dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg at the command line in Debian (or in Ubuntu, where it is still buried, if often unused), you have three options for setting your monitor's resolution. In the simple one, you simply select the monitor's size. In the medium option, you choose the resolution and refresh rate you want, while in the advanced one, you can enter the monitor's specs directly from its documentation. This has got to be a joke. There is NO way that is easier than Gnomes System > screen resolution option. It's like calling it "easier" to just edit the file with vi.
do you think that it would be reasonable to charge someone with a crime if they shouted "fire!" in a crowded theater (where there was no fire) and that people got hurt due to that false claim? If so, the only difference between our points of view is semantics, and life's too short to get yourself worked up over semantics. There are some vague points here that you leave out likely because you are not even aware they are important. What crime would they be charged with?..also who would make that charge?
No, it is not reasonable. They should not be charged with "a crime" given the details you listed. The government can not charge you with a crime for speaking, but an attendee could file a personal injury case against them and they can then prove their injuries are the result of the accused actions. The owner of the property could also lay a claim on any money that was lost due to refunds.
Your just going to have to accept the irony that this high school dropout turned rave promoter understands the concept of liberty and freedom better than you do.. and if you don't agree with that.. you can keep trying to make a sensible argument that there are rightful restrictions to free speech that the government may impose on people. There are no such legitimate restrictions, nor does the government even possess the authority, as I've explained there are no limits on natural rights although.. you can continue to illogically believe that you rights come from your government.. many do.
Your wrong, no wiggling out of it, you can't twist your words or intent to make it right, just go lick your wounded pride and piss off now alright.. you'll know better next time.
You need to understand that Coke and Pepsi compeet with Starbucks and you also shot yourself in the foot naming AMD.
AMD started very small and was able to succeed against Intel without government help thus offering people a choice. "The barrier to the microprocessor market is far too hight to challenge Intel." If AMD would have believed that nonsense in 1986, they wouldn't exist today.. but they did challenge Intel now Intel chips are based on AMD's designs. There are many other microprocessors out there as well you can "choose" if you so like. If Intel and AMD teamed up and jacked their prices up to a point where it made people extremely unhappy with the sale, we would eventually see a Windows port to IBM's PPC or Cell's.
Ohh how could Microsoft challenge IBM.. oh how could Apple, Linux, and Sun ever challenge Microsoft? They do it all the time. Hell, Google started in garage owned by one of Larry Page's friends and its now the dominate search engine all because it works better.
An "included responsibility to use them in a safe manner" is self policing. (Government) "restriction on your rights" is tyranny.
Fuck you, your Supreme Court justices, your law professors, and your other legal experts.. that want to "limit" rights and place them in "context". You should tell your *buddies* the Constitution tells the Supreme Court what IT is.. not the other way around.. A jury should interpret the law and thus they have the final say in the laws our politicians write.. not the courts interpreting the law and judges instructing the juries.
Ahh.. Why is it those who claim to be so smart are often the biggest buffoons?
It's not Capitalism, its Government teamed up with business.. we call that Corporatism.
The monopoly and lock in can't exist without government allowing it to exist. Capitalism is just a economic model that says you can sell or buy anything you want without government restriction. You can look at it this way.. a corporation couldn't even exist without the government creating laws allowing them to incorporate. And what is a corporation other than "legal protection" so people can engage in questionable business practices?
(You do know that city's only allow certain providers in their areas to rent the city's telephone poles and communication conduits etc.. expanding their network is not a technical problem for a would be competitor.. its a legal problem.)
AT&T is rightly to blame.. and I would boycot THOSE guys especially over any other large business because of their past actions.. but so is the government for allowing them to hurt customers.
Bullshit. A cop is just another punk-ass bitch with a little tin badge, a gun, and a taser. They aren't special, and if they're infringing your rights, you should resist them with every means available to you. -- Amen.
Sorry to get all Godwin on ya.. but should the Jews have resisted the Nazi's legal orders to arrest them?
If cops are abusing your rights they are no different than thugs.
Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech. This is not one of those.
There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.
Which is exactly what I'm saying. If you want to argue semantics, you'll have to try the next floor. It's just down the corridor from abuse.
