The debate appears to be what the parent poster said it was, namely, should the tax dollars be spent on projects that can't find funding any other way. I think they did a good job of explaining their opinion on the matter. Care to rejoin?
"Because the business is paying you. You are on their time."
Um, no. they are paying you for/your/ time. which means, in the end, you owe them nothing and they owe you nothing.
"Kind of like political correctness, eh?"
Um, no. Discrimination is about limiting the potential of an individual based on superficial attributes. Political Correctness is about not offending people. I don't see how the two are related.
I'll assume the hostility in your post is simply the/. effect on your sence of decency.
"Also, what the parent poster was saying about "human rights" was that the body-mod crowd is trying to tell everybody else how to think and we object to it. You have no right to tell me what to think."
Your being very general about a lot of people here. It's individuals who act in certain ways, not some "body-mod" crowd. The things you are saying are bigotry.
"Also, you have no idea what discrimination is. Discrimination is a legal concept..."
You have no idea what discrimination is my friend. It has only to do with the law where the law has something to say about it. People discriminate all the time, even "legally" as you say you do. The question is what should people living in a society expect as far as protection from discrimination, and that is all I am talking about. I actually wounder if a qualified applicant _could_ actually win in court if it could be proven that you did not hire them do to what in your mind was an unexceptable amount of body modification for a job position where it can not be shown to matter. I'm not up to date on current laws.
Society is what it is because of the people in it. Economicaly it is structured in a way to provide a means for survival through work and compensation. While there are strong normative forces, societies also generally understand the value of preserving the excentric. Being excluded from the economic main stream do to what are superficial attributes is part of what the laws in society are designed to protect people against, presumably for some value to society.
You are allowed to run a corporation because society grants you that right. Not because you have a God given right. Society expects some sort of gain from allowing you to incorporate. Part of that gain is emplyment for law abiding citizens.
Please note that I am not saying you need to hire anyone who walks through your door. What I am saying is that discrimination for superficial reasons is never a good thing and only hurts you, the other person and society as a whole.
I see a bit of a contradiction in your post, Business rights:
"Businesses should be allowed to set whatever dress code they want."
vs. human rights (lets call them):
"The biggest problem I have with the "different" or "extreme" crowd is that some of them think it's *their* right to do whatever they want and that everyone around them should just deal with it."
Why is it OK for the business to do whatever it wants but not OK for a person? A "business" is not even a real thing, it's a mental construct. The people in the business are the ones making the choices. Should they be allowed to make discriminations _based soley on appearances_? Discrimination is one of those things that goes largely unnoticed when it's in fasion.
From what I gather RMS is not anti-Microsoft but anti-propreitary software licenses. MS is a big propreitary software development company but if they switched to Free software then I doubt RMS would still hate them because they are MS.
Now anti-MS zealots _would_ still hate MS because of all there bugy software, viruses, personal affronts, etc. etc. etc.
RMS has got to be one of the most misunderstood public figures I know.
"am I not right in having suspicions of an alterior motive in his/her points of view?"
Yes, you are. But not to the point of willful ignorance. You have been informed by someone who has taken the time to make a point to you in so many words that if you categoricaly reject the CSM then you are going to be missing out on some of the last independent reporting in the USA.
I'm not coming down on your initial scepticism, which is well warrented wherever the word Christian pops up. However, in this case your kneejerk instincts are going to hurt you.
The CSM is headquartered and published right in Boston, MA. They have a global network of correspondents. They are like a mini-BBC in a way. Except they are privatly funded, and they speak with American accents, so... anyway. They are not focused on "breaking" news, but instead on addressing the issues behind the shock factor.
Like any news source, use them for what their worth, and no more. But do not underestimate their value.
Discalimer: I am not a Christian Scientist but I am from Boston and used to watch the Christian Science Monitor when it was on Channel 68 (over the airwaves no less) back in the 80's. I also worked on a web project of theirs, spirituality.com. I got some pretty detailed insight into how the news room runs vs. how the Church runs. In short, they are two seperate universes.
