And dictatorships are the most efficient forms of government, while democracies are not. I'd take a democracy any day over a dictatorship.
It's not just about progress, but about progress at what cost. If the people have to suffer greater so that technology can progress faster, than I'd rather technology not progress as fast, and the people suffer less.
The Bell telephone monopoly might have done a bunch of good things, but as we can see from the Microsoft PC OS monopoly, there are downsides to keeping a company in a monopoly position for too long.
Disclaimer: I'm of the opinion that fundamental research should be done in academia.
Actually, civil servants tend to be at the bottom of their class.
The top of the class are the guys who go into academia and the private sector. The middle of the class tend to go into the private sector. And the bottom of the class goes into public service.
I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but where I'm from, the only good thing about a government job is job security. Otherwise, the pay's a lot less, the opportunities to move upwards are almost non-existent, while the benefits tend to be on par. So while most of the brighter kids get into the higher-paying jobs, the below-average ones go into government. Unless the government agency is one of the intelligence agencies of course.
It's kind of scary if you ever stop to really think about it.
Maybe there should be some kind of option in the install to include these extensions, and some command line switch to specify only the desirable ones. That way, it's easy for people to select and install popular extensions and easy for sys admins to exclude them.
Oh wait, there's already a page in the install for extensions, they just don't have any of the popular 3rd party ones. Maybe they should make use of it...
As for file size bloat, perhaps selected extensions can be separately downloaded after being selected.
Finally, to address the idea of Firefox bloat in general, there's a really good reason I'm not using FF3, and it has nothing to do with extension compatibility. This kind of install might just make turning some of the bloatware in FF3 into extensions more viable.
That's a nice straw man you got there, but I'm afraid the crows aren't scared.
Moral relativism is not there there's no right and wrong. Moral relativism is that there's no one well-defined set of what constitutes as right and one well-defined set of what constitutes as wrong. Essentially, everyone knows right from wrong, but that doesn't mean they're all in agreement. Just because there's no universal standard to what is right and what is wrong, doesn't imply that there is none. It just implies that there's some kind of range, a spectrum, and what falls under right and what falls under wrong (as well as what falls under "I don't give a rat's ass about") is different for different people.
And moral absolutism has been used to justify just as many if not more atrocities as moral relativism. Almost all the atrocities committed in the name of any of the three major Abrahamic religions is done in the name of moral absolutism. On the other hand, moral relativism is more accepting of others, and less likely to be the cause of conflicts or even the justification thereof.
The lack of right and wrong is probably more in line with moral nihilism, which is a pretty good indicator of psychopathy. Moral absolutism, especially of the self-righteous kind (i.e. I am right and everyone around me is wrong), is also indicative of psychopathy, but not nearly as destructive, just really annoying.
"We" implies group, whereas "I" implies the individual. "We" obviously makes things sound more important because the implication is that there are more people behind the statement, in particular your manager or subordinates.
Anything you say representative of your group, or anything that might benefit more than just yourself, should use "we." E.g. you wouldn't use it if say, you were requesting a user account or password reset.
Interesting defense. You might even convince the jury that you're just insane and not actually a sex offender. You'd still get your name put on the list though.
Thomas Hawk was and still is being a jerk about the whole thing. The only word I can use to describe his behavior is petty. Just because he doesn't think what's he's doing is making people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean he's not. And it's entirely reasonable for the museum to ask him to leave if they think he's causing other patrons to be uncomfortable with his actions, be it picture taking or running around the halls screaming about the second coming of Jesus.
It is indeed a troll. And so is your straw man, punctuated with your own false dichotomy.
As prior posters have said better than I, GP presents a false dichotomy, a.k.a. FUD. If the government takes pictures to monitor citizens, then it is a police state. If individuals are forbidden to take pictures, then it is a violation of civil rights. The government is not an individual; its powers are far more limited than the powers that individuals wield.
