Freedom of speech is absolute, and anyone who tries to obstruct or knowingly aids any attempt to obstruct it is a fascist pig. Of course, authoritarian governments like that in the US of A dislike freedom of speech and are willing to do anything to obstruct it, and therefore should be eliminated (even if it requires force to do so).
Cool. Everybody vote for my bill to make IT industry workers exempt from income tax.
Or better yet, because a lot of us are libertarians (both left and right) or anarchists (both left and right), we could just try to push through disbanding the government altogether (or at least severly limiting its power and control).
OK, look. I'm a conservative, just as you seem to be. The reason I don't mention the Lunatic Liberal Left is that really, they're working for the same goals as the Radical Religious Right. The only difference is that the left either doesn't know it, or they've over-rationalized it.
But if you'll notice, the values they espouse are the same as the ones the Radical Religious Right espouses. Look at the criteria they want to use for censorship; they're basically identical. The right wants to "save" America, while the left wants to "save" the children; what's the difference? They may argue on particulars, but they're working for the same general thing. At least the right is open about it, if you could call that a Good Thing, which is why I mentioned them.
I'm quite a leftist (I'm what you would call an anarchosyndicalist or anarchosocialist), and I totally dislike all this "save the children" bullshit. The people who spew this shit are really right-wing at heart (even though they don't know it). I'm neutral about the anti-gun stuff (I dislike both sides), but a hate all these attempts to impose censorship (even if it is against porn or nazi sites) to "save the children". This is really a religious right wing agenda. As for Clinton and Gore, they are a bunch of right-wingers in sheep's clothing. Free speech is imperative, and it must be preserved at all costs (even revolution and or civil war).
1. emacs 2. fvwm 3. GPL 4. Python 5. Debian (unless you have a PPC box - then LinuxPPC) 6. Linux 7. Big-endian 8. Buy 9. Boxers 10. All of the above 11. Plastic 12. n/a 13. Tastes great 14. -1 15. None of the above (I do like books by Neal Stephenson and William Gibson) 16. Shaken 17. Color (except for text terminals which should be monochrome) 18. No frames 19. Neither 20. Bike 21. Dr. Suess (Dr. Laura should be one of the first their memories erased and be assigned new identities when the revolution comes) 22. Keyboard 23. Deathmatch 24. Don't care 25. Hex 26. n/a 27. Troll
perl object model: sums up everything that is wrong with perl. Objects in scripting languages is just wrong. *flame away*
Sorry, but having object-orientation in a scripting language is definitely a very good thing. The Perl object model does sum up everything that is wrong with Perl, but it is bad not because it is an object model in a scripting language, but rather that it is a horribly designed object model. The syntax and symantics of handling objects and classes in Perl is very bad. One of the main reasons for this is that Perl was not originally designed to be object-oriented. Object orientation was crufted on later. As for a very good object-oriented scripting language, take a look at Python. Python uses object-orientation as a very large strength. Python is a very well designed language which has very clean and well thought out syntax combined with a large, organized, and powerful set of modules.
In reality, both Perl and VB are pathetic excuses for scripting or programming languages. IMHO the only really good scripting languages is Python and Scheme (if you count it as a scripting language - there are interpreted and p-code implementations of this). They both are very simple yet powerful languages. I haven't really used Scheme, but I know from experience that Python really kicks the shit out of Perl. I once try to write a small NNTP spam scanner bot in Perl. I got so frustrated that I switched over to Python. It was much easier to try to write it *well* in Python. Perl is a text manipulation language hacked into a general purpose scripting language. It's small amount of object orientation is a joke, and Perl code is far dirtier than Python code. Python code to do a complex task is usually much cleaner and easier to understand than Perl code. This is very important if you are concerned at all with maintainability. Overall, Python is a far better language than Perl. Yes, they can do the same things, but Python is far cleaner, far simpler, and tends to lend itself to better programming practices than Perl.
Considering the fact that the US of A thinks that its law applies everywhere, the US of A will probably try to impose this law on people in other countries - sort of like when the DVD CCA got an "temporary" restraining order against people outside of the US of A for violating the DMCA, even though the US of A really doesn't have jurisdiction over the countries that some of the defendants lived in. I wouldn't be surprised if the US of A attempted to do the same with respect to the COPPA.
You wonder why people often mistake free software for gratis software? It's because of complaints like these.
Ideally a spec should be GPL. Barring that, it should be open. Barring that, it should be "competitively priced". $2500 is *not*expensive for most professional developers. There should be no problem for the major Linux distributions to purchase thesespecs. The DVD CSS licence, on the other hand, IS prohibitively expensive.
Open source supporters like to say over and over "yes you can make money our way", but in cases like this the message gets clouded by people who seem to just want everything in life for free.
