hmmm, in a strange twist of irony what you said is exactly what I meant. Specificaly that someone who abuses a right loses it, that is sufficient to warrant the phrase that bearing arms is not a permanently guaranteed right. I personaly refuse to allow them to take away my weapons becuase another person is a lunitic. That would be like outlawing hamburger stands becuase one particular chain decided to put poison in them.
Also some arms are not right to bear. Nuclear weapons are arms, but for the safety of people around you I would think that the right to bear a nuclear weapon would only come after they can demonstrate they know how to maintain it so they don't wind up poisoning themselves and their neighbors in peacetime.
This is just being practical, even though the case is so extreme that it may never come up in our lifetimes.
I agree that a censorship-proof internet can be permenant also, or at least I have no qualms with people trying to.
That is different than guaranteeing free speach in one very important aspect. On the internet you have the opportunity not to listen. That makes it different than say a crowded room. But, I agree with the origional poster that such a movement should not be associated with protecting child pornography and other things that in itself hurt people that are law abiding and punish those that aren't. In all practicality if someone wants to do it (or break any other law) they can already, a free internet changes very little. My only qualm with it is that specificaly protecting such pornography as free speach confuses the matter and doesn't properly treat it as the destructive and hurtful thing that it is. So yeah, I'll agree we are on different and not conflicting purposes here.
Anyway, I'm not restating myself here becuase I don't think you understand this, but just that I want to express what is and isn't my point for others monitoring this thread.
A law in essence is a litigate example of real world principles. It should follow inherantly than that laws should be set up so that if one follows them, they are following the laws of the world around them. For instance stealing is bad for the person being stolen from and for the stealer, therefore stealing is against the law. The law enacts a punishment trying to be in accordance to the natural bad that happens from it, but to a lesser degree. When punishment is done right it should serve more as a warning so they don't have to pay the natural and much greater penalty.
Therefore it stands that a law is not correct if it harms law abiding citizens and protects those who are doing the wrong. History is full of examples of Kings and rulers (lawmakers) who thought they could make laws that protect their own wrongs, and still not have to pay the natural consequences of their actions. Almost without exception it was the fuse that ignited their entire destruction, and often the destruction of their whole country.
Hmmm, I think you missed them both but since I hate posts that start out with "You missed the point" I'll hope you skip over that and let me get to the point.
Freedom != "Do anything you want with it." Why? Becuase a system of rights comes with a disclaimer that some rights conflicts so you need to protect the more important ones, sometimes at the expence of lesser ones that are still very important.
A very good analogy of this has to do with free speech. Free Speech doesn't guarantee people the right to treat some very dangerous concepts, lightly or destructively. Like for instance warnings. Warnings are meant for people to trust and act immediately, for instance when there is a fire in the building. As a society we need to be warned of those things. However if someone say, yells fire in a crowded room, it causes harm to people not only because the panic can physicaly harm them, but the warning system is comprimised. People may no longer trust it.
Protecting the trust in the warning system is, believe it or not, a protection of freedom of speech (the right to accurately warn people) at the expence of what might be misconstrued as the freedom of speech which would really be the right to play a really funny but destructive prank.
Perhaps this explains why it would be easier to argue that upholding any right as worthy of being an absolute right (as you do in oversimplyfying Free Speech and the Right to Bear arms) is the epitome of living in an ivory tower, and disregarding the more complex practicality of the situation.
However you do make a good point in that the posters equating the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech as similar in the aspect of being rights. I don't think the poster you were responding too realizes that point.
Protecting child pornography is protecting whom? No really, stating flakey opinions is one thing but I hope you don't mean to casualy pass over the harm that is to children. I don't want to pull at heart strings here but I also do not want an "After-School Movie" glossing over of something I have seen to be very destructive and painful to childrens lives.
I'm pretty sure you were simply expounding the importance of free speach of ideals and didn't mean to overlook it. I mean its something you already know, of course, that protecting the children in this matter means passing laws against it.
I am a libertarian after all, who is renouned for protecting personal freedoms, I even watched the convention on TV last week. But even my party recognises that to protect child pornography as free speach is putting lesser values as more important than greater ones. Kind of like protecting ones right to drive on both sides of the road, at the expence of protecting ones right to use roads safely.
