"If they want to chase the money pot of another MMO, they should make one from Diablo since I don't care if they whore that franchise out."
There's a really convincing argument. Because you (1 guy on the Internet) likes Starcraft, they should push a Diablo MMOG. Yeah, don't study the market and determine what has more potential or anything - that would be crazy!
"Alone, each player would effectively be practicing their own parts, but when the band gets together, the game adapts to allow everyone to play together."
I'm not one of those people that says instead of playing Guitar Hero, you should just learn to play guitar. I understand that the two activities are different and require different commitments. But....honestly, once you get to the point where you're practicing so you can play with others, why not just practice at the real thing?
"Why don't we require parents to monitor their own kids usage of the internet?"
Because "we" believe in the freedom of parents to raise their children as they see fit. Who are "we" to tell me when my child is old enough to use the Internet without my supervision?
Sorry pal, but you're not going to make any "requirements" (sounds to me like you're proposing a Big Brother law) of me just because some parents are doing a poor job of it.
"You mean those same public roads that I paid for?
Next are you going to tell me I should be thankful for the "privilege" to listen to the music that I paid for?"
Nowhere did you mention what you were going to do on the roads. The text you quoted doesn't even say "drive on the roads"; it says use the roads. But that's not important. The fact is that you are missing the point. The point is that there is a precedent for works funded by the public to have access and use rules associated with them. Just because your taxes fund something doesn't mean that you deserve full and total access to it. Your taxes in very small part helped pay a portion of the costs, along with many other people. Access rules are established to protect the project. Just because you paid does not mean you have total rights to it. Getting back to your original statement, access to roads is not contingent on having paid taxes - it is contingent on using the roads appropriately.
And even though you missed the real point, your reply was lacking any sort of intellect as well because you should know that driving on roads, destroys them. Blowing a road up is causing damage to the road. Driving on the road is also causing damage to the road. It is the same thing.
You (the taxpayer) paid for the construction of your state prisons. Does that mean you can walk in there whenever you want and roam around unfettered? I mean, you paid for it - right? It shouldn't be a privilege to walk in there carrying whatever you wish and do whatever you wish; it's YOUR prison, after all.
Yeah, Me: 1. You: 0.
Your statement is dumb because even if an entity is tax payer funded, there still need to be rules associated with its use - otherwise, the taxpayers are just going to overrun and destroy it. We don't let people walk into publicly-funded museums and start destroying the place even though they paid for it and it is theirs, right? Because it is only yours in group - you as the individual don't own it - you as a member of the body of taxpayers own it. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Do you fail to recognize that? I really don't see how anyone could not understand the need for access rules on taxpayer funded works. Were you just being argumentative?
"He had no experience with servers, Windows or Linux, and in fact no Linux experience at all. But when he tried to set up a simple server, it turned out that it was much easier to do with Linux. Windows servers should be easy to use."
Windows servers ARE easy to setup. I rarely hear of people running into the problems the original poster is describing. As long as you're going to deduce that Windows server is hard to setup based on one guy's statement, I'm going to presume he is ignorant based on hearing many more stories of people who have found Windows server very easy to setup.
Well, do you believe because some guy on the Internet said he had problems with Windows server and didn't have problems with Mandrake that that settles the whole debate and Mandrake > Windows for the server market? I use Linux exclusively on my servers and I certainly don't buy that argument.
In evaluating the comment, don't we need to know how competent the guy is?
"If you pick windows for a server you have to be crazy."
Because you couldn't get Windows setup on your own (with your stellar credentials of being some guy on the Internet) we must conclude that only the crazies are using Windows? That's a very poor argument. You never even come close to explaining why you couldn't get the setup working. Your comparison to how you setup a Linux server is meaningless because we don't know what caused you problems with the Windows server;
Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.
I don't buy them but I have free subscriptions to both CGW (now Games for Windows) and EGM. I keep them in the stack of magazines in the bathroom and enjoy thumbing through them. Although, yeah, I wouldn't pay for a subscription to either of them.
"Also, since when is "Water + Electricity = Danger" a "Superstitious Belief"? Exactly what universe are you living in again? Because in mine that's not superstition, it's a basic saftey rule you learn in elementary school. Apparently you can bathe with toasters in your dimension. It must be nice when you want some toast during your bath."
