If you said that MC Chris's music sucked poop through a straw made of frozen poop, it would be unfair to music that in fact did suck poop through a straw made of frozen poop.
With the exception of how funny the MC Pee Pants stuff was, MC Chris is awful.
Personally, I think their fears of being assimilated are understandable.
Bullshit, this is like when people tried to enact anti-miscegenation laws because they thought that the "white culture" in the US would be damaged if intermarriage were permitted.
If the near half billion people around them are English speakers, they run the risk of further marginalizing and isolating themselves by banning the use of non "Francais" products.
I say fuck them. I know Italian-Americans who speak Italian. I know Jewish people who speak Yiddish or Hebrew. I know Muslims who speak Arabic. Guess where they speak these other languages? In their own homes. You know what living in an English speaking world has done to their culture? NOTHING!
No matter what you think of iTunes, this is tremendous publicity for music on demand services in general. If the public gets a taste for it, this could be the beginning of the end for the audio CD.
What? This could only be the beginning of the end in the same sense that the invention of TV was the beginning of the end for newspapers. Maybe in 80 years we'll see CD audio go away. There is just too much equipment out there that plays audio CDs for people to abandon them at this point.
The problem is the number of municipalities who get a fair portion of their annual revenue from speeding tickets.
I even once heard the story of a town that got so much of their budget from speeding tickets that when the state eliminated their cut, not only did the number of speeding tickets that they issued drop, but the town also had to discorporate.
I've thought about building a 'renegade' illegal one. It'd be handy when I want to pass somebody who's going above the speed limit and has a radar detector.
I'm not sure if a fake emitter is illegal, I'm not sure if it was Information Unlimited, but either them or a company like them used to sell one for just that purpose.
While these politicians are at it, why not mandate fuel governors for all cars to prevent them from speeding?
Why not mandate RFID for everyone so that the police can tell where you are when you're a suspect in a crime?
I can understand making people responsible for using such a device, but banning them won't do any more good than those states that banned radar detectors.
A couple of days ago, when it came out that Symantec was blocking the NRA and other pro-gun websites, everyone ranted about how the user had the choice of whether or not to use the firewall?
Why don't I hear more of that now?
We can use not to install NAV 2004. We can use McAffee, or Dr. Solomon, or whomever else is on the market if we disagree with their ad blocking policy.
I personally would love it. I have never bought anything from a banner ad. I don't much plan to either.
I hope that that focus of linux is not towards the "desktop" of average users. I hope that linux is never targeted towards grandmothers and diesel mechanics' home systems.
People like this care about ease of use. Not much more than that.
Corporate servers and Grandmother's desktops being the only foci of linux development would be a bad thing for people like me. I'm just a geek. I don't care about support for 16 processor boxes. (at least not yet) I don't care if I can go to Best Buy and pick up Uberspades for linux.
Once linux becomes just about making money, it will have a negative effect on people like me. The recently announced end of Red Hat Linux, is just the most recent example.
If Pat had a those millions of votes wouldn't that be a very strong signal for George ?
See my earlier list of people that I did not want to win. For me to have voted for Keyes or Buchanan, would have been no different than a vote for Gore. They had no chance to win in a general election.
I voted for Keyes and Buchanan in previous primary elections, that is where the biggest change can happen. We lost in 1996 because of the idiots in my party who decided to put up an elderly senator against, a young, attractive successful southern, president.
Wouldn't that mean that you got more out of voting for Pat than out of voting for George?
Ask those liberals in Florida who voted for Nader if they got more out of that vote than they would have from a vote for Gore?
If you looked at "Reality as it is" you'd realize your one vote has no chance of swaying the election, because the election would be won by a margin or tens of thousands if not millions on any given election.
MY vote means very little, but the votes of millions of people like me matter very much.
What you are paying for is someone to find out it's there, integrate it with the rest of your porgrams, tell you about it and offer it to you in a slick binary package.
Now, I could take the low route that you did and talk about "porgrams", but I don't do that.
That's a service that's worth paying for, but I don't really have to thanks to the tremendous Debian community. Fedora looks like it's going to be a similar effort.
Not my problem anymore, I'm using Mandrake. I switched back at Red Hat 6.0.
No, the problem is that of voting for people who can win because all the other schmoes think the same way instead of risking an opinion.
So what you're saying is that the problem is with practical reality. As much as I would have liked to see Alan Keyes become president, I knew that there was no chance.
What that leaves is "Who would you least like to win?"
Once Keyes was out, who would I least like to win? In order that would be...
1. Al Gore 2. Ralph Nader 3. GW Bush 4. Pat Buchanan
While Bush wasn't my first choice, I had to vote against Gore and Nader. Any other vote would have been no different than a vote for them.
If everybody who didn't vote at all in the last elections had voted for one candidate, that person would have won.
