are you by definition asserting that everything is and always will be arbitrary?
Yes, I am. The only reason that the world is the way it is is because of thousands of years of history and knowledge, existing and continued by societies, shaping the present and contextualising and enforcing our notions of rights. Without this, everything is arbitrary, and individuals wholly external to this context have no connection to it. You asserting rights at the expense of society undermines the very basis of our advanced, albeit fragile, existence.
Do you deny that you, or anyone else, has the right to live?
I believe that any society must enforce its citizens' rights to life; by that I mean the right not to be deprived of their existence. There are many other issues of quality of life that I also think play a part here; I discuss these below.
but you deny that you have the right to the resources of your survival? Isn't that called slavery?
No. I think that elected government has a right to impose compulsory taxation to represent the interests of society as a whole, balancing the need to allow individuals to reap the benefits of their endeavours and inputs to society with the need to provide everyone, as much as is possible, with a minimum standard of living. This, I believe, is very much a two-way street: society as a whole, as well as the individual, benefits from taking care of its members.
the violation does not become morally justified simply by the backing of a majority
I agree: wrongs are not mitigated by majority consensus, but this is beside the point - it just happens that the majority agrees with me. Forcing everyone to put in to society an amount proportional to what they get back from it does not seem morally unjustifiable to me, nor does the contrary seem like any reasonable basis on which to lay claim to a fundamental right.
If you choose to live, you choose to have goals and values that will sustain your life.
Yes, and far fewer people would be able to achieve their goals without the help of society. Subsidised education, for example, plays a very important role in individuals' abilities to fulfil their goals.
It's important to remember that while you are arguing for an extreme (voluntary taxation), I am not: I don't think that the government has the right to deprive people of "the resources of [their] survival" (I think you knew that despite writing in such dramatic terms), but I do believe that as part of society, individuals' "personal goals" are not the sole interests to consider. I believe, as both individuals and as a society, we have humanitarian duties; I don't think those who are less fortunate (whether ill, disabled or poor) should be made to suffer when a collective contribution from society, mediated by government, could prevent this.
Remember that systems similar to the one you propose result in huge gaps between the rich and poor, favouring the prosperous minority and businesses for whom humanitarian concerns come second (or worse) to profit. Hong Kong, voted as having the most free economy in the world 14 years in a row, lacks many of the basic protections (such as minimum wage) designed to stop employers from abusing their employees. Why? Because corporate interests determine policy, not public interests (when the primary source of a government's income is from corporate lobbyists and not the public's taxes, who do you think policy-makers will listen to?)
You mentioned slavery: I think its quite ridiculous for us to talk in such hapless terms; you know as well as I that the cleaner working for $2.50 at the behest of a multi-national corporation in Hong Kong is the one who should be worrying about becoming a slave.
I'm not sure how this relates to government support of indivi
Upon investigation, you'll find that if I simply continue to assert the former, I'm committing a fallacy
The issue in question is that of the definition of "rights". You have asserted your definition of what people's rights are or should be; it is arbitrary and not a point of fact, in contrary to your later implication:
A fundamental individual right is still being violated.
From where is the fundamental nature of these rights derived?
This fallacy of some "fundamental", de facto source of human rights that you assert to be at the root of your argument infects it throughout. Your comparison of communism to murder, apart from being sensationalistic, is somewhat revealing in this respect because it assumes that the right to life extends to "the right to the fruit of your labor", a point which seems quite removed from the issue of life at the most basic level (for example, as defined in the ECHR).
Again, you assert that "a fundamental individual right is still being violated", but this only applies if society is to agree with you that this is indeed a fundamental right - you saying it does not make it so (in the most practical sense).
I have no problem with taxation - only when it is forced from the public on threat of imprisonment or deportation.
I don't believe voluntary taxation will ever be plausible, even for the most libertarian of governments. Making it voluntary is akin to asking the free market to decide the value of taxation on the basis of its profitability. The problem, however, is that taxes represent interests which cannot be assessed and quantified according to market forces. I have already cited healthcare as an example, so I'll give you another.
