A GNOME user who isn't foaming at the mouth. I don't see one of those every day.
Sarcasm aside, I wish I could come across more people with such balanced perspectives about their desktop environments...Most people I've seen don't seem to feel secure about their own choices unless they're verbally bashing other people's...so when I see a change from that, I appreciate it.
It's pretty audacious to assume that everyone you know really wants to learn a new OS
Granted, but a question I'd also ask is,
"Do they want to pay $300 (AUD) or so for Vista itself, and then possibly another $500-$2,000 on top of that for the hardware upgrades required to run it? Do they also then want to be locked into the amount of DRM they will be with Vista, not to mention its' jackbooted EULA? Are they happy with all the WGA garbage, and the fact that Microsoft seem to think that it's generous to allow them a single hardware upgrade to the machine running Vista before they need to buy another license?"
I'm guessing no...and when you phrase it like that, I'd suspect they would also start to look at it differently as well.
If I was going to try and convert anyone to Linux or FreeBSD these days, (more likely the latter, for a number of reasons) I wouldn't initially say anything about Linux or FreeBSD themselves. I'd simply tell the person in question about the horrors they have in store with Vista...and I'd simply finish by asking,
"What if I told you that there is an alternative to that?"
In addition to Vista, with the Halloween Documents, and the incredibly helpful, positive assessment of Linux contained therein, Microsoft have given FOSS advocates all the PR tools we could ever need. Use them.
Further, the military would have zero popular support. If you think your government is really that powerful, well, pass me what you are smoking because it must be the good shit.
Fine...I'm delusional. Then please, explain to me the "unitary executive" stuff. Please also explain to me how the ability to have anyone (either domestic or foreign) arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and water-boarded at will fits within a democractic framework, especially given how such an ability would stand legally in relation to the Geneva Conventions...I am assuming that since you have military relatives, you would be far more intimately aware of that than am I. Explain to me how side-stepping the FISA court for surveillance warrants is above-board, democratic behaviour. We can also look at Bush's use of signing statements when enacting laws, basically clarifying which parts of said laws he will or will not abide by.
Then there's the whole can of worms surrounding how Bush got into office in the first place, not to mention the vote fraud issues that have taken place since.
You might be right that there is no way that Bush could orchestrate a coup...I can accept that...but I am interested in knowing whether or not you are able to deny that Bush and his administration have worked tirelessly to dismantle the American political system since practically the moment he arrived in office. Hence, while he might not actually be able to get an outright coup, he arguably *will* have been able to get everything short of one.
I hope you're right. Look at it this way, though...If he decides he doesn't want to go in two years, what are you going to be able to do about it?
To me that's the point...that Bush and other such types around the planet are realising that with the military forces they have these days, governmental checks and balances are devoid of teeth. He can decide he doesn't want to go, have the few people who want to object to that detained and/or shot, and then rely on the fact that the vast majority of the population will be too busy watching Paris Hilton, American Idol or Survivor to want to mount any kind of resistance to him after that...either that or they'll simply be too scared to do so. The proverbial IPod generation couldn't give a shit about politics. Bush could do whatever he wanted, for all they cared...and even if he by some chance did start doing something that they objected to, they would be completely at his mercy. He has the legal framework now (with the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and other such wonderful things) where he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants. If that isn't dictatorship, then pray tell...What is?
So that basically is my point...from everything I can see anyway, Bush has set himself up as the contemporary, real world answer to Sauron. We're all screwed.
the no-holds-barred political climate that sees value in feeding your particular phobia rather than getting you the professional help you need, that you are rated 'insightful'.
Maybe. Or maybe they know something you don't.
You're also not the first person to tell me I'm insane. I don't let that discourage me. My theory is that it's a lot more comforting to simply assume that I'm insane than to consider the alternative. Although you could be right...I actually hope that for a lot of people's sake, you are.
What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election.
What I assume nobody else is going to comment on is what a complete fool you are for assuming the electoral process is still functional in the first place. This might give you a slightly more realistic perspective on the state of America's political health.
I'm not advocating doing nothing, at all...but the longer people keep pretending that the current system still works, the closer you go to a situation where Bush's dictatorship will become entrenched beyond your ability to remove it. You need to stop pretending once and for all that you are still living in a democracy...you are not. It is a delusion which, if you persist in it for much longer, could very well end up costing many of you your lives.
What I would advocate anyone and everyone in the US to start doing from this point on is to become as friendly with people in the military as they can...because when it comes down to the wire, your life is going to literally depend on whose side the military are on...
