Once is a typo, twice in the same comment is either a non-English speaker or an illiterate. Ironic that in a thread about literacy you get comments from people who can't spell a five letter word.
Everyone thinks everyone else is like them. It's just human nature.
I used to go to Planet Crap years ago, and was struck that the publishers and heads of game companies who commented there who were in favor of DRM all admitted to being copyright infringing pirates when in college.
Thieves expect everyone else to steal, violent people expect violence and honest men expect honesty. Basically, anyone who insists that DRM is necessary is a thief.
It's just that so far book publishers and distributors have released their books in proprietary formats, slathered with DRM and that only play on devices they deign to release readers on
That's just abysmally STUPID. They're not going to sell me one! The only format I'll buy any book in is plain ASCII text.
Some of you people make WAY too much money! "Basically free" is the Public Library. Those of us who have to work for our money only buy the books that are so amazingly good that we know we'll re-read them. E.G. Asimov or Adams.
I'm not carrying around a four hundred dollar device that I can easily lose or break.
Who would have thought that poor transportation and urban sprawl lead to appreciation for literacy?
Er, what? My idea of "literate" isn't having someone read to you.
You normal people should pity the poor hyperlex. There is no way that someone like us could enjoy a book while driving a car. When we read a novel by a good author, we become totally immersed. We are there.
When the literate drive we must unfortunately concentrate on piloting thousands of pounds of steel and avoidiong the fucktards that are paying attention to the machine that's reading to them instead of the task at hand, which SHOULD BE driving the damned car.
Thst' what's wrong with the system over here. The corporate run media have the people convinced that if you fon't vote for a Republican or a Democrat you're wasting your vote. It's clear to me that if you vote for someone who wants you in jail you're doing far worse than wasting your vote.
Holland has legalized marijuana. The Democrats and Republicans here in the US are both vehemently against legalization. Clearly if you're for freedom of choice it is not on your best interests to vote for either of these parties.
Rather have the lesser of two evils than throw my vote away
That's what the corporate media have us in the US brainwashed into believing. The Democrats and Republicans both want pot to remain illegal, how is either one "the lesser of two evils" when I smoke the stuff? Clearly I'd be insane to NOT vote Libertarian, since they want it legal while the two majors want me in jail. Lets see, I can vote for the Republican Timothy McVeigh, the Democrat Osama Bin Laden, or the Green Party candidate Richard Stallman (who unlike Bin Laden or McVeigh has no chance of winning) I'm supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils? Sorry, I can't agree to do that.
If "a vote for anyone but Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote" because the canddate you agree with won't win, then any time you vote Republican and teh Democrat wins you've wasted your vote.
I came to the conclusion I finally came to when Nader last ran. The media slobbered all over him despite the fact that he wasn't on the ballot in enough states to win even if he won every state he was on the ballot on, while the Libertarian, on the ballot in 49 of the 50 states, got nary a word from the media.
It's to the corporations' interests to make you think a vote for a "third party" is wasted, since more parties makes for more expensive bribes/campaign contributions. You only throw your vote away if you don't go to the polls at all.
I can see how your driving crack whores to a house in the ghetto might make cops suspicious
IF they knew the girls were crack whores, which they couln't have (even if the girls had priors, which IIMN they didn't) they may have been suspicious, but that's the point - they're not supposed to be able to saerch your property without a warrant or your permission Period. You're saying if they suspect you of some crime they shouold be able to go search your house and you should have no say in the matter, regardless of the reasons for their suspicion.
If they were looking for a woman in my house they should have knocked on the door and asked if she was there, NOT searched the garage without permission or warrant. If they wanted to look in my garage for a strange woman they should ASK. Nobody should be able to barge into your property without your permission. It doesn't MATTER what the cops thought or were suspicious of, in a free society they cops aren't allowed to do that. Period.
The fact that you think an unwarranted search of my property is reasonable is part of the problem. I think it's far more reasonable that they look at my internet packets than search my real concrete property. The fact is in a free society they should do neither without a warrant signed by a judge.
Why not? If you're only going to date people who agree with you on everything then you're likely to die alone.
