If you do need to give it a chance, read what the other side has to say, but keep your B.S. detector on for both. Acting the windup zealot for the sake of Moore or his critics will make you look like a fool.
Or, you could save your money and watch a real documentary on PBS or BBC.
Look man, just come out an say you are unwilling to address any arguments that cast MS in a bad light. Calling an argument "the dumbest"/"non-sense filled" and refuting it are two different things.
>>> Huh? Can you open up the word processor in Star Office and build a document based upon data you pulled from an Oracle query, complete with various layout features from a Unix shell script? >>>
Yes. For more than a decade now if you count RTF and the editors that support it (and surely since tag based file formats became popular if you don't). This is not really a difficult problem, if that is the point you wanted to make.
To get at objects, any objects, you just need a command line program for manipulating them. Again, not too hard, and the function was actually considered in the design of most major Linux GUI/toolkits. It seems to me there is more than enough ignorance to go around (or something...).
This is really something they should have done years ago, but were too busy trying to shed the "DOS" image and bury the command line ("If I could be like Mac...").
I don't think a "voter test" would be a good thing, especially considering there are more than a few "voter fraud enabling" laws on many states books that need a close look before anything like that is considered.
A few issues:
1) 'The problem I see as that it is always the ones who get to vote who also get to formulate the test. This results in a kind of "grandfather principle".'
It always has been and probably should should remain so, considering the reverse. Math pupils don't get to formulate their math tests either. Comparing it to the "grandfather principle", which is magnitudes more "unfair", is an attempt to tar "voter testing" with the same brush. Same vein (or slope) perhaps, but not the same "kind" IMO.
2) 'The US almost adopted German as a common language at some point in its history, it has always been a country of immigrants.'
But it did choose English. To many people seem to overlook that and ignore the positive implications of having chosen a single common language. Being multilingual is great, requiring it is expensive. For everyone.
3) 'In principle: Just because they don't speak English, they aren't stupid, and if they are stupid, then enlighten them rather than disenfranchise them.'
This "principle" is confusing. Stupid English speakers might suggest that all non-English speaking people are stupid, but those are pretty easy to spot and ignore. The "stupid" really should take it upon themselves and get on the path to "enlightenment". Imposing "enlightenment" on them will probably do nobody any good.
"Disenfranchise" is a word with multiple meanings, real and implied. This really makes your ending words sound more like politi-babble than anything approaching sense. And don't make any remarks about context, because more recent use of the word relates a context analogous to "ug, disenfranchisement bad".
"It works" "Sorry, I consider that a short sighted and ultimately stupid answer"
Why don't you get over yourself, and maybe consider that what "works" for you (or Linus, bless his heart) might not "work" for everyone else. "Conformance to a specific ideology", licensing terms, expense, and "vendor warm-fuzzies" might be part of a whole package of requirements to make something "work".
Just because your requirements are rather simple, i.e. "Linus says it's good", don't assume it is, or even should be, the same for others.
Arrogant. Talk about the whore calling the protitute promiscuous. What a hoot!
Disclaimer: My wife is a teacher and I would benefit economically if they were paid more money.
I find it sad that some say "teachers are paid too little" when quoted this price or that, but never seem to be able to put a dollar value on teaching labor themselves.
It irritates me because I think if someone is going to complain about a problem, they should at least offer solution to it (even an imperfect one). If they don't, it doesn't even matter whether they fully understand the problem or not, they are simply 'stirring the pot'.
Not that it is material to this argument, but how the hell would you know?
Even if you are/were an MS employee, am I to believe you have read all of the source code that is/was Windows and can authoritatively say that it is all properly attributed?
Please!
As you state, involving MS in this is LAME as it has nothing at all to do with them, but so is your defense of MS (especially since it doesn't apply). You probably should have submitted your second paragraph alone.
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
You are absolutely right.
My friend would not then be at fault.
The responsibility would be mine, and mine alone.
Or, are you implying that we would share responsibility? And what would the split be? 50/50? 75/25? 90/10? How would "partial responsibility" be delegated? Who would be the judge? How would we be punished? Along the same split?
