I'm surprised that you need dual-core for 1080p video. My N900 which is more than one year old is able to record and play 880p video, and is not a dual core. Just a slight increase in performance would be enough for 1080p. As for the iphone having the best processor, that would really surprise me, knowing it can't even multitask...
Well, Israel has nukes. And it made it clear when US invaded Irak that it would answer with nukes to any attack from Saddam towards it. There is no reason to think they'll behave differently regarding Iran. But Iran, unlike Irak, does have weapons. So if either Israel or USA dares to attack Iran, Iran will launch missiles towards Israel, which, according to their own doctrine, could use their nuclear weapons against Iran. So yes, the risk is significant. That happens when you've two groups of religious/nationalist fanatics (current gov of both Iran and Israel) owning dangerous "toys"...
Cuba has the lowest Internet penetration ? How surprising, since due an illegal blockade from the world superpower it cannot legally buy any computer (do you know many computers that doesn't contain a single item made by a US corporation, from Intel to AMD for example ?) and since it cannot plug itself to the transatlantic cable going a few miles from it ?
Cuba's Internet connection is a very expensive and very limited (in bandwidth and ping) satellite connection with Finland.
So guess what ? In a capitalist country, it would mean Internet would cost a lot, and only the richest few could use it. In socialist Cuba, it means it's reserved for what is most beneficial for the society as a whole : universities, schools, gov services, and tourists. Yes, tourists, because it's Cuba primary source of hard currency, and since with the blockade everything they buy from abroad costs them much more than it should, they are desesperatly in need of it. Because no island of that size can be self-sufficient.
As for information that threatens national security or civil peace... it's not only forbidden in Cuba, but in most of the world. Just see how US gov reacted to wikileaks...
I say the probability is 1/2, if we forget all biological and social effects (twins, different chances of having boys and girls, effects of diet on sex of children, whatever).
The reasoning above is almost good. There are 27 cases, 13 in which the other child is a boy, 14 in which the other child is a girl. But I still claim the probability is 1/2.
Why ? Because the formula 13/27 only works if there is equi-probability between the 27 cases, and I think the case of two boys born on a Tuesday is twice as likely as the other 26 cases. For a simple reason : the question would be twice as likely to be asked this way in that case.
Let's consider the broader picture. With no additional knowledge on why the question is asked on one child or the other, we can consider that we have a quintuplet of (child1 sex, child1 day, child2 sex, child2 day, child referred to in the first part of the question).
So we do have 28 possibilities, because the case of two boys born on Tuesday is in fact two distinct cases, depending on whose child the question refers to.
That what would be for example that outcome of randomly selecting parents of two children, making them select randomly one of the two kids, and ask the question considering that children.
Which also has the positive effect of making the maths match with common sense (that's not always the case, but is always pleasant) : why would a totally unrelated elements like Tuesday change anything in the probability ? With no precision of weekday it would be 1/3, with weekday 13/14, with other unrelated stuff it would keep changing the probability ?
Because there are no human rights abuses in USA ? Or in Europe ? Or in the capitalist countries in Latin America ?
The country in which union leaders and journalists are killed isn't Cuba, it's capitalist Colombia. The country where hundred of indigenous people are slaughtered for daring to protest is not Cuba, but capitalist Peru. The country holding captive people, torturing them, with no trial is not Cuba, but capitalist USA on illegally occupied Guatanamo Bay. The country that drops tear gas from helicopters on peaceful protesters is not Cuba, but capitalist France.
What Cuban got from the Revolution is lack of unemployment, lack of homelessness, totally free healthcare and education. What they got from it is a life expectancy higher than the US, the lowest child death rate of the all Americas, and being the first Latin American country recognized "free of illiteracy" by UNESCO.
So yes, it is for the people. It's not perfect - but remember Cuba is a blockaded island facing the hostility of the world sole superpower. But compared to the rest of Latin America, it's undoubtly much better. And even compared with our "rich" countries, there are things which much better (and other which are less good, too, yes).
You are speaking of the CUC, the convertible peso, which is the tourrist currency.
Cuban have non-convertible pesos, usually. Non-convertible pesos can buy you about everything which is produced locally, and imported goods which are sponsored by the sate as being considered vital.
They also receive housing for 10% of their income who the minority who don't own their houses (because most cuban own their own house), and they don't pay anything for healthcare and education. When I say "don't pay anything" means that if you need to study at the other side of the island, not only you won't pay for university and books, but the state will even pay housing, food, and twice-a-year trip so you can visit your family back to your home city.
