That's the CNN version. And perhaps that's Osama's ultimate goal. But when he makes a speech, he doesn't talk about becoming the new Caliph. He urges Muslims to fight the oppression of the "Zionist-Crusader alliance".
Like all fascists, Osama likes to portray himself and his followers as victims. But that's really pretty secondary. From a moral point of view, the place he steps over the line is when he refuses to accept the moral norms of those around him. And if you take the attitude that every American is his own private army, and doesn't have to take orders from anybody, you're doing exactly the same thing. You're even justifying it the same way, by claiming that you're "persecuted". Your goals may be different, but the moral result is the same.
Ultimately, it is each individual that decides whether it is ok for that individual to use guns.
That's moral bullshit — and the main reason the U.S. leads the world in gun violence. Excluding, of course, those countries in a state of anarchy or civil war.
My point has nothing to do with moral relativity or tyrany. Osama Bin Laden isn't a "tyrant" -- you have to be actually in power to rate that label. He's just a dude who objects to what the U.S. government does and uses violence to voice his objections, without regard to innocent people getting hurt. And by golly, when Joe Sixpack grabs a gun and declares that nobody is going to tell him what to do, he's doing the goddamn same thing.
It's possible he was making a joke and I was too dim to see it. Then again, people on the right seem fond of "making a joke" as an excuse for expressing poorly considered opinions that they're actually quite serious about. Ironically enough, that's called not taking responsibility for your actions.
Dude, Bin Laden also considers himself a freedom fighter. It's not the fact that both Joe and Bin own guns that makes them disturbingly similar. It's their belief that they themselves are the sole arbiters of when it's OK to use those guns.
It's easy to forget that most countries don't have the "Establishment of Religion" clause. Even Russia has a list of "official" religions. My parents both went to state-subsidized Catholic schools in Canada — despite being Jewish!
I fondly remember an episode of Yes, Prime Minister, where they're arguing over the appointment of a Bishop for the Church of England, which is sort of an arm of the state. One candidate is an atheist. Does this disqualify him? Nobody's sure.
So, how is it that when Bin Laden says something like that, he's a terrorist, but when Joe Sixpack says it, he's just standing up for the second amendment?
DNS works fine in an office environment, if you have decent microphone and the user takes the time to train the software and get used to its quirks. That's a long way from being usable where there's background noise with a basic pinhole microphone.
Yeah, yeah, a journey of 1,000 miles, yada yada. That's not the point. We're not talking about people who are struggling to create an new OSS project. We're talking about people who are who are just fiddling around. If you're going to create a bold new product, you have to make commitments. You'll need to give up a lot of your extra time, you need to put in a lot of work, and you'll have to learn to work with other people. If you're not willing to do these things, than your project has no hope in the first place.
I can't give precise answers to those questions. Why should I have to? A boundary can be fuzzy and still have cases on one side or the other. We may disagree whether Elvis Presley or Terry Shiavo being alive, but most people would agree as to Julius Caesar and Barry Gibb.
By the same token, a software project is somebody's hobby if it only has one person devoting minimal time to it on an irregular basis, and a serious project when several people are contributing a lot of time on a regular basis. Linux was clearly a hobby when it was something LT coded for his own use, and gave away to friends, and not a hobby now that it's supported by hundreds of companies who have billions invested in it. When exactly does the transition occur? Who gives a shit? I'm too busy staring at my kitten, waiting for him to become a cat.
This could make life difficult for those small distros that are being maintained by one or two people in their spare time due to the high amount of work it creates.
And who would be affected if these distros stopped being maintained? Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.
This doesn't really kill one-man distros, it just means that the one man can't go through the pointless ritual of creating an ISO that nobody actually uses. So big deal. If you want to have fun by creating your very own Linux distro, nobody's stopping you. But if you want to create a distro (or any other open source project) that people will actually use, you have to learn to work with others.
Nice point about the high cost of entertainment nowadays, but I bet you probably live under a rock and get your TV via antenna?
