Well, if I was him, I would have it keep earning interest indefinitely as long as he was still alive and if he died, in an accident or something, the money keep earning interest, but have much of it spent on statues of him. I'd have the statues continue to be built indefinitely, perhaps moving to the moon and Mars when space runs out on Earth.
To be honest, I know nothing about the pollution caused by smoking which is why I said "perhaps".
And I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to be among other people. A restaurant is private property. A sidewalk in the city generally isn't. A government building isn't. If the person or business that owns property wants to allow smoking in it, they should be able to.
People would still get heart disease, albeit less. And a better solution than taxing those businesses would be for the government to stop paying for health care entirely. If someone wants to hurt themself with unhealthy food or smoking it's their problem, and no one should pay for it but themselves, not even the company that provides the means. As for second hand smoke, I think smoking should only be allowed on private property, perhaps with a cigarette tax meant to pay for the pollution caused by smoking. And if you want an area in a city devoid of cars, then you should be fully within your rights to buy the property and create a one.
You were definitely wrong. Mankind did not develop communication, God/evolution did. Animals can communicate. Now if you are talking about where a specific communication technology did, such as the telephone... well, nuke vs. telephone? Nuke vs. communication would be meaningless, since there would never be nukes, nor civilization, nor mankind without communication and communication is not a specific technology but a concept.
I have never heard anyone complain about mp3 quality, or even note it outside of Slashdot and similar sites. I don't notice a difference either. Now, I do realize that doesn't prove anything, but I think that it the opinion of the majority of average people. But are there any efforts to bring higher quality music download services? If there was much consumer demand I would think there would be. But your probably right in that expectations will change with new technology, or that people will just want what is better regardless of whether they can tell. I don't think taking up less space will ever be an issue. How much does it cost to fill up an iPod 60GB with music legally? ~$15000 . It might differ with mp3 rather than AAC or buying lower price CDs, but it would still be quite a lot. So with the new mp3 standard plus much bigger HDs the iPod 1TB with mp9 taking up one tenth the space you will be spending ~$3 million dollars to fill it up with music. Subscription services might change this but no one wants to wait 7 years to download all of the music on the music store and fill their digital audio player with it, even on their 1Tbps fiber optic internet connection. Especially when it will all stop working when they don't pay the monthly fee. At the risk of being "people will only ever need 64k"esque I think modern digital audio players already have all the storage that most people will ever need for music. Now digital audio/video players will need more storage space, and will probably replace DAPs.
Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity, and computer storage space is becoming larger and less expensive, so it will be hard to convince people to re-buy all of their mp3 music to get these things.
Otherwise being neutral I'll respond to your questions.
Answer #1: You are exaggerating. He is saying that opposition to the government in the form of free speech would not be allowed if it was fascist. You responded that we shouldn't have to wait for imprisonment, torture, and death to oppose an abusive government. Restriction on free speech is not the same as imprisonment, torture, and death and would certainly be a precursor to such.
Answer#2: He never said he ignored what they had to say.
Answer#3: He didn't. He assumed they were trying to appeal to people that were ignorant, not that they were.
I'm not saying I agree with what he had to say, or how he said it, but your questions were phrased in such a manner that they made it seem like he said things that he did not. This is a common, and rather irritating, way that people try to draw support for themselves in an argument. Sort of like: Guy1: I voted for Bush. Guy2: How can you support torture, corruption, violence, fascism, etc.? Guy#3-10: Wow, those are bad things, Guy1 must have have made a bad decision/be a bad person/be an idiot.
He was the leader of a party that aimed to implement fascism for the government. Fascism is a system of government, so something can only be fascism when some kind of government does it. Now this government could, I believe, be the governing body of an organization that is not a nation. And this thread of posts should not be modded down as much as it is regardless of whether the moderator agrees with them or not, they are neither offtopic, nor trolls, nor intentional flamebait. And why is one of the posts modded - troll (before the metamod) also modded overrated? How can a negative rating be too high?
Well, if no one does, then someone will, because the profit will be enormous without competition. And then someone else will come in with a cheaper antibiotic, with a lower profit margin.
Just use a calculator. You won't get any viruses this way. On a more serious note, this isn't a good idea. Dial-up is very slow, and it simply isn't worth it to stay on it for security. And whether broadband is less secure is arguable. It makes it much more convenient to download security updates. If you don't want to be always on, disconnect the computer from the internet. Then again, I use a Mac, so I don't really have the best comprehension of PC security problems in general.
