My guess is that Edward trusted the company. And you know what? Its owner didn't let him (or any of his other privacy-concerned customers) down. And at least in this case, that's what really matters; instead of giving in, the owner shut the service down and destroyed all the hardware (or at least disks). Sure, theoretically maybe the site's security itself wasn't exactly the greatest but Levinson didn't let Snowden down.
Except you're conveniently ignoring the extreme likelihood of error, lies, whatever, which may then be used against the person who sent the message to bail the driver out of the deep shit that *they* are likely deserve. The whole point of a cell phone is that you can take them wherever you go--even to the shitter--and no one is going to broadcast to everyone they know where they are going to be all day, 24/7. I'm pretty sure a truck driver is one of the only classes of people whose likely current actions (either driving or sleeping) can easily be guessed by the people they know. Everyone else? Not so simple.
Simple solution? Don't fuck with your phone while driving.
So if I send a message at 2:15 PM, and the recipient has his or her phone off for a while, but then has the brilliant idea to turn it back on at 3:30 PM while driving on the highway and starts using the phone and reads the message, then I'm at fault for the idiot's unsafe driving behavior a full hour and fifteen minutes before it happened? Just the idea of this is beyond fucked up. Here's an idea: Nail the idiots that drive with questionable habits. Not the people who not only aren't with them, but may not even know what they're even doing at a specific point in time to begin with.
Also, Windows isnt a cheap operating system. If Im gonna pay for something, it better be useable. When I use Linux, I expect it to be basically unuseable out of the box and need a lot of changes to get it working, but thats ok because I didnt pay for it
You have some incredibly low expectations. When I use Linux, I am consistently amazed at how well everything works right from the start, even compared to some expensive Windows operating system. What distro do you use? Gentoo? Arch? Crux? Hell, even Slackware tends to work very well right after install with very little configuration necessary, and it comes with far more functionality standard (ie. less need to screw around finding, downloading, installing programs) than any operating system Microsoft has ever put out.
If something works well and does what you want, and you follow your own advice and look no further, how would you ever know about something that worked better and does even more than you THOUGHT you wanted?
You wouldn't, but if it works, it works. That's the point. The masses just want something to work, and if it does then they're happy.
Here's something to try. Go ask all the Windows users you know if they ever bothered to even look outside of their comfort zone--Windows--and try something else. You might get a few "I tried a friend's Mac" or "I heard of it" or similar answers, but for the most part people will probably give you a blank stare. Why? Being traditionally a monopoly on PCs, everyone knows and has used it, and they think it works "well enough" and just don't know (or care) that there are alternatives. There may be something better than Windows, but most people don't care, because they "know" Windows and think they would be completely lost with something else.
There was never a reason for you to weigh in saying in strong language that there is "absolutely no need to try others" when choice is the WHOLE point of linux in the first place.
And that is the great thing about Linux: if you want to, you can play around with every distribution and window manager/desktop environment you can imagine. But I wasn't talking about those kinds of people... hell, I am one of them myself, so yes, I was even excluding myself. I'm talking more reality here, typical clueless user who just wants everything to work without having to do anything, not advanced users and computer enthusiasts.
Way to go--you just ignored the first 2/3 of the sentence and commented only on the very last 1/3 or so of it--never mind the rest of the paragraph that it is a part of. Combine the two parts to read the sentence as a whole as it was intended, and if you comprehend it correctly, you'd realize that I was saying there is "absolutely no need to try out any others"... if what you have works well and does what you want to begin with. And in many cases and for many people, it just might. But as the rest of the paragraph hints at, it might or might not.
For practice, here was the original, complete sentence, emphasis added:
If that one desktop that comes with the system pre-configured does the job as expected, then unless you want to explore, there is absolutely no need to try out any others.
For some of us, that is the normal course of events. Linux without some form of X based desktop is fine for servers, but really less than appealing in user land. We are use to trying out several totally different UIs before settling on one.
X comes set up and ready to go in any "desktop" distribution, complete with a pre-selected desktop environment and set of applications, so what are you talking about? If that one desktop that comes with the system pre-configured does the job as expected, then unless you want to explore, there is absolutely no need to try out any others. In Windows, you either like what you've been given after paying loads of $$$--or else. Just because you have the choice to try alternatives in Linux, doesn't mean that you *have* to evaluate all the others. The point of a distribution is to put together a pack software that is deemed to be useful and of good quality... the distribution maintainers have done the work for you, in many cases. Whether you agree with their selections or not, that's a different topic.
