Neither. "Reason" was a nuclear powered automatic cannon, if I recall correctly. Remember, he had to hang the heat sink into the ocean to keep it from melting down... It had more than one barrel in fact it had six. How exactly does one propel metal slugs with nuclear power while not using either a railgun or a coil gun? Also, how many automatic cannon have more than one barrel?
Yes they do. My neighbor (60+ year old lady) has heard from her friends that Vista is awful and that she doesn't want it. I think this is mostly because the UI is different and they aren't able to do anything other than rote memorization of paths to doing stuff. But ordinary people definitely complain about Vista. I don't think it's for the right reasons but they do complain.
What's all this talk about crashing? OSX and Windows XP have out roughly the same ammount time and I know that XP does not crash often. If you get a bluescreen it's usually a hardware issue. Currently on my semibroken computer I've got 37 days uptime. Does OSX crash a lot or are you talking about windows 98?
He's not talking about that kind of shock but shocks in general. In the olden days they injected insulin into people and gave them cold or hot baths. In the really olden days I read somewhere that some asylum had trap doors in their "bridges" that could dump a patient into a stream and shock him.
I'm to tired to do any real digging for sources but I will provide a link to wikipedia about insulin shock therapy.
Locking out develepors defeats the whole purpose of an operating system. One fixed bug is not locking out develeopers not when it's a piece of software that microsoft gives away for free.
If you had numbers supporting you i.e. that the operating system was just an insignificant part of Microsofts buissness or any rational reason why Microsoft would want to piss its market shares away. Some sort of evidence at all would be nice.
Can you name a single top-tier player in the FPS genre on PC that uses a trackball? If trackballs are that much better they should have some representation in proffessional gaming.
Yeah, that pisses me off. I have no choice at all in operating systems, I wanted to install Ubuntu but I couldn't because of Microsofts monopoly. Their evil monopoly is horrible, just horrible.
Indeed they do, in fact my soon to be ISP forbids its users to use the internet.
Here's a few (poorly) translated excerpts from their ADSL ToS:
The customer may not connect computer resources for the purpose of freely and/or with monetary compensation provide goods, services or information to a third party [The direct translation would be outsiders].
I wonder if they'll sever my connection if I email them through gmail asking about that clause.
During usage the customer is allocated a dynamic IP-address. The service may only be used by one (1) person at each specific moment
This ISP provides toy routers as a part of signing up to most or all customers.
Re:I thought Core2 did them in
on
Is AMD Dead Yet?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How many games are CPU-limited? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the GPU if you're a gamer? If you can afford and want the best of course you should go with c2d but if you want the greatest bang for your buck a cheaper CPU with more money put on the GPU is the best way to go.
It's not a failure of the market it's a failure of the people (which is the same thing). People didn't want seathbelts badly enough so they didn't get any. People not behaving rationally or not behaving like you want is not the same as a market failure.
By the end of the vietnam war the Vietcong were all but dead (literally). I can't remember if the casualty rates were 80 or 90% though. At the end of the war almost all of the figthing was done by the NVA.
Vietnam is a good example of political warfare but to call it a guerilla victory is wrong imo (unless you consider them one and the same).
That's not really true. Your absolute maximum can always be increased by the smallest amount possible. If you lose a 50 dollar bid on something to a 51 dollar bid you're going to feel fucked. You can always go up one dollar.
As someone said above: auction times should be increased if a new bid comes in.
We have the that system like that in Sweden and it works surprisingly well. When the telephone monopoly was broken up and "deregulated" the company was broken into two parts. The infrastructure part must provide access to an ISP that wants it. I live in the archipelago outside Stockholm and at the moment I've got at least three different ADSL options to choose from. Too bad the maximum speed is only 8/1 because of the distance to the station.
As for the problems it's mostly that the old monopoly gets preferential treatment and the time it takes for the other companies to get access to the actual hardware (it has got a lot better). My latest switch only was more or less instantaneous. But the waiting period can stretch to four weeks or so but that's usually just the initial hookup.