Shouldn't a company be allowed to hire or not hire whoever it wants? Even if it is for a stupid reason? It is a free, private, organization. If people don't like it, it is their duty not to support the company with their money (Or refuse to work for them), not create laws. Racism and affirmative action are both incongruous with good business practice.
Yelling fire would put people in direct danger. Making controversial statements does not. If people choose to become violent over them it is their fault, whereas when you yell fire they can't really be blamed for not knowing you're being an idiot, because the response will be too quick. They should draw the line on it where it causes immediate danger or the perception of such.
And no, complete loss of freedom of speech wouldn't happen quickly, or perhaps at all, but it would be possible for the government to stop the press from saying anything against it. And that would cause much of the populace to be uniformed, for most don't have connections to the high levels of the government.
This is the same reason people complain about unwarranted phone taps (Other than wanting to complain about President Bush). It really doesn't hurt them if they aren't terrorists, but it is an invasion of their rights.
You should have the right to say what you want, even if it is stupid or racist. Now, stopping people from saying things like that wouldn't be all that bad in and of itself, but once the government can do that, it can stop people from saying anything. That is a short path to tyranny.
That's simply not true. If that person knows that the fps is 60 then they will imagine it to be a lot better than 25 fps. Unless they are under the impression that less fps is good, in which case it will be opposite. And someone who thinks it is 1900 fps will imagine it to be really good.
I think it's fine to only allow in people who use good English, considering how annoying "leet speak" and its derivatives can be. Now, I recognize the difference between someone trying to learn English and someone who cnt b bthred 2 typ out ntir wrds n sntnces or someone \/\/ho 7h1|\|ks 73hy @r3 1337 b3(@us3 73hy (@|\| 7y|>3 1|\| symbols.
(Note, the last sentence was made using a "l33t translator" and reads as: who thinks they are elite because they can type in symbols.)
Well, wait. You are charged to take of the less fortunate. But are you charged to force everyone else to do so via government? It's fine to donate some of your income to charitable causes, but when you force people to do so, and to donate to an inefficient system, that is going too far.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I was him, I would have it keep earning interest indefinitely as long as he was still alive and if he died, in an accident or something, the money keep earning interest, but have much of it spent on statues of him. I'd have the statues continue to be built indefinitely, perhaps moving to the moon and Mars when space runs out on Earth.
And I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to be among other people. A restaurant is private property. A sidewalk in the city generally isn't. A government building isn't. If the person or business that owns property wants to allow smoking in it, they should be able to.
People would still get heart disease, albeit less. And a better solution than taxing those businesses would be for the government to stop paying for health care entirely. If someone wants to hurt themself with unhealthy food or smoking it's their problem, and no one should pay for it but themselves, not even the company that provides the means. As for second hand smoke, I think smoking should only be allowed on private property, perhaps with a cigarette tax meant to pay for the pollution caused by smoking. And if you want an area in a city devoid of cars, then you should be fully within your rights to buy the property and create a one.
You were definitely wrong. Mankind did not develop communication, God/evolution did. Animals can communicate. Now if you are talking about where a specific communication technology did, such as the telephone... well, nuke vs. telephone? Nuke vs. communication would be meaningless, since there would never be nukes, nor civilization, nor mankind without communication and communication is not a specific technology but a concept.
Well, that's probably true. But it might not be enough to get people to replace their entire music collection.
I have never heard anyone complain about mp3 quality, or even note it outside of Slashdot and similar sites. I don't notice a difference either. Now, I do realize that doesn't prove anything, but I think that it the opinion of the majority of average people. But are there any efforts to bring higher quality music download services? If there was much consumer demand I would think there would be. But your probably right in that expectations will change with new technology, or that people will just want what is better regardless of whether they can tell. I don't think taking up less space will ever be an issue. How much does it cost to fill up an iPod 60GB with music legally? ~$15000 . It might differ with mp3 rather than AAC or buying lower price CDs, but it would still be quite a lot. So with the new mp3 standard plus much bigger HDs the iPod 1TB with mp9 taking up one tenth the space you will be spending ~$3 million dollars to fill it up with music. Subscription services might change this but no one wants to wait 7 years to download all of the music on the music store and fill their digital audio player with it, even on their 1Tbps fiber optic internet connection. Especially when it will all stop working when they don't pay the monthly fee. At the risk of being "people will only ever need 64k"esque I think modern digital audio players already have all the storage that most people will ever need for music. Now digital audio/video players will need more storage space, and will probably replace DAPs.
