At least we don't use 'holiday' to mean we're going away, when it just means a 'holy day', instead we use the much more sensible 'vacation'. Or a 'flat'? If you're talking about an apartment, it's anything but flat.
Given those, I think the fusion of bandage and plaster is relatively harmless;-)
All in good fun, my British friend; both dialects have their idiosyncrasies.
Did you actually do the search? If you look at the results, you will see that the majority hits are people saying "I am a left-wing libertarian" or "she was a moderate left-wing libertarian." In the other case, yes I do notice a bias towards people talking about right-wing libertarian groups (and also, several "right-wing" libertarian groups).
That was my point. You didn't count the uses which use neither term; those are the 'unmarked' variety, and I would posit that it's understood (at least in general) that Libertarians are more right-wing than left-wing and thus a 'left-wing Libertarian' is marked, and a 'right-wing Libertarian' is considered an extremist, similar to if you say "right-wing Republican" (very right-wing) as opposed to "Republican" (moderately right-wing). Either way, I'm only talking about the general view of Libertarians, see below.
Anyway, I don't think libertarian really fits into either of the traditional left or right viewpoints.
Are you going to infer that more 'persons' are left-handed? Maybe a more logical conclusion is that a "left-wing libertarian" is what Linguists call 'marked', which is when a less common (or less expected) characteristic is mentioned whereas the expected case doesn't need to be specified. Another example which shouldn't require Google is "A bird which can fly" vs. "A bird which can't fly"; which phrase do you think is more common?
As an aside, this ties right into Information Theory (as applied to Linguistics) where the amount of information in a statement is inversely proportional to the 'expectedness' of the information. At least that's the basic idea; I'm sure someone else here will correct me or explain it better;-)
Short answer: read the book. I haven't read it in over 10 years, so the details are really hazy.
Not so short answer: They kept slaves; the interaction I meant was free aliens. Regarding diplomacy, the Klingons didn't believe in diplomacy in the conventional sense. Like I said though, read the book rather than rely on my very poor memory of it;-)
The explanation I remember, is the one I think I got out of 'The Final Reflection' by John Ford, which is considered by many to be one of the best Star Trek books written.
The explanation is that the Klingons have an Imperial (pure) race (like Whorf) which at the time of the original series was never seen by Aliens, and mixed breed races who were lower caste but allowed to 'mingle' with other races. The Klingons in the old series were Klingon/Human hybrids.
This book had a lot more than that too, and it was the main inspiration for the whole Klingon language, culture, etc. craze, being as it was the first look at Klingons from the 'inside'. If you ever decide to read one Star Trek Book, then make this the one. In fact, I haven't read it in years, and now I'm feeling the urge to go dig it up again...
One thing that keeps from from giving KDE much attention is a small pet peeve of mine. The task list, I absolutely hate task lists, it's absolutely the the epitome of bad interface design.
I guess you only ever looked at screenshots then, since the taskbar has been removable since 2.0 (October 23, 2000). I don't know what MacOS' drop down task switcher looks like but KDE has had something similar for its whole existence AFAIK.
No offence but it looks like the thing keeping you from using KDE is an unwillingness to try a new Desktop out; granted you might still not like it after trying, but KDE it highly configurable, and you might want to at least ask what's possible, if not try what's possible before you complain.
Right... we should try to emulate those clear and concise Windows error messages like "General Protection Fault" or "Error Reading Drive". Better yet, go down Apple's road and just print a sad looking penguin, or a bomb, with a hexadecimal error number.
You're saying the only 2 possibilities are the way Linux is now or the way Windows is? Because the author of the comment above was only saying it needs to be better. This kind of knee-jerk reaction shows how a lot of Linux advocates only think in terms of Linux vs. Windows; I'm not saying comparisons shouldn't be made to Windows, when appropriate, just that there some things that are just not good enough in ANY desktop system today and suggestions about how such things could be improved in Linux stand on their own.
Try Quebec. It starts to feel real different, real fast:-)
You've got to look at the similarities, not the differences: Then you'll see the same obnoxious "me and my language first" attitude that the U.S. Americans have, except it's in French;-)
Actually, in that regard it's closer to the U.S. than the rest of Canada!
