Why build a SEPERATE set of trash/sent/draft/template/etc folders for every account? Why give me so many trees and so many inboxes? If I want to segregate mail by which account it's sent to, I'll use filters. That's what they're for.
At the very least they should provide an option to merge all folders in all acounts into a single "virtual" tree, and then hide the accounts. A hack, sure, but at least it would get the job done.
To make it like the spam I get, you'd need two lines of sed: the first extracts the username before the @, the second substitutes it into the cat stream.
I'm the biggest Civ fan I've ever heard of, but they wren;t really the best choice. A typical game of Civ takes longer than Risk to play, and it only goes up if you have more than one player. it's also exceedingly hard to stop take a break:)
It's not going to come to that... but even in the worst possible case for us, SCO cannot stop us. At best, it can only slow things down.
And slowing us down really worries me. McIdiot says this has nothing to do with Microsoft, but I find the timing awfully convenient.
How long will it take this court case to play out? How long before MS releases its next OS?
If we get delayed BSD-style in the mean time, then we may be in the same relative marketshare and technological abilities as MS by then as we are now. Right now we have the incredible chance to close the gap and ultimately surpass MS in ALL areas, while their OS lags behind. I expect the Longhorn battle to be the final Linux vs. Windows battle. What if SCO can delay us just enough that we can't topple MS then? It'll be on to the next round, and MS fights dirty.
If we get delayed by SCO, then MS may well be just as nasty in 2010 as it is today. If Linux wins vs. Longhorn, then by 2012 maybe nobody will run Windows unless they're playing legacy games.
Giving away a UNIX-like OS for free isn't a problem. What is a problem is giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it.
So he has no problems with Free-beer style software. He has problems with the GPL. He also said that the GPL can be fine, "if it's modified to be more business freindly".
What the *hell* does "giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it" have to do with "the GPL must be modified"?
At the *very most* SCO can prove that IBM really stole source code and put it in Linux, and then in some strange FANTASY this would lead to SCO owning all of Linux, or Linux being crippled when all that code gets summarily ripped out.
I don't think either thing will happen, since I don't think SCO has a very good case.
But in NO WAY does any of this have anything to do with the validity of the GPL.
Did you READ the interview? He said "If you distribute a proprietary product on a CD with Linux, you must GPL your proprietary product." Or words to taht effect.
Tell THAT to nVidia.
McBride is lying deliberately, or seriously deluded, or seriously misinformed. Whatever else about the case holds, weak or strong, the GPL isn't going anywhere.
You have hit upon the major weakness of my definition as given. I have got an answer to it, which I think works out, but I've not time for that just now.
While I respect your views, I would think the mass graves in Iraq would say that Saddam is indeed evil, whether he believes he was right or not.
In fact, I don't think that mass murder makes one inherently evil. It is, of course, a good sign of evilness, but it can't be the deciding factor. Does an evil action make an evil person? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree.
Kind of like saying, "Hitler wasn't evil, just misunderstood."
You make it sound like that would be an insane point to take. I could argue it... I might even be successful, though I doubt I could convince most people, yourself probably included. But it's not an impossible case, the argument is there and is easy to make.
I did not say *nobody* I said "the only ones who do". Rational people don't think Hussein is evil, only those who buy into the rhetoric about him and refuse to think about it do... and maybe some few who think about it conclude that he is, but I am arguing that they have concluded incorrectly.
I'm sure all those millions who were murdered in mass graves don't think he's evil.
So murder makes you evil? Tell that to war heros. Oh, but that was in war? Then start qualifying your statements.
And Al Queda just goes around blowing people (including themselves) up. I bet all the victims think he's deep down just got a "different perspective" and they accept that.
I bet the victems hate his guts, I would. They doubtless hate his actions, hate the man, and wish him ill. But the fact that they despise him and he's hurt them does not make him evil. And just because he's not evil doesn't make him good or likable.
And Hitler. All the school girls loved him. Just ignore all the millions of Jews and others he slaughtered. Focus on the little school girls who loved him. Since *they* loved him, everyone must! And he therefore can't possibly be evil.
I said nothing about "If someone likes you, then you are not evil". I never made that assertion. Hitler was a bit off base, but no one has proven to me that he was evil. If you read the opening parts of "The Rise and Fal of the Third Reich" you fill find that Hitler could well have become an average and un9important person who never murdered anyone. An evil person would do evil things *regardless of circumstance* and I do not believe that Hitler would have.
"If you believe you're good, then you are"
This is what happens when subjectivity is used to replace actual coherant thought.