Indeed. And I can't watch Fox or CBS because their local stations don't come in well. I had to give up cable because I was dead broke, but now that I'm rich again, I just don't feel like letting all that crap back into my life. Netflix and the half-dozen stations I do get — and living within walking distance of a good public library — is all the home entertainment I need.
As things stand, I spend at least 10 hours per week in front of the tube. I think that's plenty.
The only problem is that I have to wait until September to find out what happened between Commander Adama and Admiral Cain. But there's more to life than that shit.
The point is that we all have to pay this crazy amount to get any kind of entertainment. Personally, I don't own TiVo or HBO. I pay $54 a month for digital cable (NYC no longer has basic cable service) so all in all it's not that bad.
Have to? Somebody put a gun to your head? Jeez, if I lived in NYC, I'd watch even less TV than I do now.
On the other hand, if you do shell out $54 for digital cable, you might as well shell out an extra $15 for a Tivo subscription. The main value of a Tivo is not the "pause live TV" or other gaudy stuff they advertise. It's the ability of the device to automatically find and record stuff based on your viewing habits. When I had one, it noticed that I watched a lot of nature shows, and started recording nature shows without being asked. Without that technology, you're paying for 100+ channels, but you have no hope of getting your money's worth, because separating out the stuff you like from the crap is too much work.
Where I really get slapped around is another $45 for Road Runner...
If you're a techie or a writer (and I'm both) you have to have the Internet. And $45 isn't that bad. Anyway, we're talking about enterainment, which is not what I use my connection for. Well, mostly....
I don't know a lot about Buffet, but from what I've heard, he doesn't "control" anything. He simply studies companies and invests in the ones that he believes are destined for growth. Of course, his stake gives him a big voice in how "his" companies are run, but he doesn't seem to be egotistical enough to think that he can run these operations better than the people in charge.
Basically, he's doing what a lot of people do as they get older: he's scaling back his professional activities.
Re:Did they pay their taxes
on
OpenWengo Code Camp
·
· Score: 4, Informative
More true than you know. Whereas the U.S. is personified by an old geezer wearing a weird stovepipe hat, France is personified by Marianne, a rather attractive lady. For a long time, her official likeness was based on various sexy Frenchwomen, starting with Brigitte Bardot and ending with Laetitia Casta. Since 2002, alas, the model has been anonymous.
If you're an OSS project, and you want people to join in, contribute, admire or whatever, please, please, PLEASE, explain WTF you are and what you're doing on the main page of your web site. Don't make people hunt for this information. Otherwise we're likely to infer that you're just another overenthusiastic underorganized OSS group that has nothing interesting going on.
OK, I'm not a Christian, so I haven't spent a lot of time studying and interpreting the New Testament. But it seems to me that you're laying a lot of complicated interpretation on this passage. And why? Are you afraid that Jesus will come across as a Marxist? Or worse, a liberal?
A poor person who shares what little they have is making more of a sacrifice than a rich person who gives away billions — and still has billions left. That's a simple fact. It doesn't mean the rich person is evil. Nor does it mean that person who points it out is "sour grapes".
Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not entitled to say who is and who isn't a Christian. But I suspect the Carpenter of Nazereth would not look kindly on your attempts to denigrate those whose sense of their own Christianity conflicts with your neocon ethics.
In other words, he's no work ethic dogmatist — he doesn't believe that it's wrong to have money you didn't earn. He just believes that setting up your kids for a life of wealthy idleness is a good way to screw them over. Which is certainly true.
In the places where string theory says "This is true', it matches just fine.
So what? Anybody, can come up with a theory that's consistent with known facts. You don't have to be a scientist. Hell, you don't even have to be rational or sane. To do real science, your theories have to be testable. When your theories repeatedly fail tests, they're not science.
The tabloid psychics are allowed to say, "Oh, I didn't literally mean that Elvis would return from the dead." Paranoid schizophrenics are allowed to say, "Oh, the CIA removed the bugs from my head just before the operation." But scientists are not allowed to say, "Oh, maybe the experiment failed to confirm my theory, but in another universe it might have turned out positive."
