Have any proof of this? Or are you just regurgitating the same old leftist line?
If MS were to buy off the Circuit Court, they would have vacated the Findings of Fact. They didn't. They upheld the fact that MS is a monopoly and in fact did violate antitrust law. If all they could get was a vacating of the breakup order, they just wasted their money.
I don't fully agree with the decision. I don't think they went far enough, and I believe our current antitrust law is antequated, outdated, and irrevalent to the economy of 2001. That said, the idea that this was a bought decision doesn't pass the laugh test.
First, I think it's laughable that we see people here screaming and hollaring about "How dare you, President Bush!" Illustrates once again the ignorance of most people of basic Civics and Government. President Bush had a hand in the appointment of exactly 0 members of this Circuit Court. They serve for life so it doesn't matter whether the current President likes them or their ruilings or not.
Next, if the Circuit Court was paid off or anything like that, wouldn't you think they would have vacated the Findings of Fact (that rule that MS is a monopoly and violated Federal law)? No, they didn't do that. They simply said the current remedy is too draconian and that Judge Jackson's actions severely undermined the appearance of fair justice. To that earlier person who pondered why that matters, _YES_ it does. If the people do not percieve the Judiciary as impartial and fair, it's power is destroyed.
In closing, I wonder how many people here have a stake in the stock market (probably most, as about half of all Americans do in some sort). Go look at the action of the market after major milestones in the MS Case. When MS's prospects look better, it goes up, and the reverse is true as well. Why is this? Simple. They see, as many other do, that this case represents the truly grave danger of the Government sticking it's grubby hands into the economy and punishing economic growth. So to all those who stand at the sidelines and cheer MS's demise, remember this: whether you like or use MS products or not, if they are destroyed, it not only hurts them, but it hurts everyone.
Hi, I live in the state of Nebraska, otherwise known as one of the "Flyover States of America."
During this election, both candidates had to campaign in areas like Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virginia and other relatively small states.
With a straight popular vote, you don't have a President of the United States: you have a President of the Eastern and Western Seaboards.
IMHO, there should be _reform_ of the system. If I had my way, all states would adopt Nebraska's system of giving out electoral votes (1 vote for each Congressional district, and 2 to the winner of the statewide popular vote). Also, eliminate the actual electors and make the votes automatic, so you end the possiblitly of the electors disregarding what the people of their state elected them to do (ie: vote for a specific candidate in the College).
When you consider the unmeasured amounts of Bush votes lost when all the major TV networks called Florida before the polls in that state closed, not only in Central time Florida (the Panhandle, and very Republican territory), but in the west coast (people who decided not to go to the polls when all the newscasts basically told them Bush was done for), it's utterly impossible to claim that it's "definately fair" (sic) to say that more Americans preferred Gore to Bush.
Don't forget, two polls conducted in the past two days (Zogby and CNN) put about 59% of Americans wanting Gore to concede now. Even if Gore was preferred on the 7th (which you can't prove), he sure as hell isn't now.
Don't even try to claim that conservatives care about poor people, when it's so obvious that they believe that poor people are that way because they are lazy.
Then why not actually try and back up your statements? If it's so completly obvious, you should be able to withstand debate easily.
Ah, but I understand. Liberals have been taught to ignore the message, and attack the messanger. It can't be that conservatives oppose the expansion of the welfare state because it never actually solves poverty and other social ills, it just takes the downtrodden and makes them utterly depedant on the State, and simply propagates the problems instead of fixing them. It has to be that all conservatves are the steriotypical Big Fat Banker with the Big Cigar Living on the High Hill Somewhere, whose main goal is to steal from the poor and all that crap.
You're suffering from the same syndrome of the protestors in Seattle, Philly, and now LA. You barely understand exactly what you're protesting against and have no real workable alternative to what you seek to end. That's why you're not a factor in American Politics, not that everyone conspires to shut you out.
1) Castro, despite all his wrong-doings, is not a fascist.