If I told you I was George Bush the President of the United States, you'd probably believe me. After all, *I* (hypothetically) believe it's true therefore it must be.
I didn't say "If you believe you're good, then everyone believes what you believe". That's insane.
And who are you to use your brain and question *my* reality?
I did not question your reality. I am engaging in a theoretical and philisophical debate on the nature and definition of "evil". I am not degrading your perspective, hell I can't even tell what it is. In your reality these people are evil. Fine. Want to try and convince me that your perspective, which makes so many evil, is more logical and right than my perspective? Good! That's why I'm here. I don't care whether we dissagree, what is important is that I share my perspecive, you share yours, and we both learn something about how other people think.
The only people who can't admit Saddam is evil and needed to go are Liberal wackjobs that can't accept that Bush had even one good reason to go to Iraq.
"Saddam is not evil" is not the same as "Saddam did not need to go." But since you bring it up... Saddam was doing bad things, and Iraq and Iraqis are better off without him. That said, he did not NEED to go, we had insufficient moral justification for taking him out, and Bush will pay hell for lying about why we went in. A war to protect America from attacks with Nukes is acceptable, a war to remove a dictator and liberate a people might not be. We never debated that war, even though that now seems to have been the reason we went in all along. Lying to the public is never popular.
Only in your imaginary LSD filled fantasy world does no one outside the US think Saddam is evil.
Did I say no one outside the U.S.? I said only Bush apologists, wherever they may lie, think that. My comment was, I'll admit, extreme, and I have already revised it at the top of this post.
The argument isn't "does Saddam need to go?" it's "were we justified in the means we used to do it?"
The argument isn't "Were we justified in the means we used to do it?" it'
Further, it implies that we are not in control. It implies that no matter what we do there will always be some mysteriously "evil" or "good" people completely unlike us or anyone we know who will come along out of the blue and change things. We can only stand on the sidelines and hope that if only the "evil" people can be found and eradicated, or that some supernaturally "good" people can prosper then all will be right with the world.
Bravo. This is at the heart of my initial objection to the "evil" classification, as if that by itself began and ended all argument.
Evil is hard to pin down, so hard that I'd say it's nearly nonexistant. What really matters is what people/do/ and what impact that has, not what was going on inside their heads.
By the standards used today, anyone who dissagrees with the person speaking is "evil" which of course ends the need for debate. Sickening...
It is because so many people and things are, under the definition you give, evil that I do not use that definition. Evil is a powerful word and should be reserved for the *most extreme* cases, not any case past a certain point.
For actions which dissagree with my moral value system (ie, murder) I use terms such as immoral, bad, and wrong. Evil is something else.
WRT being evil, I'd say it's what would horrify 95% of the population, while most of the other 5% might not understand why it horrifies people, but they know it does. The evil are those who could care less. Now, the small percentage who are oblivious to the horror that their actions cause would qualify as evil for me. on the other hand, (the) most evil people are those who know that their actions horrify most people and embark on them for that reason.
Your definition has the advantage of being widely believed, but I don't think it's the correct one.
If I am a soldier and (in war) I take an action which sinks a ship and drowns (say) 200 of my enemies, am I evil? Most people would say no.
If I, a civilian, set off a bomb and kill 200 random adult civilians, am I evil? A lot of people would probably say yes.
It's either evil or not evil to kill 200 people. The D.C. sniper is considered evil for doing what soldiers are praised for. Sanction by a government should not be enough to lend moral rightness to an action. A thing is either right or it is not right.
If a thing is considered acceptable *sometimes* as in (say) under conditions of war, then I assert that it isn't evil. Not to say some actions taken in war cannot be classified as evil, but the ones which everyone is still proud of two decades later are clearly not viewed as such, so I shall pretend they are not.
If a soldier does something in war, then he or the person who ordered him to do it is responsible. If it is considered then and now acceptable to have done the thing, then a person doing that thing is not evil by virtue of having done so.
You think no hero's in (say) world war two didn't suicide-bomb enemies in stunts involving grenades?
I don't think it's the action which makes someone evil. Evil is a state of mind.
From a completely different perspective: Evil is what's morally incorrect, regardlss of why it's done, in which case (depending on your system of morality) all war (for exmple) is evil. I think "Evil" is too powerful/big a word to use for something with so many cases, so for this type of thing I prefer "wrong" or "bad".
The argument over Saddam was not whether he was evil.. it was whether the US had the right to demand an invasion of Iraq on Bush's timetable -- especially when you consider that Saddam got much (if not most) of his WMD technology and equipment from the US (with US government assistance, even).
