Keep calling me a consumer and I'll keep blocking your ads
So you're not consuming their content? If you're their "customer" instead, are you writing them a check every month to help defray their hosting and content creation costs? No. Their customers are the people who pay them (advertisers), and you are a consumer of the content that's presented.
I have no problem paying for a subscription (or forums account) for sites which matter to me. All of the truly important information I have found on the Internet has come from small enthusiast-run sites with no advertising, so I'm not too fussed if a majority of ad-sponsored sites either go subscription-only or simply die out.
Shockingly, a whole lot of people are more engaged than you with the wider world, and with subject matter that might newly interest them - perhaps even by the hour - because they aren't laser-focused on one or two topics in life.
There is no right to make a profit.
And you have no right to someone else's hard work while ignoring the terms under which they're offering it to you.
In addition I want the concept of ad revenue generated content to die.
What color unicorn ponies would like, to go with your new information economy that does everything for you for free? Or are you just expecting people to run datacenters for free, so that it doesn't cost your favorite content people anything (except their own time, and the cost to produce the content you want) to host the servers you want to access? Do you really want every web site that isn't being run by a foundation (which you're hoping OTHER people will fund), someone's tax dollars (not yours, obviously), and high-overhead subscription transactions, to go away? How about this: since you don't care about those web sites, you don't have to visit them and the whole issue goes away. I'm sure you can find an army of like-minded people who produce and fund the delivery of everything you want at no cost to you. Have fun with that.
outweighs your autonomy
"Your autonomy" isn't what pays the hosting bills for that web site content or forum you want to have magically for free. You're not forced to watch ads. Because you're not forced to connect your browser to somebody else's server in order to amuse or inform yourself.
Nothing rigorous that I've found. I've seen some things like a Mac user posting on a forum asking why Cubase was hitting harder on OS-X than Windows along with screenshots of the overall load meters that it has, but little in the way of details on methodology.
While I haven't done extensive looking, I haven't come across anything and it is something I'm interested in.
Sadly, there seems to be little interest in testing. People who own PCs can't really test it, outside of building a hackintosh, and Mac users are not very interested in testing particularly since many of them have a real need to believe their money was well spend and do not wish to do something which might challenge that idea.
If someone gave me the hardware and software I'd love to try it, but I own only a PC, and the DAW I use (Sonar) is Windows only.
The only thing I can point to with some newer data is a Sonar benchmark, conducted by their lead programmer, showing improvements in Windows 8 vs Windows 7. They found basically an across the board improvement, with no code recompile http://blog.cakewalk.com/windo... . Now that says nothing of cross platform (as I noted, Sonar is Windows only anyhow) but does indicate that MS continues to improve Windows' performance with regards to intensive time critical tasks like audio.
True, though there is some precedence. OS-X does not seem to be particularly zippy in the few cross platform app benchmarks that are to be found. A good example is DAW bench's test on Cubase, Protools, and Kontakt: http://dawbench.com/win7-v-osx.... What you see is that Cubase has a much more efficient engine than ProTools (no surprise) and that on Windows either one gets a lot more polyphony than the Mac. At any given buffer size (lower buffers are harder to deal with) Windows did better.
Pretty good test too since you are dealing with tools that have long been cross platform. Kontakt has been cross platform for its entire life, Pro Tools was Mac only until version 5 (1998ish), since when it has been cross platform, and Cubase has been cross platform since back in the DOS and Atari ST days. All the software has long development histories on both platforms, yet Windows gives superior results.
None of this means OS-X is unusable or anything, but it doesn't appear to have the performance Windows does, when pushed.
Because even if Affirmative Action is their "policy" that doesn't necessarily mean that every implementation is in compliance with the law.
LK
Have you ever studied the 10 plagues visited against the Egyptians for their slavery of the Jewish people?
You mean the fable? The fantastical mythological, supernatural narrative spun by religious authorities in support of their world view? Yeah, that's hard to miss.
Especially the slaughter of every first-born Egyptian child?
What about it? Are you saying that because a tyrant slaughtered a bunch of kids thousands of years ago, that therefore a crazy Islamist and his brother might be excused for blowing the guts out a kid standing next to one of their planted bombs?