It really doesn't matter, I suppose, unless someone actually holds you responsible, justly or unjustly. Too bad everyones opinion of what is just is just a little bit different from everyone elses. Well, that is until something comes along to unify their ideal of justice, for however short a time.
I think something like that just happened...
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
So we give stuff to our friends. Does that make us responsible for everything they do? Probably not. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on the point of responsibility.
For arguments sake, say that you were my friend, and I gave you a gun, and you committed terrible acts of violence with it. Am I responsible for your actions? Or could it be you and you alone? I certainly could be said to have facilitated your actions in the giving of the gun, or if I sold it, or even if I allowed you to steal it from me...but who is responsible?
Big "what ifs" not withstanding, Israel is responsible for what Israel does, be it throwing around nuclear missles, bullets, rocks, or pebbles. To not understand that simple fact is to not grasp what "responsibility" really is.
Generations have come and gone and no "progress" (as you measure it) has really been made. It is really too bad everyone cannot make terrible mistakes and not live to regret them, but that is the way life is.
And someone has made a terrible, terrible "mistake" indeed, and now all that needs to happen is a "correction".
An eye for an eye scaled to the whole world would only render those with tragic learning disabilities wholely blind. Without such a scaling, the meeker half would be blind, and the more violent half would have carple tunnel syndrome from all the "wrist slapping" received.
When you act, you teach. What will a violent reaction teach us? What will it teach them? What will doing nothing teach us? And them?
Most importantly: what have their present actions taught us? If your answer is "not to help our friends", I think you may have a tragic learning disability.
Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
As long as "some" is greater than "10", I think we can call that progress.
;-)
And who knew we could absolve ourselves of any blame by using weapons made by others?!?
I say we buy a ton of Kalishnikovs and SCUDs, and blame "whatever we do with them" on the Russians!
Good plan, huh? Well, if the real world were governed by your reasoning, I guess it would be.
I am sure it does, and I'm sure you do, and like I said: good luck.
To be clear, how exactly did the US piss "millions of people" (whomever they are) off? Or are we expected to do so in retaliating against the villains?
More simply (just for you): does the "pissing off" (of which you speak) come before, or after the "crash aeroplanes into your captial" thing?
Whatever the case, I do think "millions of people" are now "pissed off", and someone is probably going to take it in the rear, and a delicate peace (isn't it always?) will be had by some. For others, I think a longer lasting peace will be reserved.
Please notice that I didn't ask what country you come from. Do not tell me, I do not care to know. There are brave men in every land, men who will stand up to those who would kill, harm, or take advantage of them, and I see no reason for them to bear the slander of your association.
Peace will be had when two entities agree to behave peacefully toward one another, and it may be difficult to find such an agreement from US citizens at this time.
Perhaps you, AC, can take on the duty of turning that other cheek for those that took it on the first one. They might consider it, I am sure some of them are good Christians like yourself, but they're dead now...
Your second post makes your position much more clear. Perhaps if you tried thinking before posting the first would have been sufficient.
And oh, I thought you were referring to a "new arena" as though it were that "new paradigm" marketeers are always taking about. A non-existent place of pacifist wonder and beauty.
Who advocates "unrestrained violence"? And how will those "punished" devine whether we "punished" them, had our "vengence" upon them, or "retaliated" against them? Will they not think us unjust for not accepting _our_ punishment and asking for more?
I agree that any solution will benefit from a reasoned approach, but I will not leave unchallenged a response that smacks of pacifism as I believe that would be the equivalent of asking for more. Your original post definitely struck me that way, and this one doesn't wipe away all doubt.
I am sincerely hoping you are not advocating an extended period of "self-reflection as a nation" before finding and punishing those responsible for this carnage. And I hope one of our "responsibilities" isn't to go soft on the perpitrators because "it's partially our fault".
to get me the same thing (except %B and %b bold (and unbold) the current directory).
It answers almost everything want to know before I type a command: "who am I?", "what machine am I on?", and "where am I in the file system?".
I use it on most systems I use. At work, however, I keep a very spartan root prompt ('# ') to remind me that I should double check everything I do as root. And I do.
The same protection would be a copyright, not a patent.
Please, Intellectual Property is a mythical beast: an amalgomation of extremely different kinds of rights granted by government.
