You are old. So am I... Because I thought the same thing... That Samzenpus is such a youngster, that it did not even occur to him to mention the other Creative Labs, was a surprise...
Stalin had been trying to get an alliance with Britain and France in 1939
Citations?
Britain and France started WWII by forcing Stalin into a position where he thought he had to make a treaty with Germany
He made it not because he was forced, but because he was planning an attack himself. USSR's entire military posture was offensive — materiel dumps, artillery, bombers were located on the edge of the borders. Which is why they were overtaken by Germans so quickly leaving USSR nearly naked in 1941, when Hitler outplayed his pal. Whether Hitler actually knew of Stalin's designs or not remains subject of debate among historians, but it is quite common knowledge, that Stalin was preparing an attack.
By the time Soviet troops entered Poland, the war was well and truly on (and Poland had lost).
That's not true. Polish troops were retreating to reorganize, when they were attacked from the other direction by the Red Army — to this day Poland refers to the events as "Stab in the Back".
Instead of killing the Poles, Stalin could have helped them — but he and Hitler were allies and thus both share culpability for starting the WW2.
Seriously? Your explanation for why something is difficult in real life is that it is difficult in some obscure game?
Does this logic work in the other direction? Would it be as easy to fly, reload weapons, encounter aliens, kill people, steal cars, etc. as some other games make it appear?
The solar cells are expensive and the nuclear devices are more even expensive.
Of course, they are — in absolute terms. But in relation to the rest of the mission, how much is the cost of hardware itself?
Sending 2-5 items into space isn't worth setting up the type of system which makes these thing trivial as well.
Well, lots of parts are reusable regardless of the mission's destination — the solar cells and the nuclear "batteries" in particular would be the same whether the flight is to Venus, or Mars, or Neptune, or even "simply" around the Earth, right?
Do you have any actual figures, or are you just speculating — as do I?
My understanding of the costs of a space-exploring mission are: design of the unique apparatus. However, the designs are intellectual property — duplication is trivial. So, why aren't we, the Earthlings, sending 2, 3, or 5 identical sibling-apparatuses on each mission?
Sure, the hardware itself is expensive too, but the space-faring nations are not poor. Moreover, the national prestige is "priceless" for a country like Japan, which sent its first interplanetary device out. Also, with multiple devices, each one can be made cheaper by being less reliable — following the philosophy exemplified by RAID.
So, if everything works, we'd have multiple identical devices crawling, orbiting, and photographing interesting space objects and phenomena — surely, the astronomers and other scientists would only be happier for it. And if some aspects of some of the units fail — no big deal...
Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?
It may be subjective, but I was asking your opinion. Please, state for the record, whether you consider cultures, where kai-kaiing people is acceptable (and even heroic) to be neither better nor worse than those, where eating people is considered an outrage?
And, should your answer be affirmative, why is it, that neither UNESCO nor any other prominent organization has yet organized a Cannibalism Month (or Week) — complete with recipe-exchanges and denunciations of the evil West appropriating the authentic practice while adopting "knee-jerk" laws against it? Is not ignoring such cultures — and their unique contributions to the wonderful tapestry of diversity — evidence of despicable bigotry and closed-mindedness? Should the Western colonizers not atone for extinguishing most of such rituals?
Given your already demonstrated tendency to puh-puh inconvenient questions, I regret to inform you, that a post not containing direct answer(s) to the above will be returned unopened.
Notably, the answer remains missing in your response...
only are prejudicial against religions, then you're really no better
Not true. Prejudice against in-born traits, such as skin color, is one thing — it is something a person can not change and it has no discernible effect on their intellect, fitness, or demeanor. Prejudice against things cultural — acquired from society — is completely different, for it is changeable and does affect their outlook.
It is common for the weaker minds to not see the difference, but you would notice, that UNESCO has never hosted a Cannibal Month, for example — the very idea is a jest.. Because some cultures really are better — and worse — than others.
Sure, he probably did. Only his culture was a disastrous dead-end, while the Western civilization lead — and continues to lead humanity to new heights.