And if I had a million dollars, I'd be rich. But,in the immortal words of Ice-T, "SHIT AIN'T LIKE THAT!"
You have to deal with reality the way it is. It's the only way to make things the way you want them to be.
It starts with the NDA between the developer and the company, but it ends with the company selling you stuff you don't need, did not ask for or already owned.
Simple solution. Don't buy software that comes with such strings attached.
Now, if you are have no problem with "closes" source, you must not have any problems paying for software.
Ok, you got me, I'm not the greatest typist on the planet. And no, I have no problem paying for software.
If this is true, why would you have a problem paying someone to collect free software for you?
Because I sometimes choose free software because it is $free$.
Checking licenses, keeping binaries up to the latest available and serving it out is a usefull service. As free software is usually superior to it's non free alternatives, the end result is better software for you.
If they're going to charge, why bill it as free software? I pay for media, books, instruction, tech support and help. I will not pay for bugfixes.
I'd rather my software be "owned" by an author that likes the GPL than some nasty salesman like Steve Balmer. How about you?
Linus or Steve & Bill? No question in my mind, Linus every time.
They will come out millions ahead by ending the Red Hat Linux product line and focusing on their enterprise package. It's all about business.
Exactly why people like myself think that the businessification (I know it's not a real word) of linux is such a bad thing.
What happens why a company like Red Hat is put in the same position as M$? They start acting like M$. "We know many of you aren't going to like this, but we make more money by fucking you over, so please grab your ankles" In all honesty, this isn't That bad of a thing. They are giving people notice. It could be worse, but I don't use Red Hat anymore for a reason.
How delightfully manipulative of them. Just because the Nazis had some really nasty and horrible idiology doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they did was bad.
You miss their point. They advance the belief that it was that very law which made the horrors of their regime possible.
I do believe that if anyone has the right to point the finger of blame for the holocaust, it would be a group of Jewish people.
Spam requires commercial motivation. This guy isn't trying to bilk anyone out of their money. He wants to spend money! In other words, he's begging to get ripped off.
And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
The most effective people on the battlefied have handled guns in civillian life. If one person has been killing deer since he was 12, and another person had never touched a firearm before basic training who do you think will be the better shot?
If you have spent 10 years learning how to hide from the keen eyes of animal life, don't you think you'll have a better idea of how to conceal yourself from the enemy than the guy who has never been outside of the city?
You obviously don't have any children in the public school system.
Not yet. I'm still to much about me with my money.
Each year, I have "the talk" with my children about what are appropriate questions for teachers to ask, and one of them is NOT "does your daddy have any guns in the house?"
When I move in with my GF, I'll have to remember to have that talk with her kids.
Most liberals, myself included, do not support outright bans on firearms. I support reasonable restrictions on firearm sales. Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation.
The problem is that the "reasonable" measure that most liberals support would lay the groundwork for the total ban that the radicals want. This is why there can be no compromise.
The gun lobbyists have repeatedly opposed legislation like mandatory background checks, even with short waiting periods, and any type of background checks and waiting periods whatsoever for sales at gun shows,
Let's put an end to this lie right now. Any federally licensed dealer HAS TO follow the same rules, whether he makes a sale at his shop or at a gun show. Meaning, if an FFL dealer sells you a gun at a show, you will still need to fill out the yellow forms amd you will still need to undergo the background check.
Where this notion of a "loophole" comes from is that any new law restricting FFL gun purchases is an extension of 1968 cun control act. This act is the law that made it illegal to ship guns via the mail, it also required that gun manufacturers couldn't sell directly to the public. All new firearms sales have to go through federally licensed dealers, they are the ones who are affected by the 1968 gun control act.
Private citizens, like you and I are not restricted by the 1968 gun control act. I can privately make a sale to anyone I want to. I am not required to do a background check. I'm not required to make him or her wait. They federal government does not have the right to legislate the non interstate transfer of a legal product between two private citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
I have known several men who have done time in prison. One of them in federal prison, I have heard the same thing from all of them.
Yes, rape does happen. (even 1 rape is one too many) But it isn't as commonplace as people on the outside seem to think.
LK
If you said that MC Chris's music sucked poop through a straw made of frozen poop, it would be unfair to music that in fact did suck poop through a straw made of frozen poop.
With the exception of how funny the MC Pee Pants stuff was, MC Chris is awful.
LK
I guess 4 days was too long to wait to see the movie before slashdot would post spoilers on the front page.
When it comes to X-Men, Matrix or Star Wars, yes 4 days IS too long. You cheap motherfucker. Go catch a Matinee.
Personally, I think their fears of being assimilated are understandable.
Bullshit, this is like when people tried to enact anti-miscegenation laws because they thought that the "white culture" in the US would be damaged if intermarriage were permitted.
If the near half billion people around them are English speakers, they run the risk of further marginalizing and isolating themselves by banning the use of non "Francais" products.
