An example of Freedom of expression would be burning an effigy of George Bush. Although I would view this particular example of freedom of expression as okay, others are not.
And burning an effigy of a black man falls where? Or a cross?
Don't let your political views distort your vision of freedoms.
If you spent less time drinking and more time on studies, you'd find out you made the right choice (assuming you were going for amount of alcohol in you per/$, unless you went above the 17 beers.
So, if you have a giant bladder and want to get drunk, its cheaper to do it with the milwaukee, if you are wealthy (by college standards) and want to just get drink, you can find some b151 at the liquor store down the road.
Myself, I prefered sissy drinks, like mudslides / margaritas / etc.
Depends, does the kernel tree have ALSA drivers or OSS drivers?
Assuming the forest is compiled with OSS support, both should work (through ALSA's OSS emulation). If the forest only works with ALSA sound and the tree only has OSS drivers, well, then most likely no one will hear it.
Sort of like this comment, as this was a yesterday's article.
but this country was founded on separating that from the ruling government.
Common misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.
Actually, "spearation of church and state" was not thought about until a certain (forget which) supreme court ruling. Read it again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It simpley says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." So, infact laws saying that employers cannot discriminate against folks based on religion are indeed unconstitutional. It also means that laws against having the 10 commandments in schools or court buildings are unconsitutional.
The reason the clause was put into the first amendment was to prevent a "church of england" ans such issues. Many of the first settlers who first came the the new world were fleeing persecuting governments because of the religion they practiced was not the state religion. They however did not wish for a necessarily atheistic government, they simpley decided that there would be no state endorsed religion.
However, this has been twisted to attempt to even outlaw folks from practicing religion. Such as the fact that Bush, Ashcroft, and others often hold prayer meetings (not required to go to them, and on off time) are still challenged by folks because they think that they are somehow endorsing a religion as the state. Quite the opposite, since they are doing these optional and offtime, it is upto the people to attend. These folks are allowed to be Christian, muslim, hindu, taoist, whatever on their own time. It would be wrong of the state to refuse the people the right (constitutionally protected) to practice their religion.
However, many, even here on slashdot refuse to see that. They harbor such a hatred of Christians that they would rather stomp on the first amendment instead of uphold it for people they disagree with. The first amendment used by the anti-christians is to suppress ideas and thought. It is no longer "I will disagree with everything you say, but defend to the death your right to say it." More likely now it is, "I disagree with everything you say, but I will stomp on the first amendment to stop your right to say it."
Were this in the US you'd be screaming that the evil Christian right was taking away your freedoms. You see, you will only point out when the US does something wrong, but never look when it does something right.
More on topic:
Not that I agree that closing arcades and such is a good thing. I do see that if my child was doing poorly in school and spending more hours playing at arcades than study, I would want to keep him from the arcades though. That is parenting, not something the government should do though.
I don't know if you need to get "disappointed" from linux not taking over the desktop. Sure, I'd love to see linux become a contender (especially in the gaming arena). But, if it doesn't happen I'm not going to get all upset 01/01/08.
I guess my main point is to not put dates on things that you personally cannot affect. Linux is about community, you can work within the community to make it better and more appealing. You can work with others outside the linux community to turn them on to linux.
However, whether or not linux takes off is not an issue to be sad/angery/disappointed about. That you already have an OS that is great to use from a productivity stand point and functionality stand point is the cake. That others use it is simpley icing.
Don't forget, it was scorching 120 degree weather, through 4 feet of snow!
Re:ADD Version
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not completely true...
First, in genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Sue, etc...
Also in genesis we also have where Abram (to be Abraham) takes Sari's (to be Sarah) maidservent and has a child with her. While it was acceptable of the time to do that, the rift caused through bitterness of Sari and the maidservent was an example of why it was a bad thing.
Also, David is punished for taking Bersheba (sp?) though she was already married, then killing the man (or having him killed by putting him in front of battle). The child is taken after it is born.
The story of Solomon in (kings/chronicles) implies that Solomon should not have taken multiple wives (two fold reason, they would drag him into their religion and it was wrong).
Also in Hosea, where Hosea is told to take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to Isreal how it is a whore to other gods we have another example of where taking multiple wives is wrong.
