nearly enough to make the point that 'enemies of Open Source' are trying to make. I wasn't aware the enemies of free software actually had a point to make.
Seriously, reasonable people who actually write 'open source' code and contribute should be running scared from the pack of ninnies this issue brings out. Yes, the issue does bring out a lot of rabid anti-social commentary, but unfortunately some of it comes even from coders and nerds, because of the propaganda they are exposed to in their country.
Since always. It is a misconception that one must choose between freedom and equality. In reality, you get both or you get neither.
It is amusing to see all the foaming-at-the-mouth Americans debating about whether Open Source is (a) connected to social freedom/equality and therefore discredited by that, or (b) not connected to such high-minded ideals and therefore a good thing.
If you can't see how back-to-front that is, there's little hope for you.
In case it needs to be spelt out: Open Source software, despite its flaws, contributes to freedom/equality by giving everyone access to the code and the right to use it. It is therefore compatible with socialism. Fidel Castro flatters himself as a socialist and therefore his accepting Linux makes sense. You can make money from Linux in the same way you can make money from a nationalised healthcare system: by exploiting the fact that such a system must currently be embedded in a capitalist system, despite the anti-capitalist nature of it.
Well, Arabs citizens of Israel have a hard time, but as I understand it they have the same legal rights as Jews. The "apartheid" of which Carter speaks is is not in Israel proper but in the occupied territories.
No, notice that I said "mostly clerics". Vatican citizens include not just the Pope, cardinals, monks, nuns, and priests, but also the Swiss Guard and some lay workers. It is, however, true that you are very unlikely to be born a citizen.
Okay, being Jewish gets you citizenship in Israel, making Jewish foreigners and their children the majority of current citizens. However, the Israelis did not ethnically cleanse all of the original inhabitants: a minority of Muslims, Christians and Druze still live there.
A better candidate for a state with a required religion is probably the Vatican, whose 600 citizens are all Roman Catholic, mainly clerics.
But this question of states with a compulsory religion is a bit of a red herring. The real danger with this technology is repressive states in general. What if all dark-skinned foreign nationals entering US airports have to take this glorified polygraph in order to check for unAmerican thoughts? What if Tony Blair decides that all new UK citizens need this machine to verify whether their oath of the allegiance to Liz Windsor is genuine?
According to your logic, just about every president of the US as well as most heads of state would be considered a mass murderer. Yep, not just currently but historically too. Genghis Khan, Lenin, Queen Victoria, Julius Caesar... So many leaders have had blood on their hands. Have you only just noticed?
If your country were to be invaded by Chinese with the intent of taking over, would you fight for your life, fight for your country, or just go into the camps and take a shower if asked/told to? No connection whatsoever to the discussion.
Yes, it clearly is not. I point out that the questions weren't answered, and people say that it was supposed to be funny, not informative. I point out that it was not funny, and people try to say that it was informative because it showed the questions to be vague. Bizarre. If the writer wanted to say they were vague, he should have commented "the questions are a little vague". This comment would still be stupid because the questions were no vaguer than the political reality that they represent.
As for supporting or recognising abuse of the moderation system, it's an interesting exercise in the law of unintended consequences
No, it's not interesting. People abuse nearly any system they are presented with. I don't care about their excuses. People are given good tools to work with, and they should used them properly. Progressive views should not be modded "trolling". Posts recognised as excellent by nearly all should not be modded "overrated". Idiotic jokes should not be modded up. (Slashdot has such a subculture of bad jokes and tired clichés that a special euphemism, "meme", is used to refer to them.)
If they insist on finding the unfunny funny, they should mod it "funny", and not something else. If they personally want to see more "funny" posts, they have only to add a "funny" modifier in their prefs.
I have a respect for good rules and standards.
But "France" was not more against the war than other countries. In the vast majority of countries of the world, a clear majority was against invasion, particularly invasion without a UN mandate.
The difference in the case of France was that one man, Jacques Chirac, made the democratic and rational decision to go along with what most of the population (especially the Muslim population) wanted. The common folk of France deserve neither condemnation/vilification nor praise/gratitude for the good action of one man.
I can't believe that got modded "Informative" when the exact opposite is true. People, "Informative" does not mean "echoing my own beliefs".
Let's just look at the first empty thing said:
What is the proper size and scope of government?
No larger than necessary
That's a pointless truism. In this context, proper=necessary. So, you have essentially said that the proper size is the proper size, giving zero information. Even a fascist believes that the state shouldn't be larger than necessary — they just believe that a totalitarian police state is necessary for order.
Perhaps if someone asks you what size USB connector is the proper one to go in a certain digital camera you will answer "One no larger or smaller than necessary". What a way to avoid answering a question whilst convincing airheads that you have done so!
