Certainly you aren't going to change much by banning the weapons that are the least likely to be used in the bulk of actual murders. Although the dirty little secret there is that nobody cares about poor minorities killing each other. That's where most of the gun crime is. It's tied up in criminal turf wars far away from view. This particular incident is notable in how visible it was and how it involved the children of rich people who have the means to flee the places where most gun crimes occur.
As soon as people go back to associating gun crime with poverty, the righteous indignation will cease.
They also have a society where casual capitol punishment was commonplace into the modern era. You could quite literally get summarily executed for not bowing low enough.
Mint is the new Ubuntu. They have been tweaking Ubuntu for years adding things that got left out by Canonical. Now that Canoncial has gone bat-shit crazy, they are in the perfect position to accomodate users that would otherwise be good candidates for Ubuntu.
Or you could just go old school and just use Debian.
> Let's say I'm making a program that is for idiots....that is supposed to just work,
That's your responsibilty like it's always has been. It doesn't matter if it's your own code or depedencies. The fact that things like package managers and Installshield scripts exist doesn't alter the fact that you still have to roll up your sleeves and do the relevant work.
The GPL doesn't alter this. Even the requirement to distribute source code of derivative works doesn't impact this. It's an entirely separate problem.
It's a total red herring.
Although supporting a relational database server is not for dummies regardless of what Balmer or Ellison will try to tell you. It doesn't matter "how well supported" it is.
No. It just betrays a certain bias that is common among the sorts of people that employ relational databases. It comes with the whole "SQL" thing. These people are very demanding and don't suffer fools or excuses lightly.
That doesn't codify intellectual property. It merely gives the US Federal Government authorization to create such a thing. The justification for creating such a thing is given as the public good. It is not framed as some sort of new form of property. It is not framed as a virtual land grab.
Copyright is OPTIONAL.
Copyright is not a right.
"Congress shall have the power" versus "the right shall not be infringed".
It's not 1950. There's this thing called the Internet. If you don't know what something is, then look it up. Even in the 50s, this could be done by using some reference material. The database was on paper and it was a bit of a bother, but it was still available.
Rape is against the UCMJ. So your attempt to conflate profanity with rape is really assinine.
The fact that you choose to be offended by something does not make it offensive or sexist.
Unfortunately, we've lowered the bar in this area and diluted certain ideas to the point where they don't really have any meaning any more. Profanity can be lumped in with rape.
That's just insane. It's American Puritanism rearing it's ugly head. It's disguised as "feminism" but it's really this a thin veiled attempt to impose someone's idea of Sharia Law.
An eye for an eye is more about compensation than punishment. Although even when the concept is crudely applied only to the notion of punishment, it allows for justice rather than some excessive vendetta like the Hatfields and the McCoys.
> The reason why it is a federal case is that she shouldn't have to be the one to stand up and confront them.
That's nanny state nonsense. If someone is doing you wrong then you stand up to yourself. You don't run for help first. You don't get a government bail out first. That is your last resort.
Fend for yourself. Don't be helpless.
A lady can speak up for herself if men aren't acting like proper gentlemen.
Meaningless measures that sound good to the uniformed are the perfect thing for politicians. They can be seen looking like they are actually doing something when they aren't.
The more interesting part of this is that the general public chooses to remain ignorant and frightened and don't see the situation for what it really is.
No. The things that Neilson doesn't measure actually seem to be MORE relevant. It turns out that not all eyeballs are created equal and that the value of a show's viewership (even in terms of commercials) can't just be determined by the number of viewers.
Unsurprisingly, the assumptions that their entire model is based on appear to be faulty.
There are any number of things that HBO could do to better exploit a poorly served market. Piracy is just the tip of the iceberg. It's just the most visible aspect of the interest in their show beyond people who already subscribe to HBO.
Payment avoidance isn't just limited to piracy and HBO could capture more revenue by presenting options to people willing to wait for Netflix, A&E, or broadcast channels.
The Republicans found this very thing to be a problem in the last election. They used to be the party of middle aged white males. Now they are the party of senior citizens. Their base remained the same over the course of a couple of decades where that base just got older.
In the meantime, the nature of middle aged white males changed as tech and social values shifted.
I find it rather amazing that anyone considers downloading something to be a terribly technical task. You may need to be somewhat "technical" to be aware of the idea but even that can be explained away by things like Google.
The current technological apparatus is specifically designed to spread information. This includes things like "news" as well as things like "files". N00b friendly interfaces are also very well established so you hardly need to have a CS degree to either be aware of or use torrents.
I suspect that the world has moved on and that it's not like 1998 out there anymore. The "geeks" that are full of themselves here may be shocked at what mundanes are capable of now.
Except that is by no means the only evidence they have. You are trying to pretend that the only metrics that exist are the piracy numbers and that such an obvious lie that it's almost not even worth rebutting.
The idea that you can't make any money off of pirates is just something you have decided to take as an article of faith.
> The main reason to jailbreak an iPhone is to pirate apps.
Yes. Gaze upon the ultimate manifestation of the Apple cult mentality:
If you want to do something interesting, you must "justify yourself". The basic notion of liberty encapsulated by "why not' is totally alien. If you are the least bit creative, you get called a criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Certainly you aren't going to change much by banning the weapons that are the least likely to be used in the bulk of actual murders. Although the dirty little secret there is that nobody cares about poor minorities killing each other. That's where most of the gun crime is. It's tied up in criminal turf wars far away from view. This particular incident is notable in how visible it was and how it involved the children of rich people who have the means to flee the places where most gun crimes occur.
As soon as people go back to associating gun crime with poverty, the righteous indignation will cease.