The problem of the GPL is not of missunderstanding. It's "fundamental" aberration. The reason is you can't BUY it, and they can't SELL it to you either.
I assume that by 'sell', you mean sell rights to the code? Who can't sell it to you? The author? WRONG. Someone else? What a big surprise. Noone can sell you the rights to MS Word except for MS, so where's the difference? Example:
1. I have the source code for MS Word. 2. I want to sell you a copy of MS Word complete with source code. 3. I need MS's permission.
1. I have some GPL software. 2. I want to sell it someone without source. 3. I need the author's permission.
and so on...
The author of code can always sell his own code under any license/arrangement he wants. Anyone else, including people who have 'contributed' to the code, can sell/distribute it under terms dictated by the author. How is GPL unique in this?
Name me one thing that cannot be bought...The only way arround GPL is problably buying law. But the results from this law buyouts can be unexpected.
Tempting... But I'll stick with what you meant;-) As mentioned above, the things you can't buy are all such 'products' covered by copyright, etc. In most cases you buy one license to one copy and are only allowed to sell it under very restrictive conditions... Unless you get permission from the author/copyright owner. Then you cut a deal with him... or not. How is GPL unique here?
The thing that makes GPL unique, is not where it restricts, but how 'late' it restricts (i.e. typically well after code has been changed, copies made, copies distributed). This lulls some people into not thinking about the restrictions until they want to do something which isn't allowed. Suddenly, the slight restriction chafes and seems worse than the much more restrictive conditions on other copyrighted work.
Anyone with kids will know what I'm talking about, they'll complain a lot more loudly about getting 'only' half a piece of chocolate cake, than getting none...
we happen to know that electromagnetic radiation isn't very good for your health.
What's even worse is there's never been a full-scale study about the dangers of Light bulbs. Just look at them (figuratively, I mean) radiating electromagnetic radiation everywhere. I mean, your house is full of the damn things, and those evil light bulb companies don't want us to know the truth.
Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.
While I agree with the premise that China doesn't have much (if anything) to gain by attacking us, you obviously aren't aware of the huge difference between a modern, well-trained, well-equipped army and a bunch of conscripts. There is no comparison between China's and USA's military power; Think navy: a handful of nuclear subs will sink 100 troop transports just as easily as one, and they could be firing cruise missiles at China to pass the time while waiting. Of course that doesn't mean that the U.S. could invade China successfully either; I'm just saying China wouldn't have a chance in hell of invading the U.S. or even damaging it significantly in an all-out war.
Please note: I am not making any political statements here. I don't subscribe to the China-is-evil-in-all-respects theory; I am talking solely about the military aspect.
Sure - if Windows crashes you just get dumped back to Linux but it still means you lose all your work and possibly get your filesystem trashed.
Which is why you run in persistent or undoable mode and save all your documents to the Samba share on your host system;-) At least that's what I do. Of course that almost really bit me in the foot recently when I decided to run one of the latest trojans on my virtual windows just for shits and giggles and almost forgot to stop Samba first. The embarassment of that happening after gloating repeatedly to Windows-bound colleagues would have been... painful.
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
I don't know which 'You Guys' you're talking to, but he never said people shouldn't have the right to make a stupid choice, just that they're stupid for making it;-)
Seriously, the good thing is the freedom to make the choice; Just as I think anyone who voted for Bush is even stupider, I would never dream of claiming it's not a good thing they CAN, just that they DID.
"I believe that the original poster made it clear what his ruler was."
I know. That was my point. He was making it clear that he didn't have a clue what ruler others are using, evidenced by his statement: "I find it funny that government interference is so selective in this forum." which implies the other posters are somehow fickle, or hypocritical.
Only by your standards, because you artificially make others' statements into a boolean of 'government interference' OR '! government interference' which would also make the following (hypothetical) person appear to be a hypocrite:
"I am against the government passing a law forcing me to vote Democrat" ('government interference' = FALSE)
"I am a proponent of the government locking away rapists" ('government interference' = TRUE)
Hypocrite!!
