Let's see... If there are no terrorist attacks then Bush has made up the threat, but if a terrorist attack occurs then Bush has misused our resources? You moronic fuckheads are one contradiction after another. Do you even think before you type? I shouldn't even bother responding to AC trolls, but here goes anyway. No, that's not what will happen. If no terrorist attack occurs, we'll count ourselves lucky. If one does occur, we'll still lament all the money we spent on Iraq and the "War on Terror" because, in all honesty, all that money spent (and liberties lost) *isn't going to stop someone from attacking us if they truly want to*.
I agree that grinding doesn't have to be the only way, it's just the easiest way, and easily understandable to any MMO gamer out there. So what? I mean, you kind of come off as defending adding grinding to a game "because it's what people know." That's just claiming MMO's don't need innovation.
I'm sorry, I've played a lot of MMO's over the years and I am sick to death of mindless grinding. Bring on the innovation, make games fun again. For those that love grinding, you can play the games that are out there.
Let me also just say this. Whatever Blizzard developer came up with mote grinding ought to be taken out back and tarred and feathered. Yeah I do it, but I really think there has to be a better way than just throwing up your hands and saying "I give up, let's just add another grind."
On switching to the gpl3 so soon I'm not sure this isn't too soon. The fact remains it took over a decade to find exploitable weaknesses in the gpl2 I don't know, seems to me it's better to get those concerns aired earlier rather than later. And what better project to get that tested than something as vital as samba? I applaud Samba's initiative. I remember a time when there was genuine concern that the GPL hadn't been tested in court, I'd like to get those concerns dealt with sooner rather than later. I mean, the idea is to get a good, solid license that *does* hold up in court, yeah?
But that's some nice selective quoting So tell us what was wrong with his quotes. I read the link and what he quoted seemed in the spirit of what the link said.
Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. Can't really argue with that.
Basically GPLv3 requires that anyone who distributes the software agree that they are distributing it without patent encumbrance. Ah, right, I *completely* forgot about that, duh. Thanks!
I have to ask this to make sure we all completely understand, but so what if MS distributes a Linux distro under the GPL? I mean, what do they care? The argument has gone on so long that I'm forgetting why it's so funny that MS has done this. Is this all related to MS claiming the GPL isn't valid? Or is there something else going on? I think it would be good for someone to put this back in perspective again, I mean, I know it's funny that MS might be caught redistributing GPL software, but there's more to it than just that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Apache have its own license agreement and doesn't use GPL? Yep, you are correct. All software from the ASF uses the Apache License, Version 2.0. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
IIRC, their whole raison d'etre is because they don't like the limitations of the GPL with respect to commercial software.
But here goes, he didn't use the FISA courts because every time something was reported to anything tied to congress, it ends up in the news. And don't think this was bypassing every and all oversight, congress was in on this from the start. It was just the senate leaders and the inteligence comities who have a high security clearance and are know to not leak this type information just for election points. Congress was being informed in the same ways the FISA courts would have report it to them. And this was legal... how?
Is that what I said? Hmm? Is it? I think not. And maybe this is part of the reason you have a problem. Your injecting your own thoughts as if I actually said it. I wasn't even implying that. But seeing how you are too fucking ignorant to see what I was implying, I will leave you with believing it. But I seriously suggest you get your mom to help you read it again.
The comment you were initialy replying to said something about how clinton got away with it, so he set the stage for everyone else to do the same. It is about someone else doing it first. the details might not be the same, but the actions are. And this is the point, mistaking facts to prove a point doesn't change that at all. Isn't that what you were saying? I mean, you were trying to clear up someone else's argument, but isn't that the same as making it your own? If it isn't your argument, why bother? Pardon me if I mistook that.
your a fool if you think it is the government's job to "ensure my security and preserve my rights as an American." Oh, really? Ahem.
The government's role it to protect and serve the country. Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks.
Yes, the mythical do it anyway but this way it can be done without any suggestions in how to do it. You remind me of the Kerry presidential campaign. I will be better because I have a plan, you can find it on my website (but when you look, you see an outline of what Bush has already done) and then after failing to win the election, this miracle plan disappears with no mention to it at all ever again. Well, it is was so good and so likely to work, then why it is still a secrete? And what are they going to do without treading on your liberty to talk to suspected terrorist over seas?
