Insurance is a share in a risk pool. Yes, you pay for stupid self-destruction sometimes. If you don't like that, you should find someone who won't insure morons, and sign up with them.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in presuming you would qualify for such.
If you think of this in comparison to other medical treatments, while it may not be an outpatient procedure, you can probably expect to be healed relatively quickly. Contrast this with cancer or some other long-term illness. Sure, the robotics might be expensive, but do you think MRIs are cheap? You've probably paid for a ton of those.
These are arguments that you can use to salve your wounded ego, but you do seem to have a more fundamental misanthropy problem. Your first response to the good fortune of others should be happiness.
Did you notice how that didn't actually invalidate my point in any way? I mean, you did read it, right?
How much the people on the bottom pay in taxes doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's not like that's a tax bracket everyone is dying to be in. And while you may be correct as to the effective tax rate, the actualtax rate for the median income is 25%, without counting in payroll taxes.
On the subject of tax brackets, the highest tax bracket is $388,351 and above. The highest incomes exceed this by about four orders of magnitude.
Go ahead, justify that for me. Tell me how progressive that is.
Government is a monopoly. It is a monopoly on the use of force. The "competitive market" for government is commonly called warfare.
Government is a natural monopoly. It is the natural monopoly created to control other natural monopolies. When markets are more efficient, they should be used. When capital requirements to enter a market are high enough to preclude competition, or when services are required to be universal, markets are not efficient.
Governments are evil, but a necessary evil. The state where private interests take over the duties and methods of government is commonly called Fascism. We must resist equally the government wishing to enslave its citizens, and the private interests wishing to do the same thing. At the moment, private interest has the upper hand. Be aware of what you are advocating: If you do not seek a fascist state, you should reconsider your views on government.
The question of whether or not governments produce something is wholly irrelevant to the purpose of governments.
Person A has an income of $200 and is taxed at 20%. Person B has $800 and is taxed at 10%.
What happens?
Changing the tax rate is one of the most fundamental things you can do to structure a society. If you opt for a proportionally lower tax rate on high income earners, over time they will control a greater share of the total wealth. The kicker is that you don't even need to have a nominally-higher tax rate, as long as it's not directly proportional to your income you still have the same effect.
If you don't have an infinite supply of wealth, then when wealth shifts to the top, it comes from somewhere. Unless you believe that Warren Buffet is literally creating billions of dollars out of raw materials with his own two hands, then you must believe that value originated from others with lower income. Re-allocation happens all the time, it's more often called "making a profit" than "taxation". And when someone can create billions of dollars worth of wealth without taking or using anything from anybody, I'll think about letting them keep all of it.
This country was founded on the principle of democracy, not oligarchy.
When you say that, I immediately think of Dengue fever. It's a hemorrhagic fever with four serotypes: fun for the whole family. Unlike most diseases where catching one variant grants immunity to the others, with dengue you end up with *less* protection from the other variants. I like to think of it as "Ebola Lite", except by the time you've had it a couple times you may not appreciate the distinction.
I've had both (within the last year or so -- may you live in interesting times). MRSA is worse, and lots closer to home. For all the hue and cry about salmonella, only about 30 people die per year from it. In 2005, over eighteen thousand people died from MRSA -- it has a greater annual death toll than AIDS.
If I had to pick which infection to get again, I'd probably go with "Ebola Lite". That should tell you something.
The question of why MRSA gets less press than other diseases is left as an exercise to the reader. Support legislation on hospital infection statistics!
You're right of course. But instead they've learned to speak English.
Are you entirely sure that's what you want to base your argument on?
So I have a crystal ball that tells me how the rest of this conversation will go. I will introduce many facts detailing exactly how awful US hegemony has been for most of the world. You will bring up the few times this has been positive, but largely rely on nationalistic fervor. The conflation of monologues will end with sentiment to the effect of "Love it or leave it." and other such vaguely ad hominem remarks. We will each leave convinced we have carried the day, and some day far in the future, you or your progeny will be ashamed that, when confronted with evidence of heinous acts, you chose to serve your own tribe and not humanity.
