What, exactly, is "industrial terrorism", anyway? Can corporations be "terrorized"? Is this the same thing as "terrorizing" ("causing to become terrified"?) a civilian population?
Precisely my (secondary) point: All parties favor government interference that favors their immediate goals. The "free-trade" legislation you mention has the effect of lifting some government restrictions on trade, or adding government support to private sector commerce. And whether you favor government interference or not, you're probably not going to complain about any law that protects your pork while keeping out the competition's pork. I was attempting to sum up both the theoretical platform and the practical application, and I seem to have succeeded (since we seem to be in agreement).
Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).
More generally, "Republicans" do not favor government interference in commerce, and do favor government interference in "moral" conduct. The Republican definition of "moral" seems to coincide with the Religious Right (which is also apparently a vocal subset of Republicans), and does not address most business/commercial practices unless they are also "immoral" for non-business-related religious reasons (e.g., porn).
Conversely, the "Democrat" viewpoint seems to be in favor of government interference in commerce, but against government interference in non-business-related moral issues.
As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.
This applies to the United States of (North) America, naturally. YMMV.
Re:Stupid Slashdot...
on
GNU Emacs 21
·
· Score: 2
Funny, all I've heard so far is "anecdotal" evidence. That's where one guy tells a personal story about a specific instance right? - an anecdote.
It sounds like Pair may actually have some "statistical" evidence: "X out of Y drives have failed on us so far, which is an unacceptably high percentage. These statististics have prompted us to abandon this product."
[The 'net is] nearly worthless, unless you like being misinformed.
Referencing the numerous posts above, I think it's safe to make the same assertion about Television. At least the net is good for in-depth analysis if you are prepared to do your own research. . . Can you say that about Television?
Actually, this has fuck all to do with @Home, the high-speed access cable modem provider.
This is about Excite, the one-time player in the Internet portal business. True, there was once a plan to make Excite the portal for everything @Home, and Excite@Home was born.
But the two companies (yes, they are still two separate operations) are still in different markets.
Excite's market, the web-portal business, is completely unprofitable. So Excite is closing its doors. @Home still provides adequate cable modem service, and makes money doing so. Given the current state of the portal wars, where even the winner (Yahoo!) is struggling to stay alive, I doubt @Home will miss its sister company much, if at all.
This has nothing to do with @Home.
The company I work for had some bizarre colo hosting deal with Excite (don't ask). Now we're scrambling to get our website out of there before they cut our access and turn our servers over to their creditors. Meanwhile, my girlfriend's roommate is happily installed with @Home cable modem service, with no complaints and no end in sight.
Interesting. I think the post below which talks about development of critical analysis &c. is useful in explaining this phenomenon. Meanwhile, I've rationalized the 99% preponderance of humanoid aliens with silly forheads as follows: aliens as presented are/symbolic/. They aren't meant to be literal interpretations of alien life forms, but simply symbolic (low-budget) pointers to alien customs, thought patterns, and social structures. Since the show(s) are much more about "human" interactions than anything else, the lack of realistic physical representations (or accurate technical details, for that matter) doesn't bother me much in Star Trek.
What's interesting to note is that I often have difficulty applying the "Symbol Paradigm" to other sci-fi movies and shows - instead judging them on their literal characteristics.
Clearly, Star Trek would be an abysmal failure if it was judged on its literal implementation!
By what standard do you judge that the market is always right? Do you mean it literally? Do you mean it in theory? Do you mean it in practice?
Do you consider the fact that people buy things because they are told to do so by the manufacturer? That the only time a manufacturer needs to consider closing a factory is when they cannot successfully convince people to buy whatever that factory produces?
Are you saying "the market wants more Nikes, therefore it is right that more Nikes be produced and sold"?
I have a difficult time believing that the "market" desire for more Nikes is "right" in any meaningful way.
It's still murder, no matter what I think about it. The law says I get a lethal injection or something... all law really is is an attempt to turn a society's subjective perceptions of good and evil into something objective, that can be judged according to rules.
Ah, but is it objectively, absolutely "murder" because the law say so, or does the law say so because it is objectively, absolutely "murder".
Or, why do you insist that there is some objective, absolute standard by which taking life can be judged, and called "murder"?
Do you propose that the objective standard is the Law? If so, which law? Only the law which defines murder, or do you see all laws as objective, absolute descriptions of morality?
And if not the Law, then what is your standard? By what standard do you judge the law, and say "this law is correct, and that law is not"?
When I graduated over ten years ago, the country was in a recession (as it is now). ..
The answers of The Forum are ephemeral, but the wisdom is timeless: Would you even know the country was in a recession if your TV didn't tell you so?
The "dot.com bubble" burst, as predicted, and rightly so. Lots of layoffs in a limited subset of industries and careers. So what? I live in Silicon Valley, where new building construction has been on the rise for the past ten years - and shows every sign of accelerating. Guess the guys in hardhats don't feel like they're in a recession. Guess they feel like the times are better than ever before.