I know these examples are extreme; the point is, yes people are selective because they aren't using the same (Libertarian) ruler as you are. The fact is, most people you label as being 'selective' are measuring one view on 'government intervention' when a crime has been commited vs. 'government interference' in anticipation of a hypothetical/potential crime. Try to at least see what kind of ruler others are using.
Thinking all that in my head was enough to sastify any need for self-amusement I had:-) I was trying to share, and the whole thing took about 5 minutes, which I consider worth reminding people about the very seldomly thought about of aspects of our government. No need to insult me in return. I was talking about one process: ratification of an ammendment to the Constitution. It requires 3/4 of the states (not their congressional delegation, but the state government) after the 2/3 of Congress has already approved it. So 3/4 of 50 votes, i.e. 38 after rounding. Each citizen of Wyoming effectively has 1/495,304 of one of those votes to change the Constitution, each Californian has 1/33,930,798. That is 68.5 to 1 not 2.9 to 1. Is that spurious? I admit the bit thrown in at the end is just representative of the fact that it's easier to prevent passage than to effect it, so that might be a bit spurious:-) But do you seriously doubt which side of the issue these 2 states would be on if a reform of the Electoral college system were up for ratification?
BINGO! 3/4 of the states have to approve it. That's right 1 state, 1 vote. Now, which states are likely to vote against such a change... hmmmmm...
Fun little addendum: the above of course means that in the question of changing the system, not only is the ratio now 68.5 to 1 (Wyoming vs. California), but because of the 3/4 rule, which requires 37.5 states, which is of course rounded up to 38, Wyoming represents 1/13 of the votes necessary to prevent a change, whereas California only represents 1/38 of the votes to confirm a change, making the Grand total:
200 to 1 in favor of Wyoming!
Of course that's all just fooling around with numbers, so you shouldn't take it too seriously:-)
Now that's interesting...I didn't know the ratio for electoral vote to population was that out of whack. Somebody mod parent up, pronto.:)
I don't know why you're surprised. You said it yourself one elector per member of congress, but no state gets less than 3 members of congress, therefore...
Either way though, the very reason you consider that to be unfair will also prevent it from ever changing, so move on to issues which can be resolved without bloodshed: To change the electoral system, you need a constitutional ammendment; once it gets a 2/3 majority in congress, guess what it needs next...
BINGO! 3/4 of the states have to approve it. That's right 1 state, 1 vote. Now, which states are likely to vote against such a change... hmmmmm...
Heh, and I guess you meant 'Should have read a little farther.' or maybe 'Should've read...' or were you stating that the Distinguished Mr. Should hailing from Read is a bit farther.
And did the pilgrims need the American Indians' help finding America? Any civilization advanced enough to wage a successful war across interstellar distances certainly won't need a roadmap from us to get here. They'll be picking up Gilligan's Island reruns LONG before they find Voyager; so put away the shotgun Wilbur.
Slashdot Mirror
I Can't resist:
;-)
At least we don't use 'holiday' to mean we're going away, when it just means a 'holy day', instead we use the much more sensible 'vacation'.
Or a 'flat'? If you're talking about an apartment, it's anything but flat.
Given those, I think the fusion of bandage and plaster is relatively harmless
All in good fun, my British friend; both dialects have their idiosyncrasies.
-Chris
Did you actually do the search? If you look at the results, you will see that the majority hits are people saying "I am a left-wing libertarian" or "she was a moderate left-wing libertarian." In the other case, yes I do notice a bias towards people talking about right-wing libertarian groups (and also, several "right-wing" libertarian groups).
That was my point. You didn't count the uses which use neither term; those are the 'unmarked' variety, and I would posit that it's understood (at least in general) that Libertarians are more right-wing than left-wing and thus a 'left-wing Libertarian' is marked, and a 'right-wing Libertarian' is considered an extremist, similar to if you say "right-wing Republican" (very right-wing) as opposed to "Republican" (moderately right-wing). Either way, I'm only talking about the general view of Libertarians, see below.