Socialism is not a form of Government. It says nothing about how the people govern society. I think that is fairly obvious. Socialism as an economic system can be combined with any form of government: Dictatorship, Democracy, Republic, Galactic Federation, etc.
"I'm curious, how precisely do you figure things like the abolition of private property are accomplished without the legal definitions of private property"
Right, and that is for the Government to decide. Socialism makes no claims as to how the government goes about making those decisions.
"He didn't say it was a form of government, he said it placed inordinate power in the government's hands."
That is simply the statement of someone who lives in a bubble. In todays world, the people living in socialist states can be shown to have not only a greater interest in what their gevernments are doing but also more power to effect those governments.
Yes, indeed. My point was that people tend to argue against socialism as if it were some form of government, inevitably totalitarian, when it is no such thing.
I don't even consider Hitlers "Government" much of a government at all. It was an infrastructure for conquest and paranoid delusion centered around a psychotic and corrupt few (all resemblences to certain contempory governments not withstanding).
The amazing thing about the German military-industrial complex at that time was that they nearly accomplished their goals. I mean, it was incredible what they were able to do militarily. I suspect it had something to do with a certain global level of support for the Nazi rhetoric, at least at the outset. But thats a whole other conversation.
The poster who felt he pulled an ace out of his... sleeve... by noting that Nazi's used the word "socialist" was just infuratingly ignorant.
Kind Regards
Limitted/unlimitted play areas
on
A Gamer's Manifesto
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
FTA:
"I understand you can't have infinite space, guys surfing right off the mountain and taking a snowboard tour of Asia. But put a cliff there. Cliffs are solid. Empty air is not solid."
Tribes II had, as best I could tell, a totally unlimited play area. You could stray from the "battle zone" and litteraly just fly for ever. And the terrain it generated remained the same as you flew back, so it wasn't just recycling. I had got into a couple duels where me and the other guy fought until we could no longer see the battle area. Now that was a fight that sucked to win.
Socialism is a form of economic production and distribution of wealth. It is not a form of government. Hitler was a totalitarian ruler. His economic policy may have had socialist retoric but what it accomplished was the aggrigation of wealth by the select few, hardly socialist in practice.
Also, don't be an idiot and say Nazi's were socialist because they called themselves socialist. Do you beleive everything the Nazi's tell you?
Don't be lazy, study the idiology behind each government. Many people have given there lives in the differences. And just because the rich and powerful blend together in an oligarchical creme cheese of sameness does not mean that good people have not faught for better government (or no government).
People who use this market share theory are engaging in logical falicy. I see it so often used that I am on a bit of a crusade to crush it.
The fact that Windows is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exploits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
Note what the other poster has mentioned about Windows being vunerable to whole classes of exploits that form a Universe unto themselves.
People who use this market share theory are engaging in logical falicy.
The fact that Windows is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exploits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
As you note, cell phones have viruses so it's not like virus writers are'nt interested in trying new things. Your other insights are dead on as well.
"Microsoft released its first 64-bit version of Windows in q1 2002"
Wasn't Windows NT ported to the Dec Alpha in the late 90's and wasn't there a 64bit version? The little Googling I did seemed to suggest yes. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Out of that long anti-Apple rant there appears to be one sentence worth of actual content:
"How about other little things like addressible RAM, and being able to shove calulation intensive opertions over a 64bit pipe actually do increase performance - considerably."
Now, since addressible RAM is probobly the least significant aspect of moving to 64 bit as no Apple or Desktop computer every produced in the history of the known Universe has been able to physically have more RAM than can be addressed by even a 386 CPU, we can safely disregard that benefit.