Before privatisation, utility companies in the UK were bound by a public duty to support and maintain the recording and cataloguing of the industry's history. Once they were privatised, this role was greatly diminished, and eventually eradicated because it was unprofitable - shareholders didn't want to take a hit for the sake of preserving national historical interests. The result was that many of the museums dedicated to representing an industry, whose impact has been growing ever since industrialisation, were disbanded.
does not imply that such a system is sustainable in the long term
Again, your use of the term "rights" and "convenience" blurs the definition of both. As for the long-term sustainability of health care systems in Europe, many have already been in operation for a relatively long time: the UK's NHS was created in 1948, the Italian health system in 1980 and the French one in 1921.
Perhaps the crux of it is this: while your idea of rights includes not giving any of your money to government, my idea of rights includes more socialist ideals such as the right to healthcare, irrespective of financial ability at the time that you need it.
It is interesting that your philosophy rests on a definition of the "right to life". I would posit that your system, in which those too poor to pay for medical treatment to sustain their lives are ejected from hospital, can hardly be said to prioritise any universal right to life.
it is an appeal to authority (or appeal to tradition) [...] I've done neither.
Yes you have:
There is no right to "basic services". There is only the right to your life and your property
You are connecting the function of government with the constitution and excluding anything else from defining social policy, despite significant humanitarian and social bases.
Putting it in writing doesn't make something valid. Who claimed that?
See above. You implied it.
They argue that their property is not their own, that their productivity is for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the state, for the benefit of others. There can be no right to property under such a system.
That's pretty absurd. Having socialist elements to government doesn't mean turning the country communist. Unless you completely disagree with taxation (in which case I would say that your argument is woefully untenable), you acknowledge the need for the state to generate revenue by taxing people. Thus it is quite a stretch for you to extend the idea of property to taxable assets, especially as you're ignoring the many examples, see Europe, in which these boundaries are clearly defined. I suspect your argument at this point was rather theoretical in order to make a point, but that doesn't change the fact that in practical terms, the vision of a communist free-for-all resulting from socialist policy is misguided.
By thinking. Anyone can accomplish this, not just Americans.
By this point I was ranting, but you quoted way out of context.
Are you talking about theism or socialism?
I wasn't talking about either. I was referring to what I see as the dangerous existence of constructs such as patriotism and national pride in the US electorate. Symbols like the flag, the national anthem, the military and even the constitution are such weighty components of patriotism that they provide an easy shield of immunity for government. It seems that if they wrap enough of their shit in patriotic symbolism, politicians are immune to its stink. Ron Paul explains it better than me.
Except that none of these are the responsibility of a properly-functioning government.
That depends on your definition of a properly-functioning government. Many people believe that government has a socialist responsibility, in varying degrees, to its electorate. What makes you right and them wrong?
You allude to the constitution ("there is only the right to your life and your property"), and I've heard this a million times from Americans who fail to grasp the idea of a right not necessarily having to be enshrined in statute. Many people believe that some things, written in a constitution or not, should be rights. For example, free universal healthcare (most of Europe).
That's all the US has now, though, right? Now that all the pride in the constitution has been flushed away with illegal wars, unconstitutional actions both at home and abroad that make a mockery of the ideals for which everyone is supposed to stand, how can Americans be expected to show any kind of independent morality? You can stand naked wrapped in Old Glory quoting a document which has all but lost its meaning for as long as you like, but eventually you're going to come to the realisation that you are part of a broken machine that is driven by falsified ideals designed to inspire religious conviction in a bid to polarise and control you. Then maybe you can fix the machine.
Sorry but I have to disagree. Seinfeld was brilliant: it was like a modern theatre of the absurd. It didn't play to people's desire for a warm fuzzy feeling, it acted on the cold reality of what its creators portray as futile, cyclical, absurd modern life. And it does it in a way that makes people laugh.
Its comedy is so incredibly clever. I still find it hard to not have my mind blown when I watch it.
Actually, the summary is misleading. Only intranet pages are not rendered in standards mode by default, presumably to encourage enterprise customers to upgrade (most I know of use IE6 at the moment). From TFA:
The dirty secret is buried deep down in the "Compatibility view" configuration panel, where the "Display intranet sites in Compatibility View" box is checked by default. Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode.