Meh, well it's no surprise that by ordering a computer from a company that also provides the operating system you will end up a system that's relatively well put together in terms of hardware/driver support in the OS. On the other hand, I don't want to live in Apple's walled garden and can't stand their business practices, so you can have your Mac and I'll just stay far, far away.
I've only extremely briefly played around with hibernate/suspend to disk, even less than regular suspend/sleep mode. Both modes in the BIOS were most definitely regular "sleep" modes. They only differed in just how many components they put to sleep. Hibernate is an interesting idea, but even it kind of irks me--in ways more than regular suspend. A can's bring myself to waste an entire 1GB on a swap partition just for the occasional hibernate, and that number is only going to explode with every new computer in the future I get.
There are also different suspend levels. I think they are labeled S3 and something else in the BIOS, with one being slower, more extreme in energy saving, and more unreliable. Don't know (or care) about the difference, but again, I haven't messed with sleep mode in years (and will not again until I get a laptop). Anyway, this could be the reason for the speed difference (I do recall calling both modes, and one was much faster than the other). Also, maybe a bit less likely, over the years coming out of sleep mode--if it has, I would never know, because again... I don't use it.
My problem is that I'm impatient: 5 seconds is too too for me to wait for a machine plugged into a wall outlet to become responsive, and all of my computers to date have been desktop machines. But I agree with you that standby is very important on a laptop.
I have never owned a laptop myself, but I likely will end up buying one at some point and have been considering what I will be doing as far as power management goes. I'm considering running the system 24/7 without the battery (to conserve it) and plugged into my desktop keyboard and monitor when it will be at home for a week or more at a time during which point I may turn off all power management features, and shut it down and plug the battery in when I leave, using various power saving modes when necessary... but I will still most likely just shut down whenever possible to get the biggest savings.
Overkill? More work than is typically done? Well, what can I say... I'm really, really not a fan of power management features, but I will use them when absolutely necessary, and even then only under special conditions.:p
If I'm going to have to wait anyway, the way I see it I might as well just go all the way and shut the machine down completely, saving the most battery when not in use for an extended period of time.
Back in the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s when I used Windows, I realized sleep mode was a complete joke, unreliable, and just stopped using it by the time I upgraded to Windows XP or shortly after. In Linux, I am still not a fan of waiting for the damn thing to "wake up" for 5-10 seconds before it will even accept my password, so the only component that ever even enters standby on my machines is the moniter (and this has been the case for over a decade, even dating back to my last years in Windows). Windows, Linux--doesn't matter what the OS is, not putting the system into standby makes the whole experience much smoother, faster and hassle-free.
On the other hand, though--it is a good thing this was fixed for those laptop users out there.
Oh, wait--I re-read your post. You are equating quality with popularity, which effectively renders your entire argument invalid because economics almost never really works that way, and I just wasted time on my previous post responding to what now looks like it was rightly labeled flamebait. Oops. Disregard my previous post.
Are you ignorant yourself? We are talking about Windows 8 (a desktop and recently tablet OS). Linux desktop has less than %1 market share.
If it was a better product , users would prefer it with its free price. I have used Linux for 15 years (on servers) but I cannot bear it on desktop.
Most people talking about Windows 8 since, well, long before it was even released were talking about how bad it sucks. So I guess according to your claims, Windows 8 and Linux are about equal on the desktop then. Although I would strongly disagree; it's 2013 and Linux has been pretty damn good "on the desktop" for years now. I switched to it from Windows XP back in 2006 and it improves all the time... and at this point, I would never switch back.
Meanwhile, on the Windows side you've got the usual increased bloat and system requirements, high prices and restrictive licenses, Vista brought in kernel-level digital "rights" management, Windows 8 prepares the ringing of the death knell of the traditional "desktop Windows" environment, which ironically I was under the impression that you were claiming was better in the first place. So, what happens when Metro becomes default and the traditional Windows desktop is gutted out of the system? Face it: it's going to happen. And to Microsoft, it can't happen soon enough.
Exactly! If GNU wasn't ESSENTIALLY Unix then RMS wouldn't have bothered to name it that! I mean, come on, Unix is right there in the name. Why name it that as opposed to giving it a whole new name of it's own that speaks to what it IS rather than what it ISN'T unless he knew that Unix was so much a part of it's identity that he had to try to define it as not Unix in it's name?
