So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
So the torture and beatings are okay because Saddam would have done worse? And this is what is supposed to be the claimed moral high ground?
What a brilliant idea. I'm amazed that up until now no one thought up such an idea. Oh wait, you mean someone already did 17 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB
He wasn't talking about copyright in the first place. If read the post again, you'd notice that. Here I'll even point out the relevant section:
But I think the grand parent meant that you wouldn't end up actually being paid to work on netbsd, but on some random proprietary user interface.
I don't think each and every discussion has to be about the fundamental point of difference between the GPL & BSD licenses. I'm actually tired of it.
Except your "opinion" is flat out wrong. OpenBSD is not a proprietary OS. The only thing copyrighted is their official CDs which you have never needed to install the operating system. You've always been able to freely download the code and make your own ISOs.
Notice the very different slopes between the last 3 republican presidential administration and Clinton's. Reagan almost tripled the national debt, Bush I made it go up almost 50% to it and then good ole Baby Bush made it go up almost 80%. Damn that tax and spend "liberal", Bill Clinton, and his not piling on to the national debt as much as those "fiscally responsible" conservative presidents!
After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".
What exactly is BS in what you quoted? Are you disputing the well-known fact that Bush disallowed funding for new stem cell lines beyond those already established? Or are you disputing the claim that many scientists believe that with the new administration that this will be changed? You're going to have a hard time claiming either as BS.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell are you talking about? The journalist hasn't been tortured or beaten.
What the hell are YOU talking about? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/22/iraq-georgebush
Bush shoe-thrower 'tortured into writing letter of apology'
The investigating judge in the case said last week that Zaidi, who will stand trial on 31 December, was beaten around the face and eyes.
So that's both torture and beating.
So yea, the US already has it covered quite well, the Iraqi government is a little strict but as the parrent said, what would the punishment of that country's former leader been like?
So the torture and beatings are okay because Saddam would have done worse? And this is what is supposed to be the claimed moral high ground?
What a brilliant idea. I'm amazed that up until now no one thought up such an idea. Oh wait, you mean someone already did 17 years ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB
But I think the grand parent meant that you wouldn't end up actually being paid to work on netbsd, but on some random proprietary user interface. I don't think each and every discussion has to be about the fundamental point of difference between the GPL & BSD licenses. I'm actually tired of it.
Except your "opinion" is flat out wrong. OpenBSD is not a proprietary OS. The only thing copyrighted is their official CDs which you have never needed to install the operating system. You've always been able to freely download the code and make your own ISOs.
Can I help you?
And if you think I'm making this up, just look at this graph: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt_files/image002.jpg
Notice the very different slopes between the last 3 republican presidential administration and Clinton's. Reagan almost tripled the national debt, Bush I made it go up almost 50% to it and then good ole Baby Bush made it go up almost 80%. Damn that tax and spend "liberal", Bill Clinton, and his not piling on to the national debt as much as those "fiscally responsible" conservative presidents!
Yeah, those annoying conservative types and their spending.
Are you saying this in complete ignorance of the fact that during the Reagan, Bush I and II administrations that the most national debt was piled on?
After World War II, people began to speak of the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries as two major blocs, often using such terms as the "Western Bloc" and the "Eastern Bloc". The two "worlds" were not numbered. It was eventually pointed out that there were a great many countries that fit into neither category, and in 1952 French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term "Third World" to describe this latter group; retroactively, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World
Wow that was damn hard to find.
They worked at giving us hundreds of billions in national debt, for sure.
What exactly is BS in what you quoted? Are you disputing the well-known fact that Bush disallowed funding for new stem cell lines beyond those already established? Or are you disputing the claim that many scientists believe that with the new administration that this will be changed? You're going to have a hard time claiming either as BS.