Seriously. Purpose something that will work instead of these liberty thrashing bullshit plans we are using now for the safety of the country? And exactly what are these liberties you are losing that you are so worried about? I'm starting to think none of them have touched you but for some reason you think they have. Oh, I have some ideas, and so do a lot of others, and some have been proposed publicly, yet you are unaware of them? Let me ask you this, why on earth does the president need a way to spy on us *without a warrant*? Let me repeat, it's the one question that everyone who defends GWB never answers, *why do you need to do it without a warrant?* As I said, you are deluded if you think Bush's need to spy without a warrant on Americans *is the only way* to solve the problem.
And what liberties are we losing? How about our *right to privacy*. How about our right to live our lives without fear of the government oppressing us, or defending ourselves when we are accused by the government? How about our first amendment rights to protest? Do you really need me to post links? You must not read slashdot regularly if you haven't seen these issues presented, you must have been living under a rock to have missed it. Don't get me wrong, you can go back to any administration and find some example where they try to take the rights of the people away, but I doubt you can argue that *any* administration has done more to trample our rights than the GWB administration. Why do you so vehemently defend this administration? Why can't you step back and see the truth?
The comment you were initialy replying to said something about how clinton got away with it, so he set the stage for everyone else to do the same. It is about someone else doing it first. the details might not be the same, but the actions are. And this is the point, mistaking facts to prove a point doesn't change that at all. Oh, really? President Clinton is to blame for what the GWB administration is doing? Yes, it's Clinton's fault because he committed perjury *and was impeached for it* that GWB has decided that it's ok to spy on the American people without warrents, go to war on dubious grounds, give huge contracts to companies in spite of apparent conflicts of interest... the list goes on and on. Seriously, give me a break. In your line of reasoning, *I* might deduce that Clinton's perjury is because Reagan got away with Iran Contra. Right?
Two things. If you have never been this pissed at politics, you are too young. Stick around, it will get worse for you. Especially when you have some confucked idea of what the government should be doing and it turns out not to match reality very well. Pissed off isn't the right term. Completely lacking confidence that the current administration is competent and isn't completely running us down a path that can't be undone is more like it. To date, I haven't felt that another administration has had less competence to ensure my security and preserve my rights as an American. Not Clinton, not George Bush Sr, not Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter. Period.
The second, Sure, terrorist will get through. It is a matter of how many and to what degree. Do you want 20 or two getting through? Do you want an event that will kill 10,000 or 10 people. It is all a matter of scale. No, it's not about scale. It's about finding a way to fight terrorists *without* giving up our liberties. Granted, it seems a novel idea, maybe even a little idealistic, but, then again, wasn't our form of government a bit idealistic back in 1800? Seriously, WTF. Quit with the knee-jerk reactions and try to *think* for once instead of just turning your freedom over for a *supposed* safety factor. I seriously don't want to live in your world. You are deluded if you think that because you gave up your right to privacy that the United States are safer for it. Deluded.
Ok, so I took a little liberty with history, but, seriously, who cares? Every time someone brings up the atrocities of the GWB administration someone always brings up Clinton's perjury. This really isn't a democrat vs. republican argument or what president did what. This is about the current administration lying and illegally spying on the people whom the administration is supposed to *serve*. Excuse me if I'm willing to forget a little perjury incident that happened nearly 10 years ago now. Oh, hey, I guess we could just keep digging back in history for some more dirt! How about Iran Contra? That was a good one! Or how about Watergate? The he said/she said gets old after awhile.
For me, the point is that up until this point in my life, though I am definitely more democrat than republican (actually, I prefer liberal and don't necessarily always vote democrat when there is a good, solid third-party candidate and I don't need to vote *against* some idiotic repub candidate), I have never been this upset by *any* president's actions. (Note, I was a bit young for Nixon). I don't always agree with the Republican agenda, but at least, until GWB and Cheney, I hadn't felt like the government has totally let me down. Certainly, it's not perfect, but right here and now I have no faith *whatsoever* in the current administration. They are incompetent, liars, crooks, they lack respect for the American people, and they are completely and utterly against the freedom that this country stands for. And I don't buy the argument "you must give up some freedoms to be safe from the terrorists." Terrorists are going to get through, no matter how tightly they clamp down on our freedoms.
Oh come on, you can't be serious. The fact is that his office does fall under the order and he's saying it doesn't. You want to play he said/she said and that isn't the point. The point is that he is *not* above the over-sight and he's trying to be. Give me some of what you're smoking, it's so good you're speaking in tongues.
Except that President Clinton lied about a privacy issue, something that he *never* should have been asked to testify about due to a witch-hunt Republican congress. You can talk all you want about the current witch-hunt congress led by Democrats, but at least this time there actually is a witch that needs hunting.
