The fact is, Bush made a tactical error focusing on WMDs as a justification for the war.
Holy shit. A "tactical error"? And by that, I assume you mean he lied through his fucking teeth?
Look, Bush decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. He did so when a far more pressing issue, the collapse of the Afghani state, required the full and complete attention of the US. But no, he opted for the wrong fucking war at the wrong fucking time. And then he proceeded to lie about his motivations, and then lie some more to support those aforementioned lies.
Did Iraq eventually need to be dealt with in some way? Absolutely. They're very important strategically. But I'm not, and will never be, convinced that a full-blown military intervention was necessary, and it certainly wasn't wise. And don't get me started on the clusterfuck that was the management of the post-war situation. Yeah. Mission fucking Accomplished.
By the way, would you consider mustard gas or sarin to be WMDs?
You mean those expired weapons canisters that were basically harmless? Ooooh, so scary. Seriously, keep grasping at straws, it's pretty funny watching a man drown in his own rhetorical bullshit.
Just tell me this one thing: Do you believe the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein dead, or alive and in power?
That's an idiotic question. Of course an Iraq that's toadying to US interests is generally a good thing.
BUT:
Is the world a better place after the US destabilized Afghanistan, then left it to rot while the rest of the world tried to clean up the shitpile left behind while the US decided to run away and fight an unrelated war elsewhere? No.
Is the world a better place now that, with Afghanistan fucked up, Pakistan is having serious problems with domestic terrorism, problems that are threatening to destabilize *that* nation, which *is* packing nukes? Hell no.
Is the world a better place now that the US's presence (not to mention more asshole warhawk rhetoric from the right) in Iraq has aggravated the situation with Iran, which is well on it's way to packing nukes? Also, *no*.
The fact is, the US has left the middle east and asia worse off than when it got there. Yeah. Great move.
Oh, one last thing. Apparently, you believe that I, personally, am responsible for all the hyperbole and heated overstatement of the Right on this matter.
No, I hold you personally responsible for *your* hyperbole and heated overstatement. If you find that difficult to accept, well, tough shit.
It's a poor plot device when it's used as a quick solution to a tricky writing problem. But what if it's actually integral to the story itself? Are you telling me the story of Jesus was just simple deus ex machina? Or were the writers of the New Testament just lazy?
To me BSG lost any credibility it had with that pathetic ending. Writer 1: shit we need some way to finish this Writer 2 : F@@#$% if I know Writer 3: how about we just throw in religion and steal an ending from some old show no one remembers like the BBC hitchhikers series Writer 1 and 2: whatever we have been paid who gves a shit.
Dude, if you, for a single moment, believe that ending was made up on the spot, you weren't paying any fucking attention. The religious overtones were evident from day one, and the ending of the series was hardly a surprise. I mean, for fuck sake, Starbuck basically pulls a zombie Jesus! If you didn't see where the show was going at that point, you're too dumb to live.
Well whoop-de-fucking-do, good for you, you realized the world is complex. Did I claim otherwise? No. Did I claim that prosperity was the *only* metric when determining if outside interference into a sovereign nation is a good idea? No. *But*, prosperity is a very good proxy metric for relative national health. And relatively speaking, Afghanistan was, and continues to be, royally fucked, while Iraq was relatively harmless, both to it's own people, as well as to it's neighbours, despite what the right-wing hawkish loonies would have us believe.
And thus I stand by my original statement. The war in Afghanistan is just, and the US pulling out of that nation would do one thing and one thing only: it would demonstrate that the US doesn't actually give a shit about the countries it invades, and only prosecutes wars in nations that might be useful to it for economic or strategic reasons. In short, the precise opposite of the "peace and justice" line that you hawks like to bandy about. Meanwhile, Iraq was a fictional threat and the war was founded on smoke and mirrors. Period. And now disgusting hypocrites like yourself are wasting your time trying to post-justify what was, and continues to be, an unjustifiable occupation of a sovereign nation. The very fact that the excuses keep changing ("WMDs!", "Saddam == terrorists!", "Those poor kurds!") amply demonstrates that, deep down, you realize there was no good reason to go into Iraq... consequently, you need to make them up after the fact.
In short: Give it up. We can all see through your bullshit, even if you can't.
