When Freenet picks up the pace again, it will be a far superior alternative to the web for Slashdot geeks. Gone are the website.free addresses, in favor of something that looks more like AWEVq2BZ23&4fL29nSQ\bob.html. You just follow links from one page to the next to get where you need to go. Nobody owns a central name, so Freenet is impossible to cybersquat on. Freenet is also superior to the www in the fact that there is currently no spam and a Freenet page is certainly not something you can advertise with a catchy.com phrase.
Also, there is no court that can take the information down. The Freenet pages are encrypted on hundreds of computers. The more popular the page, the more copies. The DeCSS source code and other "controversial" I.P. information will stay right where it is.
This is just great. You go to look at the descriptions and ideas of the canidates and find a page full of lies. After all, who else is there to correct the information? Just you, a voting switch and a pile of lies.
My biggest problem with Google is that I'm limited to 10 search words. I usually look for something in this manner: "freeware -shareware -demo -register -trial text editor windows -macintosh -linux download"...
At which point Google politely tells me to f*ck off. It's a real shame that I can't use Google to filter out all the crap I don't want to have to dig through to find what I want.
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or other body parts) as it was [1 of 2 Nazi references].
_Life_ is a poor word to describe what you mean to say. A mosquito is alive. A brain-dead human can be kept alive by a machine. Besides that, you assume that because it is/will be a human being that it's wrong to not provide it with basic right to life we afford ourselves. I disagree. The right of a creature to live should be determined by how developed the creature's mind is. I've always wondered: Why do we find it abhorrent to kill a human fetus with a fraction of the brain cells that a human adult has, but consider it perfectly acceptable to shoot a full grown deer? Not for the betterment of others as we might kill a human fetus to procure stem cells -- but for sport, no less! Granted, it's an arbitrary decision at what point in development any particular species should be granted protection from the less caring members of our society, but the mere requirement that a creature have human DNA is simply not enough and arguably very wrong!
[Note: I'm not playing devil's advocate. I believe that parents should have the legal right to end the life of an infant, under controlled conditions in a hospital, for days after it is born. This is something I would never do myself.]
P.S. If you'd like to talk about why the the Judeo/Christian God is a myth, please contact me at marble@centurytel dot net.
I am having trouble finding where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights the government is givin the task of dolling out tax dollars to fund any medical research. Could someone point me in the right direction?
Research should be privately funded.
I hope that if you ever get a fatal disease with no known cure, that you'll look back at your own opinion and realize how incredibly arrogant you sound right now. Your lack of empathy for other human beings is appalling.
Finally I got to some guy who was somewhat intelligent, although he did call Linux, L-EYE-NUCKS
I'm quite computer literate (I hope I'm considered intelligent), and I pronounce Linux with a long I. Why? Because LIH-NUCKS is simply ugly. And I point out to anyone who gets on my case about it that Linus T. pronounces Linux as "Lee-nooks". (Hypocrites.)
I believe that the laws of English vowel pronunciation are on my side, too.
Which os these sounds LEAST important? Why waste the Supreme Courts time with such MULE-SHIT[?]
I think that this is an important issue as any of the above. Forcing companies to play fair with other companies benefits the consumer and such fair competition helps prevent companies from growing into such powerful entities as Microsoft is today.
Remember, those huge companies are the ones who are buying your congressperson. The bigger they get, the more you will end up bowing to their wishes. (The DMCA, for example.)
this is no different than, say, burning every possible CD-R trying to find the one with the long lost Jimi Hendrix recordings on it. After all, it's digital; you could just permutate all the bits until you find the "right" one. Of course, by that time we've run out of space in the solar system and it would take longer than we have time in the universe to even just sort through them, let alone burn them. but it's an intriguing thought, no?:)
Nah. Just evolve the data until it matches. Or evolve code that creates that data. Granted, I don't know what kind of artificial selection pressures you would need...
