Hey wait a second you haven't said a thing about 'protection' so far.
This is exactly my point. The original conversation started with 'who on earth would need a fully automatic weapon?'.
Why would you need an AK-47 to protect yourself then?
Because a gun is something to protect yourself, and hunt with.
Really? an AK-47? Not the best choice for a hunting weapon.
A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.
In that it kills an inordinately larger number of people than an AK-47 does, yeah. And in turn, an automatic weapon has the potential to kill an inordinately larger number of people than a hunting rifle or handgun would.
Can you see my point here?
Why should someone be able to have something that is specifically designed and highly engineered to kill other human beings when you aren't allowed to kill other human beings?
Yeah, whenever I hear someone say the phrase '...ready for the desktop...' I completely tune out now.
It really has become a complete cliche, and I don't think people know what they're talking about anymore. It's turning into 'BSD is dying'. It's very easy to say.
All I know is that Linux is on my desktop, and it sure as hell is not going anywhere fast.
Apple computers are $1000 more than a beige box... as are the Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM and Gateway machines.
Exactly. At least with the Dells et al. you have an alternative where you can be in the same league. People keep going on about how much you get for your money with a mac. I don't dispute that. I also don't want half that crap.
If I just want an x86, to run linux, I have to spend about $300.
If I want anything that will run OSX, it's going to cost me at least $1000. I don't have that kind of money. And if I did, I could sure as hell think of something better to spend it on than computer hardware.
Yes you can make the same Ferrari argument as everyone always does, but I wish people would stop preaching at me to use OSX.
Do you go around saying Ferraris aren't expensive?
Do you go up to an econobox driver and start preaching that they should get a Ferrari?
...so that's where most of the value is going to be.
While the temptation to make a PVR is really great at the moment, what with mythTV and friends getting better and better, it really isn't practical at the moment. At least here in the UK, for me, it isn't.
Why?
All but 4 (well, 4.5 counting ch5) channels are sent through cable for me. Admittedly, those channels do have the better programming on, but it would be somewhat lame not being able to record cable channels.
For instance, I have digital cable (ntl). All the decoding is done in the cable box and shoved through to channel 7 on the tv. This means you can only record from one pre determined cable channel. Unless you somehow set up lirc to send a 'channel change' ir command to the cable box every time it wants to change cable channel. I've thought about this, but it would be tricky and probably unreliable.
The question really is: can I justify building a PVR for just 4 channels?
Then, if the U.S. cares so much about human rights is it not attacking Saudi Arabia? Terrible human rights abuses go on every day, yet the U.S. is not only condoning it, it actively funds Saudi Arabia heavily, and uses it as an ally regularly.
Same goes for Pakistan, used as an ally in the Afghanistan conflict.
Where were they in Rwanda? Why didnt they go straight in?
Somalia has a huge hotbed of US hatred. It was basically an attack to put down the anti US sentiment. (Not sure how effective it was going to be to be honest)
In Serbia, democracy only came about due to UN involvement. Not the U.S. bombing, whatever you may think.
In Columbia, the U.S. funds terrorist groups to go around bullying and attacking farmers.
If you seriously believe that the U.S. has a good record when it comes to human rights and supporting human rights worldwide, I suggest you read this. (and that was published before the Iraqi invasion)
If you want to know what the U.S.'s moves are all really about, I would suggest you read a little bit more on this site.
Yes, I was watching that footage live. I also saw the U.S. soldiers try to put a stars and stripes over his head.
I am glad that Saddam is gone, I think it's great, and I'm very happy for the Iraqi people.
However, this is not the reason the U.S. invaded, and for anyone to say so, you, me, or especially the U.S. government would simply be untrue.
The U.S. has shown time and time again that it does not care in the slightest for human rights or creating democracies or whatever bullshit they go on about to try and win supporters. If they did care so much, why have they completely turned a blind eye to human rights abuses at home and abroad for 50 years?