I understand the confusion though. I heard in a recent speech that IP is a business now! Perhaps changing the laws governing each of them would not be such a bad idea. Now is as good a time as any to renegotiate the deal that we (the public) made with grantees of such "properties".
I do not agree with the negative slant. If a "Realtor" "sits on a house" and decides to let their clients (or their office's clients) get first crack, it affects almost all MLS agent/users, not just independent buyers.
In addition, this "monopoly" of which you write is a farce. The MLSes are generally not public or government supported entities. They are realtor funded and supported resources who's purpose is to add value to _realtors_, not give you a free ride. If all you get to see is slightly aged (and older) listings, well, I guess you are out a whole $0.00.
Some health department officials that I work with are dismayed by the lack of real evidence in both movies ("Erin Brokovich" and "A Civil Action") and the cases they relate. They are statistics junkies, but they do know what they are talking about, especially from a "what causes cancer" point of view.
I am certainly not trying to say that it isn't nice to play "hide the chemicals". Next time, though, reference a story that deserves national attention: the WR Grace vermiculite mine in Liberty, Montana. They have had local neighborhood processing plants in many of our 50 states, and they have known their vermiculite contains asbestos for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! Or, embrace, extend, and extinguish. Whatever...
>why push RSS (a relatively new web-based app)
>into the mainstream by including it in IE?
Extend, enhance, extinguish?
Moore Lies
Moore Exposed
Moore Watch
Michael Moore Hates America
If you do need to give it a chance, read what the other side has to say, but keep your B.S. detector on for both. Acting the windup zealot for the sake of Moore or his critics will make you look like a fool.
Or, you could save your money and watch a real documentary on PBS or BBC.
Here is another link:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html/
Look man, just come out an say you are unwilling to address any arguments that cast MS in a bad light. Calling an argument "the dumbest"/"non-sense filled" and refuting it are two different things.
And he said administrate, not learn.
>>>
Huh? Can you open up the word processor in Star Office and build a document based upon data you pulled from an Oracle query, complete with various layout features from a Unix shell script?
>>>
Yes. For more than a decade now if you count RTF and the editors that support it (and surely since tag based file formats became popular if you don't). This is not really a difficult problem, if that is the point you wanted to make.
To get at objects, any objects, you just need a command line program for manipulating them. Again, not too hard, and the function was actually considered in the design of most major Linux GUI/toolkits. It seems to me there is more than enough ignorance to go around (or something...).
This is really something they should have done years ago, but were too busy trying to shed the "DOS" image and bury the command line ("If I could be like Mac...").
Yay! What's old is new again!
I don't think a "voter test" would be a good thing, especially considering there are more than a few "voter fraud enabling" laws on many states books that need a close look before anything like that is considered.
A few issues:
1) 'The problem I see as that it is always the ones who get to vote who also get to formulate the test. This results in a kind of "grandfather principle".'
It always has been and probably should should remain so, considering the reverse. Math pupils don't get to formulate their math tests either. Comparing it to the "grandfather principle", which is magnitudes more "unfair", is an attempt to tar "voter testing" with the same brush. Same vein (or slope) perhaps, but not the same "kind" IMO.
2) 'The US almost adopted German as a common language at some point in its history, it has always been a country of immigrants.'
But it did choose English. To many people seem to overlook that and ignore the positive implications of having chosen a single common language. Being multilingual is great, requiring it is expensive. For everyone.
3) 'In principle: Just because they don't speak English, they aren't stupid, and if they are stupid, then enlighten them rather than disenfranchise them.'
This "principle" is confusing. Stupid English speakers might suggest that all non-English speaking people are stupid, but those are pretty easy to spot and ignore. The "stupid" really should take it upon themselves and get on the path to "enlightenment". Imposing "enlightenment" on them will probably do nobody any good.
"Disenfranchise" is a word with multiple meanings, real and implied. This really makes your ending words sound more like politi-babble than anything approaching sense. And don't make any remarks about context, because more recent use of the word relates a context analogous to "ug, disenfranchisement bad".
My 2 cents.
How about this:
"It works"
"Sorry, I consider that a short sighted and ultimately stupid answer"
Why don't you get over yourself, and maybe consider that what "works" for you (or Linus, bless his heart) might not "work" for everyone else. "Conformance to a specific ideology", licensing terms, expense, and "vendor warm-fuzzies" might be part of a whole package of requirements to make something "work".