Oh really? It looks like your doubling back on your statement now. Perhaps you would explain to me these "rightful restrictions" on the freedom to speech. (It looks to me like you have a sketchy grasp of what a right even is in the first place.)
Yes, there are rightful restrictions to free speech There are not.
There is not such thing as a limited right the concept is impossible.
We believe in unalienable or intrinsic rights. These rights are not created by man and can not be surrendered. We believe that our rights come from the natural state of man (or from god). No King, Emperor, or even popular majority can "bestow" a right upon you with their magic scepter, thus they can not take them away with their magic "laws".
Man can not impose a limit on a natural right.. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to be heard, you don't have a right to be in a building owned by others, you don't have the right to disturb people with your speech, but you absolutely have the right to ask your government a question in a public forum even if that question is silly without being ARRESTED by law enforcement. (They didn't even ask him to leave, they grabbed him and arrested him.)
A limited right is not a right as all because it implies that government can remove this right, and any government or group of men can not remove a right. (They can only infringe upon them and call their actions just.) Since they do not bestow them, they can not remove or limit them.
The comes down to the age old statement. "You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." - It's bullshit, you have EVERY right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and if there is a fire it may even be a good idea.. if there is not, then you are responsible for using your right in a dangerous way (such as when discharging a firearm.) If people get hurt you are responsible for that and they may indeed press legal charges against you.. but you will not be arrested for speaking.
There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.
But can they be arrested for committing a crime? What crime?
Can they be tazed?
If they don't shut up.. can they be shot?
To what end will we go?
Government has no right to silence this man ever, only the property owner can remove him, (and for any reason) and if that owner is the state.. then he is allowed to speak. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech."
Too true, His crime was "being rude".
"This guy is yet another symptom of a class of Americans that have an entitlement complex and no sense of what is socially acceptable behavior. " Here in America we enforce "socially acceptable behavior" with force by non-lethal, but extremely painful weapons?! Why not just beat them with billy clubs its the same damm effect?
It's just sick how people think anymore, this country is doomed not because of government officials.. its doomed because the people haven't a clue what a right means anymore.
Do you still have the freedom to speak if someone tells you to "SHUT UP!"? - What if the government tells you "SHUT UP! thats not "allowed here." The answer is you only have the rights you are willing to fight for. You only have the freedom if you say "NO, I WILL NOT SHUT UP!" - and nobody stands up for their rights anymore because THIS is what happens to them.
This man was doing nothing more than fighting for his right to speak, and he is laughed at by the crowd.:( If you continue to roll over on your rights in the face of authority then you have none. Indeed if he did not comply with the cops they would have escalated as they always do.. and the end point of that escalation is deadly force.
Honestly, in America, the way things are today.. we would have shot this man if we had no other way to make him comply with the police orders.. can we even call this a free nation anymore?
I find it disgusting that there are some who think "He got what he deserved" If you feel that way you are party to your own oppression and you will only get the type of government *you* deserve.
a) It is assuming that people are rational beings and that all actions are well premeditated. It's pretty well known by now that people are irrational (hey, how's that for a slashdot audience, this is a blog entry by the gmail creator!). Basically, in a surge of emotion (think domestic fights, a depressed / severely stressed kid (say a highschool shooting)), if one can easily have access to guns (by opening the local cabinet, going to a store, etc.), they can cause massively more damage, significantly more easily. No, when unstable people go off.. they can only cause massive damage and go on shooting rampages in places where people are not allowed to have guns. If they are in a area where people do have guns, fewer people die (maybe just their first target and themselves.)
b) That the massive number of guns going around in a society will always be used by the people they were intended in the way they were intended. This is patently not true, as demonstrated by kids getting access to their grandfather's gun, or various people we (the west) have massively funded and provided guns to (think Bin Laden and the Mujahideen's in Afganistan vs the Soviets, or Saddam versus the Iranians). They can use them any way they like so long as they are not harming others with them.