That said, if there was anythig to astrology I'd have gotten laid Friday night. I look at horoscopes for the humor value, and one Friday said "a home cooked meal will provoke a romp in the sack". Too damned bad astrology is bullshit!
You might as well ask if a Catholic should date a Muslim.
If I buy something, I own it. You can't buy children, although you could a couple hundred years ago. In the 18th century you could indeed buy and own people.
I could find a similar "survey audience" of beer drinkers, sex addicts, computer geeks (never mind, I'm already here!), root canal patients, or ANY group, and come up with whatever "favorable result" I want.
So, you're saying the statistical link between cigarette smoking and cancer is bullshit? They didn't just survey cat owners, they surveyed pet owners and people who never owned pets.
You're committing the same fallacy. The truth is that there's a correlation, but the causitive factors haven't been determined.
As a divorced man, I think the reason single people die earlier is because there's nobody there to call 911. But that's just a hypothesis, not even a theory, let along proof.
Does this mean that I can use my health insurance to pay for cat food?
No. Why? Because people who sell insurance are stupid and evil.
Proof? Insurance covers fertility treatment, but it doesn't cover birth control. It covers cancer treatment, but not treatment for nicotine addiction.
The car insurance company is betting that you'll not wreck your car, while you're betting you will. The health insurance company is betting that you'll not get sick, and the life insurance company is betting you won't die.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad they still haven't figured out that "piracy" isn't costing them a dime but can actually increase revinues, but DRM does cost them money.
DRM costs them qite a bit money they would get from me if I didn't refuse to buy it, and I imagine a lot of other people's money as well.
OTOH how many people bought a legitimate copy of something they originally got through shady means? Quite a few.
DRM is brain-dead stupid.
This is a nerd site, not an RIAA lawyer site, Mr Troll.
placed on there site... change there attitude...
Their literacy is over there.
Once is a typo, twice in the same comment is either a non-English speaker or an illiterate. Ironic that in a thread about literacy you get comments from people who can't spell a five letter word.
Everyone thinks everyone else is like them. It's just human nature.
I used to go to Planet Crap years ago, and was struck that the publishers and heads of game companies who commented there who were in favor of DRM all admitted to being copyright infringing pirates when in college.
Thieves expect everyone else to steal, violent people expect violence and honest men expect honesty. Basically, anyone who insists that DRM is necessary is a thief.
It's just that so far book publishers and distributors have released their books in proprietary formats, slathered with DRM and that only play on devices they deign to release readers on
That's just abysmally STUPID. They're not going to sell me one! The only format I'll buy any book in is plain ASCII text.
Some of you people make WAY too much money! "Basically free" is the Public Library. Those of us who have to work for our money only buy the books that are so amazingly good that we know we'll re-read them. E.G. Asimov or Adams.
I'm not carrying around a four hundred dollar device that I can easily lose or break.
Who would have thought that poor transportation and urban sprawl lead to appreciation for literacy?
Er, what? My idea of "literate" isn't having someone read to you.
You normal people should pity the poor hyperlex. There is no way that someone like us could enjoy a book while driving a car. When we read a novel by a good author, we become totally immersed. We are there.
When the literate drive we must unfortunately concentrate on piloting thousands of pounds of steel and avoidiong the fucktards that are paying attention to the machine that's reading to them instead of the task at hand, which SHOULD BE driving the damned car.
-mcgrew
NO! NO! Dear God NO!!!
If it does start selling ads, there needs to be a replacement. And I don't mean Uncyclopedia.
7 in sitting parliament
Thst' what's wrong with the system over here. The corporate run media have the people convinced that if you fon't vote for a Republican or a Democrat you're wasting your vote. It's clear to me that if you vote for someone who wants you in jail you're doing far worse than wasting your vote.
Holland has legalized marijuana. The Democrats and Republicans here in the US are both vehemently against legalization. Clearly if you're for freedom of choice it is not on your best interests to vote for either of these parties.
I've read that story (someone here pointed it to me once) and found it very amusing.
