Legality is the cloak of tyranny. It always becomes legal, that which tyrants need to rule. And before some leftwing nut quotes this, I'll do it for you.“They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” -Says the man trying to remove the restraints against tyranny.
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
When "Insure" becomes "divide into groups and give government benefits based on group membership", we are doomed. When "Promote" becomes "Provide" (see ObamaCare) we are doomed. When "provide" becomes "promote... sort of", we are doomed. When "Secure the Blessings" becomes a rant against Liberty (Somalia is Libertarian's dream), we are doomed. We, and our posterity.
No, it is improper planning in the design phase of the car. If Engineers were required to have upgradable components and build a design around modular secondary systems, they could solve these problems quickly. However, modular designs using industry standards is an anathema to dealerships who want and need proprietary components that only they can fix, and charge $150 hour for, while paying their workers $20/hr.
Tesla is right, why do we need expensive dealerships to sell cars? Why do we even allow protectionist laws on the books? I'm sure they had a great reason to require dealerships 80 years ago. All laws need sunset clauses. And new laws should require compelling evidence that the laws are doing what their purposes were.
GNU is not a desktop. It is the shell (cmd line) tools that access the kernel space. From Wikipedia "The system's basic components include the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU C library (glibc), and GNU Core Utilities (coreutils), but also the GNU Debugger (GDB), GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), the bash shell and the GNOME desktop environment."
Since one does not have to go into GNOME on Linux systems, GNU is everything underneath. Which goes back to where the user lives. If Android is just a Google Product, is it Linux or not? Is it GNU? Or is it, Linux/Android the same way that RMS wants it called GNU/Linux (which should be Linux/Gnu).
My guess, is that it has to do with the water cycle... as a metaphor for something much more subtle and will be quite profound.
Sand Castles and trying to build the indestructible version, the inevitable destruction by the sea leading to the discovery of the Water Cycle, to the hidden code in the Hash tags file names to.... whatever else....
I think the greatest commentary on Utopia is the movie, The Village by M. Night Shyamalan. Utopia fails because it ignores the worst part of being Human, bad things happen.
Agreed. Spend your few remaining days making sure you know the competition, even if you don't think they are competition. You have to explain why their packages are really what you're "selling".
Something like "While X product is a good product and does this one small bit similarly to our Product (not algorithm), ours clearly differentiates itself."
Then list the ways. Keep the list to the top 3 to 5 ways, and add on "among other ways". Keep new ways you haven't thought of open ended. I call this the GEICO "Up to 15% or more" marketing.
The ribbon sucks. Having to hunt for things that change depending on "context" sucks. The program is guessing what I need, and getting it mostly wrong. It sucks. It doesn't make any sense to me because when I expect one thing, I see another. And talk abouit UI clutter, much of the ribbon space is useless and doesn't enhance productivity at all. At least, not for me.
I never expected my English Teacher to know Calculus, but I did expect them to know how to do fractions, you know, basic 4th Grade math material. Trust me, I know plenty of teachers who can't do rudimentary math.
Linux doesn't oscillate except by people who are looking for one thing only, Distribution. More specifically, Distribution running either Gnome or KDE (or other "desktop"). Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is.....
I would also suggest that "Linux on the Desktop", the person at the console uses very little GNU... at least directly. Calling it GNU/Linux is just as much a disservice.
How about calling it Linux/GNU/Xorg/GNOME/Chrome, or Linux/Android/Chrome since much of what I do is on the web?
Well, a Math teacher should be proficient enough to know History, Biology etc. Same with English teacher knowing basic math skills. The problem is, too many teachers only know their one subject, and cannot function outside of that one area. These teachers suck.
As a computer professional in a school district, I am expected to know a little about most things, but we have no expectation of teachers. A grade school teacher teaching 3rd grade, only needs to know how to teach 3rd grade material, they don't even have an expectation of anything else. Meaning they don't have to know any math beyond 3rd grade. And trust me, many of them don't. However, JR and SR high school teachers are more specialized. High School English teacher may not be functionally proficient in Math, but imagine the uproar if a Math teacher was not functionally proficient in English.
