Um. There is demo code on the website. Perhaps if you looked at it, or at the demo application in the download section, and you applied some intelligence to the task, and perhaps even emailed me and asked for help, you'd be able to figure it out. Come on, did you really look, or what?
First off: using X11 on a mac is not an option, the integration with the rest of the OS is so bad as to be almost worthless.
What are you talking about? How can you say that X11 on the mac is not an option? If you're after a cross-platform, open-source set of libraries, but then turn around and proclaim that you refuse to use X11, because, why exactly? It's not integrated? Well, fucking EXCUSE ME sir, but I think you're being a bit difficult on yourself, aren't you? I've used X11 on the mac. In a couple of minutes I figured out how to start X11 automatically when I ran an X11 app. X11 itself takes a little longer to start than a normal app. And yes, then you get an application that isn't using native OS-X widgets. Um. Yeah. So what? You're after a cross-platform solution. Deal with it. When I used X11 on the mac, I used it to run gtk for developing stuff and for running OpenOffice. I wasn't one of those fucking wankers that refuses to use OpenOffice because it hasn't been ported to fucking lollipop lala-land Aqua GUI yet. I wanted to use OpenOffice. I fucking used OpenOffice. But I still can't get my head around how you want open-source, cross-platform stuff, and then demand that it is nothing other than a native OS-X application, damnit! OS-X isn't exactly in the mainstream, you know. Perhaps you should get off your high horse?
Secondly, apps written in GTK on windows generally don't look and feel like normal windows apps, and I don't like using them.
Hahahahahahaha!
That's pretty funny, man. Considering your stance on issue number 1, I'm hardly surprised that you take the same prejudices with you when you go to Windows. At least you're consistent. Stupid, but consistent. So yeah. My arguement here is the same as for point 1:)
Also, not to be inflammatory, but I looked at all the projects google could find for GTK on the mac, and none of them even come close to letting you build a decent full-featured native mac app, so GTK fails the cross-platform test for me personally.
You didn't look very far. I've noticed a bit of traffic on the gtk mailing list about the native OS-X port. So for me, I'm quite happy that into the future, OS-X support for my libraries will only be improving on a number of fronts - under X11, and the native port. And I trust that any OS-X developers that don't have their head jammed fair up their arse will be able to take advantage of my open-source, cross-platform libraries. And yes, I realise, that doesn't include you. It's your loss.
even though 99.999% of terrorists are muslim, and even though every place on the entire planet where there is any kind of war going on, muslims are involved somehow, but yes, it's wrong to assume that only muslims can be terrorists.
I really am growing to hate racist arseholes such as yourself.
What is a terrorist, anyway? Do you know how many people the US has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about how many Palestinians are killed by the Israelis? And you forget that the Catholics in Ireland know a bit about violence. How about Opus Dei? I ask you again: what is a terrorist? Is it only who you say it is? Is it someone who kills for political or economic reasons? Is it an entire country that wages an illegal war of aggression based on manufactured 'evidence' of WOMD?
Speaking hypothetically, how many Muslims can the US and co kill before they are branded terrorists? They've knocked off 150,000 in Iraq since the invasions. I assure you, these were not 150,000 terrorists. They were 150,000 civilians. In my books, that makes the US a terrorist state.
It's pretty lame to brand one group of people 'terrorists' because of the acts of an incredibly small proportion of their numbers - how many followers does Bin Laden actually have, compared to the total number of Muslims in the world? It's especially lame when you refuse to apply the same rules to all people. It's what you call 'racism'.
The old 'but if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about' is a very lame arguement, as it doesn't address the fact that the law is an ass.
Hypothetically, if all our laws were just, and such 'protective systems' were only used to actually protect, then yes, people doing 'nothing wrong' would have nothing to worry about. But our laws are not just. Each day, the western world becomes less democratic and free, and more totalitarian. The separation of powers ( parliament and courts ) and the separation of church and state are disappearing. Look at the elevated position of Emperor Bush, claiming he is 'commander in chief'. This is a horrific attach on these important separations - the republicans are attempting to seize ultimate power for themselves and make the judiciary irrelevant. They say that military justice is above and beyond civilian justice.
The merging of church and state is also very worrying. The republicans use religious arguments for attacking civil liberties such as homosexual relationships, womens' right to choose abortion. They pander to the religious right on issues such as recreational drug use. All these issues ( in this paragraph ) have NOTHING to do with the state. The state can fuck off and find somethinng else to do. Sure - these are issues for religions to discuss, and I welcome their advice. However I respectfully reject most of it on the grounds that it is absolute bullshit. Take homosexual relationships. I'm not gay - far from it. But I argue strongly for people's right to do whatever the hell they want to do, because I believe in 'freedom'. And by 'freedom' I don't mean US corporation's rights to invade everything from our privacy to other countries in the search of profits. I mean individual freedom... you know... the right to do what you want as long as you're not harming others.
In light of the above issues, I fail to see how anyone other than the religious fundamentalists and extreme right could be anything other than horrified... nay... terrorised at the prospect of yet more surveilence. Just look at who's doing the surveying.