There's also, of course, a moral argument. The only primary purpose of the gun is to kill. The whole protection stuff is completely secondary; a gun 'protects' by killing, or threatening to kill. I, personally, think that society has an obligation to protect its citizens, and banning a device the purpose of which is to kill is a good idea. Your reasoning is flawed. You have a right to defend yourself, this right is not given to you by government, it is a intrinsic, unalienable right that you would use even if government said otherwise. Since you have a right to defend yourself.. if someone has the ability to use a weapon to attack you, you therefore have a right to defend yourself with a weapon. When we deny people the ability to use weapons we deny them the ability to protect themselves from those that use weapons. When a unstable person does get a weapon he is a god to those without one and can kill at will. Cops do not protect you, they only clean yo messes and write tickets.. they NEVER get there in time. Even the supreme court has said that cops do not have a obligation to protect you. YOU protect you.
Being involved in one.. I have personal experience with mass shootings.. do you?
You might wish that guns didn't exist.. I do too.. but they do and everyone should own a gun.
Both conservatives and liberals suffer from "If everyone just" disorder. (IEJD)
For some reason people think.. "if everyone just did this or if everyone just felt like that then the world would be a perfect." Sometimes people go so far as to use force to get people to do what they feel is "right".
No! This is wrong. Everyone will not just think a certain way, they will not "see the light", they are not you and they will come to their own conclusions about things. I know this because I don't have this disorder.. I'm a Libertarian.
"What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven." ~Friedrich Holderlin
That has been done before and it is better as the threat of loosing their contract makes them actually provide a decent service (As opposed to government) but look what he wants to collect the tax for.. We need a tax because they have been gouging us and holding technology back?
Government doesn't innovate that way.. they usually just use the force of law to get what they want, and screw what the people want. Government is not nimble anyway, they cant just change around all the taxes and appropriations for money. Bureaucracy by definition is slow. No, I don't think the government should collect tolls because we already payed for those roads. It's like trading the lion for the tiger. However if the size of government was reduced it could be more nimble and effective, perhaps if it was so.. we may not even need the tax at all.
I hated Real too, but I changed my opinion like smart people do when a situation changes. Retards don't, they keep arguing the same irreverent points. (like Republicans supporting the war for WMD's)
I think about the time the Helix Code project started I started to like them.
That's true.. I believe that. John Stossel did an expose on ethanol, that shows the energy return for it is zero, all it does is give your tax money to Iowa.
And again.. What government clean air program created the Prius..? Oh yeah, NOT A ONE, till it came out the most fuel efficient car you could get was a 1982 Geo Metro. Do you believe they couldn't make anything close for 20 years?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not reasonable. They should not be charged with "a crime" given the details you listed. The government can not charge you with a crime for speaking, but an attendee could file a personal injury case against them and they can then prove their injuries are the result of the accused actions. The owner of the property could also lay a claim on any money that was lost due to refunds.
Man, you sure are an arrogant twat.
.. you can continue to illogically believe that you rights come from your government.. many do.
Your just going to have to accept the irony that this high school dropout turned rave promoter understands the concept of liberty and freedom better than you do.. and if you don't agree with that.. you can keep trying to make a sensible argument that there are rightful restrictions to free speech that the government may impose on people. There are no such legitimate restrictions, nor does the government even possess the authority, as I've explained there are no limits on natural rights although
Your wrong, no wiggling out of it, you can't twist your words or intent to make it right, just go lick your wounded pride and piss off now alright.. you'll know better next time.
You need to understand that Coke and Pepsi compeet with Starbucks and you also shot yourself in the foot naming AMD.
AMD started very small and was able to succeed against Intel without government help thus offering people a choice. "The barrier to the microprocessor market is far too hight to challenge Intel." If AMD would have believed that nonsense in 1986, they wouldn't exist today.. but they did challenge Intel now Intel chips are based on AMD's designs. There are many other microprocessors out there as well you can "choose" if you so like. If Intel and AMD teamed up and jacked their prices up to a point where it made people extremely unhappy with the sale, we would eventually see a Windows port to IBM's PPC or Cell's.
Ohh how could Microsoft challenge IBM.. oh how could Apple, Linux, and Sun ever challenge Microsoft? They do it all the time. Hell, Google started in garage owned by one of Larry Page's friends and its now the dominate search engine all because it works better.
Barrier to market my ass.
Different words have different meanings.
An "included responsibility to use them in a safe manner" is self policing.
(Government) "restriction on your rights" is tyranny.
