You can imagine the looks that I received when passersby saw me scanning back
and forth with a pringles antenna, wires coming out of it, and a laptop on my lap.
This is the point at which you look the passersby in the eye and say, "ghostbusting."
Don't get manties for anyone. Don't even click on that link I just put in there. Don't even try to imagine what the hell manties could be. In fact, forget I ever mentioned it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: more Lexa Doig! More Rommie!
If you don't understand how the incredibly sexy avatar of the most powerful starship is the bestest geek girlfriend ever, you probably shouldn't even be reading Slashdot.:)
I tried running the 0.9.5 Mozilla today (it looks like the 0.9.6 isn't available for Sparc Solaris yet) and it is, in fact, quite a bit faster than the daily builds. Even though it doesn't have the latest cool feature (favicons) I think it's enough faster that I'll stick with it. Thanks.
My Solaris box (which is away at work right now) is a 440 Mhz Ultra 10 (that's the UltrasparcIII processor, I'm pretty sure); I've got the Creator 3D video card. It's running Solaris 8, 512M RAM. (Quick poking around shows that I seem to have enough memory in this case.)
I am running the available nightly builds, which now that I think of it, might not be as optimized as they could be. Doh! (Although on all three OSes, I was comparing the performance of the nightly builds to the released Netscape 4.7x.)
Are you running: Nightly builds, your own builds, or Mozilla 0.9.x releases? I'll probably have to try all of those tomorrow to see how performance is.
Maybe I should just ask my boss for a Blade 1000 with the new 1.05 Ghz processors. As long as I'm dreaming, it might as well be a dual processor machine, in fact.:)
I agree. In fact, on Windows, it sure feels like Mozilla is faster than the Netscape 4.x releases. (I have no hard data, but the feel is arguably the important part anyway.) On Solaris, Mozilla is A LOT slower than Netscape; in fact, the only reason I use it is because of the tabbed interface. On Mac OSX, Mozilla is also slower than Netscape, but it doesn't seem to be such a huge differential. Usually, I consider it a blessing that I spend the majority of my time on Solaris and OSX, but that's the one downside.:)
But the good news is, we have nowhere to go but up.
There's an outfit called "Private Citizen that helps you receive less (snail) junk mail and fewer telemarketing calls. The sell a book called So You Want To Sue A Telemarketer. I sure hope that they come out with the "Sue A Spammer" edition of this book soon. Even though I think too many people are quick to sue in this country, I can't think of anybody who deserves a lawsuit more than the spreaders of spam.
People too cheap (ok, "frugal") to spend money at Private Citizen can try following the advice at Junkbusters, and they even have a page concerning spam.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
That gives us some time. I figure I wait until they get around to the Catholics before I have to do anything.
They demanded that I prove the devices functionality.
Ironically, if the device actually was a bomb, that pretty much amounts to them asking you to blow it up right there.
(But don't point that out to them, unless you want to see exactly how humorless airport security is these days.)
Argument: Free ($$) software stops the little guy
on
Opposing Open Source?
·
· Score: 2
This is an argument I've seen against open source software; it is not my own opinion. (I expect to be moderated down anyway). It's a little rough, so work with me here.
Open source software prevents little companies from breaking into the market, and thus hurts competition overall. I'm going to use an imagined example of a person who's got a few good ideas for a compiler. They're not enough to revolutionize compilers altogether, but they are a step forward in certain key areas. He would like to take those ideas and form a company that sells compilers, to fund further research into his ideas.
It's a difficult business to break into, and even if his compiler has improvements that would entice a few
people to buy, those people alone aren't enough to fund a company. He could, however, get more people to buy the compiler by undercutting the big guys on price. He could build a bigger customer base that way; some customers are buying because they need his revolutionary compiler, some are buying because it's cheap, but in the end, it's enough to keep him in business. As his customer base builds, he puts the money back into his product, and eventually he really is competing with the big guys.
Unfortunately for our hero, he can't undercut everyone on price when his product is new, because gcc is absolutely free. There's no way he can enter the market now; this hypothetical product may even be better than gcc in key ways, but it's not good enough to encourage people to switch. He may find a few customers, but not enough to encourage him to sell a product.
This example is a bit contrived, but can you come up with a scenaro where a new company today breaks into the C compiler market? I really can't. There's a potential segment of the market (adequate and cheap compilers) that is not attractive to enter, because an adequate and cheap compiler can't compete with gcc.
