It's not unthinkable at all. Naivete does indeed exist and people have all kinds of crazy ideas. So you're right, it's not unthinkable and maybe some people are that selfless.
If you think it's a swell idea to greatly decrease your standard of living so someone unfortunate enough to be born in e.g. Mexico can marginally increase theirs, that's your opinion.
In fact, you should probably sell your computer and everything you don't need to survive - there are people right now dying because you won't give up all your worldly possessions and help feed them. By this argument, it's not really fair that you're sitting around typing on a computer while people are starving to death, is it?
Your sarcasm bores me, so I'll rephrase for you in a way that conveys your point but doesn't make me turn my head sideways while I'm reading and wonder why you're clearly trying to be clever but my cleverness sensor isn't going off.
Why shouldn't someone who participates in the community have a say in its decisions just because they weren't born there? Why do you get special rights because you happened to be born 1000 miles away from someone else?
Easy - self interest. How does it profit a US citizen to allow a non-US citizen to vote? It doesn't. It's as simple as that, I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
Therein lies the problem with your sarcasm - what you said makes 100% sense, but you phrased it as if trying to be sarcastic. It doesn't compute.
I'll tell you what. If you're so selfless, how about you move to Texas and we declare our border with Mexico to be open. Why shouldn't poor Mexicans be able to come suck at the teat of the US citizen? When your standard of living goes to shit, tell me how awesome being "fair" to poor third world citizens is.
Generally I mocked conservatives when they theorized about how "Obongo" was going to "done let all them mexi-cans into this here country so they can vote Democrat" (phrased as most really right wing nuts would phrase it). My point was even with "amnesty" (which they consider a dirty word), they can't vote. Guess I was wrong - this is a fairly transparent ploy to try to create a more grass-roots political machine for illegals. First get them in the door in unimportant local elections, then you build from that.
Wow, such a startling display of wit with such a dry delivery!
I'm kidding, of course. Your post bored me. I mean I see what you're trying to do and I find the Glen Beckites and their insistence on using the word "progressives" so much a little tiresome too. I prefer the good old fashioned "librul!" moniker, myself.
That said - his underlying point is correct and your sorry attempt to be snide is very, very dreary.
Nobody clearly pointed out what the problem was with the original solution. It crashed, so what. Generally software crashing is because the application developer created a bug or there was an unforeseen event. This has nothing to do with Microsoft Versus Linux.
Now this new system, on new hardware, probably running natively compiled code and highly performance optimized runs faster than a.NET solution. Wow! Quick, call the press!
You're jumbling together a bunch of different dimensions of a solution and lumping them all into "Durr, Linux > Microsoft, this proves it!!".
Anybody with a lick of sense realizes how retarded your crowing over this is.
Yeah, probably to people who don't know a lot about software you've summarized it.
For the rest of us, we know that architecture matters more than platform, and that barring extremes of performance requirements it also matters more than native code versus non-native code.
Since this is an extreme range of performance (in terms of latency),.NET was a poor choice - Java running on Linux with the exact same architecture would have performed as badly or worse.
Fanboys will pretend this means something in the Linux versus Microsoft debate, when in fact it means absolutely nothing other than that whoever implemented their last version was retarded and delivered a horrible product.
It's not a hybrid. It's not like the Prius. It's a plug-in hybrid and operates completely differently. I have no plans to buy an overpriced Volt, but I find this ridiculous game of "gotcha!" people like to play with the Volt somewhat laughable.
If the article had been about an award the Mazda had received, you'd have a point. As it stands, it's about the potential MPG rating, which the TSI engine doesn't approach. So you posted a non sequitur.
Exactly. But it's easy to rouse the rabble by breathless, facile claims about "fat cat" corporations (rabble rousers love the phrase "fat cat") not paying their "fair share". Where exactly do people think that money goes, is the "corporation" walking down the street and buying an 8-ball and paying hookers to let it snort blow off their hooker bellies? I don't think so. It goes to a human being in one way or another who pays taxes.
Corporate taxes 100% literally takes money from the best job generating position it can be in and moves it to one of the most wasteful places money can be - the government.
I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, basically I can't buy a few extra TVs I don't need, or a new car I can live without. I'm not using that money to massively stimulate the economy. Corporations do.