...following the American government's example, among other things. Aside from Bush being fascist, Microsoft were let off the antitrust hook pretty much the moment he got into office...so it's completely understandable that they'd be thinking that they can do what they like, at least as far as America itself is concerned.
Just remember...the only real way they can trap people now is with games. Non-DRM mp3s are still available if you know where to look for them, and we still have Open Office. As long as Blizzard keep making the OSX port, we'll still be able to play WoW at least under Linux or FreeBSD, and there are a lot of other games that can be used with wine, as I said earlier.
Even if the majority are willing to swallow the EULA, I know not everyone is going to be...and that is the point. There will be a lot of people who can't do their jobs with these kinds of restrictions...they'll have to either stay with XP, or migrate to Linux or FreeBSD.
I have a feeling that this will ultimately be a very good thing for FOSS.
The single main reason why I felt so ambivalent about Google's digestion of YouTube is because I knew it'd kill it. Barely 12 hours after the initial news of the acquisition hit, we were also hearing reports of how Universal and the other usual parasites were already circling.
Time to go back to the BT darknets or Kad, guys. "Mainstream," means "chewed up, with anything even remotely resembling worthwhile or genuinely meaningful material filtered, and spat out," where this type of thing is concerned.
I hope the two founders of YouTube enjoy their money. I'm also trying not to blame them for selling out...I would have done the same in their situation, as would anyone else. I just wish there'd been a way for them to still make a couple of billion dollars while still ensuring that YouTube wasn't going to end up being destroyed in the process.
The gaming scenario in Linux has never been better.
No, Linux still isn't at the point where any and all games that run in Windows will run in it...but installing WoW with Wine is trivial if you install Wine via something like apt-get. Neverwinter Nights Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Starcraft, the original Half Life, Unreal Tournament, UT2k3, the Quakes, SimCity 4 and Steam are also possible. Some of these even have native Linux ports/installers.
For most people these days, WoW is also pretty much all they need anywayz...it also runs in FreeBSD with the Linux XF86-libs package.
Granted, with the exception of WoW, none of the above games are very contemporary...but as the trolls Zonk regularly links to point out, there aren't really any games worth playing being released at the moment anywayz.
The more they keep talking about doing things like this, the more I wonder. It leaves me aghast...Do they honestly think people are going to tolerate it?
...the immortal need to balance sizzle with steak.;-)
However, I and my friends at irc.linuxfromscratch.org have known the answer to this question for a while now...a window manager which will turn even the most pitiful, helpless of newbs into the proverbial black-leather clad h4XX0r in the blink of an eye.
"What are you trying to tell me...That I can dodge bullets?"
"No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you run Enlightenment, you won't have to.";-)
The comparison is entirely apt. How much do you know about Hitler?
In particular, I invite you to study the history of the German Reichstag fire and the resulting legislation passed by Hitler, and compare such with 9/11 and the resulting legislation there. Unless you're completely mired in denial, you might find the contrast interesting.
...I honestly have to wonder why Bush would even bother doing something like this. We all know revolution isn't going to happen. The few people who do know what's going on also know perfectly well what would happen to them if they tried it, (namely that they'd get mown down as they exited their homes) and the rest of the population are too busy watching Survivor, American Idol, or coverage of Paris Hilton's latest activities to care.
Although the other thing I have never understood about fascism is why it has this weird cycle which seems to inevitably result in it self-destructing. I would have thought that if a group of people attained absolute power (especially in a country that is supposedly as wealthy as the US) they'd want to actually take some time to enjoy it...but no...they for some inexplicable reason have to rush madly straight to the concentration camp phase.
You're assuming that the executive branch ever cares about the interests of anyone but itself; it doesn't.
The executive branch only *exists* purely as a concession to the reality of dark side of human nature...the Fuhrerprinzip. The principle existed for aeons before Hitler...he was merely the first to so specifically and consciously name it. The cry of, "We want our Fuhrer!" has echoed throughout human history...despite the hunger for a Fuhrer being so destructive, it will exist long after Bush has gone, regardless of the enormity of the crimes that he ultimately commits.
People need a Fuhrer because only through a Fuhrer can they abdicate self-responsibility...which above all else, they have an endless, insatiable need to do.
There have been people who have maintained that the idea of George W Bush seeking to become a dictator is, "unhinged," and the thinking of a "tin foil underwear wearing conspiracy nut."