I'm sorry, but comparing perjury over a private issue that had no place being publicized in the first place is *nothing* compared to what the current administration has done. If you even *think* President Clinton was worse, you are deluded. I'll grant you, I wish President Clinton hadn't lied about it, but only because of insipid arguments by people like you who keep bringing it up to defend the felons in the current administration.
There are still some reasons for choosing SVN over monotone though, the major one for me is partial checkout
The monotone team are planning on addressing this. I'd have agreed with you when I first started looking into monotone, but, since I started using it, it's become less important to me. However, I do know that some people on my team would really find this feature important.
It doesn't act as a server, it truly is a distributed RCS. Yes, you probably want a central repository where you do integration and builds, but that's a CMS issue, not an RCS issue.
As for being able to pull over HTTP, that isn't in, but I think it's been discussed. Honestly, though, I don't find the need to pull over HTTP that important, but, of course, your needs vary. I'm just tired of being tied to a central repository in order to do commits. I work disconnected a lot and monotone fits the bill. Not to mention we have distributed developers who complain all the time of the need to connect to a central repository to do simple commits.
You should really have a look at monotone. Better quality code and features you'd probably only *dream* about. They're a bit slow on getting to that 1.0, but it's a very solid RCS right now. I'm piloting it where I work for a project, hopefully I can convince my team to adopt it. The only shortcoming I'm running into right now is the toolset that we've built/found based on CVS (Bonsai, Codestriker, and some others). I just can't match those yet.
Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.
Why, yes, I do buy organic when I can. And, as for my car, I do drive a car, but I live about 3 miles from work and, quite honestly, don't drive that often. I am going to be changing my habits, though, and riding my bike more. See, I don't mind making lifestyle changes to support our environment. How about you?
You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever.
You are the one being naive. If we thought there was any chance of lessening our impact on global warming, even if in the end there was nothing to do about it anyway, why wouldn't we do it? This is a question that I *never* see the skeptics answer.
So we should just all sit on the fence because we can't definitively agree that we are the primary cause of global warming. I honestly couldn't care less if we're the primary cause or not, if we can do *anything* to help, I'm all for it.
Meanwhile, while we all sit on the fence, our world is dying around us.
If you read the whole article and contemplate it as a whole, you will find that it says our emissions (e.g. what we put into the air via cars and other "emissions") are indeed lower than natural emissions, but that humans are also responsible for increasing natural emissions by, e.g., deforestation and other means.
It's not that hard to comprehend the article if you're not slanted to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program.
I'm sorry, I've played a lot of MMO's over the years and I am sick to death of mindless grinding. Bring on the innovation, make games fun again. For those that love grinding, you can play the games that are out there.
Let me also just say this. Whatever Blizzard developer came up with mote grinding ought to be taken out back and tarred and feathered. Yeah I do it, but I really think there has to be a better way than just throwing up your hands and saying "I give up, let's just add another grind."
I have to ask this to make sure we all completely understand, but so what if MS distributes a Linux distro under the GPL? I mean, what do they care? The argument has gone on so long that I'm forgetting why it's so funny that MS has done this. Is this all related to MS claiming the GPL isn't valid? Or is there something else going on? I think it would be good for someone to put this back in perspective again, I mean, I know it's funny that MS might be caught redistributing GPL software, but there's more to it than just that.
IIRC, their whole raison d'etre is because they don't like the limitations of the GPL with respect to commercial software.
Seriously. Purpose something that will work instead of these liberty thrashing bullshit plans we are using now for the safety of the country? And exactly what are these liberties you are losing that you are so worried about? I'm starting to think none of them have touched you but for some reason you think they have. Oh, I have some ideas, and so do a lot of others, and some have been proposed publicly, yet you are unaware of them? Let me ask you this, why on earth does the president need a way to spy on us *without a warrant*? Let me repeat, it's the one question that everyone who defends GWB never answers, *why do you need to do it without a warrant?* As I said, you are deluded if you think Bush's need to spy without a warrant on Americans *is the only way* to solve the problem.
And what liberties are we losing? How about our *right to privacy*. How about our right to live our lives without fear of the government oppressing us, or defending ourselves when we are accused by the government? How about our first amendment rights to protest? Do you really need me to post links? You must not read slashdot regularly if you haven't seen these issues presented, you must have been living under a rock to have missed it. Don't get me wrong, you can go back to any administration and find some example where they try to take the rights of the people away, but I doubt you can argue that *any* administration has done more to trample our rights than the GWB administration. Why do you so vehemently defend this administration? Why can't you step back and see the truth?