Sure, the news agencies may be focusing on this right now, and the politicians may be talking about how they have saved the Iraqis, but this is not the reason they were there.
In the last 50 years, the U.S. has bombed about 20 countries, and not a single bombing has directly resulted in the creation of a Democracy.
And look what has happened in Afghanistan. Now the news agencies are gone, the U.S. have basically buggered off, leaving a fraction of the aid and money they said they would, and leaving half the country ruled by warlords.
Don't tell me the U.S. gives a fuck about Democracy. It gives a fuck about furthuring its' own interests.
Because that's not their job. Their job is to play movies. Do you complain that Apache doesn't have a gui? No, because if you really need a gui, you use a frontend.
MPlayer is supposed to be flexible and robust. You have a choice here really:
1: Have the MPlayer team make their own gui, which uses one toolkit, so it only integrates (if at all) with only one desktop framework (kde, gnome, mozilla, gnustep, whatever).
2: Have the Mplayer team waste their time by writing a seperate qt/kde gui, a gtk1/gnome1 one, a gtk2/gnome2 one, a plain gtk one etc etc etc... and be complained to by all the ui experts that it doesnt quite comply with their styleguides.
3: Have no gui, let other people sort that out for themselves. Concentrate on doing your job well. If someone wants to write a nice kpart wrapper, they can do it (and they'll probably be better at it than the mplayer team trying to spread their time thinly). If someone wants to use in its barest form for an embedded device, a pvr or something, they can do that and have no troubles.
What the team seem to have done, is they started with no gui, went with option 1, and then sort of realised that its not a fantastic idea, and seem to be abandoning it.
1. Tied up on a four poster bed, one limb on each post. 2. Use of a fish of some sort to perform the spanking. 3. Electromagnetic spanking device controlled by victim's brainwave patterns. 4. Caged. 5. First give the arse a carpet burn (spin them around on a rug), rub with vinegar, spank. 6. Spanking in the shower. 7. Spanking an inflatable Rolf Harris doll. 8. A game of naughty child / strict parent. 9. Use of a thin, splintering strip of wood. 10. Hot spanking: use cloth dipped in 'deep heat'. 11. Boiling oil/sugar*. 12. In the middle of the corridoor at work, to an unsuspectiong co-worker, and in full view, creating an awkward situation for all concerned.
Could someone tell me how rendezvous is important to this process? I don't understand. In this context, aren't the same things doable just as easily with standard network sockets?
IMHO is it most likely that the money they save on bandwidth over this and the upcoming weeks will massively outweigh the amount of money they would have made from all those people signing up to get the distro. (I mean, how many people are going to do that? Get a subscription to RHN just to get the distro a week ahead of everyone else? Come on.)
Jeepers creepers, you post is so right & depressing I think I just want to stay in bed.
I'm afraid that in making my point I got caught up in the semantics of 'fascism'. But you know what I mean. I think we're both reading from the same page.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly my point. The original conversation started with 'who on earth would need a fully automatic weapon?'.
Why would you need an AK-47 to protect yourself then?
Because a gun is something to protect yourself, and hunt with.
Really? an AK-47? Not the best choice for a hunting weapon.
A nuclear weapon is a weapon of mass destruction.
In that it kills an inordinately larger number of people than an AK-47 does, yeah. And in turn, an automatic weapon has the potential to kill an inordinately larger number of people than a hunting rifle or handgun would.
Can you see my point here?
Why should someone be able to have something that is specifically designed and highly engineered to kill other human beings when you aren't allowed to kill other human beings?
Like use it for its intended purpose?
Much like you would have to do to harm your neighbours with a nuke.
Nuclear weapons require special housing, and much safety regulations...
To paraphrase what you said earlier,
I've got a degree in nuclear physics, engineering, and am not a felon. Why shouldn't I have one?
Because I want to. Now, name a particularly good reason why I shouldn't. I'm trained in handling, marksmanship, and am not a felon.
So you should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons, then?
Is it really fast enough to run OSX? Well?