The very uncomfortable truth is that there are a LOT of people, breaking a LOT of laws, every day. What they are doing is socially acceptable, and yet at the same time, completely illegal. Say I light up a joint in my backyard... which I sometimes do actually get around to doing. My only security is in the fact that surveilence is not yet universal. But lets pretend that I don't smoke joints. Let's say instead that I hate fucking Dubya, and I think he's a war criminal. Now lets say I talk to my friends about it, while walking down the street. I have no problem telling individual police officers what I think of their state and their laws and their wars and our fine leaders. Individual police officers are not overly interested in busting my arse, as long as I'm not at a demo with other like-minded people. But add universal surveilence into the mix, and you've got a fucking huge problem for democracy. People walking around criticising the government won't be walking around much longer. If you think this is being a bit paranoid, think again. Look at Guantanimo Bay. These people are political prisoners. Search up on Scot Parkins - a US antiwar activist who was arrested here in Australia for 'secret' reasons and sent back to the US... basically because he was a vocal critic of our governments. It's already happening. Universal surveilence will just make it a hell of a lot worse.
No, it's actually quite simple. Look at the demo code on the website. You need about 20 lines of code. If you think you're going to get a fully functioning database app in PHP in 20 lines of code, then you are seriously mistaken.
Oh dear. I hardly find it worthwhile responding to an AC troll, but what the heck.
As for using GTK, I find it hard to believe you consider it the worst cross-platform GUI. I find it the best. I have developed a large number of applications under Linux and deployed on Windows. They of course all work flawlessly. Perhaps you are simply not very good at what you're doing? There are 2 ports of GTK for OS-X. I begun development on my Powerbook, and was using the X11-dependant port at the time. It worked quite well also. Seriously dude, you must have some issues if you can't get GTK working under Windows.
Your 2nd paragraph tells all, though. You mention QT, and then go on to BS about native look-and-feel in Windows. I cringe. You are free to use KDE & QT. You are even free not to use my projects. But unless you've actually coded something better yourself, perhaps it's time to shut the fuck up?
They're all cross-platform ( heavyily tested under Linux and Windows 2000 ) and open-source.
The basic idea is that you create your GUI in Glade ( ie Gtk2 ). You then create a Gtk2::Ex::DBI object, pass it your Glade XML file, and it will connect to the table you specify, and 'bind' all the widgets in your Glade XML file with a name that matches a fieldname in the table.
The datasheet module is similar, but instead of creating a GUI and laying out widgets and such, everything goes into a treeview ( datasheet ).
PDF::ReportWriter makes high-quality reports from XML report definitions. It supports unlimited grouping, group functions such as sum, count, etc, intelligent page breaking, page headers & footers, and a WHOLE lot more.
There are plentiful screenshots on the website. All modules are under active development ( ie right now ). All feature requests, bug reports and patches welcome. Check it out:)
People wanting to look at this seriously should buy the PDF instruction book available from http://www.goodideacreative.com/fuel_cell.html. I got one, and it's good:) Damned good. I'm thinking about getting some other ones ( eg the solar one looks interesting too ).
I know. I've read some of the garbage that he pumps out.
In one editorial, they were actually claiming that unions monopolise labour, therefore should be outlawed under antitrust law. They also make the occasional arguement for abolishing government altogether, dropping taxes to 0 and basking in the light of user-pays society.
I know exactly where Bloomberg makes his money. You're right... by providing 'valuable' information ( propoganda ) and funding for any politician who will do his bidding.
As I said in the original post, his views aren't very human-friendly ( he considers union members to be terrorists and thugs ).
Point one, Bloomberg's income as mayor is $1 per annum.
I'm not disputing where he gets his money from. People with that much money all get it the same way anyway: screwing the majority of the population out of it.
Point two, his actions were what any mayor of New York, and probably any city, would do in similar circumstances, Democrat or Republican.
Agreed. The Democrats are a fucking joke. It would be even funnier if it wasn't so serious. But you're right, they're all like it.
Great, more slogans. Perhaps if you tried to substantiate your baseless assumptions with some sort of supporting evidence, I could debate the matter with you...
? What slogan. It's simple theory. Read up on it, and then demonstrate you have digested what you have read, and I will debate the matter with you.
So you admit that communism is reactionary? Interesting.
All socialists do. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, do you? Socialism emerged as a response to capitalism. Read up on it, and then demonstrate you have digested what you have read, and I will debate the matter with you.
Out of an immense number of communist revolutions and regimes, how many times has this happened? 0.
Again, read up on it. It's more than 1. Russia was the 1st example.
Please prove your assertions.
I do.
I'm all for reducing the size of the US government (I'm probably willing to go a lot further than you in this regard). I fail to see your point. The US government is just another socialist institution with far too much control over the economy. The fact that there are countries which are even worse does not make me worship the US (which hasn't had the world's freest economy in a long time).
Ah. Now I understand. You DO understand socialist theory... you're just a neo-con, and spreading FUD about socialism. Your statement that the US government is a socialist institution caused quite a chuckle amongst workmates. Thanks:)
Who decides in capitalism?
Come on now, don't play stupid. Under socialism, the state decides. The state is answerable to the people ( or more accurately, the state IS the people ). Under capitalism, the capitalists... the top 1% of the population... decide what gets made, who gets what, and how much we pay for it. The top 1%, by the way, isn't democratically elected. And while some capitalist appologists will then say that the state should legislate to bring the capitalists into line, YOU can't use that arguement, because you are arguing for descreasing the government, and giving free reign to the capitalists. It's YOUR side that is anti-democratic.
I "say" that the empirical evidence suggests something. You claim that the empirical evidence is worthless.
All the evidence proves so far is that every time there is a socialist revolution, the capitalist powers - with the US at the head - make it their number 1 priority to flatten it. Take Chille, 9/11/74. Read up on it, and tell me what you think the US does to socialist nations, and why they are not stable.
Please back up your assertions.
I do.