Also, Jesus makes not in the gospels that marriage is sacred and binding between a man and a woman when he is answering he scribes about the law on marriage.
Again, the the NT Paul also mentions that the man's body is the wive's and the wive's body is the man's, and they should not with hold from eachother. Note the singular.
So, its easy to take out of context that the Bible supports polygamy, but that is simpley not the case. God intended a single man and a single woman to be together.
So, Saddam should have been allowed to keep Kuwait '91? We should have just allowed him to take over the country? I would say we would have had the same situation on our hands as Europe did pre-WWII. Iraq pre '91 was getting arrogant and surely would have started on more countries had we not stepped in.
Canada doesn't really have too much to worry about. They share one border with another country, who happens to have the most advanced military in the world.
Another problem with comparing the US to others is our economic power. Do you suggest that sweden or switzerland even compare the the US in economics on a world scale?
Compassion is not a function of the government. The government is designed to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. Compassion is the domain of the people, churches, organizations of the country.
Perhaps you don't realize the completeness of the world. The US is currently the largest single political, economic, and military power currently. Simpley from size we are going to make enemies. We do realize this, hence our concentration on developing our political and military power.
John Adams (sub) Chester Arthur (none) James Buchanan (destroyer) George H Bush (to be carrier) Jimmy Carter (to be sub) Grover Cleveland (none) Willam Clinton (joke/maternity ship) Clavin Coolidge (none) Dwight Eisenhower (carrier) Millard Fillmoe (carrier?) Gerald Ford (none) James Garfield (none) Ullysses Grant (sub) Warren Harding (none) Benjamin Harrison (none) William Harrison (none) Rutherford Hayes (none) Herbert Hoover (none) Andrew Jackson (sub) Thomas Jefferson (sub) Andrew Johnson (none) Lyndon Johnson (none) John F Kennedy (carrier) Abraham Lincoln (carrier) James Madison (sub) William Mckinenly (none) James Monroe (sub) Richard Nixon (none) Pierce Franklin (none) James Polk (sub) Ronald Reagan (carrier) Franklin Roosevelt (carrier) Theodore Roosevelt (carrier) William Taft (none) Zachary Taylor (none) Harry Truman (carrier) John Tyler (none?) Martin Van Buren (none) George Washington (carrier) Woodrow Wilson (sub)
Ofcourse fact are nothing you are going to bother yourself with. There are a certain number of democrats in there too fyi.
Do you really think that there would not have been a WWIII between soviet union and US during the 40 years between WWII and break up of the soviet union?
When we do attack now we have the ability to take out single buildings compared to entire towns. Or would you prefer we go back to bombing runs to take out entire cities?
We live in an age of war and hatred, and that sucks donkey whang. How about we try to do something about that other than working on our ability to make our enemies fear us more than they hate us?
Why? You answer your question with the first sentence here. We live in an age (realistically every age is this way) where there is war and hatred.
In WWII europe sat back back with an appeasement policy and see what good that did. Here's a hint, it didn't do any good.
History teaches us that folks will hate us/anyone for any reason. History is wrought with wars and hate. At a national level you either are powerful and defend your interest or you are a play thing of your enemies.
Are we supposed to appease our enemies and do as they ask when we have to power to decide our own fortunes? I think not. As we come full circle here, to tbe beginning of my post, look again at the appeasement of WWII. The hatred is there, there is nothing to be done about it.
Okey, population differences were an issue there. One was a "world war" (great war if you are on the other side of the pond?).
I guess my point is that when there is a large technological gulf between two opposing forces, the war is going to be shorter and less folks will need to be killed.
Look at our last two operations in Iraq and Afgahnistan, and even Iraq '91. Huge tech difference, short war. Casualty rates in both (all three if you count '91) were considerably lower than in say korea, vietnam, WWII.
Now we get to see all the normal slashbots complain that we should be spending money on something else cause war is so 20th century and we now live in an age of peace and love.
Personally, I think its great that we continue to push the edge of technology in warfare. It allows us to keep wars down to as short a time as possible. And, the shorter the duration of wars, the less people killed by them. The better the tech, ideally the fewer civilian deaths also.
Heck, during the install you have to even setup a syslog to run, or you won't even get that. Even after I emerge a new app (say samba) it doesn't default to it running at boot.
