If I invite you to my house, and you come over and party and we have a great time and you go home afterwards, then later I find out that you were hanging out at the house of some dude I really hate, I can't suddenly claim you were trespassing.
I'm sorry, but they picked the guy; they made their bed, now they should sleep in it. If a woman goes to breakfast with a man after screwing him, the idea that it wasn't consensual is just ridiculous. When the woman only raises a stink after she finds out that he's been two-timing her, it's obviously a case of "filing false charges" on her part, and SHE should go to jail for that. Sorry, but if you sleep with a man you're not married to, there's no guarantee that he's being faithful to you, no matter what he may tell you.
So if a man tells a woman, "you're the most beautiful woman in the world" to get in her pants, he can be prosecuted for rape because he's lying? What if he tells her he loves her and wants to marry her, and then leaves the next morning?
I'm sorry, but at some point, women need to stop being coddled by the court system and take responsibility for themselves. The courts aren't here to protect the hopelessly naive from themselves.
I don't have a big problem with paying a true tax in return for a government-provided benefit. After all, we the people elect the government, and theoretically we have the power to elect new people if we don't like the way government agencies are being run.
I DO have a big problem with being forced to pay a tax to a private, for-profit corporation.
Auto insurance isn't great, but remember, you're only required to have it (and only in some (most) states) IF you drive a car on public roads. No car, no insurance. There's tons of people living in NYC and other cities who don't have auto insurance because they don't own a car. ALSO, auto insurance is a State issue, not Federal. The Federal government has no effect on auto insurance being required; you can take that up with your State government. The Federal government is supposed to be minimal by design, and the Bill of Rights reserves all rights to the States that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. If a State wanted to require health insurance, I wouldn't like that either, but it wouldn't be a (federal) Constitutional issue.
We even have state-provided insurance in many cases: flood and wind. Flood I believe is done by the Federal government directly, so if you need flood insurance, it goes through the government, not a for-profit insurance company. Some states (Gulf Coast) now provide wind insurance, because insurance companies pulled out of the region after Katrina.
And it's the CIA, is anyone personally liable for the shit they stir?
They're part of the Executive Branch, so I'd say whomever's President is personally liable for the shit they stir. Unfortunately, if you look at the CIA's track record and how long they've been stirring shit up, that means that most or all the presidents over the last 50+ years are liable.
I vote for both heads together, and also throw in a few more: Romney, McCain, and Palin. Might as well throw Clinton's head in too, plus Bush I, Reagan, etc.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
There's only so many unskilled jobs to go around. We don't need tons more landscapers than we already have, and by allowing in tons of unskilled workers, you displace all the unskilled citizens you already have, who are struggling to find jobs.
The thing is, this is what you get with this system. The President has lots of power, because the system was set up that way. He doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court's orders if he doesn't want, and he can make up new laws if he wants. The only recourse is for Congress to impeach him. This seems to be a weakness in the system IMO.
I'm starting to think that Parliamentary systems are really better after all. They don't seem to have the problem of one person having too much power like this.
Yep, the reason the Democrats looked bad during the Civil Rights days was because of the so-called Southern Democrats. In the South, it simply wasn't possible to be a Republican; no one would vote for you, because Lincoln was a Republican. It took over 100 years for this to finally go away. So what happened was that only Democrats ran in all the elections; you'd be voting between two (or more) Democrat candidates for any particular office. Sometimes a Republican would run, but they never got elected.
These Southern Democrats were the ones in their party most against civil rights reforms. When the other Democrats (the ones not from the South) finally pushed it through in the late 60s, the Southern Democrats around the mid-70s finally decided to switch parties to the Republicans, leaving only the ones agreeing with civil-rights reform in the actual Democrat party.
The Parties' platforms have changed greatly in the last 50, 100, and 150 years. It really doesn't make much sense to compare modern politicians in either party with the way the parties were historically.
Are you nuts? Windows is butt-ugly. The only Windows that looked any good was Vista, and that was a disaster in other ways. Win7 looks horrible, and Win8 is unbelievably ugly. XP looked like Fisher-Price designed it.
Using a SQL database for storing emails actually makes a lot of sense if you have a lot of emails. Actually, using a SQL database for storing lots of small pieces of data makes sense in any application. However, there's caveats. 1) If you want that email to be readable by different email programs (like you want to be able to switch between Kmail and Thunderbird as the mood strikes you), it obviously won't work unless those programs agree to use the same database schema. 2) There must be a way of both importing and exporting the email to/from different formats. If #2 isn't in place, the whole thing is a bad idea.
That's what Wayland is for, I believe. As I understand it, the remote stuff can be added in fairly easily with it too, though it wouldn't use the X protocol (which it shouldn't, that thing is crufty).
