That's like saying, "There will be no poverty anymore if we didn't have any money."
Actually, it's more like saying "There will be no more Republican/Democrat arguments if we had a monarchy". Race isn't something that exists on it's own, it's a social construct.
There will be racism (an "us" vs. a "them") if race didn't exist...
Um... then it's not 'racism' it's 'something else equally as stupid'. No one's suggesting that we can ever end all conflict, I'm just saying 'racism' is (quite obviously) rooted in 'race'. Since 'race' only exists as a social construction, it only exists because we say it does. If we stop referring to race, it will stop existing.
Race is a fundamental part of people's identities... they are as central to identity as gender, language, and religion.
No it's not. It is a socially constructed idea. You aren't born with knowledge of sub-sectioned human races - it's a learned behaviour. Everything you say there 'race', 'gender' (in the psychological male/female actions, manners, and duties idea - not biological sex), 'language', and 'religion' are ALL socially constructed ideas. They are important to YOU. Don't try and say that every culture in the world believes that there are separate human races.
ou give me three practical steps toward getting people to ignore race
I thought I did that already? Oh well, let's go over it again:
1. treat a person's skin colour like their hair colour. It's different, but nothing so different that they are a different 'race'.
2. get more people to do it.
3. get even more people to do it.
I could come up with at least twenty practical steps to combating racism that don't involve denying a person's right to a cultural identity and group.
Um... someone's a bit 'race-centric'. Why does a person have to have a 'race' to have a cultural identity? I for one have a strong cultural identity as a Canadian - no race involved there.
Nothing helps an argument like insulting a person, now does it?... jackass.
OK. I'm willing to bet that YOU are at least a little racist, and it might not completely be your fault. After all, you choose to be an insensitive asshole, so the racist hat might fit too. I don't know.
Um... no. The very baseline for being 'racist' is to believe that there are, in fact, different human races. If you believe that, then you are, by the strictest definition, 'racist'. *I* do not believe that a few phenotypical and/or genotypical traits constitute a sub-group of Homo sapiens. It is actually impossible for me to be racist - because I don't believe in it.
a) you're a "white boy"
b) you probably live in the US.
Close, 'white' and Canadian. Though that's simply the majority - I also have Native American ancestors, and have close family ties to the United States.
Second thing, I am a "black man". My ancestors were indeed slaves. I have the "last name as a profession" to prove it. Butler. Granted, that gives the implication that some of my ancesstors probably got to stay inside with "Ole Massa", but they were slaves none the less.
Well, while a family name that is also the name of a profession can indicate a history of slavery, it's not the only explanation for it. Many 'white' family names are "profession names". Not to suggest that your family weren't slaves - if you say so I'm not going to call you on it.
The point I'm trying to make is that I feel I have at least some "authority" to speak on behalf of the minority side of this whole issue.
And I feel I have some authority to speak on behalf of any logical educated person.
First of all, like most "white" people, you too closely relate slavery and racism. Because of this, you like to draw the conclusion that because slavery ended after the Civil War, that "peculiar institution" also took it's cousin racism with it
I never said anything of the kind. I've actually said nothing about slavery other than "this ad makes some people immediately think of American slave history". I never said 'racism' is gone - it still exists and is heavily prominent in many countries. I never said that slavery doesn't exist - there are many countries where people are still slaves.
a) it WAS a big deal and b) it has probably left a pretty large blemish on our culture.
Yes, it was a big deal and it did leave a a dark spot on America's culture. So much so, in fact, that there are laws in place in the US to put blacks above whites. These 'affirmative action' laws are, by definition, racist.
We (in the US) had slaves, but it was a "bad thing". The slaves we had, were black, so there must be something "wrong with them". That probably makes them not as valuable as us white folk.
Well, here in Canada we were taught that slavery is a terrible, terrible thing. And that many countries had slaves, and many times this was caused by or created racial tensions between the slave group and the master group. We were never taught that any enslaved group was 'defective', merely unlucky. We we taught that every person is just as important as every other person. And that cultural differences didn't separate groups, but we opportunities for outsiders to engage and learn about these cultures.
I guess the US system is a bit different.
Have you ever thought about WHY you don't like some black people?
I assume it because their mannerisms or ideals are such that I would consider them vulgar - that's the criteria I have for not liking anyone regardless of skin colour.
Okie dokie, let's answer these 'rapid fire':
Why don't you think black people are as attractive as white people? I do. Why don't you have a more equal number of black and white friends? I live in an area with rather few black fa
Sigh, I applaud your effort but perhaps you should go take a ride on the short-bus to school from now on.
