I've also heard it claimed (On the TV-show Kobra on Swedish public service TV), that it would be more accurate to say these were Al Jazeera revolutions rather than Twitter- or Facebook- or Internet-revolutions, in that access to real journalism (People from the US might want to check out the BBC for an example of what I'm talking about) for the masses had a bigger impact than the speedier communications of whatever percentage of people that would Facebook or Twitter.
I don't know, but it does sound like a reasonable claim to me.
Maims you? Scars you? Pushes you over the edge? Makes you a chronic depressive? Cuts off all your limbs, then tortures and kills your family in front of your eyes? Leaves you in a vegetative state? What!?
Interesting points. But surely the international legal status of an area previously claimed and recognized should remain in case of it drowning if buildings are floating and anchored there or perched on sticks...?
>American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.
Except, the choice didn't come in the form of a ballot where you could check YES or NO to poisoning the planet and exploiting poor people. If presented like that, people might make a different choice.
We shouldn't put the burden on consumers to have to know everything about every product. We should set up some rules about fucking up the environment and exploiting the poor, so that consumers don't have to check everything. Consumers don't want to try to investigate every product and they shouldn't have to.
Change for the better will not come through the diligence of every Tom, Dick and Harriet. The ingenious system has you believing consumers have the power. Technically we might, but come on...
Some of us try being responsible consumers a little, some a bit more, but on the whole, we wont be investigating every minute detail of the history of every product be purchase.
Instead, what we as consumers and members of democracies maybe could agree upon, would be more general rules stating that the big boys that commission and sell all the stuff should see to it that they don't fuck up the environment and don't exploit the workers too much.
We should only ask if the majority of consumers really do want the planet poisoned and poor people exploited. If the majority says "no, that's fucked up" (or something equivalent) then that is what they want. If that is what they want, the corporations should adhere to that or pay dearly if they step out of line. That way consumers wouldn't have the burden of checking every fucking thing they buy.
Am I to understand, that you do not think the US government is a government of, by and for the people?
You don't have democracy as in "rule of the people"? That would be fucked up. I do believe it would be right to topple despots.These are elusive ones, though. Obama is not the dictator. Who are the real rulers?
A revolution is in order, but remember, those bastards are people too. Ends don't justify means. No killing except if you have to, in self defense.
And try to get a majority of the people with you before you try to seize power.
I still wont trust WallStreet with my money, which would be about like trusting an alcoholic with the beer at a party...
I don't know how it is over there, but over here in Sweden everyone has money in the stock market as all pensions were moved there some years ago. We're all supposed to choose where to invest them and to care about the wellbeing of Wall Street.
Kind of unfair advantage given to the propagandists of one economic system over another, in my opinion.
I think he's got mozilla disease. 10 year at 2.6, then 3.0, now 3.1.
I'm guessing they just dropped the unnecessary middle number. It used to be that the major number was more like 2.6 not 2. They just finally did some garbage collection of the name, sort of?
Other than with the expected value of a patent monopoly, how will the maker of a new drug finance FDA-mandated clinical trials? Show a viable alternative to patents for industries that are as heavily regulated for product safety and truth in advertising as the drug industry, and the case against patents will become clearer.
nope, not Streisand - afaik Vodafone isn't trying to suppress this information.
That's what they want you to think. They're going for a reverse double anti-streisand. It's a smokescreen. A double-bluff. It's an XK-Red-27 technique.
She wasn't arrested for refusing to allow the screening, she was [...]"belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers"[...]"After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail"
Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing. I'd be right behind someone with calm and rational objections, but immediately going on the offensive hardly qualifies.
I think more people should throw hissy-fits about the fascist police state. The developments in the US are outrageous and so should be the response from the populace.
Offended or not, if I was a woman in a community of 95%+ men that thought it ok to bring up upskirts or pantyshots, I think I might feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.
Yes. The Taliban are bad and it wouldn't seem like ombudsmen could kick their asses. But even if it is the right thing to do to be in there and use force against them, it is a problem going in shoulder to shoulder with the "great devil" (and regardless of if that is a fair characterization) that has pissed off people through various means around the world for decades.
