The analogy presupposes I already have a PS3, and one of the reasons I got it was because of the Other OS feature.
Do you disagree that Sony should be liable for removing a feature? Do you disagree that they actually are? Do you not like my analogy? Or are you simple disagreeing?
So I still have my car. The dealer has told me that if I bring it in, they'll disable the CD changer. But let's say I need an oil change, and the car's under warranty so it needs to go to the dealer.
I suppose I should just suck it up? Neither option is acceptable, and it's the company's doing. Therefore, they should be liable in a suit.
First of all, duh. Of course hackers were going to try and circumvent the restriction. And, like all other types of silly restrictions, it's inevitable that they will succeed.
What I'm more interested in is the lawsuit that should be on its way over this. It was an advertised feature of the PS3, and a not-insignificant number of people bought a PS3 because they could run Linux on it. Hell, a lot of people only bought one to run Linux on it.
If my car used to have a CD changer, and it gets disabled when I bring it in for service, I'd sue. Contracts, EULA be damned - I chose a product because it had a feature, and it got removed after the fact. That's not legal.
Or if they can spring for a cup of Starbucks a few times a year.
With all seriousness, their marginal cost from this trial is probably $0. IBM surely has a bunch of lawyers on staff - they're paying them a salary, why not put them in a courtroom and make them tear the balls off SCO?
There's a whole lot of supposedly-isolated nutcases going to great lengths to make themselves heard. So much so that it's just about all you hear about.
But what's really telling is that the people that are held up as examples of the movement sound like the isolated nutcases.
Although, as I said above, I'm not convinced this is a political movement so much as a really big manufactured outrage. It's sad that so many people are being stirred up by big corporations to act against their own self interest, in favor of the corporations.
I agree with you, largely, but probably in the opposite direction. We had a shot to do healthcare right by doing a single-payer government-run system, and we didn't pull it off. But this bill is an incremental step.
And you've got the bill wrong. The penalties are waived for those below a certain annual income; that number's quite high. And the insurance companies need to pay out 85 cents on the dollar, so they have a cap of 15% on profits. It's all about diluting the risk pool and making it cheaper for everyone, because the expensive treatments are a smaller amount of the pot.
More fascinating, at least to me, is the area of the brain that works against "ends justify the means".
FTS:
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
I don't know if this has been known before, but the fact that there's an area of the brain that judges actions as moral apart from their consequences is fascinating. It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?
Trickle-down Reagonomics has been thoroughly debunked. All those rich guys didn't get rich by giving away free money.
And I've been quite disappointed in Obama. But the things these tea partiers are going on about are all things that the Republicans have done. Where the hell were these people a few years ago? Did they spring fully-formed from Limbaugh's forehead?
Face it. This is a backlash against Obama the person, and not anything he represents. It doesn't help their cause to keep going on about his birth certificate, which just screams racism.
Guess you're a troll; I don't know why I wasted my time typing that.
You're forgetting that the "tea partiers" are largely defined by Faux News. They are whatever Fox tells them to be.
My favorite was Stewart's last-night moment of Zen - they had a clip from Fox with some woman going "well we need to fight this because he's a communist!". The commentator says "well, he's not a communist" and she says "well then he's a progressive which is the new code word for communist. Glenn Beck taught me that"
I find it terribly hard to believe those people actually have any independent beliefs. If they really were annoyed about parliamentary procedures that circumvent the will of the people, how about the Bush tax cuts for big business that were done the same way?
The physical and blatant bullying stopped at grade 6, but I was always delibrately made an outcast.
Part of it was I really just stopped caring about what people thought of me - gave up any chance of a social life there. So I was sort of allowed to be a loner, because I wasn't trying to integrate myself.
And I sure as hell did know what suicide was. I even knew that some people would've attempted it in the situation I was in. The idea just seemed silly to me.
But I'm eternally indebted to my parents. When I came home, it was to a supportive, normal-feeling family where I fit right in. I never hated, nor even disliked my parents, like the rest of my peers.
