There was no signficant bias towards OSS software. Unkind is commonly used in reasonably neutral journalism, in similar contexts, all the time. If you are really desperate to find something biased about this headline, you might comment on how it focuses on firefox over IE. IE has the largest user base, yet it was firefox that the study focuses on. However, that gets ripped to shreds when you consider that only roughly a quarter of/.ers actually use IE.
It seems that all you are really doing is looking for an excuse to bash OSS enthusiasts. Grow up, get a life.
that's the way the console business has been for years now.
I can't vouch for the gamecube or N64, but the Wii will be sold with profit and generally less expensive games. The problem with the razorblade business is that it ends up being more expensive for you to legitimately use the product enough to justify the price. In other words, prepare for expensive games and accessories.
I'll stick with a Wii. I'll pay a lump sum up front, but I'll get better value for money inthe long term.
It's my opinion that it's actually in our best interest to make sure that we either merge with AI, or that benevolent AI "take over" before our selfish monkey-brain fucks everything up with the increasingly powerful tech at our disposal.
I agree. I think a good AI would benefit our society. That instinct for satisfaction at the cost of others is great for the person, isn't great for the people around them. The only problem is that the only way such a plan will realise is through the funding of obscenely wealthy corporations, and there will always the the inherent mistrust of the priorities of such entities in designing this AI.
Cute, but no. I have a great deal of respect for OSX, but it is still closed source. I must stress the importance of open source OS as a standard. Having a rigid closed-source OS standard simply allows for monopoly abuse. At best, it would unseat itself. At worst, we would lose our access to root user in favour of DRM.
Provided they act responsibly, there's nothing wrong with breaking this law; indeed, I say that it needs breaking, it needs civil disobediance because it's a very ugly, glaring flaw splattered across one of the few freedoms the USA has actually protected quite well
Great, great. Fantastic. That's your solution, huh? Take the law into your own hands?
Look, I respect where you're coming from. I love the concept of free speech as much as the next person, but this is NOT the way to fix things. "Fuck", if nothing else, has a long tradition of being offensive. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it does, and people will be offended if it loses taboo status. There are many people who cannot simply be ignored who will object strongly enough to make it political suicide. Simply, I don't think there is enough of a grass-roots movement to unseat it.
And besides, what exactly would removing the taboo on "fuck" or other expletives do? Exactly how much free speech do they stifle? As far as I can tell, there are two main purposes of these words. The first is nuance ('nuff said). However, the same nuances can be conveyed with censored language. For example, we all know what those "beeps" over certain words mean.
Secondly and more importantly, they define the limits of our language. We need language to be offended at, otherwise we lose the ability to be offensive and to be offended. You seem very keen on salvaging this fringe section of free speech, so answer me this. Which would you rather? Speech that has been bleeped out, or speech that doesn't mean anything?
So while you gather up people for the revolution, just keep in mind how much inconsiderate damage you are doing to our speech.
A single standard platform is admittedly handy from a development perspective. No code porting, no re-learning of basic functions, no plug-and-pray hardware support. Windows has kept standard because it sacrifices security for ease of use, so every Joe Bloggs can learn to use it.
However, I don't think a closed-source OS should be in that position. I'd rather the ability to modify my OS, with the possibility of breaking compatibility, than a rigidly compatible closed source OS. Unfortunately, I don't think Linux is currently up to it. What we need is a Windows killer that completely hides the OS from the user, that always favours ease-of-use and a smooth experience over security, that has plenty of eye candy, and has a community that can accept proprietary software.
To release an incomplete game (no cars or courses as given in the example) and expect users to buy additional components to make the game playable is ridiculous.
Allow me to adjust that. Here:
To release an incomplete PC (no CPU, RAM, or hard disk) and expect users to buy additional components to make the PC usable is ridiculous.
Makes you wonder why barebones kits are so popular, huh?:)
Seriously, it's all in the implementation. On a PC, I wouldn't mind paying a fair amount for a game engine (and have the possibility of modding it), but on a console I don't want PC functionality. I just want a game with no fuss. And besides, if I do buy something upgradable, I expect modding capability (or at least third-party mods), and I doubt anything like that will be available.