Fluffy ideological drivel aside, there is no practical difference between a fasicst state and a communist state. In both, the State (or the Party, but those end up being interchangable) is supreme and runs all facets of life & economy. Cuba is structured no differently.
2) The Nazis used socialist methods to gain more votes within the german people. never forget that the Nazis did (in part, at least) earn their power trough democratic elections! Of course, you know that better than anyone... How's the weather in Argentinia?
They earned weight in the Reichstag by democratic elections. Hitler earned the Chancellary through the combination of persuasion and the idiocy of traditional German conservatives, like Von Papin. Hitler earned his ability to rule by decree through blackmail and threats of violence (the day the vote was held on the increased powers, the Stormtroopers surrounded the Reichstag and chanted that anyone who opposed the new powers wouldn't be going home that night. The only MPs that did were generally Social Democrats, and this is partly why many of them were shipped to Dachau soon after the Nazis cemented their dictatorship). Not exactly like the German people voted Hitler Dictator-for-life.
3) In my (western european biased) book, socialism is not a negative term. We have plenty of "socialist" parties around here who would never dream of taking away private property or outlawing democratic elections. Their main argument is creating a safety net for poorer people in an extremely competitive economy (strong medical and social institutions accessible for everyone). This requires a healthy (or powerful, if you will) governement.
European Socialists may not advocate the direct abolition of property rights, but they slowly erode them away through their polices of expanded government and goverment's ability to circumvent property rights when it wishes.
Of course, the requirements for creating this "safety net" requires ending competition and the free market in large areas of the economy (health care, education, etc). So far, these have not produced exactly wonderful results (the large problems in socialized and nationalized health care systems in countries like Britian and Canada are well publicized).
This "healthy" government also invariably ends up trampling on the rights of individual citizens, good intentioned or not.
I don't believe it's any large part of MS' strategy for a simple reason: even if the DoJ withdraws from the case, the 19 other states could continue the case unphased. Considering that many of those state Attorney-Generals are raving liberals, they'd do it too.
Many state chapters of the ACLU have supported the NRA and gun rights.
I appluad them for actually living up to the supposed purpose of the ACLU (defending constitutional rights) and not using it as a facade to instead fight for a political ideology (ie: liberalism).
The ACLU uses the legal system to defend us from the legal system. Gun rights are an extra-legal part of the constitution. i.e. gun rights exist to allow us to kill our political leaders when things get really really bad.. the courts and people who use them tend to frown uppon this type of problem resolution.
Wrong. Gun rights are very much part of our constitution, so much that in the Bill of Rights, they rank above all but our right to free speech and expression. Gun control legislation seeks to erode this right. While the ACLU fights legislation that erodes First Amendment rights in court (to an extent), it never does for legislation that erodes our Second Amendment rights. I call this hypocracy.
I agree that the NRA does a good job of filling in this void (although they get chastized by the media for it, by being painted as right-wing anti-government militia nuts, etc), but if the ACLU is going to claim to fight for constitutional rights, it shouldn't pick which parts to defend and which parts to ignore.
ABC news reported this story as well, and also had a poll asking whether hackers should go to jail if
A: If they steal info for profit B: If they steal info but don't use it C: Both D: Neither
A large majority of about 73% voted "C" !
Tho it was not a scientific poll, this is pretty scary IMO.
Demanding punishment for theft is scary? Not in my book.
Theft is theft, whether's it through classic methods (shoplifting, breaking and entering, etc) or through more modern froms (cracking, computer/wire fraud). This "not for money" argument doesn't cut it with me and shouldn't cut it with the law.
Also, on good old Kevin, no matter how much people whine, he got off easy. He is no better than any run-of-the-mill burgler. Period.
Disinformation Abounds...
on
Dumb Laws
·
· Score: 1
I heard that in Kansas its illegal to teach evolution in school...
Yet another example of the (delibrate) grave mischaracterization of the actions of the State Education Board of Kansas.
What the BoE was simply drop it as a requirement for districts to teach and drop it from the standardized tests the state requires, not ban anything.