To address your whine about Google, GP's second point is not complaining about private entities taking pictures. GP specifically says "Police State" which refers to government. Furthermore, it has already been established that Google can take whatever pictures from the public streets that they want to. Nobody disputes that. But if a person walks around taking the same pictures on private time, that person immediately becomes a "person of interest." That is the general complaint.
Freedom and privacy are one and the same. You cannot have freedom without privacy. Both freedom and privacy refer to the limits of what the government can do to its citizens. This is fairly obvious, and I completely fail to see how any intelligent person could think that freedom and privacy are in opposition in any way.
Are the intelligent mods all on vacation or something?
The thing is, this isn't the first violent video game for the Wii. There are already games like Red Steel and Call Of Duty 3. It might need more, but the Wii just isn't going to cut it for the hardcore gamers who want the fancy graphics and the familiar controls. But I'm still hoping we'll get a game with decent sword mechanics.
The one from TFA is just a little crazier, a little like Duke 3D was to Doom.
There is a concept of private property. If I created something on my own time with my own resources, it's private property, and I should be able to say what happens to it. IP is similar in some respects, and different in others. How it's different is the key to the copyright and patent debate.
RMS follows a particular ideology. It's all well and good, but not everybody follows the same ideology. If he or anyone else tries to impose that ideology upon others, it's no better than what a a religious zealot would do.
Most people object to DRM when it gets in the way. Most people have no moral objections to the presence of DRM. Unfortunately, what counts as "effective" DRM these days is extremely user-unfriendly. And that's really the heart of the issue.
It's a bad analogy, but if it's reasonable to have a door to a store, then it's reasonable to have DRM. But if the door becomes difficult to open, then it becomes unreasonable to expect people to enter.
I think this would be the best deterrent to piracy. It's not about DRM or any such thing. It's about bundling enough stuff nobody would otherwise be able to get to make it worth the $30-$60 that people are paying. It doesn't matter that the game is $60, if what comes with the game is more than a CD and poorly-printed booklet for a manual. I'd pay $60 for a good game if it included non-digital extras like poster maps, pewter (or even plastic) models of characters, signed booklets, numbered certificates, etc. Basically, things that go into "collector's editions" and such should become the norm. That'd make buying the game more lucrative than pirating it (people will still pirate to try it out, and the people who don't care about the extras will still pirate it). Of course, the game still has to be good, and something I'd be interested in playing.
At the same time, games like Spore and MMORPG's, with an online community that's a part of the gameplay, are naturally resistant to piracy (which is why I still can't understand Spore having such restrictive DRM). Value-added through those means works very well too.
I think this guy is going to find out his tactics won't work as well as he expects. A certain level of DRM is OK, as long as it's not intrusive. So a CD-key, or some kind of quick, one-time validation. But if it takes over my computer the same way a trojan would, forget pirating, I'm not even going to play the game.
Digital distribution would be great. Valve would make a killing if they licensed Steam for other developers. But at the same time, digital distribution alone won't make piracy go away, it'd just take away the incentive to buy it. But it would help if people actually got, say, a free pass to download the game from Steam if they bought the box or something.
Pricing is a tricky issue. The difference between a luxury product and a cheap product is mostly in the price. The price creates the name. Lowering the price makes it seem like less of a product, and it's never a good thing to have people mentally lump gems with the bargain bin. Instead, I'd do the above, keep the price the same, and just add more stuff to the box version. Unless that's what the game is actually worth...
Admittedly, I don't know much about case law (IANAL). I only know the constitution, and more or less what it says. So here's my question: do we have reasonable expectations of privacy on our persons?
We have to stay clothed, correct? When we're out in the street, is there a reasonable expectation that the areas of our body under our clothes are private? Can we reasonably expect that the third and fourth nipple we have remains private, so long as we keep it covered? Or the moment we enter the street, is it reasonable to expect the government to strip-search us in front of everyone else?