I guess you're right. Theoretically speaking, if I drop a rock, I cannot say that it will certainly fall. Certainly I have done this many times, and surely it has fallen before, but it might not the next time. After all, we cannot prove "cause and effect." It is an assumption on which we create our model of the world. Perhaps it is all a coincidence, and "cause and effect" really does not exist.
Now look, arsehole. I don't like your condescending attitude. You know full well that your assertion that socialism leads to a totalitarian regime is false, and worse than that, is knowingly false. What happens after a social revolution is left up to the people. There is no 'gravity' in the situation that always points towards totalitarianism, as you are trying so pathetically to suggest.
I suggest you read up on socialist theory - Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. I suggest you read up on the Russian revolution. Only then will you have the sufficient knowledge to discuss the issue further and not look like an ill-informed neo-conservative appologist.
The problem is that I'm not a socialist out of envy. When there are billions of people surviving on less than $US1 per day, and there are billionaires, there is clearly an issue. Do the billions of people in 3rd world countries suffer from 'envy'? Perhaps they do, and rightly so.
You say you choose greed. I believe you. It's people like you that the majority of the world would be better off without. You say that without accountability, the people get screwed. Well that's capitalism for you - capitalists enjoy all the rights and no responsibility. They are not responsbile for any of the troubles they cause. There is no such thing as accountability in capitalism - if the company is making a profit, that's as accountable as things get.
Bloomberg is a republican if I've ever heard of one. He's disgustingly rich. Some people will accuse me of having tall popply syndrome, and I accuse them of being morons. There comes a point where you have to say "Perhaps some of your wealth could be put to better use by other people who desperately need some wealth of their own".
Bloomberg was most recently in the news ( that I noticed anyway, here in Australia ) when the New York transport workers' union was out on strike for a day. Bloomberg was, of course, absolutely furious, and was cursing at the 'greedy' workers ( kettle black ? ) who were 'thugs' and 'terrorists' for daring to ask for a pay rise that would still keep their income at about 0.1% of his income.
As for his objections to stuff like pre-emptive invasions, I would say that he would change his tune somewhat if he were running the country instead of just New York.
Rest assured, Bloomberg is a republican to the bone.
Communism requires totalitarian control of the economy
That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime. Communism is a response to this, and puts the economy back under democratic control, where it belongs.
(and a big, powerful government to do it)
You mean like the US government? Your criticisms of communism apply just as well to your favourite 'leaders of the free world'.
What you are missing is that in a democracy, the people actually decide how the resources are used. This requires removing capitalist control of the means of production and placing that control back into the hands of the people. Exactly how that is done should of course be left up to the people. You say that coure only outcome of an attempt at such a reorganisation is a totalitarian regime. I call bullshit! You can't possibly say that this is the only outcome. You need to put your brain into gear before engaging in discussions.
Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.
The same could be said for capitalism. And communism hasn't been tried in 'many countries the world over'. There was a failed startup in Russia. It was remarkably successful while it lasted. There is some interesting stuff happening in South America, and it is interesting to note that Emperor Dubya considers Chavez a 'terrorist' and an 'enemy of the free world'.
The arguement that communism has been tried 'the world over' is growing very tired. Capitalism has been tried the world over, and despite morons like you who consider it a blazing success, it is in fact a pathetic disaster, and a display of all of the worst aspects of humanity... in particular greed. A large majority of the world considers capitalism and US imperialism as their enemy. The fact that a nation of sickly patriotic Yanks disagree doesn't change the 'facts on the ground'. For most people, those facts are living in obsolute poverty and under an oppressive regime that the US supports because it's in their 'economic interests'.
I'm not going to respond to this part of your post, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
The reason that is obvious to me here is that you support the so-called 'right' of Israel - a terrorist state - to exist TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS. But you don't want to say as much, as it's not a very defensible position.
Nice try, but the rationale behind preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with states that possess nuclear technology.
Why? Again, you are defending the rights of some to not only HAVE nuclear weapons, but to DEVELOP NEW ONES, while at the same time saying that you oppose other nations from developing nuclear weapons. That's not a very defensible position. You also side-step the issue that other nations see nuclear weapons as a deterrant againt US military aggression - in fact the ONLY deterrant. See what happened to Iraq when they DIDN'T have nuclear weapons. The US would have been in quite a different position today if Iraq DID have nuclear weapons, wouldn't they?
It is about what Iran could do with nuclear technology--which is something we are in a position to prevent.
The US is in NO position to prevent ANYONE from aquiring nuclear weapons. They are available to the highest bidder on the black market. Nuclear weapons are also not the only WOMD... the US has devised AND sold many others. If a country that wants to wage a dirty war can't get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will find something else. There's nothing you can do to stop them at this point. Take George Dubya's business parter, Bin Laden. He didn't need nuclear weapsons, did he? Do you really think you're making the world safer by this increasing US aggression? You're not.
You also seem to imply a number of other things:
- that the US has a right to decide who has nuclear technology - that Iran seeks nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons
The US has no right above any other nation to decide who has nuclear technology and who doesn't. And the flimsy 'international agreement' over the Iran nuclear issue has nothing to do with other country's concern with nuclear proliferation, and everything to do with the dirty politics of economic bullying by the US. The case against the US is very well made here - both in the current Iran case, and the previous Iraq case.
There is also no proof that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. It is widely accepted that Iran is 10 years away from being able to assemble 1 nuclear bomb. And, once more, I assert that you cannot prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while at the same time support the 'rights' of other countries to develop OR keep nuclear weapons - particularly when these other countries regularly threaten Iran. You might want to be able to do this, but it is not a stable situation, and will lead to other things you don't like, such as terrorism.