I'm pretty sure the name was intended to be somewhat of a joke, and with their love of using recursive acronyms to come up with "clever" names (just look at the Hurd...) that's probably the case. But in a way the name is kind of ironic, and likely on purpose, because they weren't allowed to actually call the system "UNIX" and I'm sure they knew that, while at the same time it gets the point across quite well that it's not "really" UNIX--it is a clone.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just kept the cash and didn't bother to get iOS certified. I can imagine it now; "Certified UNIX" in Apple's iOS advertising material, and people all around the world mock it and laugh at the concept of an OS designed for an overpriced trendy toy tablet/phone being advertised as certified UNIX. Why would Apple even waste the money? On the other hand, getting their main desktop/workstation/server OS "certified" makes more sense, and that extra bullet point in their advertising probably does actually help out a bit.
Personally, I think it's all a big joke--the entire concept of UNIX as a trademark certification. It requires a wad of money just to be considered which is the biggest problem (hey, you can buy your way into anything even if your product itself is not deserving of it... just wave the $$$). This leaves countless potential operating systems out even if they have technical advantages, leaving only a select few legally capable of carrying the prestigious UNIX name, and in many cases they really don't have anything truly special to make them worthy of that honor.
I'm pretty sure the "Fisher Price" jokes started with Windows XP as a result of its default plastic toy-like theme which included a blue taskbar and window borders/title bars with red "close window" buttons and a green Start button. And that was... 2001? So I don't know where you get 1995 from.
If they want to take the black box route, then fine--they can write a native program with their DRM crap built in, compile it and package it for the major distributions (.deb,.rpm,.txz,.tar.bz2/.tar.gz). And keep the damn thing up to date, fully patched and supported, unlike Adobe's treatment of Flash on Linux.
I'd rather use that than a glorified set of hacks produced purely from reverse engineering a foreign black box like Windows and tricking it to think that it's running yet another black box (Silverlight) natively. And that would be better than corrupting a standard like HTML with DRM in a way, but I'll take some kind of HTML5 support over a pure binary blob that is maintained by a company who would probably not write a very good program to begin with. And besides, face it, it's DRM--it will be cracked in record time, especially being a part of an official spec if they do integrate it with the standard. They can't win with such a ridiculous joke of a "security" tool. If they write a program, probably every "security update" will be 95% potential breaking of their DRM, while they neglect the actual, real security issues.
A binary package would still be unacceptable, because it would continue to leave BSD users out. But, well, that's what happens with proprietary software, and honestly I doubt that a lot of BSD users would care because they tend to be much more forgiving of proprietary software. But maybe the HTML5 method could work. Although the standard would be contaminated in the process, and broken all to hell long before HTML5 is even complete.
"...in turn communicates with a Windows program running under Wine. The Windows program then simulates a browser to load the Silverlight libraries."
I'm sorry, but... fail. Netflix, get off your asses. Support real standards.
I won't be a Netflix customer as long as I have to deal with dirty hacks involving compatibility layers like Wine to interface with a program pretending to be a web browser with something that tries to act like it's Microsoft's black box known as Silverlight. All which is likely to be buggy and unstable, because the entire thing was put together and built on completely closed crap.
Justice ? Can whatever that has happened to Mr. Snowden be anything remotely related to "Justice" ?
Not using the proper dictionary definitions, no. Only when using the fucked up, mangled and corrupt U.S. "legal" definition can anyone come up with a way to tag their treatment and handling of Edward Snowden and his leaks with the word "justice." But it extends to many, many areas of the court and prison system, and the laws governing them. War on drugs, anyone? Face it, America is corrupt. It's just becoming more and more obvious and difficult to deny, and the government seems to be more aggressive than ever instead of trying to be sneaky.
Hey, back in the 90s I loved Winamp's visualizations, especially Milkdrop's (which was later made an official part of the program). At that point, probably the only "drugs" I had taken were caffeine, cold/flu/pain medicine, and (if you consider them drugs) vaccinations. Years have gone by, and while I haven't been able to properly use Winamp since 2006 (since I switched full-time from Windows to Linux), the only additions you can really add to the list are good ol' marijuana and alcohol. But if I still used Windows... hell yeah I would still be using some of its visualization plug-ins! No acid required (which I have never done to begin with).
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is that Edward trusted the company. And you know what? Its owner didn't let him (or any of his other privacy-concerned customers) down. And at least in this case, that's what really matters; instead of giving in, the owner shut the service down and destroyed all the hardware (or at least disks). Sure, theoretically maybe the site's security itself wasn't exactly the greatest but Levinson didn't let Snowden down.
