If I recall correctly, the Puritans were pacifists and believed in creating a pure religious society.
You're thinking of the Quakers. The Puritans were very religious, but were in general much crazier than the Quakers (as in Salem witch trial crazy).
As for colonization, that wasn't the American way, it was the European way.
Try telling that to the Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Filipinos, native Hawaiians, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, and Panamanians/Colombians. Sure it isn't colonialism in the same way or on the same scale of the Europeans, but we've definitely set up colonies (both actual and "neo-colonies").
Note that I'm not necessarily criticizing all of those situations, or agreeing with the GP poster. But you have to at least acknowledge historical fact. Just because we don't call everything outside of the original 13 states colonies does not change the fact that that is what they originally were.
That's yet to be tested in federal court. I would expect that the Supreme Court (and they will eventually hear this) will find that states have to legally recognize gay marriages performed in other states. There is a shit ton (to be poetic) of precedence. It's pretty much directly written into the constitution.
The Republicans used to be the ones who were for less government involvement in an individuals life, then the Democrats appeared to have taken up that flag, but now with the National ID card (papers please), both parties seem to be endorsing this movement.
It's complete lip service. The Republicans and Democrats are two heads of the same coin. There has never, since the very first days of the US, been a popular party that actually believed enough in limited government to do something about it (unless you count the Confederates). They say it because it's what people want to hear and it gets them elected.
What happened to common sense and the political middle road?
Unfortunately, it probably never existed. Change never comes from the middle of the road. It comes from the radicals, for better or worse.
I'm not Jewish, but I am pretty sure modern Hebrew is much different than that written in the Torah/Old Testament. Especially in the US, where there's a ton of Yiddish/Ashkenazi stuff thrown in. Languages change quite a bit over time, even when they are associated with strictly observed rituals as in Judaism. I very well could be completely wrong, though.
Anyway, the reason there are different version of the bible is because of the different translations. It's impossible not to occur when you speak a different language than that which was originally written. The King James version was translated from the Vulgate (Latin), which was itself translated from the original Greek and Hebrew and was full of many errors and mistakes. Add to that the fact that most people don't understand the prose of the King James version and that the bible had (probably) hundreds of different authors, you get some interesting interpretations when you take it too literally. It's much better to read the originals, or if you can't, direct translations into modern vocabulary.
Most protestant churches require Greek and Hebrew to be learned in seminary. Also, most modern bibles are translated directly from the original texts. Direct translations aren't much worse than using the original language, since the only reason people speak Classical Hebrew is to read the Torah and worship anyway.
You're hardly the first to come up with this idea (as I'm sure you're aware of). See the difference between physics and metaphysics. Philosophy is really interesting and can really give your logic muscle a good workout. I would suggest enrolling in a philosophy course at a nearby university. Despite what hardcore empiricists may believe, thinking about the world and acknowledging the existence of these questions won't cause you to automatically convert to Christianity (or any other religion).
OK, you could get the Dell E521 for whopping 200 bucks less. But that machine is big and ugly. I literally would not have room for that machine, whereas Mini is small enough to be lost underneath a pile of papers. So is the Dell "comparable" at all? And looking at the specs, I can see that the Dell has crappier CPU, a bit more HD-space (+20GB), crappier OS (Vista Home Basic), crappier optical-drive (no burner of any kind), no WLAN, no Bluetooth.... So is it really any better?
That was pretty much my exact point. I'm not saying the Dell machine is better, I'm saying it's cheaper. They're comparable in the sense that they are both the cheapest PC's put out by their respective companies. The Dell is obviously inferior to the Mac Mini, but it's close enough and can do what most people want out of a PC.
Macs are better machines, but you pay a little bit more. Some people will pay it, but most people just go with the cheapest option. Apple doesn't care. They're not trying to put out the cheapest machines possible. That's why they don't sell the same amount of machines that Dell does. But they still make a lot of money because they aren't pushing products with razor-thin margins. Macs will always be more expensive because that is Apple's strategy. They want to sell people relatively expensive, quality hardware.