Westerners moving to America weren't attracted by the Sitting Bull's civilization or wealth — only by the vast unsettled lands conveniently located far away from the rotten monarchies of Europe. That's the difference with today's migrants, who come in to this very rich and reasonably well-governed country, attracted by the wealth of it and the opportunities it provides.
And I don't blame them for wanting to — I am an immigrant myself. But I do blame (some of) them for wanting to change it — they don't have the right to that. Our children might be entitled to advocate changes, if they feel like it, but the first generation's duty — out of sheer appreciation — is to defend and protect the order, that saved them from misery.
Diversity is beautiful — I want my kids to know Ukrainian language and songs, for example — but I don't want them to give bribes, as remains common-place in Ukraine... Yet, if you move too many immigrants from the same place at once, government-corruption and other bad things are sure to come with them — haven't you learned anything from the decades-long fight with Italian Mafia, for example?
So, you still want to deport "narrow-minded bigots", which will disproportionately include Muslims. Congratulations, racist.
That last instance is especially wry, don't you think with you using that as an example to defend your particularly brand or prejudice?
My prejudice is not against an in-born trait, such as skin-color, but rather a religion. And religions are not all equal. I even explained to you, what is particularly wrong with Islam — it does not leave Cæsar's to Cæsar. And you better know, what this means...
a million Muslims came to this country across five years that it would change anything.
Other than several more terror-attacks, you mean? You can't deny that downside. What is the upside?
What did we gain by allowing the Tsarnaev family to move to Boston and thousands of other Muslim families like them? Sure, most of them did not raise their children into terrorists, but, still, what is the upside?
I love how you completely ignore the fact that something motivated these people
I "ignore", because I consider it irrelevant. Glad, you like it.
every single one of the people I named have nothing to do with the group you are so scared of
You listed a few names and then offered a list, which, according to you, provided more. It did not — too many "unknowns". So, other than purely anecdotal evidence, you offered nothing.
I contend, we — the Western world — are allowing in too many immigrants at once. Which leads to us becoming more like them, instead of them assimilating among us.
part of the group you self-identify with
You have no idea, how I identify myself. I guess, stereotyping is only wrong, when your opponents do it...
deport every narrow-minded bigot we can find
That will certainly disproportionally affect Muslims. Ever heard of a gay-pride parade in Gaza or Riyadh or Tehran or Cairo or Jakarta, for example? Me neither... Are you still sure, you want to do that?
some call get made for gun control and in the end it all gets brushed under the carpet
Because the number of people dying a violent death in the US is declining. Constitution-shredding anti-gun zealots try to "not let a good crisis go to waste", but the sentiment does not last long.
someone happens to shout some Islamic slogan, this becomes a matter of national security
Because this is a new motivation. One which, considering, what other Western countries are experiencing, could dramatically reverse the blissful trend. This terror-couple were living the life, millions of people world-wide can only dream about — American citizens with steady income, a nice house in a beautiful part of the country, blessed with a newborn daughter and supportive extended family.
If they can be radicalised into a murder-suicide mission by an organization as revolting as ISIS, who can not?
Here's a list of all the mass shootings in this country for this year, to date.
Your "list" contains too many "Unknowns" to be useful. But, considering, how relatively few Muslims there still are in this country, the percentage of mass shootings by them is alarming. And let's not forget the non-shooting attacks — such as the two World Trade Center bombings and the Boston Marathon tragedy.
But we can already extrapolate — by looking at what is happening in France, Belgium, Germany, and Scandinavian countries, where the rulers allowed too many Muslims in at once. Our First Amendment does not allow us to discriminate based on religion, but Islam is not compatible with it (nor the rest of the Constitution) — because it does not leave Cæsar's to Cæsar, and has very clear on how the entire world must live and what the faithful must do to achieve that...
By your standards, the United States must be the Great Satan given the amount of people we have killed during the wars we have been directly and indirectly involved in over the last century
No, that would be the USSR, with Hitler's Germany being the (distant) second.
Please get back to us when you have figured out which other generalized groups to deport.
