrates a poorly developed palate and inexperience with food.
Aren't you tired of idiotic comparisons which compare copyright infringement to murder?
I'm not comparing it to murder, I'm comparing it with the concept of aiding and abetting a crime. I'm not sure why you focus on the "murder" part, it's just an example of a common crime.
The truth is that it is impossible for the operators of OBT (by themselves) to know whether content is infringing or not, unless, of course, the torrent itself claims to be infringing
But they don't have to run the tracker that way. They could use a moderation/vetting process to ensure that only legit torrents (say Linux distributions) are listed, or have users submit a form that demonstrates their ownership of copyright or permission to distribute.
Basically, my question is - what reason is there to run an un-vetted tracker, other than to facilitate copyright infringement? What is the motive? Those who are distributing their own material via torrent can easily run their own trackers.
OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute.
Disclaimer: I don't think this tracker should be shut down, and I find the RIAA, MPAA & Co to be despicable.
However, I'm not really sure this argument holds up legally. Usually, a content provider (Youtube for example) is obligated to take down infringing content on request, or otherwise to make a counter-argument against the take-down notices. They can't just say "we aren't responsible for the content." Now, you may argue that because it's just a tracker, they aren't trafficking in infringing content. But in reality, there isn't that much separation. They are facilitating the downloading of that content.
In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."
They don't condone piracy; in fact, their website asks that users not illegally distribute copyrighted material with the tracker.
That's pretty unconvincing. They all say that. Words are cheap, actions matter more. If they were actively removing infringing torrents, that would be another matter.
Why would the Big Friendly Giant be making graphics cards in the first place? One would think that his hands would be too big to assemble the highly miniaturized components. Also, it's a pretty cut-throat industry, his remarkable friendliness wouldn't be too profitable.
This is the place where iPhones and iPads are manufactured. That's significant.
But the article doesn't indicate that the factory only produces iPhones and iPads. It might also make HP displays for all we know. It also doesn't indicate that the employees worked on Apple lines. It also doesn't tell us how these deaths are supposedly linked to Apple, other than their employer happens to be a company that makes products for Apple among others.
I mean seriously, what's the link supposed to be? Apple products are too shiny, or emit some sort of electromagnetic radiation that causes suicidal urges that other products made in the factory don't? Defective Reality Distortion Field? Perhaps Apple gets this iPad "magic" by harvesting a piece of each worker's soul to put inside the units.
See the title of the slashdot article? See TFA which has a picture of an iPhone and iPad at the top? See how neither slashdot or the article makes any mention of Foxconn making products for other companies? See commodore64's post I was replying to, who calls someone a fanboy for merely mentioning the fact that the company makes other brands of product too?
If they make other things too how does that excuse Apple from blame?
It doesn't but it also doesn't prove Apple is to blame. If this has anything to do with working conditions, then wouldn't Foxconn have the lion's share of the blame? Also, wouldn't every other company that employs Foxconn be just as equally to blame as Apple? Seems like this is just another in a long line of articles trying to bash Apple.
There's not even any evidence that the suicides are even related to Foxconn (see other posts which suggest that the suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than the national average).
There could be any number of reasons. It could be poor working conditions, it could be mental illness. It could be cultural/societal susceptibility to suicide. Whatever the reasons, it seems like people are in an unseemly rush to point fingers.
It doesn't support case-sensitive HFS+, so for those of us who use a non-toy configuration, you have to throw it into a disk image and create dozens of symlinks all over your ~/Library folder just to make Steam launch.
Why the fuck would you enable case sensitivity? That's just retarded.
Doesn't seem like a very appropriate structure for Africa. Or for any place you'd want users to work for extended periods of time. Little natural light, little airflow. Painting them white isn't going to help much in African temperatures. Plus there's the whole social overtone of packing people into a crate. Seems a bit too prison-like to me. Perhaps it's all about preparing Africans to work in cubicles?
Apple is opposed to Flash because they have a competing infrastructure called Quicktime, and would really rather everyone license Apple's DRM over Adobe's
What a load of nonsense. Firstly, Apple doesn't license their DRM to anybody. Secondly, Apple opposing Flash has nothing to do with Quicktime. Finally, it has nothing to do with DRM, it is about open web standards.
Could you be any more fanboyish and defensive? The videos come from a Chinese news source, and they don't give a frak about Apple, HP, or anything else. They are reporting about a Suicidal factory and don't mention any brand names at all.