People need power at night (sorry solar) on calm days (sorry wind) away from flowing water (sorry hydro-) and hot spots (sorry geothermal).
If cost allows one day, sure, I'll likely pick up some solar panels but on a nationwide scale, nuclear is a bigger priority.
Well, the alternative is a smarter grid, where power from windy places, hot places, and sunny places can be transmitted to where it's needed, while high-efficiency storage technology (eg, gravitational kinetic storage, compressed air, flywheels, etc) can be used to even things out for baseload requirements.
That's not to say nuclear doesn't have a role to play. But let's not pretend it's the one and only answer to baseload.
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
Uhh, and if it was a call, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the calling?
And if it was a letter, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the mailing?
And if it was a smoke signal, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that made it?
Seriously, your objection applies to virtually *any* mode of communication. This situation isn't even remotely unique, and just like these other examples, law enforcement has to figure out what actually happened.
So, what... you prefer the US get involved in everyone's problems? No ones? Because, based on this line reasoning, it's impossible to judge whether a nation requires intervention or not, so AFAICT, those are the only two options.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed we should leave the insane dictator in place
Uhh, correct.
Prosperous, oppressed people can solve their own problems (see Iran's slowly changing politics for an example). Poor, oppressed people, OTOH, are largely defenseless as they're busy trying to, you know, survive. So, in the former case, unless the dictator is actually posing a real danger to his/her neighbours or general region, it's better to just stay the fuck out and let people sort out their own problems.
To clarify what this means, Win32 API function CreateFile
Actually, the real issue is that OpenFile does the exact same fucking thing. The result is that you can't replace things like existing DLLs on a live system because you can neither delete them nor overwrite them so long as an application has the DLL open (and that includes Windows itself).
Linux, OTOH, thanks to it's Unix underpinnings, will happily let you delete an open file... the inode just goes away once all references to it have been closed. Meanwhile, any new applications which open the file will see the new version (which is attached to a new inode).
Except its completely different as there is a deliberate intention here to take the product without payment
Which is, again, absolutely no different than walking away from your TV while an ad is playing or, god forbid, fast forwarding through the ads on a PVR.
I know it doesn't fit the left-wing world-view, but sometimes peace only comes by getting rid of those who fight against it.
Just FYI, this has absolutely nothing to do with "left" versus "right". This has to do with "right" versus "wrong". I'm what most Americans would consider *very* left-wing, yet I absolutely agree with you that the mission in Afghanistan is vital, not just to stabilize that country and free its people from a horrible regime, but to stabilize that entire region. It is the essence of a humanitarian military operation, and the idea that it's somehow wrong or immoral to be there is the height of ignorance.
Incidentally, I continue to believe that Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but there's a substantial difference: The Iraqi people were, by and large, fairly prosperous, and the nation itself reasonably peaceful, despite being run by an insane dictator. But Afghanistan is a nation of abject poverty, under the thumb of thugs and dictators, whose people were suffering under a brutal regime, and are now the victims of ongoing terrorist activity. The two situations couldn't be more different, and only an ideologue would claim that intervention in Afghanistan isn't the right thing to do.
What the... how is abandoning a country desperately in need of aid and peacekeepers a *good* idea? Is the situation in Afghanistan messy as hell? Yes, absolutely. Is working to stabilize the country and drive out the Taliban and Al Qaeda the right thing to do? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Or are you one of those folks that thinks that military intervention into, say, the Sudan or East Timor, is the wrong thing to do because it involves soldiers and guns?
Um when did I say I was addicted to console games?
When you said this:
To all of the DONT BUY SONY CUZ THEYRE TEH EVILZ can you recommend me which game console to buy? Oh and please don't say PC, I game hours a day on my PC but I also like having a console for the console only games. Please tell me which console is not made by an evil corporation and doesn't brick with firmware upgrades?
The implication is that, somehow, you simply have no choice but to buy a console, and thus you might as well just buy one from an evil corporation 'cuz they all suck.
Ny point is how can you feel a personal hatred towards one corporation, but turn a blind eye to the other?
Who's doing that? Last I checked, criticism has been levels at Microsoft and Nintendo right alongside Sony.