The testability of theory is what separates scientific theory from "theory" in the ordinary sense of the word — the thing that creationists and ID folk talk about when they say evolution is "just a theory". If science is to take itself seriously, it has to hold itself to a higher standard than the Intelligent Design folks do.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the CNN version. And perhaps that's Osama's ultimate goal. But when he makes a speech, he doesn't talk about becoming the new Caliph. He urges Muslims to fight the oppression of the "Zionist-Crusader alliance".
Like all fascists, Osama likes to portray himself and his followers as victims. But that's really pretty secondary. From a moral point of view, the place he steps over the line is when he refuses to accept the moral norms of those around him. And if you take the attitude that every American is his own private army, and doesn't have to take orders from anybody, you're doing exactly the same thing. You're even justifying it the same way, by claiming that you're "persecuted". Your goals may be different, but the moral result is the same.
My point has nothing to do with moral relativity or tyrany. Osama Bin Laden isn't a "tyrant" -- you have to be actually in power to rate that label. He's just a dude who objects to what the U.S. government does and uses violence to voice his objections, without regard to innocent people getting hurt. And by golly, when Joe Sixpack grabs a gun and declares that nobody is going to tell him what to do, he's doing the goddamn same thing.
It's possible he was making a joke and I was too dim to see it. Then again, people on the right seem fond of "making a joke" as an excuse for expressing poorly considered opinions that they're actually quite serious about. Ironically enough, that's called not taking responsibility for your actions.
Dude, Bin Laden also considers himself a freedom fighter. It's not the fact that both Joe and Bin own guns that makes them disturbingly similar. It's their belief that they themselves are the sole arbiters of when it's OK to use those guns.
It's easy to forget that most countries don't have the "Establishment of Religion" clause. Even Russia has a list of "official" religions. My parents both went to state-subsidized Catholic schools in Canada — despite being Jewish!
I fondly remember an episode of Yes, Prime Minister, where they're arguing over the appointment of a Bishop for the Church of England, which is sort of an arm of the state. One candidate is an atheist. Does this disqualify him? Nobody's sure.
So, how is it that when Bin Laden says something like that, he's a terrorist, but when Joe Sixpack says it, he's just standing up for the second amendment?
DNS works fine in an office environment, if you have decent microphone and the user takes the time to train the software and get used to its quirks. That's a long way from being usable where there's background noise with a basic pinhole microphone.
Yeah, yeah, a journey of 1,000 miles, yada yada. That's not the point. We're not talking about people who are struggling to create an new OSS project. We're talking about people who are who are just fiddling around. If you're going to create a bold new product, you have to make commitments. You'll need to give up a lot of your extra time, you need to put in a lot of work, and you'll have to learn to work with other people. If you're not willing to do these things, than your project has no hope in the first place.
If discrimination on account of wealth is illegal, how come Bill Gates has health insurance and I don't?
No, a great way to get even by stealing their bandwidth!
They're sent to China for "recycling".
By the same token, a software project is somebody's hobby if it only has one person devoting minimal time to it on an irregular basis, and a serious project when several people are contributing a lot of time on a regular basis. Linux was clearly a hobby when it was something LT coded for his own use, and gave away to friends, and not a hobby now that it's supported by hundreds of companies who have billions invested in it. When exactly does the transition occur? Who gives a shit? I'm too busy staring at my kitten, waiting for him to become a cat.
And who would be affected if these distros stopped being maintained? Nobody in their right mind is going to rely on a software project that is somebody's hobby.
This doesn't really kill one-man distros, it just means that the one man can't go through the pointless ritual of creating an ISO that nobody actually uses. So big deal. If you want to have fun by creating your very own Linux distro, nobody's stopping you. But if you want to create a distro (or any other open source project) that people will actually use, you have to learn to work with others.