Anyway, I don't think libertarian really fits into either of the traditional left or right viewpoints.
Agreed.
FWIW, according to Google:
;-)
"right-wing libertarian" = 641 hits
"left-wing libertarian" = 231 hits
It's worth about.... nothing.
"left-handed person" = 65,700 hits
"right-handed person" = 41,400 hits
Are you going to infer that more 'persons' are left-handed? Maybe a more logical conclusion is that a "left-wing libertarian" is what Linguists call 'marked', which is when a less common (or less expected) characteristic is mentioned whereas the expected case doesn't need to be specified. Another example which shouldn't require Google is "A bird which can fly" vs. "A bird which can't fly"; which phrase do you think is more common?
As an aside, this ties right into Information Theory (as applied to Linguistics) where the amount of information in a statement is inversely proportional to the 'expectedness' of the information. At least that's the basic idea; I'm sure someone else here will correct me or explain it better
-Chris
Short answer: read the book. I haven't read it in over 10 years, so the details are really hazy.
;-)
Not so short answer: They kept slaves; the interaction I meant was free aliens. Regarding diplomacy, the Klingons didn't believe in diplomacy in the conventional sense. Like I said though, read the book rather than rely on my very poor memory of it
-chris
The explanation I remember, is the one I think I got out of 'The Final Reflection' by John Ford, which is considered by many to be one of the best Star Trek books written.
The explanation is that the Klingons have an Imperial (pure) race (like Whorf) which at the time of the original series was never seen by Aliens, and mixed breed races who were lower caste but allowed to 'mingle' with other races. The Klingons in the old series were Klingon/Human hybrids.
This book had a lot more than that too, and it was the main inspiration for the whole Klingon language, culture, etc. craze, being as it was the first look at Klingons from the 'inside'. If you ever decide to read one Star Trek Book, then make this the one. In fact, I haven't read it in years, and now I'm feeling the urge to go dig it up again...
-Chris
One thing that keeps from from giving KDE much attention is a small pet peeve of mine. The task list, I absolutely hate task lists, it's absolutely the the epitome of bad interface design.
I guess you only ever looked at screenshots then, since the taskbar has been removable since 2.0 (October 23, 2000). I don't know what MacOS' drop down task switcher looks like but KDE has had something similar for its whole existence AFAIK.
No offence but it looks like the thing keeping you from using KDE is an unwillingness to try a new Desktop out; granted you might still not like it after trying, but KDE it highly configurable, and you might want to at least ask what's possible, if not try what's possible before you complain.
-chris
Right ... we should try to emulate those clear and concise Windows error messages like "General Protection Fault" or "Error Reading Drive". Better yet, go down Apple's road and just print a sad looking penguin, or a bomb, with a hexadecimal error number.
You're saying the only 2 possibilities are the way Linux is now or the way Windows is? Because the author of the comment above was only saying it needs to be better. This kind of knee-jerk reaction shows how a lot of Linux advocates only think in terms of Linux vs. Windows; I'm not saying comparisons shouldn't be made to Windows, when appropriate, just that there some things that are just not good enough in ANY desktop system today and suggestions about how such things could be improved in Linux stand on their own.
-chris
Try Quebec. It starts to feel real different, real fast :-)
;-)
You've got to look at the similarities, not the differences: Then you'll see the same obnoxious "me and my language first" attitude that the U.S. Americans have, except it's in French
Actually, in that regard it's closer to the U.S. than the rest of Canada!
-chris
The problem of the GPL is not of missunderstanding. It's "fundamental" aberration. The reason is you can't BUY it, and they can't SELL it to you either.
;-) As mentioned above, the things you can't buy are all such 'products' covered by copyright, etc. In most cases you buy one license to one copy and are only allowed to sell it under very restrictive conditions... Unless you get permission from the author/copyright owner. Then you cut a deal with him... or not. How is GPL unique here?