That's easy — those, who are here illegally ought to be deported at once — terrorism or not, there are too many of them arriving too quickly to be absorbed. Instead of them adopting American culture, we become more like them — and, contrary to the popular meme, diversity is not strength. It is a luxury — a burden the society has to deal with in exchange for interesting restaurants and clothing designs.
There really isn't any point in arguing when our opinions on the type of society we would like to live in
The truths I stated are universal and hold true in any society: if you can't afford something, your options are limited to the two I enumerated. There is no other option, however the society is organized.
There is nothing especially "horrible" about it either. It is simply true.
The company's owner claimed that he shouldn't be held responsible because there was no law that the company had to prove that their drug wasn't harmful.
B.S. There should be no need to prove, it is not harmful — prosecutors merely needed to prove, he knew the stuff was poisonous.
And, even if they failed, the wrongful death civil suit should still have bankrupted his company.
But, yes, today "there is a law" — instead of suffering from bad medicines, people suffer from absence of good ones. Wait, did I say "instead"? Sorry, make that in addition to.
Instead of weighting this vs. that, how about we simply recall being a free country — and allow people to take whatever they wish to take? Non-government organizations — themselves competing with each other — can still institute various certification requirements, which pharma-companies would try to fulfill in order to increase their sales. But none of it will be mandatory and the market will become a little bit more free...
May we, please, remain spared of laws allowing things — everything, not explicitly prohibited is allowed, and that's how things ought to be.
Himmler and Hitler creaming all over themselves
Though Nazis really did Eugenics a great disservices, there is nothing obviously wrong with it.
"Rich" babies will all be 6' or taller kids with 130+ IQs and the "trendy" bits
Like the children of sports star-and-a-model unions? Or like the children of dedicated parents, spending time and money on sports- and math-classes for the children, their healthy eating and otherwise caring for them? Disgusting, is not it? Let's ban it all — to make sure, no child gets anything better than another... In fact, let's ban everything, that someone somewhere can not afford. In the name of equality, of course — even if the chosen few remain more equal than the rest.
Anyone below this threshold will be filthy poor people who can't afford the "therapy".
Why are you calling yourself — and the rest of us, currently living, "filthy"?!
We also have one of the worst health systems in the developed world if you don't have money though
People without means to pay for anything (including healthcare) must — wherever they live — either do without or rely on others for help. There is simply no alternative.
Different regimes make it harder/easier to compel strangers to help you — and Socialist regimes, being the least free, are exceptionally "good" at it, leading to the oft-repeated perception you just cited. But it is hardly a good thing...
The bottom lines (conclusions) are: it is better to be rich than poor. It is better to live in a wealthy nation, than in a poor one. Incidentally, Socialism quickly ruins one's chances of both.
Actually, in one of his books Heinlein offered a perfectly ethical, yet very useful approach: genes of the future parents are examined for various traits and the best possible combination is created for the embryo.
So, each kid born carries the gene-set he could have gotten naturally. But it is always the best possible combination.
And just what is "best" — is determined by the parents and the professional performing the procedure.
The sad state of affairs started under the previous CEO — or even before him. Although libxul is available separately and could be used shared by all Mozilla apps, each one of them bundles its own slightly different tree instead. As a result, the sources available for download are perpetually somewhat behind times — for example, at the time of this typing, firefox is at version 42, but libxul is only at 41.0.2 — because fixes go into an application's fork, instead of the main project.
It would seem to me, that a better manager would've pulled the people working on libxul from all of the application-specific teams — and made the apps use the single shared library. From pure technical perspective, this is, how things ought to be. I'm sure, there are administrative and personal problems, but that's exactly, what the CEO is supposed to control.
But, again, the CEO's sex is unlikely to be to blame — she may (or may not) be mediocre, but this problem is an inherited one.
I suspect thunderbird still uses XUL and other things...
You "suspect"? No kidding... Both programs (as well as some other, less known ones) are just thin layers on top of libxul.
For years I've been puzzled, why they would not separate libxul out — the way NSPR and NSS are separated out — and make the multiple apps use the shared library instead of the current practice of each app bundling a separate copy of it.