This "recession" is just a jedi mind-trick to get you to accelerate your annual spending increase.
That's right - businesses are concerned because your spending went up since last year - but it didn't go up as much as it did the year before. Learn from Jabba the Hutt. Don't fall for their little handwaving tricks.
One of the ClearChannel stations in my area announced on Tuesday an uninterrupted hour of music that would "give a voice to the things we are all feeling" or some such crap. Immediately after making this announcement, they played "Dem Bones" by Alice In Chains and "Comfortably Numb" by Pink Floyd, back to back.
Are you saying that LEGO is objecting to third parties using their trademarks as names of elements w/in the third-party source code?
It seems to me that LEGO is merely requesting that the complete source code and/or binary package not be advertised or distrubuted under an infringing name. That is, the collective name for the entire package should not infringe.
Seriously, who would care about a foo_lego() buried deep in your source? Anyway, RTFA. LEGO makes no mention of actual LEGO or Mindstorm components - words like "brick", "wheel", "motor", &c. are conspicuously absent from their list of trademarks. Feel free to write code that uses these canonical names. No one will complain.
No, I mean their next-door neighbours, who aren't out in the streets, but who will die just the same when a made-in-the-good-ole-USA cruise missile comes through their window.
Ass. I doubt we'll see much, if any, "conventional" military attacks. Look for small units carrying out assassinations of known terrorist affiliates, with little or no collateral damage.
What kind of an idiot assumes that cruise missiles are the only solution for any problem?
Slashdot Mirror
What, exactly, is "industrial terrorism", anyway? Can corporations be "terrorized"? Is this the same thing as "terrorizing" ("causing to become terrified"?) a civilian population?
Precisely my (secondary) point: All parties favor government interference that favors their immediate goals. The "free-trade" legislation you mention has the effect of lifting some government restrictions on trade, or adding government support to private sector commerce. And whether you favor government interference or not, you're probably not going to complain about any law that protects your pork while keeping out the competition's pork. I was attempting to sum up both the theoretical platform and the practical application, and I seem to have succeeded (since we seem to be in agreement).
Republicans tend to not like business that deal in porn, etc, things they find morally offensive (however you feel like defining that).
More generally, "Republicans" do not favor government interference in commerce, and do favor government interference in "moral" conduct. The Republican definition of "moral" seems to coincide with the Religious Right (which is also apparently a vocal subset of Republicans), and does not address most business/commercial practices unless they are also "immoral" for non-business-related religious reasons (e.g., porn).
Conversely, the "Democrat" viewpoint seems to be in favor of government interference in commerce, but against government interference in non-business-related moral issues.
As far as I can tell, "Libertarians" seem to be against government interference in any area. Of course, all of these groups tend to favor any government decision that furthers their more immediate goals, or hinders the immediate goals of the other parties. For the Libertarians, this results in an oddly self-referencing approach where one acceptable role of government is to prevent government interference.
This applies to the United States of (North) America, naturally. YMMV.
It's not about what I think, it's about what the moderators think.
My point is that they obviously can't follow instructions.
Round 1 in Emacs vs Vi is about to begin
Where the hell have you been for the last 20 years?
That should be "GNU/GNU Emacs".
[MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS]
+1 Funny
-1 Overrated
[/MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS]
Funny, all I've heard so far is "anecdotal" evidence. That's where one guy tells a personal story about a specific instance right? - an anecdote.
It sounds like Pair may actually have some "statistical" evidence: "X out of Y drives have failed on us so far, which is an unacceptably high percentage. These statististics have prompted us to abandon this product."
[The 'net is] nearly worthless, unless you like being misinformed.
Referencing the numerous posts above, I think it's safe to make the same assertion about Television. At least the net is good for in-depth analysis if you are prepared to do your own research. . . Can you say that about Television?
Actually, this has fuck all to do with @Home, the high-speed access cable modem provider.
This is about Excite, the one-time player in the Internet portal business. True, there was once a plan to make Excite the portal for everything @Home, and Excite@Home was born.
But the two companies (yes, they are still two separate operations) are still in different markets.
Excite's market, the web-portal business, is completely unprofitable. So Excite is closing its doors. @Home still provides adequate cable modem service, and makes money doing so. Given the current state of the portal wars, where even the winner (Yahoo!) is struggling to stay alive, I doubt @Home will miss its sister company much, if at all.
This has nothing to do with @Home.
The company I work for had some bizarre colo hosting deal with Excite (don't ask). Now we're scrambling to get our website out of there before they cut our access and turn our servers over to their creditors. Meanwhile, my girlfriend's roommate is happily installed with @Home cable modem service, with no complaints and no end in sight.
This isn't about @Home.
Argh. Forgot to preview. Here's the guys you mean: http://www.soliddata.com/
these guys.
They make solid state disks, which are, for some reason, insanely expensive.