Of course, there's one major difference which, I think, earns Sony extra asshole points: Sony is making owners pay to have their consoles fixed, thus taking their dickishness to a whole new level.
but I DO question the sanity of people telling me the PS3 sucks because of a Rootkit on a MUSIC CD from X years ago.
I'm *pretty* sure people are saying *Sony* sucks because of the aforementioned rootkit, and not the PS3. You might want to work on that reading comprehension.
And before you claim said rootkit was years ago and is no longer relevant: the current speculation is that the PS3 brickage is a consequence of new DRM enforcement software they're adding to the PS3. So Sony is fucking with people's hardware in order to enforce a DRM scheme... that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
To all of the DONT BUY SONY CUZ THEYRE TEH EVILZ can you recommend me which game console to buy? Oh and please don't say PC, I game hours a day on my PC but I also like having a console for the console only games. Please tell me which console is not made by an evil corporation and doesn't brick with firmware upgrades? The ROCK SOLID 360? The Wii and it's recent hardware killing firmware too? Guess what, I'm going to buy the console that has the games I want. For me that's the PS3 and soon the Wii.
Wait... what? You're so desperately addicted to console games that the answer "none of the above" simply isn't palatable to you? Might I suggest that you have a problem for which you should seek psychiatric help?
Who has more ethics, the asshole gassing the Kurds or the asshole that bombs the asshole gassing the Kurds (regardless of the reason)?
Huh? There was no "asshole gassing the Kurds". There was an "asshole who gassed the Kurds over a decade previously".
I mean, you aren't seriously trying to imply that GWB's actions were an attempt to prevent/stop an attack that happened back in 1988, are you? Because I'm pretty sure that asshole didn't have time travel technology.
I think you draw the line when a language "requires" an IDE so bloated that it runs slow on a Core 2 Duo machine, and makes you want to code in Notepad instead, except you can't because the language is too convoluted.
1) Uh, since when did the nature of a language dictate how fast/slow an IDE implementation is? 2) Why, dear god, would a slow IDE be evidence that a language sucks? 3) What language are you using that is "too convoluted" to use outside of an IDE? Because I've used quite a few, and I've yet to come across *any* language that "requires" an IDE.
C# is actually less advanced than Python and Ruby because it does not have dynamic typing.
Just as an aside, by that argument, Haskell is "less advanced" than Python and Ruby... which is, of course, utterly absurd.
Type inference is a perfectly fine substitute for dynamic typing, and as a bonus, brings compile-time type checking along with it. And guess what? C# 3.0 includes type inference.
C# is a clone of Java.
Uhuh. C# beat Java to generics, type inference, type-safe function pointers, and lexical closures, to name just a few. Are C# and Java comparable? Absolutely. But only an idiot would claim that C# is a simple Java clone, particularly given Java has been trailing in terms of features since the day C# came out.
What part of "didn't have a leg to stand on" don't you get? You think they would have abstained from legal action if they had thought they had had a chance with it?
Funny. Precisely the same reasoning could be applied to MS, given they have not yet sued an OSS project for patent infringement.
IOW, if it was 20 years ago, you'd make the same objections: ONOES, AT&T might have PATENTS! But history has shown us that those fears were unfounded. The interesting question, to me, then, is, 20 years from now, will we be saying the same thing of Stallman, et al, with respect to MS and.NET? I'm betting the answer is 'yes', but I suppose only time will tell...
Here, I'll give you a hint: why does Microsoft promise not to hurt you?
Again, you're missing the fucking point. Which is hardly surprising since you're obviously a blind ideologue.
So, let me explain it to you in words you might grok: If Microsoft has patents on a technology, those patents apply *regardless of the implementation language*. They may describe the method using.NET/C# or some other MS technology, but the underlying patent is on an abstract method, *not* on a specific implementation of that method.
In short: If you fear MS's patents, your fears should apply to *any* OSS product, as any one of them may run afoul of Microsoft-owned patents, regardless of the language they happen to be implemented in.
Not really. You're just as likely to run afoul of a MS patent (even one relating to the.NET project) while working with Java or C.
That is comically wrong.
No, that's comically wrong.
Wow... it really *is* fun making absolutist statements without any backing for your claims!
