"That there are voices opposing stricter laws on firearms and guns make me shiver. Especially this guy who said something like "if only a teacher had a gun, this wouldn't have happened"... *gosh*"
Obviously, you haven't thought this through enough if this just makes you shiver.
What did these shooters want? Power. They wanted the ability to shoot whoever they wanted to, to walk through a maze of helpless students and get back at all of them. The "games" that they played while shooting people makes this obvious. They only were able to do this because no one could counter them.
It wouldn't have taken a gun, it just would have taken the knowledge that someone in that crowd owned a gun and probably had it with them. That would have raised the possibilty of being shot down, which would have dramatically decreased the willingness of the shooters to start this. To be shot down would have been the final humiliation.
THIS is what concealed carry laws are about. Criminals are much more loathe to turn a gun on somebody when there is a chance that they will get shot in return.
...the ability to upgrade our kernel without rebooting!:-)
From what I can see, the kernel image is copied bytewise into memory on boot-up. Once we're finished with compiling a new kernel, why not have the old kernel copy a mini-kernel into memory that would do nothing but overlay the old kernel image in memory with the new kernel image, and then pass control to the new kernel?:-).
(Of course, we would have to find a way to keep track of the current state of the kernel, (probably by swapping the kernel structures to a file, and then swapping those structures back in to the new kernel image))
If we disabled all interrupts when we switched kernels, and suspend all processes (which should be easy..since we're running in ring zero)..why wouldn't this work?
Think about the massive benefits of this! Think about the uptimes we could have with this!:-)
"But bosses, in your scenario, would be perfectly within their rights to fire everyone who mentions the word "union"."
Well, right now (in non-right to work states), I can be fired for NOT joining the damn union. If employees WANT to join a union and the management DOESN'T want a union, suddenly they'll be no employees working on production. That would kinda cause the management to make concessions.
"The owner of the workplace has all the rights"
You're damn right, if it's MY workspace. However, if I'm a business, I need people to work in my workspace, and therefore, I'll have to make terms that are ATTRACTIVE to most workers to gain workers.
"I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor."
What makes you think that you DON'T have the right to withhold your labor? Simply STOP WORKING if you don't want to. But remember, your manager is a person too, and you're likely to get MUCH more constructive things done if you TALK TO HIM/HER then if you just act childish. If you want to "collectively" withhold labor, then get a bunch of people to agree to stop working at the same time...it COSTS businesses a LOT of money to find qualified workers, and would be in THEIR best interest to try to satisfy the group and end the strike instead of trying to re-hire everybody.
"I find genuine labor-management dialogue"
Why do you think you need a UNION to have a dialogue with your employer? Why work for somebody if you can't sit down with the boss and have a reasonable discussion?
"And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression?"
How the hell can a PRIVATE industry LEGALLY oppress you? If they take away your property or your life, then they are acting illegally. When the GOVERNMENT does it to you, they are acting perfectly legally and you have no recource.
Time to read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Freedman.
"Face it, economies are like ecologies: Sometimes they get out of whack, and there's a very painful readjustment."
And like ecologies, there's not a damn thing that the goverment can do execept stay out of the way and let it correct itself.
"So there's a tendency to try to soften the blow. Since we've found things to do which really do help, why not keep it up? "
1. They DON'T work (we have constant inflation, which we didn't have before the federal reserve).
2. Trying to "soften the blow" made the Great Depression last for 10 YEARS instead of a few months. And the current depression in Japan is dragging on for the same reasons.
Of course, since the depression was CAUSED by the government contracting the money supply, (which you never refuted, you just blew off as "couldn't e possible"), they probably felt that they eventually needed to do something to counter it.
"Libertarianism. Again. The problem is that any system of governance should most likely take into account the effects of the Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules...) and if at all possible counteract them. Otherwise...it gets unpleasant."
Well, businesses wouldn't buy the government under a libertarian system...the government wouldn't offer much for businesses to buy unlike now.
People who are rich got there because they KNOW HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE. The difference is that the government forces them upon you, while you can choose NOT to buy things you don't want. (like Windows).
"There are plenty of drugs that almost instantly change a person into a raving lunatic."
Drug induced psychosis is RATHER rare...people generally don't go in "destroy" mode over drugs.
"It is plain to see that you have never been affected by drugs because the only people who advocate making drugs leag are addicts and people who have never seriously used drugs."