And of course, Foxconn only makes products for Apple, and nobody but Apple, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Ethical? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Uhh, what? It's still an ethical stance, even if you don't agree with it. Different people have different ethical rules.
Tell me why then they try so hard yet fail to make everything look and taste like e.g. a burger.
Who exactly are you talking about? I know plenty of vegetarians and vegans who don't do that shit. Even if they do, I'm not sure what your point is.
Watch any vege show, watch how what they make looks like dogshit. Watch how they don't even get excited when eating it, even when faking it.
You're taking your opinions on vegetarianism from fucking TV?? That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Except for chemicals, oh so now that's OK to eat. Manufactured chemicals are way better than naturally grown products.
Again, plenty of veggies are also pro-organic and don't eat processed foods. Some even grow most of their own food.
Ethics has nothing to do with it. It's about being cool, hip, fitting in, like a typical high schooler.
For some people maybe, but not for all. Your statement doesn't make a lot of sense, because vegans and vegetarians are a minority, and don't typically "fit in" and often have problems doing so.
and gold balls
Holy crap, they are literally throwing money at the big corporations, aren't they?
Not coincidentally, you're also not going to the kind of restaurant where people would consider taking a picture of the food.
Oh really? There are plenty of places on this wild world web that revel in taking photos of bad food from shitty restaurants or discussing bad food photography.
No, you are the one with an ignorance of shit. Resting is essential for many types of meat (not all, though). It is the way it should be cooked. Steak, lamb roasts, that kind of thing definitely benefits. It's not a myth.
You don't understand yet? We are living in the age of the blogger, the twitterer, the ultimate narcissist. To these people, their every bowel movement is a significant event that deserves public attention. In their minds, taking a photo of their food is something that might earn them a Pulitzer Prize, and the adoration of millions.
There seem to be so many problems with people eating unhealthy food, or eating too much food, and wasting food, and so on, that I sometimes wish people would just take a utilitarian attitude towards food.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach. Many top chefs advocate "nose to tail" eating, where every part of the animal is used. They have no problems enjoying things that many people consider "gross" as delicacies. They understand not wasting food.
So, it seems to me that the best way to accomplish your goal is actually to encourage the aesthetic, artistic, "gourmet" approach of the foodie, rather than rejecting our tastes. Enhance our tastes to enjoy more variety, rather than the limited range of taste the non-foodie subsists on.
Of course, the sight and smell are reasons I can't stand any kind of seafood, long before the taste hits my palate and informs me I should have known better than to believe the jackass who swears that this kind of fish, cooked in this particular way doesn't taste fishy...
It's impossible to take the opinion of someone who doesn't like any seafood seriously, when it comes to talking about food. I'd say the same about people who dismiss any broad category of food (meat, vegetables, fish, grain) out-of-hand. With the possible exception of those who don't eat certain categories for ethical reasons (i.e: vegetarians). I'd still listen to their opinion on vegetable-based food. But just not liking everything in any of these categories demonstrates a poorly developed palate and inexperience with food.
FYI It's very important when talking about vintage machines running BSD on Slashdot that you memorise their specifications.
Indeed. Why isn't this law in the US Constitution?
Aren't you tired of idiotic comparisons which compare copyright infringement to murder?
I'm not comparing it to murder, I'm comparing it with the concept of aiding and abetting a crime. I'm not sure why you focus on the "murder" part, it's just an example of a common crime.
The truth is that it is impossible for the operators of OBT (by themselves) to know whether content is infringing or not, unless, of course, the torrent itself claims to be infringing
But they don't have to run the tracker that way. They could use a moderation/vetting process to ensure that only legit torrents (say Linux distributions) are listed, or have users submit a form that demonstrates their ownership of copyright or permission to distribute.
Basically, my question is - what reason is there to run an un-vetted tracker, other than to facilitate copyright infringement? What is the motive? Those who are distributing their own material via torrent can easily run their own trackers.
OpenBitTorrent is just a tracker. That's all; not a torrent indexer like TPB. They are not responsible for whatever people choose to use their service to download or distribute.
Disclaimer: I don't think this tracker should be shut down, and I find the RIAA, MPAA & Co to be despicable.
However, I'm not really sure this argument holds up legally. Usually, a content provider (Youtube for example) is obligated to take down infringing content on request, or otherwise to make a counter-argument against the take-down notices. They can't just say "we aren't responsible for the content." Now, you may argue that because it's just a tracker, they aren't trafficking in infringing content. But in reality, there isn't that much separation. They are facilitating the downloading of that content.