The big insight to "leave the wheel" is to recognize that both the "left" and the "right" (also noted in that Nolan chart) both just pick and choose the items to harp about to the masses, hoping to stir up enough rage in them to increase government control over xyz, which in turn is synonymous with those particular politicians gaining power, which is the "evolutionary" goal in the world of politics.
Most people tend to have beliefs that fall into groups. For instance if someone is pro-choice they're probably pro-gay rights. This has to do with their strong stance on protecting essential human "moral" freedoms; freedoms of the body and the mind. Economic freedom has to do with property. Commonly grouped beliefs include owning guns and paying as little taxes as possible. (Libertarians cherish both of these groups.)
There's nothing wrong with rallying the people to get to the voting booths. It's what democracy (or should I say, our Republic) is all about.
For some reason, it seems to be a lot easier for the "right" to give up on their desire for social control and become libertarian than it is for the "left" to give up on massive economic controls.
Oh that's your observation, is it? I argue that if this were true the Republican party would have lost a much larger percentage of it's voter base to the Libertarian party than the Democratic party has to the Green party. Republican ranks haven't been thinned enough to justify that assertion.
It's politically incorrect to jam your religious views down people's throats in law, but it's still OK to jam "economic religious" views (supported by public arguments as childish and unproveable as any religion) down people's throats.
After replacing "religious views" with "moral beliefs" and "economic religious views" with "economic beliefs" and reading that sentence again, you have a good point. I think it might be because imposing moral values is more of a violation of fundamental human rights, while the ability to say, use your money to sway other voters through advertising is more of a luxury.
I'd like to continue this discussion. Feel free to contact me @:
marble
-at-
centurytel.net
Programmers are thinking beings, and modify their viewpoints as new information and ideas are absorbed and analyzed.
First comes The Wheel of conservatism, liberalism, and totalitarianism. The programmer may spend a single cycle on the Wheel or many, and the ride may be uneven. But ride it he must.
The next stage is a move away from the wheel, a move incomprehensible to those still traveling on the wheel. This departure may take the form of libertarianism or some other similar enlightenment. The programmer will probably find this stage much more comfortable than the Wheel, and may tarry long here.
Woah, what drug were you on when you wrote that? The "wheel" you describe, or the standard left/right political spectrum, never was a valid classification system and was replaced decades ago by the nolan chart. (Note that this has little to do with charting one's preference for a democratic/republic/dictatorship system of government.)
The problem for me is, XP does include a couple of features that make it better for home use by my family than Win 98, the biggest one being stability.
Windows 2000 is a good bit more stable than 98 SE, from my observations. Why not upgrade to that? Or even (*flinch*) M.E.?
The American mass media is a huge propoganda machine and its contents have been bought and sold without the consent or even the consulatation of the people. Americans will NOT get any objective news from the mass media in any form. The mass media (including, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books) are dominated by the same multi-national corporations that bring lazy (let's have it fast and easy ) Americans their nightly news flashes on the boob tube.
Right! There's only one source for truly objective and completely factual news:
you make it sound like that's a good thing, not being reminded daily how high your taxes are. silly foreigner.
I'm not foreign to the U.S., and I think it's a good thing for businesses to charge their customers the prices that they advertise. Here's an idea though, if you want to be constantly reminded of your tax duties: Mandate that stores print the sum of the sales taxes at the bottom of the reciept.
The original post simply that police should operate with a check in place, sacrificing effeciency. While I do find that reference to our system of government an insult to the framers of our nation,
I don't know of any dead people who get offended easily. Or at all, for that matter. And if any of those framers were still alive today, I doubt that they would care that you get offended over it.
that was not the issue with which I questioned him. He assumed that while the police would be less effective, they could accomplish their job. I questioned him as to whether they could _perform_ their job. There is a distinction between the two.
Twist and wriggle...
You wrote "harder (...) to perform", not unable. Would you really ask him that and then twist his words into "they would be unable to perform"? Of course they would still be able to perform their job, even though it might sound like they could be less efficient this way. This is something I too would be willing to accept if it means that fewer civil rights are violated.