That leaves us with your mention of a 64bit pipeline. You include no mention of how that would be used to increase performance except to say you can "shove calculation intensive opporations" over it. I think you are refering to the ability to move 64bits of data, not "calculation intensive opporations", which makes no sense. Please note that the 64bit databus is only helpful for apps that are compiled to make use of it, including the 64bit instructions that manipulate 64bit data. I think this is what the previous poster was refering to when they said that there would be no performance increase.
So the question remains, is it really useful for Apple to port OSX Tiger to 64 bit,/right now/, as opposed to focusing on other things that may have more of an impact on the user base? It took apple many years to move from the 68000 line to the PPC. I expect it will take them a few years to get OSX 100% native on 64bit.
Objectivity is hard to come by, but if you keep a critical mind and check your own facts you can find plenty of information on the subject. A lot of it is filled with very personal opinions, but again, when facts are cited you can follow up on them and the picture will start to emerge.
Frankly, it's not really that hard to figure out. Simply look where US forces have been deployed. Look into the surrounding politics of the situation.
For starters I'd say look into the events surrounding the Vietnam war. This was the first war that really brought the insanity of US foreign policy to the public at large. There is plenty of information on it.
Look up the events surounding the invasion of Granada & Panama. Look into the details of the Iran/Contra scandal, especially the Iran hostage crisis and Regan staff negotiations with the hostage takers.
South America is particularly furtile ground for understanding the corporate greed and brutality of US foreign policy.
Look into the details surrounding both invasions of Iraq. Look into the US/Iraqi politics pre invasion.
In short, there is not much I can do to make checking the facts easier for you. It's really not that hard. You just need to want to do it.
One of the easiest things to do is to stop reading American media and switch to almost any other media source. You will find much more objective reporting at the very least.
Funny, because I just switched from drinking far to much coffee to drinking English Breakfast tea. I'm glad I live in Maine because 5-10 grams of salt would really kill the flavour. Earl Grey is a great tea as well. Tea > coffee.
One thing really missing in America is popular historical perspective. Even when we were gearing up for the first Iraq invasion I was telling people that it was bizare that we (USA) were trying to take the moral high road when we actully supported Saddam while he was committing the very acts we are now demonizing him for. The most common response was dumb looks. It was like peoples brain synapses simply were not wired to even recognise historical context.
I remember when the Taliban were taking over Afghanistan and the people, especially the women, were begging the world to intervien and stop them. Women who held jobs were committing sucide as the new regiem began repressing them. It was all very public. After the Taliban sieze control they fly to Taxas to work out the oil pipeline deal.
I won't even start on the whole Iran/Contra gate debacle.
"And what bugs me is that we seem to forget that we have so much wealth and power and there are so many who don't have jack."
Your not alone. The hard part is braking out of the bubble when just about everything you encounter througout your day sucks you back in. Particularly people who just don't give a damn about anything that is not directly in front of their face, and then only if it can help them get ahead [this is not directed at the grand parent poster, btw].
Some outrage is in order I think. As long as we maintain a sense of humanity and some compassion to those who are working things out, and that means all of us.
I've written the same type of double post you did: flipent outrage and then reflective after thought tinged with self effacement. It's got to be indicative of something within the culture of people who are trying to change the world. Don't know what that is yet though.
Everyone jumped on the snide comment from the Slashdot editor. But the idea of sitting on the couch, sucking down some brewskis and ending an animals life via a remote controled robot gun pushes the limits of what can be considered "hunting". You know, The Wild Hunt and all?
Your description of your pheasant hunt is exactly why killing animals via the Internet should not be allowed. If you want to hunt then get off your ass and hunt. If you think the world is some fucking amusement park brought to you by Gia, Inc. you've got another thing coming, which is what this law is about.
If it Internet "hunting" comes to my state, I hope be able to vote for such a law too.
Lets not let him poison everything in the FOSS world. I think it's best to just tune ESR out then to react to anything he says. That way you don't conceed any power to him at all. LISP really is amazing. Especially as it was first written in ~1958 and basically solved all of modern computing in one fell swoop. All modern languages are striving to become LISP (ok, but learn some LISP and you'll see what I mean).