Please explain to me then...if that is true, and if all Bush seeks to do is protect people from terrorists...and that he does not, in fact, have an earnest desire to become a dictator...why does he continue to seek legal measures such as this one and the Military Commission Act?
If I am a "conspiracy nut," in thinking that Bush's reasoning for seeking laws such as this is that he desires to become a dictator, then please...I am begging for someone to enlighten me. If such a theory is schizophrenic in nature, what is the sane explanation for this?
Sure, you can get Fedora for free, but it's not the same product. If you want RHEL, you pay for it, one copy one "support contract"... plain and simple.
I suspect they'd also be playing rather fast and loose with the GPL, as well.
This is the entire reason why I've always believed more in the BSD license for business. The GPL was specifically designed to disallow monopoly. Of course, the usual Communists in the audience will immediately scream that that is as it should be. What they are as usual forgetting, however, is that they cannot ultimately use the law to force others to subscribe to their worldview. If the GPL makes establishment of monopoly illegal, business will break the law. It's that simple. All the GPL really means is that piracy shifts from the end-user to the vendor. The law is still broken; merely in a different place.
Businesses being able to use code under the BSD license means they don't need to break the law in order to adhere to capitalist methodology. The consortium model which this document advocates could have worked, and still could.
The above linked document also talks incidentally about the GPL making companies vulnerable to hostile takeover. Red Hat has zero tangible assets, at least where IP is concerned. They might have their artwork, but that is it. Hence, they're completely expendable.
Mark me on this; if Oracle swallows Red Hat, it will set precedent. Other people in the business world will notice what can happen to a FOSS company that has zero or negligible unique IP of their own, and said noticing has the potential to massively harm Linux's continued corporate adoption. Then again, perhaps that would be a good thing...if the corporate world's love affair with Linux were to end, it might turn them towards the BSDs, and to creating a scenario where people can begin to more genuinely economically benefit themselves and each other, rather than the current scenario of everyone involved with Linux being forced footsoldiers in the cause of Stallman's radicalism.
Linus Torvalds might have believed initially, and might still believe now, that adopting the GPL as Linux's license made good sense...but it has been a mistake, and I suspect that even if he himself does not, many other people will live to regret it.
IMHO there was a fair amount of difference between Buffy and Angel. In my own mind, Angel was targetted at adults, (or at least 20 somethings) while Buffy was targetted at the real-world equivalent of Dawn or Willow...Ergo, 14-16 year old angst-ridden female Wiccan scenesters and/or fake Goths.
The first few seasons of Buffy I found at least tolerable, and occasionally interesting...although once Dawn and Tara showed up, I lost interest more or less immediately...Dawn in particular reminded me a little too strongly of a number of girls I'd known at high school who I would have preferred left forgotten.
As others have probably said, Whedon *does* have a wonderful gift for taking well-known stereotypes and turning them on their head...thus effectively re-inventing them. He's probably the closest we've come to genuine originality since the end of the 80s, for my money.
As I was going to say though, for me Angel is really where the "Buffyverse," hit its' stride...Although to me David Boreanaz, James Marsters, and Andy Hallett had as much to do with that as anyone behind the camera would have. We're not going to see another character with the level of charisma that Boreanaz in particular exhibited there for quite some time, I don't think.
It might continue to exist in some neutered form, but Wikipedia being the "encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit," in any meaningful sense, is dead. Anyone outside the inner circle who tries to add anything gets an immediate revert...the reason given is either "failure to cite sources," (even if you actually did) or "use of weasel words," which is a bullshit subjective abstraction that doesn't mean anything. The translation of both of the above is, "You're outside the clique, and this site is no longer write access enabled for people outside the clique."
The 9/11 article is a major case in point...there was a time when it was extremely balanced, presenting both the official story, and a number of different hypotheses put forward by the various independent investigative groups, as well as links to the websites of both the government and said other groups. Pretty much everyone got covered...it was remarkable. Now, however, it's pure whitewash. The government account is all that's there, word for word. There might be a few links to independent groups at the bottom of the page, but that's about it.
Wikipedia have completely and entirely sold out. In their perpetual, gnawing insecurity about "credibility," and making sure that they're a place where schoolchildren can do project research, they've given up any desire whatsoever for content that is genuinely meaningful. As far as individuality or uniqueness is concerned, the site truly is dead.
I find it difficult to adequately verbalise the level of grief and anger I feel over this...not only with the site's resident "community," but also with its' founder that he has allowed such a situation to come to pass. Wikipedia could have remained something infinitely more valuable than that which it has become.