You've been on my foe list for years. Mostly that happens to people who are religious kooks of one sort or another.
I respect here both what you've said and how you've said it, and this is not an isolated instance. Whether or not we still have areas of disagreement, you have demonstrated a high level of rationality and compassion.
I have in some way, small perhaps, wronged you, and now apologize, and thank you for the lesson.
The desktop market is probably the last thing that Linux should be trying to succeed in.
Linux isn't really an OS. It's more like a box of parts for an OS. Some people have slick packages that have been put together that work pretty well, but you're going to get the most out of it if you have an interest in getting under the hood -- starting with installing it. For most people having to install an OS is a non-starter.
For "serious" computing this can be inescapable. It's also useful to embedded developers.
So tell me what's so compelling about the desktop market anyway? Users will hammer the developers ("Isn't it ready for prime time?") if the product isn't perfect in every way, and generally aren't interested in paying for support or even the OS itself. If you've read The Old New Thing, you may recall that they considered each product-support call to cost about the same as the sale price of the software. When people (mostly anti-Linux commentators these days) talk about how Linux should be a contender in the desktop market, I can only think of millions of complaints as vacuous as yours, or worse.
I believe that mass-market appeal and the ability to tinker with system internals are diametrically opposed. Android and iOS are the success stories of recent OS history: do note that these are single-user systems with extremely limited system configuration options. I haven't played much with Win8, but it seems like they're running in this direction as fast as they can.
The refrain seems to be "Linux has technical problem X which means it's not suitable for the desktop!" I would like to hear a compelling argument that [a] the technical perfection of an OS has anything to do with market share, and [b] that the desktop market is worth participating in.
And then they were inspired to have an emperor. (Napoleon)(1804) And then they were inspired to have a king again. (Louis XVIII) Just kidding! (Hundred Days) Ah, merde! (Waterloo) Fuck this king, we'll get another one (July revolution) Aight, aight, republic for real this time. (second republic) Man, this Napoleon guy really had it going on. Let's give his nephew an empire, what the heck. (second empire) The Germans kicked our asses and captured our emperor. New government anyone? (3rd republic) (1870) (Battle of Sedan)
Additionally, Paris had a communist government for a hot minute in 1871. They're up to republic #5 now, with another couple of intergovernmental excursions during and after WWII. I'm not saying that they go through governments like a transvestite goes through nylons, but you should probably pick an american-inspired regime change that lasted for more than twelve years. Unfortunately, there aren't many positive examples there. The Phillipines, Cuba, Hawai'i, Iran, Guatemala, Honduras, Afghanistan/Iraq, and Venezuela come to mind. Propping up the Kuomintang probably hasn't been a very good idea either.
The US leads the world in military might and propaganda. We are some of the biggest assholes the world has ever seen, and we have this idea that people should like us for it.
Desktop Linux generates very little on its own. Red Hat manages to rake in about a billion dollars in revenue, but Canonical only manages $30 million (wikipedia). Android doesn't have to make money per se as it has other avenues of monetization (e.g. advertising). It also lives or dies by its UI.
You can also contrast this to the embedded Linux, server, and HPC markets, for which I don't have numbers, but Linux has a dominant position.
Linux is more often optimized for workflow than graphics. The former is generally excellent and highly configurable. While Linux advocates like to tout the number of individual contributors to the kernel, a large number of these are corporate contributors wishing for anonymity. There's not a lot of ROI in shiny buttons. Also, low-end graphics run on more platforms.
That said, I like the way my desktop looks (earth image with weather and sunlight, updates every 1/2 hour). Dunno what you object to with yours, but it can probably be remedied if you have some free time.
By and large, real gamers are pretty clueless about software, know less about OSes, and nothing about security. What they know of hardware comes straight from benchmarking websites.