The argument is not over Saddam, but over Iraq. Bush constantly says "Saddam was/is evil" because this plays to peoples fears and justifies any action.
I still in no way believe he is evil. Immoral (by my standards) but not evil.
The problem I have with your post, is that it implictly claims that Islam is evil.
I do not agree. The poster was being ironic; the only people who say Hussein is evil are Bush and his cronies, usually as a backpeddling justification for murdering his kids.
In reality nobody, or at least nearly nobody, is evil. Evil in the classic movie-villain sense is "I'm bad, and I like it." It's the antagonist dressed in black and torturing, killing, and maiming because he's *evil* and that's *just what he does*.
In real life evil is harder to find. Real people generally consider themselves good. Bin Laden, for example, is clearly not evil. He is working from a dissagreeable (and one might even say faulty) perspective. Saddam Hussein is not evil, he has different priorities and (yes) different beliefs from we the observers. But I'm sure HE believes he is good and doing the right thing, at least most of the time.
The poster was saying, I think, amounts to "What I do is evil? Funny, I don't feel evil." Or something like that.
To get back on topic somewhat: Pornography is evil like Saddam is evil, which is to say it isn't. Hell, people can't even agree over whether pornograhy is *bad*, much less evil.
In no way is any of the above commentary on Islam or any religion, except where it implicitly insults all christians. Didn't catch that? That's the trouble with implicit satements...
Slashdot Mirror
I second that. Belkin cheapo 3-buton mice are crap.
So change the wait on your client. If it's Thunderbird, this is easy.
I completely agree. It makes no sense at all.
Why build a SEPERATE set of trash/sent/draft/template/etc folders for every account? Why give me so many trees and so many inboxes? If I want to segregate mail by which account it's sent to, I'll use filters. That's what they're for.
At the very least they should provide an option to merge all folders in all acounts into a single "virtual" tree, and then hide the accounts. A hack, sure, but at least it would get the job done.
I think you mean:
sub factors($){
return (shift,1);
}
To make it like the spam I get, you'd need two lines of sed: the first extracts the username before the @, the second substitutes it into the cat stream.
I'm the biggest Civ fan I've ever heard of, but they wren;t really the best choice. A typical game of Civ takes longer than Risk to play, and it only goes up if you have more than one player. it's also exceedingly hard to stop take a break :)
Get Tom Baker to play Gandalf, if he's still alive. He could pull it off easily.
What kind of person uses a mouse to copy and paste from Emacs?
Ever heard of macros? xclip?
Incompatible audio APIs are not nearly so bad as *incomplete* audio APIs.
I do not see a necessary relation between being "a monster" meaning a really unpleasant human being who does many nasty things, and being "evil."
It's not going to come to that... but even in the worst possible case for us, SCO cannot stop us. At best, it can only slow things down.
And slowing us down really worries me. McIdiot says this has nothing to do with Microsoft, but I find the timing awfully convenient.
How long will it take this court case to play out? How long before MS releases its next OS?
If we get delayed BSD-style in the mean time, then we may be in the same relative marketshare and technological abilities as MS by then as we are now. Right now we have the incredible chance to close the gap and ultimately surpass MS in ALL areas, while their OS lags behind. I expect the Longhorn battle to be the final Linux vs. Windows battle. What if SCO can delay us just enough that we can't topple MS then? It'll be on to the next round, and MS fights dirty.
If we get delayed by SCO, then MS may well be just as nasty in 2010 as it is today. If Linux wins vs. Longhorn, then by 2012 maybe nobody will run Windows unless they're playing legacy games.
This is the kind of worry I have about this case.
Giving away a UNIX-like OS for free isn't a problem. What is a problem is giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it.
So he has no problems with Free-beer style software. He has problems with the GPL. He also said that the GPL can be fine, "if it's modified to be more business freindly".
What the *hell* does "giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it" have to do with "the GPL must be modified"?
At the *very most* SCO can prove that IBM really stole source code and put it in Linux, and then in some strange FANTASY this would lead to SCO owning all of Linux, or Linux being crippled when all that code gets summarily ripped out.
I don't think either thing will happen, since I don't think SCO has a very good case.
But in NO WAY does any of this have anything to do with the validity of the GPL.
Did you READ the interview? He said "If you distribute a proprietary product on a CD with Linux, you must GPL your proprietary product." Or words to taht effect.
Tell THAT to nVidia.
McBride is lying deliberately, or seriously deluded, or seriously misinformed. Whatever else about the case holds, weak or strong, the GPL isn't going anywhere.
Moz has a whole cross platform GUI thing, which GTK doesn't. Moz can as a result do a lot of tricks GTK can't.