I say that if having eyes everywhere puts you under the rule of Big Brother(tm), then Big Brother is your friend. At least this way, everyone can see the truth. Not just powerful individuals who control the only cameras.
Anyway, my point was that you simply regurgitated the things you said in your previous post. If it makes me an idiot in your eyes when I step in to point out to you your own (intellectually dishonest) actions, oh well. I can't force you to do any self-evaluating.
] Well, then, as public officials performing a public function in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations, they should have no problem with being recorded in any form. [
Answer me the simple question: Will this make it harder for police officer who do not abuse their power (IE, the vast, vast majority) to perform their job?
Um, he already did:
]] If you don't think there are enough methods to record police officers' actions, then rally your town to pay for every officer to wear a microphone. Just don't be surprised later if it turns out their job performance suffers. [[
] I'd much rather have them work by the book and be less effective than to have a very efficient police force that operates without checks. Have you been in countries where people have traded freedom for security? I have, and it's not pretty. And the US is moving more and more in that direction. [
Incidentally, it was also an answer to a very similar statement that you just regurgitated:
If you still want officers to have their conversations recorded, rally your local community to force police to wear microphones, or inform the next officer who pulls you over that you will be recording the conversation
Slashdot Mirror
When Freenet picks up the pace again, it will be a far superior alternative to the web for Slashdot geeks. Gone are the website.free addresses, in favor of something that looks more like AWEVq2BZ23&4fL29nSQ\bob.html. You just follow links from one page to the next to get where you need to go. Nobody owns a central name, so Freenet is impossible to cybersquat on. Freenet is also superior to the www in the fact that there is currently no spam and a Freenet page is certainly not something you can advertise with a catchy .com phrase.
Also, there is no court that can take the information down. The Freenet pages are encrypted on hundreds of computers. The more popular the page, the more copies. The DeCSS source code and other "controversial" I.P. information will stay right where it is.
Go freenet!
This is just great. You go to look at the descriptions and ideas of the canidates and find a page full of lies. After all, who else is there to correct the information? Just you, a voting switch and a pile of lies.
(Not that it isn't all those things now...)
I think the whole "scene" will start reverting back to being 'underground' again for fear of reprisal
Yes. Freenet is the key.
My biggest problem with Google is that I'm limited to 10 search words. I usually look for something in this manner: "freeware -shareware -demo -register -trial text editor windows -macintosh -linux download"...
At which point Google politely tells me to f*ck off. It's a real shame that I can't use Google to filter out all the crap I don't want to have to dig through to find what I want.
No. Frog will use it and kill Magus/Janus
Great. Now we'll have to make that damn steel and hunt down Masa and Mune.
Didn't Faceball come out before Wolfenstein 3D?
If so, that would be the first first-person shooter.
At least they finally let him out on bail. My lord he looks tired in that picture.
Of course... god knows what could have happened to him in there. =/
I think I'm going to go with SuSe for my first setup. It's probably that I just like that chameleon...
While there are hypocrites in every endeavor, I'd like to point out that _if_ life begins that conception, then it is non-negotiable whether it is acceptable to experiment on fetuses. If the fetus represents human life then it is just as horrific to experiment on them (or other body parts) as it was [1 of 2 Nazi references].
_Life_ is a poor word to describe what you mean to say. A mosquito is alive. A brain-dead human can be kept alive by a machine. Besides that, you assume that because it is/will be a human being that it's wrong to not provide it with basic right to life we afford ourselves. I disagree. The right of a creature to live should be determined by how developed the creature's mind is. I've always wondered: Why do we find it abhorrent to kill a human fetus with a fraction of the brain cells that a human adult has, but consider it perfectly acceptable to shoot a full grown deer? Not for the betterment of others as we might kill a human fetus to procure stem cells -- but for sport, no less! Granted, it's an arbitrary decision at what point in development any particular species should be granted protection from the less caring members of our society, but the mere requirement that a creature have human DNA is simply not enough and arguably very wrong!
[Note: I'm not playing devil's advocate. I believe that parents should have the legal right to end the life of an infant, under controlled conditions in a hospital, for days after it is born. This is something I would never do myself.]