Wrong. I've had close friends use drugs at parties..and what I've seen has made me choose to never use drugs. But the legality of drugs won't affect its use, and I've also seen neighborhoods destroyed by the fighting between the gangs.
"It is very few drug users who have not stepped on other peoples rights."
VERY wrong. you cannot tell me that Marijuana makes people agressive, yet most arrests come from possession of marijuana. In the 40's and 50's..all these drugs were legal and USED. Wow...people really remember the drug rampages from back then, don't they?:P:-)
"If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse. "
Read the book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray.
We've been trying prohibition for the last *100* years on one damn substance or another! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use). However, by making it illegal, you make drug trade VERY VERY VERY Profitable, where the drug people can buy off any one they want, and shoot and kill any competitors while destroying whole neighborhoods in the process.
in the 1920's, the people selling alcohol did so in the same way that people sell drugs in the 1990's.
And finally, people have the RIGHT to put WHATEVER THEY WANT into THEIR BODIES. They DON'T have the right to blame their behaviour on the drug afterwords, but it's MY cells, MY blood, MY body, and I'll do with it whatever I please. In my case, I choose not to do drugs (or alcohol) because I don't want to lose control of what I am doing. As long as I don't hurt anybody else physically or destroy property, HOW DARE they say otherwise?
"a) drugs are bad, the government is not solving it, and whatever is doing is just plain lame. b) you want privacy c) you dont like the taxing system d) you dont like the justice system (exept vs m$) e) your ruling parties just don't cut it for ya. f) freedom of speech (copyleft)."
And the Libertarians are on your side on each point:-)
(Except they think that Microsoft should fall by it's own sword instead of the government pretending that IT had anything to do with the fall of Microsoft.)
Republicans just pretend to be libertarians during election day, and then go right back to flaming up the war on drugs, and all their idiotic social conservative movements.
Vote libertarian..where no one wants to control you:-)
This is a GOOD IDEA...Moderator abuse?
on
CDE vs Gnome
·
· Score: 1
Lots of seg-faults on my system occur (or used to occur) because applications were still linked to old libraries that weren't compatible with new libraries.
So, yes, wiping clean all the old libraries and recompiling everything against new libraries could dramatically increase stability.
So have both posts suggesting this been moderated down to -1?
The problem is that they need unix developers, it seems.. I don't normally use Microsoft OS'es, except that I have a job where I need to use NT (on a laptop) every once in a while..
So while I was in NT, I decided to look at the windows mozilla build...
WOW!
It renders much faster then IE 4, it LOOKS very good, and it is VERY functional. If I could get bookmarks implimented, I would use this as my ONLY browser within windows.
I've tried to get the new mozilla to work in Linux for a while now...just to be frustrated with an immediate segmentation fault, or other immediate crash, and I got apprunner to work once or twice, but it always looked like hell. Suffice to say, there are serious differences in parity..but my last cvs update was march 4th. Impressed with this latest mozilla binary, I'm compiling the linux m3 version on my desktop..hoping it is somewhat as good in terms of quality..
It's very obvious that the back-end components are very high quality and finished...all we need are more linux people to help them get a usable front-end.
But mozilla is NOT a project in trouble. It is VERY usable right now on the windows side, and hopefully on the Linux side as well (watching the compile continue as I type).
It just seems that everyone is extremely impatient. Remember, the beta date is not until JULY 20th!
Slashdot Mirror
"That there are voices opposing stricter laws on firearms and guns make me shiver. Especially this guy who said something like "if only a teacher had a gun, this wouldn't have happened" ... *gosh*"
Obviously, you haven't thought this through enough if this just makes you shiver.
What did these shooters want? Power. They wanted the ability to shoot whoever they wanted to, to walk through a maze of helpless students and get back at all of them. The "games" that they played while shooting people makes this obvious. They only were able to do this because no one could counter them.
It wouldn't have taken a gun, it just would have taken the knowledge that someone in that crowd owned a gun and probably had it with them. That would have raised the possibilty of being shot down, which would have dramatically decreased the willingness of the shooters to start this. To be shot down would have been the final humiliation.
THIS is what concealed carry laws are about. Criminals are much more loathe to turn a gun on somebody when there is a chance that they will get shot in return.
...the ability to upgrade our kernel without rebooting! :-)
:-).
:-)
From what I can see, the kernel image is copied bytewise into memory on boot-up. Once we're finished with compiling a new kernel, why not have the old kernel copy a mini-kernel into memory that would do nothing but overlay the old kernel image in memory with the new kernel image, and then pass control to the new kernel?