So yes, with their low salaries, they can live perfectly decent lives.
What they can't do, unless they have family abroad or they are working with tourists, is afford high-tech imported goods. But what else do you except, from a blockaded island ?
In blockaded Irak, children were dying of starvation or lack of drugs while Saddam and his friends were living luxurious lives. In blockaded Cuba, children and adults are well-fed, well-educated, and cured. But few can access high-tech goods, and no one live in luxury.
Those are the only two ways to handle a blockaded. I prefer the cuban way.
So long as that opposition takes the form of advocacy, not violence, then we would welcome them and remind them that we will not interfere with the speech of those who disagree, either.
That may be your wish, but in the real world, they would be arrested for "treason", "spying" or "intelligence with the ennemy"
The point is not that the US is the source of all evil or that without it there would be no evil or even that it's inherently the most evil.
The point is that the US is so powerful, and using its power so recklessly, than it has responsibility of most of currently existing large-scale evils. Partly because, without their support, the evil would not have succeeded. If the USA didn't help the Taliban in Afghanistan against USSR, it doesn't mean the Taliban wouldn't have existed or would have been less evil, but they probably wouldn't have been able to take the power.
The US is not inherently more evil than Iran or North Korea or Saudi. But being so much powerful than them, it does much more evil, because a single move from them has much more consequences.
If any other country in the world single-handily decide to blockade a tiny island, not much will happen, the island will trade with everyone else. When the US decides to blockade Cuba, coercing and threatening the rest of the world to not trade with Cuba, forbidding boats which docked in Cuba ports to dock in US ports for 6 months, blackmailing companies like dutch Philips so they don't sell medical equipment to Cuba, the consequences are terrific. For medical equipment, as USA did, it means death and suffering of countless of people who never did anything against the USA. And that's just one example among many.
The ethical rule being all that is very simple : the more power you wield, the more careful you should be in wielding it, because the more harm you can do. USA is definitely not careful in wielding its power, therefore drawing on it the wrath and criticism of all those who are revolted by the terrific consequences of this abuse.
Oh, shocking ! Someone working for an hostile foreign power to undermine the authority of local government is arrested !
Since when can't spies and traitors work unchecked ? It must be a dictature !
Imagine 5 minutes someone paid by Cuban or North Korean or Iranian government (which are definitely very different from each other, but all considered "ennemies" by USA) to oppose the US government ! Sure, he would have no problems.
I just remind you that 5 cubans were sentenced to very long (including several live penalties) jail sentence for daring to... oppose the Miami-based terror networks. But USA, which sentence to life sentence someone opposing terrorism, is "land of the free" and the Cuba, who arrest people paid by an hostile government (blockading them, sponsoring terror attacks against them,...) is the dictatorship.
Undermining constitutional order ? ChÃvez wanted to change the old, 4th Republic Constitution, indeed. He did a referendum. Then a Constitutional Assembly was elected. It redacted a draft. This draft was proposed to referendum. And massively approved to the people.
Do you know what is inside the 1999 "Bolivarian" Constitution ? Did you read it ?
I did read the constitutions of many countries. France, Germany, Italy, USA, USSR, proposed "European Constitution". From all of those, the 1999 Bolivarian one is by far the most democratic, and the most protective of human rights, both the individual and the collective rights.
Go read it, it's a very interesting one. Until Bolivia and Ecuador followed the same process much more recently, I do believe (even if I didn't read them all), that the 1999 Constitution was the most democratic and protective of people's rights on the world.
Individualism is not personal liberty. Individualism is an ideology that says that only yourself matters, not the others. It's a disgusting ideology, that no one except sociopaths are really following. A sane human being isn't individualistic, but cares about himself AND others, his family, his friends, and also the other people making the society.
Personal liberty is the right to do anything that doesn't harm others. And personal liberty, to not be an empty word, but a real liberty, requires collective, social rights. If you don't know how to read, your freedom of reading is useless. If you don't have food to eat, any other freedom becomes meaningless.
As ChÃvez doesn't try to eliminate personal liberty. When he teaches people how to read (thanks to ChÃvez, Venezuela is now "free of illiteracy", recognized so by UNESCO), he's allowing them to use the freedom to read.
And the ChÃvez government is definitely not an oppressive one. There is much more freedom in Venezuela now than it ever has been before. It was only 20 years ago that during the Caracazo, the previous "democracy" government sent the army to repress protest, killing between 300 and 3000 depending of sources.