Will it run OSX as fast as my dual PII 400 runs Linux?
(It cost under $200, incidentally)
That's exactly my point.
With x86s, you are able to throw something together from cheap parts with a power supply borrowed from a toaster, and run linux just fine, for $300.
This is simply not possible with Apple machines. $1000 is the starting price.
Yeah, whenever I hear someone say the phrase '...ready for the desktop...' I completely tune out now.
It really has become a complete cliche, and I don't think people know what they're talking about anymore. It's turning into 'BSD is dying'. It's very easy to say.
All I know is that Linux is on my desktop, and it sure as hell is not going anywhere fast.
Exactly. At least with the Dells et al. you have an alternative where you can be in the same league. People keep going on about how much you get for your money with a mac. I don't dispute that. I also don't want half that crap.
If I just want an x86, to run linux, I have to spend about $300.
If I want anything that will run OSX, it's going to cost me at least $1000. I don't have that kind of money. And if I did, I could sure as hell think of something better to spend it on than computer hardware.
Yes you can make the same Ferrari argument as everyone always does, but I wish people would stop preaching at me to use OSX.
Do you go around saying Ferraris aren't expensive?
Do you go up to an econobox driver and start preaching that they should get a Ferrari?
I don't care about value, I care about price.
While the temptation to make a PVR is really great at the moment, what with mythTV and friends getting better and better, it really isn't practical at the moment. At least here in the UK, for me, it isn't.
Why?
All but 4 (well, 4.5 counting ch5) channels are sent through cable for me. Admittedly, those channels do have the better programming on, but it would be somewhat lame not being able to record cable channels.
For instance, I have digital cable (ntl). All the decoding is done in the cable box and shoved through to channel 7 on the tv. This means you can only record from one pre determined cable channel. Unless you somehow set up lirc to send a 'channel change' ir command to the cable box every time it wants to change cable channel. I've thought about this, but it would be tricky and probably unreliable.
The question really is: can I justify building a PVR for just 4 channels?
Well yeah that's my point.
;)
The real phrase is "I couldn't care less", meaning it is not possible for me to, in any way, care about it less.
"I could care less" is a bastardisation of it that kinda stuck on the other side of the pond. And it really annoys me because it doesn't make sense.
...published do to fears...
Due to.
I know that's not what it sounds like, but that's how it's spelt.
It's like "Could care less" instead of "Couldn't care less". Incredibly annoying.
Here's a peak
Here's another one.
That's provably false.
Then, if the U.S. cares so much about human rights is it not attacking Saudi Arabia? Terrible human rights abuses go on every day, yet the U.S. is not only condoning it, it actively funds Saudi Arabia heavily, and uses it as an ally regularly.
Same goes for Pakistan, used as an ally in the Afghanistan conflict.
Where were they in Rwanda? Why didnt they go straight in?
Somalia has a huge hotbed of US hatred. It was basically an attack to put down the anti US sentiment. (Not sure how effective it was going to be to be honest)
In Serbia, democracy only came about due to UN involvement. Not the U.S. bombing, whatever you may think.
In Columbia, the U.S. funds terrorist groups to go around bullying and attacking farmers.
If you seriously believe that the U.S. has a good record when it comes to human rights and supporting human rights worldwide, I suggest you read this. (and that was published before the Iraqi invasion)
If you want to know what the U.S.'s moves are all really about, I would suggest you read a little bit more on this site.
Democracy isn't overnight.
Is that what you're still saying about Somalia?
You're a fucking moron if you think countries have agendas other than protecting their citizens, douchebag.
So surely Nazi Germany was protecting its nations interests, then. So that was ok by you?
I also don't understand your first line. How am I contradicting myself?
Please read my other reply.
Yes, I was watching that footage live. I also saw the U.S. soldiers try to put a stars and stripes over his head.
I am glad that Saddam is gone, I think it's great, and I'm very happy for the Iraqi people.