Even slackware doesn't compare to that. As slackware usaully has ssh, sendmail, and a couple others running. The sendmail thing really bugs me though, since sendmail definitely needs a little bit of configuration before it is run to do anything useful.
What were you using to watch DVDs? I use the 9000pro with the ATI drivers and don't have a problem with ogle. I am running ogle.85 though, there were issues with.91 though.
I find RTCW-ET has issues though. I turn off OGL Extensions (with the extensions on I get a lot of flickers ?reversed triangles?) and I can usually play for half hour or so, but then it will lock.
I doubt that the government is thinking, "Oh lets ride on SETI's coattails." More likely the government someone figured, hey, they actually seem to be getting somewhere, we can toss them a few coin and see what they come up with.
I know, its much to easy to think bad things of the government, but try to think objectively.
Interesting? It sounds like someone has been spending too much time watching star trek to me.
Had he thrown in any comments about phasers, holodecks, or klingons it might have been a funny comment.
As far as planets discovered outside our solar system, I thought we have only found gas giants or round'a'bout size. I'd hardly call those livable for humans.
I believe some of the articles also mentioned that these kids had "three foot swords" and "knives".
Perhaps you like the idea of banning anything that could be a weapon? Bows too?
Here in michigan we have quite a large deer population, only through hunting do we even have a chance of keeping it under control. Or would you rather that 100s of folks die in car/deer accidents?
There are a number of other arguments, but you and I both know them by now.
Slashdot Mirror
WWW == world wide web.
Why don't you type worldwideweb.slashdot.org?
Somethings are easier to type than others you know.
An example of Freedom of expression would be burning an effigy of George Bush. Although I would view this particular example of freedom of expression as okay, others are not.
And burning an effigy of a black man falls where? Or a cross?
Don't let your political views distort your vision of freedoms.
If you spent less time drinking and more time on studies, you'd find out you made the right choice (assuming you were going for amount of alcohol in you per/$, unless you went above the 17 beers.
.612oz/beer
.648oz/beer
You see:
Milwaukee:
$.665/beer
18 beers == 11.016oz == $11.97
Natural Light Ice:
$.715/beer
17 beers == 11.016oz == $12.155 ($.185 more)
18 beers == 11.664oz == $12.87 ($.90 more)
So, if you have a giant bladder and want to get drunk, its cheaper to do it with the milwaukee, if you are wealthy (by college standards) and want to just get drink, you can find some b151 at the liquor store down the road.
Myself, I prefered sissy drinks, like mudslides / margaritas / etc.
Depends, does the kernel tree have ALSA drivers or OSS drivers?
Assuming the forest is compiled with OSS support, both should work (through ALSA's OSS emulation). If the forest only works with ALSA sound and the tree only has OSS drivers, well, then most likely no one will hear it.
Sort of like this comment, as this was a yesterday's article.
but this country was founded on separating that from the ruling government.
Common misinterpretation of the 1st amendment.
Actually, "spearation of church and state" was not thought about until a certain (forget which) supreme court ruling. Read it again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It simpley says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." So, infact laws saying that employers cannot discriminate against folks based on religion are indeed unconstitutional. It also means that laws against having the 10 commandments in schools or court buildings are unconsitutional.
The reason the clause was put into the first amendment was to prevent a "church of england" ans such issues. Many of the first settlers who first came the the new world were fleeing persecuting governments because of the religion they practiced was not the state religion. They however did not wish for a necessarily atheistic government, they simpley decided that there would be no state endorsed religion.
However, this has been twisted to attempt to even outlaw folks from practicing religion. Such as the fact that Bush, Ashcroft, and others often hold prayer meetings (not required to go to them, and on off time) are still challenged by folks because they think that they are somehow endorsing a religion as the state. Quite the opposite, since they are doing these optional and offtime, it is upto the people to attend. These folks are allowed to be Christian, muslim, hindu, taoist, whatever on their own time. It would be wrong of the state to refuse the people the right (constitutionally protected) to practice their religion.
However, many, even here on slashdot refuse to see that. They harbor such a hatred of Christians that they would rather stomp on the first amendment instead of uphold it for people they disagree with. The first amendment used by the anti-christians is to suppress ideas and thought. It is no longer "I will disagree with everything you say, but defend to the death your right to say it." More likely now it is, "I disagree with everything you say, but I will stomp on the first amendment to stop your right to say it."