ChÃvez even didn't send anyone to jail after a military coup attempt ! He's definitely not an oppressive leader. If the opposition would do a third of what it does in Venezuela in USA or anywhere in Europe, people would go in jail. In Venezuela, they don't.
That's complete non-sense. Some people, like Stalin, used a leftist ideology as a cover from their dictatorship - but calling yourself something doesn't make you one, or Saddam was an elected president, and East Germany was democratic.
Left-wing ideology is about sharing, cooperation, helping the ones in need, and giving the tools to people so they can be actually free to do whatever doesn't harm anyone. Right-wing ideology is about selfishness, competition (also known as law of jungle), survival of fittest, and giving the tools to the powerful so they can oppress the weak.
Both are totally, completely opposite, and claiming they are the same is confusing what an ideology is, and what was made by some in name of it. And if you do that, all ideologies, from democracy to liberalism to christianism to individualism to charity are the same and horrible, because you'll have always someone who did horrible things in the name of each.
This article is pure FUD and troll. The ChÃvez government bought Russian weapons ? Yeah. But why ? Oh, that's a question the anonymous coward will not ask. It may have to do with the fact USA put an embargo of selling repair pieces of military equipment to Venezuela, forcing ChÃvez to replace all the previous, USA-made equipment, with new Russian one, *just to maintain the level of its military*. Not to increase it.
The ones increasing the military in South America, who even bomb beyhond their border, who threatens their neighbours to do it again, is not Venezuela. It's not ChÃvez. It's Colombia, and the fascist, USA-allied, Uribe.
As for defending traditional games, and especially games that require more than one player (as opposed to most video games, of course, not all of them), it's a very wise move. Too much TV and video games *are* doing bad to people. I'm very glad my parents limited my TV and video game time as a child, making me read books, solve puzzle, play with legos, or a board game with my siblings. Any wise government would advise the same. As for yoyo, it teaches patience and dexterity.
So, what's wrong with ChÃvez ? What's the reason for this bashing ? That, being president of a violent country (that was the case when he arrived in power, Caracas was already a very dangerous city), he tries to attack the problem by several edges at the same time ? The police reform, the new reeducation through arts (music, theater,...) policy, the Mision Vuelven Caras to train those people into useful jobs, and also, a very important point against violence : education.
And preventing children from being exposed to the most violent games and movies is part of the non-violent education.
I don't like bans. I'm not sure it'll do any good. But with the dreadful situation ChÃvez inherited from the previous, corrupt, neoliberal presidents, I fear he doesn't have any choice. The most important question, to which the anonymous coward has no beginning of answer, is "what is the limit of the ban ?"
As such, the best way to protect oneself from copyright violations is complete ignorance of anything one might potentially infringe.
So, novel writers shouldn't read work done by authors in the same field, movies makers shoudln't watch other movies, musicians shouldn't listen to music, and so on ?
Reading what other people did in the same area (same kind of novels, movies, music,...) is a way to increase the overall quality of intellectual work. Human imagination is limited, no one can invent everything from scratch, reading/watching/listening to several (as much as possible !) other works, taking a few ideas, adding your own, mixing all this,... is the only way to do.
There is no mystery why most sci-fi writers were sci-fi readers during their teens, why most musicians were music lovers and why most movies makers where movies addict. The same goes for programmers: reading other people's source code to get ideas you can use (adding your own idea in the mixture) in your programs is the only way to make better and better programs. That's why patents are so bad in the computing field: because program writing is, in some aspects, more akin to book writing than to classical engineering.
Plagiarism is what I could call "search and replace copy and paste", like, you copy and paste and then rename all the variables... this si still copy and paste. A true rewrite of the same global ideas isn't plagiarism.
Thanks for the clarification about reverse in the US, I didn't know that.
For UK, it's true, but not only for UK, most European countries (including France and Germany) have similar laws: reverse engineering is allowed for interoperability, whatever the EULA says.
The same was done for the European patents directive: the version that was voted by the European Parliament includes a specific clause allowing to bypass patents for interoperability reasons.
As I said in the news about the source code leakage, this is a false fear, the same one MS uses about the GPL "do not read GPL code or you'll never be able to write commercial code afterwards".
Copyright is _NOT_ patent. You can read copyrighted work and then write something similar by yourself. Copyright does not protect ideas, structures, algorithms or data formats. Copyright protectes the actual code - copy/pasting or recopying Windows code into Free Software would be disastrous. Reading Windows source code to understand protocols or formats and then writing your own Free implementation is not.