Generally speaking, you get ugly results when you run out of RAM with no swap file. Windows of course has notoriously aggressive paging, and changing this behavior is not as simple as on other OSes. There are a couple of registry settings, however, that govern how large the filesystem cache is and whether drivers and core components can be swapped to disk. You can also lock the process in memory if you really must.
Yes, you can more simply set the swap size to zero. Yes, many people don't have stability problems with this. Yes, you can use a wrench instead of a hammer if you have to.
If your system is having issues with paging, don't disable paging: just buy more RAM.
The design of the registry makes it very difficult to tell what is "bloat" and what is not. Various optimizations in XP and more recent versions mean that any performance enhancements should be negligible. Unless those few hundred kilobytes are important, and the possibility of breaking software components of your system is not, you should not use CCleaner or any other registry cleaning tool.
Why would you want to have a limited browser cache anyway? Do you like longer access times?
Obamination! Now that's a good one. Here I thought that the kind of trolls who made up slurs were just incapable of doing anything clever with the man's name: Obummer, Odumba are clearly failures.
I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.
But overall, if you aren't pandering to senseless frothing morons, you may want to refrain from turning a person's name into some sort of slur. Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?
The custom of marriage varies considerably depending on the culture. Why should the government enshrine one particular variation?
I've just finished rereading Le Comte de Monte Cristo. Among other things, marriage was a repeated theme, and central to this, moreso than the ceremony, was the signing of a marriage contract binding the two persons and their families.
Show that these rights are better protected by common law rather than contract law.
A government is a local monopoly on the use of force. In human societies, this right is conserved: if your society does not claim this right, then they have no effective means of denying others this right over them. This is a natural monopoly: the "competitive market" for government is usually called warfare.
You're arguing that your chosen government should not have the right of violence over you. This can be understood as saying that you wish not to have government, and so you may understand others labeling you as a dishonest anarchist. It will work as well as any anarchy has ever worked: the combined benefits of force and communal action are overwhelming. And in that lie the seeds of government.
Hammurabi's laws were enacted "...so that the strong might not harm the weak," and even in them the right to government force is implicit. To dispute the founding concept of government is to implicitly negate that social compact.
Inevitability is not the only argument for government. The ultimate heuristic for "good" is that which drives the continuation of the species. That we are a social animal is dictated by our biology; if individuals could reproduce themselves we might indeed hold their rights supreme. Certainly amoebas have no need for government. If you're willing to tell the continuation of the species to go hang, you may have the start of an honest argument. If not, then ultimately the needs of the society trump your rights, and we are merely arguing about degrees.
If you say that governments are evil, you are half correct: they are a necessary evil. It is the mark of the intelligent man, in any society, in any age, to recognize that evil, and wish to change it. To leap to disputing the necessity of government is foolish; it betrays a naive understanding of what government is, and its purpose.
This evil must be resisted, by those championing the rights of the individual, as well as the champions of the weak and lowly lesser societies. Strike at the root of this evil, however, and it will spring up, hydra-like all around you. Your neighbor might ultimately have less power than the Government, but he has the keenest and most zealous interest to exercise this power over you.
Violence is indeed wrong. It is the ultimate recourse of societies, and never to be used lightly. The responsible use of this power is the sacred charge of nations -- and no others.
You know that in thesourcedocument, the term "antichrist" just meant anyone who denied Christ, right? "Anti-" like anticlockwise or antifreeze, or antidisestablishmentarianism. Dunno why you guys need to demonize anyone.
Anyone who ascribes religious fervor to someone quoting Dawkins is projecting. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...
Setting aside any other issues: What is the essential moral difference between killing someone outright and giving them a minute chance of living? Is any amount of wasteful expenditure justifiable? It is doubtful that any artificial gestational environment would be perfect, or that the transition would be without trauma. How are you on the possibility of condemning a person to a wide spectrum of disorders?
If he doesn't like how his child is being taught, he should supplement his lessons with either private, after-school tutoring or homeschooling.
Sure, that public school that you chose to send your kid too has a teaching method and curriculum. That doesn't mean that you can't also teach him yourself. In fact, you probably should, especially if you're going to bitch about individual attention.
