Guess you can say it's part of our culture...the only reason we exist as an independent nation today is because we used guns to free ourselves. So yeah- our first taste of liberty was through force.
If our first taste of liberty was by giving children candy canes and cotton candy, we would probably associate liberty with sugar. Unfortunately, sugar doesn't generally win liberty.
Tell me: when your government strips all your rights away and makes you a slave, how would you propose a reaquisition of liberty? Through the same rational talks that proved useless up to that point? Through protests that now get you locked up and in most cases severely beaten?
I'm all for peace, but governments need to fear their people. The only thing a populace has over its government is numbers, and numbers are useless if they're not willing to do anything with them. If you don't see that, then your government already has big plans for you. Congratulations, Citizen #886486. Please pick up your rations at your nearest disbursement center, and proceed directly to your housecell before 8:00 curfew.
Indeed. In the event that someone else slams into you AND topples your car over AND that kills you AND the other person feels guilty that you didn't wear your seat belt AND your corpse ends up horribly mangled, then yes not wearing your seatbelt definately hurts other people.
For the record I wear my seatbelt at all times, but not because i'm worried about other people if I don't wear it. I just wear it because I'm not an idiot, and I realize that I am going in excess of 60 mph in a 2 ton box of metal that if suddenly stopped leaves me moving forward at the same speed unless properly strapped in.
Even if there are no PS3s at the time of purchase, that just increases the purchaser's desire to have one. "Oh, everyone else must be buying them, I must have one too!" Herd mentality is one of the most effective marketing strategies (see also: iPod). However, if people don't know to go to the stores when they're sold out (read: casual buyers, the ones most likely to be effected by herd marketing as they don't look at the specs and past troubles with sony products when making a purchase decision), well...it doesn't really work.
Soldiers trained to kill by the military were more willing to kill in a combat situation when they practiced on dummies! WOW! It must be the lifelike dummies that make them want to kill in the first place, not the "break down and rebuild" technique the military prides itself on to make otherwise peace-loving people soldiers.
What's more likely? Kids play video games and thus want to kill their friends and acquaintances in real life...OR...kid has very few friends, is picked on a lot in school, is abused or ignored by his parents, has the self esteem of a pea and plays video games BECAUSE of all the above reasons and then goes to school and kills 15 people (shitty frag count, btw).
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about mentally unstable people becoming killers. Change a kid's environment, put funding into programs that make a kid enjoy waking up in the morning, put a TON more money into education, get better teachers who do something besides make the kids feel stupid (have had more than a few of those all throughout my school years), and take domestic abuse reports a little more seriously and maybe- just MAYBE you'll find that kids don't resort to violence.
When I was in High School I had come very close to doing what these kids seem to be making a habit out of. Luckily, my friends and family saw how depressed I was getting, and within 2 months I was enrolled in programs like marching band and drama where I was with other like-minded people, having fun, forming relationships (both romantic and non), and I was pulled out of that hole. Coincidence? I tend to think not.
In many respects, High School can be thought of as both Boot Camp and Prison tied into one. It can also be full of fun and games. It all depends on where on the social ladder you fall. Congregate with like-minded individuals, work on a goal that will provide a sense of accomplishment, and you'll find yourself enjoying the experience much more. Kids just need the proper motivation to do it.
I take it you have no kids. Having kids tends to make one a little more concerned about their person rather than their nation. You know, the whole "if I can give them a good life now" thing...
The bar you call crap is part of the user experience- the user experience which leads you to believe that it is crap.
If you come to my site and leave immediately, it tells me you didn't see what you wanted to see. By coupling that with inbound links, I can track down where my problems are.
I think you're confused as to what "user experience" means, somehow. It is the experience a user has when using a piece of software. If you think a part of the site is crap, that doesn't make it not part of the user experience, it makes the user experience crappy. You may think it needs to be hidden- others may not think so. Fact is only commander taco & co. know the real numbers. Personally, I don't think it takes up much screen space, but I also don't run at 800x600.
Speaking of which, a typical analytics analysis (that's a lot of anal), might tell a webmaster that users running at 800x600 tend to not stay long, while those running at 1024x768 or higher stay longer, make their way deeper into the site, and maybe create an account. If a good portion of their visitors run at 800x600, they know they need to redesign for that resolution to create a better user experience. If only a marginal number use it, they can safely say "screw em."
But if everybody blocks user tracking software (like analytics), webmasters are pretty much designing in the dark, and hoping the few complaints or compliments they get are indicative of the whole. That or, you know, using templates.