Of course, you're not allowed to have windows source code at first, and you can be sued for having it. Not for writing source code with the knowledge you gained for it; the same way that reverse engineering is fordbidden in US, but if you use reverse to write Samba or a XFree driver, Samba or the driver will be legal. You can be sued if it's proven you used reverse, but your code will not.
Copyright is NOT patent. It protects code, not idea or structure.
You can read GPLed source code and then use the knowledge you gained from this to create a non-free alternative. The same way, if you have legal access to Windows source code, you can read it and then later write by yourself something similar. The same way you're allowed to read Lord of the Rings and then write a fantasy story of two small guys sneaking into the territory of the Ennemy to destroy His weapon. You're not allowed to copy/paste or clone copyrighted work unless you follow the license, but you're allowed to read it and then do something similar.
Since reading Windows souce code is illegal, you can be sued if you do it. But not the code you'll write after. Copyright protects source code, not ideas, not data formats, not algorithms.
So, if you have a technically limited system, based on a 30 years old architecture, that disallow users to do many things on the system, that force people to develop ugly quirks like the Gnome VFS or the kioslave layer because the core of the system lack the ability; where you are forced to implement complex "privileges separation" mechanism in every programs (like OpenSSH) because your system lack a clean and powerfull security infrastructre, but that is a bit more advanced in term of raw code, you should stop looking into any possibility to create a new system, based on the lastest researches done in OS Dev (like the second-generation micro-kernels) ?
I won't even go into the overhead inherent in a micro kernel message passing architecture.
That, and rest, means you are not aware of the research done in the last 5 or 10 years in the field of micro-kernel, with what we called the 'second generation micro-kernels', like L4. The cost of "message-passing" (or IPC to use a correct term) can be minimised and reduced by a factor of 10. With fast IPC, a lot things become possible, that are not in monolithic kernels, and even in many micro-kernel based systems. Look at some papers on http://www.l4ka.org/publications/ for more informations.
"The Hurd" (with the article) or "the GNU Hurd" is the set of servers that run on the top of a micro-kernel (GNU Mach for now, OSKit Mach soon, maybe L4 latter). The pair: The Hurd + -kernel can be used as a remplacement of the Linux kernl
GNU is the full operating system created by the GNU project. It contains The Hurd and many other things. It can be called GNU/Hurd to avoid confusions.
The Hurd is not a system, it's not a micro-kernel, it's not a kernel, it's a set of servers that run on top of a -kernel to replace a standard kernel.
What you don't understand is that bombing Afghanistan only creates more kamikazes.
Just take a real story: Kabul, "normal" family with a mother, a father and 6 children. An US bomb miss (?) its millitary target and destroy their house. The father and 5 children die. The mother lose her mind. The surviving child is 5 years old. All his life, he'll remember his father, brothers and sisters killed by US army. If in 15 years he becomes a terrorist and make a plane crash in NY, you'll know why. Drama like that happen every day in Afghanistan since US start bombing. Each of them create potential kamikazes.
Hatred create hatred. Violence leads to violence. You can't destroy terrorism with bombs. By killing Afghans you just increase the anti-US hatred in those countries, you give strength to Bin Laden and his friends.
Re:Q: Why should an IE user switch?
on
Mozilla 0.9.5
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You can speak about:
* security holes of IE
* password-protected list of username/passwords
* integration with search engines
* tab browsing
* faster and more accurate rendering for complex web pages (with many tables)
* full alpha-channel in PNG
* javascript pop-up control
* intelligent cookies/pictures manager
* pretty interface (new modern theme is so sweet)
*...
I never said France was a lot better. But the fact that France and other european countries did (and still do) a lot of horrible things don't allow you to do the same.
I'ld have react the same way if the planes crashed on Paris and the french army were bombing Kabul.
The statement was related to the two previous points: I was speaking first of Hiroshima/Nagazaki, then of Vietnam, and said that people are still dying today from nuclear weapons (in Japan) and napalm (in Vietnam)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm surprised that you need dual-core for 1080p video. My N900 which is more than one year old is able to record and play 880p video, and is not a dual core. Just a slight increase in performance would be enough for 1080p. As for the iphone having the best processor, that would really surprise me, knowing it can't even multitask...
