My experience is exactly the opposite. I've completely replaced cable in my household with hulu, streaming netflix (running in a VM) and netflix DVDs.
Hooking my laptop up to my TV via S-Video cable, going to the screen resolution settings (I'm using Ubuntu Hardy) and setting it up to clone at either 640x480 or 800x600 results in a beautiful fullscreen picture on both hulu and netflix.
Well, I think you have to take into account the speed at which the two respective distribution mechanisms are advancing.
Let me explain. When I bought my first CD-ROM, I had a 14400 baud modem, now I have a 7 mbit connection, and a dual layer BluRay drive (I don't really have a BluRay drive, but let's pretend for the purposes of this analogy).
With a CD capacity of about 700MB and a BluRay capacity of 50GB, that's about 70 times the capacity. Compare that to the advancement of my internet connection, which has grown 500 times its original size.
If network speeds keep advancing faster than disc capacities, it throws a bit of a wrench into your theory, which I feel is otherwise sound.
Having a post modded down on slashdot is a long LONG way from being "censorship". It's far more akin to being spoken over in a large crowd, but the rules governing acoustics are different (people's volume can be voted on, but can never be taken below a certain threshold).
Even if CmdrTaco himself were to personally remove your post (not at all what is happening, mind you) it still wouldn't be censorship. It would be exactly like a guy telling you get off his lawn.
Think a bit before you post something so hyperbolic, claims like yours take the emotional sting out of hearing about actual censorship.
Which two, if I may ask? I've not yet run into a RPG quite that compelling yet. Mind you, I've not owned many consoles either, so my sample size is rather modest.
I'd also like to know a couple of really funny humor RPGs, if anyone out there knows of any.
I'm not disagreeing that OSS has capitalist traits. I actually believe that if you view productivity as capital OSS is extremely capitalistic. I was simply disputing the insinuation that only capitalist systems can implement competition.
Socialist systems have no built-in component that makes competition (and the benefits of such) incompatible. In fact, I think any properly thought out socialist system would include quite a bit of market competition out of necessity, because competition is a very simple and effective way of finding optimizations in a system.
The total centralized economy that I (maybe incorrectly) perceive you as insinuating is an aspect of communism, a completely different beast from socialism, just like capitalism and feudalism are different.
That's just not slashdot's style. AFAIK there has only been one post removed from slashdot... ever. The only reason THAT one went is because the Scientologists brought out the lawyer guns.
I could be wrong, but that's what I remember of my slashdot history.
I'm sorry, but the roots of the two words we are comparing disagree.
CAPITALism vs SOCIALism. Looks to me as if the focus of resource distribution is the major difference. Both systems seek to define how resources are allocated and to what goal they should be used towards. Capitalism assumes that the actor who makes the most profit from the resources they are given is using them most efficiently, while socialism assumes that a system-wide view of what ends the resources are being applied to should be sought, and used as a guide to distributing resources in a way that is beneficial for society.
Competition can be (and is) a perfectly valid method of efficiency boosting in socialistic economies, it's not the defining aspect of capitalism. The defining aspect of capitalism is that the economy is supposed to benefit those who have capital (hence the name).
In addition, any added concepts like "freedom" or "fairness" are defined EXTERNALLY by other government policies, and are only tied to a nation's economic system by way of decades of propaganda coming from supporters of BOTH economic strategies. In truth you can find repressive capitalism and freedom-rich socialism.
McCarthy-era definitions and prejudices of government systems need to be seen through the lens of the society that thought them up; a society very very deep into the 'good vs evil' mindset. Adjust your preconceptions accordingly.
I'm not Maelwryth, but I'd say for the point of view he espoused, yeah, it's just that there are important differences in those potentials. Those differences arise from the probabilities of those potentials manifesting.
An individual sperm has an obnoxiously small chance of become a birthed-human, but the potential remains. A fertilized egg has a pretty low chance of becoming a birthed-human, and a fertilized egg that is attached to a healthy host has a pretty good chance of becoming a birthed-human. Chance, chance, chance. All potentials, but with widely varying amounts of potential.
Re:So then you argue in favor
on
Designer Babies
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
cayenne brings up a good point. Maybe he was trolling *shrug*, but as of this moment the post is marked troll. What you mods (and the people who agree with a troll mod) need to realize is, whether he was serious or being sarcastic you're REALLY going to be hearing that conversation, in real life, coming from people you know and love, and they're going to be discussing serious real-life options in a serious mindset.
Brace yourself folks, this one is going to be a trollercoaster on par with Roe vs. Wade, the civil rights movement and invading Iraq. Opinions will be firm, worded strongly and civility will suffer.
If the ethanol they sold at the pump was 100% pure, you could call it moonshine and be completely accurate. GP is absolutely right. You can do the googling for yourself.
Adding the methanol removes the need for a gas station to purchase a liquor license.
I think most homophobes are actually scared that homosexuality seems not different to them, but TOO FAMILIAR. Maybe I'm biased though, because I've been hit on by more "straight" guys than gay guys, and the straight guys are more aggressive about it too, they get MAD when you turn them down.