Human nature being what it is, people only tend to play the bully when they're at the top of the heap. Microsoft are not a completely undisputed monopoly any more; Apple have regrouped, Linux is continuing to make in-roads, and I've just downloaded FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE...it's great.
In other words, Microsoft are having to compete on a more level playing field. Given that, some people at least within the company have probably realised that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from being nice. I'm sure there are some who've been around long enough to have noticed a massive change in IBM's behaviour in the last ten years, compared to when they were a monopoly...they're not king of the hill any more either.
Another thing worth remembering is that in nearly any conflict, the brass are primarily to blame. It was high ups within Microsoft who would have been responsible for killing Netscape...my guess is that the IE 7 team are more or less rank and file in Microsoft's heirarchy. Some of you probably know the story about at least one Christmas Day during the first world war...some lower level soldiers from both sides gave each other presents, sang carols together, and played soccer...which made the officers furious.
It's only officers or politicians who tend to want conflict...aside from self-defense, the little guy has nothing whatsoever to gain from it.
Not being American myself, I could be wrong about this...but I get the feeling that the reason why a lot of Americans are migrating right now is not because they hate their country, but because their country has a *government* currently which is causing them to fear for their lives.
In the opinion of a lot of people, the Bush administration has recently been working overtime to destroy as many of the legal protections that Americans apparently used to have as he can, to the point where many people are feeling that he could have them killed arbitrarily whenever he chose to and there would be nothing they could do to save themselves whatsoever, if they stayed in the country. Even if not for that itself, people want to live in a place where there is decent health care, where their government is not spying into every single thing they do, and where they can use the Internet without being legally crucified due purely to corporate greed. More than anything else though, as I said, the one thing any people need is to feel safe. The Bush administration is a menace.
I understand that your perspective may still be one of support for Bush, but I am predicting that if you're someone who is capable of any introspection at all, that that perspective will grow increasingly more difficult for you to hold as time goes on.
Bush is not good for anyone. He is not good for Americans, he is not good for people outside the country...the man isn't even good for himself.
I'm guessing one of Fedora's single main problems is rpm. I haven't used Fedora myself, but I did use RH 7, 8, and 9...I'll never forget how relieved I was to move to Linux From Scratch.
rpm has a number of features which IMHO should not have been implemented at all (subpackaging being the most egregious in the list, although the macro format would be close) which are used on a routine basis. The specfiles are consistently of a hideous standard from what I have seen as well...they are utterly incomprehensible when there is no sane reason for them to be whatsoever. Don't even get me started about how loose most people usually are with dependency lines in specfiles, either. Then there are the horror stories about mangled databases and trashed installations, etc. In short, it's a completely broken system...I wouldn't touch it with a forty foot pole for use on any computer, production or otherwise.
Another god is heard from - shouting out his/her changes
I'm not a god. Did I make that claim? I don't think so.
you need to produce proof that I am wrong is classifying Forbes magazine - and the article in question as blatant fear mongering without a shred of evidence.
I'm not arguing with the idea that Lyons is a troll...I googled him and read several of his other rants on Forbes. The guy seems to spend most of his time trying to tear Linux down in one way or the other.
My point was that just because Lyons might be a troll most of the time, that doesn't mean his point about Stallman was necessarily invalid...I didn't see you trying to challenge that either way; you simply made a generalisation about Forbes.
The point about Stallman *is* valid, IMHO...Namely that at one point the guy was doing a hell of a lot of good work, but that over the last three years or so has gone off the rails more or less completely. That seems to be a minority opinion though, I'm aware...Most of the people on here seem to stick with the familiar line of, "Stallman is our God. How DARE you utter a word against this infallible, omniscient being?!"
If you're looking for someone who you can really accuse of having delusions of godhood, there's your man...I'm assuming you'd heard before this article about his St Ignutius routine?
Slashdot Mirror
That competent body may have been stacked, but it was stacked *legitimately*. You can whine all you like, but that don't change the facts.
I see...So Mafia-like cronyism is completely acceptable as long as it is achieved via due process?
Forgive my ignorance...you're obviously right. Americans clearly have a political system to be proud of.
A GNOME user who isn't foaming at the mouth. I don't see one of those every day.
Sarcasm aside, I wish I could come across more people with such balanced perspectives about their desktop environments...Most people I've seen don't seem to feel secure about their own choices unless they're verbally bashing other people's...so when I see a change from that, I appreciate it.
If I had points currently, I'd mod you up.