Then why should Isreal be obliged to sell basic services (power, water, etc.) to the Palestinians? It's theirs, so why can't they not sell it if they desired?
You again imply that Israel has a right to exist. I reject that outright. ALL of Israel is Palestinian land, and it therefore flows that all of these services you talk of are the property of the Palestinians. If Jews want to live in peace amongst Palestinians, and share the land, then they can work it out together. There are many Palestinians and Jews who are already of this view. But if Zionists think they have the right to eject the entire Palestinian population from their land and set up a terrorist, apartheid state, then they are seriously mistaken, and if their God is a just one, they will rot in hell for the way they treat their fellow humans.
Cutting off a vital supply is, in effect, an act of war.
Troll? Ha! I see the moderators are working in the same spirit as the Yanks with their veto power in the UN. Curious that instead of trying to argue, the individual in question chooses to slap a veto tag in anonymity and continue as if nothing happened.
Firstly, no they're NOT socialist. What the fuck makes you say that?
China is a centrally controlled capitalist state. Russia was a centrally controlled capitalist state ( apart from directly after the revolution, under Lenin ), but has since reverted completely to capitalism - remember? India is very much a capitalist state. Pakistan is a lesser-developed capitalist state. You don't really know what socialism is, do you?
And no, it's NOT alright for them to have nuclear weapons either... no matter what organisational structure they have in place. NO countries should have nuclear weapons, and any socialist worth their weight in water would argue passionately for complete nuclear disarmement.
The problem, of course, is that none of the smaller fries are interested in disarming while the US, Israel, UK and France continue to increase their stockpile. And try to keep in mind that these 4 ( plus Australia ) were the so-called coalition of the killing, who illegally invade countries willy-nilly in the search of money, power, markets and political control. Last time I checked, Russia, China, Inda and Pakistan weren't really doing any of that. So I left them out of the arguement. But since you brought it up, yes, I stand for complete nuclear disarmament, starting with the US, and leading down the chain to the smallest fries.
Australia's so-called opposition to French nuclear testing was simply the government caving in to overwhelming public condemnation. You'll note that other than a token opposition, it was 'business as usual' between the 2 countries. No talks of disarmament. No talks of trade bans, etc.
As for Australia's support for other country's nuclear programs ( UK and US in particular ), the same arguement goes there as well. If the Australian ruling class had anything against nuclear weapsons, they wouldn't let the US continue to threaten Iran and state that they 'refuse to take the nuclear option off the table'.
We could oppose the use of depleted uranium weapons. Instead, we actually ordered some DU ammunition. If you want more links on DU, try: here.
I know that you're after some proof that the Australian government actually states it's support for the use of nuclear weapons. But you must also see that this proof isn't going to jump out in the way that you want. You have to read between the lines. Our complete lack of criticism of anything nuclear not related to the Middle East speaks books about what's OK for 'our side'. The US has been put in the spotlight on a number of occasions for breaking the non-proliferation treaty by developing new nuclear weapons. But again, it was 'business as usual' between the 2 countries. This silence translates to a vigourous defense of the US's nuclear policy. It's unmistakable when you consider what's at stake - we are of course talking about WOMD. If anyone else were to develop them... well... we all know what happens to them. There is even talk of using nuclear weapons against Iran because they might be considering researching nuclear weapons. Compare the Australian reaction to these situations, and you have your proof.
And what the fuck is wrong with that? You imply that Israel has some right to exist. It doesn't. Palestine has a right to exist. Jews who want to live in Palestine should deal with the fact that there are Palestinians there. Israel is a racist state and should be destroyed - as the President of Iran has become so infamous for stating. This doesn't necessarily mean that Israelis have to be killed. It simply means that Israel, as a state, must cease to exist.
You are also implying that Iran would be the aggressor in this case. I severely doubt this would be the case. I would say that the biggest single reason Iran might hypothetically want nuclear weapons in relation to Israel is in defense.
But lets get down to business here. Israel is a terrorist state. Don't try to offload that onto others.
As a means of coercion to their neighbors, such as Iraq, whom have tradtionally been antagonistic.
That's a pretty flimsy argument, considering the US has far more nuclear weapons, and also a FAR worse track record of 'coercion'. It should also be noted that the previous war between Iraq and Iran was very much provoked by the US.
To bring about the coming of the 12th Imam (the muslim version of the Apocalypse)--a time that the President of Iran has publically said is upon us.
Stop spreading racist trash, you fucking idiot. George Dubya also believes in the 2nd coming of Christ, and is far more of a warmonger that anyone Iran has produced recently.
As a means of detering any military repurcusions from economic harassment (i.e. drastically cutting their oil production)
And what the fuck is wrong with THAT? Iran's oil is Iran's oil. It does not belong to any other country. It is their right to sell oil, as it is their right to stop selling oil. Now if Iran fear military repurcussions resulting from them removing one of their assets from the international markets, then I salute them for trying to protect themselves from such aggressors.
All I see in your arguements is extreme arrogance and racist bullshit. Have you considered running for president of the US?
When do we respond to US military aggression, including nuclear weapon proliferation?
Whether Iran wants to build nuclear weapons or not ( and the case against them is non-existant at present ), the only reason they would actually want nuclear weapons is as a deterrant against the US and Israel.