The article uses some dubious statistics to back up the sensationalist headline ("intranets account for about half of all page views on PCs"), but ignores the reality: many intranet systems use IE-specific extensions (normally because they were developed a while ago) and, unlike websites, don't often benefit from constant revision and attention from a development team. To me, viewing intranet pages in compatibility mode by default makes sense.
True, but you have to admit that often the first cited benefit of many OSS projects is that they're free as in beer.
OSS developers get funding because companies think their free software benefit them
I may be overly cynical, but I would suspect that the only time a company contributes to an OSS project is when it wants some form of control over it: benevolence doesn't really come into it, nor does a subscription to Free Software ideals.
I suppose my point is that perhaps instead of asking whether companies should subsidise OSS, we should be asking whether OSS should want companies to subsidise it.
I don't want to get into a big thing here, but if this unmanned aircraft flew for longer than any other unmanned aircraft, it has broken the record. The FAI may deem themselves the ultimate authority on these things, but in my books their lack of involvement doesn't automatically mean a record hasn't been broken.
I suppose you might question the authenticity of the tests, but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.
The "rule" they didn't follow was to have the relevant organisation in on the action. From the BBC:
[The record] remains "unofficial" because QinetiQ did not involve the FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale), the world air sports federation, which sanctions all record attempts.
I think it's fair to say that regardless of who officiates it, they have broken the record.
Unfortunately, many Slashdot users have grown up in an atmosphere of resentment towards closed software. Their zealous pride in what is essentially a religious crusade for free software really surprised me when I first came into contact with it; far from "loving" or "hating" companies or corporate philosophies, my love lies in the intellectual game of programming with tools that allow me to both challenge myself and provide solutions that make a difference.
What I find worrying about the GP's attitude is the implications to customers - if people aren't interested in choosing the tools that give them the best productivity and are most appropriate for the job, but just the ones that are compatible with their irrationality, they're doing themselves, their clients and the industry a massive disservice.
It makes me think of Byron: Hatred is a much more delightful passion and never cloys; it will make us all happy for the rest of our lives.
Well, both Seinfeld and Microsoft are old news so they have that much in common.
Do you see the irony in claiming that Seinfeld and Microsoft are old news in response to a news story about Seinfeld and Microsoft?
Besides, I don't see how as a Slashdot user you can think Microsoft is old news - there are at least a few stories about Microsoft every couple of days.
The nature of UAC is one of the biggest myths about Windows.
I use Vista regularly and UAC popups aren't very frequent. Copying files into protected directories such as WINDOWS are the most common cause for me (and a normal user would never do this).
Other than that, legacy applications (in my case, Delphi 6) sometimes need to be run as admin and therefore throw up a UAC prompt when run.
UAC is a sensible feature that in reality is quite far removed from the bullshit spread about it.
Wow, and to think that the whole thing is totally pointless with regard to its supposed necessity for anti-terrorism purposes because it's actually trivial to get around:
Denise Robinson says she tells the skycaps her son is on the list, tips heavily and is given boarding passes. And booking her son as "J. Pierce Robinson" also has let the family bypass the watch list hassle.
Capt. James Robinson said he has learned that "Jim Robinson" and "J.K. Robinson" are not on the list.
Terrorist's wouldn't even need to use fake names! They'd just need to abbreviate their real ones.
I got the distinct impression that results were quite mixed. A good percentage of people reported about 1 more bar of signal strength on the 3g network than they saw before the update
Actually, Ryanair often sell off cheap fairs and write off the taxes/charges as a marketing campaign. I got a 99p flight from Liverpool to Madrid during Easter, and 99p was all I paid.
Once you're at border security, you're not in the US anymore, so your rights don't apply.
That's what I find strange: surely if you believe in a set of moral and legal standards, you should staunchly stand by them, rather than finding as many loopholes as possible to exonerate yourself from adhering to them.
what has Microsoft got to say to that? A Zune? How many people have a Zune?
