The "eat shit and die, spammer!" — an expression, no doubt, uttered millions of times in this scumbag's general direction — must've had its effect, finally... I wonder, if any feces were, indeed, found in his mouth...
Awful, that it had to include his family too... Must curse less the next time I get spammed...
I don't — for the same reason I don't like all other trusts and monopolies.
The PROBLEM is the debauchery we have now with how Unions are run.
People ought to be free to associate, but once their association grows large enough to be able to manipulate the market for whatever they are selling, they should be subjected to anti-trust laws, just like everyone else.
Instead we have laws, which afford Unions preferential treatment in a number of situations — most-worryingly with government employees in general and law-enforcement in particular.
then all workers would LOVE Unions.
The rape-encouraging prison guards LOVE their union already. That's the problem.
People talk about "inhumane" prison systems such as those in Iran (they cut your hands off!) or Saudi Arabia (they have public hangings and beheadings!) but we have gang-rape that is basically sanctioned by the state.
These aren't state-sanctioned. At all. The ass-holes (pun intended), who "sanction" it are the prison guards — represented and defended by very powerful trade-union, whom even the toughest politicians are wary of.
Now cue-in the union-apologists, who go as far as claim credit for weekends for the unions (which existed, apparently, when Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays became holy days for different religions), and you have a complete picture.
Compared to what these pigs do to civilian fellow Americans, the much-derided Guantanamo, where Military is holding enemy combatants, is, indeed, more like a piece of Caribbean paradise...
humans have a price, 5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.
You are referring to this recent bit of news. The current official figure is, actually, about $7.22 million (you don't remember right).
However, it is not set by the US government — the government simply researches, what "we the people" are willing to do (how much they are willing to spend, rather) to avoid risks to our health/life. For example, an American, wishing to travel from New York to Boston, can take either a train (about $100 one way) or a bus ($15). The highway vehicles are inherently riskier, but much cheaper. The number of people taking them anyway gives an idea, how much "an average Joe" is valuing their own life.
By combining various such examples it is possible to come up, with the cost, that's used to determine, for example, whether a particular public policy is worth the expense. See the linked article for more — it discusses both the concept itself and the (usual) condemnations of the current administration for "cooking the books"...
adding one gram or so of phosphorus can cause more devastating algae
But algae can be harvested and turned into something useful — such as natural food for cows, or fuel. All it does, is turning Sun's energy into plant (itself) and — with the help of only a little bit of phosphorus — rather efficiently...
Ouch, these are so different, it hurts — not. Both are "intellectual property", which — as is all well known around here — is "imaginary". If copying someone else's music against their will is Ok, then copying somebody else's web-site against their will is Ok too.
Your complaint is thus deemed without merit and dismissed with prejudice.
BTW, did you have a license to investigate the facts here?
It's a re-use of code, functionality, layout, and features...and it's a conscious ripoff of the name.
As almost any slashdotter worthy of their karma should immediately point out, nobody has lost any tangible material goods via somebody else's copying of their work (and if they did, they grossly overestimate their value, anyway). Thus neither the informal term "ripoff" nor the formal "theft" may possibly apply.
They will then begin implying, that because this is not exactly like stealing, then it is not at all like stealing, and thus there is nothing wrong with it... It is all the victim's fault anyway, because Facebook sucks, does not it?
Oh, and the computer illiterate single (grand-)mothers can not be stealing anything — because we sympathize with them...
Be sure, you have your private-investigator license renewed, before you post a disagreeing response.
Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
Dennis Ritchie's response to the above-linked "Unix-Haters Handbook"...
they need a real address, creditcard, etc in which to bill you and send you your goods.
BTW, I discovered recently, that the billing address is not required — except for the zip-code. I've been giving the street address "0 Privacy Drive" for the last two years or so — only the town, state, and zip are needed for the credit-card verification.
This keeps the amount of junk mail I'm getting low. Yes, you still need to give full shipping address, but that can often be a P.O.-box.
Don't entrust the function like DNS to a single vendor. With some services it is hard, as authors support a limited range of OSes/hardware or charge too high a price for each installation to make redundancy affordable.