"What is in it for me?" Well, if you can't see that, I can't make you see that. But remember that webmasters make websites for you (yes, of course they make money off the ads or products they sell), so it's in your best interest as a user to let them know what you want. And unless you plan on e-mailing the webmaster of every site you visit to tell them what you liked and didn't like, tracking software is a 100% painfree solution. Unless you're just saying you want to get paid for doing nothing (aside from visiting the sites you visit anyway).
actually, google analytics does help you. Website statistics help the web master know what visitors do and do not want to see. Allowing google analytics to track your anonymous movement through a site ultimately leads to a more fulfilling user experience.
At my job, I am rather far removed from the finances, yet I am supposed to decide what and how to market. Analytics lets me do that by tracking what sells, when it sells, etc.
Does it help Google? Of course. But it also helps the webmaster of the sites you visit to create sites you want to see.
If that IS in the EULA, it sure would contradict their "world of devices that run on windows" campaign, where they mention "schools and hospitals"
Furthermore, Dvorak isn't the first to use hospitals as an example, as can be seen in this article from 2004. And whaddya know...it is an actual concern, albeit not of Microsoft's but of the manufacturers, and it seems it's because the manufacturers don't want hospitals installing the security patches. The article also makes mention that worms have hit hospitals in the past, often shipping from the manufacturer with viruses already on them. And you thought the iPod story a few days ago was bad.
Hey everybody, it's that classic game, "Pass the Buck!"
Regardless of whether it was "preinstalled" (which I highly doubt to begin with), tell me why a company selling what are basically hard drives by the bazillions (we're talking iPods here) wouldn't A) install AV after receiving the computers, and B) Wouldn't QC their OWN released products?
Apple screwed up. The sooner the fanbois can accept this, the sooner everyone can get over it.
For some it's NPR. For others, it's a concert where between sets they inform you of what's going on "out there," and hand out flyers with more information and a URL.
It's hard for kids to really, truly care about something if they don't even know it's going on. Already, I'm sure there are a lot of kids that now know there's a problem in Sudan when previously they didn't, just because they heard about this concert. And with luck, even 5% of them will take the initiative to educate themselves further, and that's considered a win.
The seeds gotta be planted sometime. Hook em while they're young.
Only problem with that is during that break, the next season is being shot. The writers and directors are cutting the shows down to 45 minutes during the current season. I think there was something on the Lost Season 2 DVD features that said they were finishing the final cut of each episode a day (sometimes 2) before it aired (at least that's the reasoning they gave for playing reruns every other week: the episodes just weren't finished in time). Instead, this year they say the show is taking a hiatus mid-season, and they are doing all of the season 3 part 2 post-work during that time. This should, in theory, give them more time during the airing of season 3 to shoot season 4. However, this isn't often the best idea, as much of television is "alive" in the sense that writers take viewer response to the current season to tweak the following season, so filming while it is still airing is often a bad idea.
Pretty much for everyone but the actors and grips, a TV series is an overtime, year round job.
Video, yes.
CG, no.
Most "graphics companies" use a mix of macs and PCs. Macs handle editting well. PCs handle 3D Apps well.
It's not even a matter of how well either handles it anymore, really. It's just old dogmas continuing to thrive. Macs have the best video editting software because at one time they were better at it. PCs have the CG software because at one time they were better at it. Today, if clean ports were made for either, they would run equally well under both environments.
But anyway...video, yes. CG, no.
I think you're trying to draw a connection between Google and backing Al Gore?
If you are, you don't really need to go any further than Current TV, which up until recently was owned by Al Gore and partnered with Google (now it is partnered with Yahoo).
Also, it's been a known fact for a long time now that Al Gore and Google have been very close (Senior Advisor).
If that's not what you're doing...well, I guess you were connecting Google to Elton John? In which case, all you have to do is look at Google's "proud" logo.
I like your numbers, I'll take your word at them (can't really check at work right now)
A few variables can be factored in though: Just as not all military personel are evil, many americans would rather put faith in their government than risk being part of a revolution. Some out of fear, some out of faith. Government is big, government is scary. How many would break that thought come revolution?
Further, we are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and abroad. But who strikes first? Constitutionalists? In this age where terrorism is an enemy (brown people who blow shit up), not a description (instilling fear in a populace), what do you think the chances are of a militarized revolution successfully taking place? It seems far more likely that with the first strike, the spin machine will start (whether it even needs to or not), and people will automatically just chock Constitutionalists up as being "nutjobs," "extremists," or "terrorists." Like on September 12, people will rush to fork over more rights and more money to fight this new breed of localized terrorsts.