The point isn't to ignore racism, it's to ignore race. The only reason racism exists is because race exists. If no one believed that skin colour defined a grouping of people, then there would be no group.
It's not that we should ignore something that exists, we should ignore what doesn't. "Race" doesn't exist.
Well, I'd like to be the first then. I think it's racist.
Okay... why is it racist? Oh and "Take your time coming up with an answer, this is a tough one."
The fact is, intolerance is a big problem
I agree, you do seem to be quite intolerant.
Which is more reasonable, that millions of minorities are whiners? Or that we are still susceptible to using arbitrary characteristics to make social and economic decisions that adversely affect other groups?
Oh, I get it, you are trying to get me to say that 'minorities are whiners'. Good job, you almost defended your claims without being a jackass - almost.
"Millions of minorities are whiners" means that only "non-white ethic groups" are offended by this. This is a loaded question, next time don't try to be an asshole.
I'm going to say that the only people whining about this are ignorant, and I'd like to think that (even in America) the ignorant are the minority.
Now, "we are still susceptible to using arbitrary characteristics to make social and economic decisions..." means that people will subconsiously attribute any colour they see to human race relations. Um, no. I can't believe that anyone would see a colour and connect it to race. Really, do you know of anyone who sees a Logitech device and goes 'hey, that's a negro electronic'.
I mean, come one, you really don't expect us to believe that people are so fixated on race?
And then you conclude with "...that adversely affect other groups". Huh? How does buying a white PSP effect any ethnic group? Seriously. Not having a yellow PSP didn't effect the Chinese.
No one is offended that the billboard suggests a precursor to violence. No one is offended that it's two women involved in violence. If it had been two white women, one in a white suit, one in a black suit, nobody would say a thing.
Furthermore, nobody has said word one about the version of the ad where the black woman is dominating the white woman. And I'm willing to bet that if that image had been on the billboard instead, nobody would have said a thing. At least not publicly.
So ask yourself, honestly, why it's offensive to you. Because the billboard doesn't depict slavery. Not in the slightest. If the black woman was picking cotton, and the white woman was standing over her with a whip, then hell yes it would be offensive. But it's just two people squaring off, and one of them has the upper hand. So why does it matter to you which one that is?
Because if we really want to reach the level of equality in our society that we all say we do, we need to stop dwelling on the past. Slavery is abolished. Has been for a good long time. Not a single one of us Americans owned slaves, or was a slave. It was a horrible period in time, but it's over. Being oversensitive about things like this billboard is what's keeping this racial tension alive. If you ask yourself honestly, you may find that you don't actually think the billboard is offensive, but that you've just been taught it's offensive.
Stop making race a big deal, and race stops being a big deal.
I repeat: "Stop making race a big deal, and race stops being a big deal."
Well... saying that Google doesn't have to list their competitors in their search is like saying Microsoft doesn't have to let competitors' programs be installed on Windows.
While it certainly is true morally, and seems like it's the right of the company to do whatever they want with their product (be that a search engine or an operating system or a car), there are laws in place that force companies to help out those weaker than themselves.
These laws are usually only levied against companies that are far and above all their competitors: those that have a virtual monopoly. And while this may seem very unfair... well, I don't really have any explanation for that. It is unfair.
So when do we declare a monopoly? Microsoft has a monopoly on computer operating systems, that's quite clear - but how narrowly can you define 'certain sector'?. This Apple investigation is a great example. As far as I knew iPods aren't dominating the market to the point that other products can't compete, sure they may be the majority but there's plenty of other music players. And the French investigation seems to have no problem with their market sasturation, their problem seems to lie with the fact that Apple has a monopoly on the iPod and iTunes. Apple is being brought to court because they have a monopoly on their own products.
Perhaps I'm reading too far into it. But it appears that by narrowly defining a 'sector' of the market, you can force any company to help it's rivals.
So what's the solution? Should there be laws dictating how many and which kinds of services a company is allowed to offer? Should companies be forbidden from integrating any suplimentery functionality with their products?
Like, the Windows XP firewall, for example. Some say that it shouldn't be included with the operating system because it threatens third party firewall sales. The XP firewall is, in all honesty, an almost useless product, and if it was sold by a third party that party would go out of business. But because it comes standard with Windows it has gained a considerable foothold in the personal firewall market. But, on the other hand, wouldn't Microsoft be seen as lazy (and Windows as even more lax in security) if such functionality wasn't included with Windows? Because the XP firewall is so bad many consumers purchase better, third party firewalls - but the new 'defender' pkg that's to be included with Vista looks to be comparable with other firewall/antvirus/antispyware software, and could concievably put other companies out of business.