There's a difference between bathing with a toaster and having electrical components in the bathroom. In your straw man, you're putting the toaster in the tub. In your original statement, you're taking the electric toothbrush out of the bathroom. See the difference?
I really don't see that happening. Of course, it's easy to make these kind of predictions on the Internet because no one is going to follow you up on it but I will break the rule and mark you as a friend. If this prediction of yours is to ever come true, I will acknowledge your mystical powers
Why? Our troops are already being attacked. A similar incident would be quite underwhelming in comparison to the bloodshed on the streets of Baghdad and would do nothing to change the level of support for the war.
I do disagree with you though. Ignoring this current situation for the moment and to use your language, the people of the United States were willing to escalate the action in Vietnam based on their understanding of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; because of that event, they were willing - without it, they would probably have been unwilling. That justification is the determining factor in what someone is willing to do.
Saddam Hussein was in non-compliance with the ceasefire of the first Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent behavior was the justification for going into the country. Do you believe that Clinton was justified in launching missile attacks against Baghdad?
"Yes, because cross platform applications should act drastically differently on different platforms! What was I thinking?"
What was that even in reply to? What specific problems have you found with moving a Swing app from one platform to another?
Furthermore, why did you bring up Firefox vs. IE problems when that is CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY an implementation problem, not a fault of the language otherwise Java wouldn't be used on any websites.
"Nationwide's hiring website for the longest time (maybe even still now), would only work with IE, it was written in JSP/Applets. Dunno why, but a couple applets wouldn't work in firefox in Windows or BSD"
Sounds like an implementation problem; not a fault of the language.
"The local mass transit website used to use Java for their website. It would always work on IE or Firefox, not both. Whichever it didn't work on would have massive null-pointer exceptions."
Again, not a fault of the language - that's a mistake made by the developers of that specific application.
"Oh, and then there's my LG cell phone (Powered by JAVA!!), the interface has a lot of bugs in it, often the option you select will not be the option you go to, and the address book will usually display only 1/2 the names in it (random), unless you use a certain route to get to the address book."
Another example where the language isn't the demonstrated cause.
"It's better, because they don't use a lot of the Java stuff, they actually used a few small parts of the Java features, and built what they needed on top of those, because the fancier stuff in Java ended up not being sufficiently cross platform. The biggest example they mentioned was SWING."
There are issues with the Swing L&F on some platforms but it has certainly improved over the years and with most GUI libraries, there are issues that arise between platforms. But your other examples are clearly not problems with the language, but with those specific programs. There's no reason that a website that uses Java cannot work in Firefox or IE; there's certainly nothing in the LANGUAGE that prevents that as I have written Java applications that render fine in both Firefox and IE. Your criticisms have nothing to do with the underlying language at all. Are you even a programmer?
"I can import their products from Russia, under Russian copyright laws."
Yes, you can. But don't kid yourself - if you buy a nuclear weapon from someone in a country where that sale is completely kosher and have it delivered to you in the US, where that is frowned upon, your defense of "It's legal there!" isn't going to fly. If you live in Russia and are doing business with allofmp3.com, then it is likely that you are on firm legal ground. But as far as relying on foreign laws to protect you from being in violation of domestic laws, there is no court precedent to support that type of belief. [Please, show me where I am wrong on that one chief.]
And just because example entity is getting away with a violating a law doesn't mean that you'll be able to do the same thing. That kind of "logic" is like saying since OJ Simpson got to kill two people, you can too. But go ahead and travel down that road if you'd like.
I see you've been moderated up. You're pushing a populist agenda that will clearly appeal to people - but you've got your facts and logic wrong.
"Actually, the software I administrate is a Java application, it's probably the ONLY Java application I've dealt with that hasn't been a royal piece of shit."
And why is it better than all the others? You make a lot of snide little comments but you don't state any specific problems you see with Java.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Likewise, willful blindness is no defense either. (U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).)