That mozilla screenshot looks sweet, and you are definitely correct: The reason I'm using Omniweb most of the time is the rendering. Time to use one of my bugzilla votes here.
to what extent can I continue living my everyday life
when the U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a
human shield?
You were not safe before the U.S. response. Bin Laden's dream is to destroy the U.S.; he's got a long way to go, and certainly has more attacks planned.
What do you prefer: Letting bin Laden continue to plan and orchestrate more attacks in the future, or trying our best to stop him? What is the best way to ensure September 11th won't happen again?
Help! I keep searching for Babes on image.google.com - but Babe Ruth keeps showing up. Yech!
The best babe search engine in the world is bomis.com, and they even have their own slash-based babe news site, babes.bomis.com.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.
There will be civilian deaths. I wish it were not so, it makes me sick, but there will be. And as a US citizen, I accept my portion of the responsability for those deaths.
If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.
Do you care about the issue or not? Why should my inaction prevent you from taking your own actions? Be a good example for me. Affect change within your own government, get the government of Canada to at least speak out against the US (instead of with the US), and then maybe you can get away with claiming moral superiority. Until you at least try, you are simply the pot calling the kettle black. At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have no involvement in my government's actions, as terrible as they may be.
Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.
You're arguing semantics here, and I disagree, but even if I didn't, your statement was still an attempt to coerce through violence.
Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.
I'm sure Bush is grateful for Canada's continued support of genocide. Go off to your hockey game now. I'm sure you need something to distract you from your conscience, to convince yourself that a lesser degree of guilt is the same as innocense.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support
Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.
You mean "IvyMike and Canada are against nukes, yet IvyMike and Canada support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them."
I find it funny that you hate me for my support of Bush (which has pretty much up to this point been "Coercive threats against him are bad") yet you don't find anything wrong with your own country not only supporting Bush, but in a way that means a whole lot more. Even if you were right, that Bush would ignore NATO opinions, isn't it the thought that counts? (And don't discount Canada's role in this; in spite of what you think, the US counts Canada as a strong ally, and would NOT lightly upset them.)
If you want to make a
difference, it'll take something stronger than words.
Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do, and yet as far as I can tell, you've done NOTHING to affect change in your own country, for actions which are being taken on behalf of you! And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination! Please tell me you've done something to affect your own government's actions here. (And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.)
I guess "Canada good, US bad" is a view which YOU have which you've never bothered to question. How often does Canada get to take advantage of US foreign policy (how much does gas cost you, for example?) and then get to disavow any responsibility for those policies? You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off. And more specifically, what have you personally done to unhitch Canada from the US's bandwagon?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change
anything.
You essentially were saying before that I was a partner in crime with Bush if I supported him.
Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything. It will change things much less than a strong statement (or strong actions) by Canada would. And forgetting the unlikely use of nuclear force, your country IS going to assist with actions which will kill uninvolved civilians. Why not think a little more locally and do everything you can to prevent ANY Canadian involvement, if you so strongly oppose those deaths?
I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and
what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known
that I do not support it.
You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?
The problem with themes.org is that it is TOO good. Why should that be a problem? It's so good that nobody else is even trying; there's no point. Unfortunately, this makes it a single point of failure (I noticed this when attempting to find mozilla themes; when themes.org was down, it was tough to find anything worth downloading.)
Ok, so that's not a REAL problem, but I have been doing a lot more thinking about redundancy this week. Other people have mentioned this 'problem' about sourceforge, too. We need to make sure that there's not a single point of failure, and that these great sites and the themes/projects are kept going and accessible no matter what bizarre circumstances might happen.
Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of those reports were rumors; a quick check of recent news finds that most of those reports were unverified. Depressing as hell.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of
nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support
nukes.
"Stand against them" and "assassinate" are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white.
If the US used nukes, it would probably be wise for us to consult our closest allies, including Canada. If Jean Chrétien gave his approval that in some case nuclear force was approved, what actions would you take against him? Exclude nuclear force: it looks the upcoming NATO-approved activities are likely to kill thousands of civilian Afghanistani citizens. Canada is a NATO member, and will probably be actively participating in those deaths, and will at least be standing with countries responsible for deaths. What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?
While you're almost certainly correct about phones, my two-way pager's battery lasts for at least a month, so there's at least that.
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
Obviously, I am a retard, but here goes anyway...
Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.
And then....
Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and
why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never
questioned it.
And...
Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway
a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.
I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate! The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also.
Re-reading the previous posts, I suppose the "unexplained opinion" you're searching for is a response to your question, "Would I assassinate Hitler & friends?" Honestly, I don't know since I've never been in a situation nearly that important (and I also don't know if it would have saved lives), but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries. Saddam, Milosovic, Noriega, and Qadaffi are some leaders which could probably have been taken out by a serious coordinated assassination program but were not. Of course, since Hitler was commander of the military of a declared enemy at which we were at war, I think it's not unreasonable that killing him isn't assassination, it's taking out a legitimate military target. So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination.
Here's a question I have for you. (And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!) If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it? Supplementary question: If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it? How about saving 50K in your own country? 10K?
Re:Pray Or Meditate Or Whatever For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
Obviously for no decent reason.
No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise. To continue is a waste of time. I keep this link handy to remind myself of that fact.
Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses.
Jeez, I'm against nukes, but if I was for them, that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use.
Slashdot Mirror
You can imagine the looks that I received when passersby saw me scanning back and forth with a pringles antenna, wires coming out of it, and a laptop on my lap.
This is the point at which you look the passersby in the eye and say, "ghostbusting."
Don't get manties for anyone. Don't even click on that link I just put in there. Don't even try to imagine what the hell manties could be. In fact, forget I ever mentioned it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: more Lexa Doig! More Rommie!
If you don't understand how the incredibly sexy avatar of the most powerful starship is the bestest geek girlfriend ever, you probably shouldn't even be reading Slashdot. :)
I tried running the 0.9.5 Mozilla today (it looks like the 0.9.6 isn't available for Sparc Solaris yet) and it is, in fact, quite a bit faster than the daily builds. Even though it doesn't have the latest cool feature (favicons) I think it's enough faster that I'll stick with it. Thanks.
My Solaris box (which is away at work right now) is a 440 Mhz Ultra 10 (that's the UltrasparcIII processor, I'm pretty sure); I've got the Creator 3D video card. It's running Solaris 8, 512M RAM. (Quick poking around shows that I seem to have enough memory in this case.)
I am running the available nightly builds, which now that I think of it, might not be as optimized as they could be. Doh! (Although on all three OSes, I was comparing the performance of the nightly builds to the released Netscape 4.7x.)
Are you running: Nightly builds, your own builds, or Mozilla 0.9.x releases? I'll probably have to try all of those tomorrow to see how performance is.
Maybe I should just ask my boss for a Blade 1000 with the new 1.05 Ghz processors. As long as I'm dreaming, it might as well be a dual processor machine, in fact. :)
I agree. In fact, on Windows, it sure feels like Mozilla is faster than the Netscape 4.x releases. (I have no hard data, but the feel is arguably the important part anyway.) On Solaris, Mozilla is A LOT slower than Netscape; in fact, the only reason I use it is because of the tabbed interface. On Mac OSX, Mozilla is also slower than Netscape, but it doesn't seem to be such a huge differential. Usually, I consider it a blessing that I spend the majority of my time on Solaris and OSX, but that's the one downside. :)
But the good news is, we have nowhere to go but up.
There's an outfit called "Private Citizen that helps you receive less (snail) junk mail and fewer telemarketing calls. The sell a book called So You Want To Sue A Telemarketer. I sure hope that they come out with the "Sue A Spammer" edition of this book soon. Even though I think too many people are quick to sue in this country, I can't think of anybody who deserves a lawsuit more than the spreaders of spam.
People too cheap (ok, "frugal") to spend money at Private Citizen can try following the advice at Junkbusters, and they even have a page concerning spam.
Ooops, now I'm in trouble.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up, because I wasn?t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
That gives us some time. I figure I wait until they get around to the Catholics before I have to do anything.
They demanded that I prove the devices functionality.
Ironically, if the device actually was a bomb, that pretty much amounts to them asking you to blow it up right there.
(But don't point that out to them, unless you want to see exactly how humorless airport security is these days.)
This is an argument I've seen against open source software; it is not my own opinion. (I expect to be moderated down anyway). It's a little rough, so work with me here.
Open source software prevents little companies from breaking into the market, and thus hurts competition overall. I'm going to use an imagined example of a person who's got a few good ideas for a compiler. They're not enough to revolutionize compilers altogether, but they are a step forward in certain key areas. He would like to take those ideas and form a company that sells compilers, to fund further research into his ideas.
