I simply find both sales and marketing immoral (at least in the forms they commonly have in our society).
Sales and marketing is mostly finding out what a person needs, why he needs that and how they can help the person with it.
That's just sales. Marketing is convincing the customer that without the product he is:
- at risk of death
- at risk of disease
- harming innocent children
- not cool
- unpatriotic
- not using what seven out of ten doctors are using
- all of the above.
The AC troll said that the product only runs Linsux (His words). The troll feeders pointed out that Windows doesn't run on an Arm. Then the thread moved on to an x86 board, now you are saying that other os's run on an x86 which is irrelevant because there isn't one.
At the end of the day, Windows will never be in a space where a complete onboard puter system costs $25 because it's less than the OS license.
It does raise an interesting issue. When SOC's cost next to nothing, where will Microsoft be?
I would've thought that NASA-written code (not licensed from contractors) would be in the public domain as a U.S. federal government work, just like NASA photographs are. Is there a reason that isn't the case?
I poked around briefly and did not find any mention of the license they will be using.
A chimp with near-human intelligence would be a tremendous asset to both the military and private economy. They are much stronger and faster than humans, so would be incredible soldiers.
I guess it's time we all watch the Planet of the Apes movie again. Just for a refresher.
Nor can certain geometry software be purely web-based because a WebGL view of a geometric object won't work in any web browser that doesn't support WebGL.
All browsers support SVG. I use it for geometric applications that are magnitudes more complex than a textbook geometry problem would require.
I quit having to schlep over to my mother's house every few months to reload/clean Windows when I installed Ubuntu on her computer 3 or so years ago. She even upgrades the thing herself now.
Ditto.
But she doesn't upgrade it herself. I do it whenever I am there. Don't ask me why she won't upgrade it, I've given up trying. Other than that, no problems.
And just to be perfectly clear, by "Our Executive branch" what you really mean is the Obama Administration.
It seems pretty clear that it doesn't matter who sits in the Whitehouse. Corporations run the country. If you don't back corporations, you don't get elected, it's that simple.
what makes you think this doesn't apply to any trade blacklist globally?
The market is no longer "us centric", so any trade blacklist just makes it worse for us. Who would do business by choice with a country that is blacklisting (and blackmailing) countries into being the same kind of failure they are becoming?
The AC's are getting restless. Here we have a burn thread of anon posters calling each other names. LOL, but we don't KNOW their names. It's kinda like swearing at the TV.
Don't say "I only believe in things that can be proved" unless you want to see that assumption deconstructed.
I did not say that, what I said was that even if you accept the premise that nothing can be proven, the argument for the existence of a god remains extremely weak.
If you want to argue with people about theology and the tricks used by those nasty "apologists", then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to oblige you.
We were poor, so my first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81. It gave up the ghost (actually it was ruined in the rain when my wife put my things in the front yard when she divorced me!
My (ex) wife stabbed mine with a Philips screwdriver in a fit of rage. She took out an expensive calculator that way too, just before an exam.
I loved my ZX81. I wrote an assembler/disassembler in machine code (of course) It rewrote itself by flipping bits in subroutines as it ran.
>Really, if you're going to only believe things that are proven, you should believe nothing at all, because everything you imagine to be "proven" ultimately relies on some assumption that is not "proven" and moreover cannot be "proved".
Now this is a fine example of the kind of logic that an apologist must resort to in order to set the groundwork for proof that there is a god. Basically it sets you up for the next argument which will tell you that the existence of a god, given that nothing can actually be proven or disproven, is equally likely. Which is bullshit. The existence of a god is still as near to impossible that anything can get even if you accept that nothing can be proven.
Any course worth its salt would note that science is only one branch of philosophy, with limited application, and repeat what I said in the above post.
Which is just as much bullshit now as it was then.
Atheism is often described as "the belief that there is no god". If you feel that the whole question is irrelevant or unknowable then agnostic is a better discription.
What if you believe the whole concept to be preposterous, and hold it up as peer to all of the other infinite amount of preposterous things that you could spend your whole life thinking up and still not convince people that it is silly to believe in things for which there are no evidence?
You seem to be the unreasonable, with a lack of sense and reality. Neither atheism or theism have any particularly strong claim to truth. Both require aspects of faith. Atheism requires faith that there isn't some power beyond our comprehension and ability to examine, and theism requires there is.
Lemme see if I get this. Theisim requires faith. Faith to believe in something for which there is no real evidence.
Atheism, requires faith. Faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
I simply find both sales and marketing immoral (at least in the forms they commonly have in our society).
Sales and marketing is mostly finding out what a person needs, why he needs that and how they can help the person with it.
That's just sales. Marketing is convincing the customer that without the product he is:
- at risk of death
- at risk of disease
- harming innocent children
- not cool
- unpatriotic
- not using what seven out of ten doctors are using
- all of the above.
They aren't the same thing.
Sometimes people need Windows.
Sad but true.
I have Windoze 7 installed because I need to use AutoCAD occasionally and I need big memory.
Were it not for that I wouldn't use it at all.
Ahh. OK, no grammar Nazi here, I really did not understand what he said.
I think you missed the point of the thread.
The AC troll said that the product only runs Linsux (His words). The troll feeders pointed out that Windows doesn't run on an Arm. Then the thread moved on to an x86 board, now you are saying that other os's run on an x86 which is irrelevant because there isn't one.
At the end of the day, Windows will never be in a space where a complete onboard puter system costs $25 because it's less than the OS license.