It's pretty audacious to assume that everyone you know really wants to learn a new OS
Granted, but a question I'd also ask is,
"Do they want to pay $300 (AUD) or so for Vista itself, and then possibly another $500-$2,000 on top of that for the hardware upgrades required to run it? Do they also then want to be locked into the amount of DRM they will be with Vista, not to mention its' jackbooted EULA? Are they happy with all the WGA garbage, and the fact that Microsoft seem to think that it's generous to allow them a single hardware upgrade to the machine running Vista before they need to buy another license?"
I'm guessing no...and when you phrase it like that, I'd suspect they would also start to look at it differently as well.
If I was going to try and convert anyone to Linux or FreeBSD these days, (more likely the latter, for a number of reasons) I wouldn't initially say anything about Linux or FreeBSD themselves. I'd simply tell the person in question about the horrors they have in store with Vista...and I'd simply finish by asking,
"What if I told you that there is an alternative to that?"
In addition to Vista, with the Halloween Documents, and the incredibly helpful, positive assessment of Linux contained therein, Microsoft have given FOSS advocates all the PR tools we could ever need. Use them.
Further, the military would have zero popular support. If you think your government is really that powerful, well, pass me what you are smoking because it must be the good shit.
Fine...I'm delusional. Then please, explain to me the "unitary executive" stuff. Please also explain to me how the ability to have anyone (either domestic or foreign) arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and water-boarded at will fits within a democractic framework, especially given how such an ability would stand legally in relation to the Geneva Conventions...I am assuming that since you have military relatives, you would be far more intimately aware of that than am I. Explain to me how side-stepping the FISA court for surveillance warrants is above-board, democratic behaviour. We can also look at Bush's use of signing statements when enacting laws, basically clarifying which parts of said laws he will or will not abide by.
Then there's the whole can of worms surrounding how Bush got into office in the first place, not to mention the vote fraud issues that have taken place since.
You might be right that there is no way that Bush could orchestrate a coup...I can accept that...but I am interested in knowing whether or not you are able to deny that Bush and his administration have worked tirelessly to dismantle the American political system since practically the moment he arrived in office. Hence, while he might not actually be able to get an outright coup, he arguably *will* have been able to get everything short of one.
See, he will be gone in two years.
I hope you're right. Look at it this way, though...If he decides he doesn't want to go in two years, what are you going to be able to do about it?
To me that's the point...that Bush and other such types around the planet are realising that with the military forces they have these days, governmental checks and balances are devoid of teeth. He can decide he doesn't want to go, have the few people who want to object to that detained and/or shot, and then rely on the fact that the vast majority of the population will be too busy watching Paris Hilton, American Idol or Survivor to want to mount any kind of resistance to him after that...either that or they'll simply be too scared to do so. The proverbial IPod generation couldn't give a shit about politics. Bush could do whatever he wanted, for all they cared...and even if he by some chance did start doing something that they objected to, they would be completely at his mercy. He has the legal framework now (with the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and other such wonderful things) where he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to whoever he wants. If that isn't dictatorship, then pray tell...What is?
So that basically is my point...from everything I can see anyway, Bush has set himself up as the contemporary, real world answer to Sauron. We're all screwed.
That's hilarious. I'm bookmarking this and returning in 2010. I just want to see how "insightful" this is.
Sure...Bookmark my journal as well. We can compare notes.
the no-holds-barred political climate that sees value in feeding your particular phobia rather than getting you the professional help you need, that you are rated 'insightful'.
Maybe. Or maybe they know something you don't.
You're also not the first person to tell me I'm insane. I don't let that discourage me. My theory is that it's a lot more comforting to simply assume that I'm insane than to consider the alternative. Although you could be right...I actually hope that for a lot of people's sake, you are.
What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election.
What I assume nobody else is going to comment on is what a complete fool you are for assuming the electoral process is still functional in the first place. This might give you a slightly more realistic perspective on the state of America's political health.
I'm not advocating doing nothing, at all...but the longer people keep pretending that the current system still works, the closer you go to a situation where Bush's dictatorship will become entrenched beyond your ability to remove it. You need to stop pretending once and for all that you are still living in a democracy...you are not. It is a delusion which, if you persist in it for much longer, could very well end up costing many of you your lives.
What I would advocate anyone and everyone in the US to start doing from this point on is to become as friendly with people in the military as they can...because when it comes down to the wire, your life is going to literally depend on whose side the military are on...
Bush's, or yours.