For the vast majority of school districts in the state, this has caused a total of zero changes to the curriculumn(sp).
Of course, the truth of it is never reported. Why? Because then it doesn't give them a chance to bash conservatives and the state itself...
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest! Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"? You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
It's wonderful how it's never mentioned this wasn't anything close to an official statement by the NRA. It was a comment made by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Of course, the media blew it way out of proportion.
I find it interesting how you don't mention how well funded gun manufacturers fund the NRA.
It's also interesting how people complain about the so-called influence of the gun industry on the NRA via funding, but we never attempt to discern the funding sources of grouple like the ACLU. This aside, i'm sure we'll find with both, the lion's share comes from membership dues and private donations.
And so it goes. The ACLU is worshiped for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights, while the NRA is demonized for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights.
True, there are many possible problems with Online voting.
One has to remember the current system isn't fullproof either. There has always been voter and election fraud. Question is, can an online system be made at least as safe from fraud as the current system is...
Ah, I find it wonderful, when the evolutionist tried to discredite the so-called "foolish ignorant" creationist, and in the process shows themself no better than what they perceieve the other side as.
Creationism, in any varient, cannot be proven. Neither can evolution. Both have flaws, both have strengths. The difference? The evolutionists have willed evolution into unquestionable, unchallenged fact. They don't want to have a principled, non-slighted debate on the facts and problems of the theories out there, they just want to paint evolution critics as a whole cache of bad things to downplay any point they bring up.
I am not arrogant enough to say what I believe, and contrary to some misinformation believe is not always blind faith, is true and cannot be challenged. I wish the otherside would be able to say the same.
As an aside, on the school issue, I see two solutions:
1. Teach as you do now, but also point out that their are strengths and weaknesses, and that not all doubters are ignorant and to be ignored totally.
2. The best solution, end the public schools and go for a true school choice program.
i'd assume that if it isn't on standardised tests, they aren't going to be bothering with teaching it in a public school.
Not true. Most unbiased reports show that most of the school districts in Kansas aren't changing their curriculum at all (ie: leaving evolution in and creationism out).
Yeah buddy, the Clinton Administration giving away nuclear secrets with the aid of their amazing Tom Swift time machine. You know, the one that allowed Clinton, elected in 1992, to give away the secret of the W-88 ICBM warhead in 1985.
No, if you bother to read the fine print in the newspaper articles, rather than the cartoons on the editorial pages, you'd be aware that the secret was out the door and down the road years before that loser Clinton ever set foot in the White House. It's a well-documented fact that the nuclear-secret leaks took place during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
Yes, there was secrets stolen during the Reagan and Bush adminstrations. No one's really disputing that. What's worse is we know that it was only until Clinton administration that it was known, yet they sat on the information.
The former is at most incompetance, the latter is treason.
While we're mentioning China and the Bush Administration, maybe you recall President Bush's weak, gutless acquiescence to the Tiananmen Square massacre? Democracy be damned, there are big multinational corporations, big campaign contributors, who stood to face a loss if he had cut off their access to all those cheap and industrious one-dollar-a-day Chinese laborers!
Yes, Bush totally screwed up Tiananmen. All and all, Bush was a mediocre President who pailed in comparison to his former boss.
Ok, so they can't launch missiles. So what? That option isn't garruanteed anyway: a state like N. Korea can't produce reliable enough missiles.
Not true. It is know they already have missles capable of reaching Alaska, and of course, when your a totalitarian state who could care less about feeding the people, getting the cash to improve them is easy.
This doesn't suprise me. I've cut down drastically my time reading/. because of this type of activity. This site has completely changed. It began as a linux/*bsd/*nix oriented news site, but is now nothing more than a political soapbox for persons who seem to not want their stands to be put up to scruntey(sp) in debate... maybe because they can't take the heat? Oh well... Watch this post get moderated down.
Put aside any dislike for MS you may have, but how could anyone be that twisted?
I don't like Microsoft or it's products. I don't hate them, or even Gates for that matter, and if he were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't celebrate. The death of anyone is a sad affair.