Were this in the US you'd be screaming that the evil Christian right was taking away your freedoms. You see, you will only point out when the US does something wrong, but never look when it does something right.
More on topic:
Not that I agree that closing arcades and such is a good thing. I do see that if my child was doing poorly in school and spending more hours playing at arcades than study, I would want to keep him from the arcades though. That is parenting, not something the government should do though.
I don't know if you need to get "disappointed" from linux not taking over the desktop. Sure, I'd love to see linux become a contender (especially in the gaming arena). But, if it doesn't happen I'm not going to get all upset 01/01/08.
I guess my main point is to not put dates on things that you personally cannot affect. Linux is about community, you can work within the community to make it better and more appealing. You can work with others outside the linux community to turn them on to linux.
However, whether or not linux takes off is not an issue to be sad/angery/disappointed about. That you already have an OS that is great to use from a productivity stand point and functionality stand point is the cake. That others use it is simpley icing.
Don't forget, it was scorching 120 degree weather, through 4 feet of snow!
Not completely true...
First, in genesis, the creation of Adam and Eve. Not Adam, Eve, Sue, etc...
Also in genesis we also have where Abram (to be Abraham) takes Sari's (to be Sarah) maidservent and has a child with her. While it was acceptable of the time to do that, the rift caused through bitterness of Sari and the maidservent was an example of why it was a bad thing.
Also, David is punished for taking Bersheba (sp?) though she was already married, then killing the man (or having him killed by putting him in front of battle). The child is taken after it is born.
The story of Solomon in (kings/chronicles) implies that Solomon should not have taken multiple wives (two fold reason, they would drag him into their religion and it was wrong).
Also in Hosea, where Hosea is told to take a prostitute as a wife to demonstrate to Isreal how it is a whore to other gods we have another example of where taking multiple wives is wrong.
Also, Jesus makes not in the gospels that marriage is sacred and binding between a man and a woman when he is answering he scribes about the law on marriage.
Again, the the NT Paul also mentions that the man's body is the wive's and the wive's body is the man's, and they should not with hold from eachother. Note the singular.
So, its easy to take out of context that the Bible supports polygamy, but that is simpley not the case. God intended a single man and a single woman to be together.
So, Saddam should have been allowed to keep Kuwait '91? We should have just allowed him to take over the country? I would say we would have had the same situation on our hands as Europe did pre-WWII. Iraq pre '91 was getting arrogant and surely would have started on more countries had we not stepped in.
Canada doesn't really have too much to worry about. They share one border with another country, who happens to have the most advanced military in the world.
Another problem with comparing the US to others is our economic power. Do you suggest that sweden or switzerland even compare the the US in economics on a world scale?
Compassion is not a function of the government. The government is designed to defend the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens. Compassion is the domain of the people, churches, organizations of the country.
Perhaps you don't realize the completeness of the world. The US is currently the largest single political, economic, and military power currently. Simpley from size we are going to make enemies. We do realize this, hence our concentration on developing our political and military power.
John Adams (sub)
Chester Arthur (none)
James Buchanan (destroyer)
George H Bush (to be carrier)
Jimmy Carter (to be sub)
Grover Cleveland (none)
Willam Clinton (joke/maternity ship)
Clavin Coolidge (none)
Dwight Eisenhower (carrier)
Millard Fillmoe (carrier?)
Gerald Ford (none)
James Garfield (none)
Ullysses Grant (sub)
Warren Harding (none)
Benjamin Harrison (none)
William Harrison (none)
Rutherford Hayes (none)
Herbert Hoover (none)
Andrew Jackson (sub)
Thomas Jefferson (sub)
Andrew Johnson (none)
Lyndon Johnson (none)
John F Kennedy (carrier)
Abraham Lincoln (carrier)
James Madison (sub)
William Mckinenly (none)
James Monroe (sub)
Richard Nixon (none)
Pierce Franklin (none)
James Polk (sub)
Ronald Reagan (carrier)
Franklin Roosevelt (carrier)
Theodore Roosevelt (carrier)
William Taft (none)
Zachary Taylor (none)
Harry Truman (carrier)
John Tyler (none?)