I agree. I personally wouldn't watch it on TV very often because gaming is something I can actually do, and watching people game is usually pretty boring, but there's definitely an audience for it. My first thought when I saw poker on TV was that it was boring as hell, but I actually have ended up watching quite a bit of it and have gotten pretty interested in poker. Other things like bowling/paintball/darts are very little fun to watch, and a lot of fun to play, so I definitely don't watch that.
I played sports in high school and still play basketball and softball semi-competitively and ski/snowboard so most of the time I don't like watching those when I can get off my fat ass and actually do the activity myself. Even though it's at much lower level than what's on TV, it's still more fun to be doing something than watching someone else do something. It's kinda hard to get 21 or 17 of your friends together to have a competitive football or baseball game, though. That's probably why I like watching televised baseball and football the most.
I can get a Mac Mini for $579 (since I work at a university) and the general-public cost is around $600 or a little more. That's actually less than what I've been quoting people lately who ask me to put a decent gaming PC together for them on newegg (I build wishlists and email them to the "clients" who ask for my recommendations).
And that's where you made your mistake. If you compare the Mac Mini to Dell's cheapest PC, the E521, the Dell is over $200 cheaper. It's got a crappier processor, but more HD space.
The fact is that Mac's are more expensive than comparable Windows/Linux machines. That's fine because it's the reason Apple makes lots and lots of money. But the market for more-expensive hardware is smaller than the one for less-expensive hardware. It's very simple. It doesn't matter that the Mac is slightly better because a Windows machine is good enough and, most importantly to people, it is cheaper. If it is able to do what most people want (email, web) then most people will choose the cheapest option. Some people want slightly higher quality and are willing to pay for it. But the fact is Apple can't compete on price because Apple doesn't want to compete on price. They want to keep those big, fat profit margins.
If the police visited him at home, because of his use of tor on his own connection that he paid for - then you got a story. But this guys a guest on someone elses network.
If I let you connect to my AP, then I reserve every right to tell you I don't want you using tor, or kazaa, or bittorrent, or playing WoW, or what the hell ever.
The difference is that you're not a publicly funded university with obligations to free speech and academic freedom. So while, I agree it's not the end of the world, it still is newsworthy. They had no right to tell him to stop using tor, especially as he was researching it to teach in his class. Using tor should not be "suspicious behavior" and require a visit from a campus detective.
The point is that Jobs is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says Apple is being pushed by the majors to include DRM. He says that if they had a choice, they would sell music DRM-free. The fact is, however, that even when they are explicitly asked by indie bands/labels to sell music DRM-free they decline the opportunity. Obviously, it would be very easy for them to implement a solution where some music is DRM'ed and other music is not. This means that Steve Jobs is lying. If he really was against DRM, then he would allow DRM-free music to be sold on iTMS.
If the words aren't important why not just sing the same melody but filled with nonsense, like scat? It's like saying you don't go to movies to follow the plot, you just want to see the pretty pictures.
And you are thinking with a 2007AD brain that his been conditioned with a false sense of intellectual superiority and incorrect popular myths. Pythagoras first speculated that the Earth was round in ~550 BC. Both Plato and Aristotle (schooled in the Pythagorean writings) wrote that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes (~240 BC) came up with a decent estimate of the Earth's circumference. So, yes, the Romans knew that the Earth was in fact spherical. If there was anybody with a decent education (and if it was a whole legion, then there certainly was) they would not have thought the Earth was flat.
The proto-Indo-European language/culture (or Indo-Iranian or Arya-European; there's not a clear distinction, especially among non-linguists) most likely started in Central Asia and worked its way both west into Europe and south into Northern India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. The split occurred before recorded history, and it's extremely difficult to tell exactly when and where it happened linguistically without other clues. I'm not sure if any languages in East Asia are from the Indo-European family, but I would imagine there was at least some small amount of cultural exchange. The Aryans migrated all over the place.
Being age 47, I can remember when the drinking age was 18 in wisc. and 19/21 in ill. We use to drive 2 miles to get into Wisc and drink. This encouraged a large number of drivers from Chicago to come out our way (by lake geneva). Big mistake. I have no desire to see differing age limits again.