Do you actually understand socialism (socialism is not the same thing as a welfare state)? You are thinking like yet another capitalist. The reason why people are complaining about the USB documentation requiring a $2500 registration is that we are writing free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of speech is absolute, and anyone who tries to obstruct or knowingly aids any attempt to obstruct it is a fascist pig. Of course, authoritarian governments like that in the US of A dislike freedom of speech and are willing to do anything to obstruct it, and therefore should be eliminated (even if it requires force to do so).
Cool. Everybody vote for my bill to make IT industry workers exempt from income tax.
Or better yet, because a lot of us are libertarians (both left and right) or anarchists (both left and right), we could just try to push through disbanding the government altogether (or at least severly limiting its power and control).
OK, look. I'm a conservative, just as you seem to be. The reason I don't mention the Lunatic Liberal Left is that really, they're working for the same goals as the Radical Religious Right. The only difference is that the left either doesn't know it, or they've over-rationalized it.
But if you'll notice, the values they espouse are the same as the ones the Radical Religious Right espouses. Look at the criteria they want to use for censorship; they're basically identical. The right wants to "save" America, while the left wants to "save" the children; what's the difference? They may argue on particulars, but they're working for the same general thing. At least the right is open about it, if you could call that a Good Thing, which is why I mentioned them.
I'm quite a leftist (I'm what you would call an anarchosyndicalist or anarchosocialist), and I totally dislike all this "save the children" bullshit. The people who spew this shit are really right-wing at heart (even though they don't know it). I'm neutral about the anti-gun stuff (I dislike both sides), but a hate all these attempts to impose censorship (even if it is against porn or nazi sites) to "save the children". This is really a religious right wing agenda. As for Clinton and Gore, they are a bunch of right-wingers in sheep's clothing. Free speech is imperative, and it must be preserved at all costs (even revolution and or civil war).
1. emacs
2. fvwm
3. GPL
4. Python
5. Debian (unless you have a PPC box - then LinuxPPC)
6. Linux
7. Big-endian
8. Buy
9. Boxers
10. All of the above
11. Plastic
12. n/a
13. Tastes great
14. -1
15. None of the above (I do like books by Neal Stephenson and William Gibson)
16. Shaken
17. Color (except for text terminals which should be monochrome)
18. No frames
19. Neither
20. Bike
21. Dr. Suess (Dr. Laura should be one of the first their memories erased and be assigned new identities when the revolution comes)
22. Keyboard
23. Deathmatch
24. Don't care
25. Hex
26. n/a
27. Troll
perl object model: sums up everything that is wrong with perl. Objects in scripting languages is just wrong. *flame away*
Sorry, but having object-orientation in a scripting language is definitely a very good thing. The Perl object model does sum up everything that is wrong with Perl, but it is bad not because it is an object model in a scripting language, but rather that it is a horribly designed object model. The syntax and symantics of handling objects and classes in Perl is very bad. One of the main reasons for this is that Perl was not originally designed to be object-oriented. Object orientation was crufted on later. As for a very good object-oriented scripting language, take a look at Python. Python uses object-orientation as a very large strength. Python is a very well designed language which has very clean and well thought out syntax combined with a large, organized, and powerful set of modules.
In reality, both Perl and VB are pathetic excuses for scripting or programming languages. IMHO the only really good scripting languages is Python and Scheme (if you count it as a scripting language - there are interpreted and p-code implementations of this). They both are very simple yet powerful languages. I haven't really used Scheme, but I know from experience that Python really kicks the shit out of Perl. I once try to write a small NNTP spam scanner bot in Perl. I got so frustrated that I switched over to Python. It was much easier to try to write it *well* in Python. Perl is a text manipulation language hacked into a general purpose scripting language. It's small amount of object orientation is a joke, and Perl code is far dirtier than Python code. Python code to do a complex task is usually much cleaner and easier to understand than Perl code. This is very important if you are concerned at all with maintainability. Overall, Python is a far better language than Perl. Yes, they can do the same things, but Python is far cleaner, far simpler, and tends to lend itself to better programming practices than Perl.
Considering the fact that the US of A thinks that its law applies everywhere, the US of A will probably try to impose this law on people in other countries - sort of like when the DVD CCA got an "temporary" restraining order against people outside of the US of A for violating the DMCA, even though the US of A really doesn't have jurisdiction over the countries that some of the defendants lived in. I wouldn't be surprised if the US of A attempted to do the same with respect to the COPPA.
You wonder why people often mistake free software for gratis software? It's because of complaints like these.
Ideally a spec should be GPL. Barring that, it should be open. Barring that, it should be "competitively priced". $2500 is *not*expensive for most professional developers. There should be no problem for the major Linux distributions to purchase thesespecs. The DVD CSS licence, on the other hand, IS prohibitively expensive.
Open source supporters like to say over and over "yes you can make money our way", but in cases like this the message gets clouded by people who seem to just want everything in life for free.
Do you actually understand socialism (socialism is not the same thing as a welfare state)? You are thinking like yet another capitalist. The reason why people are complaining about the USB documentation requiring a $2500 registration is that we are writing free software.