The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.
How is it indirect? Do you want him to come over and roll a doobie for you?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the system of government in the USA. We are a union of states and commonwealths. Those states have their own laws and executives charged with enforcing those laws.
Ron Paul is running for president of the union. As such, the best stand he can take on the war on drugs is in regards to federal law. What will he do to protect the questioner (and me) from getting arrested? He answered that, in regards to federal law.
Now if you fear getting arresting because of some state law against marijuana use or possession, he did not answer to that. As he shouldn't. Those are questions for your state governor.
Let me put it another way. The absolute straightest answer would have been, "nothing. If you are arrested under your local state laws, as president I should not, and will not, prevent the local authorities from doing their job." But instead he answered the question that should have been asked (in the context of a presidential campaign), in regards to federal law the job of the president.
In the same light, if the question had been about a tooth ache or cavity, you likely would get an answer in regards to health care policy at the highest level (because that makes sense in the context of a presidential campaign) and not a curt, "go see a dentist."
As a Massachusetts resident who witnessed Romney's term as governor up-close, I'm absolutely certain that he's the best candidate, and it has nothing to do with his just being a "hometown guy." Heres why:
So you're not bothered when Romney distances himself from Massachusetts by telling primary voters what loony liberals we are? You think the best candidate is the governor who travels the country bashing the commonwealth he was elected to represent?
As to his involvement with the Big Dig, I remember Romney swinging through for the photo ops after the tunnel collapsed, but then it was back to the campaign trail. I don't fault Romney for the mess that is the Big Dig , but I think if he was a full-time governor and not a presidential candidate, there might have been some progress on that (and many other) issues.
As for the health care law, while I support the availability of low-cost health insurance I do not think the government should be forcing people to get insurance. Maybe I'm just a loon from Massachusetts, but I believe in things like personal responsibility and private property.
Well, you think what you want. I just hope, as a fan of Mitt Romney, you don't have any dogs.
AMEN! To quote myself from a recent thread on Scientology:
Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.
No one, you say? How's this for finding fault--he's a traitor.
What would you say if the president/prime minister/top-executive-office holder of your country decided, one country isn't enough? What if he wanted to be secretary general of the UN, and so spent all his time traveling around the world, campaigning and giving speeches, and not doing his job at home?
You might say, fine with me! A globe-trotting president isn't passing a lot of new laws and isn't butting into my private business. The world can have him, just leave me alone.
But what if your country wasn't especially popular around the world? And what if the beliefs held by the majority in your country, the beliefs espoused by the president prior to getting elected, were not beliefs popular with the folks who might decide the next secretary general of the UN? And so what, if the process of speechifying and campaigning, your president traveled the world telling everyone who will listen how misguided the people of your country are, and how illogical your beliefs, and what a dump your country is, and boy is he glad just to get away?
Would anyone find fault with a president who did such things?
That is precisely how Romney behaved as governor of Massachusetts. He is not a nice guy. He is not without fault. He is a traitor and a snake. Anyone who supports Romney for president is either a comedian wanting another dopey president as a source of material, or an a$$hole who should DIAF.
And guess what happened when I didn't renew with they cuz they sucked?
You didn't renew because they sucked? That makes no sense. Sounds like you didn't renew because you suck. If you wanted to keep the domain, you could transfer it to a different registrar.
Unless you are claiming the registar hid the renewal date from you? Seriously. If there are any domain registrars out there they do not offer a reminder email when the registration is about to expire, the option to auto-renew, the option for long term (5 and 10 year) registrations...well, then it's really your fault for not picking one of the many registrars that offer these tools to help you not lose your domain.
Come on. Before, the domain wasn't important enough to you for you to keep tabs on the registration. But now, it's your life's work? Please!
Front-running and squating are one thing, but this thread is just full of Gen X whine.
Besides, what do you mean you went to.net instead? So you're an ISP or networking company? Then you have even less of an excuse for letting your domain registration expire!
So do you carry the shark, or does he get his own jet pack?
But seriously, many of the issues with jet packs have been exposed in 3 AM stoner conversations on super powers.
Ok, you can fly. Without the full compliment of additional super powers, the power of flight on its own just doesn't live up to the hype.
Will you be immune cold at high altitude? Will you be able to breathe in thin air? Will your arms be able to carry anything heavier than what you could carry on the ground? Will your sense of direction, ability to judge distances, etc. be any better than they are now?
Just imagine a city full of these devices.