If you want to get on your high horse and protect the world from nuclear weapons, then disarm the US, Israel, the UK, and France, and the rest of the world will find something better to do. Otherwise you're arguing for the most dangerous rogue state ( the US, if you hadn't noticed ) having the right to nuclear weapons, but everybody else ( the more moderates ) NOT being allowed. Why is that? Sounds hypocritical to me... and to everyone else for that matter.
Too true. Of course the Australian government doesn't mention that this technology would also be useful in enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Currently the official policy of the Australian government is to not have any nuclear weapons themselves, but then that's only the official policy, and they vigourously defend the right of the US, UK and France to continue to develop their nuclear weapons program, in direct contravention of the non-proliferation agreement.
This is certainly an important issue for us to take up. There will be a forum on it, titled
Nuclear Power: No solution to global warming
on Wednesday the 7th of June, at the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, at 7:30. The forum is run by Socialist Worker, a paper of the International Socialist Organisation: http://www.iso.org.au. Speakers will be John Hallam, an anti-nuclear campaigner from Friends of the Earth, and Lan Vy Tu, from Socialist Worker.
There will be a 2nd forum on Thursday June 8, at 7pm at the Humanist Society Building, 10 Shepherd Street, Chippendale ( off Broadway, near the corner of City Road ).
These forums are a MUST for anti-nuclear campaigners. Please attend and tell your friends.
Stop spreading trash. All of your points have been refuted many times. Why not deal with the fact that shit happens and people have to pass on? Why spread these lies and religious self-richeous bullshit, when it had nothing to do with you, and all your arguements have been dimissed by doctors, scientists, and courts alike?
Slashdot Mirror
Um. There is demo code on the website. Perhaps if you looked at it, or at the demo application in the download section, and you applied some intelligence to the task, and perhaps even emailed me and asked for help, you'd be able to figure it out. Come on, did you really look, or what?
What are you talking about? How can you say that X11 on the mac is not an option? If you're after a cross-platform, open-source set of libraries, but then turn around and proclaim that you refuse to use X11, because, why exactly? It's not integrated? Well, fucking EXCUSE ME sir, but I think you're being a bit difficult on yourself, aren't you? I've used X11 on the mac. In a couple of minutes I figured out how to start X11 automatically when I ran an X11 app. X11 itself takes a little longer to start than a normal app. And yes, then you get an application that isn't using native OS-X widgets. Um. Yeah. So what? You're after a cross-platform solution. Deal with it. When I used X11 on the mac, I used it to run gtk for developing stuff and for running OpenOffice. I wasn't one of those fucking wankers that refuses to use OpenOffice because it hasn't been ported to fucking lollipop lala-land Aqua GUI yet. I wanted to use OpenOffice. I fucking used OpenOffice. But I still can't get my head around how you want open-source, cross-platform stuff, and then demand that it is nothing other than a native OS-X application, damnit! OS-X isn't exactly in the mainstream, you know. Perhaps you should get off your high horse?
Hahahahahahaha!
That's pretty funny, man. Considering your stance on issue number 1, I'm hardly surprised that you take the same prejudices with you when you go to Windows. At least you're consistent. Stupid, but consistent. So yeah. My arguement here is the same as for point 1
You didn't look very far. I've noticed a bit of traffic on the gtk mailing list about the native OS-X port. So for me, I'm quite happy that into the future, OS-X support for my libraries will only be improving on a number of fronts - under X11, and the native port. And I trust that any OS-X developers that don't have their head jammed fair up their arse will be able to take advantage of my open-source, cross-platform libraries. And yes, I realise, that doesn't include you. It's your loss.
I really am growing to hate racist arseholes such as yourself.
What is a terrorist, anyway? Do you know how many people the US has killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about how many Palestinians are killed by the Israelis? And you forget that the Catholics in Ireland know a bit about violence. How about Opus Dei? I ask you again: what is a terrorist? Is it only who you say it is? Is it someone who kills for political or economic reasons? Is it an entire country that wages an illegal war of aggression based on manufactured 'evidence' of WOMD?
Speaking hypothetically, how many Muslims can the US and co kill before they are branded terrorists? They've knocked off 150,000 in Iraq since the invasions. I assure you, these were not 150,000 terrorists. They were 150,000 civilians. In my books, that makes the US a terrorist state.
It's pretty lame to brand one group of people 'terrorists' because of the acts of an incredibly small proportion of their numbers - how many followers does Bin Laden actually have, compared to the total number of Muslims in the world? It's especially lame when you refuse to apply the same rules to all people. It's what you call 'racism'.
The old 'but if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about' is a very lame arguement, as it doesn't address the fact that the law is an ass.
... you know ... the right to do what you want as long as you're not harming others.
... nay ... terrorised at the prospect of yet more surveilence. Just look at who's doing the surveying.
... which I sometimes do actually get around to doing. My only security is in the fact that surveilence is not yet universal. But lets pretend that I don't smoke joints. Let's say instead that I hate fucking Dubya, and I think he's a war criminal. Now lets say I talk to my friends about it, while walking down the street. I have no problem telling individual police officers what I think of their state and their laws and their wars and our fine leaders. Individual police officers are not overly interested in busting my arse, as long as I'm not at a demo with other like-minded people. But add universal surveilence into the mix, and you've got a fucking huge problem for democracy. People walking around criticising the government won't be walking around much longer. If you think this is being a bit paranoid, think again. Look at Guantanimo Bay. These people are political prisoners. Search up on Scot Parkins - a US antiwar activist who was arrested here in Australia for 'secret' reasons and sent back to the US ... basically because he was a vocal critic of our governments. It's already happening. Universal surveilence will just make it a hell of a lot worse.