Where on earth do you get that idea? Apple isn't copying KDE, Apple's been doing its own thing forever (it copied PARC's stuff, but that was ages ago). Microsoft is copying Unity and Gnome3, with the ridiculous idea that there should be a single UI that works on both touchscreens and keyboard/mouse systems. KDE is the only one sticking with a "traditional" desktop UI, but they're pushing the idea that you can run a single framework (KDE) on different devices, but have a different UI on them all (plasma-desktop for desktops, plasma-netbook for netbooks, plasma-active for touchscreen devices). No one is copying that idea, and only Apple is using that same idea (but they didn't copy it, they always did that, if anything, KDE copied them, but Apple never came out and said "we believe different devices should have different UIs, so this is our grand plan!", whereas KDE has done exactly that). Of all of them, Apple is really the most conservative, as they haven't changed their desktop UI much (it still sucks with the whole menu-on-top paradigm which doesn't work on multiple monitors, and they did do that stupid thing where they reversed the scroll wheel direction on mice to be like touchscreens), and basically seem to be developing their iOS and OSX OSes separately for now.
Why the hell would a user give a rat's ass if a desktop environment is written in C++, C, or FORTRAN, as long as it works? This seems rather idiotic. You think Windows' GUI is written in C? Or Apple's? Think again.
Unity and Gnome3 are not copying anyone, they're blazing new trails. The problem is, the trails they're blazing are headed straight over a cliff, because their UI design sucks. Microsoft is actually copying them, and their idea of trying to have a single UI that works for touchscreens and regular desktop/laptop machines; Gnome3 and Unity were there first.
KDE is a totally different animal, as it copies a lot from Windows and CDE and also tries to be everything to everyone by having configuration options for everything under the sun. The other two, like Mac and Windows, offer little if any configurability.
BTW, in KDE, I don't need to know whether a WLAN AP is WEP or WPA2, that's all automatic.
It's really a shame too, because KDE in my opinion is the best-positioned to take over for Windows when the Win8 trainwreck hits; anyone switching to Unity or Gnome3 will have to learn an entirely new paradigm, whereas KDE in its default form works very similarly to Windows, without all the annoyances. However, instead of fixing some of the remaining bugs and problems, they concentrate all their efforts on this "semantic desktop" crap. I just installed Mint 12 KDE on my Thinkpad laptop only to find that there's no apparent way to disable the stupid touchpad, so the mouse cursor is flying all over the screen as I try to type, since my palm keeps touching it. I'm not sure what I did in Mint 10 (KDE), but I didn't have this problem there, as the touchpad was simply disabled (I only use the trackpoint; Thinkpads have both). So I go to file a bug, and find that people have been asking for a feature to disable the touchpad, either completely or just when typing, for over 3 years now. I'm not sure why it's such a problem, because there's even a module there in System Settings to configure the touchpad, so you can fine tune its performance, but there's no way to just turn the damned thing off!
These open-source developers just don't seem to understand the idea of getting the fundamentals working before moving on to the fancy but not essential features.
- Decent priced PDF editor for filling in PDF files? No. (sorry, I am not buying Acrobat for that).
If you're talking about filling in PDF forms, Okular (part of KDE) already does that, though it won't do the self-calculating forms (unless it's added that more recently).
And others don't. Opinions differ on merits of different desktops; story at 11. "Desktop A rules, desktop B sucks" is, absent data from a broad population of users, a personal opinion, not a statement of fact
Yes, but what IS a fact is that some desktops allow users to configure their desktop the way they like it, with focus-follows-mouse, click-to-focus, and other properties. The problem is that most desktops do not; the designers think they know what's best for everyone, and refuse to allow any configuration at all. If all or most desktops allowed users to set these things, you wouldn't see all this complaining. The people who like to click to focus (I'll admit I actually prefer this) will set it that way, the focus-follows-mouse fans will set it that way, and everyone will be happy. In theory, at least; it seems like a lot of people will actually bitch and whine that they don't like the default setting, and complain that their personal preference should be the default, and that they shouldn't have to configure anything at all.
You shouldn't have to move the mouse out of the way when you're typing to see the window better. The window manager is supposed to hide the mouse when you're typing.
You obviously have a different need, and this is why configurability is a wonderful thing.
Yes, but most desktop UIs don't allow much configurability if any: OSX, Win7, Gnome3, Unity all have very little configurability if any. KDE is one of the few that consider it a virtue.
Slashdot Mirror
If I invite you to my house, and you come over and party and we have a great time and you go home afterwards, then later I find out that you were hanging out at the house of some dude I really hate, I can't suddenly claim you were trespassing.
I'm sorry, but they picked the guy; they made their bed, now they should sleep in it. If a woman goes to breakfast with a man after screwing him, the idea that it wasn't consensual is just ridiculous. When the woman only raises a stink after she finds out that he's been two-timing her, it's obviously a case of "filing false charges" on her part, and SHE should go to jail for that. Sorry, but if you sleep with a man you're not married to, there's no guarantee that he's being faithful to you, no matter what he may tell you.