Except, of course, I *can* back up mine: software patents don't cover a specific implementation. They cover an abstract method. As such, you can run afoul of a software patent in *any* language, be it C, Java, or <insert language here>.
There most definitely is a logical argument. In a word: patents.
1) A patent on a technology must be filed within a year of publication of that technology.
2) I have yet to come across one single, actual patent on the.NET codebase. Not a single fucking one. This despite the fact that fearmongers like yourself have brought up this spectre time and time again without a single piece of evidence to back up your claims.
3) The Microsoft Community Promise prevents MS from enforcing patents on a specific set of the.NET libraries.
4) Mono is working to repackage their code so that those libraries not covered by the CP will be distributed separately.
In short, all you have is fear and innuendo. Meanwhile, the reality is that a) there is no evidence MS has actually filed a patent on technologies in the.NET stack, b) even if they have (something which is unproven), they've issued a legally binding statement outlining specific libraries where they will not pursue patent infringement, and c) Mono, in an effort to quiet fearmongering trolls such as yourself, is repackaging their system such that paranoid folks can install only those bits of Mono that are guaranteed safe, and can then use their free software stack to cover the remaining bases (ie, Gtk#, etc).
Now, if you can find evidence that MS actually has patents out on technology in.NET (patents which don't also cover technologies available in other free software packages), I'd love to see it. I've asked for this *many* times in the past, but no one has yet managed to answer the call. Maybe you'll succeed where they've failed. But I doubt it.
sudo reduces the possibility of disabling your system by mistyping a root command
No it doesn't. 'sudo rm -rf/' is just as destructive as 'rm -rf/'... the only difference is you had to annoyingly tack 'sudo' on the front, first. It's not like sudo magically makes people's fingers less prone to typos.
Another minor advantage is that the name of the user with sudo privileges is not known
Or you could just guess the root password. sudo doesn't make that any harder.
No, the real advantages to sudo are:
1) It allows you to selectively give root permissions to people (ie, you can grant root privileges for a single application), and
2) It can log all actions taken with sudo, so you have an audit trail.
Of course, neither of these things is terribly useful on a single-user system, nor are they advantages that dramatically increase the security of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because art, particularly satire and comedy, can't possibly reveal real-world truths...
The fact is, Bush made a tactical error focusing on WMDs as a justification for the war.
Holy shit. A "tactical error"? And by that, I assume you mean he lied through his fucking teeth?
Look, Bush decided to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. He did so when a far more pressing issue, the collapse of the Afghani state, required the full and complete attention of the US. But no, he opted for the wrong fucking war at the wrong fucking time. And then he proceeded to lie about his motivations, and then lie some more to support those aforementioned lies.
Did Iraq eventually need to be dealt with in some way? Absolutely. They're very important strategically. But I'm not, and will never be, convinced that a full-blown military intervention was necessary, and it certainly wasn't wise. And don't get me started on the clusterfuck that was the management of the post-war situation. Yeah. Mission fucking Accomplished.
By the way, would you consider mustard gas or sarin to be WMDs?
You mean those expired weapons canisters that were basically harmless? Ooooh, so scary. Seriously, keep grasping at straws, it's pretty funny watching a man drown in his own rhetorical bullshit.
Just tell me this one thing: Do you believe the world is a better place with Saddam Hussein dead, or alive and in power?
That's an idiotic question. Of course an Iraq that's toadying to US interests is generally a good thing.
BUT:
Is the world a better place after the US destabilized Afghanistan, then left it to rot while the rest of the world tried to clean up the shitpile left behind while the US decided to run away and fight an unrelated war elsewhere? No.
Is the world a better place now that, with Afghanistan fucked up, Pakistan is having serious problems with domestic terrorism, problems that are threatening to destabilize *that* nation, which *is* packing nukes? Hell no.
Is the world a better place now that the US's presence (not to mention more asshole warhawk rhetoric from the right) in Iraq has aggravated the situation with Iran, which is well on it's way to packing nukes? Also, *no*.
The fact is, the US has left the middle east and asia worse off than when it got there. Yeah. Great move.
Oh, one last thing. Apparently, you believe that I, personally, am responsible for all the hyperbole and heated overstatement of the Right on this matter.
