(insert name of company that sells stuff to everyday home users) doesn't care about the everyday home user. They care about their money.
And this is why the vast majority of large corporations today would accurately be called "psychopaths" if they were actual people.
Complete and total irresponsibility.. and they're PROUD of this. All in the name of profit.. hey I like profit as much as the next guy but not at that price.
Personally, the DRM crap is enough to keep me away from Vista until XP is old and rickety and nobody supports it anymore. When that time comes, I'll find another operating system, because I refuse to be told how I am allowed to use the things I own (within reason, of course, but we're talking about media here, not guns or cars).
Some people get severe headaches from the spectrum of fluorescents.
[raises hand]. I can visibly see the flickering, too, which contributes to the headaches.
I didn't even know I was sensitive to them until I started this job, where the ceiling lights are fluorescent. I just keep the lights off and I have a halogen light I turn on when it gets dark that shines onto the ceiling to illuminate the room.
As extreme as this legislation is, I hope it goes through, as long as there are provisions so that incandescents can still be used under certain circumstances. But as for everyday home lighting, the incandescent should be abolished.
If you've ever experienced the sort of headaches that fluorescent bulbs can cause (I suffer from them regularly which is why I keep the lights off in my office at work) you wouldn't be so quick to say this.
That said, I actually think getting rid of incandescents is a good idea. There are (more expensive and harder to find) fluorescent bulbs that have a properly balanced color spectrum and don't flicker, so they don't give me the headaches. I'm not sure outlawing the bulbs is the right approach, though; I agree with other posters who have suggested making it a financial incentive rather than making them illegal.
Re:Hmmn, implied refrigeration
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
New invention: air-windmill refrigeration.
"Honey, could you climb up the refrigerator and get the milk for me please?"
Absolutely. I'm not saying "the parent shouldn't be involved unless there's a problem". Just that the assumption of mistrust shouldn't be the starting point.
Vista will still peg your processor at around 30% most of the time
You've GOT to be kidding me. Why in the world is the OS using so much CPU? Unless I'm doing something really intensive, the CPU on my XP box never goes about 2-3%.
Give me a break. My mother never did that, because she and I spent a great deal of time building an environment of trust in our home. She didn't do it because she trusted me, and trusted I could make good decisions, and was there for me when I made mistakes.
Don't try to pass off your distrust of your children as some kind of parenting technique. It's a stopgap measure at best and when they learn that they can't trust YOU, you'll see why what you're advocating doesn't work.
If you can, after committing a crime, be judged to understand the consequences of your action and mature enough to understand that what you did was wrong and criminal, then there is no reason why you can't make those same decisions about your sexual activity.
Which is why, then, statuatory rape shouldn't be a crime in the first place. Was that what you were getting at? Because the logic was split between posts I'm not sure I grasped your meaning.
If that was what you meant, I agree with you. In my own experience, treating "minors" as though they had a brain and could think intelligently usually leads to them doing so.
After that it's merely a question of experience, which you can only gain with age.
Corporations treating the privacy of minors as a profit center is about the worst possible use of the internet.
Communist!
Errr... sorry, I forgot for a second that capitalism DOESN'T mean the unbridled abuse of every human dignity. Corporations in America should learn that, lest they become the poster child for your statement (not that they aren't already).
But then again, that's bad for business, so we can overlook it.
If the government of the United States--the more libertarian government in any conflict--knowingly imprisons innocents for the purposes of defending the nation from the more tyrannical government, then that more tyrannical government is responsible for making those rights violations necessary. The government of the United States is not responsible for it.
That's like an abusive husband blaming the wife for making him angry so he had to hit her.
It doesn't work for him, it doesn't work in your case, the size of the entity notwithstanding.
He has an army of the very best lawyers advising him.
Just because they advise the President doesn't make them the very best; it makes them well connected - remember that. That's assumption #1. As for assumption #2, just because they're lawyers doesn't make their advice sound - as always, remember that nearly everything in Washington is said and done for political reasons. It is far more probable that those particular lawyers are on Bush's staff precisely because they say what he wants to hear.
It is heartening when learning of others who also carry the fight. When I began, there were times I felt as if I was standing alone against the stormwall.
I feel the same way. I attempt to talk with others about these things, and while they understand, they do not care.. what does one do in the face of indifference. Indifference can't be fought, can't be argued, it can't even be reasoned with, because all those things have a vested interest in the outcome.
Alas, people only shed their indifference when the consequences of the truth finally begin to affect their day to day lives, when it is no longer beneficial for them to ignore it. And always, always by then it is too late.
This is why in my other post I spoke of the dystopic future - because people will not care until then. And this is the fundamental problem precisely, as you say:
Existing on the high ground offers no significant advantage if one exists there alone
I have yet to discover how it is I can stand against what is becoming an increasingly unlivable world. But when I do..