Anyway, a point I was perhaps mostly thinking I was making in the previous post, is that a discourse of military glory and terrorism boogiemannery has been creeping into Swedish culture, of which the "Heroes" headline was an example of the former.
And no disrespect to the dead, one of them previously alive just a few kilometers from here. They where heroic young men putting their lives on the line to help oppressed people in Afghanistan (or maybe they were victims of the hype of American freedom-spreading or something. Sad either way.).
The headline made me think of "rallying for our troops", out of place from what I was used to.
Europe too has its history and we're certainly learned from that.. well, the nordic countries at least. And we were originally vikings
We're in Afghanistan, fighting side by side with the bigger "liberators" and when our young die there, headlines proclaim "HEROES".
We are buying in to the terrorism scare and we are latching onto one side of the sides that one must be for or against, inviting zealots to blow shit up here too.
And this is why it failed. Because the courts aren't stupid, and were able to recognize this "religion" for what it is. A mockery of real religions by assholes who just want an excuse to steal things.
Yeah! Besides, their ideology of this commie copying is itself a ripoff of another religion!
And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
Car analogy: If you take a Volvo and give it a paint job, tweak it a bit and slap on a few stickers here and there, add a software center and replace the steering wheel with oars, it's still a Volvo.
All that teasing aside, in the event of ubuntus money running out, they will have contributed a lot, (perhaps mostly users?) to FOSS. That's a good thing. If the community couldn't keep churning out new ubuntus after the money is gone, the users could hop over to mint and/or debian without too much trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
I've also heard it claimed (On the TV-show Kobra on Swedish public service TV), that it would be more accurate to say these were Al Jazeera revolutions rather than Twitter- or Facebook- or Internet-revolutions, in that access to real journalism (People from the US might want to check out the BBC for an example of what I'm talking about) for the masses had a bigger impact than the speedier communications of whatever percentage of people that would Facebook or Twitter.
I don't know, but it does sound like a reasonable claim to me.
...you know the rest.
Maims you? Scars you? Pushes you over the edge? Makes you a chronic depressive? Cuts off all your limbs, then tortures and kills your family in front of your eyes? Leaves you in a vegetative state? What!?
(ps. I know. I just think it's a silly saying.)
Interesting points. But surely the international legal status of an area previously claimed and recognized should remain in case of it drowning if buildings are floating and anchored there or perched on sticks...?
Are there any precedents for a case like this?
>but how do we know someone more sophisticated didn't already break in and mess with the code undetected?
Lots of people probably have the same git source repo on their own computers, so it can be compared to the kernel.org one.
Oh, I may have went off on a tangent just there... Sorry. I reacted on the part about the end consumer investigating products.
That most other electronics brands are environmentally the same or worse is of course true.
>American consumers have made their choice a long time ago.
Except, the choice didn't come in the form of a ballot where you could check YES or NO to poisoning the planet and exploiting poor people. If presented like that, people might make a different choice.
We shouldn't put the burden on consumers to have to know everything about every product. We should set up some rules about fucking up the environment and exploiting the poor, so that consumers don't have to check everything. Consumers don't want to try to investigate every product and they shouldn't have to.
Change for the better will not come through the diligence of every Tom, Dick and Harriet. The ingenious system has you believing consumers have the power. Technically we might, but come on...
Some of us try being responsible consumers a little, some a bit more, but on the whole, we wont be investigating every minute detail of the history of every product be purchase.
Instead, what we as consumers and members of democracies maybe could agree upon, would be more general rules stating that the big boys that commission and sell all the stuff should see to it that they don't fuck up the environment and don't exploit the workers too much.
We should only ask if the majority of consumers really do want the planet poisoned and poor people exploited. If the majority says "no, that's fucked up" (or something equivalent) then that is what they want. If that is what they want, the corporations should adhere to that or pay dearly if they step out of line. That way consumers wouldn't have the burden of checking every fucking thing they buy.
Am I to understand, that you do not think the US government is a government of, by and for the people?
You don't have democracy as in "rule of the people"? That would be fucked up. I do believe it would be right to topple despots.These are elusive ones, though. Obama is not the dictator. Who are the real rulers?