I must disagree: the Zune is amazing. I live in the UK and they haven't been released here, but because I didn't want to use iTunes and the other alternatives weren't very appetising, I got a new Zune (2nd generation) shipped from the US on Ebay. It's amazing - the UI is innovative, clear and snappy, the screen is big and clear (I've even watched, and enjoyed, full-length films on it) and it was the same price as the equivalent (80GB) iPod classic. Not to mention the fact that it comes with really good quality earphones, not those crappy ones everyone replaces as soon as they un-box their iPod. Admittedly, the Zune's wireless features are a misfire, but there's no doubt I'm looking forward to the 3rd gen Zune.
When you try to make a case that Microsoft has "done nothing good for the technology industry", it just seems like you're recycling the same hot air that has been vented, rightly or wrongly, millions upon millions of times.
Your examples are strange, too. What does the number of Zune users have to do with your assertion? The iPhone? Have you ever used one? There's some great software innovation in there, but I wouldn't dream of using it as a smartphone if you have an above-average finger size (or want to be able to run bespoke software). I hate the idea of not being able to develop for it without having to be locked down by Apple's developer membership.
The concept of "fanboys" is a really immature one, and that does nothing good for the technology industry. Blindly endorsing something because you ally yourself to its parent company or ethos makes it into a personal crusade, and that has nothing to do with promoting good software. It is similarly ridiculous to blindly condemn anything produced by a single company. If we really want to do good things for the industry we need to identify and embrace the good, and sternly reject the bad, without having our judgement clouded by fanboyism, or afanboyism, as the case may be.
Slashdot Mirror
are you by definition asserting that everything is and always will be arbitrary?
Yes, I am. The only reason that the world is the way it is is because of thousands of years of history and knowledge, existing and continued by societies, shaping the present and contextualising and enforcing our notions of rights. Without this, everything is arbitrary, and individuals wholly external to this context have no connection to it. You asserting rights at the expense of society undermines the very basis of our advanced, albeit fragile, existence.
Do you deny that you, or anyone else, has the right to live?
I believe that any society must enforce its citizens' rights to life; by that I mean the right not to be deprived of their existence. There are many other issues of quality of life that I also think play a part here; I discuss these below.
but you deny that you have the right to the resources of your survival? Isn't that called slavery?
No. I think that elected government has a right to impose compulsory taxation to represent the interests of society as a whole, balancing the need to allow individuals to reap the benefits of their endeavours and inputs to society with the need to provide everyone, as much as is possible, with a minimum standard of living. This, I believe, is very much a two-way street: society as a whole, as well as the individual, benefits from taking care of its members.
the violation does not become morally justified simply by the backing of a majority
I agree: wrongs are not mitigated by majority consensus, but this is beside the point - it just happens that the majority agrees with me. Forcing everyone to put in to society an amount proportional to what they get back from it does not seem morally unjustifiable to me, nor does the contrary seem like any reasonable basis on which to lay claim to a fundamental right.
If you choose to live, you choose to have goals and values that will sustain your life.
Yes, and far fewer people would be able to achieve their goals without the help of society. Subsidised education, for example, plays a very important role in individuals' abilities to fulfil their goals.
It's important to remember that while you are arguing for an extreme (voluntary taxation), I am not: I don't think that the government has the right to deprive people of "the resources of [their] survival" (I think you knew that despite writing in such dramatic terms), but I do believe that as part of society, individuals' "personal goals" are not the sole interests to consider. I believe, as both individuals and as a society, we have humanitarian duties; I don't think those who are less fortunate (whether ill, disabled or poor) should be made to suffer when a collective contribution from society, mediated by government, could prevent this.
Remember that systems similar to the one you propose result in huge gaps between the rich and poor, favouring the prosperous minority and businesses for whom humanitarian concerns come second (or worse) to profit. Hong Kong, voted as having the most free economy in the world 14 years in a row, lacks many of the basic protections (such as minimum wage) designed to stop employers from abusing their employees. Why? Because corporate interests determine policy, not public interests (when the primary source of a government's income is from corporate lobbyists and not the public's taxes, who do you think policy-makers will listen to?)