P.S. If you'd like to talk about why the the Judeo/Christian God is a myth, please contact me at marble@centurytel dot net.
I am having trouble finding where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights the government is givin the task of dolling out tax dollars to fund any medical research. Could someone point me in the right direction?
Research should be privately funded.
I hope that if you ever get a fatal disease with no known cure, that you'll look back at your own opinion and realize how incredibly arrogant you sound right now. Your lack of empathy for other human beings is appalling.
Finally I got to some guy who was somewhat intelligent, although he did call Linux, L-EYE-NUCKS
I'm quite computer literate (I hope I'm considered intelligent), and I pronounce Linux with a long I. Why? Because LIH-NUCKS is simply ugly. And I point out to anyone who gets on my case about it that Linus T. pronounces Linux as "Lee-nooks". (Hypocrites.)
I believe that the laws of English vowel pronunciation are on my side, too.
Which os these sounds LEAST important? Why waste the Supreme Courts time with such MULE-SHIT[?]
I think that this is an important issue as any of the above. Forcing companies to play fair with other companies benefits the consumer and such fair competition helps prevent companies from growing into such powerful entities as Microsoft is today.
Remember, those huge companies are the ones who are buying your congressperson. The bigger they get, the more you will end up bowing to their wishes. (The DMCA, for example.)
this is no different than, say, burning every possible CD-R trying to find the one with the long lost Jimi Hendrix recordings on it. After all, it's digital; you could just permutate all the bits until you find the "right" one. Of course, by that time we've run out of space in the solar system and it would take longer than we have time in the universe to even just sort through them, let alone burn them. but it's an intriguing thought, no? :)
Nah. Just evolve the data until it matches. Or evolve code that creates that data. Granted, I don't know what kind of artificial selection pressures you would need...
The big insight to "leave the wheel" is to recognize that both the "left" and the "right" (also noted in that Nolan chart) both just pick and choose the items to harp about to the masses, hoping to stir up enough rage in them to increase government control over xyz, which in turn is synonymous with those particular politicians gaining power, which is the "evolutionary" goal in the world of politics.
Most people tend to have beliefs that fall into groups. For instance if someone is pro-choice they're probably pro-gay rights. This has to do with their strong stance on protecting essential human "moral" freedoms; freedoms of the body and the mind. Economic freedom has to do with property. Commonly grouped beliefs include owning guns and paying as little taxes as possible. (Libertarians cherish both of these groups.)
There's nothing wrong with rallying the people to get to the voting booths. It's what democracy (or should I say, our Republic) is all about.
For some reason, it seems to be a lot easier for the "right" to give up on their desire for social control and become libertarian than it is for the "left" to give up on massive economic controls.
Oh that's your observation, is it? I argue that if this were true the Republican party would have lost a much larger percentage of it's voter base to the Libertarian party than the Democratic party has to the Green party. Republican ranks haven't been thinned enough to justify that assertion.
It's politically incorrect to jam your religious views down people's throats in law, but it's still OK to jam "economic religious" views (supported by public arguments as childish and unproveable as any religion) down people's throats.
After replacing "religious views" with "moral beliefs" and "economic religious views" with "economic beliefs" and reading that sentence again, you have a good point. I think it might be because imposing moral values is more of a violation of fundamental human rights, while the ability to say, use your money to sway other voters through advertising is more of a luxury.
I'd like to continue this discussion. Feel free to contact me @:
marble
-at-
centurytel.net
Programmers are thinking beings, and modify their viewpoints as new information and ideas are absorbed and analyzed.
First comes The Wheel of conservatism, liberalism, and totalitarianism. The programmer may spend a single cycle on the Wheel or many, and the ride may be uneven. But ride it he must.
The next stage is a move away from the wheel, a move incomprehensible to those still traveling on the wheel. This departure may take the form of libertarianism or some other similar enlightenment. The programmer will probably find this stage much more comfortable than the Wheel, and may tarry long here.