A revolution is in order, but remember, those bastards are people too. Ends don't justify means. No killing except if you have to, in self defense.
And try to get a majority of the people with you before you try to seize power.
I still wont trust WallStreet with my money, which would be about like trusting an alcoholic with the beer at a party...
I don't know how it is over there, but over here in Sweden everyone has money in the stock market as all pensions were moved there some years ago. We're all supposed to choose where to invest them and to care about the wellbeing of Wall Street.
Kind of unfair advantage given to the propagandists of one economic system over another, in my opinion.
It's a rent in the space-time continuum.
Some in Internet terms distant year called and wanted their way of numbering Linux back :)
I think he's got mozilla disease. 10 year at 2.6, then 3.0, now 3.1.
I'm guessing they just dropped the unnecessary middle number. It used to be that the major number was more like 2.6 not 2. They just finally did some garbage collection of the name, sort of?
Other than with the expected value of a patent monopoly, how will the maker of a new drug finance FDA-mandated clinical trials? Show a viable alternative to patents for industries that are as heavily regulated for product safety and truth in advertising as the drug industry, and the case against patents will become clearer.
Socialism?
Capitalist urges are primal and natural, which is why Capitalism or something like it asserts itself even in anarchic conditions.
All sorts of urges are primal and natural. Many of them mutually conflicting.
People are also social animals by nature. Sharing and working together is primal and natural.
So, socialism or co-ops are just as primal and natural as "capitalist urges".
Maybe it's just that you're at a competitive disadvantage with sharing and caring against selfishness and ruthlessness?
nope, not Streisand - afaik Vodafone isn't trying to suppress this information.
That's what they want you to think. They're going for a reverse double anti-streisand. It's a smokescreen. A double-bluff. It's an XK-Red-27 technique.
Or, could be that she's a self-entitled prat.
She wasn't arrested for refusing to allow the screening, she was [...]"belligerent and verbally abusive to security officers"[...]"After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail"
Short version, she got her knickers in a twist and threw a hissy-fit without even a modest attempt at politely refusing. I'd be right behind someone with calm and rational objections, but immediately going on the offensive hardly qualifies.
I think more people should throw hissy-fits about the fascist police state. The developments in the US are outrageous and so should be the response from the populace.
When asked how they felt about being described as less intelligent than lizards, Polly Parrot replied:
-"I was flying all the way to the bank."
TOO BAD.
What do you mean?
Offended or not, if I was a woman in a community of 95%+ men that thought it ok to bring up upskirts or pantyshots, I think I might feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.
Could you state a date before which the browsers are compatible? Something like this:
-"Ahoy, sweet customer! We will make sure the product is compatible with $LIST_OF_BROWSERS released before $MONTH $YEAR
Yes. The Taliban are bad and it wouldn't seem like ombudsmen could kick their asses. But even if it is the right thing to do to be in there and use force against them, it is a problem going in shoulder to shoulder with the "great devil" (and regardless of if that is a fair characterization) that has pissed off people through various means around the world for decades.
Anyway, a point I was perhaps mostly thinking I was making in the previous post, is that a discourse of military glory and terrorism boogiemannery has been creeping into Swedish culture, of which the "Heroes" headline was an example of the former.
And no disrespect to the dead, one of them previously alive just a few kilometers from here. They where heroic young men putting their lives on the line to help oppressed people in Afghanistan (or maybe they were victims of the hype of American freedom-spreading or something. Sad either way.).
The headline made me think of "rallying for our troops", out of place from what I was used to.
Nope. I'm pretty sure you just posted it. Maybe you posted a dupe comment, but it's not the same exact one, just identical.
Yeah! Besides, their ideology of this commie copying is itself a ripoff of another religion!
http://bible.cc/john/6-11.htm
Ubuntu is debian.
Car analogy: If you take a Volvo and give it a paint job, tweak it a bit and slap on a few stickers here and there, add a software center and replace the steering wheel with oars, it's still a Volvo.
All that teasing aside, in the event of ubuntus money running out, they will have contributed a lot, (perhaps mostly users?) to FOSS. That's a good thing. If the community couldn't keep churning out new ubuntus after the money is gone, the users could hop over to mint and/or debian without too much trouble.