Clothes, glasses, even air conditioners, serve useful purposes. Games, flashy versions of otherwise-functional things, and spending all time on the internet, do not justifiably do so.
Though I will blame the lack of practicality and utility entirely on mobile carriers' nonsensical pricing schemes. I'd so be connected 24/7 if it made sense.
glad somebody with apparent knowledge and a better grasp of language said it instead of me:) these were all the exact thoughts I had which lead to my original question, pretty much.
Other posts are saying "Paper money only has value because we have faith in it having value", usually arguing in favor of a precious-metal standard instead. The non-rhetorical question is: What makes precious metals any different? Why do precious metals have any value other than the value we have faith in their having?
If France found a way to colonize the galaxy would you: a) Cheer for humanity, quietly accept it as a victory, and have no other thoughts b) Hope your own country's space program gets as far
The question then becomes: are artificially-grown (not quite our biology) artificially-taught (not quite our culture) things "human" enough to be compatible with our urge to reproduce and spread? If it's not human, what's the point of sending it into space anyway? Life will evolve somewhere else eventually, the whole point is we want to continue our species.
the disconnect isn't between people who want GPLv3 to be "Less permissive" or "more permissive", it's between people who think GPLv3 is "more permissive" vs people who think GPLv3 is "less permissive". Both sides want more permissive licenses, they just disagree on what constitutes "permissive". Some say "you won't let me take permission away from others, so it's less permissive!", others say "we won't let anyone take away permission, ever, so it's more permissive."
GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use/is/ allowed!"
I often hear that The Gimp is "good enough" for some people, but I never hear any specific examples about what it can do that doesn't cause horrible physical pain. Can you enlighten me? I really have no idea what The Gimp could be good for. It may just be my bad luck that I have never had a task which it was suited for, it would be nice to have a list of things it doesn't suck at so I can turn to The Gimp if I need to do such things.
Gimpshop is "Gimp made to look like photoshop" made by people who have very obviously never used photoshop. I'm sure they just heard somebody complaining about the suck that is MWI (not SDI.) and decided to put a big ugly gray box around it, ignoring every other thing that The Gimp does wrong.
MDI vs MWI can both have their advantages/disadvantages, but The Gimp fails at every other thing. I've yet to do any quick task in The Gimp without being annoyed at some missing feature or poor interface (often simple things like resizing/repositioning something, adding text, masking something out, etc). Gimpshop does nothing to improve any of this.
if "Free" means "The Gimp", free is much worse than paying.
Do I believe that every story about the Holocaust is true? Of course not. Does that mean "A thing which has the label 'holocaust' did not occur"? Of course not.
I like to think that I've given both sides equal amounts of not-much-time, and I still think putting jews into camps and working/starving them to death is bad, specific "omg! they killed him and then did what to the body!?" veracity not being important enough to look into.
"Knives are Sharp" is a life lesson. "Caesar was stabbed" is trivia.
Not saying it's unimportant or shouldn't be taught, but I don't see it as being harmful to not know. People who know about the holocaust kill people all the time. They still are. We, who know about the holocaust, are standing by doing nothing about it. (apologies if my assumption that you do not work for the CIA is incorrect). We've already reduced "The Holocaust Happened" to a fact. Omitting it does less harm than denying it. Perhaps we should all be marched through the towns where hundreds or thousands are slaughtered even today. Remember the reference? The first real holocaust deniers weren't actively denying it: They were in denial.
I've personally always found it fascinating that the people who deny the holocaust seem to the ones most likely to be in favor of it. I see their reasoning as probably being along the lines of "I refuse to believe that somebody killed all those jews and didn't make damn sure they finished the job!"
Maybe it's: "Jewish people say it happened, all jews are liars, therefor it must not have."
I don't know, I never understand people. Can anyone explain it to me?
Contrary to what moronic sites like Digg (which last I checked only allows one submission per URL, with no editorial review) would have you believe is the "right way" to do things, I really don't care in the slightest who reported on an event "first". I care who reported on it in a manner which tells me best what I want to know about it.
Back in the days of yore (199something), I remember some technology show (C|Net or something), showing off some bulletproof plastic that was gone over with a blowtorch, hit with AK-47s, Axes, Bazookas, etc, for a few minutes (one piece through it all), and eventually 20 minutes (or an hour, or "some non-immediate length of time") later, they eventually got a 15" hole in it through sustained torching while hitting it with an axe.
And then I never heard another thing about it. I assume there's some/reason/ we don't have plastic tanks protecting our troops, but I don't know what that reason is. I have only ever heard it mentioned that one time. I think the concept involved many small force-absorbing layers or something.
To abuse the very concept of metaphor: This is similar to a shop-owner buying a fancy new LED sign that has the options of "Open", "Closed", and "Everything in the store is free to take, no questions asked". The shop-owner plugs in the sign, but doesn't bother checking to see what it's set at.
I don't know if that makes an argument/for/ or/against/ what is being talked about, but it is definitely a poor metaphor.
Slashdot Mirror
Clothes, glasses, even air conditioners, serve useful purposes. Games, flashy versions of otherwise-functional things, and spending all time on the internet, do not justifiably do so.
Though I will blame the lack of practicality and utility entirely on mobile carriers' nonsensical pricing schemes. I'd so be connected 24/7 if it made sense.
Yes, the end of scarcity would alter the economy, perhaps even abolish it.
No, this would not be a bad thing.
glad somebody with apparent knowledge and a better grasp of language said it instead of me :)
these were all the exact thoughts I had which lead to my original question, pretty much.
wouldn't it suck if we worked all that out but still had to wait another 17 months while we figured out the psychological effects?