I remember getting ticked at the TA once and writing a comment about how they grade comments. I meant to remove it, but forgot.
#include string.h/* Look Punk Grader, if you can't figure out why I'm including this you have no right to judge my work */
I got a nasty email back, and I appologized. However, it is interesting to note that my poorly documented code that outperformed every other students code in every area got worse grades than code that didn't even work. I remember not even implementing a function, and commenting that it didn't work, and getting a 100% on the assignment still.
I don't know why they were more concerned about the comments than the code.
It even says in the article above, if anyone can read (its stuff like this that really makes me question the intelligence of the loudmouth shoot from the hip poster.)
KDE and QT is RMS free, and Debian free.
There is no issue anymore about KDE being free. If you want to go back to the past and relive the great KDE debates, click on the link in my sig that says OLD.
Personaly I've mentioned this to the Debian developers almost a year ago that I'm going to make a distribution called "It-looks-a-lot-like-debian-but-it-has-kde". And you know what the response was? "Yeah! go ahead and do it!"
All it would take is setting up my own mirror of both sites, so that people could only have one line in their sources.list file. All I would need to do is add the KDE (etc...) directory to the appropriate spot. My 5 year old niece could do that. I could even start burning CD's with it.
Now, mind you I'd add my own change to the pot above to make KDE make the last few "exemptions" for the GPL. But this *isn't* an issue. KDE is free, and good and happy and makes me smile.
Please people read the article *Before posting* next time.
The biggest cause of noise on Slashdot is emotional sensationalism. Of that I'm sure after reading the comments so far. We have very little contribution from readers as far as information on the subject.
About the only interesting news is that a scientist once talked about blowing up the moon. Another is using nuclear weapons to help in terrestrial landscaping.
However there are some holes in the article. Why would Segan want to destroy the very life he is looking for? Why when there were plenty of mathmaticians in the military and in military industry did they go to Carl Segan? What was Carl up to at the time? And mostly, why would a shot on the dark side of the moon mar the face of the man on the moon? Why would seeing a dust cloud make the Soviets wonder in awe at our power rather than say "That was some meteor."
Nope, stand back folks I am suspicious that there is nothing to see here. I see no evidence that the government actualy took this plan seriously even if it was proposed. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
A very interesting point. Its like Han Solo, "Never quote me the odds." If you know for a surety the winning side than you are still playing the odds, even if other's odds disagree with you. At least thats how I figure it. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I think if you read them, you will find that you do not sign away your right to sue. What you do sign away is liability (but not negligence? where is a lawyer when you need one.) Basicaly if the school makes you go to a glue factory and you get permanently glued to a floor than you can sue them for putting your child in such a dangerous environment.
However, if they offer for your child to go, and after evaulating the risk you decide they can go then you made the decision and are liable for the risk.
I hope this helps, I'm sure of what I'm thinking just not what I'm saying. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)
Context gymnastics I should charge admission to see. Science is truth seeking, we as people who don't know everything try to figure it out.
Universality (knowing everything) means they could only preserve truth.
However the bridge between the two (revelation) is the great double half gainer off the rings to the uneven parralel bars. It requires both contexts. One is the knowing (truth preserving), and the other is the not knowing (truth seeking). Therefore by nature all three sentances is correct, but the very use if the word revelation requires a truth seeker. Therefore the conjection (religion is not truth seeking) is invalid. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
in terms of scope, I refer to a wise passage "Every truth is true in that sphere in which it is placed (D&C 88?)". This isn't unlike the concept explained by Obi-Wan to Luke, "Many of the truths we hold to are true, from a certain point of view." This sounds like the language concept of context, but is much more. It is more like the computer language concept of scope.
See in the scope of our own lives, we don't know everything so we have a hard time defining a truth that is absolute (or beyond our personal scope.) I believe that your reference to a theory becomeing a law is an example of a truth that can be transported outside a personal scope, but to do such a transport requires a vehicle called Authority.
Let me explain these scopes a bit more before I proceed. A God scope (eternal scope), is one that includes the whole universe from beginning to end. In this scope there is nothing such as a theory, only law. Nothing is presumed becuase it is already known.
