I've even heard stories about people getting high on this gas called "O2". Apparently it's the new thing with the upper class kids. We obviously need to ban it before it gets out of control. No O2 in My America! A world free of O2!
Here is how the world works:
1. Social science department gets grant from government and special interest groups to do a "study" which will prove something we know.
2. Scientists involved are careful to not make any logical fallacies of starting correlation is causation, but phrase it in such a way as to imply that to those who have difficulty with the concept, in order to get their name in the news.
3. When the study hits the media, all pretense of correlation is thrown out and it is touted as proving some sensationalist point that the yellow journalism outlet wishes to advocate.
4. Special interest group receives donations from all of the parents/churches/etc who are shocked an appalled by the supposed findings of the study. New government agencies are formed to look into the matter.
5. Repeat.
The legal thing is more commonly used than the illegal thing. Next you'll tell me that more injuries are caused due to drinking than pot, without any care for the relative number of people using and/or accessibility of the two compounds.
They're called feet. Still can't figure out the sigma behind using them without the addition of all these rubber dongles. Guess that's just the way it has been done for a hundred years.
I doubt it. There is a reason that video game consoles have not completely gotten rid of computers as game systems; indeed, if anything, the opposite is happening. As long as the same hardware can be made more powerful and easier to use in a larger form, we are still going to have laptop and desktop computers. We might have LESS: people who do no special-requirement activities (hardware-intensive games, 2D/3D art/editing, music/movies, programming, etc) don't need a full computer, or at least not a good one, but the idea that somehow people are all going to give up the extreme convenience and power of real computers for some questionable benefits of mobile devices is absurd and really just FUD by some companies (I'd say Apple and Google in particular, who stand to benefit the most from convincing people that mobile devices are the future).
He specifically said proper engineering. Gluing stuff together because you do not want people to be able to service their own devices, or because you are too cheap to pay for proper clasps/screws in the design, or because you can just get away with it and don't care, is not really proper engineering.
When the same hardware costs more, I am not surprised they are used longer. People who use non-Apple PCs and care about hardware typically upgrade more often and better than is possible with Apple; those who do not care are not willing to pay the Apple tax unless they have another reason to (ie marketing, status symbol). Essentially, Apple computers are used longer because people who buy them are willing to spend money but do not care about performance enough to upgrade often.
They'll give Apple a pass, because Apple, you know, is not just some evil-multinational megacorp trying to rip people off and exploit poor foreign workers in order to expand profit margins. No, Apple is different.
It is an exercise for the reader to figure out how exactly they are different.
"The common underpinning of faith does not imply that other religions share the institutionalized, wholesale abuse and corruption committed by the Church of Scientology. If an atheist cannot see the stark differences in nature and degree, then he is blinded by a dogmatic opposition towards faith."
It's probably just that it takes an atheist to know that most religions are in fact roughly as oppressive and corrupt. As usual, everything is rosy from the inside, but the people with outside perspective see what you will not.
Scientology is visibly bad, but only because it lacks excuses. Christianity gets away with advocating homophobia, effectively causing millions of cases of AIDS in Africa, political corruption, etc, etc, etc.. And that's only now: much worse was done in the Catholic Church in the past (and yes, all the protestant denominations have dark histories of their own).
"Patents were never meant to be used to try to kill competition."
No, they were meant to prevent any form of competition until the patent expired. Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started. Not sure whoever came up with that thought it through fully, but boy, have they been trying to justify it since!
There are quite a few Apple dollars bouncing around Washington DC, even more since they became best of friends with the RIAA and MPAA. I wouldn't hold my breath for the government to save us from Apple any time soon.
Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!
Fully prepared to be accused of being an "Apple hater" for not buying the Apple agenda, and being modded down by some people who probably are making use of not-so-above-board mod points. But hey, karma to burn.
"While they are at it, why don't they import the "Windows registry feature" into Linux, and/or turn Linux into a proprietary closed-sourced OS??"
Just saying - package managers. Sure, when their database explodes, the system still works... for a while. Just about as impossible to fix, though. Sadly fixing this tendency does not seem like a priority for most distros. Arch and Gentoo are the only I have used that did not have serious, repeated package database implosions.
"Many things cannot be returned once you tried them out: underpants, building materials, movies, food..."
You can most certainly return food if it turns out to be bad, either from a grocery store or in a restaurant. In the first case, usually no questions asked. Makes me wonder if you thought out your argument.
I should be more specific, that by nationalize it, I more mean socialize it. However, that term has worse connotations in the US, even if it is more accurate.