Well, Israel has nukes. And it made it clear when US invaded Irak that it would answer with nukes to any attack from Saddam towards it. There is no reason to think they'll behave differently regarding Iran. But Iran, unlike Irak, does have weapons. So if either Israel or USA dares to attack Iran, Iran will launch missiles towards Israel, which, according to their own doctrine, could use their nuclear weapons against Iran. So yes, the risk is significant. That happens when you've two groups of religious/nationalist fanatics (current gov of both Iran and Israel) owning dangerous "toys"...
Cuba has the lowest Internet penetration ? How surprising, since due an illegal blockade from the world superpower it cannot legally buy any computer (do you know many computers that doesn't contain a single item made by a US corporation, from Intel to AMD for example ?) and since it cannot plug itself to the transatlantic cable going a few miles from it ?
Cuba's Internet connection is a very expensive and very limited (in bandwidth and ping) satellite connection with Finland.
So guess what ? In a capitalist country, it would mean Internet would cost a lot, and only the richest few could use it. In socialist Cuba, it means it's reserved for what is most beneficial for the society as a whole : universities, schools, gov services, and tourists. Yes, tourists, because it's Cuba primary source of hard currency, and since with the blockade everything they buy from abroad costs them much more than it should, they are desesperatly in need of it. Because no island of that size can be self-sufficient.
As for information that threatens national security or civil peace... it's not only forbidden in Cuba, but in most of the world. Just see how US gov reacted to wikileaks...
I say the probability is 1/2, if we forget all biological and social effects (twins, different chances of having boys and girls, effects of diet on sex of children, whatever).
The reasoning above is almost good. There are 27 cases, 13 in which the other child is a boy, 14 in which the other child is a girl. But I still claim the probability is 1/2.
Why ? Because the formula 13/27 only works if there is equi-probability between the 27 cases, and I think the case of two boys born on a Tuesday is twice as likely as the other 26 cases. For a simple reason : the question would be twice as likely to be asked this way in that case.
Let's consider the broader picture. With no additional knowledge on why the question is asked on one child or the other, we can consider that we have a quintuplet of (child1 sex, child1 day, child2 sex, child2 day, child referred to in the first part of the question).
That gives 14*14*2 possibilities, like :
(boy, Monday, boy, Monday, child1) ... ...
(boy, Monday, boy, Tuesday, child1)
(boy, Monday, boy, Wednesday, child1)
(boy, Monday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(boy, Monday, girl, Sunday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Monday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child1)
(girl, Sunday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(girl, Sunday, girl, Sunday, child1)
And then exactly the same with the question being posed on child 2 :
(boy, Monday, boy, Monday, child2) ...
(girl, Sunday, girl, Sunday, child2)
If you filter to all matching cases, that is, the cases on which the question refers to boy born on a Tuesday, it gives :
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Monday, child1) ...
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Wednesday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, girl, Sunday, child1)
(boy, Monday, boy, Tuesday, child2) ...
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(boy, Wednesday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(girl, Saturday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(girl, Sunday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
So we do have 28 possibilities, because the case of two boys born on Tuesday is in fact two distinct cases, depending on whose child the question refers to.
That what would be for example that outcome of randomly selecting parents of two children, making them select randomly one of the two kids, and ask the question considering that children.
Which also has the positive effect of making the maths match with common sense (that's not always the case, but is always pleasant) : why would a totally unrelated elements like Tuesday change anything in the probability ? With no precision of weekday it would be 1/3, with weekday 13/14, with other unrelated stuff it would keep changing the probability ?
Because there are no human rights abuses in USA ? Or in Europe ? Or in the capitalist countries in Latin America ?
The country in which union leaders and journalists are killed isn't Cuba, it's capitalist Colombia. The country where hundred of indigenous people are slaughtered for daring to protest is not Cuba, but capitalist Peru. The country holding captive people, torturing them, with no trial is not Cuba, but capitalist USA on illegally occupied Guatanamo Bay. The country that drops tear gas from helicopters on peaceful protesters is not Cuba, but capitalist France.
What Cuban got from the Revolution is lack of unemployment, lack of homelessness, totally free healthcare and education. What they got from it is a life expectancy higher than the US, the lowest child death rate of the all Americas, and being the first Latin American country recognized "free of illiteracy" by UNESCO.
So yes, it is for the people. It's not perfect - but remember Cuba is a blockaded island facing the hostility of the world sole superpower. But compared to the rest of Latin America, it's undoubtly much better. And even compared with our "rich" countries, there are things which much better (and other which are less good, too, yes).
You are speaking of the CUC, the convertible peso, which is the tourrist currency.
Cuban have non-convertible pesos, usually. Non-convertible pesos can buy you about everything which is produced locally, and imported goods which are sponsored by the sate as being considered vital.