But not DNS. Free solutions abound, and the commercial ones are quite cheap too. They are available for all imaginable "server-grade" OS/hardware combination. If you use more than one servers for DNS in your enterprise, and both of them use the same platform, you aren't doing your job.
Mind you, I don't blame the victims here — Red Hat screwed up royally, and that's that. Just advising on how to avoid being hit by such (inevitable) mistakes — from any vendor — in the future.
but who am I kidding, this is probably the wrong forum to argue this.
Yes, answering a question like "Are you against all embargoes?" — with: "I'll only lose 50 bucks, if my bank account is frozen," — is considered too low even for this forum...
Let me step to your level and discuss high-school behavior. So, with the above-expressed distaste for embargoes, if you really hated a guy, you would either act like nothing is happening or go all-out trying to beat him up? Right? Because the peaceful alternative — avoiding the asshole and trying to convince friends/others to do the same (a.k.a. boycott) is the near-perfect equivalent of an embargo.
Isolationism doesn't solve anything. Free-trade and [...]
Isolationism is bad, and free trade are good — which is why imposing the former and depriving of the latter is what you are applying to an enemy, whom you aren't (yet?) willing/able to take on militarily.
but as it is the US
We are talking about all embargoes in principle. Stay focused and don't change the subject to the US and the current affairs.
Embargoing anything makes the rulers of the target country worry about producing that thing themselves — diverting their resources to it. It is also a way to punish whoever you want to punish, without outright military strikes — something the current administration is often blamed for not doing enough of.
Technically if our government was OUR government then it wouldnt' distrust us to make up our own minds about "good" or "evil", would they?
This is an argument against all embargoes and other economic sanctions. There is no difference — in principle — between banning you from going there yourself (propping up the regime with your tourism money), banning you from selling them shoes, and banning you from selling them advanced military technology. A free citizen — it can be argued along your lines — ought to be free to make their own decision. And free shareholders of a bank ought to decide, whether or not freeze a particular account. Etcaetera.
So, are you against all embargoes?
Or only against those, which target regimes you sympathize with (admit it, you own a Che Guevarra T-shirt)?
And today's Democratic candidates? One's very motto is "The change we can believe in"... And the other selling herself as "an agent of change". And you keep falling for it...
And, oh, look — the boy-wonder from Chicago, whose first profession was "community organizer" (whatever the heck that means) — is all but nominated by your party. With "change" — the emptiest promise — being his "inspiring" slogan. Eeww...
Even ancient historians describing earlier events have noticed, that plebs leans to change for the sake of change — however useless or outright dangerous the proposed change may be... "One more time," — you said? Yeah, right...
Are you implying that slavery was ok when it was economically efficient?
I would not have liked it, obviously, but it existed independently of being disliked — for as long as it remained efficient. My point was, it was not the laws or the government regulations, that eliminated it. It vanished because it became less productive than alternatives, not because ilLiberalism prevailed upon Libertarianism.
It is no coincidence, that in America's Civil War the opponents of slavery were the already-industrialized North, for whom slavery was an impediment. Much as the morals/ethics of people on both sides were against the institution for its unfairness to the slaves, it was the economic reality that shaped the views, the laws and the policies: with South (hardly a Libertarian lair, was it?) continuing to find excuses for it, and North increasingly seeing it as the worst of all evils.
Libertarians want the freedom to economically oppress others.
You've reworded the same lie I've already spoken against... It did not become any truer.
For instance, in libertopia, if I were rich and you were not, and I didn't like you, I could pay everyone not to do business with you and you would starve to death, all nice and legal.
You can do that right now — in most free countries — if you can afford it. Nobody seems to bother doing it, though, for some reason.
Eventually, the rich would end up owning everyone else, because people would have no choice but to sell themselves into slavery.
The rich would not want to — there are much better things to own these days (and 100 years ago too) than slaves. And this — the slaves' inefficiency — is the reason, slavery does not really exist anywhere in the world today. Not the morals/ethics, not the laws, and not the regulations...
So, once again, please, stop bringing up these lies and smears about "slavery".
Libertarianism is about the freedom to own slaves.
You would certainly be able to indenture yourself, if you choose to — to anyone, who would want such a thing from you.