Should Microsoft be punished for giving the customer more secure software? Should any company be forced to cripple their own product so that other companies may compete?
To bring it back to Apple, it's true that iTunes and the iPod are connected at the hip but should Apple be forced to change their product so that there can be competition? Truly, iTunes may put other music-buying services out of business, but is that a perversion of capitalism or is it the absolute purest example of it? Capitalism is the economic mirror image of democracy: it's not the best product that wins, but the most popular. The consumer (though generally ignorant of the specifics) has the right to buy any product he wants, and to not buy anything he doesn't.
So, is it simply the end result of the consumer "voting with his wallet"? Showing that the other companies, while perhaps giving a technically superior product, or a simpler product, or an easier product), are not giving him the product he wants, and he shows what he wants by buying it.
Should we force Apple to segregate it's software from it's hardware? Should we force Apple, or even all software companies, to make their programs compatable with all rival hardware? Would that mean that we'd force OSX to be made availible for white-box PCs?
:: Currently the only way to get music (read: use) on an iPod (read: Apple hardware) is with iTunes (read: Apple software).
:: Currently the only way to do anything (read: use) on a MacBook (read: Apple hardware) is with OSX (read: Apple software).
So where do we draw the line? At what point do companies need to be restricted?
He who makes crap should perish. He who creates better goods should rise.
Exactly. But what's "crap" has to, and should be, be defined by the individual. If the individual thinks that a music player that forces them to used bundled software is crap - then they probably won't buy it. If they think that it's actually a bonus to have an integrated music buying application, they'll be very excited about it.
Notice above I said "probably won't but it". Perhaps the individual is willing to deal with unwanted add-on software if he really really wants what it's bundled with. (Hell, that's my reasoning for buying HalfLife 2).
It's about artificially keeping competition running. True, it's bad for competition for iPods and iTunes to be connected like they are - but noones being forced to use them. If you don't like that you have to use iTunes for your iPod, don't buy an iPod.
But the EU has an interest in making sure that EU tax euros go to software companies that pay tax back to EU member states, not to the United States of America and the State of Washington.
Uh, and that's makes it alright to misuse the law?
Sounds like a good plan, until people complain that these things aren't bundled with the install and they have to go online after buying the damn disc (just like I did for Steam:) ). It's a no-win situation. Microsoft either gets critisised for having shitty products, or federally investigated for having good ones.
How many different vendors of Windows is there, oh, just one?
Um, contrasted with the many Mac vendors?
Can I check out the source code myself, no?
Can I check the Mac source code?
how about choosing my web browser at install time, no?
I assume Safari's still default too.
my desktop? which calculator I want to use? clock, no, office suite, no, media player, no?
OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX.
How about my security app, can I choose which one I want to have at install time, no?
Can I do that with a Mac? Can I? I really don't know? Can I? I'm fairly sure I can't, but I'd be glad to admit OSX allows me to pick from several different security applications during the install.
Keep windows, I'll stick with Linux.
And there's my main point. All these regulations are put in place, supposedly, to help the average customer. That's what all the laws used are meant to do. But these restrictions on Microsoft aren't helping anyone except competing companies. And while that could be beneficial to the average customer, it just doesn't seem to work out that way. Take Firefox, for example, it's better than IE (not that much better, but better.), is advertised on thousands of websites, works on all platforms, easy to use, and is free - but still hovers around 10% of the market share. If I put a bucket of apples on the sidewalk with a 'take one' sign, Id get better penetration that 10%.
Except for playing games, there's absolutely no reason for people to use anything Microsoft. Ever. That said, there's still millions of people using Windows for more than playing games. Why? It doesn't matter 'why?'. In a capitalist society the 'why' means nothing. It's the 'does' that matters. If you say that Linux is a viable alternative to windows for the average user, you're naive.
The average user doesn't know, and doesn't care about Linux. They don't want to compile their own source code. They don't want to be bothered with choosing every little piece of software. They just want that blinkin' box to show them the boobies and the spreadsheets. They want their OS to operate exactly as their used to. Have you ever tried to get an average user to mount a CD in Linux? To the average user having functional applications built in is beneficial. I can't imagine the complaints that Best Buy gets when someone brings home Windows-N and finds out they can't get on the Internet. "What do you mean I have to get my own brassiere?.. Don't correct me punk..."
I can't believe anyone, anyone, can say 'un-bundling IE and Media Player from Windows is beneficial to the average consumer' with a straight face.