We don't have such an expectation when entering an establishment, private or public. We can be searched, and it is reasonable to expect to be searched when we enter an establishment. And establishment meaning an area that's designated as controlled by a private entity or the state. But does "controlled by the state" extend to public places? So again, the moment we step outside of our property, are we stepping into a government establishment?
When we take medical records for transportation from one doctor's office to the other in a manner such that they are concealed from a casual observer, do we have reasonable expectation that those medical records remain private? What about something that we privately carry outside from our own private property. Is there a reasonable expectation that our possessions in our clothing and bags remain private?
I know that medical records are "protected." But that's only against the records being disclosed by a second and third party, e.g. attending doctor and nurses, respectively. If we were asked about our medical records by an agent of the government, we have the right to remain silent. I would argue that right extends to the information on the papers we are carrying. The question is, does the government have the ability to arbitrarily take away that right?
As I said, I don't know much about case law. But I think we can reasonably expect information about ourselves to remain private, no matter where we are. We cannot have privacy in our property if we do not have privacy outside of it, unless we hole ourselves up in our own property and become self-sufficient. The intent of a government is to govern a society, and the intent of the constitution is to limit the government, which is a recognition of society. It isn't much of a society if nobody interacts with each other, and everybody stays at home. Since almost everything originates from outside of our private property, and eventually leaves our private property, if the constitution protects privacy (safety from searches) in private property, it must protect privacy in public places, or nothing would be protected.
Slashdot Mirror
Never say never.
And dictatorships are the most efficient forms of government, while democracies are not. I'd take a democracy any day over a dictatorship.
It's not just about progress, but about progress at what cost. If the people have to suffer greater so that technology can progress faster, than I'd rather technology not progress as fast, and the people suffer less.
The Bell telephone monopoly might have done a bunch of good things, but as we can see from the Microsoft PC OS monopoly, there are downsides to keeping a company in a monopoly position for too long.
Disclaimer: I'm of the opinion that fundamental research should be done in academia.
Actually, civil servants tend to be at the bottom of their class.
The top of the class are the guys who go into academia and the private sector. The middle of the class tend to go into the private sector. And the bottom of the class goes into public service.
I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but where I'm from, the only good thing about a government job is job security. Otherwise, the pay's a lot less, the opportunities to move upwards are almost non-existent, while the benefits tend to be on par. So while most of the brighter kids get into the higher-paying jobs, the below-average ones go into government. Unless the government agency is one of the intelligence agencies of course.
It's kind of scary if you ever stop to really think about it.
Maybe there should be some kind of option in the install to include these extensions, and some command line switch to specify only the desirable ones. That way, it's easy for people to select and install popular extensions and easy for sys admins to exclude them.
Oh wait, there's already a page in the install for extensions, they just don't have any of the popular 3rd party ones. Maybe they should make use of it...
As for file size bloat, perhaps selected extensions can be separately downloaded after being selected.
Finally, to address the idea of Firefox bloat in general, there's a really good reason I'm not using FF3, and it has nothing to do with extension compatibility. This kind of install might just make turning some of the bloatware in FF3 into extensions more viable.
That's a nice straw man you got there, but I'm afraid the crows aren't scared.
Moral relativism is not there there's no right and wrong. Moral relativism is that there's no one well-defined set of what constitutes as right and one well-defined set of what constitutes as wrong. Essentially, everyone knows right from wrong, but that doesn't mean they're all in agreement. Just because there's no universal standard to what is right and what is wrong, doesn't imply that there is none. It just implies that there's some kind of range, a spectrum, and what falls under right and what falls under wrong (as well as what falls under "I don't give a rat's ass about") is different for different people.
And moral absolutism has been used to justify just as many if not more atrocities as moral relativism. Almost all the atrocities committed in the name of any of the three major Abrahamic religions is done in the name of moral absolutism. On the other hand, moral relativism is more accepting of others, and less likely to be the cause of conflicts or even the justification thereof.