You mentioned slavery: I think its quite ridiculous for us to talk in such hapless terms; you know as well as I that the cleaner working for $2.50 at the behest of a multi-national corporation in Hong Kong is the one who should be worrying about becoming a slave.
I'm not sure how this relates to government support of indivi
Upon investigation, you'll find that if I simply continue to assert the former, I'm committing a fallacy
The issue in question is that of the definition of "rights". You have asserted your definition of what people's rights are or should be; it is arbitrary and not a point of fact, in contrary to your later implication:
A fundamental individual right is still being violated.
From where is the fundamental nature of these rights derived?
This fallacy of some "fundamental", de facto source of human rights that you assert to be at the root of your argument infects it throughout. Your comparison of communism to murder, apart from being sensationalistic, is somewhat revealing in this respect because it assumes that the right to life extends to "the right to the fruit of your labor", a point which seems quite removed from the issue of life at the most basic level (for example, as defined in the ECHR).
Again, you assert that "a fundamental individual right is still being violated", but this only applies if society is to agree with you that this is indeed a fundamental right - you saying it does not make it so (in the most practical sense).
I have no problem with taxation - only when it is forced from the public on threat of imprisonment or deportation.
I don't believe voluntary taxation will ever be plausible, even for the most libertarian of governments. Making it voluntary is akin to asking the free market to decide the value of taxation on the basis of its profitability. The problem, however, is that taxes represent interests which cannot be assessed and quantified according to market forces. I have already cited healthcare as an example, so I'll give you another.
Before privatisation, utility companies in the UK were bound by a public duty to support and maintain the recording and cataloguing of the industry's history. Once they were privatised, this role was greatly diminished, and eventually eradicated because it was unprofitable - shareholders didn't want to take a hit for the sake of preserving national historical interests. The result was that many of the museums dedicated to representing an industry, whose impact has been growing ever since industrialisation, were disbanded.
does not imply that such a system is sustainable in the long term
Again, your use of the term "rights" and "convenience" blurs the definition of both. As for the long-term sustainability of health care systems in Europe, many have already been in operation for a relatively long time: the UK's NHS was created in 1948, the Italian health system in 1980 and the French one in 1921.
Perhaps the crux of it is this: while your idea of rights includes not giving any of your money to government, my idea of rights includes more socialist ideals such as the right to healthcare, irrespective of financial ability at the time that you need it.
It is interesting that your philosophy rests on a definition of the "right to life". I would posit that your system, in which those too poor to pay for medical treatment to sustain their lives are ejected from hospital, can hardly be said to prioritise any universal right to life.
The facts of reality.
Try the reality of between 3.6 and 4.8 million people living under the poverty line in America.
it is an appeal to authority (or appeal to tradition) [...] I've done neither.
Yes you have:
There is no right to "basic services". There is only the right to your life and your property
You are connecting the function of government with the constitution and excluding anything else from defining social policy, despite significant humanitarian and social bases.
Putting it in writing doesn't make something valid. Who claimed that?
See above. You implied it.
They argue that their property is not their own, that their productivity is for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the state, for the benefit of others. There can be no right to property under such a system.
That's pretty absurd. Having socialist elements to government doesn't mean turning the country communist. Unless you completely disagree with taxation (in which case I would say that your argument is woefully untenable), you acknowledge the need for the state to generate revenue by taxing people. Thus it is quite a stretch for you to extend the idea of property to taxable assets, especially as you're ignoring the many examples, see Europe, in which these boundaries are clearly defined. I suspect your argument at this point was rather theoretical in order to make a point, but that doesn't change the fact that in practical terms, the vision of a communist free-for-all resulting from socialist policy is misguided.
By thinking. Anyone can accomplish this, not just Americans.
By this point I was ranting, but you quoted way out of context.
Are you talking about theism or socialism?
I wasn't talking about either. I was referring to what I see as the dangerous existence of constructs such as patriotism and national pride in the US electorate. Symbols like the flag, the national anthem, the military and even the constitution are such weighty components of patriotism that they provide an easy shield of immunity for government. It seems that if they wrap enough of their shit in patriotic symbolism, politicians are immune to its stink. Ron Paul explains it better than me.