Woah, what drug were you on when you wrote that? The "wheel" you describe, or the standard left/right political spectrum, never was a valid classification system and was replaced decades ago by the nolan chart. (Note that this has little to do with charting one's preference for a democratic/republic/dictatorship system of government.)
The final stage is, of course, The Void.
Oh, I see. You were trying to be funny.
who might be flashing us with light, instead of radio-waves:
They're flashing us?? Hooray! Free alien pr0n!
*Grabs camera and dashes outside to take pictures of the sky*
The problem for me is, XP does include a couple of features that make it better for home use by my family than Win 98, the biggest one being stability.
Windows 2000 is a good bit more stable than 98 SE, from my observations. Why not upgrade to that? Or even (*flinch*) M.E.?
The American mass media is a huge propoganda machine and its contents have been bought and sold without the consent or even the consulatation of the people. Americans will NOT get any objective news from the mass media in any form. The mass media (including, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and books) are dominated by the same multi-national corporations that bring lazy (let's have it fast and easy ) Americans their nightly news flashes on the boob tube.
Right! There's only one source for truly objective and completely factual news:
Slashdot.
you make it sound like that's a good thing, not being reminded daily how high your taxes are. silly foreigner.
I'm not foreign to the U.S., and I think it's a good thing for businesses to charge their customers the prices that they advertise. Here's an idea though, if you want to be constantly reminded of your tax duties: Mandate that stores print the sum of the sales taxes at the bottom of the reciept.
Woah, 20 years?! This is news to me!
Does this mean that the Unisys LZW patent does not expire this fall?
The original post simply that police should operate with a check in place, sacrificing effeciency. While I do find that reference to our system of government an insult to the framers of our nation,
I don't know of any dead people who get offended easily. Or at all, for that matter. And if any of those framers were still alive today, I doubt that they would care that you get offended over it.
that was not the issue with which I questioned him. He assumed that while the police would be less effective, they could accomplish their job. I questioned him as to whether they could _perform_ their job. There is a distinction between the two.
Twist and wriggle...
You wrote "harder (...) to perform", not unable. Would you really ask him that and then twist his words into "they would be unable to perform"? Of course they would still be able to perform their job, even though it might sound like they could be less efficient this way. This is something I too would be willing to accept if it means that fewer civil rights are violated.
I say that if having eyes everywhere puts you under the rule of Big Brother(tm), then Big Brother is your friend. At least this way, everyone can see the truth. Not just powerful individuals who control the only cameras.
Anyway, my point was that you simply regurgitated the things you said in your previous post. If it makes me an idiot in your eyes when I step in to point out to you your own (intellectually dishonest) actions, oh well. I can't force you to do any self-evaluating.
marble
-at-
centurytel.net
] Well, then, as public officials performing a public function in accordance with prevailing laws and regulations, they should have no problem with being recorded in any form. [
Answer me the simple question: Will this make it harder for police officer who do not abuse their power (IE, the vast, vast majority) to perform their job?
Um, he already did:
]] If you don't think there are enough methods to record police officers' actions, then rally your town to pay for every officer to wear a microphone. Just don't be surprised later if it turns out their job performance suffers. [[
] I'd much rather have them work by the book and be less effective than to have a very efficient police force that operates without checks. Have you been in countries where people have traded freedom for security? I have, and it's not pretty. And the US is moving more and more in that direction. [
Incidentally, it was also an answer to a very similar statement that you just regurgitated:
If you still want officers to have their conversations recorded, rally your local community to force police to wear microphones, or inform the next officer who pulls you over that you will be recording the conversation
Just how much nuclear fuel is there on the planet? How does it compare to our fossil fuel resources?
Using up nuclear fuel on creating energy sounds better than it ending up in bombs...
The clues are right there. Where in the world are they gonna find 100,000 playstations?
Saddam Hussein's private jet?
You would expect the vice president of the most powerful country in the world to be driven around in an escort?
I suddenly find myself wondering what kind of mileage the Pope-mobile(tm) gets...