Except you're conveniently ignoring the extreme likelihood of error, lies, whatever, which may then be used against the person who sent the message to bail the driver out of the deep shit that *they* are likely deserve. The whole point of a cell phone is that you can take them wherever you go--even to the shitter--and no one is going to broadcast to everyone they know where they are going to be all day, 24/7. I'm pretty sure a truck driver is one of the only classes of people whose likely current actions (either driving or sleeping) can easily be guessed by the people they know. Everyone else? Not so simple.
Simple solution? Don't fuck with your phone while driving.
So if I send a message at 2:15 PM, and the recipient has his or her phone off for a while, but then has the brilliant idea to turn it back on at 3:30 PM while driving on the highway and starts using the phone and reads the message, then I'm at fault for the idiot's unsafe driving behavior a full hour and fifteen minutes before it happened? Just the idea of this is beyond fucked up. Here's an idea: Nail the idiots that drive with questionable habits. Not the people who not only aren't with them, but may not even know what they're even doing at a specific point in time to begin with.
Also, Windows isnt a cheap operating system. If Im gonna pay for something, it better be useable. When I use Linux, I expect it to be basically unuseable out of the box and need a lot of changes to get it working, but thats ok because I didnt pay for it
You have some incredibly low expectations. When I use Linux, I am consistently amazed at how well everything works right from the start, even compared to some expensive Windows operating system. What distro do you use? Gentoo? Arch? Crux? Hell, even Slackware tends to work very well right after install with very little configuration necessary, and it comes with far more functionality standard (ie. less need to screw around finding, downloading, installing programs) than any operating system Microsoft has ever put out.
If something works well and does what you want, and you follow your own advice and look no further, how would you ever know about something that worked better and does even more than you THOUGHT you wanted?
You wouldn't, but if it works, it works. That's the point. The masses just want something to work, and if it does then they're happy.
Here's something to try. Go ask all the Windows users you know if they ever bothered to even look outside of their comfort zone--Windows--and try something else. You might get a few "I tried a friend's Mac" or "I heard of it" or similar answers, but for the most part people will probably give you a blank stare. Why? Being traditionally a monopoly on PCs, everyone knows and has used it, and they think it works "well enough" and just don't know (or care) that there are alternatives. There may be something better than Windows, but most people don't care, because they "know" Windows and think they would be completely lost with something else.
There was never a reason for you to weigh in saying in strong language that there is "absolutely no need to try others" when choice is the WHOLE point of linux in the first place.
And that is the great thing about Linux: if you want to, you can play around with every distribution and window manager/desktop environment you can imagine. But I wasn't talking about those kinds of people... hell, I am one of them myself, so yes, I was even excluding myself. I'm talking more reality here, typical clueless user who just wants everything to work without having to do anything, not advanced users and computer enthusiasts.
Such a small little world you live in...
Way to go--you just ignored the first 2/3 of the sentence and commented only on the very last 1/3 or so of it--never mind the rest of the paragraph that it is a part of. Combine the two parts to read the sentence as a whole as it was intended, and if you comprehend it correctly, you'd realize that I was saying there is "absolutely no need to try out any others"... if what you have works well and does what you want to begin with. And in many cases and for many people, it just might. But as the rest of the paragraph hints at, it might or might not.
For practice, here was the original, complete sentence, emphasis added:
If that one desktop that comes with the system pre-configured does the job as expected, then unless you want to explore, there is absolutely no need to try out any others.
For some of us, that is the normal course of events.
Linux without some form of X based desktop is fine for servers, but really less than appealing in user land. We are use to trying out several totally different UIs before settling on one.
X comes set up and ready to go in any "desktop" distribution, complete with a pre-selected desktop environment and set of applications, so what are you talking about? If that one desktop that comes with the system pre-configured does the job as expected, then unless you want to explore, there is absolutely no need to try out any others. In Windows, you either like what you've been given after paying loads of $$$--or else. Just because you have the choice to try alternatives in Linux, doesn't mean that you *have* to evaluate all the others. The point of a distribution is to put together a pack software that is deemed to be useful and of good quality... the distribution maintainers have done the work for you, in many cases. Whether you agree with their selections or not, that's a different topic.