On the contrary, the quoted remark is quite critical to the debate.
Please demonstrate by whatever means you like, that having a stable ABI would solve more problems than it causes. Please extend your remarks to cover the 20-year period of kernel development to date and the projected future, and also take into account existing and novel CPU architectures.
My position is that a stable ABI would be useful only for a limited timeframe and have limited applicability outside the desktop market.
I will note that on contentious issues such as this where this is already a decisive majority (id est, the kernel developers), revisiting the issue without substantiative proofs of any sort is nearer to what I would refer to as trolling. I, however, would ascribe this to shortsightedness rather than malice.
In other words, show that the lack of a stable ABI caused this problem, and then show that it would be a better solution. And don't ignore embedded linux; it's more profitable than the desktop.
I have had the device distributor inform me that is the reason. Yes, I bothered to contact them and let them know that Linux support is important to me as a consumer.
Do you see how your response doesn't address the text immediately above it?
P.S. What resources have you contributed towards solving this problem?
Are you implying that all users should be developers?
I fail to see where I implied anything whatsoever.
And how would the situation be if I were "just a leech" who's interests are something other than IT and just wanted to use some Linux distro but not contribute, like most "computer users" do.
Well, I don't know about you, but I find that expectations by themselves don't accomplish much. I'm sure you know the expression about wishing in one hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Insurance is a share in a risk pool. Yes, you pay for stupid self-destruction sometimes. If you don't like that, you should find someone who won't insure morons, and sign up with them.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in presuming you would qualify for such.
If you think of this in comparison to other medical treatments, while it may not be an outpatient procedure, you can probably expect to be healed relatively quickly. Contrast this with cancer or some other long-term illness. Sure, the robotics might be expensive, but do you think MRIs are cheap? You've probably paid for a ton of those.
These are arguments that you can use to salve your wounded ego, but you do seem to have a more fundamental misanthropy problem. Your first response to the good fortune of others should be happiness.
Did you notice how that didn't actually invalidate my point in any way? I mean, you did read it, right?
How much the people on the bottom pay in taxes doesn't actually have anything to do with anything. It's not like that's a tax bracket everyone is dying to be in. And while you may be correct as to the effective tax rate, the actual tax rate for the median income is 25%, without counting in payroll taxes.
On the subject of tax brackets, the highest tax bracket is $388,351 and above. The highest incomes exceed this by about four orders of magnitude.
Go ahead, justify that for me. Tell me how progressive that is.
You're half right, and completely wrong.
Government is a monopoly. It is a monopoly on the use of force. The "competitive market" for government is commonly called warfare.
Government is a natural monopoly. It is the natural monopoly created to control other natural monopolies. When markets are more efficient, they should be used. When capital requirements to enter a market are high enough to preclude competition, or when services are required to be universal, markets are not efficient.
Governments are evil, but a necessary evil. The state where private interests take over the duties and methods of government is commonly called Fascism. We must resist equally the government wishing to enslave its citizens, and the private interests wishing to do the same thing. At the moment, private interest has the upper hand. Be aware of what you are advocating: If you do not seek a fascist state, you should reconsider your views on government.
The question of whether or not governments produce something is wholly irrelevant to the purpose of governments.
Person A has an income of $200 and is taxed at 20%. Person B has $800 and is taxed at 10%.
What happens?
Changing the tax rate is one of the most fundamental things you can do to structure a society. If you opt for a proportionally lower tax rate on high income earners, over time they will control a greater share of the total wealth. The kicker is that you don't even need to have a nominally-higher tax rate, as long as it's not directly proportional to your income you still have the same effect.
If you don't have an infinite supply of wealth, then when wealth shifts to the top, it comes from somewhere. Unless you believe that Warren Buffet is literally creating billions of dollars out of raw materials with his own two hands, then you must believe that value originated from others with lower income. Re-allocation happens all the time, it's more often called "making a profit" than "taxation". And when someone can create billions of dollars worth of wealth without taking or using anything from anybody, I'll think about letting them keep all of it.
