The multi-billion dollar "Big Pharmaceutical corporations" are evil, lying and care for nothing but profit, whereas the multi-billion dollar "alternative medicines" industry is love, truth and fluffy bunnies?
I don't think the GP meant that. He was advocating choice and competition in what would otherwise be a monopoly.
Don't ban the 'remedies' - but do ban the lies and unsupported wishful-thinking published about them.
Of course. Why didn't I think of that? We can just ban lies and unsupported wishful thinking! It is so simple!
Don't mean to break you your rant, but isn't there a slight difference between a human being walking into your house, looking at whatever he wants, and a computer program, designed to check one aspect of your computer silently and automatically?
I wasn't following Vista while it was still called Longhorn. What other features were we expecting that was cut apart from WinFS? And what was meant to be so great about them?
I don't think installing something guarantees that you'll keep it, or that you've paid for it. Clear the anti-MS fog, and tell me what's so wrong with that?
Mostly because most other sites don't have the moderation system to cope.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
Finally! Someone who partially understands!
he has made a conscious decision that getting rear-ended at high speed is preferable to driving safely and watching someone else pass him.
Not quite. I don't particularly care which line I drive the limit in. I don't swerve into the path of oncoming traffic, I just stand my ground. I'm a very canny and predictable driver, and I keep relatively large gaps between me and oncoming traffic in the other lane, and I always indicate. In short: you will have plenty time to slow down.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
What you do have control over is your own vehicle and you have a responsibility to drive in a safe manner and you are not doing that.
We are both breaking the law. One could easily argue that the other person is the one providing the unsafe situation, and that I am just driving normally. But barely anyone will make that case because you are encouraged to break the law while driving. If I were to yield to these fast drivers, it means the law is still being broken, and that the roads are less safe. If the faster drivers were to yield, the roads would be safer, and hopefully, people would stop taking driving and the safety of others for granted.
Further, you have chosen an action that inconveniences others. The other driver has no interest in inconveniencing you. That's not passive-aggressive, that's aggressive. The guy behind you is just fast. Aggressive drivers are far more dangerous than fast drivers.
I beg to differ. I don't actually go out of my way to block these drivers (I apologise if I gave that impression), I just drive in whatever lane is most convenient, and refuse to move or drive faster if a guy is tailgating me. I also come to a complete stop at stop signs, try to keep a 2-3 second gap between cars, and stuff like that. It's very passive, and it gets attention. It's like people don't believe that sticking to the law is actually a possibility, and I aim to change that.
I also contest that the implication that these drivers aren't inconveniencing me. They are making the road less safe, indirectly as the effect may be. That is an inconvenience, and I don't think it's fair for me (or others) to have to worry so much for their safety.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
You do not want someone hitting your rear bumper at 80 mph!
Not really, no. But still, if everyone treated the speed limit like it was a limit, and stopped taking the privilege of driving for granted, then that wouldn't happen. There wouldn't really be a need for the laws that I break. Currently, it seems not to be socially acceptable to stick within the law, when it comes to traffic, and I don't like that. Call it passive-resistance, raising awareness, stroking my ego, or whatever else you want, I still think there needs to be a change.
On one hand, I agree that it isn't really acceptable to be posting libels anywhere, including the internet. I agree that there really should be some safeguards built into web sites against such comments.
On the other hand, the relative anonymity of the internet is unique in this day and age. It's somewhere where you can express your opinion largely without reprisal, and where your comments can be judged for their content, not for the prejudices that people hold against you. This kind of thread makes me wish that
a) Less people were stupid enough to be jaded by some anonymous libel, and b) Less people would abuse the responsibility of anonymity.
Oh well...
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
I often do the same as the GP. It's great! You watch how long it takes for them to resign to their fate of driving within the speed limit. Some people take several minutes before they stop tailgating. I've gotten a few beeps of the horn, but it's OK. I don't even care that it was very recently made illegal here, I still do it. Why should I move over (at my expense!) for some jackass to be able to put me and everybody else at risk? Either they can learn the speed limits, go home, or crash into the back of my car and suffer the consequences.
Re:Social hack - use "bullfight" for "speed trap".
on
Is Your GPS Naive?
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps then you shouldn't drive if you can't handle the penalties involved?
Sure strage is cheap - but who can be sure the hardware will be usable in say 50 years?
No one. There's little doubt about it, that same hardware will probably be obsolete within 50 years. That doesn't mean, however, that the data is unreadable. The data needs only to be read once to make a perfect copy to more up-to-date hardware. Even if we were to unexpectedly encounter an old, perfectly preserved piece of digital hardware in 50-100 years, I have little doubt that we would still have the knowledge of how the hardware worked, and that it would still be possible to figure out a makeshift reader for it. Again, once it's read and copied, there is no more problem. Analogue cannot compete with that.
those joking about BitTorrent aren't that far off, but it's a little more structured than that
It's so simple! Sony, for their movies, could include an invisible P2P client into their next audio CD rootkit, designed for storing and archiving DRMed copies of movies! Why, with genius like that, I could easily rise through the ranks of Sony, climbing on the back of thousands of oppressed PC users! I could look back and laugh at all of you, leeching bandwidth from all over the world.
You could laugh back at me and point out that you are using Linux.
