The first netbooks would be the obvious example (Asus Eee PC).
So, given that netbooks pre-date the Macbook Air, then I guess the conclusion is that the industry is about to give up on computers and stop making them? That's the logic of the post I was replying to. Of course, it makes no sense.
so the fact that the Air - at first hyped for being revolutionary - ended up being ignored, is rather telling.
What is it telling? I don't remember much media hype about the Macbook Air. I also don't understand why media hype should affect an objective analysis of Apple or the rest of the industry.
Shouldn't you be upset at the media for the hype? I mean, did you give Apple extra sympathy when the media was totally trash-talking the company?
Let's see - aircraft, cars, spacecraft, telephony, television, radio. All pretty advanced stuff.
Computers: early days that meant guys/girls that could do math in their heads and later days meant huge things that took punch cards
But people in their 70s or older were the ones who fucking made computing happen. For example: Seymour Cray: born 1925. Alan Turing: born 1912.
Who is the "tech generation" supposed to be? People who are 20-30 years old? I wouldn't trust many of them to know the first thing about technology, unless you call "using Facebook" knowing about technology.
Anyway, since when was technology limited to computing and electronics? I know a bunch of 65-80 year olds who could repair a car blindfolded. How many of today's youth can even change their car's oil? How many could debug a computer program?
Well good for you. But the fact is that the idea for this censorship was partly intended to placate the Christian lobby, and there are plenty of public Christian figures in Australia who support it. Just because some Christians oppose it, is not evidence that no Christians had anything to do with it.
But its members share an average age of 70. Not exactly from the tech generation.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Somebody who is 70 would have been born in 1940. I'm pretty sure they would have grown up with technology their entire lives. In fact, somebody of that age would have grown up with one of the biggest technology expansions in history. They are almost the definition of "tech generation," and grew up under the influence of people like Albert Einstein.
That is not what I meant. I meant the effort to charge it (no cables, no connector, just slap it on there), not the time it takes to charge the battery.
So, why didn't you say that, instead of saying it charges instantly? Not saying what you mean doesn't give you much credibility.
Does apple even care about personal computers any more? The last noteworthy computer they announced was the Air (which in retrospect seems like a super-advanced iPad that was largely ignored).
And when was the last noteworthy computer that any other company introduced?
At what point dose a government that runs around shooting people equate at all with one that dose its best to stay the hell out of peoples lives?
Are you fucking retarded? It's the lack of government that leads to the death squads. If you had basic intelligence, you would understand that, because you'd be able to read and spell.
Your awkward essay shows exactly what is wrong with libertarians. You can't even see your nose for your face, while making a hilarious number of critical grammar and spelling errors.
Sorry, that's a logical fallacy: False dichotomy - very poor argumentation technique on your part. To put it in words simple enough for you to understand: The categories are demonstrably not mutually exclusive. In my experience, the overlap is quite large between higher IQ and Libertarianism.
It's true that libertarians can be smart in specific fields, but their broader intelligence tends to be limited. Thus, you get a high concentration of people like engineers. They overestimate their own intelligence, because they are knowledgeable about their own field. But put them outside of that field, and they are generally clueless.
This makes sense, because libertarianism stems from a deep naivety about how the world works and society operates. It's a simplistic belief system, and it just goes over their heads that society isn't like a bunch of gears or transistors.
No, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters
Actually, they can be.
You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
Yes, I know people buy into the brand, but that would mean nothing without the physical object.
but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
So, you're actually arguing that intellectual property is valuable? Make up your mind, man!
Yep. That's good because in such a system, you don't launch trivial lawsuits (because risk vs. reward isn't great enough), you don't launch lawsuits simply for the purpose of harassing someone (because then you'll lose), and you don't launch lawsuits if you don't think you have a strong enough case to win.
That's pretty suspect reasoning, because trivial lawsuits often win, and serious, worthy lawsuits often lose.
Please remember that the more a government gives you the more it controls you. This is not some crazy "tin foil hat" concept. It is just fact.