This country was founded on the principle of democracy, not oligarchy.
When you say that, I immediately think of Dengue fever. It's a hemorrhagic fever with four serotypes: fun for the whole family. Unlike most diseases where catching one variant grants immunity to the others, with dengue you end up with *less* protection from the other variants. I like to think of it as "Ebola Lite", except by the time you've had it a couple times you may not appreciate the distinction.
You can get worse things without having to make the trip to the tropics: MRSA will make your insides become your outsides at a shockingly rapid pace, and tends to cause permanent scarring in survivors. It's commonly found in hospitals! Fun fact: About half the US states do not require hospitals to report statistics on Hospital-Acquired Infections.
I've had both (within the last year or so -- may you live in interesting times). MRSA is worse, and lots closer to home. For all the hue and cry about salmonella, only about 30 people die per year from it. In 2005, over eighteen thousand people died from MRSA -- it has a greater annual death toll than AIDS.
If I had to pick which infection to get again, I'd probably go with "Ebola Lite". That should tell you something.
The question of why MRSA gets less press than other diseases is left as an exercise to the reader. Support legislation on hospital infection statistics!
RMS is amazingly useful that way.
Standing next to him, all sorts of people look sane. Get enough like-minded people together, Open Source might even start to seem (gasp!) normal.
I believe that the flow of digital information will shape the human landscape as powerfully and inexorably as water carves continents.
You're right of course. But instead they've learned to speak English.
Are you entirely sure that's what you want to base your argument on?
So I have a crystal ball that tells me how the rest of this conversation will go. I will introduce many facts detailing exactly how awful US hegemony has been for most of the world. You will bring up the few times this has been positive, but largely rely on nationalistic fervor. The conflation of monologues will end with sentiment to the effect of "Love it or leave it." and other such vaguely ad hominem remarks. We will each leave convinced we have carried the day, and some day far in the future, you or your progeny will be ashamed that, when confronted with evidence of heinous acts, you chose to serve your own tribe and not humanity.
You've been on my foe list for years. Mostly that happens to people who are religious kooks of one sort or another.
I respect here both what you've said and how you've said it, and this is not an isolated instance. Whether or not we still have areas of disagreement, you have demonstrated a high level of rationality and compassion.
I have in some way, small perhaps, wronged you, and now apologize, and thank you for the lesson.
The desktop market is probably the last thing that Linux should be trying to succeed in.
Linux isn't really an OS. It's more like a box of parts for an OS. Some people have slick packages that have been put together that work pretty well, but you're going to get the most out of it if you have an interest in getting under the hood -- starting with installing it. For most people having to install an OS is a non-starter.
For "serious" computing this can be inescapable. It's also useful to embedded developers.
So tell me what's so compelling about the desktop market anyway? Users will hammer the developers ("Isn't it ready for prime time?") if the product isn't perfect in every way, and generally aren't interested in paying for support or even the OS itself. If you've read The Old New Thing, you may recall that they considered each product-support call to cost about the same as the sale price of the software. When people (mostly anti-Linux commentators these days) talk about how Linux should be a contender in the desktop market, I can only think of millions of complaints as vacuous as yours, or worse.
I believe that mass-market appeal and the ability to tinker with system internals are diametrically opposed. Android and iOS are the success stories of recent OS history: do note that these are single-user systems with extremely limited system configuration options. I haven't played much with Win8, but it seems like they're running in this direction as fast as they can.
The refrain seems to be "Linux has technical problem X which means it's not suitable for the desktop!" I would like to hear a compelling argument that [a] the technical perfection of an OS has anything to do with market share, and [b] that the desktop market is worth participating in.