That money is well-taxed before it goes to any human being. Anti-corporatism is all the rage these days, but corporate profits go to either creating jobs by expansion/R&D, or they go to human beings as some form of compensation, at which point that person pays taxes.
The concept of "rights" are generally abused. For example, a hypothetical case of a UPS worker refusing to wear the company uniform for religious reasons. Umm, no. Your religion doesn't grant you special "rights" (or as I call them, "treatsies"). UPS can't fire you because you're a "filthy catholic", but you don't get special exemption from policies that apply to everyone else just because you happen to have some crackpot belief about wearing long pants, or shorts, or whatever sending you to some make believe hell after you die.
Unfortunately, the "treatsies" paradigm of "rights" seems to be gaining ground in this country and if you have some crackpot belief you are likely to be able to sue for special privileges based on that belief.
This is the very definition of begging the question. They should put that headline in the dictionary as a perfect example of it. If you find someone using "begs the question" to mean "makes me want to ask a question", when you correct them you can point them to this article.
Really, does this work? I'm genuinely curious. I wonder if in the 2008 elections, for example, all the newspapers and media had reported that John McCain was ahead by a huge margin if he would have won. Does the "Linux Foundation" really think polling linux users asking about trends is going to mean anything, or do they think it's going to create some impetus in the market to move to Linux? Either one seems a bit daft to me.
Right. OK, how about I mail you a simple text file attachment, and include instructions "this will make your linux system you barely understand work much better. Instructions: Please save this file as ~/.login. Thank you.
Once I've got access to Joe User's home directory file, I pwn them. I can install a keylogger, I can install a non-root agent that waits for me to send it information about how to escalate to root via one of the many Linux local vulnerabilities, etc...
Linux's only saving graces are that nobody uses it, and those that do are generally computer savvy enough not to fall for that.
You're not surprised because you don't know what you're talking about. How exactly would they prevent a user from literally running an EXE someone randomly mails them?
I'll tell you what, I'll mail you a Linux binary and you just go ahead and run it for me. Also, have 50k of your friends run it for me too. Then tell me how surprised you are.
Polish/look and feel of WM7 will blow Android 2.2 away. Core apps will also be superior - meaning you will have a better out of the box experience with a WM7 phone. Probably by and large, like the iPhone's, the WM7 third party apps will be higher quality as well for the most part.
Android, however, has that huge ass market and a more entrenched development community (I sell an app on the Android market). I'm interested in WM7 but will stick with my Android until I see how it pans out (oh, and until there's a CDMA version).
Sharepoint compared to Drupal.. lolz. Seriously? They both run on teh interwebz, I'll give you that.
I'd actually be surprised if Silverlight had 60% market share of anything. I'd be shocked if it was 30% of the RIA market. But it's pretty nice technically.
If you don't like that stuff in C#, don't use it. You can still rock out with your socks out and write code like it's 2005 if you really want.
This has nothing to do with the Wii other than they both detect motion. I know it's fun to think everything is "ripped off", but the way Natal works and the way the Wii work are completely different.
The idea of motion sensing is broad enough that claiming anyone who does it is copying the Wii is more than a bit silly.
If you want to say it's copying something, it's more like a next generation of the Eye Toy.
If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.
Prepare for some subtle sarcasm...
What's wrong with that? That's exactly and literally what our sweet ass new health care plan in the US will be doing. You can pay a fine that's well less than the price of insurance, and then just buy insurance if you get really sick. I mean, I just don't see any problem with that, what could possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not unthinkable at all. Naivete does indeed exist and people have all kinds of crazy ideas. So you're right, it's not unthinkable and maybe some people are that selfless.
If you think it's a swell idea to greatly decrease your standard of living so someone unfortunate enough to be born in e.g. Mexico can marginally increase theirs, that's your opinion.
In fact, you should probably sell your computer and everything you don't need to survive - there are people right now dying because you won't give up all your worldly possessions and help feed them. By this argument, it's not really fair that you're sitting around typing on a computer while people are starving to death, is it?
Your sarcasm bores me, so I'll rephrase for you in a way that conveys your point but doesn't make me turn my head sideways while I'm reading and wonder why you're clearly trying to be clever but my cleverness sensor isn't going off.
