Slashdot Mirror
McLaughlin Defends Site Finder As 'Innovation'
psimeonbeta2 continues:"Additionally (shades of Darl) he suggests that an anti-capitalism animus is behind the resistance to sitefinder. This despite the known problems that sitefinder caused and despite the fact that breaking the DNS standards may have constituted a breach of contract on Verisign's part. Resistance, he concludes, must be due to some sort of techno-religious fervor.
While Verisign's chutzpah certainly doesn't rise to fiaSCO levels, I find the similar tones in spinning the issues at hand to be truly disturbing. Not only did Verisign screw us by changing how the internet works at a fundamental level, now they purport to be irritated that we didn't thank them for the favor! At least in this case the good guys(cherish this moment, ICANN!) won."
Why not? After all, Bush "innovated" with his electioneering techniques, and SCO "innovated" with their sue-your-own-customers-till-you-piss-'em-off-so-ba d-they'll-never-buy-from-you-again business model... not to mention RIAA's "innovation" with cutting back on individual rights, and MS's anti-capitalist "innovation."
#define DRM chmod 000
After all, Bush "innovated" with his electioneering techniques
You know, I've seen a lot of people bitching about Bush winning an election which was, for all practical purposes, a tie, but I don't hear any of you offering to rescind the Kennedy administration.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Unfortunately, he didn't get modded anywhere - apparently his karma is good enough for the +1 bonus? I hope someone fixes that...
How many of us are old enough to remember the Kennedy administration?
--
difference is... even if Bush honestly won,
without falsifying election results,
then he _still_ only won by a small margin.
Instead of acting like a candidate who'd squeaked
by on the barest of margins, he acts like
his views are supported by all Americans,
and does whatever-the-fuck he wants to.
As a president elected with 50% of the populace
behind him, he was not elected to serve only
those 50%, but all 100%... to not even pay
lip service to the other half is insulting
not just to them, but to the process itself.
Well, you're half right ;)
As for other services... really? Not that I'm a "stupid user" and have therefore not looked for such services, but save IE/MSN, there are none that I'm aware of that are built in. Oh, and in the future you could mention this as a response (as opposed to your rant) to my open question. Though I have enjoyed the flame (as well as your eloquence), kept me warm for the last 45min anyway!
Nothing else to see here, please move along...
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
Depending on the shell globing in use "rm -rf /*" and "rm -rf /" will remove two different sets of files. If you want to remove everthing the current directory, the correct way to do that I believe is:
rm -rf .
Not
rm -rf *
I know this to be the case in the one true shell, bash using GNU's rm.
That being said, it would be much faster on a filesystem with a reasonable large number of files (think ~1000 or more depending on the filesystem) to just reformat the filesystem then to delete every file individually.
Giving myself one point for being incredibly pedantic to someone who was already being pedantic. :-)
Kirby
With the pathetic US voter turnout, it is worse than that. Bush only has the support of 24.48% of voters (who actively voted in the election, not registered), and only 17.94% of the US population. Not exactly what I would call a "mandate" in the current political jargon.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!