Litigating Microsoft is something that should be done - but for the extortion and the theft - not bundling fucking media player. Fuck.
If only there was a way for a monopolistic company to help out it's customers. I don't know, bundle important applications and functions with the software everyone's getting anyway. Like, I don't know, a web browser. Yeah, those are important. Oh and some kind of player for media.
Oh? What?... Oh we're not allowed? Why?... Because everyone has our software? Yeah, so we want to make it better... Oh? Oh we're not allowed to make it better. Oh I see. Why?... Well, that's true. If we bundle programs with our software that customers would normally have to go out and get from other companies, it might out those companies out of business. But isn't that an essential part of Capitalism?... Not for us? Oh, alright then. Well, what about the 'calculator' or 'clock' or '? They're bundled too.. Oh? Oh you only sue us when the feature competes well with other software? So when the bundled app sucks, like say that firewall we tried, you don't mind letting us leave it in but when we put out a great, popular, free product you investigate and sue us?... Really. That actually seems kinda unfair. But as long as every software company is prohibited from bundling multiple... Oh? Oh, it's just us? So, not anyone else?... Nobody?... Well, that actually sounds kind of unfair.
And we still get to be the whipping boy of the Internet for having terrible software?... Well, then. I quit.
One of the biggest problems I have wit the entire 'Global Warming' debate is that there are only two sides. There aren't just two sides to this. Some say it is happening, and it's going to kill us, and we're to blame. Some say it's happening, but not that fast, but we're to blame. Some say It's happening, and it's going to kill us, but we're not to blame. Some say it's happening, and it's going to kill us, but it's not our fault - the Earth just does this. Some say it's happening, but it's not doing anything of any importance. Some say the opposite is happening, and we're headed for an ice age. And some say nothing is happening at all.
Some point out that 'just because Global Warming isn't proven, doesn't mean it's proof there is no global warming', which is true. But it does mean [b]there's no fucking proof[/b].
Personally, I just don't care about it. I hate when people act like there's no way we could possibly function if anything changed. Like endangered species (and I know people will hate me for this), who fucking cares? They're 'endangered' because they suck at living. Species become extinct, that's what they do. Almost every species that ever existed is extinct. Seriously, who needs pandas? Why do we want to save pandas?
The same goes for 'Global Warming'. Is it getting warmer? Yes? Good. I live in Canada. I [i]want[/i] it to get warmer.
While I can appreciate the 'what caused it doesnt matter, let's just fix it' idea we really do need to know what caused it (if it is indeed happening). We can't just stop driving and hope for the best. We need to know exactly what's causing the warming to counteract it.
I do like this line of thinking:
Is it happening?
What are the long-term effects going to be?
If the long-term effects are undesirable, what can be done to reverse it?
But this is basically what all these 'studies' are answering anyway - they're just very selective on how they define the questions.
'Is it happening' is automatically yes. Firstly, they need this to be yes to keep being funded, and secondly they can define whatever time period they want to say 'it's getting warmer' (like TFA's 400 year bullshit.)
'What are the long term effects' is another ill-defined question. 'Long term' is open for interpretation, that could mean a few decades, or a few centuries, or more. I can tell you with absolute certainty that 'long term' we will continue to warm, plateau, then cool until we have another ice age, repeat until the Sun explodes.
'What can be done to reverse it' is all about what the scientists (or their funders) hate, or what they think will make them popular. For example, Al Gore's new "movie" promotes not using fossil fuels, but Gore himself wasted (literal) tons of fossil fuel to attend screenings promote his own agenda. Gore wants to be popular, so he's pushing this 'Global Warming' crock.
My point here was that 'consensus' among scientist is not the be-all end-all of science. Science is not a democracy. 'Consensus' is not something a scientist should use to prove his point, usually you'd use 'facts' and 'data'.
Uh, your daughter (though probobly cute as a button) isn't using logic - she's lying. Logic would dictate that if there's no lion around, you can't prove that a lion did it. And if lions don't frequent the area, there's no reason to believe a lion's involved at all.
And it's well known that CO2 was even higher than it is now during tha last ice age. So you can't just say 'CO2 makes it warmer' there's more to it than that.
The point is that even a bot of logic is all it takes to show these alarmist theories to be false.
What? Are you licking toads? Of course the burden of proof is on the new hypothesis, that's not science that's just logic.
Try this on for size. New theory: Global Warming is caused by lack of pirates. Now, evidence indicates that over the last few hundred years the temperature has gone up and the number of pirates have gone down.
Heh, and because there's no 'burden of proof' I don't have to prove anything for this to be 'science'. Good job.