In other contexts, similar actions would definitely be illegal. For example, one person walks up to another person and says "Hey, I want to murder Bob Jones, but I don't know where he lives, can you help me?" and the second person says "Yeah, he lives at 123 Fake Street, here's copy of his house key. By the way, here's where you can get a really nice shotgun which would be a really effective murder instrument to use."
They don't condone piracy; in fact, their website asks that users not illegally distribute copyrighted material with the tracker.
That's pretty unconvincing. They all say that. Words are cheap, actions matter more. If they were actively removing infringing torrents, that would be another matter.
For initial learning, the box gets in the way, big-time.
That's what she said.
What's to stop him from buying a green monitor and plugging it to a Mac?
The lack of an external display output port on the early Macs? The screen was built-in.
The original Apple computers were green monochrome, but the first Macintosh was grayscale.
Nope. The first Macintosh was black-and-white. As in, a 1-bit display. No shades of gray.
Fucking
Why would the Big Friendly Giant be making graphics cards in the first place? One would think that his hands would be too big to assemble the highly miniaturized components. Also, it's a pretty cut-throat industry, his remarkable friendliness wouldn't be too profitable.
This is the place where iPhones and iPads are manufactured. That's significant.
But the article doesn't indicate that the factory only produces iPhones and iPads. It might also make HP displays for all we know. It also doesn't indicate that the employees worked on Apple lines. It also doesn't tell us how these deaths are supposedly linked to Apple, other than their employer happens to be a company that makes products for Apple among others.
I mean seriously, what's the link supposed to be? Apple products are too shiny, or emit some sort of electromagnetic radiation that causes suicidal urges that other products made in the factory don't? Defective Reality Distortion Field? Perhaps Apple gets this iPad "magic" by harvesting a piece of each worker's soul to put inside the units.
Where does anyone say that?
See the title of the slashdot article? See TFA which has a picture of an iPhone and iPad at the top? See how neither slashdot or the article makes any mention of Foxconn making products for other companies? See commodore64's post I was replying to, who calls someone a fanboy for merely mentioning the fact that the company makes other brands of product too?
If they make other things too how does that excuse Apple from blame?
It doesn't but it also doesn't prove Apple is to blame. If this has anything to do with working conditions, then wouldn't Foxconn have the lion's share of the blame? Also, wouldn't every other company that employs Foxconn be just as equally to blame as Apple? Seems like this is just another in a long line of articles trying to bash Apple.
There's not even any evidence that the suicides are even related to Foxconn (see other posts which suggest that the suicide rate at Foxconn is lower than the national average).
There could be any number of reasons. It could be poor working conditions, it could be mental illness. It could be cultural/societal susceptibility to suicide. Whatever the reasons, it seems like people are in an unseemly rush to point fingers.
In UNIX, it has been historic that capitalization means something.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. It's just that it is a stupid idea, that should have been abandoned long ago.
anal retentiveness
Isn't that the opposite of open?
It doesn't support case-sensitive HFS+, so for those of us who use a non-toy configuration, you have to throw it into a disk image and create dozens of symlinks all over your ~/Library folder just to make Steam launch.
Why the fuck would you enable case sensitivity? That's just retarded.
Doesn't seem like a very appropriate structure for Africa. Or for any place you'd want users to work for extended periods of time. Little natural light, little airflow. Painting them white isn't going to help much in African temperatures. Plus there's the whole social overtone of packing people into a crate. Seems a bit too prison-like to me. Perhaps it's all about preparing Africans to work in cubicles?
including Oulu in Finland
But are there any non-fictional places offering it?
Apple is opposed to Flash because they have a competing infrastructure called Quicktime, and would really rather everyone license Apple's DRM over Adobe's
What a load of nonsense. Firstly, Apple doesn't license their DRM to anybody. Secondly, Apple opposing Flash has nothing to do with Quicktime. Finally, it has nothing to do with DRM, it is about open web standards.
Could you possibly be any more misinformed?
What? Shopping is way more difficult than coding!
Yeah, you have to put on your MuuMuu, get in your assisted mobility vehicle and endure sunlight! No thanks.
Could you be any more fanboyish and defensive? The videos come from a Chinese news source, and they don't give a frak about Apple, HP, or anything else. They are reporting about a Suicidal factory and don't mention any brand names at all.
And of course, Foxconn only makes products for Apple, and nobody but Apple, right?