No, I hold you personally responsible for *your* hyperbole and heated overstatement. If you find that difficult to accept, well, tough shit.
It's a poor plot device when it's used as a quick solution to a tricky writing problem. But what if it's actually integral to the story itself? Are you telling me the story of Jesus was just simple deus ex machina? Or were the writers of the New Testament just lazy?
Dude, if you, for a single moment, believe that ending was made up on the spot, you weren't paying any fucking attention. The religious overtones were evident from day one, and the ending of the series was hardly a surprise. I mean, for fuck sake, Starbuck basically pulls a zombie Jesus! If you didn't see where the show was going at that point, you're too dumb to live.
Well whoop-de-fucking-do, good for you, you realized the world is complex. Did I claim otherwise? No. Did I claim that prosperity was the *only* metric when determining if outside interference into a sovereign nation is a good idea? No. *But*, prosperity is a very good proxy metric for relative national health. And relatively speaking, Afghanistan was, and continues to be, royally fucked, while Iraq was relatively harmless, both to it's own people, as well as to it's neighbours, despite what the right-wing hawkish loonies would have us believe.
And thus I stand by my original statement. The war in Afghanistan is just, and the US pulling out of that nation would do one thing and one thing only: it would demonstrate that the US doesn't actually give a shit about the countries it invades, and only prosecutes wars in nations that might be useful to it for economic or strategic reasons. In short, the precise opposite of the "peace and justice" line that you hawks like to bandy about. Meanwhile, Iraq was a fictional threat and the war was founded on smoke and mirrors. Period. And now disgusting hypocrites like yourself are wasting your time trying to post-justify what was, and continues to be, an unjustifiable occupation of a sovereign nation. The very fact that the excuses keep changing ("WMDs!", "Saddam == terrorists!", "Those poor kurds!") amply demonstrates that, deep down, you realize there was no good reason to go into Iraq... consequently, you need to make them up after the fact.
In short: Give it up. We can all see through your bullshit, even if you can't.
People need power at night (sorry solar) on calm days (sorry wind) away from flowing water (sorry hydro-) and hot spots (sorry geothermal).
If cost allows one day, sure, I'll likely pick up some solar panels but on a nationwide scale, nuclear is a bigger priority.
Well, the alternative is a smarter grid, where power from windy places, hot places, and sunny places can be transmitted to where it's needed, while high-efficiency storage technology (eg, gravitational kinetic storage, compressed air, flywheels, etc) can be used to even things out for baseload requirements.
That's not to say nuclear doesn't have a role to play. But let's not pretend it's the one and only answer to baseload.
How can they be 100% sure it was the restrainee that did the poking?
(Yes, I'm serious.)
Uhh, and if it was a call, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the calling?
And if it was a letter, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that did the mailing?
And if it was a smoke signal, how can they be sure it was the restrainee that made it?
Seriously, your objection applies to virtually *any* mode of communication. This situation isn't even remotely unique, and just like these other examples, law enforcement has to figure out what actually happened.
Who gets to draw the line?
So, what... you prefer the US get involved in everyone's problems? No ones? Because, based on this line reasoning, it's impossible to judge whether a nation requires intervention or not, so AFAICT, those are the only two options.
So, it's okay to rescue poor oppressed people, but if they are prosperous and oppressed we should leave the insane dictator in place
Uhh, correct.
Prosperous, oppressed people can solve their own problems (see Iran's slowly changing politics for an example). Poor, oppressed people, OTOH, are largely defenseless as they're busy trying to, you know, survive. So, in the former case, unless the dictator is actually posing a real danger to his/her neighbours or general region, it's better to just stay the fuck out and let people sort out their own problems.
Honestly, how is this difficult to grasp?
CreateFile is used both to create new files, and open existing files (the name says "create" because it always creates a new file handle).
*boggle* Jebus. Thank god I never have to touch the lower-level Win32 APIs directly...
Given that, yeah, my post is obviously redundant. I'd always ran under the assumption that CreateFile really meant create a file... silly me. :)
To clarify what this means, Win32 API function CreateFile
Actually, the real issue is that OpenFile does the exact same fucking thing. The result is that you can't replace things like existing DLLs on a live system because you can neither delete them nor overwrite them so long as an application has the DLL open (and that includes Windows itself).