I see the same traffic jams, just a few thousand feet higher than before. Maybe having a jet pack is like being able to read minds. Lots of fun if you're the only one, maybe not so much if every one else can do it too.
I came here expecting the job security, "if no one knows what you do, you can't be replaced," with the reply in mind, "if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted." I'm glad to see both ends of that conversation are well covered.
I'm prompted to reply in response to the, 1. increased efficiency, 2. ????, 3. Profit! posts.
As an American worker, increased efficiency is not my friend. On the lowest level, if I can get 8 hours of work done in 7 hours, I can spend that extra hour on slashdot. On the corporate level, all that increased efficiency goes straight to the top.
The USA has the best trained, hardest working, most efficient work force in the world. We also have an obscene and ever-growing gulf between the haves and the have-nots, the widest margin between executive and worker pay, an economy where the two-income household is the norm, where having one parent stay at home to take care of the family is a luxury.
It's called trickle down economics. The benefits go to the fat cats at the top. And folks below them get trickled on. Now I'm not a communist, and for the most part the fat cats at the top have worked to earn their position, but I don't see how increased efficiency helps me.
Yet I'm still on the side of doing this documentation. Why? Because it's the right way to do business. If you're in a low skill McJob, you are replaceable. Refusing to standardize and document your procedures isn't going to change that. If you're a skilled worker, documentation is going to complement your skills, not diminish them.
So how to do it? Do it. The best way to get management support is to show them a working pilot. Start with your group or your department. Don't just document your policies and procedures, but remember the meta-documentation--document the process of producing documentation.
A little on topic/a little bit just an excuse to blather about something in my mind since the Cloverfield story:
Folks in the ad game are in trouble. And I mean the folks using ads to sell another product and the folks selling the ads.
Apparently there was some sort of 'buzz' about Cloverfield for the past few months. I missed it. That may not be interesting, except I watch 2 to 3 hours of TV a day, spend more time than that on the web, subscribe to several popular (non-technical) magazines, and read a daily newspaper. I don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of pop culture, but I'm not quite ammish.
I vaguely remember a teaser-trailer (perhaps before Transformers?), but other than usual pre-release media push in the last few weeks, I know nothing of this buzz. If that's the state of advertising, then those folks are in trouble.
How does this tie in to the current topic? Well...Snopes has ads? I would guess it would since there's no subscription fee and would make a very strange charitable effort otherwise. But if Snopes has ads, I can't say I recall ever actually seeing one.
Seriously, for TV I have TiVo. For the web, there's ad buster and other tricks. For magazines, those ads are usually full page and very easy to recognize and skip without reading. For radio, there's NPR. Pretty much the only traditional advertising that gets my attention are bra ads in the daily paper. And those aren't even selling anything I might buy! (Unless the models are for sale.)
My query was semi-serious--I really don't know why I shouldn't run a beer fridge on a 20ga 100ft extension cord. I do know wire gauge numbers are such that bigger umber means smaller wire, but I don't know how small a 20ga wire is.
My point is, for those who like to say RTFM, for consumer items user manuals and warning labels are TFM.
Anything is obvious if you have the requisite knowledge. Like those little laser pointers. Obviously those are safe to point at the eyes--that skinny little beam, must be a harmless amount of energy in there. I mean, obviously those are very dangerous--that skinny little beam, must have a high energy density. (But of course how dangerous depends on the mechanics of the eye and some aspects of quantum mechanics. Obvious indeed!)
Why not? I'll admit I consider most people abysmally stupid, but they should have a pretty good grasp of the idea that you can't safely run a 20ga 100ft cord from your basement to your garage "beer fridge".
I usually think of myself as not abysmally stupid, but why can't I safely run a 20ga 100ft cord from my basement to my garage beer fridge? The purpose of the cord is to connect an outlet at one end to an appliance at the other.
Does it matter that one end is in my basement and the other is in my garage? I know some cords are rated for outdoor use and some are not, but what if my garage is attached? Is there something intuitively obvious about 20ga cords that aren't suitable for beer fridges? And how do you know if my beer fridge is one of those little travel jobbies that can run off AC or 12-volt DC, or if my beer fridge is a full size Kenmore? (I drink a lot of beer.)
Something so "mind-numbingly obvious" should be easy to explain. Maybe I'm just abysmally stupid.
I was just in one of my optimistic moods. Don't worry it is long gone now.
No worries, mate. Happens to the best of us (and me too).