069 House Church - Not to be confused with Trance Church, Jungle Church, or Industrial Church.
113 Monk - 1st Edition Monk or 3rd Edition Monk? Anyway, not to be confused with Cleric.
899 None - Not to be confused with
319 Humanist,
333 Secularist, or
351 Realist
Interesting. I think the post below which talks about development of critical analysis &c. is useful in explaining this phenomenon. Meanwhile, I've rationalized the 99% preponderance of humanoid aliens with silly forheads as follows: aliens as presented are /symbolic/. They aren't meant to be literal interpretations of alien life forms, but simply symbolic (low-budget) pointers to alien customs, thought patterns, and social structures. Since the show(s) are much more about "human" interactions than anything else, the lack of realistic physical representations (or accurate technical details, for that matter) doesn't bother me much in Star Trek.
What's interesting to note is that I often have difficulty applying the "Symbol Paradigm" to other sci-fi movies and shows - instead judging them on their literal characteristics.
Clearly, Star Trek would be an abysmal failure if it was judged on its literal implementation!
No, what I'm worried about is when the classes require .NET access.
The market is always right.
By what standard do you judge that the market is always right? Do you mean it literally? Do you mean it in theory? Do you mean it in practice?
Do you consider the fact that people buy things because they are told to do so by the manufacturer? That the only time a manufacturer needs to consider closing a factory is when they cannot successfully convince people to buy whatever that factory produces?
Are you saying "the market wants more Nikes, therefore it is right that more Nikes be produced and sold"?
I have a difficult time believing that the "market" desire for more Nikes is "right" in any meaningful way.
It's still murder, no matter what I think about it. The law says I get a lethal injection or something... all law really is is an attempt to turn a society's subjective perceptions of good and evil into something objective, that can be judged according to rules.
Ah, but is it objectively, absolutely "murder" because the law say so, or does the law say so because it is objectively, absolutely "murder".
Or, why do you insist that there is some objective, absolute standard by which taking life can be judged, and called "murder"?
Do you propose that the objective standard is the Law? If so, which law? Only the law which defines murder, or do you see all laws as objective, absolute descriptions of morality?
And if not the Law, then what is your standard? By what standard do you judge the law, and say "this law is correct, and that law is not"?
Is there truly an objective, abosolute morality?
When I graduated over ten years ago, the country was in a recession (as it is now). . .
The answers of The Forum are ephemeral, but the wisdom is timeless: Would you even know the country was in a recession if your TV didn't tell you so?
The "dot.com bubble" burst, as predicted, and rightly so. Lots of layoffs in a limited subset of industries and careers. So what? I live in Silicon Valley, where new building construction has been on the rise for the past ten years - and shows every sign of accelerating. Guess the guys in hardhats don't feel like they're in a recession. Guess they feel like the times are better than ever before.
This "recession" is just a jedi mind-trick to get you to accelerate your annual spending increase.
That's right - businesses are concerned because your spending went up since last year - but it didn't go up as much as it did the year before. Learn from Jabba the Hutt. Don't fall for their little handwaving tricks.
One of the ClearChannel stations in my area announced on Tuesday an uninterrupted hour of music that would "give a voice to the things we are all feeling" or some such crap. Immediately after making this announcement, they played "Dem Bones" by Alice In Chains and "Comfortably Numb" by Pink Floyd, back to back.
I'm not kidding.
I'm holding out for the Visor Morpheus. Or better yet, the Visor Trinity. :9
"Whoa. I know Kung Fu for PalmOS."
Among PDAs, it is The One.
Actually, Koffice is not the answer, due to it's obviously infringing name. Perhaps you're thinking of "Ksuite" or something.
About how I'd feel if "aliens" crashed a "probe" into my place of employment, I expect.
My understanding is that a very very large chunk of the missing mass in the universe has been accounted for via neutrino mass.
That's funny. My understanding is that the "missing mass" is composed of the trolls, flamebait, and FPs below my
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Are you saying that LEGO is objecting to third parties using their trademarks as names of elements w/in the third-party source code?
It seems to me that LEGO is merely requesting that the complete source code and/or binary package not be advertised or distrubuted under an infringing name. That is, the collective name for the entire package should not infringe.
Seriously, who would care about a foo_lego() buried deep in your source? Anyway, RTFA. LEGO makes no mention of actual LEGO or Mindstorm components - words like "brick", "wheel", "motor", &c. are conspicuously absent from their list of trademarks. Feel free to write code that uses these canonical names. No one will complain.
No, I mean their next-door neighbours, who aren't out in the streets, but who will die just the same when a made-in-the-good-ole-USA cruise missile comes through their window.
Ass. I doubt we'll see much, if any, "conventional" military attacks. Look for small units carrying out assassinations of known terrorist affiliates, with little or no collateral damage.
What kind of an idiot assumes that cruise missiles are the only solution for any problem?