How is considering laws which fine an opinion as draconian flamebait? I find hate speech disgusting, however, fining and jailing people is overreacting and causing the problem to go underground where they cause more problems. Reactionaryism such as these laws only cause bigger problems; they turn vile people into martyrs.
How about cutting off smugglers and criminals from the other end, like I don't know, ending the war on drugs? Would cut down on a hell of a lot of money laundering, end corruption, lower street crime, and lower taxes. Or do you hate freedom?
I imagine the policy will be like lighters - you can only carry them empty in an approved container. So you'll probably keep your lithium ion battery arround for the flight, but switch to the fuel cell if you're going someplace fairly far from civilization. Though I honestly don't see this as being real useful unless you can use something like standard Naphtha or propane. Relegating this to using specialty fuel will only limit its utility.
I'm sure your small town doctor mate can change their voicemail recording to instruct the caller to call the theatre in the event of an emergency. Come on, it's not brain surgery here.
I know about mono and they themselves say that certain pieces of Windows.Forms are patent-encumbered and require workarounds. Why would a developer want to put himself at risk for patent litigation when there are other cross-platform solutions that work just as well and don't rely on methods that are in a legal grey area?
I think you're a bit confused here, or I was unclear. I was responding to a poster who was asking about system.windows.forms, not SWT or Swing. Java's GUI features are useful, I was trying to glean insight as to how a silly feature of a silly by and large windows-only programming language would be useful.
It looks like the newer Intel and AMD procs may allow this, but I'd play wait and see here. MS has a shady past when dealing with other OSes (Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run, etc), and I've got a feeling that they may try something sneaky here, especially considering that it'll allow someone to use the low-end server OS, instead of the advanced server OS.
True, but he was asking about using windows as the host, which will not be possible unless you shell out the money to purchase Longhorn Server. It's doubtful that MS will provide the hosting hooks into the desktop versions of Longhorn
As modifications have to be made to the host OS to be a Xen host as well, I doubt windows will ever be a Xen host; MS is too headstrong with their own virtualization software. However, you can run coLinux, however, you will run into some performance problems.
And those people run into a larger town to get groceries, etc, once every week or two. Said larger towns usually do have Blockbusters. This would be a market Blockbuster would love to get - people who can't get to their stores often enough to get those oh so profitable high-profile 2-3 day rentals.
Of course, this is if you're ignorant of things like running php as a cgi, using mod_suphp, etc, to get the php environment as close to perl as possible. And this is further ignorant of things like open_basedir and safe_mode, which allow you to jail your php code to a pretty decent degree and stop a lot of the kiddy problems that people think about when they think of php.
What about the revolutionary concept of scrambling television content and providing a decoder box? That way people who want the BBC can pay for it, and those that want the commercial channels can watch TV without paying for the tax? Or would that be too logical?
Yes, it is clear from your purchases that you are best off buying a ford ranger with a small engine and becoming a Male to Female transsexual. Hormones are cheap these days and it's pretty damn eas to turn that sausage into a nice taco. Just make sure you send me the videos of your first time.
Not having a good argument? Why, because I replied to a maudlin appeal to emotion with the same techniques - will you feel safer? Only difference I see is that you disagree with me. Oh, that and I presented statistics to show that no, it's not as cut and dry as it seems.
So, basically, you're saying that because we don't know what the real effects are, we should ban guns just to be safe? Franklin's quote about (illusory) temporary safety and essential liberties seems to be running through my head right now. I wonder why.
Show me stats and figure to disprove what I linked to. Or are you the same sort of knee-jerk reactionary that Mr. Bush is? Criminals are deterred when their victim has a chance to fight back. It's simple, it's logical. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of attacking an armed person makes alternatives more attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
I looked it up. The reasoning behind the laws is silly at best, dangerous at worst. Trying to legislate morality in this matter is always a bad move.
I criticize those actions too. Do you have the integrity to criticize canada's laws too, or are you a spineless hypocrite?
How is considering laws which fine an opinion as draconian flamebait? I find hate speech disgusting, however, fining and jailing people is overreacting and causing the problem to go underground where they cause more problems. Reactionaryism such as these laws only cause bigger problems; they turn vile people into martyrs.