Fuck you, your Supreme Court justices, your law professors, and your other legal experts.. that want to "limit" rights and place them in "context". You should tell your *buddies* the Constitution tells the Supreme Court what IT is.. not the other way around.. A jury should interpret the law and thus they have the final say in the laws our politicians write.. not the courts interpreting the law and judges instructing the juries.
Ahh.. Why is it those who claim to be so smart are often the biggest buffoons?
*waves to Apples lawyers*
You could say getting information off the internet is a little like getting pee out of a swimming pool?
Ever see this before? 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Heh.. I wish he would.
Tell me who wouldn't support the iPhone then? You would be able to use it on any network and iPhone sales would double.
It's not Capitalism, its Government teamed up with business.. we call that Corporatism.
.. its a legal problem.)
The monopoly and lock in can't exist without government allowing it to exist. Capitalism is just a economic model that says you can sell or buy anything you want without government restriction. You can look at it this way.. a corporation couldn't even exist without the government creating laws allowing them to incorporate. And what is a corporation other than "legal protection" so people can engage in questionable business practices?
(You do know that city's only allow certain providers in their areas to rent the city's telephone poles and communication conduits etc.. expanding their network is not a technical problem for a would be competitor
AT&T is rightly to blame.. and I would boycot THOSE guys especially over any other large business because of their past actions.. but so is the government for allowing them to hurt customers.
Apple would make any type of product we wanted to buy.. its AT&T that needs to force people to use their crummy network.
Remember AT&T at one time wouldn't even let you plug in a answering machine, "installing a foreign device" they called it.
They will still try.
AT&T is one of the worst ex-monopolies I can think of.. they don't like choice and will gladly hurt customers any chance they can.
special, and if they're infringing your rights, you should resist them with every means available to you.
-- Amen.
Sorry to get all Godwin on ya.. but should the Jews have resisted the Nazi's legal orders to arrest them?
If cops are abusing your rights they are no different than thugs.
There is not such thing as a limited right the concept is impossible.
We believe in unalienable or intrinsic rights. These rights are not created by man and can not be surrendered. We believe that our rights come from the natural state of man (or from god). No King, Emperor, or even popular majority can "bestow" a right upon you with their magic scepter, thus they can not take them away with their magic "laws".
Man can not impose a limit on a natural right.. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to be heard, you don't have a right to be in a building owned by others, you don't have the right to disturb people with your speech, but you absolutely have the right to ask your government a question in a public forum even if that question is silly without being ARRESTED by law enforcement. (They didn't even ask him to leave, they grabbed him and arrested him.)
A limited right is not a right as all because it implies that government can remove this right, and any government or group of men can not remove a right. (They can only infringe upon them and call their actions just.) Since they do not bestow them, they can not remove or limit them.
The comes down to the age old statement. "You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." - It's bullshit, you have EVERY right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and if there is a fire it may even be a good idea.. if there is not, then you are responsible for using your right in a dangerous way (such as when discharging a firearm.) If people get hurt you are responsible for that and they may indeed press legal charges against you.. but you will not be arrested for speaking.
There are NO restrictions on rights.. only the included responsibility to use them in a safe manner.
I'll ask you.. Did it look like the property owner asked them man to leave? OR did the cop say your under arrest?
But can they be arrested for committing a crime? What crime?
Can they be tazed?
If they don't shut up.. can they be shot?
To what end will we go?
Government has no right to silence this man ever, only the property owner can remove him, (and for any reason) and if that owner is the state.. then he is allowed to speak. "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech."
NO LAW means NO LAW. Period.
It's just sick how people think anymore, this country is doomed not because of government officials.. its doomed because the people haven't a clue what a right means anymore.
Do you still have the freedom to speak if someone tells you to "SHUT UP!"? - What if the government tells you "SHUT UP! thats not "allowed here." The answer is you only have the rights you are willing to fight for. You only have the freedom if you say "NO, I WILL NOT SHUT UP!" - and nobody stands up for their rights anymore because THIS is what happens to them.
:( If you continue to roll over on your rights in the face of authority then you have none. Indeed if he did not comply with the cops they would have escalated as they always do.. and the end point of that escalation is deadly force.
.. can we even call this a free nation anymore?