God help those who stand in my way. No price is too high for a free world, a world I can find joy to live in every day of my life..
I held a reply until this thread had fallen off of the front page.
Unfortunately, I find that nobody is actually paying as much attention to what you say as you think they are. I say 'unfortunately' because this actually means that nobody is listening, either.
In our culture, the sagest of wisdoms are bestowed upon a people unable to hear them. We live in the age of willful blind ignorance.
What threatens our Republic currently is not terrorists, but instead powermongers who would strip the citizenry of their birthright to liberty.
In truth, physical enemies are almost never a genuine danger or "threat to our nation's way of life." Seriously, they just don't have the wherewithall to kill 300 million people. I say 'almost' because nuclear and biological weapons change that landscape just a bit, but I think the general truth of my statement remains.
No.. the more free the society, the greater the pressure to subvert it by people whose only interest is power, and the greater the need for vigilance to protect the society.. at all costs.. from those people. I have heard it said that "people are more important than the Constitution" in defense of the removal of rights and freedoms in exchange for security.. when in fact the exact opposite is true, as our founders themselves believed: The Constitution is, in fact, of primary concern over people: undermining the Constitution can have limitless and permanent consequences, whereas the loss of life is temporary.
This may sound cold and calculating, and so doesn't appeal to many, but that makes it no less true.
It gives me no pleasure at this point in my life to resist, but I am compelled. Thus speaks honour to duty.
As am I. I think there will come a day when the dystopia we see in movies like Children of Men is very real, and words like "resistance" will equal Freedom to many.. and villainy to others. I know which side I sit on... and thus speaks honor to duty.
If Maine wins, it could potentially undo all kinds of federal encroachment into areas it has no business to be in.
Which is precisely why Maine (and all the other states opposing this) won't win: because even if every judge on the Appeals panels think the Real ID act is the essence of evil, they still will not rule against the Federal government - because it would lay the exact precedent you're talking about. No judge is going to give power back to the states once it has been taken by the Federal government. That's how power (and corruption) work.
If they don't want to sell something to you but they'd be willing to sell it to someone else, then you should be allowed to just take it anyway?
Well that's an interesting question, isn't it?
If you think about copyright as being executed for the benefit of the culture, then artistic works don't really EVER intrisically belong to the creator (or copyright owner) - they belong to the culture that created them. Extending this idea, if a copyright owner decides to actually distribute their work, they're giving the people their due payment in exchange for the monopoly on distribution. It doesn't seem to make sense to then turn around and say "Well, I'll go ahead and repay YOU people, but NOT you guys over there!" because aren't we all supposed to uphold the same copyright?
Doesn't it then seem backwards for a region to uphold a copyright... on a product from which they receive no benefit? From that line of reasoning it seems that the only time a copyright owner should be able to do this is if they do not distribute the item to anyone.. anywhere.
This isn't a simple question. But it's definitely an interesting one.
Nothing the GP said warrants your reply. Fascism is a political ideology, nothing more, and it was that to which the GP was speaking - not the connotative association it has with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy.
Just because someone aptly attributes the elements of a political landscape to Fascism does not mean they are attempting to invoke Nazism. Keep that in mind before you reply so vehemently.
Many in the United States respond as you did because they want to believe "Well, that could NEVER happen here!!!" when nothing is further from the truth. It CAN happen here, and it WILL happen here - so long as we believe it can't. That belief has exactly one effect: to cause people to close their minds to even considering the idea, and that's exactly what makes it so easy for fascism to happen here.
"Hmmm...I wanna get rid of this big game...uhhh, well start then...uhhh well this control panel thingy must be where you do systemy stuff....oh there it is...add and remove programs".
It's hilarious that you say that. I remember doing just that when I first got Windows 95 (I used 3.1 but only ever on someone else's machine so I don't recall adding or removing programs on that machine).
On subsequent reading, my post was a little more bucolic than I intended it to be. Sorry about that.
As for your reply..
Given that no government organisation anywhere has dealt with this issue to date, aside from warning covers on nuclear dumps, I think it is entirely reasonable for companies to do it.
This is something of a strawman - I'm not arguing the government should. It's not appropriate for either entity to be responsible for it, responsible being the key word.
This is not to say they CAN'T do it, they're more than welcome; but historically it has not been the case that companies or governments were responsible for leaving a record behind for future generations (not to be confused with the role governments have typically played as record *keepers* - a different endeavor than one that is forward-looking).
Much of what we know about the ancient world comes from many different sources; and alot of the most interesting information is not at all related to trade, but rather how people lived day to day lives. We leave it behind as a mere consequence of being, and sometimes we do it on purpose with cornerstones.