99% of people who support libertarianism will end up being serfs if their plans ever succeeds
Serfdom (and the outright slavery) disappeared, not because of laws or regulations, but because it was inefficient. Re-read your Marx-volume. As the means of production evolve, the uninterested slaves' labor falls further and further behind in value — despite being cheaper — than that of motivated free workers.
So stop this "slavery" fear-mongering, and smears. For decades the country's policy-makers have been moving away from Libertarianism despite most Americans being in the Libertarian corner of the politics. The results, to name the most obvious are:
a large public-welfare system (belovingly known as "safety net") which is now able to sustain itself through votes of millions of beneficiaries and hundreds of thousands of governments employees busying themselves with the process of handing out taxpayers' monies. Politicians used to appeal to the compassion of the givers — nowadays they increasingly aim directly for the greed of the receivers as the more numerous segment of the voters.
And all you can say against that is nonsense like: "Libertarians want to bring back slavery"?.. Pathetic...
You can't escape it — San Francisco is America's most illiberal city, and has been for decades. Nikita Khruschev, reportedly, liked it so much, he promised not to target it (with Soviet missiles).
I blame the fact, that the city's largest employer — for generations — has been a military base. Federal Government's monies were flowing in and slowly spoiled the residents, who had little worries about budget or attracting businesses.
Of course, no city with policies this illiberal could've survived for long maintaining a decent quality of life — for that they needed the rest of the country being as rich as only a Capitalist one can be.
Why does an issue like this have to become another talking point for your tiresome ideologies?
Khmm, really... Maybe, you should ask this Marxist, who is already blaming not the criminal, but those unspecified victims, who "pissed him off"... Mess Mend, brother.
Aren't these people supposed to be the happiest of all workers in the world? Enjoying the riches of a Capitalist country together with the income redistribution and loving care for fellow men of a Socialist city and its government?..
Uh-oh, that came out as a trolling flamebait, but seriously, folks...
I know, that N.0 release (of anything) is often not well-polished, but I fully expected a N.0.2 to be an improvement over anything (N-1).x. It was not... KDE-project lied to me by calling everything starting with KDE-4.0 a release. Even if I made a mistake, the blame is on them.
Whatever is determined by genes (rather than upbringing) may become changeable — if not with the ease, with which we change clothes today, but, rather, more like we go about custom-tailored suits.
For example, our epidermis is replaced fully every several weeks. With a small gene-change we'll be able to change the skin color to match the "vogue" of the season, an occasion (black skin will contrast sooo nicely with my wedding dress!), or a personal style. Same goes for hair-color...
Deeper bodily-changes (like breast size) may require a longer wait, but will not be impossible...
Slashdot Mirror
The "eat shit and die, spammer!" — an expression, no doubt, uttered millions of times in this scumbag's general direction — must've had its effect, finally... I wonder, if any feces were, indeed, found in his mouth...
Awful, that it had to include his family too... Must curse less the next time I get spammed...
I don't — for the same reason I don't like all other trusts and monopolies.
People ought to be free to associate, but once their association grows large enough to be able to manipulate the market for whatever they are selling, they should be subjected to anti-trust laws, just like everyone else.
Instead we have laws, which afford Unions preferential treatment in a number of situations — most-worryingly with government employees in general and law-enforcement in particular.
The rape-encouraging prison guards LOVE their union already. That's the problem.
These aren't state-sanctioned. At all. The ass-holes (pun intended), who "sanction" it are the prison guards — represented and defended by very powerful trade-union, whom even the toughest politicians are wary of.
Now cue-in the union-apologists, who go as far as claim credit for weekends for the unions (which existed, apparently, when Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays became holy days for different religions), and you have a complete picture.
Compared to what these pigs do to civilian fellow Americans, the much-derided Guantanamo, where Military is holding enemy combatants, is, indeed, more like a piece of Caribbean paradise...
You are referring to this recent bit of news. The current official figure is, actually, about $7.22 million (you don't remember right).
However, it is not set by the US government — the government simply researches, what "we the people" are willing to do (how much they are willing to spend, rather) to avoid risks to our health/life. For example, an American, wishing to travel from New York to Boston, can take either a train (about $100 one way) or a bus ($15). The highway vehicles are inherently riskier, but much cheaper. The number of people taking them anyway gives an idea, how much "an average Joe" is valuing their own life.