I'm no expert on intellectual property and patent/trademark/copyright law, but I know enough to know 97% of the/. posts the those subjects are complete bullocks. Think of how we mock PHBs and fossilized bureaucrats who compare the internet to a series of tubes. I imagine anyone with any actual knowledge of IP law would have the same regard for us.
Am I the only one that notices Slashdot's propensity to propose/applaud the limitations of others rights, while screaming loudly at any percieved limitation of their own?
I already posted in this thread, so I can't use my mod points on your post, so I'll just say, you are not the only one.
Agreed, but have you have noticed that Mormons tend to be really nice people? I'm serious. It's like Romney -- no one can really find fault with him except to say his hair is too perfect, that he's just a successful businessman, or that he's Mormon.
No one, you say? How's this for finding fault--he's a traitor.
What would you say if the president/prime minister/top-executive-office holder of your country decided, one country isn't enough? What if he wanted to be secretary general of the UN, and so spent all his time traveling around the world, campaigning and giving speeches, and not doing his job at home?
You might say, fine with me! A globe-trotting president isn't passing a lot of new laws and isn't butting into my private business. The world can have him, just leave me alone.
But what if your country wasn't especially popular around the world? And what if the beliefs held by the majority in your country, the beliefs espoused by the president prior to getting elected, were not beliefs popular with the folks who might decide the next secretary general of the UN? And so what, if the process of speechifying and campaigning, your president traveled the world telling everyone who will listen how misguided the people of your country are, and how illogical your beliefs, and what a dump your country is, and boy is he glad just to get away?
Would anyone find fault with a president who did such things?
That is precisely how Romney behaved as governor of Massachusetts. He is not a nice guy. He is not without fault. He is a traitor and a snake. Anyone who supports Romney for president is either a comedian wanting another dopey president as a source of material, or an a$$hole who should DIAF.
Why not limit the number of times patent rights can be reassigned?
Sure. And why not limit the number of times rights can be reassigned on something like music files? Why not have the number be 1, for the original sale? I'm sure the RIAA would like that. And why not apply the same standard to software? Or anything else?
You're right in the dual purposes of patents, but allowing the holder of a patent to sell rights does not counter the letter or spirit of either purpose.
First, the GP is only a troll is the poster doesn't believe the content of the post, but rather posts just to go against the prevailing sentiment and arouse a reaction.
Second, a phrase like "exploiting the flaws of the system" is quite loaded. Like if someone you like is charged with a crime but not convicted, you might say that person is not guilty. If someone you don't like is in the same situation, you might say, they only got off on a technicality.
I'm not guilty of murder, but only on a technicality. Of course, that technicality is the fact that I haven't killed anyone, or caused the death of anyone, or done anything else covered by the laws that define murder. But that's only a technicality.
If you think the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees is a "flaw of the system" then yes, in this case the company was trying to exploit that flaw. Of course I could say the requirement to release source code is a flaw of the GPL, and anyone trying to get me to release the source of an application based on GPL code I am selling is just a troll exploiting the flaws of the system.
I may hear replies that the requirement to release source code is not a flaw of the GPL, but rather is an intentional aspect of how the GPL works. On the same tip, some might say the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees for use of works covered by the patent, and the right to increase those fees should the patented works prove to be popular, is not a flaw in the system, but part of how patents are intended to work.
Why not top post? Are there any reasons other than you like a world where everybody does everything your way? I agree following threads, such as in usenet, is easier when folks agree on certain conventions, but that doesn't explain why agreeing to bottom post is better than agreeing to top post.
To the points in the linked page:
1) This is the "do it because we do it" argument. Again, I agree we should have some shared conventions, but that doesn't explain why one convention is preferable over another.
2) Some anti-MS babble with nothing to do with top vs. bottom posting.
3) Firstly, a usenet or email thread is not a "normal conversation." Would you want to have a conversation with someone who repeats what you just said every time before replying? Secondly, "in western society a book is normally read from top to bottom." Exactly! Why make me scroll to the bottom of the message to find the reply, then scroll up to find the beginning of the reply, then scroll back down as I read the reply? Why not allow me to start reading at the top, as is custom for the language?
For longer threads with multiple replies, proper trimming and quoting is vastly more important to readability than whether replies are top or bottom posted.
4) Again, this goes to proper trimming and quoting and not top vs. bottom posting. Actually, if you're going to quote in full a 400+ line message, only to add "good post" or "me too" I'd rather you top post and get it over with. Seems preferable to scrolling past the excessive quote to get to the minimal new content.