Now that I think of it, my family situation sounds very unusual. That depresses the hell out of me, because it was great.
Of course not. It's a well-understood psycological condition in response to severe stress. I once was trying to save a 9 year old's life and failed. I sure know what PTSD is, and there wasn't a thing I could do to snap out of it.
But if I'd killed myself because of it, there'd be something wrong with me. The deepest instinct we have is self-preservation. To consciously go against that is, by definition, irrational. The struggle for life is so built-in, one can't build a rational argument for it.
Defective? I wouldn't say that. She was maturing, and clearly not getting the emotional support she needed from her parents. And that should've started from birth.
I went through a terrible, long period of bullying (see a sibling post) and I never considered suicide, even in passing. It simply never occurred to me, because I had a wonderfully supportive family.
I'm really sorry for her that she didn't seem to have one. But the fact that she didn't develop emotionally to be able to shrug it off, fight her own battles, disregard others' opinions - as she clearly needed to - could be considered a defect (though I wouldn't use that word).
It's more like she didn't develop the skin she needed because she wasn't there yet. And she could've been. It's sad, but she should've realized that high school is over really quickly in the span of one's life.
Are you kidding me? I was ostracized for 6 years. I *never* had more than two friends in high school, and they were uncomfortable around me. I had terrible social skills.
I couldn't bully anyone if I tried. Literally - I was so pathetic that I couldn't have pulled it off, even if I'd wanted to.
Yes I was. From grade 2 to grade 6. I was the new kid in school in a very close-knit town. My graduating class had 112 people, and all but about 15 of those were born in town.
Like many nerds, I had terrible social skills, so I already had trouble making friends.
I went through therapy - both with the school, and group.
Not even once did I remotely consider suicide.
You're right. Maybe I had it too easy. But I also was raised right by my parents, who taught me that all the BS was unimportant and that it shouldn't affect me. I'm a much healthier person because of it.
To be fair, this is a high school; these 'children' are at least 14. Not so much 'little Johnny'. They do know better.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Suicide is irrational. There was de facto something else wrong with this girl.
Let me say it again: Suicide Is Irrational. Without extreme methods, you simply can't drive a mentally healthy person to suicide.
I'm not saying these kids aren't dicks, and they should have their ass handed to them under whatever law outlaws bullying, but as I see it, the only person who can possibly be responsible for a suicide can only be the sui, the self.
No, I'm right. He says the micro's job is to read and write to the tape, and perform the simple steps as instructed by the tape.
That's fine, and that's cool. But it's not a Turing machine; it's a Turing machine emulator. I could write a program on my computer, feed it a virtual "tape" and do the same thing. It'd only be following the directions on the 'tape', but it'd be an interpreter.
This is a very cool interpreter. But it's not a Turing machine.
I agree with you, but you have the arguments wrong. The problem people had was that Icaza was pushing Mono so hard for things that didn't need it (Tomboy) that he came off like a shill. And that he was convinced there were no patent issues and everybody should start using it, despite the fact that patent issues are/were a real problem.
So he came off as a guy who was working on an inferior implementation of a Microsoft product and was strongly pushing for its infiltration into the Linux desktop, and giving his word (but not much else) that'd it be all hunky dory. It looked a whole lot like "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Now, for the record, I don't care that much about.NET - I'm not a fan, but I hear it's done pretty well. Only time I've ever had a problem with Mono is needing the whole damn framework installed for some postit note utility. I'm just pointing out that the issue is a lot less trivial than you portray.
Slashdot Mirror
The analogy presupposes I already have a PS3, and one of the reasons I got it was because of the Other OS feature.
Do you disagree that Sony should be liable for removing a feature? Do you disagree that they actually are? Do you not like my analogy? Or are you simple disagreeing?
So I still have my car. The dealer has told me that if I bring it in, they'll disable the CD changer. But let's say I need an oil change, and the car's under warranty so it needs to go to the dealer.
I suppose I should just suck it up? Neither option is acceptable, and it's the company's doing. Therefore, they should be liable in a suit.