This man was doing nothing more than fighting for his right to speak, and he is laughed at by the crowd.
Honestly, in America, the way things are today.. we would have shot this man if we had no other way to make him comply with the police orders
I find it disgusting that there are some who think "He got what he deserved" If you feel that way you are party to your own oppression and you will only get the type of government *you* deserve.
a) It is assuming that people are rational beings and that all actions are well premeditated. It's pretty well known by now that people are irrational (hey, how's that for a slashdot audience, this is a blog entry by the gmail creator!). Basically, in a surge of emotion (think domestic fights, a depressed / severely stressed kid (say a highschool shooting)), if one can easily have access to guns (by opening the local cabinet, going to a store, etc.), they can cause massively more damage, significantly more easily. No, when unstable people go off.. they can only cause massive damage and go on shooting rampages in places where people are not allowed to have guns. If they are in a area where people do have guns, fewer people die (maybe just their first target and themselves.) b) That the massive number of guns going around in a society will always be used by the people they were intended in the way they were intended. This is patently not true, as demonstrated by kids getting access to their grandfather's gun, or various people we (the west) have massively funded and provided guns to (think Bin Laden and the Mujahideen's in Afganistan vs the Soviets, or Saddam versus the Iranians). They can use them any way they like so long as they are not harming others with them. There's also, of course, a moral argument. The only primary purpose of the gun is to kill. The whole protection stuff is completely secondary; a gun 'protects' by killing, or threatening to kill. I, personally, think that society has an obligation to protect its citizens, and banning a device the purpose of which is to kill is a good idea. Your reasoning is flawed. You have a right to defend yourself, this right is not given to you by government, it is a intrinsic, unalienable right that you would use even if government said otherwise. Since you have a right to defend yourself.. if someone has the ability to use a weapon to attack you, you therefore have a right to defend yourself with a weapon. When we deny people the ability to use weapons we deny them the ability to protect themselves from those that use weapons. When a unstable person does get a weapon he is a god to those without one and can kill at will. Cops do not protect you, they only clean yo messes and write tickets.. they NEVER get there in time. Even the supreme court has said that cops do not have a obligation to protect you. YOU protect you.
Being involved in one.. I have personal experience with mass shootings.. do you?
You might wish that guns didn't exist.. I do too.. but they do and everyone should own a gun.
Both conservatives and liberals suffer from "If everyone just" disorder. (IEJD)
.. "if everyone just did this or if everyone just felt like that then the world would be a perfect." Sometimes people go so far as to use force to get people to do what they feel is "right".
For some reason people think
No! This is wrong. Everyone will not just think a certain way, they will not "see the light", they are not you and they will come to their own conclusions about things. I know this because I don't have this disorder.. I'm a Libertarian.
"What has always made a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven."
~Friedrich Holderlin
That has been done before and it is better as the threat of loosing their contract makes them actually provide a decent service (As opposed to government) but look what he wants to collect the tax for.. We need a tax because they have been gouging us and holding technology back?
...
Government doesn't innovate that way.. they usually just use the force of law to get what they want, and screw what the people want. Government is not nimble anyway, they cant just change around all the taxes and appropriations for money. Bureaucracy by definition is slow. No, I don't think the government should collect tolls because we already payed for those roads. It's like trading the lion for the tiger. However if the size of government was reduced it could be more nimble and effective, perhaps if it was so.. we may not even need the tax at all.
I hated Real too, but I changed my opinion like smart people do when a situation changes. Retards don't, they keep arguing the same irreverent points. (like Republicans supporting the war for WMD's)
I think about the time the Helix Code project started I started to like them.
I don't believe that, why can't they supply the fuel? If anything ill bet its government regulation forbidding that too.
Right, libertarians would have those cars (and probably even better technology) sold in all 50 states.
Since our great government graciously 'allows' clean air cars in 3, does that mean they support polluting the other 47?
That's true.. I believe that. John Stossel did an expose on ethanol, that shows the energy return for it is zero, all it does is give your tax money to Iowa.
And again.. What government clean air program created the Prius..? Oh yeah, NOT A ONE, till it came out the most fuel efficient car you could get was a 1982 Geo Metro. Do you believe they couldn't make anything close for 20 years?