...following the American government's example, among other things. Aside from Bush being fascist, Microsoft were let off the antitrust hook pretty much the moment he got into office...so it's completely understandable that they'd be thinking that they can do what they like, at least as far as America itself is concerned.
Just remember...the only real way they can trap people now is with games. Non-DRM mp3s are still available if you know where to look for them, and we still have Open Office. As long as Blizzard keep making the OSX port, we'll still be able to play WoW at least under Linux or FreeBSD, and there are a lot of other games that can be used with wine, as I said earlier.
Even if the majority are willing to swallow the EULA, I know not everyone is going to be...and that is the point. There will be a lot of people who can't do their jobs with these kinds of restrictions...they'll have to either stay with XP, or migrate to Linux or FreeBSD.
I have a feeling that this will ultimately be a very good thing for FOSS.
The single main reason why I felt so ambivalent about Google's digestion of YouTube is because I knew it'd kill it. Barely 12 hours after the initial news of the acquisition hit, we were also hearing reports of how Universal and the other usual parasites were already circling.
Time to go back to the BT darknets or Kad, guys. "Mainstream," means "chewed up, with anything even remotely resembling worthwhile or genuinely meaningful material filtered, and spat out," where this type of thing is concerned.
I hope the two founders of YouTube enjoy their money. I'm also trying not to blame them for selling out...I would have done the same in their situation, as would anyone else. I just wish there'd been a way for them to still make a couple of billion dollars while still ensuring that YouTube wasn't going to end up being destroyed in the process.
But like I said, there's still p2p.
The gaming scenario in Linux has never been better.
No, Linux still isn't at the point where any and all games that run in Windows will run in it...but installing WoW with Wine is trivial if you install Wine via something like apt-get. Neverwinter Nights Warcraft 3, Diablo 2, Starcraft, the original Half Life, Unreal Tournament, UT2k3, the Quakes, SimCity 4 and Steam are also possible. Some of these even have native Linux ports/installers.
For most people these days, WoW is also pretty much all they need anywayz...it also runs in FreeBSD with the Linux XF86-libs package.
Granted, with the exception of WoW, none of the above games are very contemporary...but as the trolls Zonk regularly links to point out, there aren't really any games worth playing being released at the moment anywayz.
So don't pay trolls such as this one any mind...go to , and look up your favourite PC game. 98% of the time, you'll find that with a minimal amount of mental elbow grease, you'll be able to play it under Linux just fine...and that usually translates by extension to FreeBSD as well.
...actually *trying* to destroy itself?
The more they keep talking about doing things like this, the more I wonder. It leaves me aghast...Do they honestly think people are going to tolerate it?
...the immortal need to balance sizzle with steak. ;-)
;-)
However, I and my friends at irc.linuxfromscratch.org have known the answer to this question for a while now...a window manager which will turn even the most pitiful, helpless of newbs into the proverbial black-leather clad h4XX0r in the blink of an eye.
"What are you trying to tell me...That I can dodge bullets?"
"No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you run Enlightenment, you won't have to."
Comparing Hilter and President Bush...
The comparison is entirely apt. How much do you know about Hitler?
In particular, I invite you to study the history of the German Reichstag fire and the resulting legislation passed by Hitler, and compare such with 9/11 and the resulting legislation there. Unless you're completely mired in denial, you might find the contrast interesting.
Then there are such wonderful things as this.
But of course...I (and anyone else who would believe Bush seeks dictatorship) am merely a tinfoil hat wearing, schizoid nutcase. Pay me no mind.
You'd better damn well hope that's true...for your sake.
...I honestly have to wonder why Bush would even bother doing something like this. We all know revolution isn't going to happen. The few people who do know what's going on also know perfectly well what would happen to them if they tried it, (namely that they'd get mown down as they exited their homes) and the rest of the population are too busy watching Survivor, American Idol, or coverage of Paris Hilton's latest activities to care.
Although the other thing I have never understood about fascism is why it has this weird cycle which seems to inevitably result in it self-destructing. I would have thought that if a group of people attained absolute power (especially in a country that is supposedly as wealthy as the US) they'd want to actually take some time to enjoy it...but no...they for some inexplicable reason have to rush madly straight to the concentration camp phase.
Why is that?
To argue against this point would be to admit the flaw in Wikipedia's underlying philosophy.
;-)
Which particular flaw do you mean? There's quite a few...can you narrow it down any for us?
You're assuming that the executive branch ever cares about the interests of anyone but itself; it doesn't.
