It's not that far from uttering that statement and enforcing it
Although you said it with the best intentions (I'm sure), it's that kind of reasoning that is the biggest enemy to free speech. We use it to regulate those who we don't agree with, which is exactly what you are doing now.
People can say what they want, and others can respond by calling them un-American, and the original party can then respond by saying that it's not only untrue, but a piss-weak response to an opinion that potentially has merit. It's only when the president decides they are "enemy combatants" that an infringement of rights occurs.
caseih: "I don't trust OpenOffice that much, but I certainly trust MS Office less."
synthespian: "Yes, the expected and canonical "MS sucks and OpenOffice rulez" fanboy response."
I would have thought the expected and canonical "MS sucks and OpenOffice rulez" fanboy response would have been a bit more... I don't know... positive?
It seems you expected the MSSaOOR response a little too much.
Unfounded conspiracy theories, especially those that "satisfy" situations that have much more plausible explanations, certainly do not deserve to be modded insightful or informative. Hell, they don't even deserve an interesting or a funny mod. They're just getting boring, and they drag the relatively high standard of Slashdot discussion down.
The same Panadol ad with the Panadol logo at the end?
Like the reviews with pictures of the thing it's reviewing?
Or the shopping channel infomercials that reminds you every 20 minutes that the "show" you're watching is a paid advertisement?
Not the infomercials I've seen. I probably don't look at the same ones you do.
Come on, the line might be thin, but it's still there. The fact that advertising nowadays is pretty fucked up doesn't excuse it.
Actually, it does excuse it. The line is in fact gone. The state of advertising nowadays has now trampled the line. It was easy because the line was an ethical one, not a legal one.
It was pretty fuzzy to begin with anyway. Look at local free newspapers. They always have relied on the contributions of business that they review or highlight. Consequently, the reviews are always glowing and the news is always good news. There's no written warning saying "This newspaper is 100% marketing pap".
I see what you mean. It's true, they do reproduce. They don't have to exclusively have desires for children, animals, or whatever else they're guilty for to be considered a paedophile or an "animal-bonker", or for their reproductive instinct to be considered abnormal. My point was (for the last time) that an abnormality on such a basic instinctual level can be hard to correct. Regardless of who else the guy bonks.
What if Sony just made up fake movie reviews, or music reviews.
What if they financed some piece of media that makes such reviews? Isn't that practically the same? If they did, they wouldn't be the first company to do so. Hell, there are plenty of free local papers out there that rely on the "contributions" of other businesses that it favourably reviews. People pick up on the lack of negative reviews, or the poor taste of the reviewer, and the reviewer never becomes reputable.
They invented a fictional movie reviewer and plastered fake quotations (ie "The best film I've seen all year!!!") on their movie posters
Well, this is why I always check that the source of the quotation is respectable. Besides, the quotation system is broken. There's always some unknown reviewer looking to get his name on a poster willing to be gushing about some stinkbomb. Not to mention problems with taking quotes waaaaaay out of context.
It is a scam simply because it intends to mislead the consumer by making him beleive that what he's seeing was created by someone who really would like a PSP for Christmas
Oh, you mean like the ads I'm seeing on TV saying "Panadol, It's my choice"? Or like so called infomercials out there, which is half an hour of someone raving about how good a certain brand of blender is?
So for human survival/existence purposes, these "deviant" behaviors don't pose a problem.
No, they do pose a problem. A rather large one. What do you do with people who's basic instinct is to commit a crime? Lock 'em away at taxpayers' expense for their lifetimes? Rehabilitation? That's my point, not that we should ignore them.
...are that they're hard-coded to reproduce. And when that basic instinct goes wrong, it's bloody hard to reverse. If some guy wants children/animals/his sister/whatever else badly enough, no amount of jail time is going to change him. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution, except, perhaps, counselling to try to sort out the root of their sexual preference and perhaps help them to move on to more mainstream preferences. But then again, isn't this how we used to look at anyone who wasn't perfectly straight?
For anyone interested, try DevKitAdv or Visual HAM (Sorry, can't seem to (be bothered to) find the link). VHAM is a GUI based on the HAM SDK which you may need to download first. I use DevKitAdv, personally.
There are some helpful forums here and here is an ebook on GBA software development and the GBA hardware. Be gentle with this guy's servers. He's put the book up (in pdf form, separate chapters compressed into RAR archives) and he doesn't have unlimited bandwidth.
I believe the answer would be turbo ultrawideband.