Oh, and nice ad hominem, "most top-posters leave the original message intact." Yeah? And most bottom posters smell like poo.
5) Again, "do it because we do it." Top posting makes it hard for bottom posters. Bottom posting makes it hard for top posters. Supports the call for a common convention, but does not say why one is better than the other.
6) Nothing to do with top vs bottom posting, with an off-topic shot at Outlook Express.
7) Again, "do it because we do it." You don't like starting with the reply and having to scroll to find the quote. Some others may not like starting with the quote and having to scroll to find the new content. It would be nice if all messages adhered to a common convention to help everyone find what they are looking for, but this does not support one over the other, just that we have a shared convention.
8) And again, "do it because we do it." I agree conventions are nice, but I have heard no convincing arguments for one convention over the other in this case (other than top posters generally don't complain about bottom posting while some bottom posters just can't shut up about it, so it's easier to just bottom post for the sake of the signal/noise ratio).
In conclusion, "we think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver." And how are digs at Microsoft and Outlook Express relevant to the discussion of top vs bottom posting? How is plugging your personal favorite newsreader not "irrelevant bullsh*t"? Should usenet work independent of my choice of reader?
And just because it's Tuesday,
Don't top post. Email should be like driving a car/owning a gun -- you need to take a class first.
OT and seriously, is there any rational explanation other than they are doing it on purpose?
Around the time of the passage of Bush's prescription drug plan I heard a theory on the philosophy of the current ruling class. At the time, I'm pretty sure it was meant as a joke, yet in the years since then, it is the only theory that fits the facts.
They are trying to bankrupt the country.
If you don't recall, Bush's plan forces people to subscribe to drug plans, yet the same time forbids negotiation with drug companies to take advantage of economies of scale. The people get full-prices medications, with the added cost of the bureaucracy associated with the program. Within days of the law getting passed by congress, the White House admitted the whole thing would cost hundreds of billions more than they had previously claimed. Considering what the Republicans have said about socialized medicine, why would they push through such an expensive plan?
Then we have No Child Left Behind. Republicans are always so big on states' rights and small federal government, why have this plan that has the feds meddling in the most local of local government functions, is costing who-knows-how many billions, and has no evidence of helping anyone?
Then you have Iraq. With a legitimate war with Al Qaeda and similar extremists, why blow trillions of dollars and thousand of lives taking out a Saddam when, quite frankly, he was not a direct threat to the USA, actually relatively moderate compared to other regimes in the region, and as Republicans often like to be pragmatic on these matters, providing some measure of stability that was to our benefit? Why was the administration so adamant on telling us this war would cost a few billion, at most, going so far as to label as traitorous anyone who might suggest, as it has in fact turned out, this is a war we will we will be paying for for generations?
And then we have those wonderful tax cuts. Republicans are still telling us about those economy-saving tax cuts. How we'd all be living in a van down by the river, if not for the Bush tax cuts.
Horse feathers. If you have a credit card, and the company raises your spending limit and lowers your minimum monthly payment, have they increased your earnings? Have they increased your real buying power? Or have they just provided a way for you to spend yourself broke in less time?
The Bush tax cuts combined with increased spending and a higher debt ceiling have ensured that Americans whose parents aren't even born yet will be born into debt.
So why do it? Why make move after move leaving the economy worse and worse?
The theory was this: no one will ever get elected running on the platform of cutting Social Security.
There are too many entitlement programs costing too much, yet no one can get elected saying they are going to cut them, and no one would get re-elected after cutting them. But what if there was no other choice? What if government spending was so out of control, debt so high, economy so bad, there was no way out but to cut all these programs across the board?
Sure, there might be some bad years, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? The new USA that would rise form the ashes would be better than ever, free of the shackles of having to do stuff for poor people. And the people who really matter--anyone Bush might actually have to deal with--they have enough money to ride out any storm.
If we presume the people running the country are not fools and not idiots (no small presumption, I grant you) then what other answer fits the facts? I think every move Bush has made has left the country worse off and that's just the way they like it. They being the people telling him what to tell us.
Yes, I'm a tin-foil hat wearing nut job. (Notice how hard it is find tin foil these days? The rays penetrate aluminum.) But I end with these two point
Slashdot Mirror
How is it indirect? Do you want him to come over and roll a doobie for you?