Yeah, I very well may be wrong, because my sample size is small, but direct experience can have powerful biasing effects on an observer.
The GP isn't offering justification, and nor does someone's non-illegal non-immoral (I reject and will not entertain definitions of morality that include the opinions of non-affected parties) actions NEED any justification.
The GP was pointing out that the statement about homosexuality being unnatural is provably false. You can read whatever else you want into it, but you'll just be putting words into GPs mouth by doing so.
I will however except that homosexuality is "unnatural" when someone can come up with a person who was alive before homosexual activity was 'invented' and when that (ancient) person can tell me how this unnatural phenomenon was catalyzed. While I'm waiting for that, I'll go on with my life like any straight person who doesn't secretly lust for the same sex would, not having to worry that being around gay people will cause me to end up with a dick in my mouth or something, like the homophobic closet cases do.
Soooo... the next time a woman asks "what can a man do that a woman can't?" the proper reply (to replace "pee standing up without getting our legs wet") is now "long-term production of raw materials to refine into stem cells"?
But in all seriousness, thank you (and congratulations) for likely changing my mind in the stem cell debate. Your logic is excellent and insightful, and has given me sufficient reason to seriously rethink my position on embryonic stem cells.
I'm with you on both counts. I've never heard of such an outrageously low sum for a heart operation. And since we're throwing out figures, my wife's hysterectomy cost $27,000. That's an actual number that I didn't have to make up. We've not yet paid that amount in premiums, so we're ahead.
And as far as claiming that medically expensive accidents are as rare as winning lotteries, that's a level of hyperbole that Paul Bunyan could be proud of. If anyone who can show me any state's lottery claims center and demonstrate that it's as busy as all the emergency rooms and ICUs (Hell, just the ICUs) in that state COMBINED, I'll be your indentured servant for 7 years.
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is exactly the opposite. I've completely replaced cable in my household with hulu, streaming netflix (running in a VM) and netflix DVDs.
Hooking my laptop up to my TV via S-Video cable, going to the screen resolution settings (I'm using Ubuntu Hardy) and setting it up to clone at either 640x480 or 800x600 results in a beautiful fullscreen picture on both hulu and netflix.
Maybe your ISP is at fault?
I think you're looking for something like this list here.
Well, I think you have to take into account the speed at which the two respective distribution mechanisms are advancing.
Let me explain. When I bought my first CD-ROM, I had a 14400 baud modem, now I have a 7 mbit connection, and a dual layer BluRay drive (I don't really have a BluRay drive, but let's pretend for the purposes of this analogy).
With a CD capacity of about 700MB and a BluRay capacity of 50GB, that's about 70 times the capacity. Compare that to the advancement of my internet connection, which has grown 500 times its original size.
If network speeds keep advancing faster than disc capacities, it throws a bit of a wrench into your theory, which I feel is otherwise sound.
Having a post modded down on slashdot is a long LONG way from being "censorship". It's far more akin to being spoken over in a large crowd, but the rules governing acoustics are different (people's volume can be voted on, but can never be taken below a certain threshold).
Even if CmdrTaco himself were to personally remove your post (not at all what is happening, mind you) it still wouldn't be censorship. It would be exactly like a guy telling you get off his lawn.
Think a bit before you post something so hyperbolic, claims like yours take the emotional sting out of hearing about actual censorship.
So this contest will be a salt assault?
Ever.
That is unless someone comes up with a way to update pressed DVDs sitting in cases in my livingroom.
Which two, if I may ask? I've not yet run into a RPG quite that compelling yet. Mind you, I've not owned many consoles either, so my sample size is rather modest.
I'd also like to know a couple of really funny humor RPGs, if anyone out there knows of any.
That does seem to be the case, but it also seems that there have been lawyers involved every time too.
I still stand by the spirit of my post, that it's just not slashdot's style to remove posts, even offensive ones.
I'm not disagreeing that OSS has capitalist traits. I actually believe that if you view productivity as capital OSS is extremely capitalistic. I was simply disputing the insinuation that only capitalist systems can implement competition.
Socialist systems have no built-in component that makes competition (and the benefits of such) incompatible. In fact, I think any properly thought out socialist system would include quite a bit of market competition out of necessity, because competition is a very simple and effective way of finding optimizations in a system.
The total centralized economy that I (maybe incorrectly) perceive you as insinuating is an aspect of communism, a completely different beast from socialism, just like capitalism and feudalism are different.
That's just not slashdot's style. AFAIK there has only been one post removed from slashdot... ever. The only reason THAT one went is because the Scientologists brought out the lawyer guns.
I could be wrong, but that's what I remember of my slashdot history.
I'm sorry, but the roots of the two words we are comparing disagree.