I don't know what disturbs me more, but your saying the "war on drugs" is "racist" is telling me that drugs usage has a racial component, and that people of that race have a predisposition to using said drugs, based upon their race. YES, that is what you're saying when you call it a racist policy. You are saying all other things equal, black (hispanic) people do and sell drugs more often than whites (or other races). Granted, some of the laws are stupid (Crack vs powder cocaine), but that is secondary, because if you don't agree that it is secondary, you're saying blacks (hispanics etc) are predisposed to using one for over another.
All of this is to say, using drugs in not racial at all. So calling it racial is itself racist by implication. Defining things by race is racist in and of itself.
You are close. The (D) and (R) parties are working in cahoots to increase tyranny upon the people. They pit group against group, color against color, sex against sex etc. They present you with a false dichotomy of choice and work together to the enslavement of the people.
Obama isn't worse than Bush, he isn't better either, he is the same, pushing the same agenda. All you have to do is watch what he does, and pay no attention to what he says. This makes it worse than GWB, because the Press/Media is largely in his pocket with a tingling down their legs.
There are a few (D) and (R) types that are starting to see through the charade being played and are ridiculed for going off the reservation. I just wish people would wake up, but I am afraid it is too late.
can you prove to me that you can fix bad rules every time? If a rule is bad, we should re-evaluate the whole concept, from the beginning. Making drugs illegal, did it help or hurt? I'll suggest to you it didn't help and has hurt more. But tweaking drug laws isn't going to fix the problem with bad drug laws.
The problem is, rules don't protect us from bad behavior. Rules unenforced are even worse, because they make it appear that people care (pass law) when they have no intention of ever enforcing them. And from worse to awful, many rules have the complete opposite effect of their intentions, for example, the whole entire "war on drugs" thing. Once upon a time, all those drugs were legal, and addiction was rare. Now they are illegal, addiction is common and the underground economy and armies have taken over. Exactly opposite of what was intended. Make drugs legal, there will still be addiction, but you remove the taboo incitement, and the war against the populace.
No, the Umpire is a necessary evil, just like police, army etc. Umpires are supposed to keep the game fair by ensuring all play by the exact same rules. As it is now, we've excused certain players of certain rules, and paid off the umpires to fix the game. Nobody plays by the same rules, there is no penalty for violating the rules, so people don't play fair.
Libertarians want fair equal application of all rules. For example, this would require congress to play by the same rules they foist upon everyone else.
I am a libertarian and I don't support the military, industrial, media complex. I support proper accountability for corporations by holding their senior officers and corporate boards personally liable for corporate sponsored crimes. Additionally, I support being able to pull ill gotten gains from private trusts as well. Change the laws so that those running these non-person entities are held responsible for corporate sponsored crimes, and you'll see a change in corporate culture. You don't have to destroy corporations to keep them accountable, you just have to change who is accountable for when corporations do illegal acts. Right now, nobody is accountable.
But that doesn't fit the Leftwing view that anything different from their limited view is 100% wrong, therefore deserves to be mocked and exaggerated.
I've started parroting their techniques back at them. They make exaggerated claims about things they don't understand, I make exaggerated claims about what they believe. "All Liberals believe government should tell people how much they should make, and should pick the winners and losers through the body politic. And government should punish the successful and reward failue. Fair share is 'code' for punish the rich."
You can see hints of this in the GP post "The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours." Punish the wealthy, because they stole it all from the poor. If they only realized how ridiculous their view actually comes across. They make Sarah Palin look like a genius. (another technique, equate them with being more stupid than those they mock)
Slashdot Mirror
"Is it legal"
"I will make it legal"
Legality is the cloak of tyranny. It always becomes legal, that which tyrants need to rule. And before some leftwing nut quotes this, I'll do it for you.“They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.” -Says the man trying to remove the restraints against tyranny.
Oh goodie, all sorts of /. good times coming to Google Glass! Goat.cx, Two Girls and a Cup, Tub Girl, GNAA troll.
perhaps you could give us a list?