Maybe you aren't familiar with the system of government in the USA. We are a union of states and commonwealths. Those states have their own laws and executives charged with enforcing those laws.
Ron Paul is running for president of the union. As such, the best stand he can take on the war on drugs is in regards to federal law. What will he do to protect the questioner (and me) from getting arrested? He answered that, in regards to federal law.
Now if you fear getting arresting because of some state law against marijuana use or possession, he did not answer to that. As he shouldn't. Those are questions for your state governor.
Let me put it another way. The absolute straightest answer would have been, "nothing. If you are arrested under your local state laws, as president I should not, and will not, prevent the local authorities from doing their job." But instead he answered the question that should have been asked (in the context of a presidential campaign), in regards to federal law the job of the president.
In the same light, if the question had been about a tooth ache or cavity, you likely would get an answer in regards to health care policy at the highest level (because that makes sense in the context of a presidential campaign) and not a curt, "go see a dentist."
Coming up on 10 years next month. Yes, I'm a new-comer.
So you're not bothered when Romney distances himself from Massachusetts by telling primary voters what loony liberals we are? You think the best candidate is the governor who travels the country bashing the commonwealth he was elected to represent?
As to his involvement with the Big Dig, I remember Romney swinging through for the photo ops after the tunnel collapsed, but then it was back to the campaign trail. I don't fault Romney for the mess that is the Big Dig , but I think if he was a full-time governor and not a presidential candidate, there might have been some progress on that (and many other) issues.
As for the health care law, while I support the availability of low-cost health insurance I do not think the government should be forcing people to get insurance. Maybe I'm just a loon from Massachusetts, but I believe in things like personal responsibility and private property.
Well, you think what you want. I just hope, as a fan of Mitt Romney, you don't have any dogs.
If there's any truth to that, then the US is in deep, deep trouble.
Remember kids, a vote for Romney is a vote for animal cruelty.
No one, you say? How's this for finding fault--he's a traitor.
What would you say if the president/prime minister/top-executive-office holder of your country decided, one country isn't enough? What if he wanted to be secretary general of the UN, and so spent all his time traveling around the world, campaigning and giving speeches, and not doing his job at home?
You might say, fine with me! A globe-trotting president isn't passing a lot of new laws and isn't butting into my private business. The world can have him, just leave me alone.
But what if your country wasn't especially popular around the world? And what if the beliefs held by the majority in your country, the beliefs espoused by the president prior to getting elected, were not beliefs popular with the folks who might decide the next secretary general of the UN? And so what, if the process of speechifying and campaigning, your president traveled the world telling everyone who will listen how misguided the people of your country are, and how illogical your beliefs, and what a dump your country is, and boy is he glad just to get away?
Would anyone find fault with a president who did such things?
That is precisely how Romney behaved as governor of Massachusetts. He is not a nice guy. He is not without fault. He is a traitor and a snake. Anyone who supports Romney for president is either a comedian wanting another dopey president as a source of material, or an a$$hole who should DIAF.
Not that I think Romney is a typical Mormon.
Shouldn't it be, "look less than gorgeous visually," or "sound less than gorgeous aurally?"
How does something sound visually? Is he on drugs? And if so, why isn't he sharing?
You didn't renew because they sucked? That makes no sense. Sounds like you didn't renew because you suck. If you wanted to keep the domain, you could transfer it to a different registrar.
Unless you are claiming the registar hid the renewal date from you? Seriously. If there are any domain registrars out there they do not offer a reminder email when the registration is about to expire, the option to auto-renew, the option for long term (5 and 10 year) registrations...well, then it's really your fault for not picking one of the many registrars that offer these tools to help you not lose your domain.
Come on. Before, the domain wasn't important enough to you for you to keep tabs on the registration. But now, it's your life's work? Please!
Front-running and squating are one thing, but this thread is just full of Gen X whine.
Besides, what do you mean you went to .net instead? So you're an ISP or networking company? Then you have even less of an excuse for letting your domain registration expire!
They're proposing to spend billions of dollars to run wire/fibre all over the place? Haven't they heard, everyone is going wireless!
So do you carry the shark, or does he get his own jet pack?
But seriously, many of the issues with jet packs have been exposed in 3 AM stoner conversations on super powers.
Ok, you can fly. Without the full compliment of additional super powers, the power of flight on its own just doesn't live up to the hype.
