Book nothing, I just wish he'd write a blog. I hate the uncertainty of wondering whether or not he'll add surrealism to whichever articles I end up reading today.
4 posts • joined 1 Oct 2007
How insane is it to posit that maybe, possible, guns are not the real issue here. Psycho people killing people are the issue.
Used to be a time, back 50 or so years (and before, obviously), when people did bring guns to school, at least in rural areas. Made catching a deer or some rabbits on your way home a lot easier, which made feeding the family a lot easier. And nobody was going insane and unloading onto the other kids in class. Weird, huh? 10 guns lined up in a row in the coat closet, and not a single one being used to slaughter people.
Might make you think that maybe the problem is somewhere in the society rather than the technology.
And, just a side point: what's with all the name-calling? Every time somebody says maybe guns aren't all bad, immediately we say things like "right wing, gun nut, racist beliefs". Also "the far/Christian right only start screaming about free speech when guns and racism are involved...." Thank you for that blanket statement criticizing millions of people based on a single point of opinion. Nothing prejudiced there, oh no.
Disclaimer: I own guns. Plural. I use them for hunting, recreational target shooting (that's pieces of paper at a range. Often with smiley faces drawn on them), and self-defense (i.e., one by the bed in case of robbery).
"It doesn't take a genius to spot the flaws in the design; human nature being what it is, if people don't have to pay for anything, they won't. The idea that people will voluntarily donate to a tip jar is spectacularly naive."
There's just one problem with your argument: people do donate to tip jars. That's why so many delis and coffee shops have them.
There's a company that makes strategy guides for video games, and some of their guides are available for free in PDF format, with the belief that if you really like it, you'll end up buying it for convenience. I downloaded it, saw how useful it was, and bought not only that one, but two others by the same company.
Sure, some people are going to take whatever they can and pay nothing, but just because you'll do it doesn't mean we all will.
The scenario goes something like this:
I decide I want to only install certain updates on my computer, so I set Windows Update to "Notify, not install".
MSFT decides to install an update to my updater w/out my consent. I get pissed.
My computer, for reasons unrelated, gets broken, and I have to use the repair disk to re-install Windows.
Due to the unauthorized "update" MSFT previously forced on me, I can no longer do ANY updates to my computer (or at least a large number of them are gone), and cannot get back all of my previous functionality. I get pissed.
I fail to see any inconsistency here. They do stuff without my permission. It breaks my system, including their so-called "fix".
With or without the issue of who owns what or back-doors into the system, my problem is that the unauthorized stealth-update does exactly what it claims to guard against. It makes you unable (in certain scenarios) to update your computer.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019