People tend to work in taller buildings, than they live in. Some of those may be towering enough to allow a glide home from the roofs...
Anyone to cross the Hudson from, say, the top of the Empire State building? Getting permission to do that from the building's owners might be difficult, but if that weren't a problem, would you do it?
"you diminish your privacy by letting the retailer know, that you need a bottle of milk."
Well, what other option is there?
There is not really another convenient option, which which was my whole point.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Applied to politics, fundamentalism means [...]
Changing the definitions of the terms to suit your views is unacceptable in a debate.
Islamic fundamentalism could include a reduced set of civil liberties for women, corporal penalties, sex regulation and jihad.
The argument for it is, usually: "because Koran says so," — thus perfectly within the WordNet's definition of fundamentalism as "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth". See, no need to invent your own...
Looking at all those new bills introduced in the last years, I can't but conclude that fundamentalism is at raise in the US.
At the very beginning of this thread I asked for an example or two. Why can't you offer any, I wonder? Again: what do Bush and/or other high-ranking US officials advocate by appealing to some scripture's words? Awaiting...
Merci bcp.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
your most recent "thank you" was dripping with sarcasm.
It was — and remains — polite sarcasm.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
"Put up or shut up" is a strange way of being polite.
It was "Put up or shut up, so to speak". And I even thanked you (in advance).
he hopes to be in power when the holocaust arrives
When what arrives?!
he believes the literal word of Revelations and intends to help see it to fruition
You'll need to elabore more on this (and on the "great decider" bit)... Oh, wait, no need, you already admitted your mistake:
you're probably correct to state that he is not a religious fundamentalist;
In other words, there is NO "religious fundamentalism" in the current US leadership. Of course, there is not. Too bad certain unscrupulous participants in a debate throw such accusations, requiring 3-4 follow-up postings to force them to withdraw their bogus comments... Please, don't be one of them again. Thank you.
When you buy a bottle of milk in a supermarket, you diminish your privacy by letting the retailer know, that you need a bottle of milk. When you hire a maid to clean up your flat, you let her know a lot about your dirty laundry (literally and otherwise). And when you buy a book at a bookstore (or a video), the proprietor could offer you another one on your next visit (like Amazon does).
That's how it all begins — computers, WEB-2.0, and other technological advances simply enable us to trade even more privacy for convenience.
When the choice is volunteer, that's perfectly Ok. At least, MySpace and others don't force you to reveal your real name on the site. If the solicitations get too much, all you need is to do is close the account. Government-imposed things, however, are much worse. EZ-Pass — increasingly mandated at toll plazas — is not anonymous at all.
Sadly, nobody seems to care... The worst a marketeer can do to you is spam. Government has much bigger abuse potential.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Hang on, so you're saying you deny Bush said that God speaks through him?
I deny that his saying it is a sign of religious fundamentalism. We know, Bush is religious — so are many Americans. But a fundamentalist, as in:
1. fundamentalism -- (the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth)
he is not.
Or so I think, and you failed to give an example, when politely requested...
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Why is it that so many liberals can't seem to avoid making themselves look as foolish as the neocons?
Neo-Conservatism is not about religion at all. It certainly has nothing remotely "religiously fundamentalist" about it.
These people are highly fundamentalist, for example, but they are Democrats and thus very far from the current US leadership...
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
I asked for quote, and you gave me a link to some uber-partisan Bush-basher. Is that really all you got?
That quote is not of a "fundamentalist" -- a man of convictions, yes, but nothing you are trying to read into it. Sorry, try again.
Where is "religious fundementalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Given the religious fundamentalism shown by US leadership [...]
Would you care to back that up with some quotes? Quotes from high-ranking government officials, please — displaying not just their being religious, but being fundamentalists. Put up or shut up, so to speak, please.
The question is in subject, and I mean USA and other free countries, where laws are (mostly) sensible. Follow-up with your answers...
Is 100% effective law-enforcement a desirable ideal, or do we want to leave a little wriggle room to the criminals of today, to ensure a possibility of anti-tyranny opposition, that may be required some time in the future?
Personaly, I think, any future tyranny will quickly move towards plugging any holes we may wish to preserve today, so we may as well aim to plug them now to reduce the crime...
When I bother with a special meal at all, I usually order Halal. It is, likely, healthier than usual, but -- the standard being less strict than Kosher -- tends to have more variety and taste better, when prepared "airline style".
I also refuse to take off my shoes at the bomb-seeking gates. No undue attention from authorities yet, despite all these "red-flags". I'm sure, they have better things to do...
Especially -- accross the border. Whatever details the authorities want to find out -- having your name, address, and passport number -- they will.
What bothers me, is that even driving -- in your own car -- untrackably is increasingly difficult. Various automated toll-collection systems (like EZ-Pass on the East Coast) are tied to a vehicle (instead of being anonymous like a calling card) and more and more toll-plazas begin to require them at certain hours or from certain vehicle classes.