Rather have the lesser of two evils than throw my vote away
That's what the corporate media have us in the US brainwashed into believing. The Democrats and Republicans both want pot to remain illegal, how is either one "the lesser of two evils" when I smoke the stuff? Clearly I'd be insane to NOT vote Libertarian, since they want it legal while the two majors want me in jail. Lets see, I can vote for the Republican Timothy McVeigh, the Democrat Osama Bin Laden, or the Green Party candidate Richard Stallman (who unlike Bin Laden or McVeigh has no chance of winning) I'm supposed to vote for the lesser of two evils? Sorry, I can't agree to do that.
If "a vote for anyone but Republican or Democrat is a wasted vote" because the canddate you agree with won't win, then any time you vote Republican and teh Democrat wins you've wasted your vote.
I came to the conclusion I finally came to when Nader last ran. The media slobbered all over him despite the fact that he wasn't on the ballot in enough states to win even if he won every state he was on the ballot on, while the Libertarian, on the ballot in 49 of the 50 states, got nary a word from the media.
It's to the corporations' interests to make you think a vote for a "third party" is wasted, since more parties makes for more expensive bribes/campaign contributions. You only throw your vote away if you don't go to the polls at all.
Fire? Nah, hadn't been harnessed yet. Grand prize was a shiny rock.
Just because chest pains aren't always a heart attack doesn't mean you shouldn't see a doctor if you experience them.
It was a massive air base, and I didn't count the B52s. There were rows upon rows of the things.
There were far fewer than 32 SR71s there.
I can see how your driving crack whores to a house in the ghetto might make cops suspicious
IF they knew the girls were crack whores, which they couln't have (even if the girls had priors, which IIMN they didn't) they may have been suspicious, but that's the point - they're not supposed to be able to saerch your property without a warrant or your permission Period. You're saying if they suspect you of some crime they shouold be able to go search your house and you should have no say in the matter, regardless of the reasons for their suspicion.
If they were looking for a woman in my house they should have knocked on the door and asked if she was there, NOT searched the garage without permission or warrant. If they wanted to look in my garage for a strange woman they should ASK. Nobody should be able to barge into your property without your permission. It doesn't MATTER what the cops thought or were suspicious of, in a free society they cops aren't allowed to do that. Period.
The fact that you think an unwarranted search of my property is reasonable is part of the problem. I think it's far more reasonable that they look at my internet packets than search my real concrete property. The fact is in a free society they should do neither without a warrant signed by a judge.
There aren't many GOOD pc games coming out lately.
That's Tim's fault, isn't it?
You can't fix stupid but you CAN fix ignorant. Thinking someone is stupid because they believe something patently false is stupid.
Why not? If you're only going to date people who agree with you on everything then you're likely to die alone.
That said, if there was anythig to astrology I'd have gotten laid Friday night. I look at horoscopes for the humor value, and one Friday said "a home cooked meal will provoke a romp in the sack". Too damned bad astrology is bullshit!
You might as well ask if a Catholic should date a Muslim.
That's a very good point. When I wake up with the blues, all three cats want in my lap. Other mornings they don't.
If I buy something, I own it. You can't buy children, although you could a couple hundred years ago. In the 18th century you could indeed buy and own people.
Yes, I love pussy. Your point, madam?
I'd be happy to run some statistics through a data miner for a university salery and grant money.
;)
I think you have to know how to spell "salary" before they'll give you a grant, let alone a salary.
I could find a similar "survey audience" of beer drinkers, sex addicts, computer geeks (never mind, I'm already here!), root canal patients, or ANY group, and come up with whatever "favorable result" I want.
So, you're saying the statistical link between cigarette smoking and cancer is bullshit? They didn't just survey cat owners, they surveyed pet owners and people who never owned pets.
Sorry, I just don't seee the insight there.
You're committing the same fallacy. The truth is that there's a correlation, but the causitive factors haven't been determined.
As a divorced man, I think the reason single people die earlier is because there's nobody there to call 911. But that's just a hypothesis, not even a theory, let along proof.
Does this mean that I can use my health insurance to pay for cat food?
No. Why? Because people who sell insurance are stupid and evil.
Proof? Insurance covers fertility treatment, but it doesn't cover birth control. It covers cancer treatment, but not treatment for nicotine addiction.
The car insurance company is betting that you'll not wreck your car, while you're betting you will. The health insurance company is betting that you'll not get sick, and the life insurance company is betting you won't die.
-mcgrew