Why do you think Kim has been trying to shoot those missiles out into the Pacific? Because the unprovoked US attack on North Korea may come from as far away as that, so they need long-distance defence measures.
they should acknowledge their American roots and still try to apply such concepts as best as is possible. If I were you, I wouldn't demand that Slashdot behave in an American manner with regards to dissent. Though perhaps with all the ice you're getting in the US at the moment, heading south to sunny Guantánamo wouldn't be too bad.
Re:Let it rest in peace!
on
AmigaOS 4
·
· Score: 1
Well, in that case they would be particularly stupid because sushi is cold cooked rice seasoned with vinegar and served with a variety of toppings. Sashimi is cold raw fish.
The offsite article eventually mentions the US, but I am talking about the Slashdot article, which made no mention whatsoever. Of course to guess that the US is the country in question, I don't even need to look that far. I just assume that anyone who says "the Constitution" or "this country" or "the founding fathers" is American.
If any other country were involved, then it would not only have been mentioned, but it would probably even have been in the title.
We used to have the same problem on Wikipedia. Any article on a Chinese, Spanish, or Pakistani celebrity would start off by saying something like "Zhang Ziyi is a Chinese actress...", whereas all those for Americans would just say, "Al Pacino is an actor...". And this was an international project.
What Constitution? I wasn't aware that a world Constitution had been promulgated.
I presume that you are talking about the Constitution of some specific unnamed country.
In any case, it doesn't matter what it says in any legal document in any country of the world. Violations of civil liberties are always wrong, at all times and places. This is the only thing that needs to be understood.
Freedom, democracy and equality are non-negotiable.
This is prudish hysteria. Young people want to have sex and they always will. Frivolous lawsuits and repressive laws will not stop them, and should not try to.
In the small minority of cases where there is actual rape or sexual assault, then it makes about as much sense to sue MySpace as it would to sue a bar where you met a complete stranger with whom you went home.
There isn't even any need to tell youngsters not to meet people online. Why should they be more wary of the internet? I've met plenty of weird people online, just as I met plenty of weirdos at university and at work, or in night clubs. Meeting weirdos is not a problem. It's doing stuff like going to a hotel room with them that's dangerous. Kids just need to be told that they can talk to whoever they like by whatever means they like, just as long as they don't isolate themselves with the person before really making sure they are OK.
It's just common sense, whatever your age. And something good parents should teach, not enforce.
Remember when conservatives where for small government?
Well, no. That's always been bullshit. Right-wing loonies ("conservatives") have always loved war, which is the most "big government" act imaginable. Progressives are for freedom.
Well I think this is adequate scientific proof. I mean, the Professor from Futurama is hundreds of years old, and he won the Nobel prize for turning Bender into a human, didn't he?
When I read the title to this article, I just assumed that the over-thirties section would be like a similar section in a music shop, with classics from the 1980s that young folk wouldn't appreciate.
I was so looking forward to a whole shelf full of Infocom text adventures and ActiVision games for the Commodore 64. What a disappointment!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, those difficulties exist. But they are only hurdles to be cleared. The current protocols are obsolete.
Since always. It is a misconception that one must choose between freedom and equality. In reality, you get both or you get neither.
It is amusing to see all the foaming-at-the-mouth Americans debating about whether Open Source is (a) connected to social freedom/equality and therefore discredited by that, or (b) not connected to such high-minded ideals and therefore a good thing.
If you can't see how back-to-front that is, there's little hope for you.
In case it needs to be spelt out: Open Source software, despite its flaws, contributes to freedom/equality by giving everyone access to the code and the right to use it. It is therefore compatible with socialism. Fidel Castro flatters himself as a socialist and therefore his accepting Linux makes sense. You can make money from Linux in the same way you can make money from a nationalised healthcare system: by exploiting the fact that such a system must currently be embedded in a capitalist system, despite the anti-capitalist nature of it.
Well, Arabs citizens of Israel have a hard time, but as I understand it they have the same legal rights as Jews. The "apartheid" of which Carter speaks is is not in Israel proper but in the occupied territories.
No, notice that I said "mostly clerics". Vatican citizens include not just the Pope, cardinals, monks, nuns, and priests, but also the Swiss Guard and some lay workers. It is, however, true that you are very unlikely to be born a citizen.
That's not quite true.
Okay, being Jewish gets you citizenship in Israel, making Jewish foreigners and their children the majority of current citizens. However, the Israelis did not ethnically cleanse all of the original inhabitants: a minority of Muslims, Christians and Druze still live there.
A better candidate for a state with a required religion is probably the Vatican, whose 600 citizens are all Roman Catholic, mainly clerics.
But this question of states with a compulsory religion is a bit of a red herring. The real danger with this technology is repressive states in general. What if all dark-skinned foreign nationals entering US airports have to take this glorified polygraph in order to check for unAmerican thoughts? What if Tony Blair decides that all new UK citizens need this machine to verify whether their oath of the allegiance to Liz Windsor is genuine?
No connection whatsoever to the discussion.
