You just sound pathetic, when your only example, ONLY example, is not only not a clear-cut case, but 20 fucking years old.
It wasn't my example, retard boy. Someone else offered it, you tried to justify Microsoft's actions, and I'm pointing out you were wrong. If you don't care about it why are you still replying and still trying to rewrite Microsoft's history? Just accept that they were in the wrong and leave it!
and it turns out that the reason Microsoft did this was because Windows was coded like a piece of shit and it dove right into all kinds of DOS internal undocumented data structures. The check wasn't to steal marketshare from DR-DOS, but to prevent Windows from overwriting important files on the off-change that DR-DOS had different data structures than MS-DOS.
Yeah, that's what they claimed. Of course, that doesn't explain why the code had to be encrypted, why it didn't simply present an error message saying it couldn't run on this version of DOS, why they had internal memos explicitly discussing ways of surreptitiously preventing Windows running on other DOS's and why the court didn't believe them.
But the real crime here is that you're apparently stuck in a timewarp, re-living 1992 over...
Blah blah...you're the one scrabbling around trying to defend Microsoft for something they clearly did. I didn't bring this up: I'm just responding to your rather desperate attempts to rewrite Microsoft's history. Get the fuck over it yourself and accept that they were in the wrong.
Sorry, I'm not buying into the paranoid conspiracy theory.
Well of course *you're* not. You wouldn't hear anything derogatory said of your beloved Microsoft! The release version didn't have it enabled after it was found in the beta. MS memos at the time specifically refer to not wanting Windows to run on any DOS other than MS-DOS. There's nothing paranoid about it.
Why do I bother neatly formatting something if slashdot then screws it up, even when I use the <code> tag?!
Oh I see, I'm supposed to use ecode instead. *sigh*
This is roughly how it should be:
.section.data hello: .ascii "Hello World!\n" .section.text .globl _start _start:
movl $4, %eax # what to do (sys write)
movl $1, %ebx # where to do it (stdout)
movl $hello, %ecx # what to do it with (start address of text)
movl $13, %edx # how long to do it for (length of string)
int $0x80 #call linux to do its stuff
# and exit cleanly
movl $1, %eax
movl $0, %ebx
int $0x80
You can do something like: .section.data hello:.ascii "Hello World!\n".section.text.globl _start _start:
movl $4, %eax # what to do (sys write)
movl $1, %ebx # where to do it (stdout)
movl $hello, %ecx # what to do it with (start address of text)
movl $13, %edx # how long to do it for (length of string)
int $0x80 # call linux to do its stuff
# and exit cleanly
movl $1, %eax
movl $0, %ebx
int $0x80
So you remembered well! (I hope I did; this should work I think!)
Gee! You think it was a... *bug*? That was later *fixed*?
Gee! *No*...*I don't*!
You really think that a whole series of deliberately obfuscated tests, that could only be passed by MS-DOS and that serve absolutely no other purpose, were added *accidentally*?
Have a look at this for a detailed look at the code. Seriously, tell me *that* is just a bug!
you no longer have the option to go around them to obtain the care you need as private insurance and care cannot survive competing against the government that doesn't have to make a profit,
There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.
I'm not saying there will be *no* private alternatives, but the only alternatives left will be available only to the wealthy & powerful because the costs will necessarily skyrocket with an extremely small risk pool/customer base as most people will be pushed into the public plan.
Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.
Funny. Then why was Stalin declared "the divinely anointed leader of [Russia's] armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942?
Probably because the invading Nazi's were winning support from the local populace by re-opening churches that Stalin, working with the Society of the Godless, had closed.
Despite the separation of church and state in the US, we still have a very large number of politicians in America that claim God as their inspiration.
Which strikes me as a bit odd. In the UK we technically have a state religion, but yet there's far less mention of God from any of our politicians (even the most religious ones). I suppose it's just a cultural difference but it does seem that it should be the opposite way around.
You could well be right. My point wasn't to suggest that somehow atheism was bound to result in mass murder, it was to say that a simplistic reading of history that condemns religion for the past, can also condemn...well, just about any group, including atheists.
