I think what he was trying to say was that although people should be allowed to do it, it's a waste. I have no problem with people doing this, as the money will eventually go to someone else (Employees of the businesses that sell these products, shareholders, the employees/shareholders of the businesses these people buy things from, etc.), who may or may not do something more useful with it.
Different numbers of download options between OSes
on
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I sort of amused me that the Windows version has 3 different installers, the Linux version has five installers, and the Mac OS X version has 1 download for an application that doesn't need an installer. Simplicity? Some might say this is bad for Macs as it limits customizability, but the application isn't very big anyway.
Upon looking at the application, it's interface is as bad as Mozilla, and it isn't a standard Mac OS X application at all. In fact, I can't see its difference from Mozilla. I guess it has good integration, but I don't see how it is better than Safari, Mail, and Address Book which work together very well and work with a lot of other applications.
The news outlets are writing up their own articles on specific events. Google news is taking those articles' first few sentences and title and putting them on its site. I don't think there is a problem with that, as long as the news outlets can opt-out. But what Google is doing is different from the other news outlets. Nobody owns the knowledge of a public event, but they can own the words used to describe it.
If we all try to help ourselves, then the best come out on top, and society functions well. If we all try to create a happy life for everyone, then the best will be busy helping others, and not creating a well functioning society. It will be hard workers and very smart people taking care of lazy people, who do not care. Now, if everyone is exactly the same (hard working and intelligent)then there will be no difference between helping others and helping ourselves, because 6 billion people who are exactly the same do about the same as 1 person x 6,000,000,000.
As long as obesity isn't contagious (Which I highly doubt), it is not everybody's problem, until everyone has it. It can only be solved on an individual level, and it is no one else's business whether people with this problem choose to solve it. It's not going to infect other people (e.g. the flu) and it's not going to cause danger to other people (e.g. alcoholism).
Did you notice that that one article has had many cases of vandalism? And I dare say beavers are not a controversial subject. Then again, I've never encountered wikipedia vandalism when searching for information.
That wasn't originally there, but was added after the original statement by someone else, who left a note saying: "(this may be true, but it needs a source!)".
You can make your own electricity, it's not easy, but if you feel it is not worth it then you are choosing to go with the corporation that can provide it more easily. There are plenty of corporations that provide health insurance, and they have to compete. If it could be done better, it likely would be. You can easily escape most advertisements, with those placed near transportation a possible exception. You can easily avoid being cheated by an Enron-like company. Don't invest, and there will be no risk of it. Now, you cannot escape corporations with power in the government, but that is the fault of the government more than the corporations. As for pollution, I think it should be possible for citizens to bring legal action upon corporations if they can provide evidence their property is being damaged by them.
Because people are free to be associated with corporations or to not be associated. In the U.S., I can start an organization in which I am dictator, king, deity, etc. But no one has to be in it, and generally the greatest consequence of disobeying me will be removal from my organization. Corporations don't have to be democratic because being an employee or customer of one is optional.
He took no money. People chose to buy Windows. Even if they were ignorant of computers, susceptible to marketing, or felt pressured to buy it because a lot of other people did, it is still their, our, fault. Bill Gates, and Microsoft, forced no one to buy Windows. For the record, I'm a Mac user.
People do need hopes and jobs. And it is their responsibility to obtain them. If they instead choose to do drugs, or commit crime, it is their responsibility. And when you say "you" need to provide real opportunities to people, who is "you"? The people who worked hard and decided not to waste their money on drugs? And murder isn't always, or even usually, committed by very poor people.
I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty, nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice. The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun, not try to shoot him and hope you don't miss. Money is only money.
If they robbers know that people will just hand over their property (which is what you are saying) they will commit many more crimes. If they think they might be shot, they will certainly hesitate.
How does I.E need cross platform compatibility to dominate? Linux is 2.8% of the desktop computer market share, so it's not very meaningful to the I.E. marketshare. And a large percentage of Linux users would never use anything made by Microsoft, whether it was good or not.
They aren't a monopoly, and probably never will be. It's relatively easy to set up a search engine, and a lot of companies have the power to do it. There also aren't any incompatibility issues between search engines.
Why would wifi use that much electricity? In laptops it is generally just used as a reciever, although you can use those cards as a base station. Either way, I wouldn't think it would use that much electricity.
Lets hope what you propose never happens again. Because if it does I'd want you to get heart disease and see just how hard it will be for you to fork out $1mil for the transplant and treatments.
Someone has to pay for it. Why shouldn't it be the person who needs it (likely via insurance)
Here in Australia they tried banning smoking in certain areas of clubs and those areas were always EMPTY.
Ok, but those aren't public places. Their right to allow smoking on private property isn't something I contest.
With smoking out of the picture in public places eventually more things will become illegal and with time this world will turn into a dystopia, where everything is wrong.
Should people be able to defile that which is not theirs, or that of someone who willingly allows it
Its only a few tree hugging hippies and fascists like yourself
I am certainly not a "tree hugging hippy" or a fascist, or, if this is how your title was meant to be interpreted, a communist. I tend to be libertarian fiscally, and libertarian/centrist in other issues.
that cause a stir in a perfectly functional society (be it not perfect).
Honestly, I didn't comprehend the stir I had caused./sarcasm
I simply don't think that people should be allowed to defile property that is not theirs, or owned by someone who allows it to be defiled (Essentially anywhere but government buildings and roads. And some property does have to be public for an efficient society. Now, I don't think that this should be decided by the federal government, or perhaps even that of the states. Cities and counties could do it. But if I had the choice, then I would have it be this way.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, but Apple still never bought Disney. Steve Jobs is not Apple. I've not ever seen that rumor either.