Not only that, I'd expect a lower price. I'm not paying full price for a limited game.
You can just direct the WMP11 play back audio stream into an OGG/MP3 encoder via a loopback on the sound card. Virtualy no loss of quality (well provided your not an uber-anal sound freak) and no more DRM
We all know there isn't an uber-anal sound freak alive who would be caught dead with a WMP11 file.
Sort of. Certainly here in Australia, smoking in, or even directly oustide, public buildings or public transport is illegal. So, yes you do have the right to smoke in private or in appropriate public situations. Other than that, the answer is no. You have no right. These kids you see also have a right to try to change the law, through lobbying, to something they consider to be better.
Unless of course, you aren't refering to the law. If you are refering to some inaliable right to smoke that goes beyond the law, let me assure you, you don't have it. Certainly not in this society. You have as much right to smoke where you want as I have the right to run you over with my car.
To see a bunch of snotty college kids in commercials going around telling everyone how evil cigarettes are, when you know these same kids get drunk and smoke weed on the weekends without saying a word about it
Ahh yes. The ol' "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" argument.
The fact is, you don't need to follow your own advice to make the advice valid. I find that argument is most commonly used when someone doesn't want to face up to sensible reasoning, and would much prefer to shoot it down, desipte having no convincing arguments to the contrary.
As a matter of fact, I'm 22 now, and I've completely abstained from alchohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs my entire life (I swear this is 100% true). I hate them, I hate the culture they breed, I hate the companies they breed, I hate their effects on other people. I'm fully supportive of weaning society off cigarettes. I am without sin, and I cast the first stone.
I wholeheartedly agree with you! Let's throw out our facts and figures on global warming just because no-one bothered to show you the error margins! After all, what kind of scientific discovery is it if it hasn't been fully and thoroughly checked by you? And even if (heaven forbid) we're wrong, it's only global warming people. It's practically as useless as biodiversity!
The funny thing about pedophiles (according to psychologist friend) really, really want to be normal. They don't want to commit a crime or hurt the children. They are caught in a hard place where they have these thoughts but can't act upon them or make them go away. Most people (including them) seem to think that they simply shouldn't have those thoughts, but they do, and as a result, the thought itself is coming closer and closer to being illegal.
2a) The is an equal and opposite force that people would release tension through this, instead of going after the "real" thing.
That's what I've always thought. We do these pedophiles no justice if we can't let them express their sexuality some way. Come to think of it, shouldn't the same thing apply to video game violence?
Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder
Did you know that homosexuality was once defined the same way?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile. I simply have a sympathy for people who are persecuted for things they cannot change.
When a consumer exaggerates about a product in a faux-factual form on public media, it's called slander. When a company does the same thing, it's called advertising.
I'm aware of the karmic suicide that results from opposing the doom & gloom rant from some depressed liberal, but I felt I needed to even up the score.
1) Liberalism is not the one true answer to everything. Neither is conservatism. Both have much to offer us and both can go too far. Right now, the neo-conservative myth of good vs. evil may well be what we need to win "The War on Terror" or whatever thge hell that means. It might be important, it might not. I don't know.
More relevantly,
2) We will be fine. I firmly believe that the government cannot rule us if we are truly unhappy as a population. Revolutions can and have occured when displeasure reaches critical mass. Sure, there will always be people who are unhappy with any change and there will be those who are very vocal about it. That's fine, that's good. It keeps the government on its toes. But ulitmately, society cannot run with everyone against the government. V for vendetta, which I saw the other day, was a very liberal film, but it ultimately demonstrated my point. The government was overthrown because they had alienated their people, one of whom was very disgruntled, fearless, and a charismatic speaker. Could it have happened if most people were happy?
3) To do away with privacy in a democracy is a massive challenge. It requires enormous funds, huge changes to existing political structure, the facing of many angered voters. It can happen only to relatively tiny extent. I don't believe that 1984 is possible, as it requires large changes to happen immediately. For one, democracy must go. How would you do that? Install a half-dictator? Changes occur in small but solid leaps, not as a constant erosion. Such leaps can be possible with a plausible excuse (OMG!!!! T3H 73RR0R1575!!!!!), but excuses can seem stale after a while, and holes begin to appear in the story. If the leader continues to dig himself into the shit, they will fail and public outcry will undo their work.
