Of course, there will always be protesters to the idea, claiming that the average citizen is an idiot and that elections stops those from getting elected. However, looking at some of those who actually are elected right now, you can see that that argument doesn't make a lot of sense.
Ha, ha, very funny. Now, all jokes and funny pictures aside, you do need a certain standard of intelligence to become elected. You simply can't have charisma without it for one. Bush is on the lower end of the scale, and even his "charisma" often lets him down. Seriously, is it really worth it to allow retards, or fundamentalist zealots (true zealots, not ones hampered by politics) behind the most armed up country of all time?
It can randomly spurt out false positives, subjecting people to random stops and questioning. It can still miss the real terrorists who are doing their damnedest to look normal and unthreatening.
Sheesh! I've never seen a bunch of geeks so opposed to developing an immature technology before! Perhaps a toning down of the pessimism would be in order, and perhaps we may see some improvements in our understanding of human behaviour, and the programs built to understand it.
I'm sure that 78% success rate figure was calculated with all that in mind. In fact, with a bit of extra work, perhaps we can lower the chance of you being selected wrongly for a strip search to a mere 1 in 5!
Things like these are only as good as their success rate. If they get a whole lot of false positives, then they're going to be worth squat when it actually comes down to hard evidence.
Then again, perhaps they might be useful as a general indicator of "mal-intent". Not as a method of proof, but just a way of optimising the job of certain DHS officials.
That's my rationalization for reaching for the 'torrent, what's yours?
My rationalisation is that it's abandonware, but that only really applies to old, unpopular dos games. That's really the best I can do for "rationalisation" without overtly kidding myself.
Apple is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. It's equally wrong whether or not you have a monopoly
Monopolies, because they are the only game in town, can easily get away with anti-competitive behaviour without losing significant market share, because they're the only game in town. When someone who isn't a monopoly tries something like that, then they could well be digging their own grave, because consumers don't have to put up with it. The issue is that companies can sell what they want with any baggage attached, so long as consumers have a choice. It is, after all, a free market out there.
Obviously the iPhone isn't a police state. For one, it isn't a state. That should make it clear that you're looking at an analogy. The programs are the people of that "state", and they are indeed censored and controlled by Apple.
Not only is it not a state, it's not policed that tightly. There are limits on competition, and it's severely closed down, but it doesn't clamp down on users the way a police state clamps down on its citizens. I would compare it more to a fascist state rather than a police state. The police state analogy is, let's face it, broken, and the only thing you managed to come up with for a comeback was telling me I was in denial (not to mention an Apple fan). Surely you can come up with something with a little more substance than that?
Unfortunately the central authority model is on the rise everywhere
Yeah, ever since we invented modern politics. And look how worse off we are for it!
I can't think of any reason other than Microsoft is a monopoly, and users have next to no choice but to use Windows for many purposes. However, if you're talking about Windows Mobile, or some other MS platform that isn't a monopoly, then it really doesn't sound as silly as you might think it does.
It's a waste of investment. It's just that simple.
That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!
The moment Apple wants to do something you're doing, they just get rid of you.
You seriously think that? Corporations are not evil for evil's sake, they actually want something specific: more money. How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales? Sure, there have been complaints of bricking jailbroken phones, but they can't be expected to be responsible for non-standard phones. Users knew what they were getting into when they (jail)broke their phones. I guess Apple could in theory just ban whatever they want, but in actual, real terms, they wouldn't want to, for fear of lawsuits and drops in sales.
They're not expected to. Besides, the issue is moot if weapons supply is properly enforced. Just because criminals and gun nuts really, really, really want a gun to squeeze doesn't mean they'll be able to get their hands on one.
Besides, he is definitely NOT planning on the same thing as England, he just wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons; you could still have your double-barrel shotguns, bolt action rifles and single action revolvers as long as you live outside of an Urban area.
That's pretty much exactly the words I'd use to rip off someone complaining about these bans.
No sir, you may not have your semi-automatic, but there are still plenty of instruments of pain and death with triggers to lay your itchy fingers on...
For having the tendency to cave so easily, makes me wonder what kind of people are really running the place.
Probably the kind who realise that a non-profit organisation would do better trying to maintain what they have than fighting over the small stuff. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that they have plenty to lose by taking this up in court, or just by flatly disobeying the notice.
Besides, perhaps Wikipedia just might not be a rebellious statement against copyright. Maybe they agree and took it down because they personally recognise that the copyright belongs to Nielsen?