So if a man tells a woman, "you're the most beautiful woman in the world" to get in her pants, he can be prosecuted for rape because he's lying? What if he tells her he loves her and wants to marry her, and then leaves the next morning?
I'm sorry, but at some point, women need to stop being coddled by the court system and take responsibility for themselves. The courts aren't here to protect the hopelessly naive from themselves.
I don't have a big problem with paying a true tax in return for a government-provided benefit. After all, we the people elect the government, and theoretically we have the power to elect new people if we don't like the way government agencies are being run.
I DO have a big problem with being forced to pay a tax to a private, for-profit corporation.
Auto insurance isn't great, but remember, you're only required to have it (and only in some (most) states) IF you drive a car on public roads. No car, no insurance. There's tons of people living in NYC and other cities who don't have auto insurance because they don't own a car. ALSO, auto insurance is a State issue, not Federal. The Federal government has no effect on auto insurance being required; you can take that up with your State government. The Federal government is supposed to be minimal by design, and the Bill of Rights reserves all rights to the States that aren't enumerated in the Constitution. If a State wanted to require health insurance, I wouldn't like that either, but it wouldn't be a (federal) Constitutional issue.
We even have state-provided insurance in many cases: flood and wind. Flood I believe is done by the Federal government directly, so if you need flood insurance, it goes through the government, not a for-profit insurance company. Some states (Gulf Coast) now provide wind insurance, because insurance companies pulled out of the region after Katrina.
And it's the CIA, is anyone personally liable for the shit they stir?
They're part of the Executive Branch, so I'd say whomever's President is personally liable for the shit they stir. Unfortunately, if you look at the CIA's track record and how long they've been stirring shit up, that means that most or all the presidents over the last 50+ years are liable.
I vote for both heads together, and also throw in a few more: Romney, McCain, and Palin. Might as well throw Clinton's head in too, plus Bush I, Reagan, etc.
The difference is there's a big profit-making insurance company in between, taking a giant cut of the money and NOT providing any healthcare.
Ok, then exactly what is that "low enough" bracket? Health insurance is horribly expensive for anyone who doesn't get it through work, so I'm sure lots of lower-middle-class people truly can't afford it either.
The fact remains that it's wrong, and fascist, to have the government require people to buy something from a third party. If something is so important that everyone really should have it, then the answer is simple: the government should provide it directly, like it does for many other things (like veterans' health care).
You get to pay the tax, it seems. Welcome to the new Corporate States of America.
There's only so many unskilled jobs to go around. We don't need tons more landscapers than we already have, and by allowing in tons of unskilled workers, you displace all the unskilled citizens you already have, who are struggling to find jobs.
Native American tribes were different from each other. Some were peaceful, some not as you pointed out.
Unfortunately, peaceful societies rarely fare well when faced with warlike, aggressive, expansionist societies.
The thing is, this is what you get with this system. The President has lots of power, because the system was set up that way. He doesn't have to follow the Supreme Court's orders if he doesn't want, and he can make up new laws if he wants. The only recourse is for Congress to impeach him. This seems to be a weakness in the system IMO.
I'm starting to think that Parliamentary systems are really better after all. They don't seem to have the problem of one person having too much power like this.
Yep, the reason the Democrats looked bad during the Civil Rights days was because of the so-called Southern Democrats. In the South, it simply wasn't possible to be a Republican; no one would vote for you, because Lincoln was a Republican. It took over 100 years for this to finally go away. So what happened was that only Democrats ran in all the elections; you'd be voting between two (or more) Democrat candidates for any particular office. Sometimes a Republican would run, but they never got elected.
These Southern Democrats were the ones in their party most against civil rights reforms. When the other Democrats (the ones not from the South) finally pushed it through in the late 60s, the Southern Democrats around the mid-70s finally decided to switch parties to the Republicans, leaving only the ones agreeing with civil-rights reform in the actual Democrat party.
The Parties' platforms have changed greatly in the last 50, 100, and 150 years. It really doesn't make much sense to compare modern politicians in either party with the way the parties were historically.
Are you nuts? Windows is butt-ugly. The only Windows that looked any good was Vista, and that was a disaster in other ways. Win7 looks horrible, and Win8 is unbelievably ugly. XP looked like Fisher-Price designed it.
Using a SQL database for storing emails actually makes a lot of sense if you have a lot of emails. Actually, using a SQL database for storing lots of small pieces of data makes sense in any application. However, there's caveats. 1) If you want that email to be readable by different email programs (like you want to be able to switch between Kmail and Thunderbird as the mood strikes you), it obviously won't work unless those programs agree to use the same database schema. 2) There must be a way of both importing and exporting the email to/from different formats. If #2 isn't in place, the whole thing is a bad idea.