However we have personal scopes with personal truths. Chocolate is good is an example of a truth that is true only in our personal scope, and only references its benifit to us.
Now to answer the question as best as I can. Creation and the Big Bang is theory only in a personal scope, or in other words it is something we don't have all the information on. Indeed an Eternal scope it is either true or false no "a theory is a nice sand box to play in when we don't know" kind of middle ground.
Now to translate truth from one scope to another we use a concept called Authority. That is a concept that describes the abilility of one scope to provide truth to another scope. Science acts, and was created to act as an authority in this manner.
God being (in concept to some, in reality to others) universal in scope also acts as an authority to describe truth between scopes.
This is all simple for me and you to understand. The problems come from violating the laws of Authority in assuming authority where they don't have it. In Science someone will proport as law a theory, it happens all the time get used to it. This is a violation of authority where you are pretending to have authority from Science where you do not. Quoting misinformation is another violation of authority. Even if it is a legislative body doing it, it is a violation of authority since scientific authority is different from legal authority.
Saying that God is one way or another without authority is also bad, but done much more often in my opinion than it is done with science. And is more dangerous since the scope is that much more impressive. (However such authority exists.)
God provides a way to gain authority, so does Science. If people actually followed those rules of authority we would all get along a lot better.
No flame, I think you just missed the humor. The origional poster was proposing that RedHat be the defacto standard based on market share. It is the same reasoning PHB's used to make Microsoft the defacto standard it was 3-8 years ago. The salesmen and OEM's pushing that economicaly centralized philosophy were well rewarded (then raped.)
So it was more a post in responce to the poster, rather than RedHats buisness practices, which are much better than Microsoft. I have no problems with RedHat or even their percieved dominance. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
With all the trolls that have been elevated to an +2 automatic moderation shouldn't someone who is proven informative and levelheaded like DQ get the same status? ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
"All I truly want is a nearly universal dependancy/packaging/installation/uninstallation system. rpm comes close"
Last I knew, rpm is dependant on a database (not binary based like Windows) to figure out those things. That means it is no where near universal and depends on everything else being an rpm. You can do cross packaging with alien, but you soon learn that for it to really work rpm needs to 1) Better catalogue its own dependancies. 2) Play nicer in configuration file placement.
Some of the rest of your vitrol is kind of cute, somewhat insightful but overall meaningless since I would rather judge an ideas technical merits rather than motivations (patting themselves on the back, etc...) ascribed by some misinformed outsider.
Also a post mearly questioning "Why are they doing what they are doing?" in the middle of a sea of posts explaining exactly that makes one sound impetuous (jumping before looking.) ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I said it once, got marked as a troll by some orthodox zealot debianite who didn't understand his own religion, and I'll say it again.
Debian uses words we use every day but with different meanings.
ex...
1) Free: Doesn't violate our Guild Socialism 2) Freedom: Enforcing our Guild Socialism on others 3) Stable: So old that everyones is bored with developing on it, so it doesn't change much
Now I'm not bashing my favorite distrobution. I'm just translating for others to understand. It actualy makes sence that when new major releases come out its time to lock off the old stuff as stable and start working on the new distrobution of new stuff.
I think. He was a really prolific writer. Sometimes there were forums of 200+ comments and he had over 15 active threads working at one time. This was before we had user ID's and could track when someone replied to us. He was amazing at what he could do.
I remember him complaining about user interfaces in general, saying that they were evil. He even thought Siag was too easy. His basic argument was they allowed users to be stupid, so users were stupid.
Sure enough there is truth to this, but he took it to a whole new extreme. ^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Slashdot Mirror
hmmm, in a strange twist of irony what you said is exactly what I meant. Specificaly that someone who abuses a right loses it, that is sufficient to warrant the phrase that bearing arms is not a permanently guaranteed right. I personaly refuse to allow them to take away my weapons becuase another person is a lunitic. That would be like outlawing hamburger stands becuase one particular chain decided to put poison in them.
