Surprisingly enough, almost exactly this scenario really happens, and results in children dying.
Companies (specifically Nestlé) give free infant formula to mothers in third world countries, marketing it as better than the free alternative. The mother uses the free milk, and her natural supply dries up. Then suddenly the rules change, and Nestlé demands cash for more milk. To add to the problem, she has to find a supply of clean water to mix the formula with, which can be problematic.
Even though Nestlé never say up front that they are offering an ongoing free supply of milk, they still get boycotted by many people who find their behavior immoral in the extreme.
So your attempt to show by analogy that BitKeeper have done nothing wrong, in fact fails to convince.
As for his "fair trial", that can still be done - I'm sure we can find a dozen people who've been living in caves the last 5 years.
It's much easier than that. Just get a bunch of Americans and Europeans to volunteer to be on the jury. I mean, most Americans have only the vaguest notion of where Canada is even located. Europeans in my experience know where Canada is, but unless they're French they don't see any reason why anyone would want to go there.
Speaking personally, I've visited Canada twice and have every intention of visiting again, but I'm prepared to admit that I have no clue whatsoever what the Gomery inquiry is, or what kind of guy Chretien is. (I've heard the name, I remember that he is or was a Canadian politician, but that's about it.)
So if Canada needs a jury, I'd be glad to offer my services as a completely ignorant neutral member of the jury. All they need to do is pay for the plane ticket, my accomodations, and arrange with my employers to get me the time off work.
If I committed a crime in Canada, I'd be tried before a jury of foreign nationals--i.e. Canadians. If a Canadian committed a crime in the US, he'd be tried before a jury of non-Canadians. So I don't see why a Canadian alleged to have committed crimes in Canada shouldn't be tried before a jury of foreign nationals, if that's the best way to ensure that he gets a fair trial.
Most of the Enterprise licenses I've purchased have been acquired to avoid the upgrade dance.
If you want to avoid the upgrade dance, you need to run on Debian. RHEL and its free clones have the same problem as all other RedHat distributions--when there's a new major release, you have to get a CD and physically go to the server and install the upgrade.
The authentication is based on the MRZ (Machine Readable Zone) in the passport (this is text that is read through OCR and not visible unless you open the passports photo page). The MRZ-data is hashed by SHA-1 and the high 32 bits of the hash is taken (this reduce the risk of someone computing the MRZ-data backwards (actually guessing) which MIGHT be possible if you have the hash and the basic structure of the MRZ-data). The hash is sent as an authentication code to the RFID-chip in the passport, if the hash is wrong the RFID responds with a "no valid authentication" message and refuse to send any data.
Either you've missed out something vital, or the system is wide open to a replay attack.
My personal favorite was the impossibility of getting them to transfer a domain I had registered, for which I was the primary contact, to another party. Then when I tired of that, I tried to simply delete the registration, and found I couldn't persuade them to do that either.
They are incompetent buffoons. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have hired all their staff from the phone company.
Data integrity is not just for banking. When the company's content management system goes down and they want to know what was lost, the answer "I don't know, we'll have to roll back to the previous backup and have you re-enter all the edits made since then" is not going to win you many friends...
The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" now uses the phrase "liberal libertarian"... but really, arguing over the name is pointless. I think "socialist libertarian" reflects the point of difference more: it comes down to whether you value collective liberty over individual liberty, and socialism is the political movement of collectivism. But hey, "liberal" is probably a slightly easier sell than "socialist".
Anyhow, the point still stands: the US libertarian party is mostly right-wing libertarians who view any kind of tax to support the freedoms of others as unwarranted state interference.
The problem is, you're socially liberal but economically conservative. You probably also support preserving the freedom of the majority rather than the freedom of the few, when the two are in conflict. That puts you in left-wing libertarian territory, aka socialist libertarianism. And unfortunately, the Libertarian party in the US is pretty much solidly right-wing Randroids: in favor of totally laissez-faire economics, and socially conservative to the extent of being happy to see the poor and sick die on the streets, so long as they can personally carry a gun to church to keep the bums at bay.
In fact, many right-wing libertarians are such blinkered zealots that they either deny that left wing libertarianism exists, or refuse to admit that it might be legitimately described as libertarian. In fact, I predict you'll see a bunch of them do just that as followups to this posting, if it gets moderated high enough to be visible.
The Democrats have this crazy idea that if they become more right wing, they can appeal to Republican voters.
That's why they fielded Gore and Liebermann. Gore to supply the empty promises that were completely at odds with his voting record and actual actions (e.g. he voted for clearcut logging in Alaska), and Liebermann the scary pro-censorship guy.
That didn't work, so next they tried John Kerry, whose campaign promise was "I would have done exactly the same things as George W Bush, gotten us into exactly the same war... but I'd have done it better!"
Now they're trying for the suicide hat-trick. They're going to make Hillary mouth off enough right-wing crap to alienate all the liberals who might vote for her and prove to the middle-of-the-road voters that she can't be trusted to take an honest and consistent position--and still, no right winger is ever going to vote for her either.
Slashdot Mirror
Surprisingly enough, almost exactly this scenario really happens, and results in children dying.
Companies (specifically Nestlé) give free infant formula to mothers in third world countries, marketing it as better than the free alternative. The mother uses the free milk, and her natural supply dries up. Then suddenly the rules change, and Nestlé demands cash for more milk. To add to the problem, she has to find a supply of clean water to mix the formula with, which can be problematic.
Even though Nestlé never say up front that they are offering an ongoing free supply of milk, they still get boycotted by many people who find their behavior immoral in the extreme.