Linux, OTOH, thanks to it's Unix underpinnings, will happily let you delete an open file... the inode just goes away once all references to it have been closed. Meanwhile, any new applications which open the file will see the new version (which is attached to a new inode).
Except its completely different as there is a deliberate intention here to take the product without payment
Which is, again, absolutely no different than walking away from your TV while an ad is playing or, god forbid, fast forwarding through the ads on a PVR.
I know it doesn't fit the left-wing world-view, but sometimes peace only comes by getting rid of those who fight against it.
Just FYI, this has absolutely nothing to do with "left" versus "right". This has to do with "right" versus "wrong". I'm what most Americans would consider *very* left-wing, yet I absolutely agree with you that the mission in Afghanistan is vital, not just to stabilize that country and free its people from a horrible regime, but to stabilize that entire region. It is the essence of a humanitarian military operation, and the idea that it's somehow wrong or immoral to be there is the height of ignorance.
Incidentally, I continue to believe that Iraq was the wrong thing to do, but there's a substantial difference: The Iraqi people were, by and large, fairly prosperous, and the nation itself reasonably peaceful, despite being run by an insane dictator. But Afghanistan is a nation of abject poverty, under the thumb of thugs and dictators, whose people were suffering under a brutal regime, and are now the victims of ongoing terrorist activity. The two situations couldn't be more different, and only an ideologue would claim that intervention in Afghanistan isn't the right thing to do.
What the... how is abandoning a country desperately in need of aid and peacekeepers a *good* idea? Is the situation in Afghanistan messy as hell? Yes, absolutely. Is working to stabilize the country and drive out the Taliban and Al Qaeda the right thing to do? Abso-fucking-lutely.
Or are you one of those folks that thinks that military intervention into, say, the Sudan or East Timor, is the wrong thing to do because it involves soldiers and guns?
Um when did I say I was addicted to console games?
When you said this:
The implication is that, somehow, you simply have no choice but to buy a console, and thus you might as well just buy one from an evil corporation 'cuz they all suck.
Ny point is how can you feel a personal hatred towards one corporation, but turn a blind eye to the other?
Who's doing that? Last I checked, criticism has been levels at Microsoft and Nintendo right alongside Sony.
Of course, there's one major difference which, I think, earns Sony extra asshole points: Sony is making owners pay to have their consoles fixed, thus taking their dickishness to a whole new level.
but I DO question the sanity of people telling me the PS3 sucks because of a Rootkit on a MUSIC CD from X years ago.
I'm *pretty* sure people are saying *Sony* sucks because of the aforementioned rootkit, and not the PS3. You might want to work on that reading comprehension.
And before you claim said rootkit was years ago and is no longer relevant: the current speculation is that the PS3 brickage is a consequence of new DRM enforcement software they're adding to the PS3. So Sony is fucking with people's hardware in order to enforce a DRM scheme... that sounds familiar, doesn't it?
To all of the DONT BUY SONY CUZ THEYRE TEH EVILZ can you recommend me which game console to buy? Oh and please don't say PC, I game hours a day on my PC but I also like having a console for the console only games. Please tell me which console is not made by an evil corporation and doesn't brick with firmware upgrades? The ROCK SOLID 360? The Wii and it's recent hardware killing firmware too? Guess what, I'm going to buy the console that has the games I want. For me that's the PS3 and soon the Wii.
Wait... what? You're so desperately addicted to console games that the answer "none of the above" simply isn't palatable to you? Might I suggest that you have a problem for which you should seek psychiatric help?
Who has more ethics, the asshole gassing the Kurds or the asshole that bombs the asshole gassing the Kurds (regardless of the reason)?
Huh? There was no "asshole gassing the Kurds". There was an "asshole who gassed the Kurds over a decade previously".
I mean, you aren't seriously trying to imply that GWB's actions were an attempt to prevent/stop an attack that happened back in 1988, are you? Because I'm pretty sure that asshole didn't have time travel technology.
1) Uh, since when did the nature of a language dictate how fast/slow an IDE implementation is?
2) Why, dear god, would a slow IDE be evidence that a language sucks?
3) What language are you using that is "too convoluted" to use outside of an IDE? Because I've used quite a few, and I've yet to come across *any* language that "requires" an IDE.