Hypothetically, if all our laws were just, and such 'protective systems' were only used to actually protect, then yes, people doing 'nothing wrong' would have nothing to worry about. But our laws are not just. Each day, the western world becomes less democratic and free, and more totalitarian. The separation of powers ( parliament and courts ) and the separation of church and state are disappearing. Look at the elevated position of Emperor Bush, claiming he is 'commander in chief'. This is a horrific attach on these important separations - the republicans are attempting to seize ultimate power for themselves and make the judiciary irrelevant. They say that military justice is above and beyond civilian justice.
The merging of church and state is also very worrying. The republicans use religious arguments for attacking civil liberties such as homosexual relationships, womens' right to choose abortion. They pander to the religious right on issues such as recreational drug use. All these issues ( in this paragraph ) have NOTHING to do with the state. The state can fuck off and find somethinng else to do. Sure - these are issues for religions to discuss, and I welcome their advice. However I respectfully reject most of it on the grounds that it is absolute bullshit. Take homosexual relationships. I'm not gay - far from it. But I argue strongly for people's right to do whatever the hell they want to do, because I believe in 'freedom'. And by 'freedom' I don't mean US corporation's rights to invade everything from our privacy to other countries in the search of profits. I mean individual freedom
In light of the above issues, I fail to see how anyone other than the religious fundamentalists and extreme right could be anything other than horrified
The very uncomfortable truth is that there are a LOT of people, breaking a LOT of laws, every day. What they are doing is socially acceptable, and yet at the same time, completely illegal. Say I light up a joint in my backyard
No, it's actually quite simple. Look at the demo code on the website. You need about 20 lines of code. If you think you're going to get a fully functioning database app in PHP in 20 lines of code, then you are seriously mistaken.
Oh dear. I hardly find it worthwhile responding to an AC troll, but what the heck.
As for using GTK, I find it hard to believe you consider it the worst cross-platform GUI. I find it the best. I have developed a large number of applications under Linux and deployed on Windows. They of course all work flawlessly. Perhaps you are simply not very good at what you're doing? There are 2 ports of GTK for OS-X. I begun development on my Powerbook, and was using the X11-dependant port at the time. It worked quite well also. Seriously dude, you must have some issues if you can't get GTK working under Windows.
Your 2nd paragraph tells all, though. You mention QT, and then go on to BS about native look-and-feel in Windows. I cringe. You are free to use KDE & QT. You are even free not to use my projects. But unless you've actually coded something better yourself, perhaps it's time to shut the fuck up?
Sorry. I suppose I could have elaborated a little further.
:)
Axis is a collection of 3 projects:
- Gtk2::Ex::DBI ( forms )
- Gtk2::Ex::Datasheet ( datasheets )
- PDF::ReportWriter ( reports )
They're all cross-platform ( heavyily tested under Linux and Windows 2000 ) and open-source.
The basic idea is that you create your GUI in Glade ( ie Gtk2 ). You then create a Gtk2::Ex::DBI object, pass it your Glade XML file, and it will connect to the table you specify, and 'bind' all the widgets in your Glade XML file with a name that matches a fieldname in the table.
The datasheet module is similar, but instead of creating a GUI and laying out widgets and such, everything goes into a treeview ( datasheet ).
PDF::ReportWriter makes high-quality reports from XML report definitions. It supports unlimited grouping, group functions such as sum, count, etc, intelligent page breaking, page headers & footers, and a WHOLE lot more.
There are plentiful screenshots on the website. All modules are under active development ( ie right now ). All feature requests, bug reports and patches welcome. Check it out
http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil
See my collection of Perl libraries for just such an occasion:
http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis_not_evil
People wanting to look at this seriously should buy the PDF instruction book available from http://www.goodideacreative.com/fuel_cell.html. I got one, and it's good :) Damned good. I'm thinking about getting some other ones ( eg the solar one looks interesting too ).
See, I know exactly what I'm talking about:h tml
http://about.bloomberg.com/about/media/magazines.
Read some of the trash they put out. Markets == God. Workerers == Terrorists. Seriously.
I know. I've read some of the garbage that he pumps out.
... by providing 'valuable' information ( propoganda ) and funding for any politician who will do his bidding.
In one editorial, they were actually claiming that unions monopolise labour, therefore should be outlawed under antitrust law. They also make the occasional arguement for abolishing government altogether, dropping taxes to 0 and basking in the light of user-pays society.
I know exactly where Bloomberg makes his money. You're right
As I said in the original post, his views aren't very human-friendly ( he considers union members to be terrorists and thugs ).
I'm not disputing where he gets his money from. People with that much money all get it the same way anyway: screwing the majority of the population out of it.
Agreed. The Democrats are a fucking joke. It would be even funnier if it wasn't so serious. But you're right, they're all like it.
? What slogan. It's simple theory. Read up on it, and then demonstrate you have digested what you have read, and I will debate the matter with you.
All socialists do. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, do you? Socialism emerged as a response to capitalism. Read up on it, and then demonstrate you have digested what you have read, and I will debate the matter with you.
Again, read up on it. It's more than 1. Russia was the 1st example.
I do.
Ah. Now I understand. You DO understand socialist theory
Come on now, don't play stupid. Under socialism, the state decides. The state is answerable to the people ( or more accurately, the state IS the people ). Under capitalism, the capitalists
All the evidence proves so far is that every time there is a socialist revolution, the capitalist powers - with the US at the head - make it their number 1 priority to flatten it. Take Chille, 9/11/74. Read up on it, and tell me what you think the US does to socialist nations, and why they are not stable.