CAPITALism vs SOCIALism. Looks to me as if the focus of resource distribution is the major difference. Both systems seek to define how resources are allocated and to what goal they should be used towards. Capitalism assumes that the actor who makes the most profit from the resources they are given is using them most efficiently, while socialism assumes that a system-wide view of what ends the resources are being applied to should be sought, and used as a guide to distributing resources in a way that is beneficial for society.
Competition can be (and is) a perfectly valid method of efficiency boosting in socialistic economies, it's not the defining aspect of capitalism. The defining aspect of capitalism is that the economy is supposed to benefit those who have capital (hence the name).
In addition, any added concepts like "freedom" or "fairness" are defined EXTERNALLY by other government policies, and are only tied to a nation's economic system by way of decades of propaganda coming from supporters of BOTH economic strategies. In truth you can find repressive capitalism and freedom-rich socialism.
McCarthy-era definitions and prejudices of government systems need to be seen through the lens of the society that thought them up; a society very very deep into the 'good vs evil' mindset. Adjust your preconceptions accordingly.
Yeah, that's the good stuff.
This tech, like those multi-thousand dollar cat5 cables you can find on the internet, makes your ones 'oneier' and your zeros 'zeroier'. Duh.
You sure use the word fanboi a lot for someone who systematically goes down a list browsers, humorously lashing out at all but one of them.
The fate of the marbles is not changed by looking in the bag.
I see someone hasn't been studying their quantum mechanics...
I'm not Maelwryth, but I'd say for the point of view he espoused, yeah, it's just that there are important differences in those potentials. Those differences arise from the probabilities of those potentials manifesting.
An individual sperm has an obnoxiously small chance of become a birthed-human, but the potential remains. A fertilized egg has a pretty low chance of becoming a birthed-human, and a fertilized egg that is attached to a healthy host has a pretty good chance of becoming a birthed-human. Chance, chance, chance. All potentials, but with widely varying amounts of potential.
cayenne brings up a good point. Maybe he was trolling *shrug*, but as of this moment the post is marked troll. What you mods (and the people who agree with a troll mod) need to realize is, whether he was serious or being sarcastic you're REALLY going to be hearing that conversation, in real life, coming from people you know and love, and they're going to be discussing serious real-life options in a serious mindset.
Brace yourself folks, this one is going to be a trollercoaster on par with Roe vs. Wade, the civil rights movement and invading Iraq. Opinions will be firm, worded strongly and civility will suffer.
If the ethanol they sold at the pump was 100% pure, you could call it moonshine and be completely accurate. GP is absolutely right. You can do the googling for yourself.
Adding the methanol removes the need for a gas station to purchase a liquor license.
IIRC, that's done pretty well with compressed air in sealed caves, in pumping water uphill to be used for hydroelectric at night, or using flywheels.
Large fixed-installation power storage is very doable right now, but good portable power is still desperately needed.
I think most homophobes are actually scared that homosexuality seems not different to them, but TOO FAMILIAR. Maybe I'm biased though, because I've been hit on by more "straight" guys than gay guys, and the straight guys are more aggressive about it too, they get MAD when you turn them down.
Yeah, I very well may be wrong, because my sample size is small, but direct experience can have powerful biasing effects on an observer.
The GP isn't offering justification, and nor does someone's non-illegal non-immoral (I reject and will not entertain definitions of morality that include the opinions of non-affected parties) actions NEED any justification.
The GP was pointing out that the statement about homosexuality being unnatural is provably false. You can read whatever else you want into it, but you'll just be putting words into GPs mouth by doing so.
I will however except that homosexuality is "unnatural" when someone can come up with a person who was alive before homosexual activity was 'invented' and when that (ancient) person can tell me how this unnatural phenomenon was catalyzed. While I'm waiting for that, I'll go on with my life like any straight person who doesn't secretly lust for the same sex would, not having to worry that being around gay people will cause me to end up with a dick in my mouth or something, like the homophobic closet cases do.
Soooo... the next time a woman asks "what can a man do that a woman can't?" the proper reply (to replace "pee standing up without getting our legs wet") is now "long-term production of raw materials to refine into stem cells"?
But in all seriousness, thank you (and congratulations) for likely changing my mind in the stem cell debate. Your logic is excellent and insightful, and has given me sufficient reason to seriously rethink my position on embryonic stem cells.
With a warrant.
I'm with you on both counts. I've never heard of such an outrageously low sum for a heart operation. And since we're throwing out figures, my wife's hysterectomy cost $27,000. That's an actual number that I didn't have to make up. We've not yet paid that amount in premiums, so we're ahead.
And as far as claiming that medically expensive accidents are as rare as winning lotteries, that's a level of hyperbole that Paul Bunyan could be proud of. If anyone who can show me any state's lottery claims center and demonstrate that it's as busy as all the emergency rooms and ICUs (Hell, just the ICUs) in that state COMBINED, I'll be your indentured servant for 7 years.
This attitude is summed up in an email that an upper-manager at my wife's office sent out...
"Ignorance on fire is better than brilliance on ice."
That is exactly the kind of lunacy that has our economy in such 'good shape'.