A train? Nope, have to give your name too (ID is checked). A bus? Some buses are fine, but some require reservations, which means giving name, phone, and presenting ID.
This to me is the real errosion of freedoms, but since no particular politician/party can be (loudly) blamed for it, our (supposedly -- bipartisan) rights-watchers are silent.
ACLU tried to help someone fight for the right to fly without presenting ID last year (or was it two years ago?), but lost...
The past BDB releases suffered from being unable to read older/newer.db files sometimes. This is why various software packages (like Evolution, for example) bundle their own versions.
If Oracle solves this problem, I'll be a very happy camper...
The Internet doesn't need to be run on a Mafia-style extortion plan, and it works best, in fact, when it doesn't.
Spare the truisms, everything runs better without "Mafia-style extortion plan".
Why can't the free market competition decide? Only when the local choice of the Internet provider is limited to 1 or 2 should the government bother itself -- with anti-trust investigations, that is.
This becomes somewhat of a pain if you have over 30 gigs or so to back up each night.
The cost of buying (depreciation) of device(s) of such capacity and/or the cost of rotating the tapes (manually or via even more expensive to own and maintain tape-robots) is, probably, still higher than the cost of the additional bandwidth. And, you can use the bandwidth during the day for other things.
If you are in a part of the world, where bandwidth (even within the same region) is too expensive, or if you are willing to juggle the cartridges, though, several 30Gb hard-drives are just as easy to juggle, and can be had for the cost of shipping nowadays, as can a computer to house them -- the thousands of dollars saved can feed entire villages for months in the same parts of the world. It will also take less space than the tape contraptions, and -- with a decent OS installed on the computer -- you can customize the backups to fit your needs.
Tapes are history -- they were never as convenient as disks, but for some time they were a lot cheaper. That era ended long ago, and they exist largely because of the veteran sysadmins' nostalgia. You can't even send someone your tape, because of miriad of competing standards the recipient may not be able to read it -- better to send a DVD (or several).
Currently the cheap and slow large-capacity harddrives are the best deal per gigabyte for data-storage. And they are always on-line. If you want an off-site backup — simply arrange with a like-minded person (or company) to exchange your (encrypted) backups via the internet. A fully automated solution without the daily trips to the safe-deposit box (which is what you are supposed to do with the tapes).
I wonder, if the disk sizes will keep the dominance in 5 years. They probably will... Or, a major breakthrough in, say, "flash" storage technology will make all other media obsolete...
They already bundle everything they can, except for the C/C++ compilers (but including their own copy of STLport).
I'm confident, it is only the Sun's restrictive licensing, that prevented them from bundling Java as well. Not any more...
Of course, you will still be able to use the already installed Java using the --with-system-java switch, but it will subtly break various things, because the OO.o's automated builds would never use it themselves.
Unions are trusts, which aim to use the monopoly power to manipulate/control the price of what their members are selling -- their labor.
They should've been given a taste of the trust-busting laws long ago.
And when the members (threaten to) engage in criminal behavior (such as when UPS workers were slashing tires of the company trucks), then it is simply racketeering: "Pay us more, or something will happen to your equipment".
Maybe, it is my background, of course, but I have only a well-oiled rope for the union organizers. The only extra benefit for the decent ones among them (if any) are the lamp-posts with a view...
Allowing everyone to redistribute it would make the dream of "write once run everywhere" even more utopical. Various vendors will be blaming other vendors-supplied JREs for troubles with their applications... "Oh, no, you can't use the XYZ's JRE with out product, it is not compatible."
Sun is right -- you want a JRE, you get it from Sun. Either in binary, if available, or in source...
either that or you simply can't stand a critical comment about sun and/or java
I can't stand the factually incorrect statements, that Java is not "open source". The source is, in fact, readily (and anonymously -- the registration is not verified) available, and the cherished "freedom to tinker" is intact.
What annoys me also is that people are blaming Sun for not doing something they want with Java, while completely forgetting, that without Sun there'd be no Java to begin with. Sun is not twisting your arms -- you can tell those small businesses you are supporting to use something else...
Slashdot Mirror
But Slashdot found place for only one in the front-page summary. Am I the only one to sense bias?
Must all be authored by "the wealthy"... And a whopping 0% of them are utilizing DRM. The sky already fell and hit Mr. Perens on the head strongly.
Anyone to cross the Hudson from, say, the top of the Empire State building? Getting permission to do that from the building's owners might be difficult, but if that weren't a problem, would you do it?
There is not really another convenient option, which which was my whole point.
Changing the definitions of the terms to suit your views is unacceptable in a debate.
The argument for it is, usually: "because Koran says so," — thus perfectly within the WordNet's definition of fundamentalism as "the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth". See, no need to invent your own...
At the very beginning of this thread I asked for an example or two. Why can't you offer any, I wonder? Again: what do Bush and/or other high-ranking US officials advocate by appealing to some scripture's words? Awaiting...