I assume that by 'sell', you mean sell rights to the code? Who can't sell it to you? The author? WRONG. Someone else? What a big surprise. Noone can sell you the rights to MS Word except for MS, so where's the difference? Example:
1. I have the source code for MS Word.
2. I want to sell you a copy of MS Word complete with source code.
3. I need MS's permission.
1. I have some GPL software.
2. I want to sell it someone without source.
3. I need the author's permission.
and so on...
The author of code can always sell his own code under any license/arrangement he wants. Anyone else, including people who have 'contributed' to the code, can sell/distribute it under terms dictated by the author. How is GPL unique in this?
Name me one thing that cannot be bought...The only way arround GPL is problably buying law. But the results from this law buyouts can be unexpected.
Tempting... But I'll stick with what you meant
The thing that makes GPL unique, is not where it restricts, but how 'late' it restricts (i.e. typically well after code has been changed, copies made, copies distributed). This lulls some people into not thinking about the restrictions until they want to do something which isn't allowed. Suddenly, the slight restriction chafes and seems worse than the much more restrictive conditions on other copyrighted work.
Anyone with kids will know what I'm talking about, they'll complain a lot more loudly about getting 'only' half a piece of chocolate cake, than getting none...
-Chris
I cant believe what bioware is thinking of, with the mix of:
1) the server doesnt require key.
2) the server admin can see the players key.
Can he? Where was that? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious if you read that somewhere, or if you're assuming that...
-chris
we happen to know that electromagnetic radiation isn't very good for your health.
What's even worse is there's never been a full-scale study about the dangers of Light bulbs. Just look at them (figuratively, I mean) radiating electromagnetic radiation everywhere. I mean, your house is full of the damn things, and those evil light bulb companies don't want us to know the truth.
Turn off the lights!!!
-Chris
Wars are always for reasons, China could easily destroy us with ground and air troops by numbers alone.
While I agree with the premise that China doesn't have much (if anything) to gain by attacking us, you obviously aren't aware of the huge difference between a modern, well-trained, well-equipped army and a bunch of conscripts. There is no comparison between China's and USA's military power; Think navy: a handful of nuclear subs will sink 100 troop transports just as easily as one, and they could be firing cruise missiles at China to pass the time while waiting. Of course that doesn't mean that the U.S. could invade China successfully either; I'm just saying China wouldn't have a chance in hell of invading the U.S. or even damaging it significantly in an all-out war.
Please note: I am not making any political statements here. I don't subscribe to the China-is-evil-in-all-respects theory; I am talking solely about the military aspect.
-Chris
Sure - if Windows crashes you just get dumped back to Linux but it still means you lose all your work and possibly get your filesystem trashed.
;-) At least that's what I do. Of course that almost really bit me in the foot recently when I decided to run one of the latest trojans on my virtual windows just for shits and giggles and almost forgot to stop Samba first. The embarassment of that happening after gloating repeatedly to Windows-bound colleagues would have been... painful.
Which is why you run in persistent or undoable mode and save all your documents to the Samba share on your host system
What I find funny is you guys look at people using MSFT by choice as a problem. Aren't OSS/linux cult people by nature pro-freedom-choice. So if a user CHOOSES to use windows isn't that a good thing? I thought the gloves only come off when they have no choice?
;-)
I don't know which 'You Guys' you're talking to, but he never said people shouldn't have the right to make a stupid choice, just that they're stupid for making it
Seriously, the good thing is the freedom to make the choice; Just as I think anyone who voted for Bush is even stupider, I would never dream of claiming it's not a good thing they CAN, just that they DID.
-Chris
"I believe that the original poster made it clear what his ruler was."
I know. That was my point. He was making it clear that he didn't have a clue what ruler others are using, evidenced by his statement:
"I find it funny that government interference is so selective in this forum."
which implies the other posters are somehow fickle, or hypocritical.
Only by your standards, because you artificially make others' statements into a boolean of 'government interference' OR '! government interference' which would also make the following (hypothetical) person appear to be a hypocrite:
"I am against the government passing a law forcing me to vote Democrat" ('government interference' = FALSE)
"I am a proponent of the government locking away rapists" ('government interference' = TRUE)
Hypocrite!!
