What, you still haven't "designed fully decentralized, distributed, scalable, robust, real-time systems and successfully implemented and deployed said systems in the real world"? Didn't "build a compiler from the tokenizer up and understand every step of how code gets turned into bits and how those bits get executed on modern hardware"? Get out, loser code-monkey!
Do you really think that having a degree from a "real" college means you did those things?
While I wouldn't get so upset about it, I agree - Drupal is not for you. If you just want something to work out of the box, you'll probably want something like ExpressionEngine, or even Wordpress.
But as an alternative to building the site from scratch with Rails/Django/pure PHP, it's great. It may not be OOP, and the database layer is shit, but it's so customizable, and there are so many useful modules, that you rarely have to reinvent the wheel.
I only wish they'd stop pretending that it's a "just a CMS". It just leads to frustration, anger, and bad press.
What are you trying to say with this quote? If you use the right Drupal template framework, you can make a site in under an hour?
What does it have to do with "coding your own HTML/PHP/CSS around a crude template"? Zen is still Drupal. In fact, Drupal 7 is going to be bundled with a Zen-like theme.
To be fair, Israel doesn't threaten Iran with its nukes. Israel will just use them.
Says who?
ANY in the middle east solution will require disarming Israel first.
Why?
Israel doesn't feel a moral duty to destroy any other country.
On the other hand, many countries want to see Israel destroyed. I guess removing the WMDs from the equation makes things simpler for those countries, but is it really the best solution?
Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel
I know you're being edgy and all, but there's a shitload of archeological evidence, as well as many external documents (Roman, Assyrian, etc.) for the existence of the Kingdom of Israel. Coins, ruins, ancient scrolls, what have you not.
It has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about not being an ignorant ass.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
Which is exactly what happened in 1948. Not a lick of US aid. No nukes. 6 Arab armies. All beaten within less than a year by people with half-functioning Czech rifles.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money
The nukes are French, the massive aid only started after 1973, and Egypt gets almost as much... why I do even bother? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
So what. The reason it came out looking like a random string of consonants is because you (or the person you're copying this phrase from) don't know Hebrew, so you inserted vowels in a haphazard way.
A more accurate transliteration would be "Beh tachbulot ta'aseh lecha milchamah".
And the KJV translation of this half of the verse (Proverbs 24:6), is, btw "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war". New Internation Version: "For waging war you need guidance". Both are logical mottos for an intelligence agency such as the Mossad.
How often do you read outdoors? Usually when I'm outdoors, I'm doing things like recalibrating my retinae, watching my skin burn, etc. No time to read outdoors, really.
But, being a cyborg, why would you even need a separate e-book reader?
Nope. In a free society, people are free to be as immoral as they want, as long as they don't infringe upon somebody else's rights
Does not compute.
I'm saying that a government that has no power other than to protect human rights, but that does a good job protecting human rights
Define human rights. If you say "not being fucked over by the megacorps" and "managing to live a decent life even if you're poor", then you're a socialist. If you say "not having the government meddle with my business" and "not having to pay most of my hard-earned paycheck to support those who didn't earn it" then you're a capitalist (of a certain kind).
There are more answers for Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.
[...] has no 'favors' to sell to corporations (the excesses of capitalism), and no means of seizing property for 'the state' (the excesses of socialism). The biggest reason our senators and executives are corrupt is because we've foolishly let them have more and more power to be corrupt WITH.
It seems to me you're making a case against corruption, and I agree - corruption is bad. But if you're implying that any kind of taxes (if that's what you mean by seizing property), or pro-business laws (like the existence of corporations, intellectual property, trade secrets and so forth) are inherently wrong, I disagree. Basically, I can't see a prosperous country existing without those.
Personally, my belief is that a system of government that gives maximum freedom, while protecting basic human rights (life, property, speech, etc.), will inevitably lead to capitalism, because that's the economic structure that is inherent in free choice
Kinda depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean a well-regulated free market economy that's not owned by special interest groups, I agree.
Not quite a catchy as the GP, but probably more accurate. I'd also throw in that in a sufficiently free society, the capitalistic/socialist tendencies of the government become irrelevant.
I don't see how that's possible. If the government tries to protect consumers and workers, then it has socialist tendencies, if it doesn't, it has capitalist (albeit a certain kind of capitalist) tendencies.
Or are you're talking about a society where everyone is infinitely moral, compassionate and rational, so no government is needed at all?
Firstly, its not breaking in if I give them permission and a set of keys.
No, it's like they made you sign a long document before buying their product (that often you have no choice but buying, because they're a monopoly), and it had a "we can break into your house whenever we want" clause in fine print. Only you never actually signed anything.
Secondly, the difference is intelligence. We are talking about an automated scanning tool with no ability to make rational decisions and very limited reporting capabilities.
Limited only insofar as Microsoft feels like limiting it. And in any case, so what?
Thirdly, we all know that most of the objections to Genuine Advantage are because it makes it harder to steal from them. That is why so many people are trying to justify pirating software.
And how would you know that? You think only pirates care if strangers go snooping around their hard disk? Bullshit.
The reality is that stealing free copies of windows and violating the GPL are both actually copyright issues. If we want a world where copyright is unenforceable then companies will be able to take open source software and do as they please with it, including sell closed source products. If microsoft stole loads of OSS code to include in in windows I would consider that theft as well.
Some of the sins microsoft commit though according to the site are just rubbish.
They list inspecting your hard disk for pirated copies of their software as a sin. Is it really a sin for microsoft to try and find out if you are stealing from them?
Next thing you know they will be complaining about me putting a lock on my front door to stop someone emptying my house while I am at work.