They also receive housing for 10% of their income who the minority who don't own their houses (because most cuban own their own house), and they don't pay anything for healthcare and education. When I say "don't pay anything" means that if you need to study at the other side of the island, not only you won't pay for university and books, but the state will even pay housing, food, and twice-a-year trip so you can visit your family back to your home city.
So yes, with their low salaries, they can live perfectly decent lives.
What they can't do, unless they have family abroad or they are working with tourists, is afford high-tech imported goods. But what else do you except, from a blockaded island ?
In blockaded Irak, children were dying of starvation or lack of drugs while Saddam and his friends were living luxurious lives. In blockaded Cuba, children and adults are well-fed, well-educated, and cured. But few can access high-tech goods, and no one live in luxury.
Those are the only two ways to handle a blockaded. I prefer the cuban way.
So long as that opposition takes the form of advocacy, not violence, then we would welcome them and remind them that we will not interfere with the speech of those who disagree, either.
That may be your wish, but in the real world, they would be arrested for "treason", "spying" or "intelligence with the ennemy"
The point is not that the US is the source of all evil or that without it there would be no evil or even that it's inherently the most evil.
The point is that the US is so powerful, and using its power so recklessly, than it has responsibility of most of currently existing large-scale evils. Partly because, without their support, the evil would not have succeeded. If the USA didn't help the Taliban in Afghanistan against USSR, it doesn't mean the Taliban wouldn't have existed or would have been less evil, but they probably wouldn't have been able to take the power.
The US is not inherently more evil than Iran or North Korea or Saudi. But being so much powerful than them, it does much more evil, because a single move from them has much more consequences.
If any other country in the world single-handily decide to blockade a tiny island, not much will happen, the island will trade with everyone else. When the US decides to blockade Cuba, coercing and threatening the rest of the world to not trade with Cuba, forbidding boats which docked in Cuba ports to dock in US ports for 6 months, blackmailing companies like dutch Philips so they don't sell medical equipment to Cuba, the consequences are terrific. For medical equipment, as USA did, it means death and suffering of countless of people who never did anything against the USA. And that's just one example among many.
The ethical rule being all that is very simple : the more power you wield, the more careful you should be in wielding it, because the more harm you can do. USA is definitely not careful in wielding its power, therefore drawing on it the wrath and criticism of all those who are revolted by the terrific consequences of this abuse.
Oh, shocking ! Someone working for an hostile foreign power to undermine the authority of local government is arrested !
Since when can't spies and traitors work unchecked ? It must be a dictature !
Imagine 5 minutes someone paid by Cuban or North Korean or Iranian government (which are definitely very different from each other, but all considered "ennemies" by USA) to oppose the US government ! Sure, he would have no problems.
I just remind you that 5 cubans were sentenced to very long (including several live penalties) jail sentence for daring to... oppose the Miami-based terror networks. But USA, which sentence to life sentence someone opposing terrorism, is "land of the free" and the Cuba, who arrest people paid by an hostile government (blockading them, sponsoring terror attacks against them, ...) is the dictatorship.
Double standard, anyone ?
Undermining constitutional order ? ChÃvez wanted to change the old, 4th Republic Constitution, indeed. He did a referendum. Then a Constitutional Assembly was elected. It redacted a draft. This draft was proposed to referendum. And massively approved to the people.
Do you know what is inside the 1999 "Bolivarian" Constitution ? Did you read it ?
I did read the constitutions of many countries. France, Germany, Italy, USA, USSR, proposed "European Constitution". From all of those, the 1999 Bolivarian one is by far the most democratic, and the most protective of human rights, both the individual and the collective rights.
Go read it, it's a very interesting one. Until Bolivia and Ecuador followed the same process much more recently, I do believe (even if I didn't read them all), that the 1999 Constitution was the most democratic and protective of people's rights on the world.
Individualism is not personal liberty. Individualism is an ideology that says that only yourself matters, not the others. It's a disgusting ideology, that no one except sociopaths are really following. A sane human being isn't individualistic, but cares about himself AND others, his family, his friends, and also the other people making the society.
Personal liberty is the right to do anything that doesn't harm others. And personal liberty, to not be an empty word, but a real liberty, requires collective, social rights. If you don't know how to read, your freedom of reading is useless. If you don't have food to eat, any other freedom becomes meaningless.