First of all, duh. Of course hackers were going to try and circumvent the restriction. And, like all other types of silly restrictions, it's inevitable that they will succeed.
What I'm more interested in is the lawsuit that should be on its way over this. It was an advertised feature of the PS3, and a not-insignificant number of people bought a PS3 because they could run Linux on it. Hell, a lot of people only bought one to run Linux on it.
If my car used to have a CD changer, and it gets disabled when I bring it in for service, I'd sue. Contracts, EULA be damned - I chose a product because it had a feature, and it got removed after the fact. That's not legal.
Or if they can spring for a cup of Starbucks a few times a year.
With all seriousness, their marginal cost from this trial is probably $0. IBM surely has a bunch of lawyers on staff - they're paying them a salary, why not put them in a courtroom and make them tear the balls off SCO?
There's a whole lot of supposedly-isolated nutcases going to great lengths to make themselves heard. So much so that it's just about all you hear about.
But what's really telling is that the people that are held up as examples of the movement sound like the isolated nutcases.
Although, as I said above, I'm not convinced this is a political movement so much as a really big manufactured outrage. It's sad that so many people are being stirred up by big corporations to act against their own self interest, in favor of the corporations.
First of all, use <br>
I agree with you, largely, but probably in the opposite direction. We had a shot to do healthcare right by doing a single-payer government-run system, and we didn't pull it off. But this bill is an incremental step.
And you've got the bill wrong. The penalties are waived for those below a certain annual income; that number's quite high. And the insurance companies need to pay out 85 cents on the dollar, so they have a cap of 15% on profits. It's all about diluting the risk pool and making it cheaper for everyone, because the expensive treatments are a smaller amount of the pot.
But we're way offtopic.
Well obviously. I took that as a given.
But besides that, presumably we had this moral center before we had Philosophy 101.
More fascinating, at least to me, is the area of the brain that works against "ends justify the means".
FTS:
The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.
I don't know if this has been known before, but the fact that there's an area of the brain that judges actions as moral apart from their consequences is fascinating. It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?
Trickle-down Reagonomics has been thoroughly debunked. All those rich guys didn't get rich by giving away free money.
And I've been quite disappointed in Obama. But the things these tea partiers are going on about are all things that the Republicans have done. Where the hell were these people a few years ago? Did they spring fully-formed from Limbaugh's forehead?
Face it. This is a backlash against Obama the person, and not anything he represents. It doesn't help their cause to keep going on about his birth certificate, which just screams racism.
Guess you're a troll; I don't know why I wasted my time typing that.
You're forgetting that the "tea partiers" are largely defined by Faux News. They are whatever Fox tells them to be.
My favorite was Stewart's last-night moment of Zen - they had a clip from Fox with some woman going "well we need to fight this because he's a communist!". The commentator says "well, he's not a communist" and she says "well then he's a progressive which is the new code word for communist. Glenn Beck taught me that"
I find it terribly hard to believe those people actually have any independent beliefs. If they really were annoyed about parliamentary procedures that circumvent the will of the people, how about the Bush tax cuts for big business that were done the same way?
The physical and blatant bullying stopped at grade 6, but I was always delibrately made an outcast.
Part of it was I really just stopped caring about what people thought of me - gave up any chance of a social life there. So I was sort of allowed to be a loner, because I wasn't trying to integrate myself.
And I sure as hell did know what suicide was. I even knew that some people would've attempted it in the situation I was in. The idea just seemed silly to me.
But I'm eternally indebted to my parents. When I came home, it was to a supportive, normal-feeling family where I fit right in. I never hated, nor even disliked my parents, like the rest of my peers.
Now that I think of it, my family situation sounds very unusual. That depresses the hell out of me, because it was great.
Of course not. It's a well-understood psycological condition in response to severe stress. I once was trying to save a 9 year old's life and failed. I sure know what PTSD is, and there wasn't a thing I could do to snap out of it.
But if I'd killed myself because of it, there'd be something wrong with me. The deepest instinct we have is self-preservation. To consciously go against that is, by definition, irrational. The struggle for life is so built-in, one can't build a rational argument for it.