The lack of right and wrong is probably more in line with moral nihilism, which is a pretty good indicator of psychopathy. Moral absolutism, especially of the self-righteous kind (i.e. I am right and everyone around me is wrong), is also indicative of psychopathy, but not nearly as destructive, just really annoying.
For one thing, it's really small. And sometimes it's creepy and sometimes it's cute.
I'm sure while most academics don't want to be seen endorsing pirates, many of them secretly are.
So Idiocracy is based on a true story after all...
I don't think Yo-Yo Ma is a very common genetic anamoly.
"We" implies group, whereas "I" implies the individual. "We" obviously makes things sound more important because the implication is that there are more people behind the statement, in particular your manager or subordinates.
Anything you say representative of your group, or anything that might benefit more than just yourself, should use "we." E.g. you wouldn't use it if say, you were requesting a user account or password reset.
Sounds like it could block things like facebook's beacon "service." If so, that in my book is a good thing.
The LHC will generate several PB of data per year
I know 1080p60 takes a lot of space, but I'm not sure I want to see that much hardon's colliding...
That's where the pirates in China come in.
And you're doing the exact same thing, except you're criticizing the critic.
That gives GP two points ahead of you: he sounds reasonable and intelligent, and he's not a hypocrite.
And for the record, the only thing I'm criticizing is your uncivilized tone of voice.
Interesting defense. You might even convince the jury that you're just insane and not actually a sex offender. You'd still get your name put on the list though.
The effectiveness of this solution depends on how close that pane of glass is to the person.
Thomas Hawk was and still is being a jerk about the whole thing. The only word I can use to describe his behavior is petty. Just because he doesn't think what's he's doing is making people feel uncomfortable, doesn't mean he's not. And it's entirely reasonable for the museum to ask him to leave if they think he's causing other patrons to be uncomfortable with his actions, be it picture taking or running around the halls screaming about the second coming of Jesus.
You're assuming the rent-a-cops are actually literate. They're rent-a-cops and not constitutional scholars for a reason.
It is indeed a troll. And so is your straw man, punctuated with your own false dichotomy.
As prior posters have said better than I, GP presents a false dichotomy, a.k.a. FUD. If the government takes pictures to monitor citizens, then it is a police state. If individuals are forbidden to take pictures, then it is a violation of civil rights. The government is not an individual; its powers are far more limited than the powers that individuals wield.
To address your whine about Google, GP's second point is not complaining about private entities taking pictures. GP specifically says "Police State" which refers to government. Furthermore, it has already been established that Google can take whatever pictures from the public streets that they want to. Nobody disputes that. But if a person walks around taking the same pictures on private time, that person immediately becomes a "person of interest." That is the general complaint.
Freedom and privacy are one and the same. You cannot have freedom without privacy. Both freedom and privacy refer to the limits of what the government can do to its citizens. This is fairly obvious, and I completely fail to see how any intelligent person could think that freedom and privacy are in opposition in any way.
Are the intelligent mods all on vacation or something?
Damn. What about nice photos of kids? Terrorist pedophiles? Pedophile terrorists?
The thing is, this isn't the first violent video game for the Wii. There are already games like Red Steel and Call Of Duty 3. It might need more, but the Wii just isn't going to cut it for the hardcore gamers who want the fancy graphics and the familiar controls. But I'm still hoping we'll get a game with decent sword mechanics.
The one from TFA is just a little crazier, a little like Duke 3D was to Doom.
There is a concept of private property. If I created something on my own time with my own resources, it's private property, and I should be able to say what happens to it. IP is similar in some respects, and different in others. How it's different is the key to the copyright and patent debate.
RMS follows a particular ideology. It's all well and good, but not everybody follows the same ideology. If he or anyone else tries to impose that ideology upon others, it's no better than what a a religious zealot would do.