I do.
Now look, arsehole. I don't like your condescending attitude. You know full well that your assertion that socialism leads to a totalitarian regime is false, and worse than that, is knowingly false. What happens after a social revolution is left up to the people. There is no 'gravity' in the situation that always points towards totalitarianism, as you are trying so pathetically to suggest.
I suggest you read up on socialist theory - Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. I suggest you read up on the Russian revolution. Only then will you have the sufficient knowledge to discuss the issue further and not look like an ill-informed neo-conservative appologist.
Ah. Wise words from an anonymous coward!
The problem is that I'm not a socialist out of envy. When there are billions of people surviving on less than $US1 per day, and there are billionaires, there is clearly an issue. Do the billions of people in 3rd world countries suffer from 'envy'? Perhaps they do, and rightly so.
You say you choose greed. I believe you. It's people like you that the majority of the world would be better off without. You say that without accountability, the people get screwed. Well that's capitalism for you - capitalists enjoy all the rights and no responsibility. They are not responsbile for any of the troubles they cause. There is no such thing as accountability in capitalism - if the company is making a profit, that's as accountable as things get.
Bloomberg is a republican if I've ever heard of one. He's disgustingly rich. Some people will accuse me of having tall popply syndrome, and I accuse them of being morons. There comes a point where you have to say "Perhaps some of your wealth could be put to better use by other people who desperately need some wealth of their own".
Bloomberg was most recently in the news ( that I noticed anyway, here in Australia ) when the New York transport workers' union was out on strike for a day. Bloomberg was, of course, absolutely furious, and was cursing at the 'greedy' workers ( kettle black ? ) who were 'thugs' and 'terrorists' for daring to ask for a pay rise that would still keep their income at about 0.1% of his income.
As for his objections to stuff like pre-emptive invasions, I would say that he would change his tune somewhat if he were running the country instead of just New York.
Rest assured, Bloomberg is a republican to the bone.
That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime. Communism is a response to this, and puts the economy back under democratic control, where it belongs.
You mean like the US government? Your criticisms of communism apply just as well to your favourite 'leaders of the free world'.
What you are missing is that in a democracy, the people actually decide how the resources are used. This requires removing capitalist control of the means of production and placing that control back into the hands of the people. Exactly how that is done should of course be left up to the people. You say that coure only outcome of an attempt at such a reorganisation is a totalitarian regime. I call bullshit! You can't possibly say that this is the only outcome. You need to put your brain into gear before engaging in discussions.
The same could be said for capitalism. And communism hasn't been tried in 'many countries the world over'. There was a failed startup in Russia. It was remarkably successful while it lasted. There is some interesting stuff happening in South America, and it is interesting to note that Emperor Dubya considers Chavez a 'terrorist' and an 'enemy of the free world'.
The arguement that communism has been tried 'the world over' is growing very tired. Capitalism has been tried the world over, and despite morons like you who consider it a blazing success, it is in fact a pathetic disaster, and a display of all of the worst aspects of humanity
The reason that is obvious to me here is that you support the so-called 'right' of Israel - a terrorist state - to exist TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS . But you don't want to say as much, as it's not a very defensible position.
Why? Again, you are defending the rights of some to not only HAVE nuclear weapons, but to DEVELOP NEW ONES, while at the same time saying that you oppose other nations from developing nuclear weapons. That's not a very defensible position. You also side-step the issue that other nations see nuclear weapons as a deterrant againt US military aggression - in fact the ONLY deterrant. See what happened to Iraq when they DIDN'T have nuclear weapons. The US would have been in quite a different position today if Iraq DID have nuclear weapons, wouldn't they?
The US is in NO position to prevent ANYONE from aquiring nuclear weapons. They are available to the highest bidder on the black market. Nuclear weapons are also not the only WOMD ... the US has devised AND sold many others. If a country that wants to wage a dirty war can't get their hands on nuclear weapons, they will find something else. There's nothing you can do to stop them at this point. Take George Dubya's business parter, Bin Laden. He didn't need nuclear weapsons, did he? Do you really think you're making the world safer by this increasing US aggression? You're not.
You also seem to imply a number of other things:
- that the US has a right to decide who has nuclear technology
- that Iran seeks nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons
The US has no right above any other nation to decide who has nuclear technology and who doesn't. And the flimsy 'international agreement' over the Iran nuclear issue has nothing to do with other country's concern with nuclear proliferation, and everything to do with the dirty politics of economic bullying by the US. The case against the US is very well made here - both in the current Iran case, and the previous Iraq case.
There is also no proof that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. It is widely accepted that Iran is 10 years away from being able to assemble 1 nuclear bomb. And, once more, I assert that you cannot prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while at the same time support the 'rights' of other countries to develop OR keep nuclear weapons - particularly when these other countries regularly threaten Iran. You might want to be able to do this, but it is not a stable situation, and will lead to other things you don't like, such as terrorism.
You again imply that Israel has a right to exist. I reject that outright. ALL of Israel is Palestinian land, and it therefore flows that all of these services you talk of are the property of the Palestinians. If Jews want to live in peace amongst Palestinians, and share the land, then they can work it out together. There are many Palestinians and Jews who are already of this view. But if Zionists think they have the right to eject the entire Palestinian population from their land and set up a terrorist, apartheid state, then they are seriously mistaken, and if their God is a just one, they will rot in hell for the way they treat their fellow humans.