It's a difficult business to break into, and even if his compiler has improvements that would entice a few people to buy, those people alone aren't enough to fund a company. He could, however, get more people to buy the compiler by undercutting the big guys on price. He could build a bigger customer base that way; some customers are buying because they need his revolutionary compiler, some are buying because it's cheap, but in the end, it's enough to keep him in business. As his customer base builds, he puts the money back into his product, and eventually he really is competing with the big guys.
Unfortunately for our hero, he can't undercut everyone on price when his product is new, because gcc is absolutely free. There's no way he can enter the market now; this hypothetical product may even be better than gcc in key ways, but it's not good enough to encourage people to switch. He may find a few customers, but not enough to encourage him to sell a product.
This example is a bit contrived, but can you come up with a scenaro where a new company today breaks into the C compiler market? I really can't. There's a potential segment of the market (adequate and cheap compilers) that is not attractive to enter, because an adequate and cheap compiler can't compete with gcc.
Gnome is easy enough to download and install. You should do it, because CDE does in fact blow.
That mozilla screenshot looks sweet, and you are definitely correct: The reason I'm using Omniweb most of the time is the rendering. Time to use one of my bugzilla votes here.
to what extent can I continue living my everyday life
when the U.S. government is fully willing to treat me and my loved ones as a
human shield?
You were not safe before the U.S. response. Bin Laden's dream is to destroy the U.S.; he's got a long way to go, and certainly has more attacks planned.
What do you prefer: Letting bin Laden continue to plan and orchestrate more attacks in the future, or trying our best to stop him? What is the best way to ensure September 11th won't happen again?
Help! I keep searching for Babes on image.google.com - but Babe Ruth keeps showing up. Yech!
The best babe search engine in the world is bomis.com, and they even have their own slash-based babe news site, babes.bomis.com.
You'll never accept an iota of responsibility, while trying to blame me and everyone else except your president.
There will be civilian deaths. I wish it were not so, it makes me sick, but there will be. And as a US citizen, I accept my portion of the responsability for those deaths.
If my country supports Bush, then at best (assuming he cares what we say) it still puts me twice as far from anyone noticing what I say, as you are. Quit berating me and do something yourself.
Do you care about the issue or not? Why should my inaction prevent you from taking your own actions? Be a good example for me. Affect change within your own government, get the government of Canada to at least speak out against the US (instead of with the US), and then maybe you can get away with claiming moral superiority. Until you at least try, you are simply the pot calling the kettle black. At least I don't fool myself into thinking I have no involvement in my government's actions, as terrible as they may be.
Remember this, a conditional threat isn't a threat unless the conditional is met.
You're arguing semantics here, and I disagree, but even if I didn't, your statement was still an attempt to coerce through violence.
Go off to your pep rally now. I'm sure the president needs your support, after all, genocide is really tiring.
I'm sure Bush is grateful for Canada's continued support of genocide. Go off to your hockey game now. I'm sure you need something to distract you from your conscience, to convince yourself that a lesser degree of guilt is the same as innocense.
I know you won't do anything, but it's funny hearing how you're so against nukes, yet you support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them.
You mean "IvyMike and Canada are against nukes, yet IvyMike and Canada support Bush, and wouldn't do anything to him even if he announced a plan to use them."
I find it funny that you hate me for my support of Bush (which has pretty much up to this point been "Coercive threats against him are bad") yet you don't find anything wrong with your own country not only supporting Bush, but in a way that means a whole lot more. Even if you were right, that Bush would ignore NATO opinions, isn't it the thought that counts? (And don't discount Canada's role in this; in spite of what you think, the US counts Canada as a strong ally, and would NOT lightly upset them.)
If you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.
Your country supports Bush in ways much more meaninful than I could ever do, and yet as far as I can tell, you've done NOTHING to affect change in your own country, for actions which are being taken on behalf of you! And on an issue which you feel so strongly about that you broke a law of a different country and threatened assassination! Please tell me you've done something to affect your own government's actions here. (And remember, if you want to make a difference, it'll take something stronger than words.)
I guess "Canada good, US bad" is a view which YOU have which you've never bothered to question. How often does Canada get to take advantage of US foreign policy (how much does gas cost you, for example?) and then get to disavow any responsibility for those policies? You get all the advantages of the policy, AND the ablility to act righteous and pissed off. And more specifically, what have you personally done to unhitch Canada from the US's bandwagon?