If your a programmer than understanding LISP is something I can not recomend highly enough. You won't look at any language the same way again (Java,.NET, SmallTalk, C/++, Python, Perl, etc.).
I have not used AppleScript since the early nineties but I think what the other poster is talkng about is closer to it's event based model. COM is a binary standard for method invocation (please correct if I am mistaken, it's been awhile). COM allows for, say, a DLL to expose it's method signatures so they can be accessed by any language that is COM aware. This is not exactly useful if all you want to do is tell it to burn a CD and shutdown. Much better to get a list of events and choose from those. COM exposes an API, not a list of useful actions. This is where hooking the event model, like AppleScript does, is really a good idea. With AppleScript you would just send the events "Burn" then "Shutdown", probably two lines of code.
COM is good for application extention and integration. Not so much for scripting, although it can obviously be done.
Slashdot Mirror
The debate appears to be what the parent poster said it was, namely, should the tax dollars be spent on projects that can't find funding any other way. I think they did a good job of explaining their opinion on the matter. Care to rejoin?
Kind Regards
"Because the business is paying you. You are on their time."
/your/ time. which means, in the end, you owe them nothing and they owe you nothing.
Um, no. they are paying you for
"Kind of like political correctness, eh?"
Um, no. Discrimination is about limiting the potential of an individual based on superficial attributes. Political Correctness is about not offending people. I don't see how the two are related.
Kind Regards
I'll assume the hostility in your post is simply the /. effect on your sence of decency.
"Also, what the parent poster was saying about "human rights" was that the body-mod crowd is trying to tell everybody else how to think and we object to it. You have no right to tell me what to think."
Your being very general about a lot of people here. It's individuals who act in certain ways, not some "body-mod" crowd. The things you are saying are bigotry.
"Also, you have no idea what discrimination is. Discrimination is a legal concept..."
You have no idea what discrimination is my friend. It has only to do with the law where the law has something to say about it. People discriminate all the time, even "legally" as you say you do. The question is what should people living in a society expect as far as protection from discrimination, and that is all I am talking about. I actually wounder if a qualified applicant _could_ actually win in court if it could be proven that you did not hire them do to what in your mind was an unexceptable amount of body modification for a job position where it can not be shown to matter. I'm not up to date on current laws.
Society is what it is because of the people in it. Economicaly it is structured in a way to provide a means for survival through work and compensation. While there are strong normative forces, societies also generally understand the value of preserving the excentric. Being excluded from the economic main stream do to what are superficial attributes is part of what the laws in society are designed to protect people against, presumably for some value to society.
You are allowed to run a corporation because society grants you that right. Not because you have a God given right. Society expects some sort of gain from allowing you to incorporate. Part of that gain is emplyment for law abiding citizens.
Please note that I am not saying you need to hire anyone who walks through your door. What I am saying is that discrimination for superficial reasons is never a good thing and only hurts you, the other person and society as a whole.
Kind Regards
I see a bit of a contradiction in your post, Business rights:
"Businesses should be allowed to set whatever dress code they want."
vs. human rights (lets call them):
"The biggest problem I have with the "different" or "extreme" crowd is that some of them think it's *their* right to do whatever they want and that everyone around them should just deal with it."
Why is it OK for the business to do whatever it wants but not OK for a person? A "business" is not even a real thing, it's a mental construct. The people in the business are the ones making the choices. Should they be allowed to make discriminations _based soley on appearances_? Discrimination is one of those things that goes largely unnoticed when it's in fasion.
Kind Regards
From what I gather RMS is not anti-Microsoft but anti-propreitary software licenses. MS is a big propreitary software development company but if they switched to Free software then I doubt RMS would still hate them because they are MS.
Now anti-MS zealots _would_ still hate MS because of all there bugy software, viruses, personal affronts, etc. etc. etc.
RMS has got to be one of the most misunderstood public figures I know.