Meh, well it's no surprise that by ordering a computer from a company that also provides the operating system you will end up a system that's relatively well put together in terms of hardware/driver support in the OS. On the other hand, I don't want to live in Apple's walled garden and can't stand their business practices, so you can have your Mac and I'll just stay far, far away.
I've only extremely briefly played around with hibernate/suspend to disk, even less than regular suspend/sleep mode. Both modes in the BIOS were most definitely regular "sleep" modes. They only differed in just how many components they put to sleep. Hibernate is an interesting idea, but even it kind of irks me--in ways more than regular suspend. A can's bring myself to waste an entire 1GB on a swap partition just for the occasional hibernate, and that number is only going to explode with every new computer in the future I get.
There are also different suspend levels. I think they are labeled S3 and something else in the BIOS, with one being slower, more extreme in energy saving, and more unreliable. Don't know (or care) about the difference, but again, I haven't messed with sleep mode in years (and will not again until I get a laptop). Anyway, this could be the reason for the speed difference (I do recall calling both modes, and one was much faster than the other). Also, maybe a bit less likely, over the years coming out of sleep mode--if it has, I would never know, because again... I don't use it.
My problem is that I'm impatient: 5 seconds is too too for me to wait for a machine plugged into a wall outlet to become responsive, and all of my computers to date have been desktop machines. But I agree with you that standby is very important on a laptop.
I have never owned a laptop myself, but I likely will end up buying one at some point and have been considering what I will be doing as far as power management goes. I'm considering running the system 24/7 without the battery (to conserve it) and plugged into my desktop keyboard and monitor when it will be at home for a week or more at a time during which point I may turn off all power management features, and shut it down and plug the battery in when I leave, using various power saving modes when necessary... but I will still most likely just shut down whenever possible to get the biggest savings.
Overkill? More work than is typically done? Well, what can I say... I'm really, really not a fan of power management features, but I will use them when absolutely necessary, and even then only under special conditions. :p
If I'm going to have to wait anyway, the way I see it I might as well just go all the way and shut the machine down completely, saving the most battery when not in use for an extended period of time.
Back in the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s when I used Windows, I realized sleep mode was a complete joke, unreliable, and just stopped using it by the time I upgraded to Windows XP or shortly after. In Linux, I am still not a fan of waiting for the damn thing to "wake up" for 5-10 seconds before it will even accept my password, so the only component that ever even enters standby on my machines is the moniter (and this has been the case for over a decade, even dating back to my last years in Windows). Windows, Linux--doesn't matter what the OS is, not putting the system into standby makes the whole experience much smoother, faster and hassle-free.
On the other hand, though--it is a good thing this was fixed for those laptop users out there.
Oh, wait--I re-read your post. You are equating quality with popularity, which effectively renders your entire argument invalid because economics almost never really works that way, and I just wasted time on my previous post responding to what now looks like it was rightly labeled flamebait. Oops. Disregard my previous post.
Are you ignorant yourself? We are talking about Windows 8 (a desktop and recently tablet OS). Linux desktop has less than %1 market share.
If it was a better product , users would prefer it with its free price. I have used Linux for 15 years (on servers) but I cannot bear it on desktop.
Most people talking about Windows 8 since, well, long before it was even released were talking about how bad it sucks. So I guess according to your claims, Windows 8 and Linux are about equal on the desktop then. Although I would strongly disagree; it's 2013 and Linux has been pretty damn good "on the desktop" for years now. I switched to it from Windows XP back in 2006 and it improves all the time... and at this point, I would never switch back.
Meanwhile, on the Windows side you've got the usual increased bloat and system requirements, high prices and restrictive licenses, Vista brought in kernel-level digital "rights" management, Windows 8 prepares the ringing of the death knell of the traditional "desktop Windows" environment, which ironically I was under the impression that you were claiming was better in the first place. So, what happens when Metro becomes default and the traditional Windows desktop is gutted out of the system? Face it: it's going to happen. And to Microsoft, it can't happen soon enough.
Exactly! If GNU wasn't ESSENTIALLY Unix then RMS wouldn't have bothered to name it that! I mean, come on, Unix is right there in the name. Why name it that as opposed to giving it a whole new name of it's own that speaks to what it IS rather than what it ISN'T unless he knew that Unix was so much a part of it's identity that he had to try to define it as not Unix in it's name?
Yep--it's even in the original announcement: it's a "Free Unix!" and a "new Unix implementation".