Other posts are saying "Paper money only has value because we have faith in it having value", usually arguing in favor of a precious-metal standard instead.
The non-rhetorical question is: What makes precious metals any different? Why do precious metals have any value other than the value we have faith in their having?
That is awesome and asshole-ific. The internet hereby approves.
last I heard, neither were viruses.
If France found a way to colonize the galaxy would you:
a) Cheer for humanity, quietly accept it as a victory, and have no other thoughts
b) Hope your own country's space program gets as far
The question then becomes: are artificially-grown (not quite our biology) artificially-taught (not quite our culture) things "human" enough to be compatible with our urge to reproduce and spread? If it's not human, what's the point of sending it into space anyway? Life will evolve somewhere else eventually, the whole point is we want to continue our species.
The discussion is over. You are the winner.
the disconnect isn't between people who want GPLv3 to be "Less permissive" or "more permissive", it's between people who think GPLv3 is "more permissive" vs people who think GPLv3 is "less permissive". Both sides want more permissive licenses, they just disagree on what constitutes "permissive". Some say "you won't let me take permission away from others, so it's less permissive!", others say "we won't let anyone take away permission, ever, so it's more permissive."
/is/ allowed!"
GPLv3 really just seems to be an attempt to make things explicit which were implied in GPLv2. Personally, I think that's a step in the wrong direction, because the moment you enumerate which things you can or can't do, as opposed to just blanket saying: "you can't, in any way, distribute this software if you, in any way, prevent others from distributing this software", people will say "oh, you said "patent", not "Billy's Intellectual Voucher Certificate", so my way of restricting use
I often hear that The Gimp is "good enough" for some people, but I never hear any specific examples about what it can do that doesn't cause horrible physical pain. Can you enlighten me? I really have no idea what The Gimp could be good for. It may just be my bad luck that I have never had a task which it was suited for, it would be nice to have a list of things it doesn't suck at so I can turn to The Gimp if I need to do such things.
Gimpshop is "Gimp made to look like photoshop" made by people who have very obviously never used photoshop. I'm sure they just heard somebody complaining about the suck that is MWI (not SDI.) and decided to put a big ugly gray box around it, ignoring every other thing that The Gimp does wrong.
MDI vs MWI can both have their advantages/disadvantages, but The Gimp fails at every other thing. I've yet to do any quick task in The Gimp without being annoyed at some missing feature or poor interface (often simple things like resizing/repositioning something, adding text, masking something out, etc). Gimpshop does nothing to improve any of this.
if "Free" means "The Gimp", free is much worse than paying.
Warning: the preceding contained OPINIONSZOMG
Balance the equation!
people often tell me: "use SVK", which seems even worse, imo, but there it is.
except friday.. I want to go home. I'll clean it up on monday.
Can't we all just get along and agree that neither story is newsworthy?
Do I believe that every story about the Holocaust is true? Of course not.
Does that mean "A thing which has the label 'holocaust' did not occur"? Of course not.
I like to think that I've given both sides equal amounts of not-much-time, and I still think putting jews into camps and working/starving them to death is bad, specific "omg! they killed him and then did what to the body!?" veracity not being important enough to look into.
"Knives are Sharp" is a life lesson.
"Caesar was stabbed" is trivia.
Not saying it's unimportant or shouldn't be taught, but I don't see it as being harmful to not know. People who know about the holocaust kill people all the time. They still are. We, who know about the holocaust, are standing by doing nothing about it. (apologies if my assumption that you do not work for the CIA is incorrect). We've already reduced "The Holocaust Happened" to a fact. Omitting it does less harm than denying it. Perhaps we should all be marched through the towns where hundreds or thousands are slaughtered even today. Remember the reference? The first real holocaust deniers weren't actively denying it: They were in denial.
I've personally always found it fascinating that the people who deny the holocaust seem to the ones most likely to be in favor of it.
I see their reasoning as probably being along the lines of "I refuse to believe that somebody killed all those jews and didn't make damn sure they finished the job!"
Maybe it's: "Jewish people say it happened, all jews are liars, therefor it must not have."
I don't know, I never understand people. Can anyone explain it to me?
Contrary to what moronic sites like Digg (which last I checked only allows one submission per URL, with no editorial review) would have you believe is the "right way" to do things, I really don't care in the slightest who reported on an event "first". I care who reported on it in a manner which tells me best what I want to know about it.
Well, technically it doesn't actually hurt anyone, it's just stupid.
Back in the days of yore (199something), I remember some technology show (C|Net or something), showing off some bulletproof plastic that was gone over with a blowtorch, hit with AK-47s, Axes, Bazookas, etc, for a few minutes (one piece through it all), and eventually 20 minutes (or an hour, or "some non-immediate length of time") later, they eventually got a 15" hole in it through sustained torching while hitting it with an axe.
/reason/ we don't have plastic tanks protecting our troops, but I don't know what that reason is. I have only ever heard it mentioned that one time. I think the concept involved many small force-absorbing layers or something.
And then I never heard another thing about it. I assume there's some
or something.
To abuse the very concept of metaphor:
/for/ or /against/ what is being talked about, but it is definitely a poor metaphor.
This is similar to a shop-owner buying a fancy new LED sign that has the options of "Open", "Closed", and "Everything in the store is free to take, no questions asked". The shop-owner plugs in the sign, but doesn't bother checking to see what it's set at.
I don't know if that makes an argument
Not that there's anything wrong with that.