They also have a society where casual capitol punishment was commonplace into the modern era. You could quite literally get summarily executed for not bowing low enough.
...and guess what crusader Joe wants to replace rifles with?
Shotguns
[facepalm]
Mint is the new Ubuntu. They have been tweaking Ubuntu for years adding things that got left out by Canonical. Now that Canoncial has gone bat-shit crazy, they are in the perfect position to accomodate users that would otherwise be good candidates for Ubuntu.
Or you could just go old school and just use Debian.
Then don't.
It's not 1995 anymore.
Given the way that Oracle operates, this move is pretty obvious. If anything, the question should be what took them so long.
> Let's say I'm making a program that is for idiots....that is supposed to just work,
That's your responsibilty like it's always has been. It doesn't matter if it's your own code or depedencies. The fact that things like package managers and Installshield scripts exist doesn't alter the fact that you still have to roll up your sleeves and do the relevant work.
The GPL doesn't alter this. Even the requirement to distribute source code of derivative works doesn't impact this. It's an entirely separate problem.
It's a total red herring.
Although supporting a relational database server is not for dummies regardless of what Balmer or Ellison will try to tell you. It doesn't matter "how well supported" it is.
No. It just betrays a certain bias that is common among the sorts of people that employ relational databases. It comes with the whole "SQL" thing. These people are very demanding and don't suffer fools or excuses lightly.
That doesn't codify intellectual property. It merely gives the US Federal Government authorization to create such a thing. The justification for creating such a thing is given as the public good. It is not framed as some sort of new form of property. It is not framed as a virtual land grab.
Copyright is OPTIONAL.
Copyright is not a right.
"Congress shall have the power" versus "the right shall not be infringed".
Everybody needs to eat sometime.
Cooking is generally a pre-requisite for that.
It's not 1950. There's this thing called the Internet. If you don't know what something is, then look it up. Even in the 50s, this could be done by using some reference material. The database was on paper and it was a bit of a bother, but it was still available.
Clueless in 2013? Just Google it.
Rape is against the UCMJ. So your attempt to conflate profanity with rape is really assinine.
The fact that you choose to be offended by something does not make it offensive or sexist.
Unfortunately, we've lowered the bar in this area and diluted certain ideas to the point where they don't really have any meaning any more. Profanity can be lumped in with rape.
That's just insane. It's American Puritanism rearing it's ugly head. It's disguised as "feminism" but it's really this a thin veiled attempt to impose someone's idea of Sharia Law.
An eye for an eye is more about compensation than punishment. Although even when the concept is crudely applied only to the notion of punishment, it allows for justice rather than some excessive vendetta like the Hatfields and the McCoys.
> The reason why it is a federal case is that she shouldn't have to be the one to stand up and confront them.
That's nanny state nonsense. If someone is doing you wrong then you stand up to yourself. You don't run for help first. You don't get a government bail out first. That is your last resort.
Fend for yourself. Don't be helpless.
A lady can speak up for herself if men aren't acting like proper gentlemen.
No. It's not inherently sexual harassment.
However people like to dilute the term to the point where it has no real meaning anymore.
That's ultimately not a good thing for your little crusade.
Really. The AR-15 wouldn't be of much use as an infantry weapon if you couldn't kill small game with it.
Meaningless measures that sound good to the uniformed are the perfect thing for politicians. They can be seen looking like they are actually doing something when they aren't.
The more interesting part of this is that the general public chooses to remain ignorant and frightened and don't see the situation for what it really is.
How's the 10ft interface with LIRC and such?
A browser (or even file mangler) with an IR remote optimized interface could be even by itself a nice addition to may HTPC setups.
No. The things that Neilson doesn't measure actually seem to be MORE relevant. It turns out that not all eyeballs are created equal and that the value of a show's viewership (even in terms of commercials) can't just be determined by the number of viewers.
Unsurprisingly, the assumptions that their entire model is based on appear to be faulty.
Downton Abbey is just a soap opera. Insert your usual soap opera watching demographics. Rinse and repeat.
The fact that it's being pushed heavily by the likes of Amazon says something about some of our demographic assumptions here.
There are any number of things that HBO could do to better exploit a poorly served market. Piracy is just the tip of the iceberg. It's just the most visible aspect of the interest in their show beyond people who already subscribe to HBO.
Payment avoidance isn't just limited to piracy and HBO could capture more revenue by presenting options to people willing to wait for Netflix, A&E, or broadcast channels.
The Republicans found this very thing to be a problem in the last election. They used to be the party of middle aged white males. Now they are the party of senior citizens. Their base remained the same over the course of a couple of decades where that base just got older.
In the meantime, the nature of middle aged white males changed as tech and social values shifted.
Boomers are over 60 now.
I find it rather amazing that anyone considers downloading something to be a terribly technical task. You may need to be somewhat "technical" to be aware of the idea but even that can be explained away by things like Google.
The current technological apparatus is specifically designed to spread information. This includes things like "news" as well as things like "files". N00b friendly interfaces are also very well established so you hardly need to have a CS degree to either be aware of or use torrents.
I suspect that the world has moved on and that it's not like 1998 out there anymore. The "geeks" that are full of themselves here may be shocked at what mundanes are capable of now.
Except that is by no means the only evidence they have. You are trying to pretend that the only metrics that exist are the piracy numbers and that such an obvious lie that it's almost not even worth rebutting.
The idea that you can't make any money off of pirates is just something you have decided to take as an article of faith.
> The main reason to jailbreak an iPhone is to pirate apps.
Yes. Gaze upon the ultimate manifestation of the Apple cult mentality:
If you want to do something interesting, you must "justify yourself". The basic notion of liberty encapsulated by "why not' is totally alien. If you are the least bit creative, you get called a criminal.