Will you be immune cold at high altitude? Will you be able to breathe in thin air? Will your arms be able to carry anything heavier than what you could carry on the ground? Will your sense of direction, ability to judge distances, etc. be any better than they are now?
I see the same traffic jams, just a few thousand feet higher than before. Maybe having a jet pack is like being able to read minds. Lots of fun if you're the only one, maybe not so much if every one else can do it too.
Somehow, I think the RIAA have better lobbyists than you have.
And I think the point is not to actually get $1.5mil per CD, but to have that statute on the books as leverage to get more settlements.
With a capital T, which rhymes with P, which stands for GENE POOL!
Oh yes, we got trouble.
I came here expecting the job security, "if no one knows what you do, you can't be replaced," with the reply in mind, "if you can't be replaced, you can't be promoted." I'm glad to see both ends of that conversation are well covered.
I'm prompted to reply in response to the, 1. increased efficiency, 2. ????, 3. Profit! posts.
As an American worker, increased efficiency is not my friend. On the lowest level, if I can get 8 hours of work done in 7 hours, I can spend that extra hour on slashdot. On the corporate level, all that increased efficiency goes straight to the top.
The USA has the best trained, hardest working, most efficient work force in the world. We also have an obscene and ever-growing gulf between the haves and the have-nots, the widest margin between executive and worker pay, an economy where the two-income household is the norm, where having one parent stay at home to take care of the family is a luxury.
It's called trickle down economics. The benefits go to the fat cats at the top. And folks below them get trickled on. Now I'm not a communist, and for the most part the fat cats at the top have worked to earn their position, but I don't see how increased efficiency helps me.
Yet I'm still on the side of doing this documentation. Why? Because it's the right way to do business. If you're in a low skill McJob, you are replaceable. Refusing to standardize and document your procedures isn't going to change that. If you're a skilled worker, documentation is going to complement your skills, not diminish them.
So how to do it? Do it. The best way to get management support is to show them a working pilot. Start with your group or your department. Don't just document your policies and procedures, but remember the meta-documentation--document the process of producing documentation.
A little on topic/a little bit just an excuse to blather about something in my mind since the Cloverfield story:
Folks in the ad game are in trouble. And I mean the folks using ads to sell another product and the folks selling the ads.
Apparently there was some sort of 'buzz' about Cloverfield for the past few months. I missed it. That may not be interesting, except I watch 2 to 3 hours of TV a day, spend more time than that on the web, subscribe to several popular (non-technical) magazines, and read a daily newspaper. I don't claim to have my finger on the pulse of pop culture, but I'm not quite ammish.
I vaguely remember a teaser-trailer (perhaps before Transformers?), but other than usual pre-release media push in the last few weeks, I know nothing of this buzz. If that's the state of advertising, then those folks are in trouble.
How does this tie in to the current topic? Well...Snopes has ads? I would guess it would since there's no subscription fee and would make a very strange charitable effort otherwise. But if Snopes has ads, I can't say I recall ever actually seeing one.
Seriously, for TV I have TiVo. For the web, there's ad buster and other tricks. For magazines, those ads are usually full page and very easy to recognize and skip without reading. For radio, there's NPR. Pretty much the only traditional advertising that gets my attention are bra ads in the daily paper. And those aren't even selling anything I might buy! (Unless the models are for sale.)
Thanks for the detailed reply.
My query was semi-serious--I really don't know why I shouldn't run a beer fridge on a 20ga 100ft extension cord. I do know wire gauge numbers are such that bigger umber means smaller wire, but I don't know how small a 20ga wire is.
My point is, for those who like to say RTFM, for consumer items user manuals and warning labels are TFM.
Anything is obvious if you have the requisite knowledge. Like those little laser pointers. Obviously those are safe to point at the eyes--that skinny little beam, must be a harmless amount of energy in there. I mean, obviously those are very dangerous--that skinny little beam, must have a high energy density. (But of course how dangerous depends on the mechanics of the eye and some aspects of quantum mechanics. Obvious indeed!)
I usually think of myself as not abysmally stupid, but why can't I safely run a 20ga 100ft cord from my basement to my garage beer fridge? The purpose of the cord is to connect an outlet at one end to an appliance at the other.
Does it matter that one end is in my basement and the other is in my garage? I know some cords are rated for outdoor use and some are not, but what if my garage is attached? Is there something intuitively obvious about 20ga cords that aren't suitable for beer fridges? And how do you know if my beer fridge is one of those little travel jobbies that can run off AC or 12-volt DC, or if my beer fridge is a full size Kenmore? (I drink a lot of beer.)