But like I said, find a nice Aqua GTK theme, and boom: GIMP looks native.
You have hit upon the major weakness of my definition as given. I have got an answer to it, which I think works out, but I've not time for that just now.
As the leader of a country, he is responsible for all of the people of the country. Whether they are related or not,
So killing American Indians was wrong, because it was the president sancioning the killing of people in his own country?
Wait, you say the Indians were technically seperate nations?
Well, I'll bet the mix of people's in Iraw laregly see themselves that way, too.
While I respect your views, I would think the mass graves in Iraq would say that Saddam is indeed evil, whether he believes he was right or not.
In fact, I don't think that mass murder makes one inherently evil. It is, of course, a good sign of evilness, but it can't be the deciding factor. Does an evil action make an evil person? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree.
Kind of like saying, "Hitler wasn't evil, just misunderstood."
You make it sound like that would be an insane point to take. I could argue it... I might even be successful, though I doubt I could convince most people, yourself probably included. But it's not an impossible case, the argument is there and is easy to make.
Nobody thinks Saddam Hussain is evil?
I did not say *nobody* I said "the only ones who do". Rational people don't think Hussein is evil, only those who buy into the rhetoric about him and refuse to think about it do... and maybe some few who think about it conclude that he is, but I am arguing that they have concluded incorrectly.
I'm sure all those millions who were murdered in mass graves don't think he's evil.
So murder makes you evil? Tell that to war heros. Oh, but that was in war? Then start qualifying your statements.
And Al Queda just goes around blowing people (including themselves) up. I bet all the victims think he's deep down just got a "different perspective" and they accept that.
I bet the victems hate his guts, I would. They doubtless hate his actions, hate the man, and wish him ill. But the fact that they despise him and he's hurt them does not make him evil. And just because he's not evil doesn't make him good or likable.
And Hitler. All the school girls loved him. Just ignore all the millions of Jews and others he slaughtered. Focus on the little school girls who loved him. Since *they* loved him, everyone must! And he therefore can't possibly be evil.
I said nothing about "If someone likes you, then you are not evil". I never made that assertion. Hitler was a bit off base, but no one has proven to me that he was evil. If you read the opening parts of "The Rise and Fal of the Third Reich" you fill find that Hitler could well have become an average and un9important person who never murdered anyone. An evil person would do evil things *regardless of circumstance* and I do not believe that Hitler would have.
"If you believe you're good, then you are"
This is what happens when subjectivity is used to replace actual coherant thought.
If I told you I was George Bush the President of the United States, you'd probably believe me. After all, *I* (hypothetically) believe it's true therefore it must be.
I didn't say "If you believe you're good, then everyone believes what you believe". That's insane.
And who are you to use your brain and question *my* reality?
I did not question your reality. I am engaging in a theoretical and philisophical debate on the nature and definition of "evil". I am not degrading your perspective, hell I can't even tell what it is. In your reality these people are evil. Fine. Want to try and convince me that your perspective, which makes so many evil, is more logical and right than my perspective? Good! That's why I'm here. I don't care whether we dissagree, what is important is that I share my perspecive, you share yours, and we both learn something about how other people think.
The only people who can't admit Saddam is evil and needed to go are Liberal wackjobs that can't accept that Bush had even one good reason to go to Iraq.
"Saddam is not evil" is not the same as "Saddam did not need to go." But since you bring it up... Saddam was doing bad things, and Iraq and Iraqis are better off without him. That said, he did not NEED to go, we had insufficient moral justification for taking him out, and Bush will pay hell for lying about why we went in. A war to protect America from attacks with Nukes is acceptable, a war to remove a dictator and liberate a people might not be. We never debated that war, even though that now seems to have been the reason we went in all along. Lying to the public is never popular.
Only in your imaginary LSD filled fantasy world does no one outside the US think Saddam is evil.
Did I say no one outside the U.S.? I said only Bush apologists, wherever they may lie, think that. My comment was, I'll admit, extreme, and I have already revised it at the top of this post.
The argument isn't "does Saddam need to go?" it's "were we justified in the means we used to do it?"
The argument isn't "Were we justified in the means we used to do it?" it'
Further, it implies that we are not in control. It implies that no matter what we do there will always be some mysteriously "evil" or "good" people completely unlike us or anyone we know who will come along out of the blue and change things. We can only stand on the sidelines and hope that if only the "evil" people can be found and eradicated, or that some supernaturally "good" people can prosper then all will be right with the world.
/do/ and what impact that has, not what was going on inside their heads.