It amazes me how callious and disgusting people can be.
Stuff similar to this has been around for a long time: micronations.
Some vary in seriousness and complexity. Some are goofy, and undeveloped. Some are farily fleshed out and regard themeselves as a political simulation and some actually "claim" land and seriously claim independence from a real national power.
A fairly exhaustive list of links to micronations or related stuff relating is here: http://www.reuniao.org/chancellery/links.html
1. I was mistaken, evidently RH did put KDE into the distribution later on. That aside doesn't really weaken my argument: RH made a distribution decision to adavance a corporate interest (the money and manpower poured into Gnome) and it caused a schism.
2. Yes, sometimes distributions combine, and this is a good thing, but alas, it's rare. Also, remember, (as mentioned in a previous article's comments section) LinuxToday (I believe) puts the number of Linux distributions at over 100..
3. The balkanization of Linux wouldn't be as much of a problem if something like the LSB had worked out. Here again, arguments ensued and the LSB collapsed. I believe I heard of attempts to restart it but they seem to not have had much success or support.
4. The idea that I am "jelious"(sp) of Linux's success is idiotic. I have used Linux for years, and still believe it to be a good operating system. I am making comments of what I think could make Linux even better and more sucessful. Also, Linux's success even bring benefits to the BSD user: more focus on the free software movement and Linux binaries run on all the BSDs through emulation.
I think this is an important point. Not only do we have all this balkanization of Linux, but we even have distros like Stormix and Mandrake that are derivatives of other distributions, for reasons ranging from political disagrements (Mandrake and RH's refusal to include KDE) to no apparent reason (Stormix). Frankly, this is quite counter-productive and is, and will continue to hurt Linux.
PS: For the record, yes, I am a FreeBSD user, but I am also a former Linux user, and had this concern beforehand.
Civ2 is the only thing between me and a record uptime, and Civ3 looks just yummy. This is the greatest thing i've heard in almost forever:) I'll shell out just about anything for this...
Slashdot Mirror
Have any proof of this? Or are you just regurgitating the same old leftist line?
If MS were to buy off the Circuit Court, they would have vacated the Findings of Fact. They didn't. They upheld the fact that MS is a monopoly and in fact did violate antitrust law. If all they could get was a vacating of the breakup order, they just wasted their money.
I don't fully agree with the decision. I don't think they went far enough, and I believe our current antitrust law is antequated, outdated, and irrevalent to the economy of 2001. That said, the idea that this was a bought decision doesn't pass the laugh test.
First, I think it's laughable that we see people here screaming and hollaring about "How dare you, President Bush!" Illustrates once again the ignorance of most people of basic Civics and Government. President Bush had a hand in the appointment of exactly 0 members of this Circuit Court. They serve for life so it doesn't matter whether the current President likes them or their ruilings or not.
Next, if the Circuit Court was paid off or anything like that, wouldn't you think they would have vacated the Findings of Fact (that rule that MS is a monopoly and violated Federal law)? No, they didn't do that. They simply said the current remedy is too draconian and that Judge Jackson's actions severely undermined the appearance of fair justice. To that earlier person who pondered why that matters, _YES_ it does. If the people do not percieve the Judiciary as impartial and fair, it's power is destroyed.
In closing, I wonder how many people here have a stake in the stock market (probably most, as about half of all Americans do in some sort). Go look at the action of the market after major milestones in the MS Case. When MS's prospects look better, it goes up, and the reverse is true as well. Why is this? Simple. They see, as many other do, that this case represents the truly grave danger of the Government sticking it's grubby hands into the economy and punishing economic growth. So to all those who stand at the sidelines and cheer MS's demise, remember this: whether you like or use MS products or not, if they are destroyed, it not only hurts them, but it hurts everyone.
Good day now.
Yes, of course there is.
Hi, I live in the state of Nebraska, otherwise known as one of the "Flyover States of America."
During this election, both candidates had to campaign in areas like Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virginia and other relatively small states.
