Doesn't Debian make security announcements like most other distributions do??
Duh. Subscribe to the debian-security-announce list.
If someone can tell me a more efficient way to keep up on Debian security, please let me know.
There's the list mentioned above. And duh, the Debian homepage itself lists recent security issues.
The Debian Security page gives the line to add to etc/apt/sources.list to configure apy to download fixed package.
Frankly, with Debian it is easier to follow security than other distros. You get an announcement of a fixed package, and then you just do "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade".
I don't think English is widespread because it is the language of the (current) World Empire, though that is certainly a factor. It is widespread because it can be learned really badly and still be understandable.
[3 more paragraphs of crap]
Dude, stop talking out of your ass and go take a Linguistics 101 course. Your "spanglish creoles" bit, above all, was an exceptional display of ignorance the likes of which I haven't seen in a while.
You quote the numbers of Mandarin, Hindu and Spanish speakers as though that were somehow related to the point.
And he quotes some pretty weird number for English. Most estimates put English and Spanish head-to-head for native speakers in the 300M area, and English far more ahead than 470M for native + second language speakers. For example, one can look at the SIL Ethnologue and its list of the top 100 languages (counting native speakers), and they actually count more Spanish speakers than English.
My guess is that whoever gives the 470M figure has a very liberal definition of what "English" is, and includes speakers of English-based creoles.
What you call two languages "merging", from your examples, is just a language borrowing content words from another one, which I certainly wouldn't call a "merge", since it mostly doesn't touch either the grammar, the function words (articles, auxiliaries, etc.), or the morphology.
A telling factor is thatby far most words that are borrowed are adapted to the phonology and morphology of the target language, and can even end up unrecognizable from the original in a few years.
Who said I am at war with the grocery stores?
on
Focusing Audio
·
· Score: 1
Let's not exaggerate this.... You're not at war with these grocery stores.
I was talking about the class war. Hell, I wrote precisely those words: class war. Here, I'll write them again so you don't miss the chance of seeing them: class war. Yeah, I know it's sort of a cuss word in the face of the massive capitalist propaganda you have been through, but there is indeed a war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie own supermarket chains, and I don't; my relations with the supermarket chains are indelibly shaped by these material circumstances. Is it clear enough now?
The only reason they exist is to provide a service to consumers.
No. The customers are the means to make profit for the stockholders. They are not the end of the stores.
obviously people feel they are useful or no one would shop at them.
Cut the euphemism. People shop at them because they would rather not starve. Calling this "people feel they are useful" is a rhetorical trick to sanitize the exploitation they represent.
What makes you think a company wouldn't be forced to grow in a socialist society?
And what makes you think you know what I think, even if I haven't said anything closely resembling what you imply I think?
Anyway, you reply by implictly opposing capitalism to socialism, which is certainly not the correct opposition in this case. There's such a thing as market socialism, you know. You probably wanted to oppose capitalism to command economies. Of course, neither of these two work. Luckily, contrary to mainstream economic propaganda, there are alternatives to them.
Information is critical in war, class war included
on
Focusing Audio
·
· Score: 1
Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic?
No.
Consider: The stores aren't interested in you, specifically.
No, they're not interested in me, or in any other of their customers, as anything more than a guinea pig to experiment on so as to manipulate their behavior for the benefit of the stockholders, and the detriment of the customer. This is a problem.
And it also neatly gives lie to the religion of the "invisible hand of the free market". Those economic actors who have the most power use their power to deform the free market, not only by distorting the information available to customers, but also by manipulating their behavior.
They're watching traffic patterns in their store, looking at which products and marketing techniques tend to grab attention and keep it, etc.
Information which they plan to use to rip me and millions of others off at a future date. Information is crucial to waging war; the class war is no exception.
But let's not confuse marketing research with Big Brother. They have no way of tracking you as an individual.
Their objective, again, is to manipulate us, to control us. My interest in preserving my privacy in this case is the same interest a country at war has in keeping its sensitive information secure.
"Laboratory supermarkets" do this kind of thing.
on
Focusing Audio
·
· Score: 1
Marketing will have a field day with this. In grocery stores, each aisle will have secret messages aimed at areas to suggest you buy certain products (maybe even aimed lower, for the kiddies).
This kind of thing has been researched for years already in "lab supermarkets". These are supermarkets with all sorts of hidden electronic cameras and sensors to monitor the activities of shoppers and thus design and test technologies to rip them off big time.
This is of course a blatant invasion of customers' privacy. It is none of my supermarket's business what I look at, for how long, how quickly I walk through different aisles, the route I take inside the store, etc. This is why I shop only in small markets-- only there will you find a respect for the dignity of human life in this modern world of impersonal, eploitative Albertson's stores.
You are wrong. Sustainable development does not eliminate growth.
Huh? Do you have reading comprehension problems, or did you deliberately misrepresent me in order to attack me?