Graphing calculators have the problem of really dumbing things down.
Here, let me help you. That's better:
Calculators have the problem of really dumbing things down.
Wait, wait, wait... I've got one more change to add:
Abacuses have the problem of really dumbing things down.
Much better.
Sorry, but technology moves along. It may a shame in many cases, but inventions in the field of maths aids, they have been partially responsible for great things. The lower levels of maths well trodden. We don't need large amounts of effort into the minor algebra for many applications.
Please excuse me from my dim memory of high school chemistry, but wouldn't you have to replenish the ions in order to keep the breeze coming? I know that in electrolysis, eventually the ions will all be oxidised or reduced and the reaction is completed. Where do the ions come from?
I heard that too, but I don't think that's exactly true. I recently bought PAL version of Mario 64 DS. I had absolutely no idea what the PAL format had to do with the DS. I found out later that PAL versions don't communicate with each other in multiplayer. Not hardware region coding as such...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I believe in the intelligent design theory. GUIs didn't evolve, they were designed.
Oh shit, that made too much sense...
Not only that, m and o are both on the 6 key. Not good.
FOL? LOL!
There was no signficant bias towards OSS software. Unkind is commonly used in reasonably neutral journalism, in similar contexts, all the time. If you are really desperate to find something biased about this headline, you might comment on how it focuses on firefox over IE. IE has the largest user base, yet it was firefox that the study focuses on. However, that gets ripped to shreds when you consider that only roughly a quarter of /.ers actually use IE.
It seems that all you are really doing is looking for an excuse to bash OSS enthusiasts. Grow up, get a life.
Gee... witty...
I'll stick with a Wii. I'll pay a lump sum up front, but I'll get better value for money inthe long term.
I don't find it hard. Anyone who tries to ram their opinion down my throat will instantly earn my rebuttal.
So thus I say: "but does it run Linux?"
Look, I respect where you're coming from. I love the concept of free speech as much as the next person, but this is NOT the way to fix things. "Fuck", if nothing else, has a long tradition of being offensive. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it does, and people will be offended if it loses taboo status. There are many people who cannot simply be ignored who will object strongly enough to make it political suicide. Simply, I don't think there is enough of a grass-roots movement to unseat it.
And besides, what exactly would removing the taboo on "fuck" or other expletives do? Exactly how much free speech do they stifle? As far as I can tell, there are two main purposes of these words. The first is nuance ('nuff said). However, the same nuances can be conveyed with censored language. For example, we all know what those "beeps" over certain words mean.
Secondly and more importantly, they define the limits of our language. We need language to be offended at, otherwise we lose the ability to be offensive and to be offended. You seem very keen on salvaging this fringe section of free speech, so answer me this. Which would you rather? Speech that has been bleeped out, or speech that doesn't mean anything?
So while you gather up people for the revolution, just keep in mind how much inconsiderate damage you are doing to our speech.
[Mods, I fear not your wrath]
A single standard platform is admittedly handy from a development perspective. No code porting, no re-learning of basic functions, no plug-and-pray hardware support. Windows has kept standard because it sacrifices security for ease of use, so every Joe Bloggs can learn to use it.
However, I don't think a closed-source OS should be in that position. I'd rather the ability to modify my OS, with the possibility of breaking compatibility, than a rigidly compatible closed source OS. Unfortunately, I don't think Linux is currently up to it. What we need is a Windows killer that completely hides the OS from the user, that always favours ease-of-use and a smooth experience over security, that has plenty of eye candy, and has a community that can accept proprietary software.
In other words, the internet is replacing others as the middleman for intagible products.
Seriously, it's all in the implementation. On a PC, I wouldn't mind paying a fair amount for a game engine (and have the possibility of modding it), but on a console I don't want PC functionality. I just want a game with no fuss. And besides, if I do buy something upgradable, I expect modding capability (or at least third-party mods), and I doubt anything like that will be available.