And then they were inspired to have an emperor. (Napoleon)(1804)
And then they were inspired to have a king again. (Louis XVIII)
Just kidding! (Hundred Days)
Ah, merde! (Waterloo)
Fuck this king, we'll get another one (July revolution)
Aight, aight, republic for real this time. (second republic)
Man, this Napoleon guy really had it going on. Let's give his nephew an empire, what the heck. (second empire)
The Germans kicked our asses and captured our emperor. New government anyone? (3rd republic) (1870) (Battle of Sedan)
Additionally, Paris had a communist government for a hot minute in 1871. They're up to republic #5 now, with another couple of intergovernmental excursions during and after WWII. I'm not saying that they go through governments like a transvestite goes through nylons, but you should probably pick an american-inspired regime change that lasted for more than twelve years. Unfortunately, there aren't many positive examples there. The Phillipines, Cuba, Hawai'i, Iran, Guatemala, Honduras, Afghanistan/Iraq, and Venezuela come to mind. Propping up the Kuomintang probably hasn't been a very good idea either.
The US leads the world in military might and propaganda. We are some of the biggest assholes the world has ever seen, and we have this idea that people should like us for it.
In a word, money.
Desktop Linux generates very little on its own. Red Hat manages to rake in about a billion dollars in revenue, but Canonical only manages $30 million (wikipedia). Android doesn't have to make money per se as it has other avenues of monetization (e.g. advertising). It also lives or dies by its UI.
You can also contrast this to the embedded Linux, server, and HPC markets, for which I don't have numbers, but Linux has a dominant position.
Linux is more often optimized for workflow than graphics. The former is generally excellent and highly configurable. While Linux advocates like to tout the number of individual contributors to the kernel, a large number of these are corporate contributors wishing for anonymity. There's not a lot of ROI in shiny buttons. Also, low-end graphics run on more platforms.
That said, I like the way my desktop looks (earth image with weather and sunlight, updates every 1/2 hour). Dunno what you object to with yours, but it can probably be remedied if you have some free time.
By and large, real gamers are pretty clueless about software, know less about OSes, and nothing about security. What they know of hardware comes straight from benchmarking websites.
Generally speaking, you get ugly results when you run out of RAM with no swap file. Windows of course has notoriously aggressive paging, and changing this behavior is not as simple as on other OSes. There are a couple of registry settings, however, that govern how large the filesystem cache is and whether drivers and core components can be swapped to disk. You can also lock the process in memory if you really must.
Yes, you can more simply set the swap size to zero. Yes, many people don't have stability problems with this. Yes, you can use a wrench instead of a hammer if you have to.
If your system is having issues with paging, don't disable paging: just buy more RAM.
The design of the registry makes it very difficult to tell what is "bloat" and what is not. Various optimizations in XP and more recent versions mean that any performance enhancements should be negligible. Unless those few hundred kilobytes are important, and the possibility of breaking software components of your system is not, you should not use CCleaner or any other registry cleaning tool.
Why would you want to have a limited browser cache anyway? Do you like longer access times?
Obamination! Now that's a good one. Here I thought that the kind of trolls who made up slurs were just incapable of doing anything clever with the man's name: Obummer, Odumba are clearly failures.
I did think "Mittens" was kinda cute.
But overall, if you aren't pandering to senseless frothing morons, you may want to refrain from turning a person's name into some sort of slur. Given that this is a national election, it's politic to pander to the undecided voters, not the base. Didn't you get the memo?
The custom of marriage varies considerably depending on the culture. Why should the government enshrine one particular variation?
I've just finished rereading Le Comte de Monte Cristo. Among other things, marriage was a repeated theme, and central to this, moreso than the ceremony, was the signing of a marriage contract binding the two persons and their families.
Show that these rights are better protected by common law rather than contract law.
A government is a local monopoly on the use of force. In human societies, this right is conserved: if your society does not claim this right, then they have no effective means of denying others this right over them. This is a natural monopoly: the "competitive market" for government is usually called warfare.
You're arguing that your chosen government should not have the right of violence over you. This can be understood as saying that you wish not to have government, and so you may understand others labeling you as a dishonest anarchist. It will work as well as any anarchy has ever worked: the combined benefits of force and communal action are overwhelming. And in that lie the seeds of government.