So your attempt to show by analogy that BitKeeper have done nothing wrong, in fact fails to convince.
Nope, adblock blocks 'em.
It's much easier than that. Just get a bunch of Americans and Europeans to volunteer to be on the jury. I mean, most Americans have only the vaguest notion of where Canada is even located. Europeans in my experience know where Canada is, but unless they're French they don't see any reason why anyone would want to go there.
Speaking personally, I've visited Canada twice and have every intention of visiting again, but I'm prepared to admit that I have no clue whatsoever what the Gomery inquiry is, or what kind of guy Chretien is. (I've heard the name, I remember that he is or was a Canadian politician, but that's about it.)
So if Canada needs a jury, I'd be glad to offer my services as a completely ignorant neutral member of the jury. All they need to do is pay for the plane ticket, my accomodations, and arrange with my employers to get me the time off work.
If I committed a crime in Canada, I'd be tried before a jury of foreign nationals--i.e. Canadians. If a Canadian committed a crime in the US, he'd be tried before a jury of non-Canadians. So I don't see why a Canadian alleged to have committed crimes in Canada shouldn't be tried before a jury of foreign nationals, if that's the best way to ensure that he gets a fair trial.
Ugh, now I have a vision of Kirk and Spock singing "Let's do the time warp again..."
And bleep.com. And magnatune.com. And tmbg.com.
The idea that iPods can *only* use music from the iTMS is a myth spun by Microsoft.
If you want to avoid the upgrade dance, you need to run on Debian. RHEL and its free clones have the same problem as all other RedHat distributions--when there's a new major release, you have to get a CD and physically go to the server and install the upgrade.
Well, I had the choice of the monopoly phone company, or the monopoly cable company.
What makes you think content is like physical property and deserving of legal protection?
I guess you missed the part where the blog developer hosted the spam pages, hence making himself a spammer too?
If you feel it's unethical not to sit and watch all the ads, are you honestly saying you never get up and go fetch a drink, go to the bathroom, etc?
Competing with "free" seems pretty easy for Starbucks and the bottled water companies.
Well, presumably subqueries were added in v.4, which I won't see because it's not free software.
Anyhow, I'm switching to PostgreSQL...
Either you've missed out something vital, or the system is wide open to a replay attack.
My personal favorite was the impossibility of getting them to transfer a domain I had registered, for which I was the primary contact, to another party. Then when I tired of that, I tried to simply delete the registration, and found I couldn't persuade them to do that either.
They are incompetent buffoons. The only explanation I can think of is that they must have hired all their staff from the phone company.
...they're running Debian Vote Stable.
They'll catch up with the current vote in two or three years.
You won't see Debian ship it unless they fix the licensing to make it free software again.
That and sub-queries are the two things I want MySQL to fix...
Data integrity is not just for banking. When the company's content management system goes down and they want to know what was lost, the answer "I don't know, we'll have to roll back to the previous backup and have you re-enter all the edits made since then" is not going to win you many friends...
The "World's Smallest Political Quiz" now uses the phrase "liberal libertarian"... but really, arguing over the name is pointless. I think "socialist libertarian" reflects the point of difference more: it comes down to whether you value collective liberty over individual liberty, and socialism is the political movement of collectivism. But hey, "liberal" is probably a slightly easier sell than "socialist".
Anyhow, the point still stands: the US libertarian party is mostly right-wing libertarians who view any kind of tax to support the freedoms of others as unwarranted state interference.
So don't tax them if they can't vote. That was the point of the American revolution.
Or be a white male property owner who happens to be a resident alien.
You pay state and federal taxes, income tax and sales tax, but you're not allowed to vote, even though you've never committed a crime.
"No taxation without representation" failed. The American revolution failed on its own terms. Time to try again?
We'll keep the Texans, and you keep George W Bush. Deal?
People who apparently don't like the United States and its Bill of Rights, did vote--that's the problem...
The problem is, you're socially liberal but economically conservative. You probably also support preserving the freedom of the majority rather than the freedom of the few, when the two are in conflict. That puts you in left-wing libertarian territory, aka socialist libertarianism. And unfortunately, the Libertarian party in the US is pretty much solidly right-wing Randroids: in favor of totally laissez-faire economics, and socially conservative to the extent of being happy to see the poor and sick die on the streets, so long as they can personally carry a gun to church to keep the bums at bay.
In fact, many right-wing libertarians are such blinkered zealots that they either deny that left wing libertarianism exists, or refuse to admit that it might be legitimately described as libertarian. In fact, I predict you'll see a bunch of them do just that as followups to this posting, if it gets moderated high enough to be visible.
The Democrats have this crazy idea that if they become more right wing, they can appeal to Republican voters.
That's why they fielded Gore and Liebermann. Gore to supply the empty promises that were completely at odds with his voting record and actual actions (e.g. he voted for clearcut logging in Alaska), and Liebermann the scary pro-censorship guy.
That didn't work, so next they tried John Kerry, whose campaign promise was "I would have done exactly the same things as George W Bush, gotten us into exactly the same war... but I'd have done it better!"
Now they're trying for the suicide hat-trick. They're going to make Hillary mouth off enough right-wing crap to alienate all the liberals who might vote for her and prove to the middle-of-the-road voters that she can't be trusted to take an honest and consistent position--and still, no right winger is ever going to vote for her either.
Yeah, I have a Sawtooth G4 350MHz that I use for scanning and Photoshop work. Runs just fine with OS X 10.3.
Upgrade every two years? Pah.