Worse, XUL, actually, isavailable separately, but all of Mozilla's apps bundle their own, subtly incompatible, subtrees of it.
At some point FreeBSD ports-team considered doing the right thing for FreeBSD-users, at least, but was afraid, Mozilla will prohibit the use of the name "firefox" as a result — as happened to Debian/Ubuntu.
Mozilla is running amok. While driven as a corporation, it does not have paying customers, so we, the users, get the worst of both worlds...
Slashdot Mirror
You are old. So am I... Because I thought the same thing... That Samzenpus is such a youngster, that it did not even occur to him to mention the other Creative Labs, was a surprise...
Citations?
He made it not because he was forced, but because he was planning an attack himself. USSR's entire military posture was offensive — materiel dumps, artillery, bombers were located on the edge of the borders. Which is why they were overtaken by Germans so quickly leaving USSR nearly naked in 1941, when Hitler outplayed his pal. Whether Hitler actually knew of Stalin's designs or not remains subject of debate among historians, but it is quite common knowledge, that Stalin was preparing an attack.
That's not true. Polish troops were retreating to reorganize, when they were attacked from the other direction by the Red Army — to this day Poland refers to the events as "Stab in the Back".
Instead of killing the Poles, Stalin could have helped them — but he and Hitler were allies and thus both share culpability for starting the WW2.
Seriously? Your explanation for why something is difficult in real life is that it is difficult in some obscure game?
Does this logic work in the other direction? Would it be as easy to fly, reload weapons, encounter aliens, kill people, steal cars, etc. as some other games make it appear?
You were asked about Cannibalism. As I feared, you are unable to answer inconvenient questions. Fail.
Of course, they are — in absolute terms. But in relation to the rest of the mission, how much is the cost of hardware itself?
Well, lots of parts are reusable regardless of the mission's destination — the solar cells and the nuclear "batteries" in particular would be the same whether the flight is to Venus, or Mars, or Neptune, or even "simply" around the Earth, right?
Do you have any actual figures, or are you just speculating — as do I?
I do, actually.
Sure. It is all about costs — and the justification is simple: increased reliability of the mission.
My understanding of the costs of a space-exploring mission are: design of the unique apparatus. However, the designs are intellectual property — duplication is trivial. So, why aren't we, the Earthlings, sending 2, 3, or 5 identical sibling-apparatuses on each mission?
Sure, the hardware itself is expensive too, but the space-faring nations are not poor. Moreover, the national prestige is "priceless" for a country like Japan, which sent its first interplanetary device out. Also, with multiple devices, each one can be made cheaper by being less reliable — following the philosophy exemplified by RAID.
So, if everything works, we'd have multiple identical devices crawling, orbiting, and photographing interesting space objects and phenomena — surely, the astronomers and other scientists would only be happier for it. And if some aspects of some of the units fail — no big deal...
Why have we not been doing it this way since the time of the Voyagers?
It may be subjective, but I was asking your opinion. Please, state for the record, whether you consider cultures, where kai-kaiing people is acceptable (and even heroic) to be neither better nor worse than those, where eating people is considered an outrage?
And, should your answer be affirmative, why is it, that neither UNESCO nor any other prominent organization has yet organized a Cannibalism Month (or Week) — complete with recipe-exchanges and denunciations of the evil West appropriating the authentic practice while adopting "knee-jerk" laws against it? Is not ignoring such cultures — and their unique contributions to the wonderful tapestry of diversity — evidence of despicable bigotry and closed-mindedness? Should the Western colonizers not atone for extinguishing most of such rituals?
Given your already demonstrated tendency to puh-puh inconvenient questions, I regret to inform you, that a post not containing direct answer(s) to the above will be returned unopened.
Notably, the answer remains missing in your response...
Not true. Prejudice against in-born traits, such as skin color, is one thing — it is something a person can not change and it has no discernible effect on their intellect, fitness, or demeanor. Prejudice against things cultural — acquired from society — is completely different, for it is changeable and does affect their outlook.