Just because your requirements are rather simple, i.e. "Linus says it's good", don't assume it is, or even should be, the same for others.
Arrogant. Talk about the whore calling the protitute promiscuous. What a hoot!
This is kind of funny.
;-)
A guy writes a whole OS to scratch a personal itch, but can't seem to get the job done with a code control app.
What? Is this problem not interesting enough?
Disclaimer: My wife is a teacher and I would benefit economically if they were paid more money.
I find it sad that some say "teachers are paid too little" when quoted this price or that, but never seem to be able to put a dollar value on teaching labor themselves.
It irritates me because I think if someone is going to complain about a problem, they should at least offer solution to it (even an imperfect one). If they don't, it doesn't even matter whether they fully understand the problem or not, they are simply 'stirring the pot'.
"...a programming language/concept called 'IP' or intentional programming..."
;-)
As opposed to the programming language/concept I like to use: 'AP' or accidental programming.
"Whoops! Oh no, there goes another program!"
Hmm...maybe this 'IP' and 'AP' have more in common than I thought?
Not that it is material to this argument, but how the hell would you know?
Even if you are/were an MS employee, am I to believe you have read all of the source code that is/was Windows and can authoritatively say that it is all properly attributed?
Please!
As you state, involving MS in this is LAME as it has nothing at all to do with them, but so is your defense of MS (especially since it doesn't apply). You probably should have submitted your second paragraph alone.
You are absolutely right.
My friend would not then be at fault.
The responsibility would be mine, and mine alone.
Or, are you implying that we would share responsibility? And what would the split be? 50/50? 75/25? 90/10? How would "partial responsibility" be delegated? Who would be the judge? How would we be punished? Along the same split?
It really doesn't matter, I suppose, unless someone actually holds you responsible, justly or unjustly. Too bad everyones opinion of what is just is just a little bit different from everyone elses. Well, that is until something comes along to unify their ideal of justice, for however short a time.
I think something like that just happened...
So we give stuff to our friends. Does that make us responsible for everything they do? Probably not. I disagree with you wholeheartedly on the point of responsibility.
For arguments sake, say that you were my friend, and I gave you a gun, and you committed terrible acts of violence with it. Am I responsible for your actions? Or could it be you and you alone? I certainly could be said to have facilitated your actions in the giving of the gun, or if I sold it, or even if I allowed you to steal it from me...but who is responsible?
Big "what ifs" not withstanding, Israel is responsible for what Israel does, be it throwing around nuclear missles, bullets, rocks, or pebbles. To not understand that simple fact is to not grasp what "responsibility" really is.
Generations have come and gone and no "progress" (as you measure it) has really been made. It is really too bad everyone cannot make terrible mistakes and not live to regret them, but that is the way life is.
And someone has made a terrible, terrible "mistake" indeed, and now all that needs to happen is a "correction".
An eye for an eye scaled to the whole world would only render those with tragic learning disabilities wholely blind. Without such a scaling, the meeker half would be blind, and the more violent half would have carple tunnel syndrome from all the "wrist slapping" received.
When you act, you teach. What will a violent reaction teach us? What will it teach them? What will doing nothing teach us? And them?
Most importantly: what have their present actions taught us? If your answer is "not to help our friends", I think you may have a tragic learning disability.
As long as "some" is greater than "10", I think we can call that progress.
;-)
And who knew we could absolve ourselves of any blame by using weapons made by others?!?
I say we buy a ton of Kalishnikovs and SCUDs, and blame "whatever we do with them" on the Russians!
Good plan, huh? Well, if the real world were governed by your reasoning, I guess it would be.
I am sure it does, and I'm sure you do, and like I said: good luck.
To be clear, how exactly did the US piss "millions of people" (whomever they are) off? Or are we expected to do so in retaliating against the villains?
More simply (just for you): does the "pissing off" (of which you speak) come before, or after the "crash aeroplanes into your captial" thing?
Whatever the case, I do think "millions of people" are now "pissed off", and someone is probably going to take it in the rear, and a delicate peace (isn't it always?) will be had by some. For others, I think a longer lasting peace will be reserved.