Kind Regards
"am I not right in having suspicions of an alterior motive in his/her points of view?"
Yes, you are. But not to the point of willful ignorance. You have been informed by someone who has taken the time to make a point to you in so many words that if you categoricaly reject the CSM then you are going to be missing out on some of the last independent reporting in the USA.
I'm not coming down on your initial scepticism, which is well warrented wherever the word Christian pops up. However, in this case your kneejerk instincts are going to hurt you.
The CSM is headquartered and published right in Boston, MA. They have a global network of correspondents. They are like a mini-BBC in a way. Except they are privatly funded, and they speak with American accents, so... anyway. They are not focused on "breaking" news, but instead on addressing the issues behind the shock factor.
Like any news source, use them for what their worth, and no more. But do not underestimate their value.
Discalimer: I am not a Christian Scientist but I am from Boston and used to watch the Christian Science Monitor when it was on Channel 68 (over the airwaves no less) back in the 80's. I also worked on a web project of theirs, spirituality.com. I got some pretty detailed insight into how the news room runs vs. how the Church runs. In short, they are two seperate universes.
Kind Regards
"Can't happen. Debian is OSS. Even if development stopped (and it won't) the work done wouldn't magically go away."
/being done/. If Debian stops maintaining unstable, it will languish and die, taking Ubuntu with it.
It's not the work done that matters, it's the work
Why don't you take a look at the work that goes into unstable. I don't think you have a real grasp of things here.
Ubuntu is great, Ubuntu is wounderful. I am using Ubuntu right now. They are not super heros. They are a part of the Debian universe of goodness.
Kind Regards
"Get rid of Debian and the Debian developers will flock to Ubuntu."
Maybe, but that would just make Ubuntu more like Debian. There is nothing stopping Debian developers from "flocking" to Ubuntu right now in fact.
Ubuntu relies heavily on work done in testing and unstable by the Debain developers. Remove Debian and Ubuntu does indeed collapse.
Also note that Shuttleworth pays the ex-Debian developers to work on Ubuntu. It's a very different set of circumstances.
Kind Regards
Socialism is not a form of Government. It says nothing about how the people govern society. I think that is fairly obvious. Socialism as an economic system can be combined with any form of government: Dictatorship, Democracy, Republic, Galactic Federation, etc.
"I'm curious, how precisely do you figure things like the abolition of private property are accomplished without the legal definitions of private property"
Right, and that is for the Government to decide. Socialism makes no claims as to how the government goes about making those decisions.
"He didn't say it was a form of government, he said it placed inordinate power in the government's hands."
That is simply the statement of someone who lives in a bubble. In todays world, the people living in socialist states can be shown to have not only a greater interest in what their gevernments are doing but also more power to effect those governments.
Kind Regards
Yes, indeed. My point was that people tend to argue against socialism as if it were some form of government, inevitably totalitarian, when it is no such thing.
I don't even consider Hitlers "Government" much of a government at all. It was an infrastructure for conquest and paranoid delusion centered around a psychotic and corrupt few (all resemblences to certain contempory governments not withstanding).
The amazing thing about the German military-industrial complex at that time was that they nearly accomplished their goals. I mean, it was incredible what they were able to do militarily. I suspect it had something to do with a certain global level of support for the Nazi rhetoric, at least at the outset. But thats a whole other conversation.
The poster who felt he pulled an ace out of his... sleeve... by noting that Nazi's used the word "socialist" was just infuratingly ignorant.
Kind Regards
FTA:
"I understand you can't have infinite space, guys surfing right off the mountain and taking a snowboard tour of Asia. But put a cliff there. Cliffs are solid. Empty air is not solid."
Tribes II had, as best I could tell, a totally unlimited play area. You could stray from the "battle zone" and litteraly just fly for ever. And the terrain it generated remained the same as you flew back, so it wasn't just recycling. I had got into a couple duels where me and the other guy fought until we could no longer see the battle area. Now that was a fight that sucked to win.