Except that none of these are the responsibility of a properly-functioning government.
That depends on your definition of a properly-functioning government. Many people believe that government has a socialist responsibility, in varying degrees, to its electorate. What makes you right and them wrong?
You allude to the constitution ("there is only the right to your life and your property"), and I've heard this a million times from Americans who fail to grasp the idea of a right not necessarily having to be enshrined in statute. Many people believe that some things, written in a constitution or not, should be rights. For example, free universal healthcare (most of Europe).
That's all the US has now, though, right? Now that all the pride in the constitution has been flushed away with illegal wars, unconstitutional actions both at home and abroad that make a mockery of the ideals for which everyone is supposed to stand, how can Americans be expected to show any kind of independent morality? You can stand naked wrapped in Old Glory quoting a document which has all but lost its meaning for as long as you like, but eventually you're going to come to the realisation that you are part of a broken machine that is driven by falsified ideals designed to inspire religious conviction in a bid to polarise and control you. Then maybe you can fix the machine.
Seinfeld was a HORRIBLE show!
Sorry but I have to disagree. Seinfeld was brilliant: it was like a modern theatre of the absurd. It didn't play to people's desire for a warm fuzzy feeling, it acted on the cold reality of what its creators portray as futile, cyclical, absurd modern life. And it does it in a way that makes people laugh.
Its comedy is so incredibly clever. I still find it hard to not have my mind blown when I watch it.
The dirty secret is buried deep down in the "Compatibility view" configuration panel, where the "Display intranet sites in Compatibility View" box is checked by default. Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode.
The article uses some dubious statistics to back up the sensationalist headline ("intranets account for about half of all page views on PCs"), but ignores the reality: many intranet systems use IE-specific extensions (normally because they were developed a while ago) and, unlike websites, don't often benefit from constant revision and attention from a development team. To me, viewing intranet pages in compatibility mode by default makes sense.
OSS developers get funding because companies think their free software benefit them
I may be overly cynical, but I would suspect that the only time a company contributes to an OSS project is when it wants some form of control over it: benevolence doesn't really come into it, nor does a subscription to Free Software ideals.
Take Apple: as closed and proprietary as Microsoft, if not more so, yet they contribute to OSS. In fact, take Microsoft, who now sponsor the Apache Software Foundation.
I suppose my point is that perhaps instead of asking whether companies should subsidise OSS, we should be asking whether OSS should want companies to subsidise it.
Not to mention the fact that it's damn expensive - £1500 (~$3000) according to TFA.
Do you often take cheap, out-of-context, sensationalised shots like that?
This from a person who tries to summarise life with a while statement in his sig.
I don't want to get into a big thing here, but if this unmanned aircraft flew for longer than any other unmanned aircraft, it has broken the record. The FAI may deem themselves the ultimate authority on these things, but in my books their lack of involvement doesn't automatically mean a record hasn't been broken.
I suppose you might question the authenticity of the tests, but given who these people are (and indeed who they work for [e.g. US military]), I think the results can be trusted.
Actually, it doesn't need to be daytime for it to operate, hence how it was able to stay airborne for 83 hours. It uses high capacity batteries to get through the night.
[The record] remains "unofficial" because QinetiQ did not involve the FAI (Federation Aeronautique Internationale), the world air sports federation, which sanctions all record attempts.
I think it's fair to say that regardless of who officiates it, they have broken the record.
What do people put in their presentations to get attention from UAC?!
You're my hero.
Unfortunately, many Slashdot users have grown up in an atmosphere of resentment towards closed software. Their zealous pride in what is essentially a religious crusade for free software really surprised me when I first came into contact with it; far from "loving" or "hating" companies or corporate philosophies, my love lies in the intellectual game of programming with tools that allow me to both challenge myself and provide solutions that make a difference.
What I find worrying about the GP's attitude is the implications to customers - if people aren't interested in choosing the tools that give them the best productivity and are most appropriate for the job, but just the ones that are compatible with their irrationality, they're doing themselves, their clients and the industry a massive disservice.