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
When "Insure" becomes "divide into groups and give government benefits based on group membership", we are doomed. When "Promote" becomes "Provide" (see ObamaCare) we are doomed. When "provide" becomes "promote ... sort of", we are doomed. When "Secure the Blessings" becomes a rant against Liberty (Somalia is Libertarian's dream), we are doomed. We, and our posterity.
Succinct enough?
Resident Evil reference ... what could possibly go wrong ...
No, it is improper planning in the design phase of the car. If Engineers were required to have upgradable components and build a design around modular secondary systems, they could solve these problems quickly. However, modular designs using industry standards is an anathema to dealerships who want and need proprietary components that only they can fix, and charge $150 hour for, while paying their workers $20/hr.
Tesla is right, why do we need expensive dealerships to sell cars? Why do we even allow protectionist laws on the books? I'm sure they had a great reason to require dealerships 80 years ago. All laws need sunset clauses. And new laws should require compelling evidence that the laws are doing what their purposes were.
GNU is not a desktop. It is the shell (cmd line) tools that access the kernel space. From Wikipedia "The system's basic components include the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU C library (glibc), and GNU Core Utilities (coreutils), but also the GNU Debugger (GDB), GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), the bash shell and the GNOME desktop environment."
Since one does not have to go into GNOME on Linux systems, GNU is everything underneath. Which goes back to where the user lives. If Android is just a Google Product, is it Linux or not? Is it GNU? Or is it, Linux/Android the same way that RMS wants it called GNU/Linux (which should be Linux/Gnu).
Dang, already commented. Otherwise I'd mod this up infinity. Dang. Double Dang. You depressed me for the rest of the week. Sadly wondering.
hipster's hipster
Meta Hipster?
My guess, is that it has to do with the water cycle ... as a metaphor for something much more subtle and will be quite profound.
Sand Castles and trying to build the indestructible version, the inevitable destruction by the sea leading to the discovery of the Water Cycle, to the hidden code in the Hash tags file names to .... whatever else ....
Either that, or he is trolling all of us.
I think the greatest commentary on Utopia is the movie, The Village by M. Night Shyamalan. Utopia fails because it ignores the worst part of being Human, bad things happen.
Agreed. Spend your few remaining days making sure you know the competition, even if you don't think they are competition. You have to explain why their packages are really what you're "selling".
Something like "While X product is a good product and does this one small bit similarly to our Product (not algorithm), ours clearly differentiates itself."
Then list the ways. Keep the list to the top 3 to 5 ways, and add on "among other ways". Keep new ways you haven't thought of open ended. I call this the GEICO "Up to 15% or more" marketing.
The ribbon sucks. Having to hunt for things that change depending on "context" sucks. The program is guessing what I need, and getting it mostly wrong. It sucks. It doesn't make any sense to me because when I expect one thing, I see another. And talk abouit UI clutter, much of the ribbon space is useless and doesn't enhance productivity at all. At least, not for me.
So, do you buy your phone or rent it via 2 year contract? Just checking.
I never expected my English Teacher to know Calculus, but I did expect them to know how to do fractions, you know, basic 4th Grade math material. Trust me, I know plenty of teachers who can't do rudimentary math.
Linux doesn't oscillate except by people who are looking for one thing only, Distribution. More specifically, Distribution running either Gnome or KDE (or other "desktop"). Those that know, know Linux doesn't require a GUI at all. OR GNU for that matter. Knowing what one is talking about is key to context, one that I'm trying to get people to realize. Android is Linux, so is Red Hat, So is WebOS, so is .....
I would also suggest that "Linux on the Desktop", the person at the console uses very little GNU ... at least directly. Calling it GNU/Linux is just as much a disservice.
How about calling it Linux/GNU/Xorg/GNOME/Chrome, or Linux/Android/Chrome since much of what I do is on the web?
Andoid is Linux, and by looking around at all the people using Android phones, I would say that these are "personal computers, running linux".
We've had the "year of Linux" except it wasn't on the desktop. And that is why, most people missed it.
Well, a Math teacher should be proficient enough to know History, Biology etc. Same with English teacher knowing basic math skills. The problem is, too many teachers only know their one subject, and cannot function outside of that one area. These teachers suck.