With a straight popular vote, you don't have a President of the United States: you have a President of the Eastern and Western Seaboards.
IMHO, there should be _reform_ of the system. If I had my way, all states would adopt Nebraska's system of giving out electoral votes (1 vote for each Congressional district, and 2 to the winner of the statewide popular vote). Also, eliminate the actual electors and make the votes automatic, so you end the possiblitly of the electors disregarding what the people of their state elected them to do (ie: vote for a specific candidate in the College).
My 2 cents.
Don't forget, two polls conducted in the past two days (Zogby and CNN) put about 59% of Americans wanting Gore to concede now. Even if Gore was preferred on the 7th (which you can't prove), he sure as hell isn't now.
It was common in 18th century period documents to use captialization as a form of emphasis.
Go look at any other number of tracts from that period. They're not all referring to the Divine.
Then why not actually try and back up your statements? If it's so completly obvious, you should be able to withstand debate easily.
Ah, but I understand. Liberals have been taught to ignore the message, and attack the messanger. It can't be that conservatives oppose the expansion of the welfare state because it never actually solves poverty and other social ills, it just takes the downtrodden and makes them utterly depedant on the State, and simply propagates the problems instead of fixing them. It has to be that all conservatves are the steriotypical Big Fat Banker with the Big Cigar Living on the High Hill Somewhere, whose main goal is to steal from the poor and all that crap.
You're suffering from the same syndrome of the protestors in Seattle, Philly, and now LA. You barely understand exactly what you're protesting against and have no real workable alternative to what you seek to end. That's why you're not a factor in American Politics, not that everyone conspires to shut you out.
Regards,
1) Castro, despite all his wrong-doings, is not a fascist.
Fluffy ideological drivel aside, there is no practical difference between a fasicst state and a communist state. In both, the State (or the Party, but those end up being interchangable) is supreme and runs all facets of life & economy. Cuba is structured no differently.
2) The Nazis used socialist methods to gain more votes within the german people. never forget that the Nazis did (in part, at least) earn their power trough democratic elections! Of course, you know that better than anyone... How's the weather in Argentinia?
They earned weight in the Reichstag by democratic elections. Hitler earned the Chancellary through the combination of persuasion and the idiocy of traditional German conservatives, like Von Papin. Hitler earned his ability to rule by decree through blackmail and threats of violence (the day the vote was held on the increased powers, the Stormtroopers surrounded the Reichstag and chanted that anyone who opposed the new powers wouldn't be going home that night. The only MPs that did were generally Social Democrats, and this is partly why many of them were shipped to Dachau soon after the Nazis cemented their dictatorship). Not exactly like the German people voted Hitler Dictator-for-life.
3) In my (western european biased) book, socialism is not a negative term. We have plenty of "socialist" parties around here who would never dream of taking away private property or outlawing democratic elections. Their main argument is creating a safety net for poorer people in an extremely competitive economy (strong medical and social institutions accessible for everyone). This requires a healthy (or powerful, if you will) governement.
European Socialists may not advocate the direct abolition of property rights, but they slowly erode them away through their polices of expanded government and goverment's ability to circumvent property rights when it wishes.
Of course, the requirements for creating this "safety net" requires ending competition and the free market in large areas of the economy (health care, education, etc). So far, these have not produced exactly wonderful results (the large problems in socialized and nationalized health care systems in countries like Britian and Canada are well publicized).
This "healthy" government also invariably ends up trampling on the rights of individual citizens, good intentioned or not.
I don't believe it's any large part of MS' strategy for a simple reason: even if the DoJ withdraws from the case, the 19 other states could continue the case unphased. Considering that many of those state Attorney-Generals are raving liberals, they'd do it too.
Many state chapters of the ACLU have supported the NRA and gun rights.
I appluad them for actually living up to the supposed purpose of the ACLU (defending constitutional rights) and not using it as a facade to instead fight for a political ideology (ie: liberalism).