Ahhh I ramble.. all I'm getting at is that it is and should be an organic process. Formalizing it tends to place too much emphasis on WHAT is saved rather than WHY it is saved. I can easily see that being a detriment to those would might one day wish to understand us.
Est ubi gloria Babylonia? I'm not saying there is nothing we need to keep from our culture, but the idea that Microsoft can engineer the 'immortality' of anything is just blasphemy.
And as much as I could go back and forth with you about your previous statements (the value of saving seemingly useless data), this is the salient point: legacy-leaving is an intrinsically human endeavor.. not a corporate one. The idea of a corporation believing itself the engineer of future memories is at least arrogant, and at most.. I don't really have a word for it.
Yet how many people would understand the spoken language of people only a few centuries ago? Middle English, Old English, Latin?
Believe it or not, I put more faith in the human ability to decode prior languages than in their ability to unlock a proprietary format. The advantage with language is that there's an almost absolute certainty that the sounds convey meaning; in a proprietary format, there is absolutely no such assurance.
In fact, we have absolutely no trouble understanding the languages of the past 1000 years. Go back beyond that, it gets sketchy, but our civilizational memory for language generally far outweighs the lifespan of any digital format or storage medium.
Using formats easily understood by unknown technology is a non trivial task, and will require a vast amount of work. While microsoft may start the effort, its doubtful the will complete it without assistance from other companies, if only because those companies may employ someone with important insight into the problem.
I am very much bothered by the fact that you seem to think this must be undertaken by companies. Humans have engaged in the process of legacy-leaving for tens of thousands of years and while it may take time, we still figure out how to read alot of the messages they've left us.
I seriously do not comprehend how putting this sort of endeavor in the hands of a business is in any way culturally beneficial. What's next, patenting the very idea of civilization?
...computers save time and money. In theory, the vote counts can be available the instant the polls close, and we need to hire fewer people to administer an election. Furthermore, it saves time for the voter. You walk in, tap a touchscreen a few times, and you're done. There are many more reasons, but in essence it's time and money.
Ahhh.. only in a capital-obsessed culture is this even a meaningful reason, much less a valid one.
I, for one, am willing to pay more if it means ensuring the integrity of my country's voting system. That anyone thinks otherwise seems, to me, at least... irresponsible.
Ah such blind faith in technology... so typical of our civilization these days. Always believing the 'next big thing' is right around the corner, the one thing that will finally solve all of our problems. Yet never has it been true.. and every time we hope it is, we give something away..
Slashdot Mirror
Complete and total irresponsibility.. and they're PROUD of this. All in the name of profit.. hey I like profit as much as the next guy but not at that price.
What's that saying about first impressions...
Personally, the DRM crap is enough to keep me away from Vista until XP is old and rickety and nobody supports it anymore. When that time comes, I'll find another operating system, because I refuse to be told how I am allowed to use the things I own (within reason, of course, but we're talking about media here, not guns or cars).
I didn't even know I was sensitive to them until I started this job, where the ceiling lights are fluorescent. I just keep the lights off and I have a halogen light I turn on when it gets dark that shines onto the ceiling to illuminate the room.
That said, I actually think getting rid of incandescents is a good idea. There are (more expensive and harder to find) fluorescent bulbs that have a properly balanced color spectrum and don't flicker, so they don't give me the headaches. I'm not sure outlawing the bulbs is the right approach, though; I agree with other posters who have suggested making it a financial incentive rather than making them illegal.
New invention: air-windmill refrigeration.
"Honey, could you climb up the refrigerator and get the milk for me please?"
Sounds fun..
Absolutely. I'm not saying "the parent shouldn't be involved unless there's a problem". Just that the assumption of mistrust shouldn't be the starting point.
Increase electric bills, much?
Give me a break. My mother never did that, because she and I spent a great deal of time building an environment of trust in our home. She didn't do it because she trusted me, and trusted I could make good decisions, and was there for me when I made mistakes.
Don't try to pass off your distrust of your children as some kind of parenting technique. It's a stopgap measure at best and when they learn that they can't trust YOU, you'll see why what you're advocating doesn't work.
If that was what you meant, I agree with you. In my own experience, treating "minors" as though they had a brain and could think intelligently usually leads to them doing so.
After that it's merely a question of experience, which you can only gain with age.
Dammit, thank you. Freakin' personal responsibility here, people..
Errr... sorry, I forgot for a second that capitalism DOESN'T mean the unbridled abuse of every human dignity. Corporations in America should learn that, lest they become the poster child for your statement (not that they aren't already).
But then again, that's bad for business, so we can overlook it.