The executive branch only *exists* purely as a concession to the reality of dark side of human nature...the Fuhrerprinzip. The principle existed for aeons before Hitler...he was merely the first to so specifically and consciously name it. The cry of, "We want our Fuhrer!" has echoed throughout human history...despite the hunger for a Fuhrer being so destructive, it will exist long after Bush has gone, regardless of the enormity of the crimes that he ultimately commits.
People need a Fuhrer because only through a Fuhrer can they abdicate self-responsibility...which above all else, they have an endless, insatiable need to do.
There have been people who have maintained that the idea of George W Bush seeking to become a dictator is, "unhinged," and the thinking of a "tin foil underwear wearing conspiracy nut."
Please explain to me then...if that is true, and if all Bush seeks to do is protect people from terrorists...and that he does not, in fact, have an earnest desire to become a dictator...why does he continue to seek legal measures such as this one and the Military Commission Act?
If I am a "conspiracy nut," in thinking that Bush's reasoning for seeking laws such as this is that he desires to become a dictator, then please...I am begging for someone to enlighten me. If such a theory is schizophrenic in nature, what is the sane explanation for this?
Sure, you can get Fedora for free, but it's not the same product. If you want RHEL, you pay for it, one copy one "support contract"... plain and simple.
I suspect they'd also be playing rather fast and loose with the GPL, as well.
This is the entire reason why I've always believed more in the BSD license for business. The GPL was specifically designed to disallow monopoly. Of course, the usual Communists in the audience will immediately scream that that is as it should be. What they are as usual forgetting, however, is that they cannot ultimately use the law to force others to subscribe to their worldview. If the GPL makes establishment of monopoly illegal, business will break the law. It's that simple. All the GPL really means is that piracy shifts from the end-user to the vendor. The law is still broken; merely in a different place.
Businesses being able to use code under the BSD license means they don't need to break the law in order to adhere to capitalist methodology. The consortium model which this document advocates could have worked, and still could.
The above linked document also talks incidentally about the GPL making companies vulnerable to hostile takeover. Red Hat has zero tangible assets, at least where IP is concerned. They might have their artwork, but that is it. Hence, they're completely expendable.
Mark me on this; if Oracle swallows Red Hat, it will set precedent. Other people in the business world will notice what can happen to a FOSS company that has zero or negligible unique IP of their own, and said noticing has the potential to massively harm Linux's continued corporate adoption. Then again, perhaps that would be a good thing...if the corporate world's love affair with Linux were to end, it might turn them towards the BSDs, and to creating a scenario where people can begin to more genuinely economically benefit themselves and each other, rather than the current scenario of everyone involved with Linux being forced footsoldiers in the cause of Stallman's radicalism.
Linus Torvalds might have believed initially, and might still believe now, that adopting the GPL as Linux's license made good sense...but it has been a mistake, and I suspect that even if he himself does not, many other people will live to regret it.
IMHO there was a fair amount of difference between Buffy and Angel. In my own mind, Angel was targetted at adults, (or at least 20 somethings) while Buffy was targetted at the real-world equivalent of Dawn or Willow...Ergo, 14-16 year old angst-ridden female Wiccan scenesters and/or fake Goths.
The first few seasons of Buffy I found at least tolerable, and occasionally interesting...although once Dawn and Tara showed up, I lost interest more or less immediately...Dawn in particular reminded me a little too strongly of a number of girls I'd known at high school who I would have preferred left forgotten.
As others have probably said, Whedon *does* have a wonderful gift for taking well-known stereotypes and turning them on their head...thus effectively re-inventing them. He's probably the closest we've come to genuine originality since the end of the 80s, for my money.
As I was going to say though, for me Angel is really where the "Buffyverse," hit its' stride...Although to me David Boreanaz, James Marsters, and Andy Hallett had as much to do with that as anyone behind the camera would have. We're not going to see another character with the level of charisma that Boreanaz in particular exhibited there for quite some time, I don't think.
It might continue to exist in some neutered form, but Wikipedia being the "encyclopedia that *anyone* can edit," in any meaningful sense, is dead. Anyone outside the inner circle who tries to add anything gets an immediate revert...the reason given is either "failure to cite sources," (even if you actually did) or "use of weasel words," which is a bullshit subjective abstraction that doesn't mean anything. The translation of both of the above is, "You're outside the clique, and this site is no longer write access enabled for people outside the clique."
The 9/11 article is a major case in point...there was a time when it was extremely balanced, presenting both the official story, and a number of different hypotheses put forward by the various independent investigative groups, as well as links to the websites of both the government and said other groups. Pretty much everyone got covered...it was remarkable. Now, however, it's pure whitewash. The government account is all that's there, word for word. There might be a few links to independent groups at the bottom of the page, but that's about it.