But the Republican candidate is a mass murderer, with over half a million Iraqi dead on his conscience.
No.
Yes, it clearly is not. I point out that the questions weren't answered, and people say that it was supposed to be funny, not informative. I point out that it was not funny, and people try to say that it was informative because it showed the questions to be vague. Bizarre. If the writer wanted to say they were vague, he should have commented "the questions are a little vague". This comment would still be stupid because the questions were no vaguer than the political reality that they represent.
As for supporting or recognising abuse of the moderation system, it's an interesting exercise in the law of unintended consequencesNo, it's not interesting. People abuse nearly any system they are presented with. I don't care about their excuses. People are given good tools to work with, and they should used them properly. Progressive views should not be modded "trolling". Posts recognised as excellent by nearly all should not be modded "overrated". Idiotic jokes should not be modded up. (Slashdot has such a subculture of bad jokes and tired clichés that a special euphemism, "meme", is used to refer to them.)
If they insist on finding the unfunny funny, they should mod it "funny", and not something else. If they personally want to see more "funny" posts, they have only to add a "funny" modifier in their prefs. I have a respect for good rules and standards.
I'm getting tired of this.
You're almost right.
But "France" was not more against the war than other countries. In the vast majority of countries of the world, a clear majority was against invasion, particularly invasion without a UN mandate.
The difference in the case of France was that one man, Jacques Chirac, made the democratic and rational decision to go along with what most of the population (especially the Muslim population) wanted. The common folk of France deserve neither condemnation/vilification nor praise/gratitude for the good action of one man.
I don't support or recognise abuse of the moderation system.
If you mod a post something X, then be prepared to be criticised if the post is not X.
You mean lacking a sense of humour? Who are the ones with a bad sense of humour: the ones not laughing, or the ones telling jokes nobody laughs at?
And Slashdotters wonder why they never get laid...
There should be freedom of speech for everything except religion, instead of giving religion extra protection.
Mankind needs to grow up and forget superstition.
I can't believe that got modded "Informative" when the exact opposite is true. People, "Informative" does not mean "echoing my own beliefs".
Let's just look at the first empty thing said:
No larger than necessary
That's a pointless truism. In this context, proper=necessary. So, you have essentially said that the proper size is the proper size, giving zero information. Even a fascist believes that the state shouldn't be larger than necessary — they just believe that a totalitarian police state is necessary for order.
Perhaps if someone asks you what size USB connector is the proper one to go in a certain digital camera you will answer "One no larger or smaller than necessary". What a way to avoid answering a question whilst convincing airheads that you have done so!
Well, in that case they would be particularly stupid because sushi is cold cooked rice seasoned with vinegar and served with a variety of toppings. Sashimi is cold raw fish.
The offsite article eventually mentions the US, but I am talking about the Slashdot article, which made no mention whatsoever. Of course to guess that the US is the country in question, I don't even need to look that far. I just assume that anyone who says "the Constitution" or "this country" or "the founding fathers" is American.
If any other country were involved, then it would not only have been mentioned, but it would probably even have been in the title.
We used to have the same problem on Wikipedia. Any article on a Chinese, Spanish, or Pakistani celebrity would start off by saying something like "Zhang Ziyi is a Chinese actress...", whereas all those for Americans would just say, "Al Pacino is an actor...". And this was an international project.
It's just something to bear in mind.
What Constitution? I wasn't aware that a world Constitution had been promulgated.
I presume that you are talking about the Constitution of some specific unnamed country.
In any case, it doesn't matter what it says in any legal document in any country of the world. Violations of civil liberties are always wrong, at all times and places. This is the only thing that needs to be understood.
Freedom, democracy and equality are non-negotiable.
Exactly, you are right.
This is prudish hysteria. Young people want to have sex and they always will. Frivolous lawsuits and repressive laws will not stop them, and should not try to.
In the small minority of cases where there is actual rape or sexual assault, then it makes about as much sense to sue MySpace as it would to sue a bar where you met a complete stranger with whom you went home.
There isn't even any need to tell youngsters not to meet people online. Why should they be more wary of the internet? I've met plenty of weird people online, just as I met plenty of weirdos at university and at work, or in night clubs. Meeting weirdos is not a problem. It's doing stuff like going to a hotel room with them that's dangerous. Kids just need to be told that they can talk to whoever they like by whatever means they like, just as long as they don't isolate themselves with the person before really making sure they are OK.
It's just common sense, whatever your age. And something good parents should teach, not enforce.
Well, no. That's always been bullshit. Right-wing loonies ("conservatives") have always loved war, which is the most "big government" act imaginable. Progressives are for freedom.
Seems like a concrete case.
When I read the title to this article, I just assumed that the over-thirties section would be like a similar section in a music shop, with classics from the 1980s that young folk wouldn't appreciate.
I was so looking forward to a whole shelf full of Infocom text adventures and ActiVision games for the Commodore 64. What a disappointment!