As ChÃvez doesn't try to eliminate personal liberty. When he teaches people how to read (thanks to ChÃvez, Venezuela is now "free of illiteracy", recognized so by UNESCO), he's allowing them to use the freedom to read.
And the ChÃvez government is definitely not an oppressive one. There is much more freedom in Venezuela now than it ever has been before. It was only 20 years ago that during the Caracazo, the previous "democracy" government sent the army to repress protest, killing between 300 and 3000 depending of sources.
ChÃvez even didn't send anyone to jail after a military coup attempt ! He's definitely not an oppressive leader. If the opposition would do a third of what it does in Venezuela in USA or anywhere in Europe, people would go in jail. In Venezuela, they don't.
That's complete non-sense. Some people, like Stalin, used a leftist ideology as a cover from their dictatorship - but calling yourself something doesn't make you one, or Saddam was an elected president, and East Germany was democratic.
Left-wing ideology is about sharing, cooperation, helping the ones in need, and giving the tools to people so they can be actually free to do whatever doesn't harm anyone. Right-wing ideology is about selfishness, competition (also known as law of jungle), survival of fittest, and giving the tools to the powerful so they can oppress the weak.
Both are totally, completely opposite, and claiming they are the same is confusing what an ideology is, and what was made by some in name of it. And if you do that, all ideologies, from democracy to liberalism to christianism to individualism to charity are the same and horrible, because you'll have always someone who did horrible things in the name of each.
This article is pure FUD and troll. The ChÃvez government bought Russian weapons ? Yeah. But why ? Oh, that's a question the anonymous coward will not ask. It may have to do with the fact USA put an embargo of selling repair pieces of military equipment to Venezuela, forcing ChÃvez to replace all the previous, USA-made equipment, with new Russian one, *just to maintain the level of its military*. Not to increase it.
The ones increasing the military in South America, who even bomb beyhond their border, who threatens their neighbours to do it again, is not Venezuela. It's not ChÃvez. It's Colombia, and the fascist, USA-allied, Uribe.
As for defending traditional games, and especially games that require more than one player (as opposed to most video games, of course, not all of them), it's a very wise move. Too much TV and video games *are* doing bad to people. I'm very glad my parents limited my TV and video game time as a child, making me read books, solve puzzle, play with legos, or a board game with my siblings. Any wise government would advise the same. As for yoyo, it teaches patience and dexterity.
So, what's wrong with ChÃvez ? What's the reason for this bashing ? That, being president of a violent country (that was the case when he arrived in power, Caracas was already a very dangerous city), he tries to attack the problem by several edges at the same time ? The police reform, the new reeducation through arts (music, theater, ...) policy, the Mision Vuelven Caras to train those people into useful jobs, and also, a very important point against violence : education.
And preventing children from being exposed to the most violent games and movies is part of the non-violent education.
I don't like bans. I'm not sure it'll do any good. But with the dreadful situation ChÃvez inherited from the previous, corrupt, neoliberal presidents, I fear he doesn't have any choice. The most important question, to which the anonymous coward has no beginning of answer, is "what is the limit of the ban ?"
Does it do CMYK
No. Adobe has patents on it. The Gimp cannot, and will never, do CMYK correctly in any patent-encumbered area. Thanks Adobe.
As such, the best way to protect oneself from copyright violations is complete ignorance of anything one might potentially infringe.
...) is a way to increase the overall quality of intellectual work. Human imagination is limited, no one can invent everything from scratch, reading/watching/listening to several (as much as possible !) other works, taking a few ideas, adding your own, mixing all this, ... is the only way to do.
So, novel writers shouldn't read work done by authors in the same field, movies makers shoudln't watch other movies, musicians shouldn't listen to music, and so on ?
Reading what other people did in the same area (same kind of novels, movies, music,
There is no mystery why most sci-fi writers were sci-fi readers during their teens, why most musicians were music lovers and why most movies makers where movies addict. The same goes for programmers: reading other people's source code to get ideas you can use (adding your own idea in the mixture) in your programs is the only way to make better and better programs. That's why patents are so bad in the computing field: because program writing is, in some aspects, more akin to book writing than to classical engineering.
Plagiarism is what I could call "search and replace copy and paste", like, you copy and paste and then rename all the variables... this si still copy and paste. A true rewrite of the same global ideas isn't plagiarism.
Thanks for the clarification about reverse in the US, I didn't know that.
For UK, it's true, but not only for UK, most European countries (including France and Germany) have similar laws: reverse engineering is allowed for interoperability, whatever the EULA says.