That depends. Do you mean a pine cone where the little "leaves" or whatever you call them have opened up, or not?
That's what Wayland is for, I believe. As I understand it, the remote stuff can be added in fairly easily with it too, though it wouldn't use the X protocol (which it shouldn't, that thing is crufty).
Where on earth do you get that idea? Apple isn't copying KDE, Apple's been doing its own thing forever (it copied PARC's stuff, but that was ages ago). Microsoft is copying Unity and Gnome3, with the ridiculous idea that there should be a single UI that works on both touchscreens and keyboard/mouse systems. KDE is the only one sticking with a "traditional" desktop UI, but they're pushing the idea that you can run a single framework (KDE) on different devices, but have a different UI on them all (plasma-desktop for desktops, plasma-netbook for netbooks, plasma-active for touchscreen devices). No one is copying that idea, and only Apple is using that same idea (but they didn't copy it, they always did that, if anything, KDE copied them, but Apple never came out and said "we believe different devices should have different UIs, so this is our grand plan!", whereas KDE has done exactly that). Of all of them, Apple is really the most conservative, as they haven't changed their desktop UI much (it still sucks with the whole menu-on-top paradigm which doesn't work on multiple monitors, and they did do that stupid thing where they reversed the scroll wheel direction on mice to be like touchscreens), and basically seem to be developing their iOS and OSX OSes separately for now.
Why the hell would a user give a rat's ass if a desktop environment is written in C++, C, or FORTRAN, as long as it works? This seems rather idiotic. You think Windows' GUI is written in C? Or Apple's? Think again.
Unity and Gnome3 are not copying anyone, they're blazing new trails. The problem is, the trails they're blazing are headed straight over a cliff, because their UI design sucks. Microsoft is actually copying them, and their idea of trying to have a single UI that works for touchscreens and regular desktop/laptop machines; Gnome3 and Unity were there first.
KDE is a totally different animal, as it copies a lot from Windows and CDE and also tries to be everything to everyone by having configuration options for everything under the sun. The other two, like Mac and Windows, offer little if any configurability.
BTW, in KDE, I don't need to know whether a WLAN AP is WEP or WPA2, that's all automatic.
It's really a shame too, because KDE in my opinion is the best-positioned to take over for Windows when the Win8 trainwreck hits; anyone switching to Unity or Gnome3 will have to learn an entirely new paradigm, whereas KDE in its default form works very similarly to Windows, without all the annoyances. However, instead of fixing some of the remaining bugs and problems, they concentrate all their efforts on this "semantic desktop" crap. I just installed Mint 12 KDE on my Thinkpad laptop only to find that there's no apparent way to disable the stupid touchpad, so the mouse cursor is flying all over the screen as I try to type, since my palm keeps touching it. I'm not sure what I did in Mint 10 (KDE), but I didn't have this problem there, as the touchpad was simply disabled (I only use the trackpoint; Thinkpads have both). So I go to file a bug, and find that people have been asking for a feature to disable the touchpad, either completely or just when typing, for over 3 years now. I'm not sure why it's such a problem, because there's even a module there in System Settings to configure the touchpad, so you can fine tune its performance, but there's no way to just turn the damned thing off!
These open-source developers just don't seem to understand the idea of getting the fundamentals working before moving on to the fancy but not essential features.
- Decent priced PDF editor for filling in PDF files? No. (sorry, I am not buying Acrobat for that).
If you're talking about filling in PDF forms, Okular (part of KDE) already does that, though it won't do the self-calculating forms (unless it's added that more recently).
And others don't. Opinions differ on merits of different desktops; story at 11. "Desktop A rules, desktop B sucks" is, absent data from a broad population of users, a personal opinion, not a statement of fact
Yes, but what IS a fact is that some desktops allow users to configure their desktop the way they like it, with focus-follows-mouse, click-to-focus, and other properties. The problem is that most desktops do not; the designers think they know what's best for everyone, and refuse to allow any configuration at all. If all or most desktops allowed users to set these things, you wouldn't see all this complaining. The people who like to click to focus (I'll admit I actually prefer this) will set it that way, the focus-follows-mouse fans will set it that way, and everyone will be happy. In theory, at least; it seems like a lot of people will actually bitch and whine that they don't like the default setting, and complain that their personal preference should be the default, and that they shouldn't have to configure anything at all.
You shouldn't have to move the mouse out of the way when you're typing to see the window better. The window manager is supposed to hide the mouse when you're typing.
You obviously have a different need, and this is why configurability is a wonderful thing.
Yes, but most desktop UIs don't allow much configurability if any: OSX, Win7, Gnome3, Unity all have very little configurability if any. KDE is one of the few that consider it a virtue.