It is common for the weaker minds to not see the difference, but you would notice, that UNESCO has never hosted a Cannibal Month, for example — the very idea is a jest.. Because some cultures really are better — and worse — than others.
Sure, he probably did. Only his culture was a disastrous dead-end, while the Western civilization lead — and continues to lead humanity to new heights.
Westerners moving to America weren't attracted by the Sitting Bull's civilization or wealth — only by the vast unsettled lands conveniently located far away from the rotten monarchies of Europe. That's the difference with today's migrants, who come in to this very rich and reasonably well-governed country, attracted by the wealth of it and the opportunities it provides.
And I don't blame them for wanting to — I am an immigrant myself. But I do blame (some of) them for wanting to change it — they don't have the right to that. Our children might be entitled to advocate changes, if they feel like it, but the first generation's duty — out of sheer appreciation — is to defend and protect the order, that saved them from misery.
Diversity is beautiful — I want my kids to know Ukrainian language and songs, for example — but I don't want them to give bribes, as remains common-place in Ukraine... Yet, if you move too many immigrants from the same place at once, government-corruption and other bad things are sure to come with them — haven't you learned anything from the decades-long fight with Italian Mafia, for example?
So, you still want to deport "narrow-minded bigots", which will disproportionately include Muslims. Congratulations, racist.
My prejudice is not against an in-born trait, such as skin-color, but rather a religion. And religions are not all equal. I even explained to you, what is particularly wrong with Islam — it does not leave Cæsar's to Cæsar. And you better know, what this means...
Other than several more terror-attacks, you mean? You can't deny that downside. What is the upside?
What did we gain by allowing the Tsarnaev family to move to Boston and thousands of other Muslim families like them? Sure, most of them did not raise their children into terrorists, but, still, what is the upside?
The USSR did start the WW2 — by entering into the secret Pact with Hitler, and then collaborating with same in dividing up Poland. Fail.
I "ignore", because I consider it irrelevant. Glad, you like it.
You listed a few names and then offered a list, which, according to you, provided more. It did not — too many "unknowns". So, other than purely anecdotal evidence, you offered nothing.
I contend, we — the Western world — are allowing in too many immigrants at once. Which leads to us becoming more like them, instead of them assimilating among us.
You have no idea, how I identify myself. I guess, stereotyping is only wrong, when your opponents do it...
That will certainly disproportionally affect Muslims. Ever heard of a gay-pride parade in Gaza or Riyadh or Tehran or Cairo or Jakarta, for example? Me neither... Are you still sure, you want to do that?
Because the number of people dying a violent death in the US is declining . Constitution-shredding anti-gun zealots try to "not let a good crisis go to waste", but the sentiment does not last long.
Because this is a new motivation. One which, considering, what other Western countries are experiencing, could dramatically reverse the blissful trend. This terror-couple were living the life, millions of people world-wide can only dream about — American citizens with steady income, a nice house in a beautiful part of the country, blessed with a newborn daughter and supportive extended family.
If they can be radicalised into a murder-suicide mission by an organization as revolting as ISIS, who can not?
Your "list" contains too many "Unknowns" to be useful. But, considering, how relatively few Muslims there still are in this country, the percentage of mass shootings by them is alarming. And let's not forget the non-shooting attacks — such as the two World Trade Center bombings and the Boston Marathon tragedy.
But we can already extrapolate — by looking at what is happening in France, Belgium, Germany, and Scandinavian countries, where the rulers allowed too many Muslims in at once. Our First Amendment does not allow us to discriminate based on religion, but Islam is not compatible with it (nor the rest of the Constitution) — because it does not leave Cæsar's to Cæsar, and has very clear on how the entire world must live and what the faithful must do to achieve that...
No, that would be the USSR, with Hitler's Germany being the (distant) second.
That's easy — those, who are here illegally ought to be deported at once — terrorism or not, there are too many of them arriving too quickly to be absorbed. Instead of them adopting American culture, we become more like them — and, contrary to the popular meme, diversity is not strength. It is a luxury — a burden the society has to deal with in exchange for interesting restaurants and clothing designs.
WTF?