Actually, it's not a fact. In reality, the governments that give the least tend to control citizens the most. Just look at the less developed countries, where there are often death squads murdering citizens, while providing nothing of value. Or the countries providing many services to their citizens, while the citizens are still firmly in control.
. I do not want federal government internet. I want my internet from a private company.
When did I say anything about the federal government providing internet?
So, what if the owner of a huge piece of land sells a small block of it, 3 miles in, to a homeowner? Should the cables and pipes then be run to the edge of this property, even though it is even further away than the original house that was only 1 mile from the edge of the property?
Rights are something you HAVE. That the government should not get in the way of. Healthcare and the internet are WANTS. We want them really bad. Both are very cool. Though really neither is a RIGHT.
Why is this stuff being a "right" even a topic of debate? The government is allowed to provide more than just basic rights. In fact, it would be a pretty poor government that only provided for "rights" and nothing more.
Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects,
I'm not pretending anything. It's just the truth.
fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...
So, you're saying that a physical piece of clothing is the same as intellectual property? That doesn't make any sense. When people buy clothes, they aren't buying the concept of those clothes, they are buying the physical object.
Slashdot Mirror
What percent of 70-year-olds you know would have the first clue about bypassing an Internet filter?
Probably around 25%. Among younger people, maybe 5-10%.
The first netbooks would be the obvious example (Asus Eee PC).
So, given that netbooks pre-date the Macbook Air, then I guess the conclusion is that the industry is about to give up on computers and stop making them? That's the logic of the post I was replying to. Of course, it makes no sense.
so the fact that the Air - at first hyped for being revolutionary - ended up being ignored, is rather telling.
What is it telling? I don't remember much media hype about the Macbook Air. I also don't understand why media hype should affect an objective analysis of Apple or the rest of the industry.
Shouldn't you be upset at the media for the hype? I mean, did you give Apple extra sympathy when the media was totally trash-talking the company?
yes but take a look at the tech they grew up with
Let's see - aircraft, cars, spacecraft, telephony, television, radio. All pretty advanced stuff.
Computers: early days that meant guys/girls that could do math in their heads and later days meant huge things that took punch cards
But people in their 70s or older were the ones who fucking made computing happen. For example: Seymour Cray: born 1925. Alan Turing: born 1912.
Who is the "tech generation" supposed to be? People who are 20-30 years old? I wouldn't trust many of them to know the first thing about technology, unless you call "using Facebook" knowing about technology.
Anyway, since when was technology limited to computing and electronics? I know a bunch of 65-80 year olds who could repair a car blindfolded. How many of today's youth can even change their car's oil? How many could debug a computer program?
I am a Christian and am opposed to this filter.
Well good for you. But the fact is that the idea for this censorship was partly intended to placate the Christian lobby, and there are plenty of public Christian figures in Australia who support it. Just because some Christians oppose it, is not evidence that no Christians had anything to do with it.
But its members share an average age of 70. Not exactly from the tech generation.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Somebody who is 70 would have been born in 1940. I'm pretty sure they would have grown up with technology their entire lives. In fact, somebody of that age would have grown up with one of the biggest technology expansions in history. They are almost the definition of "tech generation," and grew up under the influence of people like Albert Einstein.
That is not what I meant. I meant the effort to charge it (no cables, no connector, just slap it on there), not the time it takes to charge the battery.
So, why didn't you say that, instead of saying it charges instantly? Not saying what you mean doesn't give you much credibility.
Does apple even care about personal computers any more? The last noteworthy computer they announced was the Air (which in retrospect seems like a super-advanced iPad that was largely ignored).
And when was the last noteworthy computer that any other company introduced?
If you're paying for Warhammer Online, aren't you being overcharged by definition?
At what point dose a government that runs around shooting people equate at all with one that dose its best to stay the hell out of peoples lives?
Are you fucking retarded? It's the lack of government that leads to the death squads. If you had basic intelligence, you would understand that, because you'd be able to read and spell.