Most people object to DRM when it gets in the way. Most people have no moral objections to the presence of DRM. Unfortunately, what counts as "effective" DRM these days is extremely user-unfriendly. And that's really the heart of the issue.
It's a bad analogy, but if it's reasonable to have a door to a store, then it's reasonable to have DRM. But if the door becomes difficult to open, then it becomes unreasonable to expect people to enter.
I think this would be the best deterrent to piracy. It's not about DRM or any such thing. It's about bundling enough stuff nobody would otherwise be able to get to make it worth the $30-$60 that people are paying. It doesn't matter that the game is $60, if what comes with the game is more than a CD and poorly-printed booklet for a manual. I'd pay $60 for a good game if it included non-digital extras like poster maps, pewter (or even plastic) models of characters, signed booklets, numbered certificates, etc. Basically, things that go into "collector's editions" and such should become the norm. That'd make buying the game more lucrative than pirating it (people will still pirate to try it out, and the people who don't care about the extras will still pirate it). Of course, the game still has to be good, and something I'd be interested in playing.
At the same time, games like Spore and MMORPG's, with an online community that's a part of the gameplay, are naturally resistant to piracy (which is why I still can't understand Spore having such restrictive DRM). Value-added through those means works very well too.
I think this guy is going to find out his tactics won't work as well as he expects. A certain level of DRM is OK, as long as it's not intrusive. So a CD-key, or some kind of quick, one-time validation. But if it takes over my computer the same way a trojan would, forget pirating, I'm not even going to play the game.
Digital distribution would be great. Valve would make a killing if they licensed Steam for other developers. But at the same time, digital distribution alone won't make piracy go away, it'd just take away the incentive to buy it. But it would help if people actually got, say, a free pass to download the game from Steam if they bought the box or something.
Pricing is a tricky issue. The difference between a luxury product and a cheap product is mostly in the price. The price creates the name. Lowering the price makes it seem like less of a product, and it's never a good thing to have people mentally lump gems with the bargain bin. Instead, I'd do the above, keep the price the same, and just add more stuff to the box version. Unless that's what the game is actually worth...
Admittedly, I don't know much about case law (IANAL). I only know the constitution, and more or less what it says. So here's my question: do we have reasonable expectations of privacy on our persons?
We have to stay clothed, correct? When we're out in the street, is there a reasonable expectation that the areas of our body under our clothes are private? Can we reasonably expect that the third and fourth nipple we have remains private, so long as we keep it covered? Or the moment we enter the street, is it reasonable to expect the government to strip-search us in front of everyone else?
We don't have such an expectation when entering an establishment, private or public. We can be searched, and it is reasonable to expect to be searched when we enter an establishment. And establishment meaning an area that's designated as controlled by a private entity or the state. But does "controlled by the state" extend to public places? So again, the moment we step outside of our property, are we stepping into a government establishment?
When we take medical records for transportation from one doctor's office to the other in a manner such that they are concealed from a casual observer, do we have reasonable expectation that those medical records remain private? What about something that we privately carry outside from our own private property. Is there a reasonable expectation that our possessions in our clothing and bags remain private?
I know that medical records are "protected." But that's only against the records being disclosed by a second and third party, e.g. attending doctor and nurses, respectively. If we were asked about our medical records by an agent of the government, we have the right to remain silent. I would argue that right extends to the information on the papers we are carrying. The question is, does the government have the ability to arbitrarily take away that right?
As I said, I don't know much about case law. But I think we can reasonably expect information about ourselves to remain private, no matter where we are. We cannot have privacy in our property if we do not have privacy outside of it, unless we hole ourselves up in our own property and become self-sufficient. The intent of a government is to govern a society, and the intent of the constitution is to limit the government, which is a recognition of society. It isn't much of a society if nobody interacts with each other, and everybody stays at home. Since almost everything originates from outside of our private property, and eventually leaves our private property, if the constitution protects privacy (safety from searches) in private property, it must protect privacy in public places, or nothing would be protected.