Why shouldn't someone who participates in the community have a say in its decisions just because they weren't born there? Why do you get special rights because you happened to be born 1000 miles away from someone else?
Easy - self interest. How does it profit a US citizen to allow a non-US citizen to vote? It doesn't. It's as simple as that, I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
Therein lies the problem with your sarcasm - what you said makes 100% sense, but you phrased it as if trying to be sarcastic. It doesn't compute.
I'll tell you what. If you're so selfless, how about you move to Texas and we declare our border with Mexico to be open. Why shouldn't poor Mexicans be able to come suck at the teat of the US citizen? When your standard of living goes to shit, tell me how awesome being "fair" to poor third world citizens is.
Generally I mocked conservatives when they theorized about how "Obongo" was going to "done let all them mexi-cans into this here country so they can vote Democrat" (phrased as most really right wing nuts would phrase it). My point was even with "amnesty" (which they consider a dirty word), they can't vote. Guess I was wrong - this is a fairly transparent ploy to try to create a more grass-roots political machine for illegals. First get them in the door in unimportant local elections, then you build from that.
Wow, such a startling display of wit with such a dry delivery!
I'm kidding, of course. Your post bored me. I mean I see what you're trying to do and I find the Glen Beckites and their insistence on using the word "progressives" so much a little tiresome too. I prefer the good old fashioned "librul!" moniker, myself.
That said - his underlying point is correct and your sorry attempt to be snide is very, very dreary.
That tells me nothing.
Nobody clearly pointed out what the problem was with the original solution. It crashed, so what. Generally software crashing is because the application developer created a bug or there was an unforeseen event. This has nothing to do with Microsoft Versus Linux.
Now this new system, on new hardware, probably running natively compiled code and highly performance optimized runs faster than a .NET solution. Wow! Quick, call the press!
You're jumbling together a bunch of different dimensions of a solution and lumping them all into "Durr, Linux > Microsoft, this proves it!!".
Anybody with a lick of sense realizes how retarded your crowing over this is.
Yeah, probably to people who don't know a lot about software you've summarized it.
For the rest of us, we know that architecture matters more than platform, and that barring extremes of performance requirements it also matters more than native code versus non-native code.
Since this is an extreme range of performance (in terms of latency), .NET was a poor choice - Java running on Linux with the exact same architecture would have performed as badly or worse.
Fanboys will pretend this means something in the Linux versus Microsoft debate, when in fact it means absolutely nothing other than that whoever implemented their last version was retarded and delivered a horrible product.
It's not a hybrid. It's not like the Prius. It's a plug-in hybrid and operates completely differently. I have no plans to buy an overpriced Volt, but I find this ridiculous game of "gotcha!" people like to play with the Volt somewhat laughable.
If the article had been about an award the Mazda had received, you'd have a point. As it stands, it's about the potential MPG rating, which the TSI engine doesn't approach. So you posted a non sequitur.
And? They literally burn the money? In that case, their stockholders should sue them.
The money will get spent. That said - any kind of corporate perks the higher ups get should be flagged as taxable income for whoever receives them.
Exactly. But it's easy to rouse the rabble by breathless, facile claims about "fat cat" corporations (rabble rousers love the phrase "fat cat") not paying their "fair share". Where exactly do people think that money goes, is the "corporation" walking down the street and buying an 8-ball and paying hookers to let it snort blow off their hooker bellies? I don't think so. It goes to a human being in one way or another who pays taxes.
Corporate taxes 100% literally takes money from the best job generating position it can be in and moves it to one of the most wasteful places money can be - the government.
I don't mind paying reasonable taxes, basically I can't buy a few extra TVs I don't need, or a new car I can live without. I'm not using that money to massively stimulate the economy. Corporations do.
That money is well-taxed before it goes to any human being. Anti-corporatism is all the rage these days, but corporate profits go to either creating jobs by expansion/R&D, or they go to human beings as some form of compensation, at which point that person pays taxes.
We'll see how you like Net Neutrality when your VOIP call is stuttering because some asshole next door is watching porn at 5Mbit/s.
If NN passes, I hope the ISP's make people choke on it. "You want Net Neutrality? OK, asshole, here you go. Have fun."