Since the infrastructure has been built both by tax funds and eminent domain the only reasonable way to deregulate it is to spin off the physical layer. If a company wants their monopoly they need their own network and that's fine with me.
So how exactly do you propose to abolish copyright without making everyone think copyright is unjust? And if everyone believes copyright is unjust, how exactly will they advocate for publishers to pay royalties, which you're also going to abolish, to the authors?
I'd tell my friends to pay if they'll like it. I'm not exactly a world dictator so I'm not sure what you want me to do. If no one wants to pay then the output from professional writers will drop and people will see fewer works from that author. In other words people aren't interested in funding professional authors and professional authors can only be funded with state given monopolies.
The publisher that buys the first copy will be first to market. It's also reasonable to expect that fans of the author will want the authorized version more than an unauthorized one.
So for vaguely defined ideological reasons you want to undertake reforms that have a real risk of harming literacy and public discourse in this country.
I don't want to type up a few thousand words of how I've come to hold my current views and I don't think you'll want to read them.
Check out Stephan Kinsella If you're interested in a more in-depth ideology.
On the contrary. I've concluded that you have almost no good justification for your opinions. That's definite progress, at least on my part, because now I can safely dismiss your arguments as the rubbish that they are instead of continuing to seriously entertain them.
You're basically just saying no to my conclusions drawn from an historical example so you may go fuck yourself like the condescending dick you are.
That's an incredibly simplistic view. The principle of copyright protection was written into the law. The fact that Tolkein's book in particular was not under copyright was due to, as I said, loopholes in the law. The spirit of the law remained, as did the public's sense of how justice is served in such cases. These are the very things you're advocating getting rid of.
No, it's not. Unjust laws will be broken and just laws will be followed. It was and still is considered good to actually support someone you like. The law itself does nothing to influence whether it's considered just or not just look at the drug laws.
If you argued that people wouldn't respect the author the same way today I still wouldn't agree but it's a better argument than what you're doing now. To say that the law is important in influencing peoples ethics is just wrong.
But in the Tolkein example, the public outcry was in favor of paying Tolkein normal royalties. Are you now saying that example is completely irrelevant to your argument?
Normal as in today. Then it would be the authorized version that could pay royalties (a sum for each book) or even a one time sum that the publisher paid to be able to sell an authorized version. That's what I meant.
In other words you want authors to be paid less. For what end?
In other words you want authors to be paid more. For what end?
I don't want them to be paid less per se. I just don't think you can own information. Owning information means that you own a tiny piece of everyone else's property. It's also completely arbitrary unless you think IP should be owned eternally like tangible goods or have my views.
Some books will still be written, but probably fewer than before. People will still pay for them, but the money won't go to the authors. You haven't shown me yet how this is an improvement.
Money will go to the authors as shown in the Tolkien example. That is what I'm saying and you're disagreeing with. We've gone all the way to the beginning again almost in record time:). I don't think we'll get any further.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you talking about reason the magazine or reason the magnetic gattling gun?
Yes they do. My neighbor (60+ year old lady) has heard from her friends that Vista is awful and that she doesn't want it. I think this is mostly because the UI is different and they aren't able to do anything other than rote memorization of paths to doing stuff. But ordinary people definitely complain about Vista. I don't think it's for the right reasons but they do complain.
What's all this talk about crashing? OSX and Windows XP have out roughly the same ammount time and I know that XP does not crash often. If you get a bluescreen it's usually a hardware issue. Currently on my semibroken computer I've got 37 days uptime. Does OSX crash a lot or are you talking about windows 98?
I don't care if it looks attractive or not I just want something inside me.
He's not talking about that kind of shock but shocks in general. In the olden days they injected insulin into people and gave them cold or hot baths. In the really olden days I read somewhere that some asylum had trap doors in their "bridges" that could dump a patient into a stream and shock him.
I'm to tired to do any real digging for sources but I will provide a link to wikipedia about insulin shock therapy.