Wikipedia have completely and entirely sold out. In their perpetual, gnawing insecurity about "credibility," and making sure that they're a place where schoolchildren can do project research, they've given up any desire whatsoever for content that is genuinely meaningful. As far as individuality or uniqueness is concerned, the site truly is dead.
I find it difficult to adequately verbalise the level of grief and anger I feel over this...not only with the site's resident "community," but also with its' founder that he has allowed such a situation to come to pass. Wikipedia could have remained something infinitely more valuable than that which it has become.
Human nature being what it is, people only tend to play the bully when they're at the top of the heap. Microsoft are not a completely undisputed monopoly any more; Apple have regrouped, Linux is continuing to make in-roads, and I've just downloaded FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE...it's great.
In other words, Microsoft are having to compete on a more level playing field. Given that, some people at least within the company have probably realised that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from being nice. I'm sure there are some who've been around long enough to have noticed a massive change in IBM's behaviour in the last ten years, compared to when they were a monopoly...they're not king of the hill any more either.
Another thing worth remembering is that in nearly any conflict, the brass are primarily to blame. It was high ups within Microsoft who would have been responsible for killing Netscape...my guess is that the IE 7 team are more or less rank and file in Microsoft's heirarchy. Some of you probably know the story about at least one Christmas Day during the first world war...some lower level soldiers from both sides gave each other presents, sang carols together, and played soccer...which made the officers furious.
It's only officers or politicians who tend to want conflict...aside from self-defense, the little guy has nothing whatsoever to gain from it.
Not being American myself, I could be wrong about this...but I get the feeling that the reason why a lot of Americans are migrating right now is not because they hate their country, but because their country has a *government* currently which is causing them to fear for their lives.
In the opinion of a lot of people, the Bush administration has recently been working overtime to destroy as many of the legal protections that Americans apparently used to have as he can, to the point where many people are feeling that he could have them killed arbitrarily whenever he chose to and there would be nothing they could do to save themselves whatsoever, if they stayed in the country. Even if not for that itself, people want to live in a place where there is decent health care, where their government is not spying into every single thing they do, and where they can use the Internet without being legally crucified due purely to corporate greed. More than anything else though, as I said, the one thing any people need is to feel safe. The Bush administration is a menace.
I understand that your perspective may still be one of support for Bush, but I am predicting that if you're someone who is capable of any introspection at all, that that perspective will grow increasingly more difficult for you to hold as time goes on.
Bush is not good for anyone. He is not good for Americans, he is not good for people outside the country...the man isn't even good for himself.
I'm guessing one of Fedora's single main problems is rpm. I haven't used Fedora myself, but I did use RH 7, 8, and 9...I'll never forget how relieved I was to move to Linux From Scratch.
rpm has a number of features which IMHO should not have been implemented at all (subpackaging being the most egregious in the list, although the macro format would be close) which are used on a routine basis. The specfiles are consistently of a hideous standard from what I have seen as well...they are utterly incomprehensible when there is no sane reason for them to be whatsoever. Don't even get me started about how loose most people usually are with dependency lines in specfiles, either. Then there are the horror stories about mangled databases and trashed installations, etc. In short, it's a completely broken system...I wouldn't touch it with a forty foot pole for use on any computer, production or otherwise.
Another god is heard from - shouting out his/her changes
I'm not a god. Did I make that claim? I don't think so.
you need to produce proof that I am wrong is classifying Forbes magazine - and the article in question as blatant fear mongering without a shred of evidence.
I'm not arguing with the idea that Lyons is a troll...I googled him and read several of his other rants on Forbes. The guy seems to spend most of his time trying to tear Linux down in one way or the other.
My point was that just because Lyons might be a troll most of the time, that doesn't mean his point about Stallman was necessarily invalid...I didn't see you trying to challenge that either way; you simply made a generalisation about Forbes.
The point about Stallman *is* valid, IMHO...Namely that at one point the guy was doing a hell of a lot of good work, but that over the last three years or so has gone off the rails more or less completely. That seems to be a minority opinion though, I'm aware...Most of the people on here seem to stick with the familiar line of, "Stallman is our God. How DARE you utter a word against this infallible, omniscient being?!"
If you're looking for someone who you can really accuse of having delusions of godhood, there's your man...I'm assuming you'd heard before this article about his St Ignutius routine?