Sounds like a definition problem. The definition being the very thing under review here. Besides, what exactly is wrong with my proof (sort of) by induction that infinity is a real number?
Pi is definitely a well-defined real, and so is e!
Sort of. We can estimate these numbers easily enough by adding fractions. We know roughly where they are in the number line, but not precisely. Similarly with infinity, we know roughly where it is (at the rightmost point of the number line), but we don't know precisely. We can, however, estimate by adding fractions. We have to use estimations when actually producing the digits behind the number for e, pi, and infinity. Yet, we use e and pi, but not infinity, and that doesn't make sense in my mind.
Anyway, in case you don't respond, thanks for the discussion. It was lots of fun:)
Slashdot Mirror
People can say what they want, and others can respond by calling them un-American, and the original party can then respond by saying that it's not only untrue, but a piss-weak response to an opinion that potentially has merit. It's only when the president decides they are "enemy combatants" that an infringement of rights occurs.
caseih: "I don't trust OpenOffice that much, but I certainly trust MS Office less."
synthespian: "Yes, the expected and canonical "MS sucks and OpenOffice rulez" fanboy response."
I would have thought the expected and canonical "MS sucks and OpenOffice rulez" fanboy response would have been a bit more... I don't know... positive?
It seems you expected the MSSaOOR response a little too much.
Unfortunately smaller and lighter usually means less armour. I'd personally prefer a slightly bulkier model than a less sturdy slimmer model.
Neither do techies, so it seems.
I'd sooner separate a mother bear from her cub than try to separate a /.er from his control over his PC.
Something tells me you don't jack about the difference between proprietary software and free software...
Finally, we've got a replacement for "It's not stealing, it's more like borrowing"!
Precisely. You try telling any movie studio whose profits were vaporized by pirates like this guy.
But not everyone can get what they want.
Unfounded conspiracy theories, especially those that "satisfy" situations that have much more plausible explanations, certainly do not deserve to be modded insightful or informative. Hell, they don't even deserve an interesting or a funny mod. They're just getting boring, and they drag the relatively high standard of Slashdot discussion down.
Not the infomercials I've seen. I probably don't look at the same ones you do.
Actually, it does excuse it. The line is in fact gone. The state of advertising nowadays has now trampled the line. It was easy because the line was an ethical one, not a legal one.
It was pretty fuzzy to begin with anyway. Look at local free newspapers. They always have relied on the contributions of business that they review or highlight. Consequently, the reviews are always glowing and the news is always good news. There's no written warning saying "This newspaper is 100% marketing pap".
I see what you mean. It's true, they do reproduce. They don't have to exclusively have desires for children, animals, or whatever else they're guilty for to be considered a paedophile or an "animal-bonker", or for their reproductive instinct to be considered abnormal. My point was (for the last time) that an abnormality on such a basic instinctual level can be hard to correct. Regardless of who else the guy bonks.
Well, this is why I always check that the source of the quotation is respectable. Besides, the quotation system is broken. There's always some unknown reviewer looking to get his name on a poster willing to be gushing about some stinkbomb. Not to mention problems with taking quotes waaaaaay out of context.
It's an old tactic. Deal with it.
...are that they're hard-coded to reproduce. And when that basic instinct goes wrong, it's bloody hard to reverse. If some guy wants children/animals/his sister/whatever else badly enough, no amount of jail time is going to change him. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution, except, perhaps, counselling to try to sort out the root of their sexual preference and perhaps help them to move on to more mainstream preferences. But then again, isn't this how we used to look at anyone who wasn't perfectly straight?
There are some helpful forums here and here is an ebook on GBA software development and the GBA hardware. Be gentle with this guy's servers. He's put the book up (in pdf form, separate chapters compressed into RAR archives) and he doesn't have unlimited bandwidth.
Enjoy!
Sort of. We can estimate these numbers easily enough by adding fractions. We know roughly where they are in the number line, but not precisely. Similarly with infinity, we know roughly where it is (at the rightmost point of the number line), but we don't know precisely. We can, however, estimate by adding fractions. We have to use estimations when actually producing the digits behind the number for e, pi, and infinity. Yet, we use e and pi, but not infinity, and that doesn't make sense in my mind.
Anyway, in case you don't respond, thanks for the discussion. It was lots of fun
A Microsoft/Vista story that isn't a shameless M$-bashing exercise?
And, even more impressively, someone has already managed to tag this as fud!