Bravo. This is at the heart of my initial objection to the "evil" classification, as if that by itself began and ended all argument.
Evil is hard to pin down, so hard that I'd say it's nearly nonexistant. What really matters is what people
By the standards used today, anyone who dissagrees with the person speaking is "evil" which of course ends the need for debate. Sickening...
It is because so many people and things are, under the definition you give, evil that I do not use that definition. Evil is a powerful word and should be reserved for the *most extreme* cases, not any case past a certain point.
For actions which dissagree with my moral value system (ie, murder) I use terms such as immoral, bad, and wrong. Evil is something else.
WRT being evil, I'd say it's what would horrify 95% of the population, while most of the other 5% might not understand why it horrifies people, but they know it does. The evil are those who could care less. Now, the small percentage who are oblivious to the horror that their actions cause would qualify as evil for me. on the other hand, (the) most evil people are those who know that their actions horrify most people and embark on them for that reason.
Your definition has the advantage of being widely believed, but I don't think it's the correct one.
If I am a soldier and (in war) I take an action which sinks a ship and drowns (say) 200 of my enemies, am I evil? Most people would say no.
If I, a civilian, set off a bomb and kill 200 random adult civilians, am I evil? A lot of people would probably say yes.
It's either evil or not evil to kill 200 people. The D.C. sniper is considered evil for doing what soldiers are praised for. Sanction by a government should not be enough to lend moral rightness to an action. A thing is either right or it is not right.
If a thing is considered acceptable *sometimes* as in (say) under conditions of war, then I assert that it isn't evil. Not to say some actions taken in war cannot be classified as evil, but the ones which everyone is still proud of two decades later are clearly not viewed as such, so I shall pretend they are not.
If a soldier does something in war, then he or the person who ordered him to do it is responsible. If it is considered then and now acceptable to have done the thing, then a person doing that thing is not evil by virtue of having done so.
You think no hero's in (say) world war two didn't suicide-bomb enemies in stunts involving grenades?
I don't think it's the action which makes someone evil. Evil is a state of mind.
From a completely different perspective: Evil is what's morally incorrect, regardlss of why it's done, in which case (depending on your system of morality) all war (for exmple) is evil. I think "Evil" is too powerful/big a word to use for something with so many cases, so for this type of thing I prefer "wrong" or "bad".
The argument over Saddam was not whether he was evil.. it was whether the US had the right to demand an invasion of Iraq on Bush's timetable -- especially when you consider that Saddam got much (if not most) of his WMD technology and equipment from the US (with US government assistance, even).
The argument is not over Saddam, but over Iraq. Bush constantly says "Saddam was/is evil" because this plays to peoples fears and justifies any action.
I still in no way believe he is evil. Immoral (by my standards) but not evil.
The problem I have with your post, is that it implictly claims that Islam is evil.
I do not agree. The poster was being ironic; the only people who say Hussein is evil are Bush and his cronies, usually as a backpeddling justification for murdering his kids.
In reality nobody, or at least nearly nobody, is evil. Evil in the classic movie-villain sense is "I'm bad, and I like it." It's the antagonist dressed in black and torturing, killing, and maiming because he's *evil* and that's *just what he does*.
In real life evil is harder to find. Real people generally consider themselves good. Bin Laden, for example, is clearly not evil. He is working from a dissagreeable (and one might even say faulty) perspective. Saddam Hussein is not evil, he has different priorities and (yes) different beliefs from we the observers. But I'm sure HE believes he is good and doing the right thing, at least most of the time.
The poster was saying, I think, amounts to "What I do is evil? Funny, I don't feel evil." Or something like that.
To get back on topic somewhat: Pornography is evil like Saddam is evil, which is to say it isn't. Hell, people can't even agree over whether pornograhy is *bad*, much less evil.
In no way is any of the above commentary on Islam or any religion, except where it implicitly insults all christians. Didn't catch that? That's the trouble with implicit satements...
Mac OS X 11
Oh, like THAT wouldn't be confusing.
Memory is cheap -- software development isn't.
May I quote you on that? I've said similar things myself, but it sounds pretentious to quote yourself.
1. So port GTK to native MacOSX. Too much effort? Then it's effort or a waste of memory. I choose to "waste" memory.
2. GTK doesn't look like anything. You have issues with the default theme. Go get a nice Aqua theme and enjoy your gooey colors.
3. You're right, file management in GTK apps does suck. GTK2 (which GIMP 1.3 uses) will be fixing this real soon now(tm).
Eh. When ESR finally starts his own religion, let me know and I'll sign up. Until then, I'm going to ignore this sort of thing.