Remember kids, you can't just say shit without backing it up.
The climate WILL change, whether we're here or not. Remember this planet goes through a continuous cycle of ice-ages and warming trends. Ask any geologist about inner-Earth temperatures over the last hundred thousand years.
Your explaination is rather slipshod - but you've got the right idea.
Nothing in science is ever "proven". Things are observed, and hypotheses that are wrong are ruled out.
Right!
So, since the data points to an increased warming trend... ... we should look for more data?... we should consider the idea of Global Warming but continue to re-examine it?...we should affirm that this theory is the most likely, but continue to remind people that nothing is 'fact'?
..."global warming" is already a fact.
Eh? Kinda did a 180 there. Didn't you just say that nothing is ever proven? Yeah I think you did. Yup, right up there, word for word.
The science is figuring out what it means and why.
Oh god... No. That's not 'science', that's 'junk science'. You were doing so well: create hypothesis, test hypothesis, redefine hypothesis due to new data, never say it's 'fact'... then you actually say it's a 'fact' and you say science should work towards proving a theory instead of simply searching for accurate data.
"There is a scientific consensus that it exists. "
There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
Remember, it's not 'who' says it, it's 'wha's being said'.
And one degree isn't much. Disregarding that fact that there's no reason to think that temperatures won't go down, disregarding the fact that there's no reason to think that 'surface temperature readings' can be held with much validity over such a short timeframe, disregarding the fact that 50 years ago these same kinds of figures would indicate that the planet is cooling... I lost my train of thought - but hopefully I've derailed he 'Global Warming express' too.
Slashdot Mirror
Um... then it's not 'racism' it's 'something else equally as stupid'. No one's suggesting that we can ever end all conflict, I'm just saying 'racism' is (quite obviously) rooted in 'race'. Since 'race' only exists as a social construction, it only exists because we say it does. If we stop referring to race, it will stop existing.
No it's not. It is a socially constructed idea. You aren't born with knowledge of sub-sectioned human races - it's a learned behaviour. Everything you say there 'race', 'gender' (in the psychological male/female actions, manners, and duties idea - not biological sex), 'language', and 'religion' are ALL socially constructed ideas. They are important to YOU. Don't try and say that every culture in the world believes that there are separate human races.
I thought I did that already? Oh well, let's go over it again:
1. treat a person's skin colour like their hair colour. It's different, but nothing so different that they are a different 'race'.
2. get more people to do it.
3. get even more people to do it.
Um... someone's a bit 'race-centric'. Why does a person have to have a 'race' to have a cultural identity? I for one have a strong cultural identity as a Canadian - no race involved there.
Hahaha!
Um... no. The very baseline for being 'racist' is to believe that there are, in fact, different human races. If you believe that, then you are, by the strictest definition, 'racist'. *I* do not believe that a few phenotypical and/or genotypical traits constitute a sub-group of Homo sapiens. It is actually impossible for me to be racist - because I don't believe in it.
Close, 'white' and Canadian. Though that's simply the majority - I also have Native American ancestors, and have close family ties to the United States.
Well, while a family name that is also the name of a profession can indicate a history of slavery, it's not the only explanation for it. Many 'white' family names are "profession names". Not to suggest that your family weren't slaves - if you say so I'm not going to call you on it.
And I feel I have some authority to speak on behalf of any logical educated person.
I never said anything of the kind. I've actually said nothing about slavery other than "this ad makes some people immediately think of American slave history". I never said 'racism' is gone - it still exists and is heavily prominent in many countries. I never said that slavery doesn't exist - there are many countries where people are still slaves.
Yes, it was a big deal and it did leave a a dark spot on America's culture. So much so, in fact, that there are laws in place in the US to put blacks above whites. These 'affirmative action' laws are, by definition, racist.
Well, here in Canada we were taught that slavery is a terrible, terrible thing. And that many countries had slaves, and many times this was caused by or created racial tensions between the slave group and the master group. We were never taught that any enslaved group was 'defective', merely unlucky. We we taught that every person is just as important as every other person. And that cultural differences didn't separate groups, but we opportunities for outsiders to engage and learn about these cultures.
I guess the US system is a bit different.
I assume it because their mannerisms or ideals are such that I would consider them vulgar - that's the criteria I have for not liking anyone regardless of skin colour.
Okie dokie, let's answer these 'rapid fire':
Sigh, I applaud your effort but perhaps you should go take a ride on the short-bus to school from now on.
The point isn't to ignore racism, it's to ignore race. The only reason racism exists is because race exists. If no one believed that skin colour defined a grouping of people, then there would be no group.