I say fuck them. I know Italian-Americans who speak Italian. I know Jewish people who speak Yiddish or Hebrew. I know Muslims who speak Arabic. Guess where they speak these other languages? In their own homes. You know what living in an English speaking world has done to their culture? NOTHING!
If it's important to you, you will preserve it.
LK
If you seriously think that CDs will last 80 or even another 15 years, then you seriously underesimate the advancement of techology.
I was being overly dramatic, I do believe that in 15-20 years CDs or CD like media will still be available in some form.
LK
No matter what you think of iTunes, this is tremendous publicity for music on demand services in general. If the public gets a taste for it, this could be the beginning of the end for the audio CD.
What? This could only be the beginning of the end in the same sense that the invention of TV was the beginning of the end for newspapers. Maybe in 80 years we'll see CD audio go away. There is just too much equipment out there that plays audio CDs for people to abandon them at this point.
LK
And if you can adjust them by state, don't you think the "bad guys" will know how to adjust them, too?
Governers on cars is as bad an idea as remote controlled shut-down systems on gasoline tankers.
Thank you, you have just proved the point I was making.
LK
The problem is the number of municipalities who get a fair portion of their annual revenue from speeding tickets.
I even once heard the story of a town that got so much of their budget from speeding tickets that when the state eliminated their cut, not only did the number of speeding tickets that they issued drop, but the town also had to discorporate.
I've thought about building a 'renegade' illegal one. It'd be handy when I want to pass somebody who's going above the speed limit and has a radar detector.
I'm not sure if a fake emitter is illegal, I'm not sure if it was Information Unlimited, but either them or a company like them used to sell one for just that purpose.
LK
I'll speak on this again.
While these politicians are at it, why not mandate fuel governors for all cars to prevent them from speeding?
Why not mandate RFID for everyone so that the police can tell where you are when you're a suspect in a crime?
I can understand making people responsible for using such a device, but banning them won't do any more good than those states that banned radar detectors.
LK
A couple of days ago, when it came out that Symantec was blocking the NRA and other pro-gun websites, everyone ranted about how the user had the choice of whether or not to use the firewall?
Why don't I hear more of that now?
We can use not to install NAV 2004. We can use McAffee, or Dr. Solomon, or whomever else is on the market if we disagree with their ad blocking policy.
I personally would love it. I have never bought anything from a banner ad. I don't much plan to either.
LK
I hope that that focus of linux is not towards the "desktop" of average users. I hope that linux is never targeted towards grandmothers and diesel mechanics' home systems.
People like this care about ease of use. Not much more than that.
Corporate servers and Grandmother's desktops being the only foci of linux development would be a bad thing for people like me. I'm just a geek. I don't care about support for 16 processor boxes. (at least not yet) I don't care if I can go to Best Buy and pick up Uberspades for linux.
Once linux becomes just about making money, it will have a negative effect on people like me. The recently announced end of Red Hat Linux, is just the most recent example.
Keep linux alive, keep it for geeks.
LK
If Pat had a those millions of votes wouldn't that be a very strong signal for George ?
See my earlier list of people that I did not want to win. For me to have voted for Keyes or Buchanan, would have been no different than a vote for Gore. They had no chance to win in a general election.
I voted for Keyes and Buchanan in previous primary elections, that is where the biggest change can happen. We lost in 1996 because of the idiots in my party who decided to put up an elderly senator against, a young, attractive successful southern, president.
Wouldn't that mean that you got more out of voting for Pat than out of voting for George?
Ask those liberals in Florida who voted for Nader if they got more out of that vote than they would have from a vote for Gore?
We learned that lesson in 1992.
LK
If you looked at "Reality as it is" you'd realize your one vote has no chance of swaying the election, because the election would be won by a margin or tens of thousands if not millions on any given election.
MY vote means very little, but the votes of millions of people like me matter very much.
What you are paying for is someone to find out it's there, integrate it with the rest of your porgrams, tell you about it and offer it to you in a slick binary package.
Now, I could take the low route that you did and talk about "porgrams", but I don't do that.
That's a service that's worth paying for, but I don't really have to thanks to the tremendous Debian community. Fedora looks like it's going to be a similar effort.
Not my problem anymore, I'm using Mandrake. I switched back at Red Hat 6.0.
Viable or not, he was on the ballot. That's the point.
LK
No, the problem is that of voting for people who can win because all the other schmoes think the same way instead of risking an opinion.
,in the immortal words of Ice-T, "SHIT AIN'T LIKE THAT!"
So what you're saying is that the problem is with practical reality. As much as I would have liked to see Alan Keyes become president, I knew that there was no chance.
What that leaves is "Who would you least like to win?"
Once Keyes was out, who would I least like to win? In order that would be...