Please notice that I didn't ask what country you come from. Do not tell me, I do not care to know. There are brave men in every land, men who will stand up to those who would kill, harm, or take advantage of them, and I see no reason for them to bear the slander of your association.
Peace will be had when two entities agree to behave peacefully toward one another, and it may be difficult to find such an agreement from US citizens at this time.
Hmm..."turn the other cheek"...yeah, interesting.
Perhaps you, AC, can take on the duty of turning that other cheek for those that took it on the first one. They might consider it, I am sure some of them are good Christians like yourself, but they're dead now...
Your second post makes your position much more clear. Perhaps if you tried thinking before posting the first would have been sufficient.
And oh, I thought you were referring to a "new arena" as though it were that "new paradigm" marketeers are always taking about. A non-existent place of pacifist wonder and beauty.
Who advocates "unrestrained violence"? And how will those "punished" devine whether we "punished" them, had our "vengence" upon them, or "retaliated" against them? Will they not think us unjust for not accepting _our_ punishment and asking for more?
I agree that any solution will benefit from a reasoned approach, but I will not leave unchallenged a response that smacks of pacifism as I believe that would be the equivalent of asking for more. Your original post definitely struck me that way, and this one doesn't wipe away all doubt.
I am sincerely hoping you are not advocating an extended period of "self-reflection as a nation" before finding and punishing those responsible for this carnage. And I hope one of our "responsibilities" isn't to go soft on the perpitrators because "it's partially our fault".
I do think his reasoning stinks, as would a person without timely cleansings. I am judging this by his conclusion, not his discussion.
A little optimistic? I must assume we have different definitions of that word.
His argument seemed to call for a "pacifistic reaction", which you seem to disagree with, or did I get him/you wrong?
I don't remember proposing a kind of reaction, but I do fully agree with your last sentence.
It depends on what you think morality truly is.
/. accurately reflects America, I don't think your opinion can be trusted.
From your supposition that
Good luck with the whole "take it in the rear for peace" thing, though.
Paraphrased:
:-/
No matter how often you shower, you will get dirty again.
Dirt has an advantage. It is everywhere.
If we are to stay clean, we must live in a bubble.
Please, your reasoning stinks.
If you want peace so bad you'll die for it, be my guest.
Just don't take me along for the ride.
I use that on bash, and this in tcsh:
set prompt='[%n@%m %B%~%b]%% '
to get me the same thing (except %B and %b bold (and unbold) the current directory).
It answers almost everything want to know before I type a command: "who am I?", "what machine am I on?", and "where am I in the file system?".
I use it on most systems I use. At work, however, I keep a very spartan root prompt ('# ') to remind me that I should double check everything I do as root. And I do.
The same protection would be a copyright, not a patent.
Please, Intellectual Property is a mythical beast: an amalgomation of extremely different kinds of rights granted by government.
I understand the confusion though. I heard in a recent speech that IP is a business now! Perhaps changing the laws governing each of them would not be such a bad idea. Now is as good a time as any to renegotiate the deal that we (the public) made with grantees of such "properties".
I agree with the subject of your post.
I do not agree with the negative slant. If a "Realtor" "sits on a house" and decides to let their clients (or their office's clients) get first crack, it affects almost all MLS agent/users, not just independent buyers.
In addition, this "monopoly" of which you write is a farce. The MLSes are generally not public or government supported entities. They are realtor funded and supported resources who's purpose is to add value to _realtors_, not give you a free ride. If all you get to see is slightly aged (and older) listings, well, I guess you are out a whole $0.00.
Disclaimer: IANAREA, but I could fake it.
Some health department officials that I work with are dismayed by the lack of real evidence in both movies ("Erin Brokovich" and "A Civil Action") and the cases they relate. They are statistics junkies, but they do know what they are talking about, especially from a "what causes cancer" point of view.
I am certainly not trying to say that it isn't nice to play "hide the chemicals". Next time, though, reference a story that deserves national attention: the WR Grace vermiculite mine in Liberty, Montana. They have had local neighborhood processing plants in many of our 50 states, and they have known their vermiculite contains asbestos for decades.