I know these examples are extreme; the point is, yes people are selective because they aren't using the same (Libertarian) ruler as you are. The fact is, most people you label as being 'selective' are measuring one view on 'government intervention' when a crime has been commited vs. 'government interference' in anticipation of a hypothetical/potential crime. Try to at least see what kind of ruler others are using.
-chris
Thinking all that in my head was enough to sastify any need for self-amusement I had :-) I was trying to share, and the whole thing took about 5 minutes, which I consider worth reminding people about the very seldomly thought about of aspects of our government. No need to insult me in return. I was talking about one process: ratification of an ammendment to the Constitution. It requires 3/4 of the states (not their congressional delegation, but the state government) after the 2/3 of Congress has already approved it. So 3/4 of 50 votes, i.e. 38 after rounding. Each citizen of Wyoming effectively has 1/495,304 of one of those votes to change the Constitution, each Californian has 1/33,930,798. That is 68.5 to 1 not 2.9 to 1. Is that spurious? I admit the bit thrown in at the end is just representative of the fact that it's easier to prevent passage than to effect it, so that might be a bit spurious :-) But do you seriously doubt which side of the issue these 2 states would be on if a reform of the Electoral college system were up for ratification?
-Chris
p.s. did I rant enough for you?
Then you probably want to move to Germany, which also needs Tech workers and where OpenSource (including Free) software is making quite a few inroads.
AFAIK, Ireland is Microsoft Central for Europe.
That's some fancy political jujitsu.
Cool comment, with a cool summing up. I'll have to remember that phrase.
The Department of Justice grabbed Microsoft by their already huge balls and coated them in brass.
I'm picturing John Ashcroft pulling out Bill Gates' balls and pouring molten brass on them.
*wince*
Still, I bet he'd think twice before abusing his monopoly power again!
-chris
Did his speechwriters misspell it? Or did he manage to misspell a word he said aloud?!
I'm going to advance an even more wild theory, so bear with me:
Maybe the poster you were responding to was joking? I know, it's a bit out there, but you have to admit it's possible, right?
Sheesh, and you used your +1 for that? Time was, when posters marked 'No Score +1 Bonus' when making banal remarks.
-chris
BINGO! 3/4 of the states have to approve it. That's right 1 state, 1 vote. Now, which states are likely to vote against such a change... hmmmmm...
:-)
Fun little addendum: the above of course means that in the question of changing the system, not only is the ratio now 68.5 to 1 (Wyoming vs. California), but because of the 3/4 rule, which requires 37.5 states, which is of course rounded up to 38, Wyoming represents 1/13 of the votes necessary to prevent a change, whereas California only represents 1/38 of the votes to confirm a change, making the Grand total:
200 to 1 in favor of Wyoming!
Of course that's all just fooling around with numbers, so you shouldn't take it too seriously
-chris
Now that's interesting...I didn't know the ratio for electoral vote to population was that out of whack. Somebody mod parent up, pronto. :)
I don't know why you're surprised. You said it yourself one elector per member of congress, but no state gets less than 3 members of congress, therefore...
Either way though, the very reason you consider that to be unfair will also prevent it from ever changing, so move on to issues which can be resolved without bloodshed: To change the electoral system, you need a constitutional ammendment; once it gets a 2/3 majority in congress, guess what it needs next...
BINGO! 3/4 of the states have to approve it. That's right 1 state, 1 vote. Now, which states are likely to vote against such a change... hmmmmm...
Well, I'll leave the rest up to you.
-Chris
Should of read a little farther.
;-)
Heh, and I guess you meant 'Should have read a little farther.' or maybe 'Should've read...' or were you stating that the Distinguished Mr. Should hailing from Read is a bit farther.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Chris
Like the American Indians who fed the Pilgrims?
And did the pilgrims need the American Indians' help finding America? Any civilization advanced enough to wage a successful war across interstellar distances certainly won't need a roadmap from us to get here. They'll be picking up Gilligan's Island reruns LONG before they find Voyager; so put away the shotgun Wilbur.
-chris