However, this is not the reason the U.S. invaded, and for anyone to say so, you, me, or especially the U.S. government would simply be untrue.
The U.S. has shown time and time again that it does not care in the slightest for human rights or creating democracies or whatever bullshit they go on about to try and win supporters. If they did care so much, why have they completely turned a blind eye to human rights abuses at home and abroad for 50 years?
Sure, the news agencies may be focusing on this right now, and the politicians may be talking about how they have saved the Iraqis, but this is not the reason they were there.
In the last 50 years, the U.S. has bombed about 20 countries, and not a single bombing has directly resulted in the creation of a Democracy.
And look what has happened in Afghanistan. Now the news agencies are gone, the U.S. have basically buggered off, leaving a fraction of the aid and money they said they would, and leaving half the country ruled by warlords.
Don't tell me the U.S. gives a fuck about Democracy. It gives a fuck about furthuring its' own interests.
Ask an Iraqi whose wife and mother were raped by Saddam's goons if he thinks the U.S. should remove Hussein.
Ask an Iraqi who was killed in the bombing on day three if he thinks the U.S. should remove Hussein.
Oh, wait...
Plays all my pr0n
Yeah, I always found that xine crashed when it got to the scene with the marmalade and the parrot...
gui is still disabled by default. Why?
Because that's not their job. Their job is to play movies. Do you complain that Apache doesn't have a gui? No, because if you really need a gui, you use a frontend.
MPlayer is supposed to be flexible and robust. You have a choice here really:
1: Have the MPlayer team make their own gui, which uses one toolkit, so it only integrates (if at all) with only one desktop framework (kde, gnome, mozilla, gnustep, whatever).
2: Have the Mplayer team waste their time by writing a seperate qt/kde gui, a gtk1/gnome1 one, a gtk2/gnome2 one, a plain gtk one etc etc etc... and be complained to by all the ui experts that it doesnt quite comply with their styleguides.
3: Have no gui, let other people sort that out for themselves. Concentrate on doing your job well. If someone wants to write a nice kpart wrapper, they can do it (and they'll probably be better at it than the mplayer team trying to spread their time thinly). If someone wants to use in its barest form for an embedded device, a pvr or something, they can do that and have no troubles.
What the team seem to have done, is they started with no gui, went with option 1, and then sort of realised that its not a fantastic idea, and seem to be abandoning it.
...for 12 spanking ideas...
Brilliant!
1. Tied up on a four poster bed, one limb on each post.
2. Use of a fish of some sort to perform the spanking.
3. Electromagnetic spanking device controlled by victim's brainwave patterns.
4. Caged.
5. First give the arse a carpet burn (spin them around on a rug), rub with vinegar, spank.
6. Spanking in the shower.
7. Spanking an inflatable Rolf Harris doll.
8. A game of naughty child / strict parent.
9. Use of a thin, splintering strip of wood.
10. Hot spanking: use cloth dipped in 'deep heat'.
11. Boiling oil/sugar*.
12. In the middle of the corridoor at work, to an unsuspectiong co-worker, and in full view, creating an awkward situation for all concerned.
* - Do not consume after use in this manor.
Could someone tell me how rendezvous is important to this process? I don't understand. In this context, aren't the same things doable just as easily with standard network sockets?
IMHO is it most likely that the money they save on bandwidth over this and the upcoming weeks will massively outweigh the amount of money they would have made from all those people signing up to get the distro. (I mean, how many people are going to do that? Get a subscription to RHN just to get the distro a week ahead of everyone else? Come on.)
Their income strategies are to pay huge amounts for the bandwidth of thousands of people downloading their .isos?
...a coworker decided to blow up /etc on a box
Give that coworker a kick up the arse from me.
I was reading innovations the other day, and they have come up with a better solution.
Jeepers creepers, you post is so right & depressing I think I just want to stay in bed.
I'm afraid that in making my point I got caught up in the semantics of 'fascism'. But you know what I mean. I think we're both reading from the same page.