Also some arms are not right to bear. Nuclear weapons are arms, but for the safety of people around you I would think that the right to bear a nuclear weapon would only come after they can demonstrate they know how to maintain it so they don't wind up poisoning themselves and their neighbors in peacetime.
This is just being practical, even though the case is so extreme that it may never come up in our lifetimes.
I agree that a censorship-proof internet can be permenant also, or at least I have no qualms with people trying to.
That is different than guaranteeing free speach in one very important aspect. On the internet you have the opportunity not to listen. That makes it different than say a crowded room. But, I agree with the origional poster that such a movement should not be associated with protecting child pornography and other things that in itself hurt people that are law abiding and punish those that aren't. In all practicality if someone wants to do it (or break any other law) they can already, a free internet changes very little. My only qualm with it is that specificaly protecting such pornography as free speach confuses the matter and doesn't properly treat it as the destructive and hurtful thing that it is. So yeah, I'll agree we are on different and not conflicting purposes here.
Anyway, I'm not restating myself here becuase I don't think you understand this, but just that I want to express what is and isn't my point for others monitoring this thread.
A law in essence is a litigate example of real world principles. It should follow inherantly than that laws should be set up so that if one follows them, they are following the laws of the world around them. For instance stealing is bad for the person being stolen from and for the stealer, therefore stealing is against the law. The law enacts a punishment trying to be in accordance to the natural bad that happens from it, but to a lesser degree. When punishment is done right it should serve more as a warning so they don't have to pay the natural and much greater penalty.
Therefore it stands that a law is not correct if it harms law abiding citizens and protects those who are doing the wrong. History is full of examples of Kings and rulers (lawmakers) who thought they could make laws that protect their own wrongs, and still not have to pay the natural consequences of their actions. Almost without exception it was the fuse that ignited their entire destruction, and often the destruction of their whole country.
Hmmm, I think you missed them both but since I hate posts that start out with "You missed the point" I'll hope you skip over that and let me get to the point.
Freedom != "Do anything you want with it."
Why? Becuase a system of rights comes with a disclaimer that some rights conflicts so you need to protect the more important ones, sometimes at the expence of lesser ones that are still very important.
A very good analogy of this has to do with free speech. Free Speech doesn't guarantee people the right to treat some very dangerous concepts, lightly or destructively. Like for instance warnings. Warnings are meant for people to trust and act immediately, for instance when there is a fire in the building. As a society we need to be warned of those things. However if someone say, yells fire in a crowded room, it causes harm to people not only because the panic can physicaly harm them, but the warning system is comprimised. People may no longer trust it.
Protecting the trust in the warning system is, believe it or not, a protection of freedom of speech (the right to accurately warn people) at the expence of what might be misconstrued as the freedom of speech which would really be the right to play a really funny but destructive prank.
Perhaps this explains why it would be easier to argue that upholding any right as worthy of being an absolute right (as you do in oversimplyfying Free Speech and the Right to Bear arms) is the epitome of living in an ivory tower, and disregarding the more complex practicality of the situation.
However you do make a good point in that the posters equating the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech as similar in the aspect of being rights. I don't think the poster you were responding too realizes that point.
Protecting child pornography is protecting whom? No really, stating flakey opinions is one thing but I hope you don't mean to casualy pass over the harm that is to children. I don't want to pull at heart strings here but I also do not want an "After-School Movie" glossing over of something I have seen to be very destructive and painful to childrens lives.
I'm pretty sure you were simply expounding the importance of free speach of ideals and didn't mean to overlook it. I mean its something you already know, of course, that protecting the children in this matter means passing laws against it.
I am a libertarian after all, who is renouned for protecting personal freedoms, I even watched the convention on TV last week. But even my party recognises that to protect child pornography as free speach is putting lesser values as more important than greater ones. Kind of like protecting ones right to drive on both sides of the road, at the expence of protecting ones right to use roads safely.
Hmmmm, and I was just wondering who I would put on my list of people to ignore on slashdot.
Next time you try to make a memorable slashdot personality, why don't you try something more like the Unknown Comedian...
I used to have a sig that said how I feel about it...
"I think there are more wannabe-managers who read slashdot than wannabe-developers."
HA!