(Of course, we would have to find a way to keep track of the current state of the kernel, (probably by swapping the kernel structures to a file, and then swapping those structures back in to the new kernel image))
If we disabled all interrupts when we switched kernels, and suspend all processes (which should be easy..since we're running in ring zero)..why wouldn't this work?
Think about the massive benefits of this! Think about the uptimes we could have with this!
"But bosses, in your scenario, would be perfectly within their rights to fire everyone who mentions the word "union"."
Well, right now (in non-right to work states), I can be fired for NOT joining the damn union. If employees WANT to join a union and the management DOESN'T want a union, suddenly they'll be no employees working on production. That would kinda cause the management to make concessions.
"The owner of the workplace has all the rights"
You're damn right, if it's MY workspace. However, if I'm a business, I need people to work in my workspace, and therefore, I'll have to make terms that are ATTRACTIVE to most workers to gain workers.
"I'm sure you can say that there may be scattered cases in which management will gladly work with labor, but I doubt labor would be willing to take a chance on a Libertarian solution if there is no right to collective bargaining and no right to collectively withhold one's labor."
What makes you think that you DON'T have the right to withhold your labor? Simply STOP WORKING if you don't want to. But remember, your manager is a person too, and you're likely to get MUCH more constructive things done if you TALK TO HIM/HER then if you just act childish. If you want to "collectively" withhold labor, then get a bunch of people to agree to stop working at the same time...it COSTS businesses a LOT of money to find qualified workers, and would be in THEIR best interest to try to satisfy the group and end the strike instead of trying to re-hire everybody.
"I find genuine labor-management dialogue"
Why do you think you need a UNION to have a dialogue with your employer? Why work for somebody if you can't sit down with the boss and have a reasonable discussion?
"And what is this but an enhancement of the already-ongoing privatization of oppression?"
How the hell can a PRIVATE industry LEGALLY oppress you? If they take away your property or your life, then they are acting illegally. When the GOVERNMENT does it to you, they are acting perfectly legally and you have no recource.
Only governments can oppress.
Time to read "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Freedman.
"Face it, economies are like ecologies: Sometimes they get out of whack, and there's a very painful readjustment."
And like ecologies, there's not a damn thing that the goverment can do execept stay out of the way and let it correct itself.
"So there's a tendency to try to soften the blow. Since we've found things to do which really do help, why not keep it up? "
1. They DON'T work (we have constant inflation, which we didn't have before the federal reserve).
2. Trying to "soften the blow" made the Great Depression last for 10 YEARS instead of a few months. And the current depression in Japan is dragging on for the same reasons.
Of course, since the depression was CAUSED by the government contracting the money supply, (which you never refuted, you just blew off as "couldn't e possible"), they probably felt that they eventually needed to do something to counter it.
"Libertarianism. Again. The problem is that any system of governance should most likely take into account the effects of the Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules...) and if at all
possible counteract them. Otherwise...it gets unpleasant."
Well, businesses wouldn't buy the government under a libertarian system...the government wouldn't offer much for businesses to buy unlike now.
People who are rich got there because they KNOW HOW TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE. The difference is that the government forces them upon you, while you can choose NOT to buy things you don't want. (like Windows).
Harry Browne is likely to be our presidential candidate....we're not sure who the vice-president will be yet :-)
The panic of 1921 (or 1923) could have been MUCH worse, but it wasn't..because the government stayed OUT.
in 1929, the Federal reserve forcefully CONTRACTED the money supply. This caused the stock market to crash.
"There are plenty of drugs that almost instantly change a person into a raving lunatic."
:P :-)
Drug induced psychosis is RATHER rare...people generally don't go in "destroy" mode over drugs.
"It is plain to see that you have never been affected by drugs because the only people who advocate making drugs leag are addicts and people who have never seriously used drugs."
Wrong. I've had close friends use drugs at parties..and what I've seen has made me choose to never use drugs. But the legality of drugs won't affect its use, and I've also seen neighborhoods destroyed by the fighting between the gangs.
"It is very few drug users who have not stepped on other peoples rights."
VERY wrong. you cannot tell me that Marijuana makes people agressive, yet most arrests come from possession of marijuana. In the 40's and 50's..all these drugs were legal and USED. Wow...people really remember the drug rampages from back then, don't they?
You obviously know how to use drugs without abusing them and being adversly affected by them..congratulations :-)
"If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse. "
Read the book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray.