What a good little victim you are. Yes you are!
*Pat on the head*
backups=redundancy
Backups are never a replacement for backups?
Locking out develepors defeats the whole purpose of an operating system. One fixed bug is not locking out develeopers not when it's a piece of software that microsoft gives away for free.
If you had numbers supporting you i.e. that the operating system was just an insignificant part of Microsofts buissness or any rational reason why Microsoft would want to piss its market shares away. Some sort of evidence at all would be nice.
How can you say that Microsoft locks developers out while keeping a straight face?
Do you people even know what your hands type?
Can you name a single top-tier player in the FPS genre on PC that uses a trackball? If trackballs are that much better they should have some representation in proffessional gaming.
Yeah, that pisses me off. I have no choice at all in operating systems, I wanted to install Ubuntu but I couldn't because of Microsofts monopoly. Their evil monopoly is horrible, just horrible.
Goddamn fanboys.
How many games are CPU-limited? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the GPU if you're a gamer? If you can afford and want the best of course you should go with c2d but if you want the greatest bang for your buck a cheaper CPU with more money put on the GPU is the best way to go.
It's not a failure of the market it's a failure of the people (which is the same thing). People didn't want seathbelts badly enough so they didn't get any. People not behaving rationally or not behaving like you want is not the same as a market failure.
By the end of the vietnam war the Vietcong were all but dead (literally). I can't remember if the casualty rates were 80 or 90% though. At the end of the war almost all of the figthing was done by the NVA.
Vietnam is a good example of political warfare but to call it a guerilla victory is wrong imo (unless you consider them one and the same).
Thanks, I thought you were more or less insane initially.
Provides? What the fuck?
That's not really true. Your absolute maximum can always be increased by the smallest amount possible. If you lose a 50 dollar bid on something to a 51 dollar bid you're going to feel fucked. You can always go up one dollar.
As someone said above: auction times should be increased if a new bid comes in.
Stop being such an SP it's not funny.
We have the that system like that in Sweden and it works surprisingly well. When the telephone monopoly was broken up and "deregulated" the company was broken into two parts. The infrastructure part must provide access to an ISP that wants it. I live in the archipelago outside Stockholm and at the moment I've got at least three different ADSL options to choose from. Too bad the maximum speed is only 8/1 because of the distance to the station.
As for the problems it's mostly that the old monopoly gets preferential treatment and the time it takes for the other companies to get access to the actual hardware (it has got a lot better). My latest switch only was more or less instantaneous. But the waiting period can stretch to four weeks or so but that's usually just the initial hookup.
Since the infrastructure has been built both by tax funds and eminent domain the only reasonable way to deregulate it is to spin off the physical layer. If a company wants their monopoly they need their own network and that's fine with me.
This is eerily similar to my own viewpoints about religion but put more eloquently than I could have done. Thank you.
The publisher that buys the first copy will be first to market. It's also reasonable to expect that fans of the author will want the authorized version more than an unauthorized one. I don't want to type up a few thousand words of how I've come to hold my current views and I don't think you'll want to read them. Check out Stephan Kinsella If you're interested in a more in-depth ideology. You're basically just saying no to my conclusions drawn from an historical example so you may go fuck yourself like the condescending dick you are.
Salty?
If you argued that people wouldn't respect the author the same way today I still wouldn't agree but it's a better argument than what you're doing now. To say that the law is important in influencing peoples ethics is just wrong. Normal as in today. Then it would be the authorized version that could pay royalties (a sum for each book) or even a one time sum that the publisher paid to be able to sell an authorized version. That's what I meant.In other words you want authors to be paid more. For what end?
I don't want them to be paid less per se. I just don't think you can own information. Owning information means that you own a tiny piece of everyone else's property. It's also completely arbitrary unless you think IP should be owned eternally like tangible goods or have my views. Money will go to the authors as shown in the Tolkien example. That is what I'm saying and you're disagreeing with. We've gone all the way to the beginning again almost in record time