It doesn't work for him, it doesn't work in your case, the size of the entity notwithstanding. Just because they advise the President doesn't make them the very best; it makes them well connected - remember that. That's assumption #1. As for assumption #2, just because they're lawyers doesn't make their advice sound - as always, remember that nearly everything in Washington is said and done for political reasons. It is far more probable that those particular lawyers are on Bush's staff precisely because they say what he wants to hear.
Alas, people only shed their indifference when the consequences of the truth finally begin to affect their day to day lives, when it is no longer beneficial for them to ignore it. And always, always by then it is too late.
This is why in my other post I spoke of the dystopic future - because people will not care until then. And this is the fundamental problem precisely, as you say: I have yet to discover how it is I can stand against what is becoming an increasingly unlivable world. But when I do..
God help those who stand in my way. No price is too high for a free world, a world I can find joy to live in every day of my life..
In our culture, the sagest of wisdoms are bestowed upon a people unable to hear them. We live in the age of willful blind ignorance. In truth, physical enemies are almost never a genuine danger or "threat to our nation's way of life." Seriously, they just don't have the wherewithall to kill 300 million people. I say 'almost' because nuclear and biological weapons change that landscape just a bit, but I think the general truth of my statement remains.
No.. the more free the society, the greater the pressure to subvert it by people whose only interest is power, and the greater the need for vigilance to protect the society.. at all costs.. from those people. I have heard it said that "people are more important than the Constitution" in defense of the removal of rights and freedoms in exchange for security.. when in fact the exact opposite is true, as our founders themselves believed: The Constitution is, in fact, of primary concern over people: undermining the Constitution can have limitless and permanent consequences, whereas the loss of life is temporary.
This may sound cold and calculating, and so doesn't appeal to many, but that makes it no less true. As am I. I think there will come a day when the dystopia we see in movies like Children of Men is very real, and words like "resistance" will equal Freedom to many.. and villainy to others. I know which side I sit on... and thus speaks honor to duty.
If you think about copyright as being executed for the benefit of the culture, then artistic works don't really EVER intrisically belong to the creator (or copyright owner) - they belong to the culture that created them. Extending this idea, if a copyright owner decides to actually distribute their work, they're giving the people their due payment in exchange for the monopoly on distribution. It doesn't seem to make sense to then turn around and say "Well, I'll go ahead and repay YOU people, but NOT you guys over there!" because aren't we all supposed to uphold the same copyright?
Doesn't it then seem backwards for a region to uphold a copyright... on a product from which they receive no benefit? From that line of reasoning it seems that the only time a copyright owner should be able to do this is if they do not distribute the item to anyone.. anywhere.
This isn't a simple question. But it's definitely an interesting one.
Wow. This is one of the best posts on the value of liberty that I have ever read.
Thank you.
Wow. Somebody struck a nerve.
Nothing the GP said warrants your reply. Fascism is a political ideology, nothing more, and it was that to which the GP was speaking - not the connotative association it has with Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy.
Just because someone aptly attributes the elements of a political landscape to Fascism does not mean they are attempting to invoke Nazism. Keep that in mind before you reply so vehemently.
Many in the United States respond as you did because they want to believe "Well, that could NEVER happen here!!!" when nothing is further from the truth. It CAN happen here, and it WILL happen here - so long as we believe it can't. That belief has exactly one effect: to cause people to close their minds to even considering the idea, and that's exactly what makes it so easy for fascism to happen here.
As for your reply..
This is something of a strawman - I'm not arguing the government should. It's not appropriate for either entity to be responsible for it, responsible being the key word.
This is not to say they CAN'T do it, they're more than welcome; but historically it has not been the case that companies or governments were responsible for leaving a record behind for future generations (not to be confused with the role governments have typically played as record *keepers* - a different endeavor than one that is forward-looking).
Much of what we know about the ancient world comes from many different sources; and alot of the most interesting information is not at all related to trade, but rather how people lived day to day lives. We leave it behind as a mere consequence of being, and sometimes we do it on purpose with cornerstones.
Ahhh I ramble.. all I'm getting at is that it is and should be an organic process. Formalizing it tends to place too much emphasis on WHAT is saved rather than WHY it is saved. I can easily see that being a detriment to those would might one day wish to understand us.
In fact, we have absolutely no trouble understanding the languages of the past 1000 years. Go back beyond that, it gets sketchy, but our civilizational memory for language generally far outweighs the lifespan of any digital format or storage medium.
I seriously do not comprehend how putting this sort of endeavor in the hands of a business is in any way culturally beneficial. What's next, patenting the very idea of civilization?
I, for one, am willing to pay more if it means ensuring the integrity of my country's voting system. That anyone thinks otherwise seems, to me, at least... irresponsible.
Ah such blind faith in technology... so typical of our civilization these days. Always believing the 'next big thing' is right around the corner, the one thing that will finally solve all of our problems. Yet never has it been true.. and every time we hope it is, we give something away..