I wouldn't count on many planes, bombs, bombers, choppers, or whathaveyou coming over from the defecting military personel. Remember, this stuff is property of the US Gov't, not the pilots, so short of theft (which could quickly not only be thwarted, but also tracked using GPS), getting this stuff in Constitutionalist hands would be tough work. They'd probably have better luck building it themselves (and by "better luck" i mean "never gonna happen either" considering the price of one jet).
Numbers are great- but when one non-nuke can wipe out an entire platoon, that playing field gets levelled right quick. And remember, the military has been training for precisely this kind of combat for the past 5 years.
In reality, the only thing that would help constitutionalists win is the fact that if the U.S. gov't ever launched an attack on its own people, foreign countries would quickly put an end to it. The big things to worry about are A) Will it ever be seen as a revolution and not acts of terrorism? and B) What happens in the years following a successful revolution? That second question is exactly why people would end up siding with the gov't. A few PSAs showing a nation of anarchy, and people will come running back to suck on Bush's (or whoever's president at the time) teet.
Of course all of this is moot if we get the exact opposite of the current administration: all three branches filled with libertarians. A lot less bloodshed, a functioning government after the coupe, and an overall change in policy. But that's asking the government to make sense, so it'll never happen.
Basically though, what I was trying to say is that the second ammendment only has value when the playing field is equal. When it was created, civilians had the right to carry the same weapons the military had access to. Today, we can carry only a small fraction of what the military has at its disposal. And by all rights it's better that way. I don't feel totally comfortable with Joe Sixpack keeping a small nuclear arsenal in his basement. I do, however, think everyone should have a Badonkadonk.
I don't know where this "out here" y'all are referring to is, but I simultaneously want to and don't want to move there! It sure sounds expensive and cheap!
Slashdot Mirror
Guess you can say it's part of our culture...the only reason we exist as an independent nation today is because we used guns to free ourselves. So yeah- our first taste of liberty was through force.
If our first taste of liberty was by giving children candy canes and cotton candy, we would probably associate liberty with sugar. Unfortunately, sugar doesn't generally win liberty.
Tell me: when your government strips all your rights away and makes you a slave, how would you propose a reaquisition of liberty? Through the same rational talks that proved useless up to that point? Through protests that now get you locked up and in most cases severely beaten?
I'm all for peace, but governments need to fear their people. The only thing a populace has over its government is numbers, and numbers are useless if they're not willing to do anything with them. If you don't see that, then your government already has big plans for you. Congratulations, Citizen #886486. Please pick up your rations at your nearest disbursement center, and proceed directly to your housecell before 8:00 curfew.
EX-TER-MI-NATE!
*shoot parent with gunstalk while plunging the sink*
Indeed. In the event that someone else slams into you AND topples your car over AND that kills you AND the other person feels guilty that you didn't wear your seat belt AND your corpse ends up horribly mangled, then yes not wearing your seatbelt definately hurts other people.
For the record I wear my seatbelt at all times, but not because i'm worried about other people if I don't wear it. I just wear it because I'm not an idiot, and I realize that I am going in excess of 60 mph in a 2 ton box of metal that if suddenly stopped leaves me moving forward at the same speed unless properly strapped in.
Mindshare. Well, that and herd marketing.
Even if there are no PS3s at the time of purchase, that just increases the purchaser's desire to have one. "Oh, everyone else must be buying them, I must have one too!" Herd mentality is one of the most effective marketing strategies (see also: iPod). However, if people don't know to go to the stores when they're sold out (read: casual buyers, the ones most likely to be effected by herd marketing as they don't look at the specs and past troubles with sony products when making a purchase decision), well...it doesn't really work.
Even if they are inciting people to commit a crime, it should be okay.
What good is the second amendment (in the US) if the idea of revolution is censored?
Soldiers trained to kill by the military were more willing to kill in a combat situation when they practiced on dummies! WOW! It must be the lifelike dummies that make them want to kill in the first place, not the "break down and rebuild" technique the military prides itself on to make otherwise peace-loving people soldiers.
What's more likely? Kids play video games and thus want to kill their friends and acquaintances in real life...OR...kid has very few friends, is picked on a lot in school, is abused or ignored by his parents, has the self esteem of a pea and plays video games BECAUSE of all the above reasons and then goes to school and kills 15 people (shitty frag count, btw).
I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about mentally unstable people becoming killers. Change a kid's environment, put funding into programs that make a kid enjoy waking up in the morning, put a TON more money into education, get better teachers who do something besides make the kids feel stupid (have had more than a few of those all throughout my school years), and take domestic abuse reports a little more seriously and maybe- just MAYBE you'll find that kids don't resort to violence.