/* Look Punk Grader, if you can't figure out why I'm including this you have no right to judge my work */
I remember getting ticked at the TA once and writing a comment about how they grade comments. I meant to remove it, but forgot.
#include string.h
I got a nasty email back, and I appologized. However, it is interesting to note that my poorly documented code that outperformed every other students code in every area got worse grades than code that didn't even work. I remember not even implementing a function, and commenting that it didn't work, and getting a 100% on the assignment still.
I don't know why they were more concerned about the comments than the code.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
It even says in the article above, if anyone can read (its stuff like this that really makes me question the intelligence of the loudmouth shoot from the hip poster.)
KDE and QT is RMS free, and Debian free.
There is no issue anymore about KDE being free. If you want to go back to the past and relive the great KDE debates, click on the link in my sig that says OLD.
Personaly I've mentioned this to the Debian developers almost a year ago that I'm going to make a distribution called "It-looks-a-lot-like-debian-but-it-has-kde". And you know what the response was? "Yeah! go ahead and do it!"
All it would take is setting up my own mirror of both sites, so that people could only have one line in their sources.list file. All I would need to do is add the KDE (etc...) directory to the appropriate spot. My 5 year old niece could do that. I could even start burning CD's with it.
Now, mind you I'd add my own change to the pot above to make KDE make the last few "exemptions" for the GPL. But this *isn't* an issue. KDE is free, and good and happy and makes me smile.
Please people read the article *Before posting* next time.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
The biggest cause of noise on Slashdot is emotional sensationalism. Of that I'm sure after reading the comments so far. We have very little contribution from readers as far as information on the subject.
About the only interesting news is that a scientist once talked about blowing up the moon. Another is using nuclear weapons to help in terrestrial landscaping.
However there are some holes in the article. Why would Segan want to destroy the very life he is looking for? Why when there were plenty of mathmaticians in the military and in military industry did they go to Carl Segan? What was Carl up to at the time? And mostly, why would a shot on the dark side of the moon mar the face of the man on the moon? Why would seeing a dust cloud make the Soviets wonder in awe at our power rather than say "That was some meteor."
Nope, stand back folks I am suspicious that there is nothing to see here. I see no evidence that the government actualy took this plan seriously even if it was proposed.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
A very interesting point. Its like Han Solo, "Never quote me the odds." If you know for a surety the winning side than you are still playing the odds, even if other's odds disagree with you. At least thats how I figure it.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I haven't
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I think if you read them, you will find that you do not sign away your right to sue. What you do sign away is liability (but not negligence? where is a lawyer when you need one.) Basicaly if the school makes you go to a glue factory and you get permanently glued to a floor than you can sue them for putting your child in such a dangerous environment.
However, if they offer for your child to go, and after evaulating the risk you decide they can go then you made the decision and are liable for the risk.
I hope this helps, I'm sure of what I'm thinking just not what I'm saying.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
To paint with a broad brush, science is truth-seeking and religion is truth-preserving. (I speak only of religion that is based on revelation and claims universality.)
Context gymnastics I should charge admission to see. Science is truth seeking, we as people who don't know everything try to figure it out.
Universality (knowing everything) means they could only preserve truth.
However the bridge between the two (revelation) is the great double half gainer off the rings to the uneven parralel bars. It requires both contexts. One is the knowing (truth preserving), and the other is the not knowing (truth seeking). Therefore by nature all three sentances is correct, but the very use if the word revelation requires a truth seeker.
Therefore the conjection (religion is not truth seeking) is invalid.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Its just playing the odds, it has nothing to do with morals or truth.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
in terms of scope, I refer to a wise passage "Every truth is true in that sphere in which it is placed (D&C 88?)". This isn't unlike the concept explained by Obi-Wan to Luke, "Many of the truths we hold to are true, from a certain point of view." This sounds like the language concept of context, but is much more. It is more like the computer language concept of scope.
See in the scope of our own lives, we don't know everything so we have a hard time defining a truth that is absolute (or beyond our personal scope.) I believe that your reference to a theory becomeing a law is an example of a truth that can be transported outside a personal scope, but to do such a transport requires a vehicle called Authority.