Hammurabi's laws were enacted "...so that the strong might not harm the weak," and even in them the right to government force is implicit. To dispute the founding concept of government is to implicitly negate that social compact.
Inevitability is not the only argument for government. The ultimate heuristic for "good" is that which drives the continuation of the species. That we are a social animal is dictated by our biology; if individuals could reproduce themselves we might indeed hold their rights supreme. Certainly amoebas have no need for government. If you're willing to tell the continuation of the species to go hang, you may have the start of an honest argument. If not, then ultimately the needs of the society trump your rights, and we are merely arguing about degrees.
If you say that governments are evil, you are half correct: they are a necessary evil. It is the mark of the intelligent man, in any society, in any age, to recognize that evil, and wish to change it. To leap to disputing the necessity of government is foolish; it betrays a naive understanding of what government is, and its purpose.
This evil must be resisted, by those championing the rights of the individual, as well as the champions of the weak and lowly lesser societies. Strike at the root of this evil, however, and it will spring up, hydra-like all around you. Your neighbor might ultimately have less power than the Government, but he has the keenest and most zealous interest to exercise this power over you.
Violence is indeed wrong. It is the ultimate recourse of societies, and never to be used lightly. The responsible use of this power is the sacred charge of nations -- and no others.
Those are separate rights tacked on to the idea of marriage. The status quo is not an argument for itself.
You mean like when Jill and some random Libertarian candidate faced Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts gubernatorial election?
The Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room."
I think she should get arrested more often. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...
The state already defines marriage.
Oh? And what the fuck business is it of theirs?
You know that in the source document, the term "antichrist" just meant anyone who denied Christ, right? "Anti-" like anticlockwise or antifreeze, or antidisestablishmentarianism. Dunno why you guys need to demonize anyone.
Anyone who ascribes religious fervor to someone quoting Dawkins is projecting. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...
Setting aside any other issues:
What is the essential moral difference between killing someone outright and giving them a minute chance of living? Is any amount of wasteful expenditure justifiable? It is doubtful that any artificial gestational environment would be perfect, or that the transition would be without trauma. How are you on the possibility of condemning a person to a wide spectrum of disorders?
1. Economic conservatism (low taxes and free markets) ...
Honestly, what the fuck?
Hi, Libertarians, reality is over this way.
If he doesn't like how his child is being taught, he should supplement his lessons with either private, after-school tutoring or homeschooling.
Sure, that public school that you chose to send your kid too has a teaching method and curriculum. That doesn't mean that you can't also teach him yourself. In fact, you probably should, especially if you're going to bitch about individual attention.
On the contrary, the quoted remark is quite critical to the debate.
Please demonstrate by whatever means you like, that having a stable ABI would solve more problems than it causes. Please extend your remarks to cover the 20-year period of kernel development to date and the projected future, and also take into account existing and novel CPU architectures.
My position is that a stable ABI would be useful only for a limited timeframe and have limited applicability outside the desktop market.
I will note that on contentious issues such as this where this is already a decisive majority (id est, the kernel developers), revisiting the issue without substantiative proofs of any sort is nearer to what I would refer to as trolling. I, however, would ascribe this to shortsightedness rather than malice.
In other words, show that the lack of a stable ABI caused this problem, and then show that it would be a better solution. And don't ignore embedded linux; it's more profitable than the desktop.
I have had the device distributor inform me that is the reason. Yes, I bothered to contact them and let them know that Linux support is important to me as a consumer.
Do you see how your response doesn't address the text immediately above it?
P.S. What resources have you contributed towards solving this problem?
Are you implying that all users should be developers?
I fail to see where I implied anything whatsoever.
And how would the situation be if I were "just a leech" who's interests are something other than IT and just wanted to use some Linux distro but not contribute, like most "computer users" do.
Well, I don't know about you, but I find that expectations by themselves don't accomplish much. I'm sure you know the expression about wishing in one hand.