When I was in High School I had come very close to doing what these kids seem to be making a habit out of. Luckily, my friends and family saw how depressed I was getting, and within 2 months I was enrolled in programs like marching band and drama where I was with other like-minded people, having fun, forming relationships (both romantic and non), and I was pulled out of that hole. Coincidence? I tend to think not.
In many respects, High School can be thought of as both Boot Camp and Prison tied into one. It can also be full of fun and games. It all depends on where on the social ladder you fall. Congregate with like-minded individuals, work on a goal that will provide a sense of accomplishment, and you'll find yourself enjoying the experience much more. Kids just need the proper motivation to do it.
I take it you have no kids. Having kids tends to make one a little more concerned about their person rather than their nation. You know, the whole "if I can give them a good life now" thing...
Well which is it you want to know?? The harmful effects, or the harmful effects compared to alcohol and tobacco?!
So basically, since stem cells parallel life- this just further cements the phrase, if nothing else kills you, cancer will.
Smoke em if you got em!
Nah, you can do all that stuff all you want. Just don't try to profit off of it.
The bar you call crap is part of the user experience- the user experience which leads you to believe that it is crap.
If you come to my site and leave immediately, it tells me you didn't see what you wanted to see. By coupling that with inbound links, I can track down where my problems are.
I think you're confused as to what "user experience" means, somehow. It is the experience a user has when using a piece of software. If you think a part of the site is crap, that doesn't make it not part of the user experience, it makes the user experience crappy. You may think it needs to be hidden- others may not think so. Fact is only commander taco & co. know the real numbers. Personally, I don't think it takes up much screen space, but I also don't run at 800x600.
Speaking of which, a typical analytics analysis (that's a lot of anal), might tell a webmaster that users running at 800x600 tend to not stay long, while those running at 1024x768 or higher stay longer, make their way deeper into the site, and maybe create an account. If a good portion of their visitors run at 800x600, they know they need to redesign for that resolution to create a better user experience. If only a marginal number use it, they can safely say "screw em."
But if everybody blocks user tracking software (like analytics), webmasters are pretty much designing in the dark, and hoping the few complaints or compliments they get are indicative of the whole. That or, you know, using templates.
"What is in it for me?" Well, if you can't see that, I can't make you see that. But remember that webmasters make websites for you (yes, of course they make money off the ads or products they sell), so it's in your best interest as a user to let them know what you want. And unless you plan on e-mailing the webmaster of every site you visit to tell them what you liked and didn't like, tracking software is a 100% painfree solution. Unless you're just saying you want to get paid for doing nothing (aside from visiting the sites you visit anyway).
actually, google analytics does help you. Website statistics help the web master know what visitors do and do not want to see. Allowing google analytics to track your anonymous movement through a site ultimately leads to a more fulfilling user experience.
At my job, I am rather far removed from the finances, yet I am supposed to decide what and how to market. Analytics lets me do that by tracking what sells, when it sells, etc.
Does it help Google? Of course. But it also helps the webmaster of the sites you visit to create sites you want to see.
If that IS in the EULA, it sure would contradict their "world of devices that run on windows" campaign, where they mention "schools and hospitals"
Furthermore, Dvorak isn't the first to use hospitals as an example, as can be seen in this article from 2004. And whaddya know...it is an actual concern, albeit not of Microsoft's but of the manufacturers, and it seems it's because the manufacturers don't want hospitals installing the security patches. The article also makes mention that worms have hit hospitals in the past, often shipping from the manufacturer with viruses already on them. And you thought the iPod story a few days ago was bad.
No no, that would make him fallible. He simply stores his toys in Kansas.
Hey everybody, it's that classic game, "Pass the Buck!"
Regardless of whether it was "preinstalled" (which I highly doubt to begin with), tell me why a company selling what are basically hard drives by the bazillions (we're talking iPods here) wouldn't A) install AV after receiving the computers, and B) Wouldn't QC their OWN released products?
Apple screwed up. The sooner the fanbois can accept this, the sooner everyone can get over it.
I can now sue (and win) anyone on /. that mods me down as "irrelevant" "flamebait" "redundant" or "troll"?
Or what about all of those other forums where trolls run rampant and and call me various insulting names just to raise hell?
If ever there was a get rich scheme that actually works, I think it's the American judicial system.
and that growing up has to start somewhere.
For some it's NPR. For others, it's a concert where between sets they inform you of what's going on "out there," and hand out flyers with more information and a URL.
It's hard for kids to really, truly care about something if they don't even know it's going on. Already, I'm sure there are a lot of kids that now know there's a problem in Sudan when previously they didn't, just because they heard about this concert. And with luck, even 5% of them will take the initiative to educate themselves further, and that's considered a win.