Defective? I wouldn't say that. She was maturing, and clearly not getting the emotional support she needed from her parents. And that should've started from birth.
I went through a terrible, long period of bullying (see a sibling post) and I never considered suicide, even in passing. It simply never occurred to me, because I had a wonderfully supportive family.
I'm really sorry for her that she didn't seem to have one. But the fact that she didn't develop emotionally to be able to shrug it off, fight her own battles, disregard others' opinions - as she clearly needed to - could be considered a defect (though I wouldn't use that word).
It's more like she didn't develop the skin she needed because she wasn't there yet. And she could've been. It's sad, but she should've realized that high school is over really quickly in the span of one's life.
I did, and it got me through just fine.
Are you kidding me? I was ostracized for 6 years. I *never* had more than two friends in high school, and they were uncomfortable around me. I had terrible social skills.
I couldn't bully anyone if I tried. Literally - I was so pathetic that I couldn't have pulled it off, even if I'd wanted to.
I was thinking of torture in a "Saw" type environment.
I don't think it does qualify. See a sibling post of mine.
Yes I was. From grade 2 to grade 6. I was the new kid in school in a very close-knit town. My graduating class had 112 people, and all but about 15 of those were born in town.
Like many nerds, I had terrible social skills, so I already had trouble making friends.
I went through therapy - both with the school, and group.
Not even once did I remotely consider suicide.
You're right. Maybe I had it too easy. But I also was raised right by my parents, who taught me that all the BS was unimportant and that it shouldn't affect me. I'm a much healthier person because of it.
Troll? That's a bit rich. How am I fishing for an angry response? It's a very common viewpoint around here...
I differentiate between the 16 year old minor and the 8 year old minor.
No offense, but if you think a 16 year old can't consent to sex, you're an idiot or you somehow skipped right from 10 to 20.
We treat older teenagers like little kids. That's wrong, and it leads to shit like this.
They got statutory rape charges because the act in question was so clearly consensual that a regular rape charge wouldn't stick.
These kids may be grade-A assholes, but those charges need to die in a fire.
Eh... this isn't real rape. If it was, they'd go for that.
They're only using the 'statutory' version because the sex was so clearly consensual that it's the only thing that'll stick.
Sickens the hell out of me, it does.
To be fair, this is a high school; these 'children' are at least 14. Not so much 'little Johnny'. They do know better.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Suicide is irrational. There was de facto something else wrong with this girl.
Let me say it again: Suicide Is Irrational. Without extreme methods, you simply can't drive a mentally healthy person to suicide.
I'm not saying these kids aren't dicks, and they should have their ass handed to them under whatever law outlaws bullying, but as I see it, the only person who can possibly be responsible for a suicide can only be the sui, the self.
I don't know... maybe all I've known about myself is wrong! /scared
Do a search for "yiff" or "yiffing" on a filtered computer or search engine.
No. No thank you. I'd rather not.
No, I'm right. He says the micro's job is to read and write to the tape, and perform the simple steps as instructed by the tape.
That's fine, and that's cool. But it's not a Turing machine; it's a Turing machine emulator. I could write a program on my computer, feed it a virtual "tape" and do the same thing. It'd only be following the directions on the 'tape', but it'd be an interpreter.
This is a very cool interpreter. But it's not a Turing machine.
I agree with you, but you have the arguments wrong. The problem people had was that Icaza was pushing Mono so hard for things that didn't need it (Tomboy) that he came off like a shill. And that he was convinced there were no patent issues and everybody should start using it, despite the fact that patent issues are/were a real problem.
So he came off as a guy who was working on an inferior implementation of a Microsoft product and was strongly pushing for its infiltration into the Linux desktop, and giving his word (but not much else) that'd it be all hunky dory. It looked a whole lot like "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Now, for the record, I don't care that much about .NET - I'm not a fan, but I hear it's done pretty well. Only time I've ever had a problem with Mono is needing the whole damn framework installed for some postit note utility. I'm just pointing out that the issue is a lot less trivial than you portray.