As I see this, it sounds likes the equivalent of a city or state charging businesses that rely on customers using public roads.
I think what he was trying to say was that although people should be allowed to do it, it's a waste. I have no problem with people doing this, as the money will eventually go to someone else (Employees of the businesses that sell these products, shareholders, the employees/shareholders of the businesses these people buy things from, etc.), who may or may not do something more useful with it.
Upon looking at the application, it's interface is as bad as Mozilla, and it isn't a standard Mac OS X application at all. In fact, I can't see its difference from Mozilla. I guess it has good integration, but I don't see how it is better than Safari, Mail, and Address Book which work together very well and work with a lot of other applications.
Free? Well, it doesn't cost money, but there are advertisements which aren't transferred to Google News.
The news outlets are writing up their own articles on specific events. Google news is taking those articles' first few sentences and title and putting them on its site. I don't think there is a problem with that, as long as the news outlets can opt-out. But what Google is doing is different from the other news outlets. Nobody owns the knowledge of a public event, but they can own the words used to describe it.
If we all try to help ourselves, then the best come out on top, and society functions well. If we all try to create a happy life for everyone, then the best will be busy helping others, and not creating a well functioning society. It will be hard workers and very smart people taking care of lazy people, who do not care. Now, if everyone is exactly the same (hard working and intelligent)then there will be no difference between helping others and helping ourselves, because 6 billion people who are exactly the same do about the same as 1 person x 6,000,000,000.
As long as obesity isn't contagious (Which I highly doubt), it is not everybody's problem, until everyone has it. It can only be solved on an individual level, and it is no one else's business whether people with this problem choose to solve it. It's not going to infect other people (e.g. the flu) and it's not going to cause danger to other people (e.g. alcoholism).
Did you notice that that one article has had many cases of vandalism? And I dare say beavers are not a controversial subject. Then again, I've never encountered wikipedia vandalism when searching for information.
That wasn't originally there, but was added after the original statement by someone else, who left a note saying: "(this may be true, but it needs a source!)".
You can make your own electricity, it's not easy, but if you feel it is not worth it then you are choosing to go with the corporation that can provide it more easily. There are plenty of corporations that provide health insurance, and they have to compete. If it could be done better, it likely would be. You can easily escape most advertisements, with those placed near transportation a possible exception. You can easily avoid being cheated by an Enron-like company. Don't invest, and there will be no risk of it. Now, you cannot escape corporations with power in the government, but that is the fault of the government more than the corporations. As for pollution, I think it should be possible for citizens to bring legal action upon corporations if they can provide evidence their property is being damaged by them.
Because people are free to be associated with corporations or to not be associated. In the U.S., I can start an organization in which I am dictator, king, deity, etc. But no one has to be in it, and generally the greatest consequence of disobeying me will be removal from my organization. Corporations don't have to be democratic because being an employee or customer of one is optional.
I propose making a beowulf cluster of these!
He took no money. People chose to buy Windows. Even if they were ignorant of computers, susceptible to marketing, or felt pressured to buy it because a lot of other people did, it is still their, our, fault. Bill Gates, and Microsoft, forced no one to buy Windows. For the record, I'm a Mac user.
So you mean that eBay auction I won was a scam?
People do need hopes and jobs. And it is their responsibility to obtain them. If they instead choose to do drugs, or commit crime, it is their responsibility. And when you say "you" need to provide real opportunities to people, who is "you"? The people who worked hard and decided not to waste their money on drugs? And murder isn't always, or even usually, committed by very poor people.
So you're suggesting living things consisting entirely of elements? Energy?
If they robbers know that people will just hand over their property (which is what you are saying) they will commit many more crimes. If they think they might be shot, they will certainly hesitate.
How does I.E need cross platform compatibility to dominate? Linux is 2.8% of the desktop computer market share, so it's not very meaningful to the I.E. marketshare. And a large percentage of Linux users would never use anything made by Microsoft, whether it was good or not.
I think I'm funny...
They aren't a monopoly, and probably never will be. It's relatively easy to set up a search engine, and a lot of companies have the power to do it. There also aren't any incompatibility issues between search engines.
Then ignore it on slashdot.
Why would wifi use that much electricity? In laptops it is generally just used as a reciever, although you can use those cards as a base station. Either way, I wouldn't think it would use that much electricity.
There are Linux distros that work with EFI and making a properly formatted partition isn't hard.
Someone has to pay for it. Why shouldn't it be the person who needs it (likely via insurance)
Here in Australia they tried banning smoking in certain areas of clubs and those areas were always EMPTY.
Ok, but those aren't public places. Their right to allow smoking on private property isn't something I contest.
With smoking out of the picture in public places eventually more things will become illegal and with time this world will turn into a dystopia, where everything is wrong.
Should people be able to defile that which is not theirs, or that of someone who willingly allows it
Its only a few tree hugging hippies and fascists like yourself
I am certainly not a "tree hugging hippy" or a fascist, or, if this is how your title was meant to be interpreted, a communist. I tend to be libertarian fiscally, and libertarian/centrist in other issues.
that cause a stir in a perfectly functional society (be it not perfect).
Honestly, I didn't comprehend the stir I had caused. /sarcasm
I simply don't think that people should be allowed to defile property that is not theirs, or owned by someone who allows it to be defiled (Essentially anywhere but government buildings and roads. And some property does have to be public for an efficient society. Now, I don't think that this should be decided by the federal government, or perhaps even that of the states. Cities and counties could do it. But if I had the choice, then I would have it be this way.