The truths I stated are universal and hold true in any society: if you can't afford something, your options are limited to the two I enumerated. There is no other option, however the society is organized.
There is nothing especially "horrible" about it either. It is simply true.
B.S. There should be no need to prove, it is not harmful — prosecutors merely needed to prove, he knew the stuff was poisonous.
And, even if they failed, the wrongful death civil suit should still have bankrupted his company.
Yeah, a typical statist approach to things: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefor it must be done."
But, yes, today "there is a law" — instead of suffering from bad medicines, people suffer from absence of good ones. Wait, did I say "instead"? Sorry, make that in addition to.
Instead of weighting this vs. that, how about we simply recall being a free country — and allow people to take whatever they wish to take? Non-government organizations — themselves competing with each other — can still institute various certification requirements, which pharma-companies would try to fulfill in order to increase their sales. But none of it will be mandatory and the market will become a little bit more free...
May we, please, remain spared of laws allowing things — everything, not explicitly prohibited is allowed, and that's how things ought to be.
Though Nazis really did Eugenics a great disservices, there is nothing obviously wrong with it.
Like the children of sports star-and-a-model unions? Or like the children of dedicated parents, spending time and money on sports- and math-classes for the children, their healthy eating and otherwise caring for them? Disgusting, is not it? Let's ban it all — to make sure, no child gets anything better than another... In fact, let's ban everything, that someone somewhere can not afford. In the name of equality, of course — even if the chosen few remain more equal than the rest.
Why are you calling yourself — and the rest of us, currently living, "filthy"?!
Huh? What cesspool?
People without means to pay for anything (including healthcare) must — wherever they live — either do without or rely on others for help. There is simply no alternative.
Different regimes make it harder/easier to compel strangers to help you — and Socialist regimes, being the least free, are exceptionally "good" at it, leading to the oft-repeated perception you just cited. But it is hardly a good thing...
The bottom lines (conclusions) are: it is better to be rich than poor. It is better to live in a wealthy nation, than in a poor one. Incidentally, Socialism quickly ruins one's chances of both.
Actually, in one of his books Heinlein offered a perfectly ethical, yet very useful approach: genes of the future parents are examined for various traits and the best possible combination is created for the embryo.
So, each kid born carries the gene-set he could have gotten naturally. But it is always the best possible combination.
And just what is "best" — is determined by the parents and the professional performing the procedure.
You don't know much about genetics, do you?
Complete and utter strawman.
We — the taxpayers — funding anything is a sure way of keeping it perpetually expensive and otherwise unobtainable.
What you want to ask is, why do various busybodies consider it ethical to ban such procedures to others.
The sad state of affairs started under the previous CEO — or even before him. Although libxul is available separately and could be used shared by all Mozilla apps, each one of them bundles its own slightly different tree instead. As a result, the sources available for download are perpetually somewhat behind times — for example, at the time of this typing, firefox is at version 42, but libxul is only at 41.0.2 — because fixes go into an application's fork, instead of the main project.
It would seem to me, that a better manager would've pulled the people working on libxul from all of the application-specific teams — and made the apps use the single shared library. From pure technical perspective, this is, how things ought to be. I'm sure, there are administrative and personal problems, but that's exactly, what the CEO is supposed to control.
But, again, the CEO's sex is unlikely to be to blame — she may (or may not) be mediocre, but this problem is an inherited one.
You "suspect"? No kidding... Both programs (as well as some other, less known ones) are just thin layers on top of libxul.
For years I've been puzzled, why they would not separate libxul out — the way NSPR and NSS are separated out — and make the multiple apps use the shared library instead of the current practice of each app bundling a separate copy of it.
Worse, XUL, actually, is available separately, but all of Mozilla's apps bundle their own, subtly incompatible, subtrees of it.
At some point FreeBSD ports-team considered doing the right thing for FreeBSD-users, at least, but was afraid, Mozilla will prohibit the use of the name "firefox" as a result — as happened to Debian/Ubuntu.
Mozilla is running amok. While driven as a corporation, it does not have paying customers, so we, the users, get the worst of both worlds...