From the context it is absolutely clear that what I said is that the requirement to grow or else die (not plain growth, as you misrepresent me) is the antithesis to sustainable development.
Why do we have an environmental problem in the first place? Because capitalism requires companies to continuously grow or else die, and thus is the antithesis to sustainable development.
LEVs are really just a patch on the symptoms of a deeper problem. Even if we switched over to them, we would be replacing one environmental problem (emissions) with another (e.g. disposing of toxic substances in batteries).
Slashdot Mirror
Duh. Subscribe to the debian-security-announce list. If someone can tell me a more efficient way to keep up on Debian security, please let me know.
There's the list mentioned above. And duh, the Debian homepage itself lists recent security issues.
The Debian Security page gives the line to add to etc/apt/sources.list to configure apy to download fixed package.
Frankly, with Debian it is easier to follow security than other distros. You get an announcement of a fixed package, and then you just do "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade".
Eh, there's no such thing. The cajuns are from southwestern Louisiana. Hell, there's far more cajuns in Houston than New Orleans.
[3 more paragraphs of crap]
Dude, stop talking out of your ass and go take a Linguistics 101 course. Your "spanglish creoles" bit, above all, was an exceptional display of ignorance the likes of which I haven't seen in a while.
And he quotes some pretty weird number for English. Most estimates put English and Spanish head-to-head for native speakers in the 300M area, and English far more ahead than 470M for native + second language speakers. For example, one can look at the SIL Ethnologue and its list of the top 100 languages (counting native speakers), and they actually count more Spanish speakers than English.
My guess is that whoever gives the 470M figure has a very liberal definition of what "English" is, and includes speakers of English-based creoles.
A telling factor is thatby far most words that are borrowed are adapted to the phonology and morphology of the target language, and can even end up unrecognizable from the original in a few years.
I was talking about the class war. Hell, I wrote precisely those words: class war. Here, I'll write them again so you don't miss the chance of seeing them: class war. Yeah, I know it's sort of a cuss word in the face of the massive capitalist propaganda you have been through, but there is indeed a war between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie own supermarket chains, and I don't; my relations with the supermarket chains are indelibly shaped by these material circumstances. Is it clear enough now?
The only reason they exist is to provide a service to consumers.
No. The customers are the means to make profit for the stockholders. They are not the end of the stores.
obviously people feel they are useful or no one would shop at them.
Cut the euphemism. People shop at them because they would rather not starve. Calling this "people feel they are useful" is a rhetorical trick to sanitize the exploitation they represent.
And what makes you think you know what I think, even if I haven't said anything closely resembling what you imply I think?
Anyway, you reply by implictly opposing capitalism to socialism, which is certainly not the correct opposition in this case. There's such a thing as market socialism, you know. You probably wanted to oppose capitalism to command economies. Of course, neither of these two work. Luckily, contrary to mainstream economic propaganda, there are alternatives to them.
No.
Consider: The stores aren't interested in you, specifically.
No, they're not interested in me, or in any other of their customers, as anything more than a guinea pig to experiment on so as to manipulate their behavior for the benefit of the stockholders, and the detriment of the customer. This is a problem.
And it also neatly gives lie to the religion of the "invisible hand of the free market". Those economic actors who have the most power use their power to deform the free market, not only by distorting the information available to customers, but also by manipulating their behavior.
They're watching traffic patterns in their store, looking at which products and marketing techniques tend to grab attention and keep it, etc.
Information which they plan to use to rip me and millions of others off at a future date. Information is crucial to waging war; the class war is no exception.
But let's not confuse marketing research with Big Brother. They have no way of tracking you as an individual.
Their objective, again, is to manipulate us, to control us. My interest in preserving my privacy in this case is the same interest a country at war has in keeping its sensitive information secure.
This kind of thing has been researched for years already in "lab supermarkets". These are supermarkets with all sorts of hidden electronic cameras and sensors to monitor the activities of shoppers and thus design and test technologies to rip them off big time.
This is of course a blatant invasion of customers' privacy. It is none of my supermarket's business what I look at, for how long, how quickly I walk through different aisles, the route I take inside the store, etc. This is why I shop only in small markets-- only there will you find a respect for the dignity of human life in this modern world of impersonal, eploitative Albertson's stores.
Huh? Do you have reading comprehension problems, or did you deliberately misrepresent me in order to attack me?
From the context it is absolutely clear that what I said is that the requirement to grow or else die (not plain growth, as you misrepresent me) is the antithesis to sustainable development.
Why do we have an environmental problem in the first place? Because capitalism requires companies to continuously grow or else die, and thus is the antithesis to sustainable development.
LEVs are really just a patch on the symptoms of a deeper problem. Even if we switched over to them, we would be replacing one environmental problem (emissions) with another (e.g. disposing of toxic substances in batteries).