This was one of the main arguments used for the minimum drinking age act, and it's complete bullshit. It definitely was a problem, but its effects were severely exaggerated. If you have a problem with drunk driving, increase law enforcement near the border. Sometimes allowing people to have freedom results in them making bad decisions. Tough shit. Forcing states to adopt a law they mostly don't want by blackmailing them with their own tax money is wrong no matter what the issue at hand is.
I agree with you that we need to teach people that alcohol is not a big deal, but I seriously doubt that will happen anytime soon. Even now, when most people drink at least occasionally, alcohol is still viewed as somewhat taboo. Some people completely lock their kids away from alcohol, so when they move out of the parents' control they go crazy. If people learned how to drink in a comfortable atmosphere and with positive support, they would learn how to drink responsibly. As it is now, too many people learn how to drink at high school house parties or college keggers. That's not a very good way to build healthy habits.
I can see where you're coming from, and I haven't played the game so I can't comment on this specific one. I'm just saying that if they're not going for a suspenseful, urgent sort of feeling and it is difficult to figure out where to go then it may make sense to pause the game when looking at the map. Nobody likes dying because they couldn't find where it is they're supposed to be going.
The moral of your story is that anybody will sell their soul and be an asshole, it's just a matter of circumstance.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless he has some sort of clause in his contract stating otherwise, those are as much his customers as the old company's. If he can convince them to buy from his new company then more power to him.
On a related note, I'm glad this story made it to the front page. I was worried that while running the Intel ad section they would shy away from stories critical of Intel.
Because that's not very fun. It's like the hearthstone in WoW vs. whatever it was called in Everquest. The WoW one recharges in an hour real-time, the EQ one recharges in an hour game-time. It makes more sense to put the time limits in-game, but who really cares about realism in this small instance when you're trying to make a fun game. Unless the sense of urgency when using your map was what they're going for, it would probably make more sense to stop everything once you go to the map screen.
That always bothers me. By trying to Americanize it, they lose the bit that made it funny in the first place. If they don't want the movie to have the British humo(u)r, then why do the movie in the first place? Sure if you make a stupid movie like Shark's Tale it will appear to more people, but if you dumb down W&G and remove its quirks all you have is a mediocre movie that nobody likes.
I know this is slashdot, but I'd be careful calling someone a dumb jock because just because they're a professional athlete. Most baseball players are actually quite capable. I've met Jason Jennings and he is a very intelligent person. Remember that they are watching thousands of hours of video so they can find subtle patterns they can use to exploit against an opponent (or remove from their own game). So, you're probably right that he can't right perl scripts but that hardly makes him stupid.
I actually have read an entire book in a bookstore. I had to read Heart of Darkness for a class and all the libraries were out of copies and of course I didn't want to buy one, so I sat down for a few hours and read it in the store. Granted, it's only about 200 pages but I am still pretty proud of that fact. I've thought about trying something a little more hefty, but frankly it's not really worth it. If I want free reading I'll just go to the library.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking of the Quakers. The Puritans were very religious, but were in general much crazier than the Quakers (as in Salem witch trial crazy).
Try telling that to the Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Filipinos, native Hawaiians, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, and Panamanians/Colombians. Sure it isn't colonialism in the same way or on the same scale of the Europeans, but we've definitely set up colonies (both actual and "neo-colonies").
Note that I'm not necessarily criticizing all of those situations, or agreeing with the GP poster. But you have to at least acknowledge historical fact. Just because we don't call everything outside of the original 13 states colonies does not change the fact that that is what they originally were.
That's yet to be tested in federal court. I would expect that the Supreme Court (and they will eventually hear this) will find that states have to legally recognize gay marriages performed in other states. There is a shit ton (to be poetic) of precedence. It's pretty much directly written into the constitution.
It's complete lip service. The Republicans and Democrats are two heads of the same coin. There has never, since the very first days of the US, been a popular party that actually believed enough in limited government to do something about it (unless you count the Confederates). They say it because it's what people want to hear and it gets them elected.
Unfortunately, it probably never existed. Change never comes from the middle of the road. It comes from the radicals, for better or worse.
I'm not Jewish, but I am pretty sure modern Hebrew is much different than that written in the Torah/Old Testament. Especially in the US, where there's a ton of Yiddish/Ashkenazi stuff thrown in. Languages change quite a bit over time, even when they are associated with strictly observed rituals as in Judaism. I very well could be completely wrong, though.