Most people won't be able to notice higher fidelity, and computer storage space is becoming larger and less expensive, so it will be hard to convince people to re-buy all of their mp3 music to get these things.
MediaWiki is open source, though, so if you knew how you could try to add features like that.
Answer #1: You are exaggerating. He is saying that opposition to the government in the form of free speech would not be allowed if it was fascist. You responded that we shouldn't have to wait for imprisonment, torture, and death to oppose an abusive government. Restriction on free speech is not the same as imprisonment, torture, and death and would certainly be a precursor to such.
Answer#2: He never said he ignored what they had to say.
Answer#3: He didn't. He assumed they were trying to appeal to people that were ignorant, not that they were.
I'm not saying I agree with what he had to say, or how he said it, but your questions were phrased in such a manner that they made it seem like he said things that he did not. This is a common, and rather irritating, way that people try to draw support for themselves in an argument. Sort of like: Guy1: I voted for Bush. Guy2: How can you support torture, corruption, violence, fascism, etc.? Guy#3-10: Wow, those are bad things, Guy1 must have have made a bad decision/be a bad person/be an idiot.
He was the leader of a party that aimed to implement fascism for the government. Fascism is a system of government, so something can only be fascism when some kind of government does it. Now this government could, I believe, be the governing body of an organization that is not a nation. And this thread of posts should not be modded down as much as it is regardless of whether the moderator agrees with them or not, they are neither offtopic, nor trolls, nor intentional flamebait. And why is one of the posts modded - troll (before the metamod) also modded overrated? How can a negative rating be too high?
With this Anonymous Coward guy posting as much as he does, and having such a low UID, talking to dogs should be no problem.
If someone asks to meet you in person, just call them a noob. Small town IT 101.
Well, if no one does, then someone will, because the profit will be enormous without competition. And then someone else will come in with a cheaper antibiotic, with a lower profit margin.
Studies have shown that eating dirt is, in fact, unhealthy.
Just use a calculator. You won't get any viruses this way. On a more serious note, this isn't a good idea. Dial-up is very slow, and it simply isn't worth it to stay on it for security. And whether broadband is less secure is arguable. It makes it much more convenient to download security updates. If you don't want to be always on, disconnect the computer from the internet. Then again, I use a Mac, so I don't really have the best comprehension of PC security problems in general.
u dnt pay crdt crd det tehn u is pwned
Or, in leet:
If j00 fail 7o |>ay j00r cre|)i7 car|) |)eb7 \/\/e \/\/ill 7a|\/\/ne|).
Shouldn't a company be allowed to hire or not hire whoever it wants? Even if it is for a stupid reason? It is a free, private, organization. If people don't like it, it is their duty not to support the company with their money (Or refuse to work for them), not create laws. Racism and affirmative action are both incongruous with good business practice.
And no, complete loss of freedom of speech wouldn't happen quickly, or perhaps at all, but it would be possible for the government to stop the press from saying anything against it. And that would cause much of the populace to be uniformed, for most don't have connections to the high levels of the government.
This is the same reason people complain about unwarranted phone taps (Other than wanting to complain about President Bush). It really doesn't hurt them if they aren't terrorists, but it is an invasion of their rights.
Those toll roads aren't kept up by your taxes. They are owned by private companies.
You should have the right to say what you want, even if it is stupid or racist. Now, stopping people from saying things like that wouldn't be all that bad in and of itself, but once the government can do that, it can stop people from saying anything. That is a short path to tyranny.
And yes, I am joking.
That's simply not true. If that person knows that the fps is 60 then they will imagine it to be a lot better than 25 fps. Unless they are under the impression that less fps is good, in which case it will be opposite. And someone who thinks it is 1900 fps will imagine it to be really good.
(Note, the last sentence was made using a "l33t translator" and reads as: who thinks they are elite because they can type in symbols.)
Well, wait. You are charged to take of the less fortunate. But are you charged to force everyone else to do so via government? It's fine to donate some of your income to charitable causes, but when you force people to do so, and to donate to an inefficient system, that is going too far.
Because if you don't, you can start your own, or at the very least choose to buy from another one.