Not only that, I'd expect a lower price. I'm not paying full price for a limited game.
Well, I'll just wonder back at you!
Unless of course, you aren't refering to the law. If you are refering to some inaliable right to smoke that goes beyond the law, let me assure you, you don't have it. Certainly not in this society. You have as much right to smoke where you want as I have the right to run you over with my car.
Ahh yes. The ol' "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone" argument.
The fact is, you don't need to follow your own advice to make the advice valid. I find that argument is most commonly used when someone doesn't want to face up to sensible reasoning, and would much prefer to shoot it down, desipte having no convincing arguments to the contrary.
As a matter of fact, I'm 22 now, and I've completely abstained from alchohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs my entire life (I swear this is 100% true). I hate them, I hate the culture they breed, I hate the companies they breed, I hate their effects on other people. I'm fully supportive of weaning society off cigarettes. I am without sin, and I cast the first stone.
I wholeheartedly agree with you! Let's throw out our facts and figures on global warming just because no-one bothered to show you the error margins! After all, what kind of scientific discovery is it if it hasn't been fully and thoroughly checked by you? And even if (heaven forbid) we're wrong, it's only global warming people. It's practically as useless as biodiversity!
The funny thing about pedophiles (according to psychologist friend) really, really want to be normal. They don't want to commit a crime or hurt the children. They are caught in a hard place where they have these thoughts but can't act upon them or make them go away. Most people (including them) seem to think that they simply shouldn't have those thoughts, but they do, and as a result, the thought itself is coming closer and closer to being illegal.
That's what I've always thought. We do these pedophiles no justice if we can't let them express their sexuality some way. Come to think of it, shouldn't the same thing apply to video game violence?
Did you know that homosexuality was once defined the same way?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a pedophile. I simply have a sympathy for people who are persecuted for things they cannot change.
When a consumer exaggerates about a product in a faux-factual form on public media, it's called slander.
When a company does the same thing, it's called advertising.
I'm aware of the karmic suicide that results from opposing the doom & gloom rant from some depressed liberal, but I felt I needed to even up the score.
1) Liberalism is not the one true answer to everything. Neither is conservatism. Both have much to offer us and both can go too far. Right now, the neo-conservative myth of good vs. evil may well be what we need to win "The War on Terror" or whatever thge hell that means. It might be important, it might not. I don't know.
More relevantly,
2) We will be fine. I firmly believe that the government cannot rule us if we are truly unhappy as a population. Revolutions can and have occured when displeasure reaches critical mass. Sure, there will always be people who are unhappy with any change and there will be those who are very vocal about it. That's fine, that's good. It keeps the government on its toes.
But ulitmately, society cannot run with everyone against the government. V for vendetta, which I saw the other day, was a very liberal film, but it ultimately demonstrated my point. The government was overthrown because they had alienated their people, one of whom was very disgruntled, fearless, and a charismatic speaker. Could it have happened if most people were happy?
3) To do away with privacy in a democracy is a massive challenge. It requires enormous funds, huge changes to existing political structure, the facing of many angered voters. It can happen only to relatively tiny extent. I don't believe that 1984 is possible, as it requires large changes to happen immediately.
For one, democracy must go. How would you do that? Install a half-dictator? Changes occur in small but solid leaps, not as a constant erosion. Such leaps can be possible with a plausible excuse (OMG!!!! T3H 73RR0R1575!!!!!), but excuses can seem stale after a while, and holes begin to appear in the story. If the leader continues to dig himself into the shit, they will fail and public outcry will undo their work.
Put it this way. I'm not scared.
That's better:Wait, wait, wait... I've got one more change to add:Much better.
Sorry, but technology moves along. It may a shame in many cases, but inventions in the field of maths aids, they have been partially responsible for great things. The lower levels of maths well trodden. We don't need large amounts of effort into the minor algebra for many applications.
Please excuse me from my dim memory of high school chemistry, but wouldn't you have to replenish the ions in order to keep the breeze coming? I know that in electrolysis, eventually the ions will all be oxidised or reduced and the reaction is completed. Where do the ions come from?
I dunno...
Vista kinda showed me how MS handles dates.