As it stands, there is little to no incentive for movie studios to archive their movies beyond the period of their copyrights. Upon entering public domain, their value decreases, and they fail to cover the costs of maintaining them. We then have to rely on other shady operations, like *shudder* P2P, or *bigger shudder* Archive.org (the maintainers of who, I happen to know for a FACT, regularly funded Al-Quaeda and frequently molest our children). They are unreliable and fail to compare with the safe and extremely competent hands of the MPAA.
This is why I advocate unlimited copyright periods for all works retroactively!
Come on people, we've got to save our culture! Do the the right thing and keep our movies profitable! Don't be un-American! Support our movie industry! Even you foreigners can be loyal to America! You just have to keep importing our culture! Resistance is futile! We will rule the world! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
(Mods, if you can not tell that that was a joke by now, you probably don't deserve those mod points.)
See, again it's the same problem. You are assuming that this little flea-bite on the face of the freedom movement will lead to another Hitler. It makes Hitler sound trivial if we spring the whole slippery slope to a Nazi state story on every threat to personal freedoms! It makes him sound like a product of normal circumstances, which makes him dangerously relatable.
You may say "Fuck Godwin", but it's posts like yours that Godwin's Law tries to prevent. The problem is that this attention-seeking MP, seeking to censor the Internet is not at all comparable to Hitler. It demeans the whole ordeal when people selfishly attempt to use it to draw attention to their problems. Say it to me again when she actively hunts down and imprisons people for their dissident views and (even better) starts a genocide.
I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but I'd prefer this situation any day to the one of Nazi Germany in its prime.
How do you differentiate between DRM and a proprietary format? Couldn't companies create a new format that requires obfuscation and/or encryption? Where do we draw the line?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. That one came unexpectedly out of my anti-anti-MS fog. Sorry about that.
Don't mean to break you your rant, but isn't there a slight difference between a human being walking into your house, looking at whatever he wants, and a computer program, designed to check one aspect of your computer silently and automatically?
I wasn't following Vista while it was still called Longhorn. What other features were we expecting that was cut apart from WinFS? And what was meant to be so great about them?
I don't think installing something guarantees that you'll keep it, or that you've paid for it. Clear the anti-MS fog, and tell me what's so wrong with that?
I didn't expect anything different. This is going the way of any other scheme to try to share in a world geared towards personal ownership.
... could someone mod this insightful.
Mostly because most other sites don't have the moderation system to cope.
I also contest that the implication that these drivers aren't inconveniencing me. They are making the road less safe, indirectly as the effect may be. That is an inconvenience, and I don't think it's fair for me (or others) to have to worry so much for their safety.
On one hand, I agree that it isn't really acceptable to be posting libels anywhere, including the internet. I agree that there really should be some safeguards built into web sites against such comments.
On the other hand, the relative anonymity of the internet is unique in this day and age. It's somewhere where you can express your opinion largely without reprisal, and where your comments can be judged for their content, not for the prejudices that people hold against you. This kind of thread makes me wish that
a) Less people were stupid enough to be jaded by some anonymous libel, and
b) Less people would abuse the responsibility of anonymity.
Oh well...
I often do the same as the GP. It's great! You watch how long it takes for them to resign to their fate of driving within the speed limit. Some people take several minutes before they stop tailgating. I've gotten a few beeps of the horn, but it's OK. I don't even care that it was very recently made illegal here, I still do it. Why should I move over (at my expense!) for some jackass to be able to put me and everybody else at risk? Either they can learn the speed limits, go home, or crash into the back of my car and suffer the consequences.
Perhaps then you shouldn't drive if you can't handle the penalties involved?
I wouldn't be surprised if he was considered a hero in some circles.
I, for one, thought this was quite funny.
You could laugh back at me and point out that you are using Linux.
As it stands, there is little to no incentive for movie studios to archive their movies beyond the period of their copyrights. Upon entering public domain, their value decreases, and they fail to cover the costs of maintaining them. We then have to rely on other shady operations, like *shudder* P2P, or *bigger shudder* Archive.org (the maintainers of who, I happen to know for a FACT, regularly funded Al-Quaeda and frequently molest our children). They are unreliable and fail to compare with the safe and extremely competent hands of the MPAA.
This is why I advocate unlimited copyright periods for all works retroactively!
Come on people, we've got to save our culture! Do the the right thing and keep our movies profitable! Don't be un-American! Support our movie industry! Even you foreigners can be loyal to America! You just have to keep importing our culture! Resistance is futile! We will rule the world! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
(Mods, if you can not tell that that was a joke by now, you probably don't deserve those mod points.)
See, again it's the same problem. You are assuming that this little flea-bite on the face of the freedom movement will lead to another Hitler. It makes Hitler sound trivial if we spring the whole slippery slope to a Nazi state story on every threat to personal freedoms! It makes him sound like a product of normal circumstances, which makes him dangerously relatable.
You may say "Fuck Godwin", but it's posts like yours that Godwin's Law tries to prevent. The problem is that this attention-seeking MP, seeking to censor the Internet is not at all comparable to Hitler. It demeans the whole ordeal when people selfishly attempt to use it to draw attention to their problems. Say it to me again when she actively hunts down and imprisons people for their dissident views and (even better) starts a genocide.
I'm not saying the situation isn't bad, but I'd prefer this situation any day to the one of Nazi Germany in its prime.
How do you differentiate between DRM and a proprietary format? Couldn't companies create a new format that requires obfuscation and/or encryption? Where do we draw the line?
... but a lot of the people I know would be stuck at number five.
Everyone bone up on their pick-up lines! Anyone got any good ones I could borrow?