Kind Regards
Socialism is a form of economic production and distribution of wealth. It is not a form of government. Hitler was a totalitarian ruler. His economic policy may have had socialist retoric but what it accomplished was the aggrigation of wealth by the select few, hardly socialist in practice.
Also, don't be an idiot and say Nazi's were socialist because they called themselves socialist. Do you beleive everything the Nazi's tell you?
Kind Regards
and with the other I get a Big Mac with fries.
But ya, basically the same thing.
Don't be lazy, study the idiology behind each government. Many people have given there lives in the differences. And just because the rich and powerful blend together in an oligarchical creme cheese of sameness does not mean that good people have not faught for better government (or no government).
Kind Regards
People who use this market share theory are engaging in logical falicy. I see it so often used that I am on a bit of a crusade to crush it.
The fact that Windows is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exploits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
Note what the other poster has mentioned about Windows being vunerable to whole classes of exploits that form a Universe unto themselves.
Kind Regards
People who use this market share theory are engaging in logical falicy.
The fact that Windows is attacked (and exploited) does not mean that it is as secure as Linux or Mac because they are not attacked. What it does prove is that Windows is insecure. It says nothing about Linux or Mac security and people who speculate about Linux or Mac exploits if these systems had a higher market share are just that, speculating. The Windows exploits do prove that Windows is insecure however.
As you note, cell phones have viruses so it's not like virus writers are'nt interested in trying new things. Your other insights are dead on as well.
Kind Regards
"Microsoft released its first 64-bit version of Windows in q1 2002"
Wasn't Windows NT ported to the Dec Alpha in the late 90's and wasn't there a 64bit version? The little Googling I did seemed to suggest yes. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Kind Regards
Out of that long anti-Apple rant there appears to be one sentence worth of actual content:
/right now/, as opposed to focusing on other things that may have more of an impact on the user base? It took apple many years to move from the 68000 line to the PPC. I expect it will take them a few years to get OSX 100% native on 64bit.
"How about other little things like addressible RAM, and being able to shove calulation intensive opertions over a 64bit pipe actually do increase performance - considerably."
Now, since addressible RAM is probobly the least significant aspect of moving to 64 bit as no Apple or Desktop computer every produced in the history of the known Universe has been able to physically have more RAM than can be addressed by even a 386 CPU, we can safely disregard that benefit.
That leaves us with your mention of a 64bit pipeline. You include no mention of how that would be used to increase performance except to say you can "shove calculation intensive opporations" over it. I think you are refering to the ability to move 64bits of data, not "calculation intensive opporations", which makes no sense. Please note that the 64bit databus is only helpful for apps that are compiled to make use of it, including the 64bit instructions that manipulate 64bit data. I think this is what the previous poster was refering to when they said that there would be no performance increase.
So the question remains, is it really useful for Apple to port OSX Tiger to 64 bit,
Kind Regards
Objectivity is hard to come by, but if you keep a critical mind and check your own facts you can find plenty of information on the subject. A lot of it is filled with very personal opinions, but again, when facts are cited you can follow up on them and the picture will start to emerge.
l um.html).
Frankly, it's not really that hard to figure out. Simply look where US forces have been deployed. Look into the surrounding politics of the situation.
For starters I'd say look into the events surrounding the Vietnam war. This was the first war that really brought the insanity of US foreign policy to the public at large. There is plenty of information on it.
Look up the events surounding the invasion of Granada & Panama. Look into the details of the Iran/Contra scandal, especially the Iran hostage crisis and Regan staff negotiations with the hostage takers.
South America is particularly furtile ground for understanding the corporate greed and brutality of US foreign policy.
Look into the details surrounding both invasions of Iraq. Look into the US/Iraqi politics pre invasion.
In short, there is not much I can do to make checking the facts easier for you. It's really not that hard. You just need to want to do it.
One of the easiest things to do is to stop reading American media and switch to almost any other media source. You will find much more objective reporting at the very least.