As a computer professional in a school district, I am expected to know a little about most things, but we have no expectation of teachers. A grade school teacher teaching 3rd grade, only needs to know how to teach 3rd grade material, they don't even have an expectation of anything else. Meaning they don't have to know any math beyond 3rd grade. And trust me, many of them don't. However, JR and SR high school teachers are more specialized. High School English teacher may not be functionally proficient in Math, but imagine the uproar if a Math teacher was not functionally proficient in English.
Do you see the problem now?
I don't know what disturbs me more, but your saying the "war on drugs" is "racist" is telling me that drugs usage has a racial component, and that people of that race have a predisposition to using said drugs, based upon their race. YES, that is what you're saying when you call it a racist policy. You are saying all other things equal, black (hispanic) people do and sell drugs more often than whites (or other races). Granted, some of the laws are stupid (Crack vs powder cocaine), but that is secondary, because if you don't agree that it is secondary, you're saying blacks (hispanics etc) are predisposed to using one for over another.
All of this is to say, using drugs in not racial at all. So calling it racial is itself racist by implication. Defining things by race is racist in and of itself.
You are close. The (D) and (R) parties are working in cahoots to increase tyranny upon the people. They pit group against group, color against color, sex against sex etc. They present you with a false dichotomy of choice and work together to the enslavement of the people.
Obama isn't worse than Bush, he isn't better either, he is the same, pushing the same agenda. All you have to do is watch what he does, and pay no attention to what he says. This makes it worse than GWB, because the Press/Media is largely in his pocket with a tingling down their legs.
There are a few (D) and (R) types that are starting to see through the charade being played and are ridiculed for going off the reservation. I just wish people would wake up, but I am afraid it is too late.
can you prove to me that you can fix bad rules every time? If a rule is bad, we should re-evaluate the whole concept, from the beginning. Making drugs illegal, did it help or hurt? I'll suggest to you it didn't help and has hurt more. But tweaking drug laws isn't going to fix the problem with bad drug laws.
The problem is, rules don't protect us from bad behavior. Rules unenforced are even worse, because they make it appear that people care (pass law) when they have no intention of ever enforcing them. And from worse to awful, many rules have the complete opposite effect of their intentions, for example, the whole entire "war on drugs" thing. Once upon a time, all those drugs were legal, and addiction was rare. Now they are illegal, addiction is common and the underground economy and armies have taken over. Exactly opposite of what was intended. Make drugs legal, there will still be addiction, but you remove the taboo incitement, and the war against the populace.
No, the Umpire is a necessary evil, just like police, army etc. Umpires are supposed to keep the game fair by ensuring all play by the exact same rules. As it is now, we've excused certain players of certain rules, and paid off the umpires to fix the game. Nobody plays by the same rules, there is no penalty for violating the rules, so people don't play fair.
Libertarians want fair equal application of all rules. For example, this would require congress to play by the same rules they foist upon everyone else.
Wow, Soros Propaganda straight from Huffington Post. I've seen this posted on several sites already.
See how easy it is?
I am a libertarian and I don't support the military, industrial, media complex. I support proper accountability for corporations by holding their senior officers and corporate boards personally liable for corporate sponsored crimes. Additionally, I support being able to pull ill gotten gains from private trusts as well. Change the laws so that those running these non-person entities are held responsible for corporate sponsored crimes, and you'll see a change in corporate culture. You don't have to destroy corporations to keep them accountable, you just have to change who is accountable for when corporations do illegal acts. Right now, nobody is accountable.
But that doesn't fit the Leftwing view that anything different from their limited view is 100% wrong, therefore deserves to be mocked and exaggerated.
I've started parroting their techniques back at them. They make exaggerated claims about things they don't understand, I make exaggerated claims about what they believe. "All Liberals believe government should tell people how much they should make, and should pick the winners and losers through the body politic. And government should punish the successful and reward failue. Fair share is 'code' for punish the rich."
You can see hints of this in the GP post "The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours." Punish the wealthy, because they stole it all from the poor. If they only realized how ridiculous their view actually comes across. They make Sarah Palin look like a genius. (another technique, equate them with being more stupid than those they mock)