Martin Van Buren (none)
George Washington (carrier)
Woodrow Wilson (sub)
Ofcourse fact are nothing you are going to bother yourself with. There are a certain number of democrats in there too fyi.
MAD means nothing to you?
Do you really think that there would not have been a WWIII between soviet union and US during the 40 years between WWII and break up of the soviet union?
When we do attack now we have the ability to take out single buildings compared to entire towns. Or would you prefer we go back to bombing runs to take out entire cities?
Hmmm, can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
My take on this: The government is setup to defend the interest of the people. Its purpose is the protect the life and property of its citizens.
If its citizens choose to be altruistic and help other folks, excellent. Good will is a great thing. It isn't the job of the government.
Reminds me of Sneakers at the end...
I want world peace.
We're the government, we don't do that sort of thing.
We live in an age of war and hatred, and that sucks donkey whang. How about we try to do something about that other than working on our ability to make our enemies fear us more than they hate us?
Why? You answer your question with the first sentence here. We live in an age (realistically every age is this way) where there is war and hatred.
In WWII europe sat back back with an appeasement policy and see what good that did. Here's a hint, it didn't do any good.
History teaches us that folks will hate us/anyone for any reason. History is wrought with wars and hate. At a national level you either are powerful and defend your interest or you are a play thing of your enemies.
Are we supposed to appease our enemies and do as they ask when we have to power to decide our own fortunes? I think not. As we come full circle here, to tbe beginning of my post, look again at the appeasement of WWII. The hatred is there, there is nothing to be done about it.
Okey, population differences were an issue there. One was a "world war" (great war if you are on the other side of the pond?).
I guess my point is that when there is a large technological gulf between two opposing forces, the war is going to be shorter and less folks will need to be killed.
Look at our last two operations in Iraq and Afgahnistan, and even Iraq '91. Huge tech difference, short war. Casualty rates in both (all three if you count '91) were considerably lower than in say korea, vietnam, WWII.
Now we get to see all the normal slashbots complain that we should be spending money on something else cause war is so 20th century and we now live in an age of peace and love.
Personally, I think its great that we continue to push the edge of technology in warfare. It allows us to keep wars down to as short a time as possible. And, the shorter the duration of wars, the less people killed by them. The better the tech, ideally the fewer civilian deaths also.
You've never found the exploding mac page have you?
Geesh, even better would be to put your own address in there. Imagine that, a couple free laptops for the folks not double checking the address. :-)
Granted, you'd probably want to move next week lest you have pissed off geeks messing with your house.
If you have the time/initiative look into gentoo.
Heck, during the install you have to even setup a syslog to run, or you won't even get that. Even after I emerge a new app (say samba) it doesn't default to it running at boot.
Even slackware doesn't compare to that. As slackware usaully has ssh, sendmail, and a couple others running. The sendmail thing really bugs me though, since sendmail definitely needs a little bit of configuration before it is run to do anything useful.
What were you using to watch DVDs? I use the 9000pro with the ATI drivers and don't have a problem with ogle. I am running ogle .85 though, there were issues with .91 though.
I find RTCW-ET has issues though. I turn off OGL Extensions (with the extensions on I get a lot of flickers ?reversed triangles?) and I can usually play for half hour or so, but then it will lock.
I doubt that the government is thinking, "Oh lets ride on SETI's coattails." More likely the government someone figured, hey, they actually seem to be getting somewhere, we can toss them a few coin and see what they come up with.
I know, its much to easy to think bad things of the government, but try to think objectively.
Interesting? It sounds like someone has been spending too much time watching star trek to me.
Had he thrown in any comments about phasers, holodecks, or klingons it might have been a funny comment.
As far as planets discovered outside our solar system, I thought we have only found gas giants or round'a'bout size. I'd hardly call those livable for humans.
I believe some of the articles also mentioned that these kids had "three foot swords" and "knives".
Perhaps you like the idea of banning anything that could be a weapon? Bows too?
Here in michigan we have quite a large deer population, only through hunting do we even have a chance of keeping it under control. Or would you rather that 100s of folks die in car/deer accidents?
There are a number of other arguments, but you and I both know them by now.
This isn't to be a grammar nazi, just a link for the proper spelling: guard
I'm almost, but not completely sure, but I think you missed a comma in there somewhere...