Anyway, the reason there are different version of the bible is because of the different translations. It's impossible not to occur when you speak a different language than that which was originally written. The King James version was translated from the Vulgate (Latin), which was itself translated from the original Greek and Hebrew and was full of many errors and mistakes. Add to that the fact that most people don't understand the prose of the King James version and that the bible had (probably) hundreds of different authors, you get some interesting interpretations when you take it too literally. It's much better to read the originals, or if you can't, direct translations into modern vocabulary.
Most protestant churches require Greek and Hebrew to be learned in seminary. Also, most modern bibles are translated directly from the original texts. Direct translations aren't much worse than using the original language, since the only reason people speak Classical Hebrew is to read the Torah and worship anyway.
You're hardly the first to come up with this idea (as I'm sure you're aware of). See the difference between physics and metaphysics. Philosophy is really interesting and can really give your logic muscle a good workout. I would suggest enrolling in a philosophy course at a nearby university. Despite what hardcore empiricists may believe, thinking about the world and acknowledging the existence of these questions won't cause you to automatically convert to Christianity (or any other religion).
That was pretty much my exact point. I'm not saying the Dell machine is better, I'm saying it's cheaper. They're comparable in the sense that they are both the cheapest PC's put out by their respective companies. The Dell is obviously inferior to the Mac Mini, but it's close enough and can do what most people want out of a PC.
Macs are better machines, but you pay a little bit more. Some people will pay it, but most people just go with the cheapest option. Apple doesn't care. They're not trying to put out the cheapest machines possible. That's why they don't sell the same amount of machines that Dell does. But they still make a lot of money because they aren't pushing products with razor-thin margins. Macs will always be more expensive because that is Apple's strategy. They want to sell people relatively expensive, quality hardware.
I agree. I personally wouldn't watch it on TV very often because gaming is something I can actually do, and watching people game is usually pretty boring, but there's definitely an audience for it. My first thought when I saw poker on TV was that it was boring as hell, but I actually have ended up watching quite a bit of it and have gotten pretty interested in poker. Other things like bowling/paintball/darts are very little fun to watch, and a lot of fun to play, so I definitely don't watch that.
I played sports in high school and still play basketball and softball semi-competitively and ski/snowboard so most of the time I don't like watching those when I can get off my fat ass and actually do the activity myself. Even though it's at much lower level than what's on TV, it's still more fun to be doing something than watching someone else do something. It's kinda hard to get 21 or 17 of your friends together to have a competitive football or baseball game, though. That's probably why I like watching televised baseball and football the most.
And that's where you made your mistake. If you compare the Mac Mini to Dell's cheapest PC, the E521, the Dell is over $200 cheaper. It's got a crappier processor, but more HD space.
The fact is that Mac's are more expensive than comparable Windows/Linux machines. That's fine because it's the reason Apple makes lots and lots of money. But the market for more-expensive hardware is smaller than the one for less-expensive hardware. It's very simple. It doesn't matter that the Mac is slightly better because a Windows machine is good enough and, most importantly to people, it is cheaper. If it is able to do what most people want (email, web) then most people will choose the cheapest option. Some people want slightly higher quality and are willing to pay for it. But the fact is Apple can't compete on price because Apple doesn't want to compete on price. They want to keep those big, fat profit margins.
The difference is that you're not a publicly funded university with obligations to free speech and academic freedom. So while, I agree it's not the end of the world, it still is newsworthy. They had no right to tell him to stop using tor, especially as he was researching it to teach in his class. Using tor should not be "suspicious behavior" and require a visit from a campus detective.
The point is that Jobs is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says Apple is being pushed by the majors to include DRM. He says that if they had a choice, they would sell music DRM-free. The fact is, however, that even when they are explicitly asked by indie bands/labels to sell music DRM-free they decline the opportunity. Obviously, it would be very easy for them to implement a solution where some music is DRM'ed and other music is not. This means that Steve Jobs is lying. If he really was against DRM, then he would allow DRM-free music to be sold on iTMS.
Actually, it depends on where you're at (both state-to-state and what type of road you're walking on).