Troll? Ha! I see the moderators are working in the same spirit as the Yanks with their veto power in the UN. Curious that instead of trying to argue, the individual in question chooses to slap a veto tag in anonymity and continue as if nothing happened.
Firstly, no they're NOT socialist. What the fuck makes you say that?
... no matter what organisational structure they have in place. NO countries should have nuclear weapons, and any socialist worth their weight in water would argue passionately for complete nuclear disarmement.
China is a centrally controlled capitalist state. Russia was a centrally controlled capitalist state ( apart from directly after the revolution, under Lenin ), but has since reverted completely to capitalism - remember? India is very much a capitalist state. Pakistan is a lesser-developed capitalist state. You don't really know what socialism is, do you?
And no, it's NOT alright for them to have nuclear weapons either
The problem, of course, is that none of the smaller fries are interested in disarming while the US, Israel, UK and France continue to increase their stockpile. And try to keep in mind that these 4 ( plus Australia ) were the so-called coalition of the killing, who illegally invade countries willy-nilly in the search of money, power, markets and political control. Last time I checked, Russia, China, Inda and Pakistan weren't really doing any of that. So I left them out of the arguement. But since you brought it up, yes, I stand for complete nuclear disarmament, starting with the US, and leading down the chain to the smallest fries.
Australia's so-called opposition to French nuclear testing was simply the government caving in to overwhelming public condemnation. You'll note that other than a token opposition, it was 'business as usual' between the 2 countries. No talks of disarmament. No talks of trade bans, etc.
... well ... we all know what happens to them. There is even talk of using nuclear weapons against Iran because they might be considering researching nuclear weapons. Compare the Australian reaction to these situations, and you have your proof.
As for Australia's support for other country's nuclear programs ( UK and US in particular ), the same arguement goes there as well. If the Australian ruling class had anything against nuclear weapsons, they wouldn't let the US continue to threaten Iran and state that they 'refuse to take the nuclear option off the table'.
We could oppose the use of depleted uranium weapons. Instead, we actually ordered some DU ammunition. If you want more links on DU, try: here.
I know that you're after some proof that the Australian government actually states it's support for the use of nuclear weapons. But you must also see that this proof isn't going to jump out in the way that you want. You have to read between the lines. Our complete lack of criticism of anything nuclear not related to the Middle East speaks books about what's OK for 'our side'. The US has been put in the spotlight on a number of occasions for breaking the non-proliferation treaty by developing new nuclear weapons. But again, it was 'business as usual' between the 2 countries. This silence translates to a vigourous defense of the US's nuclear policy. It's unmistakable when you consider what's at stake - we are of course talking about WOMD. If anyone else were to develop them
And what the fuck is wrong with that? You imply that Israel has some right to exist. It doesn't. Palestine has a right to exist. Jews who want to live in Palestine should deal with the fact that there are Palestinians there. Israel is a racist state and should be destroyed - as the President of Iran has become so infamous for stating. This doesn't necessarily mean that Israelis have to be killed. It simply means that Israel, as a state, must cease to exist.
You are also implying that Iran would be the aggressor in this case. I severely doubt this would be the case. I would say that the biggest single reason Iran might hypothetically want nuclear weapons in relation to Israel is in defense .
But lets get down to business here. Israel is a terrorist state . Don't try to offload that onto others.
That's a pretty flimsy argument, considering the US has far more nuclear weapons, and also a FAR worse track record of 'coercion'. It should also be noted that the previous war between Iraq and Iran was very much provoked by the US.
Stop spreading racist trash, you fucking idiot. George Dubya also believes in the 2nd coming of Christ, and is far more of a warmonger that anyone Iran has produced recently.
And what the fuck is wrong with THAT? Iran's oil is Iran's oil. It does not belong to any other country. It is their right to sell oil, as it is their right to stop selling oil. Now if Iran fear military repurcussions resulting from them removing one of their assets from the international markets, then I salute them for trying to protect themselves from such aggressors.
All I see in your arguements is extreme arrogance and racist bullshit. Have you considered running for president of the US?
The correct question is:
... and to everyone else for that matter.
When do we respond to US military aggression, including nuclear weapon proliferation?
Whether Iran wants to build nuclear weapons or not ( and the case against them is non-existant at present ), the only reason they would actually want nuclear weapons is as a deterrant against the US and Israel.
If you want to get on your high horse and protect the world from nuclear weapons, then disarm the US, Israel, the UK, and France, and the rest of the world will find something better to do. Otherwise you're arguing for the most dangerous rogue state ( the US, if you hadn't noticed ) having the right to nuclear weapons, but everybody else ( the more moderates ) NOT being allowed. Why is that? Sounds hypocritical to me
This is certainly an important issue for us to take up. There will be a forum on it, titled
on Wednesday the 7th of June, at the Newtown Neighbourhood Centre, at 7:30. The forum is run by Socialist Worker, a paper of the International Socialist Organisation: http://www.iso.org.au. Speakers will be John Hallam, an anti-nuclear campaigner from Friends of the Earth, and Lan Vy Tu, from Socialist Worker.
There will be a 2nd forum on Thursday June 8, at 7pm at the Humanist Society Building, 10 Shepherd Street, Chippendale ( off Broadway, near the corner of City Road ).
These forums are a MUST for anti-nuclear campaigners. Please attend and tell your friends.
Stop spreading trash. All of your points have been refuted many times. Why not deal with the fact that shit happens and people have to pass on? Why spread these lies and religious self-richeous bullshit, when it had nothing to do with you, and all your arguements have been dimissed by doctors, scientists, and courts alike?