I am not trying to win the argument. AK Marc, I am saying that your tone was completely out of line and that I will not debate the point with someone who is going to be so disrespectful. If you want to call that a loss, that's fine. I simply don't care about your opinion anymore based on what I know of your ability to communicate your thoughts without resorting to pettiness. Have a good day.
I'm not going to seriously reply to someone who is displaying such arrogance. You missed my point, that much is clear. But until you're able to act like an adult and have a mature conversation, there's no reason to try to communicate with you.
You're right - I was not precise enough in my language for you. Let me restate that, "It is foolish to judge someone based entirely on their belief or disbelief in an afterlife." The stated reason following that still stands.
I still believe that asking me if I was naive or retarded was out of line. I thought it was rather clear based on my reasoning that the belief I was talking about was the specific belief in an afterlife that the poster was referencing. I am surprised you could not infer that on your own.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry pal, but you're not going to make any "requirements" (sounds to me like you're proposing a Big Brother law) of me just because some parents are doing a poor job of it.
And even though you missed the real point, your reply was lacking any sort of intellect as well because you should know that driving on roads, destroys them. Blowing a road up is causing damage to the road. Driving on the road is also causing damage to the road. It is the same thing.
I find you amusing.
Yeah, Me: 1. You: 0.
Your statement is dumb because even if an entity is tax payer funded, there still need to be rules associated with its use - otherwise, the taxpayers are just going to overrun and destroy it. We don't let people walk into publicly-funded museums and start destroying the place even though they paid for it and it is theirs, right? Because it is only yours in group - you as the individual don't own it - you as a member of the body of taxpayers own it. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Do you fail to recognize that? I really don't see how anyone could not understand the need for access rules on taxpayer funded works. Were you just being argumentative?
I think you're full of it.
In evaluating the comment, don't we need to know how competent the guy is?
Based on your language of "picked Samba and Apache", I am guessing you just didn't know what you were doing.
Hopefully, the PS3 is on its way to being a footnote. With the attacks on lik-sang.com and the rootkit nonsense, Sony deserves to lose.
I don't buy them but I have free subscriptions to both CGW (now Games for Windows) and EGM. I keep them in the stack of magazines in the bathroom and enjoy thumbing through them. Although, yeah, I wouldn't pay for a subscription to either of them.
Why? Our troops are already being attacked. A similar incident would be quite underwhelming in comparison to the bloodshed on the streets of Baghdad and would do nothing to change the level of support for the war.
I do disagree with you though. Ignoring this current situation for the moment and to use your language, the people of the United States were willing to escalate the action in Vietnam based on their understanding of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; because of that event, they were willing - without it, they would probably have been unwilling. That justification is the determining factor in what someone is willing to do.
Saddam Hussein was in non-compliance with the ceasefire of the first Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent behavior was the justification for going into the country. Do you believe that Clinton was justified in launching missile attacks against Baghdad?
Furthermore, why did you bring up Firefox vs. IE problems when that is CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY an implementation problem, not a fault of the language otherwise Java wouldn't be used on any websites.
Seriously, are you a programmer?
And just because example entity is getting away with a violating a law doesn't mean that you'll be able to do the same thing. That kind of "logic" is like saying since OJ Simpson got to kill two people, you can too. But go ahead and travel down that road if you'd like.
I see you've been moderated up. You're pushing a populist agenda that will clearly appeal to people - but you've got your facts and logic wrong.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Likewise, willful blindness is no defense either. (U.S. v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697, 700-701 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). Cited with approval in U.S. v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d. 946, 950-951 (5th Cir. 1990).)
I am not trying to win the argument. AK Marc, I am saying that your tone was completely out of line and that I will not debate the point with someone who is going to be so disrespectful. If you want to call that a loss, that's fine. I simply don't care about your opinion anymore based on what I know of your ability to communicate your thoughts without resorting to pettiness. Have a good day.
I'm not going to seriously reply to someone who is displaying such arrogance. You missed my point, that much is clear. But until you're able to act like an adult and have a mature conversation, there's no reason to try to communicate with you.
I still believe that asking me if I was naive or retarded was out of line. I thought it was rather clear based on my reasoning that the belief I was talking about was the specific belief in an afterlife that the poster was referencing. I am surprised you could not infer that on your own.