Discussions require pros and cons of every argument, not two viewpoints presented as equally valid.
I disagree. There's little point listing pros and cons if there is no other alternative. There's also no point in listing pros and cons if the cons aren't even listed. Also note that I never said my viewpoint should be presented as equally valid. I'm not asking for my comment to be +5 insightful like seemingly every other cookie-cutter anti-authoritarian post out there, I just don't want to be modded down for bringing a little much-needed diversity to slashdot. Ironically enough, when I have posted about certain points of view that are contrary to the groupthink, sometimes I get a -1 Redundant mod, which boggles the mind, since it's usually a response against fifth person posting pretty much exactly the same viewpoint.
Just because you pulled some crap out of your backside doesn't make it automatically as relevant.
No, but the same goes for you and anyone else here on slashdot. It also doesn't automatically make it irrelevant either, so instead of trying to dodge the point here, why not instead actually think about it and draw your own conclusions? I think the mods are gone by now. They can't do your thinking for you this time.
These books don't instil fear of authority but instead warn us for the abuse of authority.
I see little difference in effect, if people insist on making the prevention of abuse of authority their number one priority. Sure it's all well and good to be aware of how authority can be abused, but all that anti-authoritarian literature forced on kids, well, it might explain the lack of moderation in some people's views.
Games aren't a public service -- there is a profit motive behind them whether or not they're bad for children. Likewise, studies that claim the opposite (in lieu of other child-vices) have the same root -- a profit motive.
Right, from baseball mitt manufacturers, I presume. Only they would be evil enough to try to maintain, through smear tactics, their old monopoly on fun.
Spam and junkmail generate too much tax revenue for the governments to ever actually do away with it.
OK, you have a low opinion of governments, I get that. However, you actually have the wrong low opinion. Politicians (y'know, the people that governments are entirely composed of) are supposed to be concerned with election prospects (and hence making sure they line their own pockets), not revenue. Why would they raise revenue when it'd get them thrown out of office?
... but what happened to personal responsibility? Everything the GP did, he did of his own free will. PC gaming is not some fundamental right that big gaming companies are depriving him of. If he's becoming a monster, then he should probably lay off the games for a while.
That said, he seems to be aware of the morality of his own actions, which is a damn good start.
Well, unfortunately, we're sick. We have a conflict between pirates and copyright holders, and neither side appears willing to budge, but sure as hell willing to bay for the other's blood. If one were to give up, sure the situation would be better, but as soon as you tell that to each side, it just makes the situation worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha, ha, very funny. Now, all jokes and funny pictures aside, you do need a certain standard of intelligence to become elected. You simply can't have charisma without it for one. Bush is on the lower end of the scale, and even his "charisma" often lets him down. Seriously, is it really worth it to allow retards, or fundamentalist zealots (true zealots, not ones hampered by politics) behind the most armed up country of all time?
But maybe a lot of people will be saved from a lot of hurt at the end of it. Did you consider that possibility?
Sheesh! I've never seen a bunch of geeks so opposed to developing an immature technology before! Perhaps a toning down of the pessimism would be in order, and perhaps we may see some improvements in our understanding of human behaviour, and the programs built to understand it.
I'm sure that 78% success rate figure was calculated with all that in mind. In fact, with a bit of extra work, perhaps we can lower the chance of you being selected wrongly for a strip search to a mere 1 in 5!
Things like these are only as good as their success rate. If they get a whole lot of false positives, then they're going to be worth squat when it actually comes down to hard evidence.
Then again, perhaps they might be useful as a general indicator of "mal-intent". Not as a method of proof, but just a way of optimising the job of certain DHS officials.
My rationalisation is that it's abandonware, but that only really applies to old, unpopular dos games. That's really the best I can do for "rationalisation" without overtly kidding myself.
Monopolies, because they are the only game in town, can easily get away with anti-competitive behaviour without losing significant market share, because they're the only game in town. When someone who isn't a monopoly tries something like that, then they could well be digging their own grave, because consumers don't have to put up with it. The issue is that companies can sell what they want with any baggage attached, so long as consumers have a choice. It is, after all, a free market out there.
I'm not an Apple fan.
Not only is it not a state, it's not policed that tightly. There are limits on competition, and it's severely closed down, but it doesn't clamp down on users the way a police state clamps down on its citizens. I would compare it more to a fascist state rather than a police state. The police state analogy is, let's face it, broken, and the only thing you managed to come up with for a comeback was telling me I was in denial (not to mention an Apple fan). Surely you can come up with something with a little more substance than that?