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
I'm pretty sure the name was intended to be somewhat of a joke, and with their love of using recursive acronyms to come up with "clever" names (just look at the Hurd...) that's probably the case. But in a way the name is kind of ironic, and likely on purpose, because they weren't allowed to actually call the system "UNIX" and I'm sure they knew that, while at the same time it gets the point across quite well that it's not "really" UNIX--it is a clone.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just kept the cash and didn't bother to get iOS certified. I can imagine it now; "Certified UNIX" in Apple's iOS advertising material, and people all around the world mock it and laugh at the concept of an OS designed for an overpriced trendy toy tablet/phone being advertised as certified UNIX. Why would Apple even waste the money? On the other hand, getting their main desktop/workstation/server OS "certified" makes more sense, and that extra bullet point in their advertising probably does actually help out a bit.
Personally, I think it's all a big joke--the entire concept of UNIX as a trademark certification. It requires a wad of money just to be considered which is the biggest problem (hey, you can buy your way into anything even if your product itself is not deserving of it... just wave the $$$). This leaves countless potential operating systems out even if they have technical advantages, leaving only a select few legally capable of carrying the prestigious UNIX name, and in many cases they really don't have anything truly special to make them worthy of that honor.
Isn't that their practiced business model? Undercut everyone, then raise the prices to whatever the "market will bear"?
Hey, isn't that the kind of business of an abusive convicted monopoly? Oh, wait...
I'm pretty sure the "Fisher Price" jokes started with Windows XP as a result of its default plastic toy-like theme which included a blue taskbar and window borders/title bars with red "close window" buttons and a green Start button. And that was... 2001? So I don't know where you get 1995 from.
That's so funny, so well said, yet so true.
If they want to take the black box route, then fine--they can write a native program with their DRM crap built in, compile it and package it for the major distributions (.deb, .rpm, .txz, .tar.bz2/.tar.gz). And keep the damn thing up to date, fully patched and supported, unlike Adobe's treatment of Flash on Linux.
I'd rather use that than a glorified set of hacks produced purely from reverse engineering a foreign black box like Windows and tricking it to think that it's running yet another black box (Silverlight) natively. And that would be better than corrupting a standard like HTML with DRM in a way, but I'll take some kind of HTML5 support over a pure binary blob that is maintained by a company who would probably not write a very good program to begin with. And besides, face it, it's DRM--it will be cracked in record time, especially being a part of an official spec if they do integrate it with the standard. They can't win with such a ridiculous joke of a "security" tool. If they write a program, probably every "security update" will be 95% potential breaking of their DRM, while they neglect the actual, real security issues.
A binary package would still be unacceptable, because it would continue to leave BSD users out. But, well, that's what happens with proprietary software, and honestly I doubt that a lot of BSD users would care because they tend to be much more forgiving of proprietary software. But maybe the HTML5 method could work. Although the standard would be contaminated in the process, and broken all to hell long before HTML5 is even complete.
"...in turn communicates with a Windows program running under Wine. The Windows program then simulates a browser to load the Silverlight libraries."
I'm sorry, but... fail. Netflix, get off your asses. Support real standards.
I won't be a Netflix customer as long as I have to deal with dirty hacks involving compatibility layers like Wine to interface with a program pretending to be a web browser with something that tries to act like it's Microsoft's black box known as Silverlight. All which is likely to be buggy and unstable, because the entire thing was put together and built on completely closed crap.
Justice ? Can whatever that has happened to Mr. Snowden be anything remotely related to "Justice" ?
Not using the proper dictionary definitions, no. Only when using the fucked up, mangled and corrupt U.S. "legal" definition can anyone come up with a way to tag their treatment and handling of Edward Snowden and his leaks with the word "justice." But it extends to many, many areas of the court and prison system, and the laws governing them. War on drugs, anyone? Face it, America is corrupt. It's just becoming more and more obvious and difficult to deny, and the government seems to be more aggressive than ever instead of trying to be sneaky.
But, certain species don't even live five years!
Hey, back in the 90s I loved Winamp's visualizations, especially Milkdrop's (which was later made an official part of the program). At that point, probably the only "drugs" I had taken were caffeine, cold/flu/pain medicine, and (if you consider them drugs) vaccinations. Years have gone by, and while I haven't been able to properly use Winamp since 2006 (since I switched full-time from Windows to Linux), the only additions you can really add to the list are good ol' marijuana and alcohol. But if I still used Windows... hell yeah I would still be using some of its visualization plug-ins! No acid required (which I have never done to begin with).
Which one, Mir? Or its new package management system?