Ok, so I took a little liberty with history, but, seriously, who cares? Every time someone brings up the atrocities of the GWB administration someone always brings up Clinton's perjury. This really isn't a democrat vs. republican argument or what president did what. This is about the current administration lying and illegally spying on the people whom the administration is supposed to *serve*. Excuse me if I'm willing to forget a little perjury incident that happened nearly 10 years ago now. Oh, hey, I guess we could just keep digging back in history for some more dirt! How about Iran Contra? That was a good one! Or how about Watergate? The he said/she said gets old after awhile.
For me, the point is that up until this point in my life, though I am definitely more democrat than republican (actually, I prefer liberal and don't necessarily always vote democrat when there is a good, solid third-party candidate and I don't need to vote *against* some idiotic repub candidate), I have never been this upset by *any* president's actions. (Note, I was a bit young for Nixon). I don't always agree with the Republican agenda, but at least, until GWB and Cheney, I hadn't felt like the government has totally let me down. Certainly, it's not perfect, but right here and now I have no faith *whatsoever* in the current administration. They are incompetent, liars, crooks, they lack respect for the American people, and they are completely and utterly against the freedom that this country stands for. And I don't buy the argument "you must give up some freedoms to be safe from the terrorists." Terrorists are going to get through, no matter how tightly they clamp down on our freedoms.
Oh come on, you can't be serious. The fact is that his office does fall under the order and he's saying it doesn't. You want to play he said/she said and that isn't the point. The point is that he is *not* above the over-sight and he's trying to be. Give me some of what you're smoking, it's so good you're speaking in tongues.
Except that President Clinton lied about a privacy issue, something that he *never* should have been asked to testify about due to a witch-hunt Republican congress. You can talk all you want about the current witch-hunt congress led by Democrats, but at least this time there actually is a witch that needs hunting.
I'm sorry, but comparing perjury over a private issue that had no place being publicized in the first place is *nothing* compared to what the current administration has done. If you even *think* President Clinton was worse, you are deluded. I'll grant you, I wish President Clinton hadn't lied about it, but only because of insipid arguments by people like you who keep bringing it up to defend the felons in the current administration.
Your link is bad, you meant this http://www.ogre3d.org/
Sorry, but you're too late Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
There are still some reasons for choosing SVN over monotone though, the major one for me is partial checkout
The monotone team are planning on addressing this. I'd have agreed with you when I first started looking into monotone, but, since I started using it, it's become less important to me. However, I do know that some people on my team would really find this feature important.
It doesn't act as a server, it truly is a distributed RCS. Yes, you probably want a central repository where you do integration and builds, but that's a CMS issue, not an RCS issue.
As for being able to pull over HTTP, that isn't in, but I think it's been discussed. Honestly, though, I don't find the need to pull over HTTP that important, but, of course, your needs vary. I'm just tired of being tied to a central repository in order to do commits. I work disconnected a lot and monotone fits the bill. Not to mention we have distributed developers who complain all the time of the need to connect to a central repository to do simple commits.
You should really have a look at monotone. Better quality code and features you'd probably only *dream* about. They're a bit slow on getting to that 1.0, but it's a very solid RCS right now. I'm piloting it where I work for a project, hopefully I can convince my team to adopt it. The only shortcoming I'm running into right now is the toolset that we've built/found based on CVS (Bonsai, Codestriker, and some others). I just can't match those yet.
Where nobody R's the TFA but instead spends their time making fun of the summary.
Ok, let's spend some time making fun of your post then. The 'the' in 'the TFA' is redundant, the the fine article?
:-P
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.
Why, yes, I do buy organic when I can. And, as for my car, I do drive a car, but I live about 3 miles from work and, quite honestly, don't drive that often. I am going to be changing my habits, though, and riding my bike more. See, I don't mind making lifestyle changes to support our environment. How about you?
You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever.
You are the one being naive. If we thought there was any chance of lessening our impact on global warming, even if in the end there was nothing to do about it anyway, why wouldn't we do it? This is a question that I *never* see the skeptics answer.
Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".
Care to quote a source?
So we should just all sit on the fence because we can't definitively agree that we are the primary cause of global warming. I honestly couldn't care less if we're the primary cause or not, if we can do *anything* to help, I'm all for it.
Meanwhile, while we all sit on the fence, our world is dying around us.
If you read the whole article and contemplate it as a whole, you will find that it says our emissions (e.g. what we put into the air via cars and other "emissions") are indeed lower than natural emissions, but that humans are also responsible for increasing natural emissions by, e.g., deforestation and other means.
It's not that hard to comprehend the article if you're not slanted to begin with.
I always thought it was mano y mano, but maybe I'm wrong.