Yeah, ever since we invented modern politics. And look how worse off we are for it!
I can't think of any reason other than Microsoft is a monopoly, and users have next to no choice but to use Windows for many purposes. However, if you're talking about Windows Mobile, or some other MS platform that isn't a monopoly, then it really doesn't sound as silly as you might think it does.
That makes no sense. Most iPhones actually do what they're supposed to do. They're not supposed to be an open platform. If that's what you want, get something else!
You seriously think that? Corporations are not evil for evil's sake, they actually want something specific: more money. How on earth could Apple spontaneously cutting off users at all help their sales? Sure, there have been complaints of bricking jailbroken phones, but they can't be expected to be responsible for non-standard phones. Users knew what they were getting into when they (jail)broke their phones. I guess Apple could in theory just ban whatever they want, but in actual, real terms, they wouldn't want to, for fear of lawsuits and drops in sales.
And yet I can still slam Apple on online forums and while phoning friends while using an iPhone.
They're not expected to. Besides, the issue is moot if weapons supply is properly enforced. Just because criminals and gun nuts really, really, really want a gun to squeeze doesn't mean they'll be able to get their hands on one.
That's pretty much exactly the words I'd use to rip off someone complaining about these bans.
No sir, you may not have your semi-automatic, but there are still plenty of instruments of pain and death with triggers to lay your itchy fingers on...
Well, I laughed, even if no-one else did. :)
Probably the kind who realise that a non-profit organisation would do better trying to maintain what they have than fighting over the small stuff. I'm not saying it's right, it's just that they have plenty to lose by taking this up in court, or just by flatly disobeying the notice.
Besides, perhaps Wikipedia just might not be a rebellious statement against copyright. Maybe they agree and took it down because they personally recognise that the copyright belongs to Nielsen?
Not because he's particularly insightful, just because he doesn't deserve a flamebait mod (by a long shot).
I disagree. There's little point listing pros and cons if there is no other alternative. There's also no point in listing pros and cons if the cons aren't even listed. Also note that I never said my viewpoint should be presented as equally valid. I'm not asking for my comment to be +5 insightful like seemingly every other cookie-cutter anti-authoritarian post out there, I just don't want to be modded down for bringing a little much-needed diversity to slashdot. Ironically enough, when I have posted about certain points of view that are contrary to the groupthink, sometimes I get a -1 Redundant mod, which boggles the mind, since it's usually a response against fifth person posting pretty much exactly the same viewpoint.
No, but the same goes for you and anyone else here on slashdot. It also doesn't automatically make it irrelevant either, so instead of trying to dodge the point here, why not instead actually think about it and draw your own conclusions? I think the mods are gone by now. They can't do your thinking for you this time.
I see little difference in effect, if people insist on making the prevention of abuse of authority their number one priority. Sure it's all well and good to be aware of how authority can be abused, but all that anti-authoritarian literature forced on kids, well, it might explain the lack of moderation in some people's views.
Indeed Mr coward. You are a coward. I have undeniable proof, since your name contains the word coward. QED.
Ah, so that explains prevalence of the irrational fear of authority!
Schools forcing students to read a line up like that? That's not teaching free thought, that's institutionalising paranoia.
(A reminder to mods: discussions usually require two points of view. Otherwise no-one actually gets to learn anything.)
Right, from baseball mitt manufacturers, I presume. Only they would be evil enough to try to maintain, through smear tactics, their old monopoly on fun.
Yes. Because decision-making skills disintegrate rapidly after birth.
OK, you have a low opinion of governments, I get that. However, you actually have the wrong low opinion. Politicians (y'know, the people that governments are entirely composed of) are supposed to be concerned with election prospects (and hence making sure they line their own pockets), not revenue. Why would they raise revenue when it'd get them thrown out of office?
... but what happened to personal responsibility? Everything the GP did, he did of his own free will. PC gaming is not some fundamental right that big gaming companies are depriving him of. If he's becoming a monster, then he should probably lay off the games for a while.
That said, he seems to be aware of the morality of his own actions, which is a damn good start.
Well, unfortunately, we're sick. We have a conflict between pirates and copyright holders, and neither side appears willing to budge, but sure as hell willing to bay for the other's blood. If one were to give up, sure the situation would be better, but as soon as you tell that to each side, it just makes the situation worse.