The list goes on and on. I'm afraid that slaughtering children for religious sacrifice, even innocent children to teach their parents a lesson, as a long cultural history.
So does hunting down rival tribe members, killing, cooking, and eating them, in some ancient cultures. So?
That doesn't make it "rational", but it's certainly historically well founded.
Well founded? The moral foundation for that sort of stuff couldn't be shakier. It's based on magical thinking routed in ignorance.
Or Malaysia or Thailand and so on.
Be careful when you get on the American hate high horse, you overgeneralize and you risk looking racist.
or maybe admit it is a bit more nuanced than "not a civilized country."
So revenge is the motivation?
Hey, I don't mind. I'm cool with that, as long as people are willing to call a spade a spade and not pretend it has anything to do with justice.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Its murder when someone you disagree with kills someone in a way you disapprove of.
Ah, another acute case of moral relativism. Is that painful?
He would not have faced a trial if he hadn't decided that his brother's plan to slaughter some innocent people as a form of political expression was cool idea. You think that's just another world view, just a shoe on another foot. Yeah, everything's OK, because there's always someone who thinks it's OK, right?
No. Setting out to main and kill innocent people, including kids, for the sake of maiming and killing them, is not OK in any rational value system. Irrational value systems are objectively inferior. Acting out, murderously, in the service of an irrational value system, isn't just one more equally valid lifestyle choice. Which you should know, if your own value system was rational. But it doesn't seem to be. Please don't do dangerous things like voting, OK?
That is what the death penalty is, is it not? State-sponsored murder?
No. Looking around a crowd, and setting a shrapnel bomb on the sidewalk next to children
If Tsarnaev were to choose to commit suicide during a life sentence, I suspect he could find a way. Does that assuage your distaste for my motives?
No. What you suspect he might be able to do has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of the word "murder."
It manifests differently, but it is sexism all the same. Many of the "defender of women" types really do see women as weaker, inferior. These poor little flowers just can't, CAN'T stand up for themselves. They need guys to help them out so that things can be fair! So don't worry, fair lady, they'll protect you from the evil men... unless of course you disagree with them in which case they'll attack your fiercely for having "internalized misogyny" or some such. After all, you can't be strong enough to have your own opinions!
They don't believe they are sexist, but then people who are sexist/racist/etc rarely believe they are. Make no mistake though, that's what it is. While it might manifest as seemingly good intentions, it is actually a view of gender inferiority. I mean after all, if you truly believe that women are equal to men, just as capable, then you aren't going to think they need special champions. They can, and will, handle it themselves. It is only people who view them as weaker in some way that would think they can't handle themselves. It is pretty insidious.
I think people need to start calling them out on their bullshit. Sexism under the cloak of "equality" or "justice" is little better than sexism in the form of harassment.
THIS!
I feel the exact same way. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated.
I am completely opposed to the idea that the government can compel anyone to inject their child with anything as a preventative measure.
LK
You're about to be refuted by someone who not only despises William Jefferson Clinton but was also paying close attention during the the time of impeachment.
The other thing is that it was not a Material Matter and it was not a criminal case. Having sex or not with Monica Lewinsky had beans to do with whether he forced himself on Jennifer Flowers (her own sister said she was trying to climb that pole for months).
Bill Clinton was deposed in a suit about his having allegedly sexually harassed Paula Jones, not Ginnifer Flowers.
Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law, a law that was principally written by Joe Biden(which is a part of why he was chosen to be Obama's VP over Hillary Clinton) that permitted the exploration of a defendant's sexual history during a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wonderful irony right?
It's certainly materiel if he had engaged in a pattern of seeking oral sex from subordinates when he was accused of requesting oral sex from a subordinate.
He was impeached, but he did not perjure himself.
If that's the case, why did he work out a plea deal to only be denied his license to practice law for 10 years?
He committed perjury. His supporters in the Senate and the broadcast media did their best to make it about his infidelity.
During a civil lawsuit, one had three choices. 1. Tell the truth. 2. Lie. 3. Refuse to answer.
Bill Clinton chose the one of those three options that was illegal. He was rightfully impeached and he was acquitted for political concerns, not for legal ones.
LK
"I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Corporal Hicks, in "Aliens"