If the words aren't important why not just sing the same melody but filled with nonsense, like scat? It's like saying you don't go to movies to follow the plot, you just want to see the pretty pictures.
And you are thinking with a 2007AD brain that his been conditioned with a false sense of intellectual superiority and incorrect popular myths. Pythagoras first speculated that the Earth was round in ~550 BC. Both Plato and Aristotle (schooled in the Pythagorean writings) wrote that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes (~240 BC) came up with a decent estimate of the Earth's circumference. So, yes, the Romans knew that the Earth was in fact spherical. If there was anybody with a decent education (and if it was a whole legion, then there certainly was) they would not have thought the Earth was flat.
The proto-Indo-European language/culture (or Indo-Iranian or Arya-European; there's not a clear distinction, especially among non-linguists) most likely started in Central Asia and worked its way both west into Europe and south into Northern India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. The split occurred before recorded history, and it's extremely difficult to tell exactly when and where it happened linguistically without other clues. I'm not sure if any languages in East Asia are from the Indo-European family, but I would imagine there was at least some small amount of cultural exchange. The Aryans migrated all over the place.
This was one of the main arguments used for the minimum drinking age act, and it's complete bullshit. It definitely was a problem, but its effects were severely exaggerated. If you have a problem with drunk driving, increase law enforcement near the border. Sometimes allowing people to have freedom results in them making bad decisions. Tough shit. Forcing states to adopt a law they mostly don't want by blackmailing them with their own tax money is wrong no matter what the issue at hand is.
I agree with you that we need to teach people that alcohol is not a big deal, but I seriously doubt that will happen anytime soon. Even now, when most people drink at least occasionally, alcohol is still viewed as somewhat taboo. Some people completely lock their kids away from alcohol, so when they move out of the parents' control they go crazy. If people learned how to drink in a comfortable atmosphere and with positive support, they would learn how to drink responsibly. As it is now, too many people learn how to drink at high school house parties or college keggers. That's not a very good way to build healthy habits.
Because the punishment should fit the crime?
Ah, state-enforced atheism. That sounds like a pretty good idea. I mean, who needs freedom? People are just going to make the wrong choices anyway.
I can see where you're coming from, and I haven't played the game so I can't comment on this specific one. I'm just saying that if they're not going for a suspenseful, urgent sort of feeling and it is difficult to figure out where to go then it may make sense to pause the game when looking at the map. Nobody likes dying because they couldn't find where it is they're supposed to be going.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless he has some sort of clause in his contract stating otherwise, those are as much his customers as the old company's. If he can convince them to buy from his new company then more power to him.
On a related note, I'm glad this story made it to the front page. I was worried that while running the Intel ad section they would shy away from stories critical of Intel.
Because that's not very fun. It's like the hearthstone in WoW vs. whatever it was called in Everquest. The WoW one recharges in an hour real-time, the EQ one recharges in an hour game-time. It makes more sense to put the time limits in-game, but who really cares about realism in this small instance when you're trying to make a fun game. Unless the sense of urgency when using your map was what they're going for, it would probably make more sense to stop everything once you go to the map screen.
That always bothers me. By trying to Americanize it, they lose the bit that made it funny in the first place. If they don't want the movie to have the British humo(u)r, then why do the movie in the first place? Sure if you make a stupid movie like Shark's Tale it will appear to more people, but if you dumb down W&G and remove its quirks all you have is a mediocre movie that nobody likes.
I know this is slashdot, but I'd be careful calling someone a dumb jock because just because they're a professional athlete. Most baseball players are actually quite capable. I've met Jason Jennings and he is a very intelligent person. Remember that they are watching thousands of hours of video so they can find subtle patterns they can use to exploit against an opponent (or remove from their own game). So, you're probably right that he can't right perl scripts but that hardly makes him stupid.
I actually have read an entire book in a bookstore. I had to read Heart of Darkness for a class and all the libraries were out of copies and of course I didn't want to buy one, so I sat down for a few hours and read it in the store. Granted, it's only about 200 pages but I am still pretty proud of that fact. I've thought about trying something a little more hefty, but frankly it's not really worth it. If I want free reading I'll just go to the library.