There's a constitutional protection of free speech.
No, there's not. There's a constitutional prohibition of the government interfering with free speech.
Since literally your first sentence is false, I ignored the rest.
The concept of "rights" are generally abused. For example, a hypothetical case of a UPS worker refusing to wear the company uniform for religious reasons. Umm, no. Your religion doesn't grant you special "rights" (or as I call them, "treatsies"). UPS can't fire you because you're a "filthy catholic", but you don't get special exemption from policies that apply to everyone else just because you happen to have some crackpot belief about wearing long pants, or shorts, or whatever sending you to some make believe hell after you die.
Unfortunately, the "treatsies" paradigm of "rights" seems to be gaining ground in this country and if you have some crackpot belief you are likely to be able to sue for special privileges based on that belief.
I could care less if that were to happen. Irregardless, it would literally take 1 millionth of a second to write down.
(me too - though both literally and irregardless are losing their pedant-cred as the dictionary adapts to their misuse)
This is the very definition of begging the question. They should put that headline in the dictionary as a perfect example of it. If you find someone using "begs the question" to mean "makes me want to ask a question", when you correct them you can point them to this article.
Really, does this work? I'm genuinely curious. I wonder if in the 2008 elections, for example, all the newspapers and media had reported that John McCain was ahead by a huge margin if he would have won. Does the "Linux Foundation" really think polling linux users asking about trends is going to mean anything, or do they think it's going to create some impetus in the market to move to Linux? Either one seems a bit daft to me.
Right. OK, how about I mail you a simple text file attachment, and include instructions "this will make your linux system you barely understand work much better. Instructions: Please save this file as ~/.login. Thank you.
Once I've got access to Joe User's home directory file, I pwn them. I can install a keylogger, I can install a non-root agent that waits for me to send it information about how to escalate to root via one of the many Linux local vulnerabilities, etc...
Linux's only saving graces are that nobody uses it, and those that do are generally computer savvy enough not to fall for that.
It spreads by mailing people exe's, which other dummies then execute. You can't design away stupidity.
You're not surprised because you don't know what you're talking about. How exactly would they prevent a user from literally running an EXE someone randomly mails them?
I'll tell you what, I'll mail you a Linux binary and you just go ahead and run it for me. Also, have 50k of your friends run it for me too. Then tell me how surprised you are.
Technical shortcoming.... right.
Polish/look and feel of WM7 will blow Android 2.2 away. Core apps will also be superior - meaning you will have a better out of the box experience with a WM7 phone. Probably by and large, like the iPhone's, the WM7 third party apps will be higher quality as well for the most part.
Android, however, has that huge ass market and a more entrenched development community (I sell an app on the Android market). I'm interested in WM7 but will stick with my Android until I see how it pans out (oh, and until there's a CDMA version).
Sharepoint compared to Drupal.. lolz. Seriously? They both run on teh interwebz, I'll give you that.
I'd actually be surprised if Silverlight had 60% market share of anything. I'd be shocked if it was 30% of the RIA market. But it's pretty nice technically.
If you don't like that stuff in C#, don't use it. You can still rock out with your socks out and write code like it's 2005 if you really want.
You think Powershell is like a UNIX shell. How quaint.
This has nothing to do with the Wii other than they both detect motion. I know it's fun to think everything is "ripped off", but the way Natal works and the way the Wii work are completely different.
The idea of motion sensing is broad enough that claiming anyone who does it is copying the Wii is more than a bit silly.
If you want to say it's copying something, it's more like a next generation of the Eye Toy.
If a company spends $1billion on R&D that money is still gone, if it's taxed or not. It's not like you make money from taxes by spending it on R&D.
If the city started letting people pay the fee after they needed it, it would be like buying auto insurance after you've had a wreck and expecting the insurance company to cover you for that wreck. In other words, after a while, the only $75 payments they'd collect would be for the houses that actually caught on fire.
Prepare for some subtle sarcasm...
What's wrong with that? That's exactly and literally what our sweet ass new health care plan in the US will be doing. You can pay a fine that's well less than the price of insurance, and then just buy insurance if you get really sick. I mean, I just don't see any problem with that, what could possibly go wrong?