The ACLU uses the legal system to defend us from the legal system. Gun rights are an extra-legal part of the constitution. i.e. gun rights exist to allow us to kill our political leaders when things get really really bad.. the courts and people who use them tend to frown uppon this type of problem resolution.
Wrong. Gun rights are very much part of our constitution, so much that in the Bill of Rights, they rank above all but our right to free speech and expression. Gun control legislation seeks to erode this right. While the ACLU fights legislation that erodes First Amendment rights in court (to an extent), it never does for legislation that erodes our Second Amendment rights. I call this hypocracy.
I agree that the NRA does a good job of filling in this void (although they get chastized by the media for it, by being painted as right-wing anti-government militia nuts, etc), but if the ACLU is going to claim to fight for constitutional rights, it shouldn't pick which parts to defend and which parts to ignore.
A: If they steal info for profit
B: If they steal info but don't use it
C: Both
D: Neither
A large majority of about 73% voted "C" !
Tho it was not a scientific poll, this is pretty scary IMO.
Demanding punishment for theft is scary? Not in my book.
Theft is theft, whether's it through classic methods (shoplifting, breaking and entering, etc) or through more modern froms (cracking, computer/wire fraud). This "not for money" argument doesn't cut it with me and shouldn't cut it with the law.
Also, on good old Kevin, no matter how much people whine, he got off easy. He is no better than any run-of-the-mill burgler. Period.
I heard that in Kansas its illegal to teach evolution in school...
Yet another example of the (delibrate) grave mischaracterization of the actions of the State Education Board of Kansas.
What the BoE was simply drop it as a requirement for districts to teach and drop it from the standardized tests the state requires, not ban anything.
For the vast majority of school districts in the state, this has caused a total of zero changes to the curriculumn(sp).
Of course, the truth of it is never reported. Why? Because then it doesn't give them a chance to bash conservatives and the state itself...
Law enforcement officers in the NRA? Sureyou jest! Don't you recall the fund raising letter a while back where the NRA pontificated against "jack-booted government thugs"? You remember, the letter that made George Bush publicly denounce the NRA?
It's wonderful how it's never mentioned this wasn't anything close to an official statement by the NRA. It was a comment made by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). Of course, the media blew it way out of proportion.
I find it interesting how you don't mention how well funded gun manufacturers fund the NRA.
It's also interesting how people complain about the so-called influence of the gun industry on the NRA via funding, but we never attempt to discern the funding sources of grouple like the ACLU. This aside, i'm sure we'll find with both, the lion's share comes from membership dues and private donations.
And so it goes. The ACLU is worshiped for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights, while the NRA is demonized for defending a certain part of our constitutional rights.
True, there are many possible problems with Online voting.
One has to remember the current system isn't fullproof either. There has always been voter and election fraud. Question is, can an online system be made at least as safe from fraud as the current system is...
Ah, I find it wonderful, when the evolutionist tried to discredite the so-called "foolish ignorant" creationist, and in the process shows themself no better than what they perceieve the other side as.
Creationism, in any varient, cannot be proven. Neither can evolution. Both have flaws, both have strengths. The difference? The evolutionists have willed evolution into unquestionable, unchallenged fact. They don't want to have a principled, non-slighted debate on the facts and problems of the theories out there, they just want to paint evolution critics as a whole cache of bad things to downplay any point they bring up.
I am not arrogant enough to say what I believe, and contrary to some misinformation believe is not always blind faith, is true and cannot be challenged. I wish the otherside would be able to say the same.
As an aside, on the school issue, I see two solutions:
1. Teach as you do now, but also point out that their are strengths and weaknesses, and that not all doubters are ignorant and to be ignored totally.
2. The best solution, end the public schools and go for a true school choice program.
i'd assume that if it isn't on standardised tests, they aren't going to be bothering with teaching it in a public school.
Not true. Most unbiased reports show that most of the school districts in Kansas aren't changing their curriculum at all (ie: leaving evolution in and creationism out).