The same was done for the European patents directive: the version that was voted by the European Parliament includes a specific clause allowing to bypass patents for interoperability reasons.
As I said in the news about the source code leakage, this is a false fear, the same one MS uses about the GPL "do not read GPL code or you'll never be able to write commercial code afterwards".
Copyright is _NOT_ patent. You can read copyrighted work and then write something similar by yourself. Copyright does not protect ideas, structures, algorithms or data formats. Copyright protectes the actual code - copy/pasting or recopying Windows code into Free Software would be disastrous. Reading Windows source code to understand protocols or formats and then writing your own Free implementation is not.
Of course, you're not allowed to have windows source code at first, and you can be sued for having it. Not for writing source code with the knowledge you gained for it; the same way that reverse engineering is fordbidden in US, but if you use reverse to write Samba or a XFree driver, Samba or the driver will be legal. You can be sued if it's proven you used reverse, but your code will not.
Copyright is NOT patent. It protects code, not idea or structure.
You can read GPLed source code and then use the knowledge you gained from this to create a non-free alternative. The same way, if you have legal access to Windows source code, you can read it and then later write by yourself something similar. The same way you're allowed to read Lord of the Rings and then write a fantasy story of two small guys sneaking into the territory of the Ennemy to destroy His weapon. You're not allowed to copy/paste or clone copyrighted work unless you follow the license, but you're allowed to read it and then do something similar.
Since reading Windows souce code is illegal, you can be sued if you do it. But not the code you'll write after. Copyright protects source code, not ideas, not data formats, not algorithms.
So, if you have a technically limited system, based on a 30 years old architecture, that disallow users to do many things on the system, that force people to develop ugly quirks like the Gnome VFS or the kioslave layer because the core of the system lack the ability; where you are forced to implement complex "privileges separation" mechanism in every programs (like OpenSSH) because your system lack a clean and powerfull security infrastructre, but that is a bit more advanced in term of raw code, you should stop looking into any possibility to create a new system, based on the lastest researches done in OS Dev (like the second-generation micro-kernels) ?
I won't even go into the overhead inherent in a micro kernel message passing architecture.
That, and rest, means you are not aware of the research done in the last 5 or 10 years in the field of micro-kernel, with what we called the 'second generation micro-kernels', like L4. The cost of "message-passing" (or IPC to use a correct term) can be minimised and reduced by a factor of 10. With fast IPC, a lot things become possible, that are not in monolithic kernels, and even in many micro-kernel based systems. Look at some papers on http://www.l4ka.org/publications/ for more informations.
Pay attention to vocabulary:
"The Hurd" (with the article) or "the GNU Hurd" is the set of servers that run on the top of a micro-kernel (GNU Mach for now, OSKit Mach soon, maybe L4 latter). The pair: The Hurd + -kernel can be used as a remplacement of the Linux kernl
GNU is the full operating system created by the GNU project. It contains The Hurd and many other things. It can be called GNU/Hurd to avoid confusions.
The Hurd is not a system, it's not a micro-kernel, it's not a kernel, it's a set of servers that run on top of a -kernel to replace a standard kernel.
What you don't understand is that bombing Afghanistan only creates more kamikazes.
Just take a real story: Kabul, "normal" family with a mother, a father and 6 children. An US bomb miss (?) its millitary target and destroy their house. The father and 5 children die. The mother lose her mind. The surviving child is 5 years old. All his life, he'll remember his father, brothers and sisters killed by US army. If in 15 years he becomes a terrorist and make a plane crash in NY, you'll know why. Drama like that happen every day in Afghanistan since US start bombing. Each of them create potential kamikazes.
Hatred create hatred. Violence leads to violence. You can't destroy terrorism with bombs. By killing Afghans you just increase the anti-US hatred in those countries, you give strength to Bin Laden and his friends.
You can speak about: ...
* security holes of IE
* password-protected list of username/passwords
* integration with search engines
* tab browsing
* faster and more accurate rendering for complex web pages (with many tables)
* full alpha-channel in PNG
* javascript pop-up control
* intelligent cookies/pictures manager
* pretty interface (new modern theme is so sweet)
*
I never said France was a lot better. But the fact that France and other european countries did (and still do) a lot of horrible things don't allow you to do the same.
I'ld have react the same way if the planes crashed on Paris and the french army were bombing Kabul.
The statement was related to the two previous points: I was speaking first of Hiroshima/Nagazaki, then of Vietnam, and said that people are still dying today from nuclear weapons (in Japan) and napalm (in Vietnam)