Indeed. And I can't watch Fox or CBS because their local stations don't come in well. I had to give up cable because I was dead broke, but now that I'm rich again, I just don't feel like letting all that crap back into my life. Netflix and the half-dozen stations I do get — and living within walking distance of a good public library — is all the home entertainment I need.
As things stand, I spend at least 10 hours per week in front of the tube. I think that's plenty. The only problem is that I have to wait until September to find out what happened between Commander Adama and Admiral Cain. But there's more to life than that shit.
Have to? Somebody put a gun to your head? Jeez, if I lived in NYC, I'd watch even less TV than I do now.
On the other hand, if you do shell out $54 for digital cable, you might as well shell out an extra $15 for a Tivo subscription. The main value of a Tivo is not the "pause live TV" or other gaudy stuff they advertise. It's the ability of the device to automatically find and record stuff based on your viewing habits. When I had one, it noticed that I watched a lot of nature shows, and started recording nature shows without being asked. Without that technology, you're paying for 100+ channels, but you have no hope of getting your money's worth, because separating out the stuff you like from the crap is too much work.
If you're a techie or a writer (and I'm both) you have to have the Internet. And $45 isn't that bad. Anyway, we're talking about enterainment, which is not what I use my connection for. Well, mostly....And it's better there than on the main page because....
Only the plaster ones.
I don't know a lot about Buffet, but from what I've heard, he doesn't "control" anything. He simply studies companies and invests in the ones that he believes are destined for growth. Of course, his stake gives him a big voice in how "his" companies are run, but he doesn't seem to be egotistical enough to think that he can run these operations better than the people in charge.
Basically, he's doing what a lot of people do as they get older: he's scaling back his professional activities.
More true than you know. Whereas the U.S. is personified by an old geezer wearing a weird stovepipe hat, France is personified by Marianne, a rather attractive lady. For a long time, her official likeness was based on various sexy Frenchwomen, starting with Brigitte Bardot and ending with Laetitia Casta. Since 2002, alas, the model has been anonymous.
Don't be too precise when reporting exchange rates. They fluctuate
If you're an OSS project, and you want people to join in, contribute, admire or whatever, please, please, PLEASE, explain WTF you are and what you're doing on the main page of your web site. Don't make people hunt for this information. Otherwise we're likely to infer that you're just another overenthusiastic underorganized OSS group that has nothing interesting going on.
OK, I'm not a Christian, so I haven't spent a lot of time studying and interpreting the New Testament. But it seems to me that you're laying a lot of complicated interpretation on this passage. And why? Are you afraid that Jesus will come across as a Marxist? Or worse, a liberal?
A poor person who shares what little they have is making more of a sacrifice than a rich person who gives away billions — and still has billions left. That's a simple fact. It doesn't mean the rich person is evil. Nor does it mean that person who points it out is "sour grapes".
Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not entitled to say who is and who isn't a Christian. But I suspect the Carpenter of Nazereth would not look kindly on your attempts to denigrate those whose sense of their own Christianity conflicts with your neocon ethics.
In other words, he's no work ethic dogmatist — he doesn't believe that it's wrong to have money you didn't earn. He just believes that setting up your kids for a life of wealthy idleness is a good way to screw them over. Which is certainly true.
So what? Anybody, can come up with a theory that's consistent with known facts. You don't have to be a scientist. Hell, you don't even have to be rational or sane. To do real science, your theories have to be testable. When your theories repeatedly fail tests, they're not science.
The tabloid psychics are allowed to say, "Oh, I didn't literally mean that Elvis would return from the dead." Paranoid schizophrenics are allowed to say, "Oh, the CIA removed the bugs from my head just before the operation." But scientists are not allowed to say, "Oh, maybe the experiment failed to confirm my theory, but in another universe it might have turned out positive."
The testability of theory is what separates scientific theory from "theory" in the ordinary sense of the word — the thing that creationists and ID folk talk about when they say evolution is "just a theory". If science is to take itself seriously, it has to hold itself to a higher standard than the Intelligent Design folks do.
Trust? Not a word I associate with Yahoo. I think the term your looking for is "brand recognition".