Yeah buddy, the Clinton Administration giving away nuclear secrets with the aid of their amazing Tom Swift time machine. You know, the one
that allowed Clinton, elected in 1992, to give away the secret of the W-88 ICBM warhead in 1985.
No, if you bother to read the fine print in the newspaper articles, rather than the cartoons on the editorial pages, you'd be aware that the secret was out the door and down the road years before that loser Clinton ever set foot in the White House. It's a well-documented fact that the nuclear-secret leaks took place during the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
Yes, there was secrets stolen during the Reagan and Bush adminstrations. No one's really disputing that. What's worse is we know that it was only until Clinton administration that it was known, yet they sat on the information.
The former is at most incompetance, the latter is treason.
While we're mentioning China and the Bush Administration, maybe you recall President Bush's weak, gutless acquiescence to the Tiananmen Square massacre? Democracy be damned, there are big multinational corporations, big campaign contributors, who stood to face a loss if he had cut off their access to all those cheap and industrious one-dollar-a-day Chinese laborers!
Yes, Bush totally screwed up Tiananmen. All and all, Bush was a mediocre President who pailed in comparison to his former boss.
Ok, so they can't launch missiles. So what? That option isn't garruanteed anyway: a state like N. Korea can't produce reliable enough missiles.
Not true. It is know they already have missles capable of reaching Alaska, and of course, when your a totalitarian state who could care less about feeding the people, getting the cash to improve them is easy.
This doesn't suprise me. I've cut down drastically my time reading /. because of this type of activity. This site has completely changed. It began as a linux/*bsd/*nix oriented news site, but is now nothing more than a political soapbox for persons who seem to not want their stands to be put up to scruntey(sp) in debate... maybe because they can't take the heat? Oh well... Watch this post get moderated down.
That is truly disgusting.
Put aside any dislike for MS you may have, but how could anyone be that twisted?
I don't like Microsoft or it's products. I don't hate them, or even Gates for that matter, and if he were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't celebrate. The death of anyone is a sad affair.
It amazes me how callious and disgusting people can be.
Stuff similar to this has been around for a long time: micronations.
Some vary in seriousness and complexity. Some are goofy, and undeveloped. Some are farily fleshed out and regard themeselves as a political simulation and some actually "claim" land and seriously claim independence from a real national power.
A fairly exhaustive list of links to micronations or related stuff relating is here:
http://www.reuniao.org/chancellery/links.html
(To reply en masse... :)
1. I was mistaken, evidently RH did put KDE into the distribution later on. That aside doesn't really weaken my argument: RH made a distribution decision to adavance a corporate interest (the money and manpower poured into Gnome) and it caused a schism.
2. Yes, sometimes distributions combine, and this is a good thing, but alas, it's rare. Also, remember, (as mentioned in a previous article's comments section) LinuxToday (I believe) puts the number of Linux distributions at over 100..
3. The balkanization of Linux wouldn't be as much of a problem if something like the LSB had worked out. Here again, arguments ensued and the LSB collapsed. I believe I heard of attempts to restart it but they seem to not have had much success or support.
4. The idea that I am "jelious"(sp) of Linux's success is idiotic. I have used Linux for years, and still believe it to be a good operating system. I am making comments of what I think could make Linux even better and more sucessful. Also, Linux's success even bring benefits to the BSD user: more focus on the free software movement and Linux binaries run on all the BSDs through emulation.
Debian (aka Stormix)
RedHat (aka Linux Mandrake)
I think this is an important point. Not only do we have all this balkanization of Linux, but we even have distros like Stormix and Mandrake that are derivatives of other distributions, for reasons ranging from political disagrements (Mandrake and RH's refusal to include KDE) to no apparent reason (Stormix). Frankly, this is quite counter-productive and is, and will continue to hurt Linux.
PS: For the record, yes, I am a FreeBSD user, but I am also a former Linux user, and had this concern beforehand.
Civ2 is the only thing between me and a record uptime, and Civ3 looks just yummy. This is the greatest thing i've heard in almost forever :) I'll shell out just about anything for this...