Even so, I actually do trust the federal government much more that state and local. I lived in North Carolina, and we have had a lot of absurd laws come out of the Republican legislators here recently. I would rather not have them have a direct say over the internet - I have no doubt they would attempt something like banning gay porn or monitoring traffic for something else they dislike. I am convinced the only reason they do not try it now is because the media companies which also own the telcos helped get them into office.
The sad fact is that the federal government is far more accountable to civil rights than states have ever been. I actually trust the media monopolies more than I do many US states.
"I am a strong believer in nationalised infrastructure, but if something is already privatised, you damn well do not try to reclaim it unless you're willing to pay full price to buy it fairly."
That's generally true, yes. It makes the people with money very uneasy to do anything else (no matter how little I care about their sensibilities, they do have the money, and could take it elsewhere). However, most of these companies have been given substantial amounts of money to build their infrastructure, by both state and federal government, and been given decades of unregulated monopoly over their business. I think they've been more than paid back already for what little they did themselves spend, and the time has come to give up on private ownership of infrastructure and take it over for the good of the country.
You're free to think that, but I don't see any proof that copyright is doing good. We got along fine before it and it is looking more and more like copyright is merely a means to control and profit from culture that would exist anyway, while hurting technology. I think you highlight your proposal's central problem, too: it USED to be that way. Unless copyright is totally abolished, it will simply end up screwed up again in 50 years.
"But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on."
I feel that "I have a right to profit off of my work, via a government enforced monopoly on its use" is a far worse idea of entitlement than anything pirates are physically capable of.
Many people believing many things does not make them true. Personally, I'm waiting to figure out a way to get policies based on facts, rather than who screams the loudest, but I suppose that is not likely to ever happen as long as the majority prefers to remain ignorant.
Every science fiction/fantasy I can think of has a major political commentary, usually on current events. Star Trek TOS talked about the Cold War, BSG has far too many to note, hell LOTR is supposedly about WWII, and I am sure it seemed a little like it when it was just out. A barely noticeable head of GWB should be the least of anyone's worry, unless you're unable to see the intentional undertones.
Slashdot Mirror
I've even heard stories about people getting high on this gas called "O2". Apparently it's the new thing with the upper class kids. We obviously need to ban it before it gets out of control. No O2 in My America! A world free of O2!
Here is how the world works:
1. Social science department gets grant from government and special interest groups to do a "study" which will prove something we know.
2. Scientists involved are careful to not make any logical fallacies of starting correlation is causation, but phrase it in such a way as to imply that to those who have difficulty with the concept, in order to get their name in the news.
3. When the study hits the media, all pretense of correlation is thrown out and it is touted as proving some sensationalist point that the yellow journalism outlet wishes to advocate.
4. Special interest group receives donations from all of the parents/churches/etc who are shocked an appalled by the supposed findings of the study. New government agencies are formed to look into the matter.
5. Repeat.
The legal thing is more commonly used than the illegal thing. Next you'll tell me that more injuries are caused due to drinking than pot, without any care for the relative number of people using and/or accessibility of the two compounds.
They're called feet. Still can't figure out the sigma behind using them without the addition of all these rubber dongles. Guess that's just the way it has been done for a hundred years.
I doubt it. There is a reason that video game consoles have not completely gotten rid of computers as game systems; indeed, if anything, the opposite is happening. As long as the same hardware can be made more powerful and easier to use in a larger form, we are still going to have laptop and desktop computers. We might have LESS: people who do no special-requirement activities (hardware-intensive games, 2D/3D art/editing, music/movies, programming, etc) don't need a full computer, or at least not a good one, but the idea that somehow people are all going to give up the extreme convenience and power of real computers for some questionable benefits of mobile devices is absurd and really just FUD by some companies (I'd say Apple and Google in particular, who stand to benefit the most from convincing people that mobile devices are the future).
You mean like they were last time? What is your point?
"Adhesive bonding is engineering."
He specifically said proper engineering. Gluing stuff together because you do not want people to be able to service their own devices, or because you are too cheap to pay for proper clasps/screws in the design, or because you can just get away with it and don't care, is not really proper engineering.
When the same hardware costs more, I am not surprised they are used longer. People who use non-Apple PCs and care about hardware typically upgrade more often and better than is possible with Apple; those who do not care are not willing to pay the Apple tax unless they have another reason to (ie marketing, status symbol). Essentially, Apple computers are used longer because people who buy them are willing to spend money but do not care about performance enough to upgrade often.
They'll give Apple a pass, because Apple, you know, is not just some evil-multinational megacorp trying to rip people off and exploit poor foreign workers in order to expand profit margins. No, Apple is different.
It is an exercise for the reader to figure out how exactly they are different.