There seems to be little consideration that the religious abuses of the past were more political than anything else. Though they do emphasize why mixing religion and politics is such a terrible idea: politics corrupts religion;-)
But those are not relevant to our discussion because their beliefs had nothing to do with the cause of the murder
From wikipedia:
Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion
In other words, Stalin may have been an atheist but that doesn't mean he killed in the name of atheism.
Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.
What the Communist Manifesto mentions is irrelevant: Stalin hardly followed it to the letter.
Check the history of all major religions and you will find out that religious people quite often did stop atheists from living, and in quite imaginative ways too.
Check the history of Atheism and you'll read about Stalin's Purges. Millions were killed in his attempt to build an Atheist society.
It is not the taxes it is the percentage of healthcare paid for by the government.
I'm going to need a cite on that; I don't see anything on the WHO website that supports your comment.
As for the prognosis point, google it, pick whatever 5 or 6 major illnesses you like and look at the 5, 10, and 20 year survival rates for U.S. vs U.K.
Again, none of them compare against private insurance in the UK. Compare the prices for yourself.
Am I allowed to write off my FOSS development as a charitable donation on my taxes?
You'd need to check local laws, but I doubt it: charitable donations are usually only deductable to a registered charity. Mind you, if your local LUG is a registered charity, then you probably could...
(2) When a UK actress went to get a PAP smear at age 20 (as a preventive measure and because both her mother and grandmother had cancer), she was denied by the UK Government's NICE (aka nasty) (aka rationing) organization. She was denied again at ages 21, 22, 23, 24. By the time she was 25 it was too late. She had cervical cancer.
This doesn't make any sense. NICE doesn't make these decisions, a GP does. She could have gone to another GP if for some reason her own had refused to refer her, and it totally ignores the fact that there are private clinics in the UK.
Did you make up this crap yourself, or did you read it somewhere and mindlessly repeat it?
You don't get the point I made, because I (and my employer) pay my health insurance provider, not the government, the WHO ranks the U.S. lower than the U.K. even if everything else is equal
I did get your point, but you didn't get mine. The WHO rankings aren't based on you, they're based on everyone. And US citizens pay more in taxes towards healthcare than UK ones do, so you should be rated highly according to you.
My prognosis is better in the U.S. than in the U.K. if I am diagnosed with most (maybe all) cancers, or diabetes and a good many other illnesses.
I doubt it. I'd need a good cite for that that included *all* people, not just those who had insurance.
Yes, the WHO rates the U.S. healthcare relatively low. However that is largely because they put how much of medical expense is paid by tax dollars into the calculation, so that is not really an accurate reflection of relative healthcare delivery.
Except that the USA pays more in tax dollars - yes, per capita - than the UK does. And yet it's still rated low.
What a depressing view of things. I'd like to take a time trip like that, spend a couple of weeks away and come back to see what Earth was like 10 years later. I'd take my wife and child with me of course or, more likely, wouldn't travel if I had a child.
As for fitting into society, I managed it in 1999, I'm sure I can manage in 2019.;-
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't my example, retard boy. Someone else offered it, you tried to justify Microsoft's actions, and I'm pointing out you were wrong. If you don't care about it why are you still replying and still trying to rewrite Microsoft's history? Just accept that they were in the wrong and leave it!
Yeah, that's what they claimed. Of course, that doesn't explain why the code had to be encrypted, why it didn't simply present an error message saying it couldn't run on this version of DOS, why they had internal memos explicitly discussing ways of surreptitiously preventing Windows running on other DOS's and why the court didn't believe them.
Blah blah...you're the one scrabbling around trying to defend Microsoft for something they clearly did. I didn't bring this up: I'm just responding to your rather desperate attempts to rewrite Microsoft's history. Get the fuck over it yourself and accept that they were in the wrong.