Nope. Slashdot is in the US, which doesn't have the draconian anti-speech laws that Canada does.
How about cutting off smugglers and criminals from the other end, like I don't know, ending the war on drugs? Would cut down on a hell of a lot of money laundering, end corruption, lower street crime, and lower taxes. Or do you hate freedom?
I imagine the policy will be like lighters - you can only carry them empty in an approved container. So you'll probably keep your lithium ion battery arround for the flight, but switch to the fuel cell if you're going someplace fairly far from civilization. Though I honestly don't see this as being real useful unless you can use something like standard Naphtha or propane. Relegating this to using specialty fuel will only limit its utility.
Lighten up. That joke's been around since Challenger.
I'm sure your small town doctor mate can change their voicemail recording to instruct the caller to call the theatre in the event of an emergency. Come on, it's not brain surgery here.
If there are no patents involved in winforms, then why does Mono's own page on licensing say there are patent issues involved with Winforms?
I know about mono and they themselves say that certain pieces of Windows.Forms are patent-encumbered and require workarounds. Why would a developer want to put himself at risk for patent litigation when there are other cross-platform solutions that work just as well and don't rely on methods that are in a legal grey area?
I think you're a bit confused here, or I was unclear. I was responding to a poster who was asking about system.windows.forms, not SWT or Swing. Java's GUI features are useful, I was trying to glean insight as to how a silly feature of a silly by and large windows-only programming language would be useful.
Tell me why I, using my Linux box, or using my Mac, should love features of a proprietary patent-encumbered language? Clock's ticking.
It looks like the newer Intel and AMD procs may allow this, but I'd play wait and see here. MS has a shady past when dealing with other OSes (Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run, etc), and I've got a feeling that they may try something sneaky here, especially considering that it'll allow someone to use the low-end server OS, instead of the advanced server OS.
True, but he was asking about using windows as the host, which will not be possible unless you shell out the money to purchase Longhorn Server. It's doubtful that MS will provide the hosting hooks into the desktop versions of Longhorn
As modifications have to be made to the host OS to be a Xen host as well, I doubt windows will ever be a Xen host; MS is too headstrong with their own virtualization software. However, you can run coLinux, however, you will run into some performance problems.
And those people run into a larger town to get groceries, etc, once every week or two. Said larger towns usually do have Blockbusters. This would be a market Blockbuster would love to get - people who can't get to their stores often enough to get those oh so profitable high-profile 2-3 day rentals.
Okay, so they've added more platforms since I last checked a few months ago. Shame it's still ugly as sin and closed source.
I tried that opera thing on my FreeBSD box. Didn't even want to start. Same with my Sun box. Lemme know when opera gets rid of these annoying bugs.
Of course, this is if you're ignorant of things like running php as a cgi, using mod_suphp, etc, to get the php environment as close to perl as possible. And this is further ignorant of things like open_basedir and safe_mode, which allow you to jail your php code to a pretty decent degree and stop a lot of the kiddy problems that people think about when they think of php.
What about the revolutionary concept of scrambling television content and providing a decoder box? That way people who want the BBC can pay for it, and those that want the commercial channels can watch TV without paying for the tax? Or would that be too logical?
Yes, it is clear from your purchases that you are best off buying a ford ranger with a small engine and becoming a Male to Female transsexual. Hormones are cheap these days and it's pretty damn eas to turn that sausage into a nice taco. Just make sure you send me the videos of your first time.
Not having a good argument? Why, because I replied to a maudlin appeal to emotion with the same techniques - will you feel safer? Only difference I see is that you disagree with me. Oh, that and I presented statistics to show that no, it's not as cut and dry as it seems.
So, basically, you're saying that because we don't know what the real effects are, we should ban guns just to be safe? Franklin's quote about (illusory) temporary safety and essential liberties seems to be running through my head right now. I wonder why.
Show me stats and figure to disprove what I linked to. Or are you the same sort of knee-jerk reactionary that Mr. Bush is? Criminals are deterred when their victim has a chance to fight back. It's simple, it's logical. In economic terms, the opportunity cost of attacking an armed person makes alternatives more attractive.
Of course, this ignores the fact that guns prevent a lot more crime than they cause. Why are you against actions that prevent women from getting raped?