I always thought The People's Court sounded a little socialist. Then Sliders proved me right!
Then came a little thing called /b/, and it all went downhill for the supposed-religion.
O save us from evil, Lord ManwÃ!
"The common underpinning of faith does not imply that other religions share the institutionalized, wholesale abuse and corruption committed by the Church of Scientology. If an atheist cannot see the stark differences in nature and degree, then he is blinded by a dogmatic opposition towards faith."
It's probably just that it takes an atheist to know that most religions are in fact roughly as oppressive and corrupt. As usual, everything is rosy from the inside, but the people with outside perspective see what you will not.
Scientology is visibly bad, but only because it lacks excuses. Christianity gets away with advocating homophobia, effectively causing millions of cases of AIDS in Africa, political corruption, etc, etc, etc.. And that's only now: much worse was done in the Catholic Church in the past (and yes, all the protestant denominations have dark histories of their own).
"Patents were never meant to be used to try to kill competition."
No, they were meant to prevent any form of competition until the patent expired. Somehow that is supposed to help us as a society by encouraging people to do... exactly what they had been doing since the Enlightenment started. Not sure whoever came up with that thought it through fully, but boy, have they been trying to justify it since!
There are quite a few Apple dollars bouncing around Washington DC, even more since they became best of friends with the RIAA and MPAA. I wouldn't hold my breath for the government to save us from Apple any time soon.
Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!
Fully prepared to be accused of being an "Apple hater" for not buying the Apple agenda, and being modded down by some people who probably are making use of not-so-above-board mod points. But hey, karma to burn.
"While they are at it, why don't they import the "Windows registry feature" into Linux, and/or turn Linux into a proprietary closed-sourced OS??"
Just saying - package managers. Sure, when their database explodes, the system still works... for a while. Just about as impossible to fix, though. Sadly fixing this tendency does not seem like a priority for most distros. Arch and Gentoo are the only I have used that did not have serious, repeated package database implosions.
"Many things cannot be returned once you tried them out: underpants, building materials, movies, food..."
You can most certainly return food if it turns out to be bad, either from a grocery store or in a restaurant. In the first case, usually no questions asked. Makes me wonder if you thought out your argument.
I should be more specific, that by nationalize it, I more mean socialize it. However, that term has worse connotations in the US, even if it is more accurate.
Even so, I actually do trust the federal government much more that state and local. I lived in North Carolina, and we have had a lot of absurd laws come out of the Republican legislators here recently. I would rather not have them have a direct say over the internet - I have no doubt they would attempt something like banning gay porn or monitoring traffic for something else they dislike. I am convinced the only reason they do not try it now is because the media companies which also own the telcos helped get them into office.
The sad fact is that the federal government is far more accountable to civil rights than states have ever been. I actually trust the media monopolies more than I do many US states.
"I am a strong believer in nationalised infrastructure, but if something is already privatised, you damn well do not try to reclaim it unless you're willing to pay full price to buy it fairly."
That's generally true, yes. It makes the people with money very uneasy to do anything else (no matter how little I care about their sensibilities, they do have the money, and could take it elsewhere). However, most of these companies have been given substantial amounts of money to build their infrastructure, by both state and federal government, and been given decades of unregulated monopoly over their business. I think they've been more than paid back already for what little they did themselves spend, and the time has come to give up on private ownership of infrastructure and take it over for the good of the country.
We also can't nationalize infrastructure like this. That would be SOCIALISM, and that's EVIL! Jesus didn't socialize the internet.
You're free to think that, but I don't see any proof that copyright is doing good. We got along fine before it and it is looking more and more like copyright is merely a means to control and profit from culture that would exist anyway, while hurting technology. I think you highlight your proposal's central problem, too: it USED to be that way. Unless copyright is totally abolished, it will simply end up screwed up again in 50 years.
"But the feeling of entitlement, that you should be able to grab whatever is produced at no cost to yourself, regardless of what justification you use.... that one I can't go with you on."
I feel that "I have a right to profit off of my work, via a government enforced monopoly on its use" is a far worse idea of entitlement than anything pirates are physically capable of.
Many people believing many things does not make them true. Personally, I'm waiting to figure out a way to get policies based on facts, rather than who screams the loudest, but I suppose that is not likely to ever happen as long as the majority prefers to remain ignorant.
Every science fiction/fantasy I can think of has a major political commentary, usually on current events. Star Trek TOS talked about the Cold War, BSG has far too many to note, hell LOTR is supposedly about WWII, and I am sure it seemed a little like it when it was just out. A barely noticeable head of GWB should be the least of anyone's worry, unless you're unable to see the intentional undertones.