Finally, a book that is fairly well cited you might want to read is "Killing Hope: U.S. Military Interventions Since World War II" by William Blum (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/William_B
Kind Regards
"sit back with some nice Earl Grey"
Funny, because I just switched from drinking far to much coffee to drinking English Breakfast tea. I'm glad I live in Maine because 5-10 grams of salt would really kill the flavour. Earl Grey is a great tea as well. Tea > coffee.
One thing really missing in America is popular historical perspective. Even when we were gearing up for the first Iraq invasion I was telling people that it was bizare that we (USA) were trying to take the moral high road when we actully supported Saddam while he was committing the very acts we are now demonizing him for. The most common response was dumb looks. It was like peoples brain synapses simply were not wired to even recognise historical context.
I remember when the Taliban were taking over Afghanistan and the people, especially the women, were begging the world to intervien and stop them. Women who held jobs were committing sucide as the new regiem began repressing them. It was all very public. After the Taliban sieze control they fly to Taxas to work out the oil pipeline deal.
I won't even start on the whole Iran/Contra gate debacle.
Kind Regards
"And what bugs me is that we seem to forget that we have so much wealth and power and there are so many who don't have jack."
Your not alone. The hard part is braking out of the bubble when just about everything you encounter througout your day sucks you back in. Particularly people who just don't give a damn about anything that is not directly in front of their face, and then only if it can help them get ahead [this is not directed at the grand parent poster, btw].
Some outrage is in order I think. As long as we maintain a sense of humanity and some compassion to those who are working things out, and that means all of us.
I've written the same type of double post you did: flipent outrage and then reflective after thought tinged with self effacement. It's got to be indicative of something within the culture of people who are trying to change the world. Don't know what that is yet though.
Kind Regards (and lots of encouragement)
Everyone jumped on the snide comment from the Slashdot editor. But the idea of sitting on the couch, sucking down some brewskis and ending an animals life via a remote controled robot gun pushes the limits of what can be considered "hunting". You know, The Wild Hunt and all?
Your description of your pheasant hunt is exactly why killing animals via the Internet should not be allowed. If you want to hunt then get off your ass and hunt. If you think the world is some fucking amusement park brought to you by Gia, Inc. you've got another thing coming, which is what this law is about.
If it Internet "hunting" comes to my state, I hope be able to vote for such a law too.
How disconected and lazy can people get?
Kind Regards
You provided the perfect in to plug a group that thinks they way you do:
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
In particular click the "Learn more" link and read the "Read before you leave" links.
Kind Regards
Lets not let him poison everything in the FOSS world. I think it's best to just tune ESR out then to react to anything he says. That way you don't conceed any power to him at all. LISP really is amazing. Especially as it was first written in ~1958 and basically solved all of modern computing in one fell swoop. All modern languages are striving to become LISP (ok, but learn some LISP and you'll see what I mean).
.NET, SmallTalk, C/++, Python, Perl, etc.).
If your a programmer than understanding LISP is something I can not recomend highly enough. You won't look at any language the same way again (Java,
Kind Regards
Correction:
I don't think that COM is not the answer here.
Should read:
I don't think that COM is the answer here.
Good grief.
I don't think that COM is not the answer here.
I have not used AppleScript since the early nineties but I think what the other poster is talkng about is closer to it's event based model. COM is a binary standard for method invocation (please correct if I am mistaken, it's been awhile). COM allows for, say, a DLL to expose it's method signatures so they can be accessed by any language that is COM aware. This is not exactly useful if all you want to do is tell it to burn a CD and shutdown. Much better to get a list of events and choose from those. COM exposes an API, not a list of useful actions. This is where hooking the event model, like AppleScript does, is really a good idea. With AppleScript you would just send the events "Burn" then "Shutdown", probably two lines of code.
COM is good for application extention and integration. Not so much for scripting, although it can obviously be done.
Kind Regards