Something so "mind-numbingly obvious" should be easy to explain. Maybe I'm just abysmally stupid.
I have the points, but can't find '-1 TMI'
No worries, mate. Happens to the best of us (and me too).
I'm no expert on intellectual property and patent/trademark/copyright law, but I know enough to know 97% of the /. posts the those subjects are complete bullocks. Think of how we mock PHBs and fossilized bureaucrats who compare the internet to a series of tubes. I imagine anyone with any actual knowledge of IP law would have the same regard for us.
I already posted in this thread, so I can't use my mod points on your post, so I'll just say, you are not the only one.
No one, you say? How's this for finding fault--he's a traitor.
What would you say if the president/prime minister/top-executive-office holder of your country decided, one country isn't enough? What if he wanted to be secretary general of the UN, and so spent all his time traveling around the world, campaigning and giving speeches, and not doing his job at home?
You might say, fine with me! A globe-trotting president isn't passing a lot of new laws and isn't butting into my private business. The world can have him, just leave me alone.
But what if your country wasn't especially popular around the world? And what if the beliefs held by the majority in your country, the beliefs espoused by the president prior to getting elected, were not beliefs popular with the folks who might decide the next secretary general of the UN? And so what, if the process of speechifying and campaigning, your president traveled the world telling everyone who will listen how misguided the people of your country are, and how illogical your beliefs, and what a dump your country is, and boy is he glad just to get away?
Would anyone find fault with a president who did such things?
That is precisely how Romney behaved as governor of Massachusetts. He is not a nice guy. He is not without fault. He is a traitor and a snake. Anyone who supports Romney for president is either a comedian wanting another dopey president as a source of material, or an a$$hole who should DIAF.
Not that I think Romney is a typical Mormon.
A
You must be new here.
Sure. And why not limit the number of times rights can be reassigned on something like music files? Why not have the number be 1, for the original sale? I'm sure the RIAA would like that. And why not apply the same standard to software? Or anything else?
You're right in the dual purposes of patents, but allowing the holder of a patent to sell rights does not counter the letter or spirit of either purpose.
Not necessarily a good thing
First, the GP is only a troll is the poster doesn't believe the content of the post, but rather posts just to go against the prevailing sentiment and arouse a reaction.
Second, a phrase like "exploiting the flaws of the system" is quite loaded. Like if someone you like is charged with a crime but not convicted, you might say that person is not guilty. If someone you don't like is in the same situation, you might say, they only got off on a technicality.
I'm not guilty of murder, but only on a technicality. Of course, that technicality is the fact that I haven't killed anyone, or caused the death of anyone, or done anything else covered by the laws that define murder. But that's only a technicality.
If you think the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees is a "flaw of the system" then yes, in this case the company was trying to exploit that flaw. Of course I could say the requirement to release source code is a flaw of the GPL, and anyone trying to get me to release the source of an application based on GPL code I am selling is just a troll exploiting the flaws of the system.
I may hear replies that the requirement to release source code is not a flaw of the GPL, but rather is an intentional aspect of how the GPL works. On the same tip, some might say the right of a patent holder to charge licensing fees for use of works covered by the patent, and the right to increase those fees should the patented works prove to be popular, is not a flaw in the system, but part of how patents are intended to work.
Why not top post? Are there any reasons other than you like a world where everybody does everything your way? I agree following threads, such as in usenet, is easier when folks agree on certain conventions, but that doesn't explain why agreeing to bottom post is better than agreeing to top post.
To the points in the linked page: 1) This is the "do it because we do it" argument. Again, I agree we should have some shared conventions, but that doesn't explain why one convention is preferable over another.
2) Some anti-MS babble with nothing to do with top vs. bottom posting.
3) Firstly, a usenet or email thread is not a "normal conversation." Would you want to have a conversation with someone who repeats what you just said every time before replying? Secondly, "in western society a book is normally read from top to bottom." Exactly! Why make me scroll to the bottom of the message to find the reply, then scroll up to find the beginning of the reply, then scroll back down as I read the reply? Why not allow me to start reading at the top, as is custom for the language?
For longer threads with multiple replies, proper trimming and quoting is vastly more important to readability than whether replies are top or bottom posted.
4) Again, this goes to proper trimming and quoting and not top vs. bottom posting. Actually, if you're going to quote in full a 400+ line message, only to add "good post" or "me too" I'd rather you top post and get it over with. Seems preferable to scrolling past the excessive quote to get to the minimal new content.