It does raise an interesting issue. When SOC's cost next to nothing, where will Microsoft be?
Or what if Google disabled searches on Lyonnaise de Garantie. Then there would be no search terms, offensive or otherwise.
I would've thought that NASA-written code (not licensed from contractors) would be in the public domain as a U.S. federal government work, just like NASA photographs are. Is there a reason that isn't the case?
I poked around briefly and did not find any mention of the license they will be using.
I'm very traditional. I like entering a vagina with my penis. So, that high-tech crap the article is about is nothing for me.
Chimps have Vaginas. Maybe you could get one that looks like Megan Fox.
A chimp with near-human intelligence would be a tremendous asset to both the military and private economy. They are much stronger and faster than humans, so would be incredible soldiers.
I guess it's time we all watch the Planet of the Apes movie again. Just for a refresher.
Nor can certain geometry software be purely web-based because a WebGL view of a geometric object won't work in any web browser that doesn't support WebGL.
All browsers support SVG. I use it for geometric applications that are magnitudes more complex than a textbook geometry problem would require.
I'm trying to figure out how we got to "gitmo" and "treasonous" from "Open Source Textbooks."
"Open Source Textbooks" -> loss of profit for publishers -> US government intervention -> black ops -> torture.
It's like a template you can apply to anything. Duh.
I quit having to schlep over to my mother's house every few months to reload/clean Windows when I installed Ubuntu on her computer 3 or so years ago. She even upgrades the thing herself now.
Ditto.
But she doesn't upgrade it herself. I do it whenever I am there. Don't ask me why she won't upgrade it, I've given up trying. Other than that, no problems.
And just to be perfectly clear, by "Our Executive branch" what you really mean is the Obama Administration.
It seems pretty clear that it doesn't matter who sits in the Whitehouse. Corporations run the country. If you don't back corporations, you don't get elected, it's that simple.
Chinese have WMDs, Spaniards don't have them.
They're still reeling from the inquisition. They didn't expect that. But they are ready for whatever comes next.
what makes you think this doesn't apply to any trade blacklist globally?
The market is no longer "us centric", so any trade blacklist just makes it worse for us. Who would do business by choice with a country that is blacklisting (and blackmailing) countries into being the same kind of failure they are becoming?
ROFL! +1 funny/insightful.
Whoa!
The AC's are getting restless. Here we have a burn thread of anon posters calling each other names. LOL, but we don't KNOW their names. It's kinda like swearing at the TV.
But I'm not going to get into actual arguments about the existence for God, because that would just be a waste of everyone's time.
No, merely attack the very foundation of all argument, step in and state that nothing can be proven. And walk away passively.
I think you've done a pretty good job of wasting everyone's time. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Don't say "I only believe in things that can be proved" unless you want to see that assumption deconstructed.
I did not say that, what I said was that even if you accept the premise that nothing can be proven, the argument for the existence of a god remains extremely weak.
If you want to argue with people about theology and the tricks used by those nasty "apologists", then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to oblige you.
So, you are posting... why?
We were poor, so my first computer was a Sinclair ZX-81. It gave up the ghost (actually it was ruined in the rain when my wife put my things in the front yard when she divorced me!
My (ex) wife stabbed mine with a Philips screwdriver in a fit of rage. She took out an expensive calculator that way too, just before an exam.
I loved my ZX81. I wrote an assembler/disassembler in machine code (of course) It rewrote itself by flipping bits in subroutines as it ran.
Not only that, but this bug would kick in every year on June 30.
Also... why the else clause? A good compiler will *probably*... no make that *hopefully* optimize that away...
Christ that guy sucks!
I saw that too, then I thought, "It's Perl, do I really think that I know what it does?"
Errr, which part of "global recession" you don't get it? There is not that much demand for oil, and those who demand require solid cuts of prices.
Uh, yeah. That'll be why oil is over $100 a barrel.
One would wonder why it is so expensive since there is an infinite amount of oil in the ground.
i'm guessing you have no idea how international relations work? it's ok, i remember when i was in grade school
That's pretty much how it works.
>Really, if you're going to only believe things that are proven, you should believe nothing at all, because everything you imagine to be "proven" ultimately relies on some assumption that is not "proven" and moreover cannot be "proved".
Now this is a fine example of the kind of logic that an apologist must resort to in order to set the groundwork for proof that there is a god. Basically it sets you up for the next argument which will tell you that the existence of a god, given that nothing can actually be proven or disproven, is equally likely. Which is bullshit. The existence of a god is still as near to impossible that anything can get even if you accept that nothing can be proven.
Any course worth its salt would note that science is only one branch of philosophy, with limited application, and repeat what I said in the above post.
Which is just as much bullshit now as it was then.
Atheism is often described as "the belief that there is no god". If you feel that the whole question is irrelevant or unknowable then agnostic is a better discription.
What if you believe the whole concept to be preposterous, and hold it up as peer to all of the other infinite amount of preposterous things that you could spend your whole life thinking up and still not convince people that it is silly to believe in things for which there are no evidence?
I typed that whole thing in one breath!
You seem to be the unreasonable, with a lack of sense and reality. Neither atheism or theism have any particularly strong claim to truth. Both require aspects of faith. Atheism requires faith that there isn't some power beyond our comprehension and ability to examine, and theism requires there is.
Lemme see if I get this. Theisim requires faith. Faith to believe in something for which there is no real evidence.
Atheism, requires faith. Faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Nope, still don't get it, please explain further.