We've been trying prohibition for the last *100* years on one damn substance or another! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use). However, by making it illegal, you make drug trade VERY VERY VERY Profitable, where the drug people can buy off any one they want, and shoot and kill any competitors while destroying whole neighborhoods in the process.
in the 1920's, the people selling alcohol did so in the same way that people sell drugs in the 1990's.
And finally, people have the RIGHT to put WHATEVER THEY WANT into THEIR BODIES. They DON'T have the right to blame their behaviour on the drug afterwords, but it's MY cells, MY blood, MY body, and I'll do with it whatever I please. In my case, I choose not to do drugs (or alcohol) because I don't want to lose control of what I am doing. As long as I don't hurt anybody else physically or destroy property, HOW DARE they say otherwise?
"a) drugs are bad, the government is not solving it, and whatever is doing is just plain lame.
:-)
b) you want privacy
c) you dont like the taxing system
d) you dont like the justice system (exept vs m$)
e) your ruling parties just don't cut it for ya.
f) freedom of speech (copyleft)."
And the Libertarians are on your side on each point
(Except they think that Microsoft should fall by it's own sword instead of the government pretending that IT had anything to do with the fall of Microsoft.)
"Here's another generalization:
Democrats == Control our money
Republicans == Control our morals"
How about
Libertarian == As long as it doesn't doesn't take someone else's life or property through coercion, you're allowed to do it.
Don't you yearn for your natural freedom?
Will republicans get rid of the idiotic war on drugs?
Will republicans repeal the income tax?
Will republicans stop sending our troops where they don't belong?
They just want to get rid of LIBERAL programs..they don't want to get rid of their OWN programs.
Libertarians are.
Republicans just pretend to be libertarians during election day, and then go right back to flaming up the war on drugs, and all their idiotic social conservative movements.
No we don't. Vote Libertarian and break this "Two party becoming one party" system.
There IS no lesser evil. BOTH the republicans and the Democrats want larger government.
most of the time? yes :P :-)
SMP is cheaper, but is somewhat more of
a hassle, and it means that you keep this
room FREEZING so your computers don't overheat.
:P
Nope..he meant DELETE the OLD libraries before
you compile the NEW libraries.
Note that he said that we should delete the libraries BEFORE we install. Installing usually consists of putting the new libraries in their places.
Vote libertarian..where no one wants to control you :-)
Lots of seg-faults on my system occur (or used to occur) because applications were still linked to old libraries that weren't compatible with new libraries.
So, yes, wiping clean all the old libraries and recompiling everything against new libraries could dramatically increase stability.
So have both posts suggesting this been moderated down to -1?
The problem is that they need unix developers,
it seems.. I don't normally use Microsoft OS'es,
except that I have a job where I need to use
NT (on a laptop) every once in a while..
So while I was in NT, I decided to look at the
windows mozilla build...
WOW!
It renders much faster then IE 4, it LOOKS very
good, and it is VERY functional. If I could get
bookmarks implimented, I would use this as my
ONLY browser within windows.
I've tried to get the new mozilla to work in Linux
for a while now...just to be frustrated with an
immediate segmentation fault, or other immediate
crash, and I got apprunner to work once or twice,
but it always looked like hell. Suffice to say,
there are serious differences in parity..but
my last cvs update was march 4th. Impressed with
this latest mozilla binary, I'm compiling the linux
m3 version on my desktop..hoping it is somewhat
as good in terms of quality..
It's very obvious that the back-end components are
very high quality and finished...all we need are
more linux people to help them get a usable
front-end.
But mozilla is NOT a project in trouble. It is
VERY usable right now on the windows side, and
hopefully on the Linux side as well (watching
the compile continue as I type).
It just seems that everyone is extremely impatient.
Remember, the beta date is not until JULY 20th!
It's not broken or defective..just not finished.
I've attempted to contribute to this project, but it is hard to even get off the ground with the source code.
1) If I do a cvs update -Pd, I get ALL of the source code from the cvs server...ARRRGH.
2) The makefiles are misformed rather often, meaning that make clean does not work.
3) It keeps creating a new mozilla directory..why would I ever want to do the cvs update from outside the mozilla directory?
The viewer is nice and quick now, but I've stopped
doing daily builds of the code because I'm tired of all the update hassles.
because Microsoft is NOT a monopoly. :P
Compare Linux to this NSI stuff...
You can create a free operating system because there is no official government sponsored os.
You cannot create a free NSI because there is an official government sponsored NSI.