Oh, and nice ad hominem, "most top-posters leave the original message intact." Yeah? And most bottom posters smell like poo.
5) Again, "do it because we do it." Top posting makes it hard for bottom posters. Bottom posting makes it hard for top posters. Supports the call for a common convention, but does not say why one is better than the other.
6) Nothing to do with top vs bottom posting, with an off-topic shot at Outlook Express.
7) Again, "do it because we do it." You don't like starting with the reply and having to scroll to find the quote. Some others may not like starting with the quote and having to scroll to find the new content. It would be nice if all messages adhered to a common convention to help everyone find what they are looking for, but this does not support one over the other, just that we have a shared convention.
8) And again, "do it because we do it." I agree conventions are nice, but I have heard no convincing arguments for one convention over the other in this case (other than top posters generally don't complain about bottom posting while some bottom posters just can't shut up about it, so it's easier to just bottom post for the sake of the signal/noise ratio).
In conclusion, "we think that one should be proud of one's post, that is it contains relevant content, well-formed sentences and no irrelevant 'bullsh*t', before uploading to your newsserver." And how are digs at Microsoft and Outlook Express relevant to the discussion of top vs bottom posting? How is plugging your personal favorite newsreader not "irrelevant bullsh*t"? Should usenet work independent of my choice of reader?
And just because it's Tuesday,
OT and seriously, is there any rational explanation other than they are doing it on purpose?
Around the time of the passage of Bush's prescription drug plan I heard a theory on the philosophy of the current ruling class. At the time, I'm pretty sure it was meant as a joke, yet in the years since then, it is the only theory that fits the facts.
They are trying to bankrupt the country.
If you don't recall, Bush's plan forces people to subscribe to drug plans, yet the same time forbids negotiation with drug companies to take advantage of economies of scale. The people get full-prices medications, with the added cost of the bureaucracy associated with the program. Within days of the law getting passed by congress, the White House admitted the whole thing would cost hundreds of billions more than they had previously claimed. Considering what the Republicans have said about socialized medicine, why would they push through such an expensive plan?
Then we have No Child Left Behind. Republicans are always so big on states' rights and small federal government, why have this plan that has the feds meddling in the most local of local government functions, is costing who-knows-how many billions, and has no evidence of helping anyone?
Then you have Iraq. With a legitimate war with Al Qaeda and similar extremists, why blow trillions of dollars and thousand of lives taking out a Saddam when, quite frankly, he was not a direct threat to the USA, actually relatively moderate compared to other regimes in the region, and as Republicans often like to be pragmatic on these matters, providing some measure of stability that was to our benefit? Why was the administration so adamant on telling us this war would cost a few billion, at most, going so far as to label as traitorous anyone who might suggest, as it has in fact turned out, this is a war we will we will be paying for for generations?
And then we have those wonderful tax cuts. Republicans are still telling us about those economy-saving tax cuts. How we'd all be living in a van down by the river, if not for the Bush tax cuts.
Horse feathers. If you have a credit card, and the company raises your spending limit and lowers your minimum monthly payment, have they increased your earnings? Have they increased your real buying power? Or have they just provided a way for you to spend yourself broke in less time?
The Bush tax cuts combined with increased spending and a higher debt ceiling have ensured that Americans whose parents aren't even born yet will be born into debt.
So why do it? Why make move after move leaving the economy worse and worse?
The theory was this: no one will ever get elected running on the platform of cutting Social Security.
There are too many entitlement programs costing too much, yet no one can get elected saying they are going to cut them, and no one would get re-elected after cutting them. But what if there was no other choice? What if government spending was so out of control, debt so high, economy so bad, there was no way out but to cut all these programs across the board?
Sure, there might be some bad years, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? The new USA that would rise form the ashes would be better than ever, free of the shackles of having to do stuff for poor people. And the people who really matter--anyone Bush might actually have to deal with--they have enough money to ride out any storm.
If we presume the people running the country are not fools and not idiots (no small presumption, I grant you) then what other answer fits the facts? I think every move Bush has made has left the country worse off and that's just the way they like it. They being the people telling him what to tell us.
Yes, I'm a tin-foil hat wearing nut job. (Notice how hard it is find tin foil these days? The rays penetrate aluminum.) But I end with these two point
'Round here we fire folks who keep touching their laptops in meetings.