C# is actually less advanced than Python and Ruby because it does not have dynamic typing.
Just as an aside, by that argument, Haskell is "less advanced" than Python and Ruby... which is, of course, utterly absurd.
Type inference is a perfectly fine substitute for dynamic typing, and as a bonus, brings compile-time type checking along with it. And guess what? C# 3.0 includes type inference.
C# is a clone of Java.
Uhuh. C# beat Java to generics, type inference, type-safe function pointers, and lexical closures, to name just a few. Are C# and Java comparable? Absolutely. But only an idiot would claim that C# is a simple Java clone, particularly given Java has been trailing in terms of features since the day C# came out.
What part of "didn't have a leg to stand on" don't you get? You think they would have abstained from legal action if they had thought they had had a chance with it?
Funny. Precisely the same reasoning could be applied to MS, given they have not yet sued an OSS project for patent infringement.
IOW, if it was 20 years ago, you'd make the same objections: ONOES, AT&T might have PATENTS! But history has shown us that those fears were unfounded. The interesting question, to me, then, is, 20 years from now, will we be saying the same thing of Stallman, et al, with respect to MS and .NET? I'm betting the answer is 'yes', but I suppose only time will tell...
Here, I'll give you a hint: why does Microsoft promise not to hurt you?
Again, you're missing the fucking point. Which is hardly surprising since you're obviously a blind ideologue.
So, let me explain it to you in words you might grok: If Microsoft has patents on a technology, those patents apply *regardless of the implementation language*. They may describe the method using .NET/C# or some other MS technology, but the underlying patent is on an abstract method, *not* on a specific implementation of that method.
In short: If you fear MS's patents, your fears should apply to *any* OSS product, as any one of them may run afoul of Microsoft-owned patents, regardless of the language they happen to be implemented in.
No, that's comically wrong.
Wow... it really *is* fun making absolutist statements without any backing for your claims!
Except, of course, I *can* back up mine: software patents don't cover a specific implementation. They cover an abstract method. As such, you can run afoul of a software patent in *any* language, be it C, Java, or <insert language here>.
There most definitely is a logical argument. In a word: patents.
1) A patent on a technology must be filed within a year of publication of that technology.
2) I have yet to come across one single, actual patent on the .NET codebase. Not a single fucking one. This despite the fact that fearmongers like yourself have brought up this spectre time and time again without a single piece of evidence to back up your claims.
3) The Microsoft Community Promise prevents MS from enforcing patents on a specific set of the .NET libraries.
4) Mono is working to repackage their code so that those libraries not covered by the CP will be distributed separately.
In short, all you have is fear and innuendo. Meanwhile, the reality is that a) there is no evidence MS has actually filed a patent on technologies in the .NET stack, b) even if they have (something which is unproven), they've issued a legally binding statement outlining specific libraries where they will not pursue patent infringement, and c) Mono, in an effort to quiet fearmongering trolls such as yourself, is repackaging their system such that paranoid folks can install only those bits of Mono that are guaranteed safe, and can then use their free software stack to cover the remaining bases (ie, Gtk#, etc).
Now, if you can find evidence that MS actually has patents out on technology in .NET (patents which don't also cover technologies available in other free software packages), I'd love to see it. I've asked for this *many* times in the past, but no one has yet managed to answer the call. Maybe you'll succeed where they've failed. But I doubt it.
It's okay... masochism is becoming more and more accepted these days. As such, there's no need to be ashamed of your choice of lifestyle. ;)
sudo reduces the possibility of disabling your system by mistyping a root command
No it doesn't. 'sudo rm -rf /' is just as destructive as 'rm -rf /'... the only difference is you had to annoyingly tack 'sudo' on the front, first. It's not like sudo magically makes people's fingers less prone to typos.
Another minor advantage is that the name of the user with sudo privileges is not known
Or you could just guess the root password. sudo doesn't make that any harder.
No, the real advantages to sudo are:
1) It allows you to selectively give root permissions to people (ie, you can grant root privileges for a single application), and
2) It can log all actions taken with sudo, so you have an audit trail.
Of course, neither of these things is terribly useful on a single-user system, nor are they advantages that dramatically increase the security of the system.