Let me explain these scopes a bit more before I proceed. A God scope (eternal scope), is one that includes the whole universe from beginning to end. In this scope there is nothing such as a theory, only law. Nothing is presumed becuase it is already known.
However we have personal scopes with personal truths. Chocolate is good is an example of a truth that is true only in our personal scope, and only references its benifit to us.
Now to answer the question as best as I can. Creation and the Big Bang is theory only in a personal scope, or in other words it is something we don't have all the information on. Indeed an Eternal scope it is either true or false no "a theory is a nice sand box to play in when we don't know" kind of middle ground.
Now to translate truth from one scope to another we use a concept called Authority. That is a concept that describes the abilility of one scope to provide truth to another scope. Science acts, and was created to act as an authority in this manner.
God being (in concept to some, in reality to others) universal in scope also acts as an authority to describe truth between scopes.
This is all simple for me and you to understand. The problems come from violating the laws of Authority in assuming authority where they don't have it. In Science someone will proport as law a theory, it happens all the time get used to it. This is a violation of authority where you are pretending to have authority from Science where you do not. Quoting misinformation is another violation of authority. Even if it is a legislative body doing it, it is a violation of authority since scientific authority is different from legal authority.
Saying that God is one way or another without authority is also bad, but done much more often in my opinion than it is done with science. And is more dangerous since the scope is that much more impressive. (However such authority exists.)
God provides a way to gain authority, so does Science. If people actually followed those rules of authority we would all get along a lot better.
Does this answer your question?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
A real lawyer can correct me but as far as I know you can *never* sign away your right to sue, even if you do.
In other words signing a non-suit agreement does not mean you cannot still sue them.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
No flame, I think you just missed the humor. The origional poster was proposing that RedHat be the defacto standard based on market share. It is the same reasoning PHB's used to make Microsoft the defacto standard it was 3-8 years ago. The salesmen and OEM's pushing that economicaly centralized philosophy were well rewarded (then raped.)
So it was more a post in responce to the poster, rather than RedHats buisness practices, which are much better than Microsoft. I have no problems with RedHat or even their percieved dominance.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Hey Rob,
With all the trolls that have been elevated to an +2 automatic moderation shouldn't someone who is proven informative and levelheaded like DQ get the same status?
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
Redhat is the Microsoft of Linux... Let them have the control, and they'll pay you back handsomely....
(j/k)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
"All I truly want is a nearly universal dependancy/packaging/installation/uninstallation system. rpm comes close"
Last I knew, rpm is dependant on a database (not binary based like Windows) to figure out those things. That means it is no where near universal and depends on everything else being an rpm. You can do cross packaging with alien, but you soon learn that for it to really work rpm needs to
1) Better catalogue its own dependancies.
2) Play nicer in configuration file placement.
Some of the rest of your vitrol is kind of cute, somewhat insightful but overall meaningless since I would rather judge an ideas technical merits rather than motivations (patting themselves on the back, etc...) ascribed by some misinformed outsider.
Also a post mearly questioning "Why are they doing what they are doing?" in the middle of a sea of posts explaining exactly that makes one sound impetuous (jumping before looking.)
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I said it once, got marked as a troll by some orthodox zealot debianite who didn't understand his own religion, and I'll say it again.
Debian uses words we use every day but with different meanings.
ex...
1) Free: Doesn't violate our Guild Socialism
2) Freedom: Enforcing our Guild Socialism on others
3) Stable: So old that everyones is bored with developing on it, so it doesn't change much
Now I'm not bashing my favorite distrobution. I'm just translating for others to understand. It actualy makes sence that when new major releases come out its time to lock off the old stuff as stable and start working on the new distrobution of new stuff.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
It would be perfect for that Iopener I hacked linux onto a few weeks back...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
the ultimate accessory...
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^
I think. He was a really prolific writer. Sometimes there were forums of 200+ comments and he had over 15 active threads working at one time. This was before we had user ID's and could track when someone replied to us. He was amazing at what he could do.
I remember him complaining about user interfaces in general, saying that they were evil. He even thought Siag was too easy. His basic argument was they allowed users to be stupid, so users were stupid.
Sure enough there is truth to this, but he took it to a whole new extreme.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^