Well of course *you're* not. You wouldn't hear anything derogatory said of your beloved Microsoft! The release version didn't have it enabled after it was found in the beta. MS memos at the time specifically refer to not wanting Windows to run on any DOS other than MS-DOS. There's nothing paranoid about it.
Truth hurts a bit, does it?
Why do I bother neatly formatting something if slashdot then screws it up, even when I use the <code> tag?!
Oh I see, I'm supposed to use ecode instead. *sigh*
This is roughly how it should be:
That should read:
.ascii "Hello World!\n"
.section .text .globl _start
hello:
Not all on the one line: don't know why slashdot is joining these two lines.
You can do something like:
.section .data .ascii "Hello World!\n" .section .text .globl _start
hello:
_start:
movl $4, %eax # what to do (sys write)
movl $1, %ebx # where to do it (stdout)
movl $hello, %ecx # what to do it with (start address of text)
movl $13, %edx # how long to do it for (length of string)
int $0x80 # call linux to do its stuff
# and exit cleanly
movl $1, %eax
movl $0, %ebx
int $0x80
So you remembered well! (I hope I did; this should work I think!)
Gee! *No*...*I don't*!
You really think that a whole series of deliberately obfuscated tests, that could only be passed by MS-DOS and that serve absolutely no other purpose, were added *accidentally*?
Have a look at this for a detailed look at the code. Seriously, tell me *that* is just a bug!
There are many private health insurance companies operating in the UK, despite the existence of public healthcare.
Yet private healthcare in the UK is much cheaper than in the USA, so this is also clearly wrong.
Probably because the invading Nazi's were winning support from the local populace by re-opening churches that Stalin, working with the Society of the Godless, had closed.
Which strikes me as a bit odd. In the UK we technically have a state religion, but yet there's far less mention of God from any of our politicians (even the most religious ones). I suppose it's just a cultural difference but it does seem that it should be the opposite way around.
You could well be right. My point wasn't to suggest that somehow atheism was bound to result in mass murder, it was to say that a simplistic reading of history that condemns religion for the past, can also condemn...well, just about any group, including atheists.
There seems to be little consideration that the religious abuses of the past were more political than anything else. Though they do emphasize why mixing religion and politics is such a terrible idea: politics corrupts religion ;-)
You have serious mental problems...
From wikipedia:
Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.
What the Communist Manifesto mentions is irrelevant: Stalin hardly followed it to the letter.
Check the history of Atheism and you'll read about Stalin's Purges. Millions were killed in his attempt to build an Atheist society.
Eh, yes.
The fuel is named after the engine, not vice versa (i.e. it's a fuel to work in diesel engines). Diesel engines can use many different fuels.
I'm going to need a cite on that; I don't see anything on the WHO website that supports your comment.
Again, none of them compare against private insurance in the UK. Compare the prices for yourself.
You'd need to check local laws, but I doubt it: charitable donations are usually only deductable to a registered charity. Mind you, if your local LUG is a registered charity, then you probably could...
This doesn't make any sense. NICE doesn't make these decisions, a GP does. She could have gone to another GP if for some reason her own had refused to refer her, and it totally ignores the fact that there are private clinics in the UK.
Did you make up this crap yourself, or did you read it somewhere and mindlessly repeat it?
I did get your point, but you didn't get mine. The WHO rankings aren't based on you, they're based on everyone. And US citizens pay more in taxes towards healthcare than UK ones do, so you should be rated highly according to you.
I doubt it. I'd need a good cite for that that included *all* people, not just those who had insurance.
Except that the USA pays more in tax dollars - yes, per capita - than the UK does. And yet it's still rated low.
What a depressing view of things. I'd like to take a time trip like that, spend a couple of weeks away and come back to see what Earth was like 10 years later. I'd take my wife and child with me of course or, more likely, wouldn't travel if I had a child.
As for fitting into society, I managed it in 1999, I'm sure I can manage in 2019. ;-
What a strange idea. Both the UK and Australia are representative democracies. Neither of them are republics.
No, they're video. They're copies of the film.
That's Earth time. Onboard travel time would be about 9.5 hours, which isn't too bad.