By combining various such examples it is possible to come up, with the cost, that's used to determine, for example, whether a particular public policy is worth the expense. See the linked article for more — it discusses both the concept itself and the (usual) condemnations of the current administration for "cooking the books"...
But algae can be harvested and turned into something useful — such as natural food for cows, or fuel. All it does, is turning Sun's energy into plant (itself) and — with the help of only a little bit of phosphorus — rather efficiently...
Ouch, these are so different, it hurts — not. Both are "intellectual property", which — as is all well known around here — is "imaginary". If copying someone else's music against their will is Ok, then copying somebody else's web-site against their will is Ok too.
Your complaint is thus deemed without merit and dismissed with prejudice.
BTW, did you have a license to investigate the facts here?
As almost any slashdotter worthy of their karma should immediately point out, nobody has lost any tangible material goods via somebody else's copying of their work (and if they did, they grossly overestimate their value, anyway). Thus neither the informal term "ripoff" nor the formal "theft" may possibly apply.
They will then begin implying, that because this is not exactly like stealing, then it is not at all like stealing, and thus there is nothing wrong with it... It is all the victim's fault anyway, because Facebook sucks, does not it?
Oh, and the computer illiterate single (grand-)mothers can not be stealing anything — because we sympathize with them...
Be sure, you have your private-investigator license renewed, before you post a disagreeing response.
Dennis Ritchie's response to the above-linked "Unix-Haters Handbook"...
BTW, I discovered recently, that the billing address is not required — except for the zip-code. I've been giving the street address "0 Privacy Drive" for the last two years or so — only the town, state, and zip are needed for the credit-card verification.
This keeps the amount of junk mail I'm getting low. Yes, you still need to give full shipping address, but that can often be a P.O.-box.
Don't entrust the function like DNS to a single vendor. With some services it is hard, as authors support a limited range of OSes/hardware or charge too high a price for each installation to make redundancy affordable.
But not DNS. Free solutions abound, and the commercial ones are quite cheap too. They are available for all imaginable "server-grade" OS/hardware combination. If you use more than one servers for DNS in your enterprise, and both of them use the same platform, you aren't doing your job.
Mind you, I don't blame the victims here — Red Hat screwed up royally, and that's that. Just advising on how to avoid being hit by such (inevitable) mistakes — from any vendor — in the future.
Can the same line be used to defend Microsoft the next time they screw up a bug-fix or "service pack"?
Yes, answering a question like "Are you against all embargoes?" — with: "I'll only lose 50 bucks, if my bank account is frozen," — is considered too low even for this forum...
So long...
Let me step to your level and discuss high-school behavior. So, with the above-expressed distaste for embargoes, if you really hated a guy, you would either act like nothing is happening or go all-out trying to beat him up? Right? Because the peaceful alternative — avoiding the asshole and trying to convince friends/others to do the same (a.k.a. boycott) is the near-perfect equivalent of an embargo.
Isolationism is bad, and free trade are good — which is why imposing the former and depriving of the latter is what you are applying to an enemy, whom you aren't (yet?) willing/able to take on militarily.
We are talking about all embargoes in principle. Stay focused and don't change the subject to the US and the current affairs.
Embargoing anything makes the rulers of the target country worry about producing that thing themselves — diverting their resources to it. It is also a way to punish whoever you want to punish, without outright military strikes — something the current administration is often blamed for not doing enough of.
This is an argument against all embargoes and other economic sanctions. There is no difference — in principle — between banning you from going there yourself (propping up the regime with your tourism money), banning you from selling them shoes, and banning you from selling them advanced military technology. A free citizen — it can be argued along your lines — ought to be free to make their own decision. And free shareholders of a bank ought to decide, whether or not freeze a particular account. Etcaetera.
So, are you against all embargoes?
Or only against those, which target regimes you sympathize with (admit it, you own a Che Guevarra T-shirt)?
How many times has it been already, uhm?