It's not that we should ignore something that exists, we should ignore what doesn't. "Race" doesn't exist.
People WON'T be offended where this runs. It's not being run in the US, which is the only country that seems to have a fixation with race.
I agree, you do seem to be quite intolerant.
Oh, I get it, you are trying to get me to say that 'minorities are whiners'. Good job, you almost defended your claims without being a jackass - almost.
"Millions of minorities are whiners" means that only "non-white ethic groups" are offended by this. This is a loaded question, next time don't try to be an asshole.
I'm going to say that the only people whining about this are ignorant, and I'd like to think that (even in America) the ignorant are the minority.
Now, "we are still susceptible to using arbitrary characteristics to make social and economic decisions..." means that people will subconsiously attribute any colour they see to human race relations. Um, no. I can't believe that anyone would see a colour and connect it to race. Really, do you know of anyone who sees a Logitech device and goes 'hey, that's a negro electronic'.
I mean, come one, you really don't expect us to believe that people are so fixated on race?
And then you conclude with "...that adversely affect other groups". Huh? How does buying a white PSP effect any ethnic group? Seriously. Not having a yellow PSP didn't effect the Chinese.
Well... saying that Google doesn't have to list their competitors in their search is like saying Microsoft doesn't have to let competitors' programs be installed on Windows.
While it certainly is true morally, and seems like it's the right of the company to do whatever they want with their product (be that a search engine or an operating system or a car), there are laws in place that force companies to help out those weaker than themselves.
These laws are usually only levied against companies that are far and above all their competitors: those that have a virtual monopoly. And while this may seem very unfair... well, I don't really have any explanation for that. It is unfair.
So when do we declare a monopoly? Microsoft has a monopoly on computer operating systems, that's quite clear - but how narrowly can you define 'certain sector'?. This Apple investigation is a great example. As far as I knew iPods aren't dominating the market to the point that other products can't compete, sure they may be the majority but there's plenty of other music players. And the French investigation seems to have no problem with their market sasturation, their problem seems to lie with the fact that Apple has a monopoly on the iPod and iTunes. Apple is being brought to court because they have a monopoly on their own products.
Perhaps I'm reading too far into it. But it appears that by narrowly defining a 'sector' of the market, you can force any company to help it's rivals.
So what's the solution? Should there be laws dictating how many and which kinds of services a company is allowed to offer? Should companies be forbidden from integrating any suplimentery functionality with their products?
:: Currently the only way to get music (read: use) on an iPod (read: Apple hardware) is with iTunes (read: Apple software).
:: Currently the only way to do anything (read: use) on a MacBook (read: Apple hardware) is with OSX (read: Apple software).
Like, the Windows XP firewall, for example. Some say that it shouldn't be included with the operating system because it threatens third party firewall sales. The XP firewall is, in all honesty, an almost useless product, and if it was sold by a third party that party would go out of business. But because it comes standard with Windows it has gained a considerable foothold in the personal firewall market. But, on the other hand, wouldn't Microsoft be seen as lazy (and Windows as even more lax in security) if such functionality wasn't included with Windows? Because the XP firewall is so bad many consumers purchase better, third party firewalls - but the new 'defender' pkg that's to be included with Vista looks to be comparable with other firewall/antvirus/antispyware software, and could concievably put other companies out of business.
Should Microsoft be punished for giving the customer more secure software? Should any company be forced to cripple their own product so that other companies may compete?
To bring it back to Apple, it's true that iTunes and the iPod are connected at the hip but should Apple be forced to change their product so that there can be competition? Truly, iTunes may put other music-buying services out of business, but is that a perversion of capitalism or is it the absolute purest example of it? Capitalism is the economic mirror image of democracy: it's not the best product that wins, but the most popular. The consumer (though generally ignorant of the specifics) has the right to buy any product he wants, and to not buy anything he doesn't.
So, is it simply the end result of the consumer "voting with his wallet"? Showing that the other companies, while perhaps giving a technically superior product, or a simpler product, or an easier product), are not giving him the product he wants, and he shows what he wants by buying it.
Should we force Apple to segregate it's software from it's hardware? Should we force Apple, or even all software companies, to make their programs compatable with all rival hardware? Would that mean that we'd force OSX to be made availible for white-box PCs?
So where do we draw the line? At what point do companies need to be restricted?
Notice above I said "probably won't but it". Perhaps the individual is willing to deal with unwanted add-on software if he really really wants what it's bundled with. (Hell, that's my reasoning for buying HalfLife 2).