The seeds gotta be planted sometime. Hook em while they're young.
sadly, no.
But we will see a shirtless, drunken Rupert Murdoch taking pictures of himself in the mirror.
Sherwood vs. Walker
That sounds like the most badass court case ever. I bet it was won by gunfight.
Only problem with that is during that break, the next season is being shot. The writers and directors are cutting the shows down to 45 minutes during the current season. I think there was something on the Lost Season 2 DVD features that said they were finishing the final cut of each episode a day (sometimes 2) before it aired (at least that's the reasoning they gave for playing reruns every other week: the episodes just weren't finished in time). Instead, this year they say the show is taking a hiatus mid-season, and they are doing all of the season 3 part 2 post-work during that time. This should, in theory, give them more time during the airing of season 3 to shoot season 4. However, this isn't often the best idea, as much of television is "alive" in the sense that writers take viewer response to the current season to tweak the following season, so filming while it is still airing is often a bad idea.
Pretty much for everyone but the actors and grips, a TV series is an overtime, year round job.
Video, yes. CG, no. Most "graphics companies" use a mix of macs and PCs. Macs handle editting well. PCs handle 3D Apps well. It's not even a matter of how well either handles it anymore, really. It's just old dogmas continuing to thrive. Macs have the best video editting software because at one time they were better at it. PCs have the CG software because at one time they were better at it. Today, if clean ports were made for either, they would run equally well under both environments. But anyway...video, yes. CG, no.
I think you're trying to draw a connection between Google and backing Al Gore?
If you are, you don't really need to go any further than Current TV, which up until recently was owned by Al Gore and partnered with Google (now it is partnered with Yahoo).
Also, it's been a known fact for a long time now that Al Gore and Google have been very close (Senior Advisor).
If that's not what you're doing...well, I guess you were connecting Google to Elton John? In which case, all you have to do is look at Google's "proud" logo.
more likely, execs change compensation of artists so they get crappier checks, while execs maintain their lifestyle of waste.
I like your numbers, I'll take your word at them (can't really check at work right now)
A few variables can be factored in though: Just as not all military personel are evil, many americans would rather put faith in their government than risk being part of a revolution. Some out of fear, some out of faith. Government is big, government is scary. How many would break that thought come revolution?
Further, we are all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and abroad. But who strikes first? Constitutionalists? In this age where terrorism is an enemy (brown people who blow shit up), not a description (instilling fear in a populace), what do you think the chances are of a militarized revolution successfully taking place? It seems far more likely that with the first strike, the spin machine will start (whether it even needs to or not), and people will automatically just chock Constitutionalists up as being "nutjobs," "extremists," or "terrorists." Like on September 12, people will rush to fork over more rights and more money to fight this new breed of localized terrorsts.
I wouldn't count on many planes, bombs, bombers, choppers, or whathaveyou coming over from the defecting military personel. Remember, this stuff is property of the US Gov't, not the pilots, so short of theft (which could quickly not only be thwarted, but also tracked using GPS), getting this stuff in Constitutionalist hands would be tough work. They'd probably have better luck building it themselves (and by "better luck" i mean "never gonna happen either" considering the price of one jet).
Numbers are great- but when one non-nuke can wipe out an entire platoon, that playing field gets levelled right quick. And remember, the military has been training for precisely this kind of combat for the past 5 years.
In reality, the only thing that would help constitutionalists win is the fact that if the U.S. gov't ever launched an attack on its own people, foreign countries would quickly put an end to it. The big things to worry about are A) Will it ever be seen as a revolution and not acts of terrorism? and B) What happens in the years following a successful revolution? That second question is exactly why people would end up siding with the gov't. A few PSAs showing a nation of anarchy, and people will come running back to suck on Bush's (or whoever's president at the time) teet.
Of course all of this is moot if we get the exact opposite of the current administration: all three branches filled with libertarians. A lot less bloodshed, a functioning government after the coupe, and an overall change in policy. But that's asking the government to make sense, so it'll never happen.
Basically though, what I was trying to say is that the second ammendment only has value when the playing field is equal. When it was created, civilians had the right to carry the same weapons the military had access to. Today, we can carry only a small fraction of what the military has at its disposal. And by all rights it's better that way. I don't feel totally comfortable with Joe Sixpack keeping a small nuclear arsenal in his basement. I do, however, think everyone should have a Badonkadonk.
I don't know where this "out here" y'all are referring to is, but I simultaneously want to and don't want to move there! It sure sounds expensive and cheap!