Thanks for proving my point.
Your awkward essay shows exactly what is wrong with libertarians. You can't even see your nose for your face, while making a hilarious number of critical grammar and spelling errors.
Sorry, that's a logical fallacy: False dichotomy - very poor argumentation technique on your part. To put it in words simple enough for you to understand: The categories are demonstrably not mutually exclusive. In my experience, the overlap is quite large between higher IQ and Libertarianism.
It's true that libertarians can be smart in specific fields, but their broader intelligence tends to be limited. Thus, you get a high concentration of people like engineers. They overestimate their own intelligence, because they are knowledgeable about their own field. But put them outside of that field, and they are generally clueless.
This makes sense, because libertarianism stems from a deep naivety about how the world works and society operates. It's a simplistic belief system, and it just goes over their heads that society isn't like a bunch of gears or transistors.
Turned out that the youngest was a 17 year old Girl.
Why is she capitalized?
You say this:
The average IQ of ham radio must be like 130
But then you completely contradict yourself with this:
Also has a pretty libertarian bent.
So, who actually dominates, intelligent people, or libertarians?
Losing 40 lbs and putting on a turtleneck sweater wouldn't hurt.
Won't somebody think of the turtles?
I simply don't see it as black and white
That's weird, because your first post in this thread was pretty black-and-white about it, and I was arguing for more shades of gray.
No, physical objects can't be copied at whim; for starters
Actually, they can be.
You really don't know that people are buying also into the brand? Into the design? ("fashion" of the moment...which has not much to do with costs of production; but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
Yes, I know people buy into the brand, but that would mean nothing without the physical object.
but all to do with intellectual work that went into designing it)
So, you're actually arguing that intellectual property is valuable? Make up your mind, man!
Yep. That's good because in such a system, you don't launch trivial lawsuits (because risk vs. reward isn't great enough), you don't launch lawsuits simply for the purpose of harassing someone (because then you'll lose), and you don't launch lawsuits if you don't think you have a strong enough case to win.
That's pretty suspect reasoning, because trivial lawsuits often win, and serious, worthy lawsuits often lose.
That's the problem. All opposition, no constructive ideas.
Well, to be fair, they're trying to conserve ideas, not construct them. If they try to come up with new ones, they might run out.
I suppose you attended one of their rally's
You must be one of the people who writes their signs, or should I say "sign's"?
Please remember that the more a government gives you the more it controls you. This is not some crazy "tin foil hat" concept. It is just fact.
Actually, it's not a fact. In reality, the governments that give the least tend to control citizens the most. Just look at the less developed countries, where there are often death squads murdering citizens, while providing nothing of value. Or the countries providing many services to their citizens, while the citizens are still firmly in control.
. I do not want federal government internet. I want my internet from a private company.
When did I say anything about the federal government providing internet?
Supreme Law
Supreme Law? He sounds like a pretty serious dude.
So, what if the owner of a huge piece of land sells a small block of it, 3 miles in, to a homeowner? Should the cables and pipes then be run to the edge of this property, even though it is even further away than the original house that was only 1 mile from the edge of the property?
Rights are something you HAVE. That the government should not get in the way of. Healthcare and the internet are WANTS. We want them really bad. Both are very cool. Though really neither is a RIGHT.
Why is this stuff being a "right" even a topic of debate? The government is allowed to provide more than just basic rights. In fact, it would be a pretty poor government that only provided for "rights" and nothing more.
Don't pretend it's to such a degree for physical objects,
I'm not pretending anything. It's just the truth.
fashion designs are an example of the latter, btw, too...
So, you're saying that a physical piece of clothing is the same as intellectual property? That doesn't make any sense. When people buy clothes, they aren't buying the concept of those clothes, they are buying the physical object.
that leaves Plaid Cymru, I suppose, or Sinn Fein. But which one to choose, that's the question, always.
There's never any question: you choose Cthulu, or Cthulu chooses you.