It's about artificially keeping competition running. True, it's bad for competition for iPods and iTunes to be connected like they are - but noones being forced to use them. If you don't like that you have to use iTunes for your iPod, don't buy an iPod.
It's about time that someone otyher than Microsoft was forced to play nice with their competitors.
I still think it's stupid to force a company to help it's rivals - but at least the EU's trying to be fair about it.
Sounds like a good plan, until people complain that these things aren't bundled with the install and they have to go online after buying the damn disc (just like I did for Steam :) ). It's a no-win situation. Microsoft either gets critisised for having shitty products, or federally investigated for having good ones.
How many different vendors of Windows is there, oh, just one?
.. Don't correct me punk..."
Um, contrasted with the many Mac vendors?
Can I check out the source code myself, no?
Can I check the Mac source code?
how about choosing my web browser at install time, no?
I assume Safari's still default too.
my desktop? which calculator I want to use? clock, no, office suite, no, media player, no?
OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX, OSX.
How about my security app, can I choose which one I want to have at install time, no?
Can I do that with a Mac? Can I? I really don't know? Can I? I'm fairly sure I can't, but I'd be glad to admit OSX allows me to pick from several different security applications during the install.
Keep windows, I'll stick with Linux.
And there's my main point. All these regulations are put in place, supposedly, to help the average customer. That's what all the laws used are meant to do. But these restrictions on Microsoft aren't helping anyone except competing companies. And while that could be beneficial to the average customer, it just doesn't seem to work out that way. Take Firefox, for example, it's better than IE (not that much better, but better.), is advertised on thousands of websites, works on all platforms, easy to use, and is free - but still hovers around 10% of the market share. If I put a bucket of apples on the sidewalk with a 'take one' sign, Id get better penetration that 10%.
Except for playing games, there's absolutely no reason for people to use anything Microsoft. Ever. That said, there's still millions of people using Windows for more than playing games. Why? It doesn't matter 'why?'. In a capitalist society the 'why' means nothing. It's the 'does' that matters. If you say that Linux is a viable alternative to windows for the average user, you're naive.
The average user doesn't know, and doesn't care about Linux. They don't want to compile their own source code. They don't want to be bothered with choosing every little piece of software. They just want that blinkin' box to show them the boobies and the spreadsheets. They want their OS to operate exactly as their used to. Have you ever tried to get an average user to mount a CD in Linux? To the average user having functional applications built in is beneficial. I can't imagine the complaints that Best Buy gets when someone brings home Windows-N and finds out they can't get on the Internet. "What do you mean I have to get my own brassiere?
I can't believe anyone, anyone, can say 'un-bundling IE and Media Player from Windows is beneficial to the average consumer' with a straight face.
Litigating Microsoft is something that should be done - but for the extortion and the theft - not bundling fucking media player. Fuck.
Inside the Mind of Bill Gates...
... Oh we're not allowed? Why? ... Because everyone has our software? Yeah, so we want to make it better... Oh? Oh we're not allowed to make it better. Oh I see. Why?... Well, that's true. If we bundle programs with our software that customers would normally have to go out and get from other companies, it might out those companies out of business. But isn't that an essential part of Capitalism?... Not for us? Oh, alright then. Well, what about the 'calculator' or 'clock' or '? They're bundled too.. Oh? Oh you only sue us when the feature competes well with other software? So when the bundled app sucks, like say that firewall we tried, you don't mind letting us leave it in but when we put out a great, popular, free product you investigate and sue us?... Really. That actually seems kinda unfair. But as long as every software company is prohibited from bundling multiple... Oh? Oh, it's just us? So, not anyone else?... Nobody?... Well, that actually sounds kind of unfair.
If only there was a way for a monopolistic company to help out it's customers. I don't know, bundle important applications and functions with the software everyone's getting anyway. Like, I don't know, a web browser. Yeah, those are important. Oh and some kind of player for media.
Oh? What?
And we still get to be the whipping boy of the Internet for having terrible software?... Well, then. I quit.
One of the biggest problems I have wit the entire 'Global Warming' debate is that there are only two sides. There aren't just two sides to this. Some say it is happening, and it's going to kill us, and we're to blame. Some say it's happening, but not that fast, but we're to blame. Some say It's happening, and it's going to kill us, but we're not to blame. Some say it's happening, and it's going to kill us, but it's not our fault - the Earth just does this. Some say it's happening, but it's not doing anything of any importance. Some say the opposite is happening, and we're headed for an ice age. And some say nothing is happening at all.
Some point out that 'just because Global Warming isn't proven, doesn't mean it's proof there is no global warming', which is true. But it does mean [b]there's no fucking proof[/b].