In the 1990ies Clinton's campaign wore the patience of some supporters with talking about "Change" too much... "Clinton/Gore. For people, for a change." . He took office promising more change, only to strongly disappoint its most vociferous supporters immediately after.
And today's Democratic candidates? One's very motto is "The change we can believe in"... And the other selling herself as "an agent of change". And you keep falling for it...
And, oh, look — the boy-wonder from Chicago, whose first profession was "community organizer" (whatever the heck that means) — is all but nominated by your party. With "change" — the emptiest promise — being his "inspiring" slogan. Eeww...
Even ancient historians describing earlier events have noticed, that plebs leans to change for the sake of change — however useless or outright dangerous the proposed change may be... "One more time," — you said? Yeah, right...
I would not have liked it, obviously, but it existed independently of being disliked — for as long as it remained efficient. My point was, it was not the laws or the government regulations, that eliminated it. It vanished because it became less productive than alternatives, not because ilLiberalism prevailed upon Libertarianism.
It is no coincidence, that in America's Civil War the opponents of slavery were the already-industrialized North, for whom slavery was an impediment. Much as the morals/ethics of people on both sides were against the institution for its unfairness to the slaves, it was the economic reality that shaped the views, the laws and the policies: with South (hardly a Libertarian lair, was it?) continuing to find excuses for it, and North increasingly seeing it as the worst of all evils.
You've reworded the same lie I've already spoken against... It did not become any truer.
You can do that right now — in most free countries — if you can afford it. Nobody seems to bother doing it, though, for some reason.
The rich would not want to — there are much better things to own these days (and 100 years ago too) than slaves. And this — the slaves' inefficiency — is the reason, slavery does not really exist anywhere in the world today. Not the morals/ethics, not the laws, and not the regulations...
So, once again, please, stop bringing up these lies and smears about "slavery".
Are you implying, Libertarianism is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence or Constitution? It is not...
You would certainly be able to indenture yourself, if you choose to — to anyone, who would want such a thing from you.
Serfdom (and the outright slavery) disappeared, not because of laws or regulations, but because it was inefficient. Re-read your Marx-volume. As the means of production evolve, the uninterested slaves' labor falls further and further behind in value — despite being cheaper — than that of motivated free workers.
So stop this "slavery" fear-mongering, and smears. For decades the country's policy-makers have been moving away from Libertarianism despite most Americans being in the Libertarian corner of the politics. The results, to name the most obvious are:
And all you can say against that is nonsense like: "Libertarians want to bring back slavery"?.. Pathetic...
You can't escape it — San Francisco is America's most illiberal city, and has been for decades. Nikita Khruschev, reportedly, liked it so much, he promised not to target it (with Soviet missiles).
I blame the fact, that the city's largest employer — for generations — has been a military base. Federal Government's monies were flowing in and slowly spoiled the residents, who had little worries about budget or attracting businesses.
Of course, no city with policies this illiberal could've survived for long maintaining a decent quality of life — for that they needed the rest of the country being as rich as only a Capitalist one can be.
Khmm, really... Maybe, you should ask this Marxist, who is already blaming not the criminal, but those unspecified victims, who "pissed him off"... Mess Mend, brother.
Aren't these people supposed to be the happiest of all workers in the world? Enjoying the riches of a Capitalist country together with the income redistribution and loving care for fellow men of a Socialist city and its government?..
Uh-oh, that came out as a trolling flamebait, but seriously, folks...
Well, my mother is not a moron, thank you very much...
I know, that N.0 release (of anything) is often not well-polished, but I fully expected a N.0.2 to be an improvement over anything (N-1).x. It was not... KDE-project lied to me by calling everything starting with KDE-4.0 a release. Even if I made a mistake, the blame is on them.
And this explains why I fell for it...
Whatever is determined by genes (rather than upbringing) may become changeable — if not with the ease, with which we change clothes today, but, rather, more like we go about custom-tailored suits.
For example, our epidermis is replaced fully every several weeks. With a small gene-change we'll be able to change the skin color to match the "vogue" of the season, an occasion (black skin will contrast sooo nicely with my wedding dress!), or a personal style. Same goes for hair-color...
Deeper bodily-changes (like breast size) may require a longer wait, but will not be impossible...