I don't think that if Canada totally opposed the US's use of nukes, that it would really change anything.
You essentially were saying before that I was a partner in crime with Bush if I supported him. Trust me, my current opposition as an individual to nukes REALLY won't change anything. It will change things much less than a strong statement (or strong actions) by Canada would. And forgetting the unlikely use of nuclear force, your country IS going to assist with actions which will kill uninvolved civilians. Why not think a little more locally and do everything you can to prevent ANY Canadian involvement, if you so strongly oppose those deaths?
I however am not blindly supportive of someone until the make a fatal mistake, I set limits and what I'm willing to have done in my name, and even if I'm powerless to stop it, I'll let it be known that I do not support it.
You certainly had a proposal on how to deal with Bush. Have you considered threatening your own government instead?
The problem with themes.org is that it is TOO good. Why should that be a problem? It's so good that nobody else is even trying; there's no point. Unfortunately, this makes it a single point of failure (I noticed this when attempting to find mozilla themes; when themes.org was down, it was tough to find anything worth downloading.)
Ok, so that's not a REAL problem, but I have been doing a lot more thinking about redundancy this week. Other people have mentioned this 'problem' about sourceforge, too. We need to make sure that there's not a single point of failure, and that these great sites and the themes/projects are kept going and accessible no matter what bizarre circumstances might happen.
BTW, I'd love it for someone to prove me wrong here. If you have any solid info, please, please, post.
Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of those reports were rumors; a quick check of recent news finds that most of those reports were unverified. Depressing as hell.
The whole point of this is that if you support a politician in their (possible) use of nukes, or are unwilling to stand against them, then you might as well support nukes.
"Stand against them" and "assassinate" are very different things for those of us who don't think in black & white.
If the US used nukes, it would probably be wise for us to consult our closest allies, including Canada. If Jean Chrétien gave his approval that in some case nuclear force was approved, what actions would you take against him? Exclude nuclear force: it looks the upcoming NATO-approved activities are likely to kill thousands of civilian Afghanistani citizens. Canada is a NATO member, and will probably be actively participating in those deaths, and will at least be standing with countries responsible for deaths. What actions are you taking, right now, to prevent that? Are you unwilling to stand against your own country's activities?
While you're almost certainly correct about phones, my two-way pager's battery lasts for at least a month, so there's at least that.
Obviously, I am a retard, but here goes anyway...
Your picture indicates though that you can't imagine anything other than a shouting match to determine who was right.
And then....
Likely because you haven't actually examined what you believe and why, probably because you were simply told what to believe and you've never questioned it.
And...
Not that I'm saying you wouldn't use the argument, or even that you wouldn't sway a bunch of droolers with it, but it wouldn't be a rational argument.
I cannot imagine where I ever got the idea that things might turn into a shouting match. Oh wait, it's the unceasing use of ad hominem attacks rather than actual debate! The fact that you keep attempting to cast me as supporting nukes is vexing, also.
Re-reading the previous posts, I suppose the "unexplained opinion" you're searching for is a response to your question, "Would I assassinate Hitler & friends?" Honestly, I don't know since I've never been in a situation nearly that important (and I also don't know if it would have saved lives), but I do know that as a country, we have gone out of our way to NOT assassinate leaders of other countries. Saddam, Milosovic, Noriega, and Qadaffi are some leaders which could probably have been taken out by a serious coordinated assassination program but were not. Of course, since Hitler was commander of the military of a declared enemy at which we were at war, I think it's not unreasonable that killing him isn't assassination, it's taking out a legitimate military target. So until Canada declares war on the US, your comments must be taken as threats of assassination.
Here's a question I have for you. (And remember, in your response, I do not support nukes in this situation, stop acting and arguing as if I do!) If using deadly force against innocents was likely to result in fewer total civilian casualties in the end, would you do it? Supplementary question: If using force against innocents in a different country which would result in 100,000 deaths would likely save 100,000 civilian casualities in your own country, would you do it? How about saving 50K in your own country? 10K?
Obviously for no decent reason.
No, I just realized there's no way I'm ever going to convince you otherwise. To continue is a waste of time. I keep this link handy to remind myself of that fact.
Also the idea is that extreme actions justify extreme responses.
Jeez, I'm against nukes, but if I was for them, that's EXACTLY the argument I'd use.