It makes me think of Byron:
Hatred is a much more delightful passion and never cloys; it will make us all happy for the rest of our lives.
Well, both Seinfeld and Microsoft are old news so they have that much in common.
Do you see the irony in claiming that Seinfeld and Microsoft are old news in response to a news story about Seinfeld and Microsoft?
Besides, I don't see how as a Slashdot user you can think Microsoft is old news - there are at least a few stories about Microsoft every couple of days.
The nature of UAC is one of the biggest myths about Windows.
I use Vista regularly and UAC popups aren't very frequent. Copying files into protected directories such as WINDOWS are the most common cause for me (and a normal user would never do this).
Other than that, legacy applications (in my case, Delphi 6) sometimes need to be run as admin and therefore throw up a UAC prompt when run.
UAC is a sensible feature that in reality is quite far removed from the bullshit spread about it.
Denise Robinson says she tells the skycaps her son is on the list, tips heavily and is given boarding passes. And booking her son as "J. Pierce Robinson" also has let the family bypass the watch list hassle.
Capt. James Robinson said he has learned that "Jim Robinson" and "J.K. Robinson" are not on the list.
Terrorist's wouldn't even need to use fake names! They'd just need to abbreviate their real ones.
What a sad state of affairs.
I got the distinct impression that results were quite mixed. A good percentage of people reported about 1 more bar of signal strength on the 3g network than they saw before the update
It appears that Apple may have changed how many bars are displayed for different signal strengths.
That could explain the contradictory information.
I find it very hard to understand how you can think that genetics defines the development of people more than their environment.
You're either seriously misguided or being intellectually dishonest.
I agree.
There are regulations about how much [of various chemicals] you're supposed to have, how it's detained, how it's disposed of.
Depending on the specifics of what this guy's dealing with, he may be subject to rules regarding the safe disposal of certain chemicals, etc.
Actually, Ryanair often sell off cheap fairs and write off the taxes/charges as a marketing campaign. I got a 99p flight from Liverpool to Madrid during Easter, and 99p was all I paid.
Once you're at border security, you're not in the US anymore, so your rights don't apply.
That's what I find strange: surely if you believe in a set of moral and legal standards, you should staunchly stand by them, rather than finding as many loopholes as possible to exonerate yourself from adhering to them.
what has Microsoft got to say to that? A Zune? How many people have a Zune?
I must disagree: the Zune is amazing. I live in the UK and they haven't been released here, but because I didn't want to use iTunes and the other alternatives weren't very appetising, I got a new Zune (2nd generation) shipped from the US on Ebay. It's amazing - the UI is innovative, clear and snappy, the screen is big and clear (I've even watched, and enjoyed, full-length films on it) and it was the same price as the equivalent (80GB) iPod classic. Not to mention the fact that it comes with really good quality earphones, not those crappy ones everyone replaces as soon as they un-box their iPod. Admittedly, the Zune's wireless features are a misfire, but there's no doubt I'm looking forward to the 3rd gen Zune.
When you try to make a case that Microsoft has "done nothing good for the technology industry", it just seems like you're recycling the same hot air that has been vented, rightly or wrongly, millions upon millions of times.
Your examples are strange, too. What does the number of Zune users have to do with your assertion? The iPhone? Have you ever used one? There's some great software innovation in there, but I wouldn't dream of using it as a smartphone if you have an above-average finger size (or want to be able to run bespoke software). I hate the idea of not being able to develop for it without having to be locked down by Apple's developer membership.
The concept of "fanboys" is a really immature one, and that does nothing good for the technology industry. Blindly endorsing something because you ally yourself to its parent company or ethos makes it into a personal crusade, and that has nothing to do with promoting good software. It is similarly ridiculous to blindly condemn anything produced by a single company. If we really want to do good things for the industry we need to identify and embrace the good, and sternly reject the bad, without having our judgement clouded by fanboyism, or afanboyism, as the case may be.
I refuse to say IANAL - it took me 3 months to figure out what that meant
This website is very useful: Acronym Finder