1. Al Gore
2. Ralph Nader
3. GW Bush
4. Pat Buchanan
While Bush wasn't my first choice, I had to vote against Gore and Nader. Any other vote would have been no different than a vote for them.
If everybody who didn't vote at all in the last elections had voted for one candidate, that person would have won.
And if I had a million dollars, I'd be rich. But
You have to deal with reality the way it is. It's the only way to make things the way you want them to be.
LK
It starts with the NDA between the developer and the company, but it ends with the company selling you stuff you don't need, did not ask for or already owned.
Simple solution. Don't buy software that comes with such strings attached.
Now, if you are have no problem with "closes" source, you must not have any problems paying for software.
Ok, you got me, I'm not the greatest typist on the planet. And no, I have no problem paying for software.
If this is true, why would you have a problem paying someone to collect free software for you?
Because I sometimes choose free software because it is $free$.
Checking licenses, keeping binaries up to the latest available and serving it out is a usefull service. As free software is usually superior to it's non free alternatives, the end result is better software for you.
If they're going to charge, why bill it as free software? I pay for media, books, instruction, tech support and help. I will not pay for bugfixes.
I'd rather my software be "owned" by an author that likes the GPL than some nasty salesman like Steve Balmer. How about you?
Linus or Steve & Bill? No question in my mind, Linus every time.
LK
They will come out millions ahead by ending the Red Hat Linux product line and focusing on their enterprise package. It's all about business.
Exactly why people like myself think that the businessification (I know it's not a real word) of linux is such a bad thing.
What happens why a company like Red Hat is put in the same position as M$? They start acting like M$. "We know many of you aren't going to like this, but we make more money by fucking you over, so please grab your ankles" In all honesty, this isn't That bad of a thing. They are giving people notice. It could be worse, but I don't use Red Hat anymore for a reason.
LK
Free Software is not about getting something for nothing.
That's why I use free software. I have no ideological problems with closes source software.
That's acomplished by having a large body of ownerless software that does what you need, but can't be used to screw end users.
No, free software does indeed have an owner. That owner's copyright is what stops people from coopting it into non-free software.
LK
The law was enacted to STOP the Brownshirts and various other extremist groups from possessing weapons.
And we see how effective it was.
LK
How delightfully manipulative of them. Just because the Nazis had some really nasty and horrible idiology doesn't mean that EVERYTHING they did was bad.
You miss their point. They advance the belief that it was that very law which made the horrors of their regime possible.
I do believe that if anyone has the right to point the finger of blame for the holocaust, it would be a group of Jewish people.
LK
Spam requires commercial motivation. This guy isn't trying to bilk anyone out of their money. He wants to spend money! In other words, he's begging to get ripped off.
Lk
And I'm pretty sure that "us americans" didn't get out of our (yes, I am an American citizen) recliners with our shotguns and swim over to Europe--no, I'm pretty sure it was the army.
The most effective people on the battlefied have handled guns in civillian life. If one person has been killing deer since he was 12, and another person had never touched a firearm before basic training who do you think will be the better shot?
If you have spent 10 years learning how to hide from the keen eyes of animal life, don't you think you'll have a better idea of how to conceal yourself from the enemy than the guy who has never been outside of the city?
LK
You obviously don't have any children in the public school system.
Not yet. I'm still to much about me with my money.
Each year, I have "the talk" with my children about what are appropriate questions for teachers to ask, and one of them is NOT "does your daddy have any guns in the house?"
When I move in with my GF, I'll have to remember to have that talk with her kids.
LK
Most liberals, myself included, do not support outright bans on firearms. I support reasonable restrictions on firearm sales. Anyone who thinks the NRA has reasonable stances on this issue hasn't been paying attention or reading any of their press releases on gun control legislation.
The problem is that the "reasonable" measure that most liberals support would lay the groundwork for the total ban that the radicals want. This is why there can be no compromise.
The gun lobbyists have repeatedly opposed legislation like mandatory background checks, even with short waiting periods, and any type of background checks and waiting periods whatsoever for sales at gun shows,
Let's put an end to this lie right now. Any federally licensed dealer HAS TO follow the same rules, whether he makes a sale at his shop or at a gun show. Meaning, if an FFL dealer sells you a gun at a show, you will still need to fill out the yellow forms amd you will still need to undergo the background check.
Where this notion of a "loophole" comes from is that any new law restricting FFL gun purchases is an extension of 1968 cun control act. This act is the law that made it illegal to ship guns via the mail, it also required that gun manufacturers couldn't sell directly to the public. All new firearms sales have to go through federally licensed dealers, they are the ones who are affected by the 1968 gun control act.
Private citizens, like you and I are not restricted by the 1968 gun control act. I can privately make a sale to anyone I want to. I am not required to do a background check. I'm not required to make him or her wait. They federal government does not have the right to legislate the non interstate transfer of a legal product between two private citizens.
LK