Merci bcp.
If only you could really use that.
When you buy a bottle of milk in a supermarket, you diminish your privacy by letting the retailer know, that you need a bottle of milk. When you hire a maid to clean up your flat, you let her know a lot about your dirty laundry (literally and otherwise). And when you buy a book at a bookstore (or a video), the proprietor could offer you another one on your next visit (like Amazon does).
That's how it all begins — computers, WEB-2.0, and other technological advances simply enable us to trade even more privacy for convenience.
When the choice is volunteer, that's perfectly Ok. At least, MySpace and others don't force you to reveal your real name on the site. If the solicitations get too much, all you need is to do is close the account. Government-imposed things, however, are much worse. EZ-Pass — increasingly mandated at toll plazas — is not anonymous at all.
Sadly, nobody seems to care... The worst a marketeer can do to you is spam. Government has much bigger abuse potential.
Or so I think, and you failed to give an example, when politely requested...
These people are highly fundamentalist, for example, but they are Democrats and thus very far from the current US leadership...
That quote is not of a "fundamentalist" -- a man of convictions, yes, but nothing you are trying to read into it. Sorry, try again.
Would you care to back that up with some quotes? Quotes from high-ranking government officials, please — displaying not just their being religious, but being fundamentalists. Put up or shut up, so to speak, please.
Thank you...
Is 100% effective law-enforcement a desirable ideal, or do we want to leave a little wriggle room to the criminals of today, to ensure a possibility of anti-tyranny opposition, that may be required some time in the future?
Personaly, I think, any future tyranny will quickly move towards plugging any holes we may wish to preserve today, so we may as well aim to plug them now to reduce the crime...
I also refuse to take off my shoes at the bomb-seeking gates. No undue attention from authorities yet, despite all these "red-flags". I'm sure, they have better things to do...
What bothers me, is that even driving -- in your own car -- untrackably is increasingly difficult. Various automated toll-collection systems (like EZ-Pass on the East Coast) are tied to a vehicle (instead of being anonymous like a calling card) and more and more toll-plazas begin to require them at certain hours or from certain vehicle classes.
A train? Nope, have to give your name too (ID is checked). A bus? Some buses are fine, but some require reservations, which means giving name, phone, and presenting ID.
This to me is the real errosion of freedoms, but since no particular politician/party can be (loudly) blamed for it, our (supposedly -- bipartisan) rights-watchers are silent.
ACLU tried to help someone fight for the right to fly without presenting ID last year (or was it two years ago?), but lost...
If Oracle solves this problem, I'll be a very happy camper...
Spare the truisms, everything runs better without "Mafia-style extortion plan".
Why can't the free market competition decide? Only when the local choice of the Internet provider is limited to 1 or 2 should the government bother itself -- with anti-trust investigations, that is.
If you are in a part of the world, where bandwidth (even within the same region) is too expensive, or if you are willing to juggle the cartridges, though, several 30Gb hard-drives are just as easy to juggle, and can be had for the cost of shipping nowadays, as can a computer to house them -- the thousands of dollars saved can feed entire villages for months in the same parts of the world. It will also take less space than the tape contraptions, and -- with a decent OS installed on the computer -- you can customize the backups to fit your needs.
Tapes are history -- they were never as convenient as disks, but for some time they were a lot cheaper. That era ended long ago, and they exist largely because of the veteran sysadmins' nostalgia. You can't even send someone your tape, because of miriad of competing standards the recipient may not be able to read it -- better to send a DVD (or several).
I wonder, if the disk sizes will keep the dominance in 5 years. They probably will... Or, a major breakthrough in, say, "flash" storage technology will make all other media obsolete...
I'm confident, it is only the Sun's restrictive licensing, that prevented them from bundling Java as well. Not any more...
Of course, you will still be able to use the already installed Java using the --with-system-java switch, but it will subtly break various things, because the OO.o's automated builds would never use it themselves.
They should've been given a taste of the trust-busting laws long ago.
And when the members (threaten to) engage in criminal behavior (such as when UPS workers were slashing tires of the company trucks), then it is simply racketeering: "Pay us more, or something will happen to your equipment".
Maybe, it is my background, of course, but I have only a well-oiled rope for the union organizers. The only extra benefit for the decent ones among them (if any) are the lamp-posts with a view...
In the long-cherished Pursuit of Happiness, you know.
At least -- in America, that is...
Sun is right -- you want a JRE, you get it from Sun. Either in binary, if available, or in source...
I can't stand the factually incorrect statements, that Java is not "open source". The source is, in fact, readily (and anonymously -- the registration is not verified) available, and the cherished "freedom to tinker" is intact.What annoys me also is that people are blaming Sun for not doing something they want with Java, while completely forgetting, that without Sun there'd be no Java to begin with. Sun is not twisting your arms -- you can tell those small businesses you are supporting to use something else...