Personally, I just don't care about it. I hate when people act like there's no way we could possibly function if anything changed. Like endangered species (and I know people will hate me for this), who fucking cares? They're 'endangered' because they suck at living. Species become extinct, that's what they do. Almost every species that ever existed is extinct. Seriously, who needs pandas? Why do we want to save pandas?
The same goes for 'Global Warming'. Is it getting warmer? Yes? Good. I live in Canada. I [i]want[/i] it to get warmer.
While I can appreciate the 'what caused it doesnt matter, let's just fix it' idea we really do need to know what caused it (if it is indeed happening). We can't just stop driving and hope for the best. We need to know exactly what's causing the warming to counteract it.
I do like this line of thinking:
Is it happening?
What are the long-term effects going to be?
If the long-term effects are undesirable, what can be done to reverse it?
But this is basically what all these 'studies' are answering anyway - they're just very selective on how they define the questions.
'Is it happening' is automatically yes. Firstly, they need this to be yes to keep being funded, and secondly they can define whatever time period they want to say 'it's getting warmer' (like TFA's 400 year bullshit.)
'What are the long term effects' is another ill-defined question. 'Long term' is open for interpretation, that could mean a few decades, or a few centuries, or more. I can tell you with absolute certainty that 'long term' we will continue to warm, plateau, then cool until we have another ice age, repeat until the Sun explodes.
'What can be done to reverse it' is all about what the scientists (or their funders) hate, or what they think will make them popular. For example, Al Gore's new "movie" promotes not using fossil fuels, but Gore himself wasted (literal) tons of fossil fuel to attend screenings promote his own agenda. Gore wants to be popular, so he's pushing this 'Global Warming' crock.
Okay, I've had enough of this Global Warming shit. It really REALLY just pisses me off now.
l obalwarming.htm
1 2/201235
Good Quick explanation: http://www.whatwouldronaldreagando.com/webpages/g
And I love pointing out that nay-sayers get scientifically cock-blocked: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/
My point here was that 'consensus' among scientist is not the be-all end-all of science. Science is not a democracy. 'Consensus' is not something a scientist should use to prove his point, usually you'd use 'facts' and 'data'.
Uh, your daughter (though probobly cute as a button) isn't using logic - she's lying. Logic would dictate that if there's no lion around, you can't prove that a lion did it. And if lions don't frequent the area, there's no reason to believe a lion's involved at all.
And it's well known that CO2 was even higher than it is now during tha last ice age. So you can't just say 'CO2 makes it warmer' there's more to it than that.
The point is that even a bot of logic is all it takes to show these alarmist theories to be false.
What? Are you licking toads? Of course the burden of proof is on the new hypothesis, that's not science that's just logic.
Try this on for size. New theory: Global Warming is caused by lack of pirates. Now, evidence indicates that over the last few hundred years the temperature has gone up and the number of pirates have gone down.
Heh, and because there's no 'burden of proof' I don't have to prove anything for this to be 'science'. Good job.
Remember kids, you can't just say shit without backing it up.
The climate WILL change, whether we're here or not. Remember this planet goes through a continuous cycle of ice-ages and warming trends. Ask any geologist about inner-Earth temperatures over the last hundred thousand years.
Your explaination is rather slipshod - but you've got the right idea.
... we should look for more data? ... we should consider the idea of Global Warming but continue to re-examine it? ...we should affirm that this theory is the most likely, but continue to remind people that nothing is 'fact'?
..."global warming" is already a fact.
Nothing in science is ever "proven". Things are observed, and hypotheses that are wrong are ruled out.
Right!
So, since the data points to an increased warming trend...
Eh? Kinda did a 180 there. Didn't you just say that nothing is ever proven? Yeah I think you did. Yup, right up there, word for word.
The science is figuring out what it means and why.
Oh god... No. That's not 'science', that's 'junk science'. You were doing so well: create hypothesis, test hypothesis, redefine hypothesis due to new data, never say it's 'fact'... then you actually say it's a 'fact' and you say science should work towards proving a theory instead of simply searching for accurate data.
And I had such high hopes for you.
"There is a scientific consensus that it exists. "
There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
Remember, it's not 'who' says it, it's 'wha's being said'.
And one degree isn't much. Disregarding that fact that there's no reason to think that temperatures won't go down, disregarding the fact that there's no reason to think that 'surface temperature readings' can be held with much validity over such a short timeframe, disregarding the fact that 50 years ago these same kinds of figures would indicate that the planet is cooling... I lost my train of thought - but hopefully I've derailed he 'Global Warming express' too.