Actually, it's more like breaking into your customers' houses to check if they've stolen anything from you.
Your hard drive is yours, not Microsoft's, remember?
There's the "freedom" of large corporations. But if so, there's the "freedom" of the government. What right do you have to keep them from doing whatever they want?
The question is, whose freedom matters?
The totalitarianist says, the government's. After all, it's supposed to represent "the people", and he's part of "the people".
I say, that of the the private citizen, the worker, the consumer. After all, I'm a private citizen, a worker and a consumer.
You say, the corporation's. But you don't own a multinational corporation. You've just been led to believe that they have the moral right to screw you over.
But you say "newspeak", and you don't get the irony. What a marvelous job they've done.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, kudos for having realistic standards.
What, you still haven't "designed fully decentralized, distributed, scalable, robust, real-time systems and successfully implemented and deployed said systems in the real world"? Didn't "build a compiler from the tokenizer up and understand every step of how code gets turned into bits and how those bits get executed on modern hardware"? Get out, loser code-monkey!
Do you really think that having a degree from a "real" college means you did those things?
I've seen Packt publishing books. They can make a 500-page book about notepad.
While I wouldn't get so upset about it, I agree - Drupal is not for you. If you just want something to work out of the box, you'll probably want something like ExpressionEngine, or even Wordpress.
But as an alternative to building the site from scratch with Rails/Django/pure PHP, it's great. It may not be OOP, and the database layer is shit, but it's so customizable, and there are so many useful modules, that you rarely have to reinvent the wheel.
I only wish they'd stop pretending that it's a "just a CMS". It just leads to frustration, anger, and bad press.
What are you trying to say with this quote? If you use the right Drupal template framework, you can make a site in under an hour?
What does it have to do with "coding your own HTML/PHP/CSS around a crude template"? Zen is still Drupal. In fact, Drupal 7 is going to be bundled with a Zen-like theme.
This video defines "democracy" as pure majority rule, not bound by any laws - a form of government that doesn't exist anywhere in the world.
Since people use this word to describe real regimes, I wonder what's the point of this distinction.
PS
The video you linked to is very conservative - is the republic-vs-democracy distinction a right-wing thing?
America is a Republic. So No to the first question.
Most of the countries that we call "democracies" are republics. The other option is a constitutional monarchy.
What is it with Americans and the whole "a republic is not a democracy" meme? Is it a Democrats vs. Republicans thing?
I don't see how a non-native English speaker could be a better writer IN ENGLISH than an accomplished, talented guy like Niven.
He isn't. He writes in Japanese.
Yeah, but the whole thing was done by private sub-contractor specialists.
To be fair, Israel doesn't threaten Iran with its nukes. Israel will just use them.
Says who?
ANY in the middle east solution will require disarming Israel first.
Why?
Israel doesn't feel a moral duty to destroy any other country.
On the other hand, many countries want to see Israel destroyed. I guess removing the WMDs from the equation makes things simpler for those countries, but is it really the best solution?
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel
I know you're being edgy and all, but there's a shitload of archeological evidence, as well as many external documents (Roman, Assyrian, etc.) for the existence of the Kingdom of Israel. Coins, ruins, ancient scrolls, what have you not.
It has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about not being an ignorant ass.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
Which is exactly what happened in 1948. Not a lick of US aid. No nukes. 6 Arab armies. All beaten within less than a year by people with half-functioning Czech rifles.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money
The nukes are French, the massive aid only started after 1973, and Egypt gets almost as much... why I do even bother? You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Read a fucking book.
The irony.
So what. The reason it came out looking like a random string of consonants is because you (or the person you're copying this phrase from) don't know Hebrew, so you inserted vowels in a haphazard way.
A more accurate transliteration would be "Beh tachbulot ta'aseh lecha milchamah".
And the KJV translation of this half of the verse (Proverbs 24:6), is, btw "For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war". New Internation Version: "For waging war you need guidance". Both are logical mottos for an intelligence agency such as the Mossad.
How often do you read outdoors? Usually when I'm outdoors, I'm doing things like recalibrating my retinae, watching my skin burn, etc. No time to read outdoors, really.
But, being a cyborg, why would you even need a separate e-book reader?
That was subtle.
That is a perfectly reasonable reaction. What is not reasonable is to say "Fuck Off, I am going use it anyway and not pay or agree to your terms."
But since I've never said it, I don't see your point.
You still seem to think that if you disagree with evil anti-piracy measures, then you support piracy.
Nope. In a free society, people are free to be as immoral as they want, as long as they don't infringe upon somebody else's rights
Does not compute.
I'm saying that a government that has no power other than to protect human rights, but that does a good job protecting human rights
Define human rights. If you say "not being fucked over by the megacorps" and "managing to live a decent life even if you're poor", then you're a socialist. If you say "not having the government meddle with my business" and "not having to pay most of my hard-earned paycheck to support those who didn't earn it" then you're a capitalist (of a certain kind).
There are more answers for Fascism, Communism, Theocracy, Monarchy, etc.
[...] has no 'favors' to sell to corporations (the excesses of capitalism), and no means of seizing property for 'the state' (the excesses of socialism). The biggest reason our senators and executives are corrupt is because we've foolishly let them have more and more power to be corrupt WITH.
It seems to me you're making a case against corruption, and I agree - corruption is bad. But if you're implying that any kind of taxes (if that's what you mean by seizing property), or pro-business laws (like the existence of corporations, intellectual property, trade secrets and so forth) are inherently wrong, I disagree. Basically, I can't see a prosperous country existing without those.
Personally, my belief is that a system of government that gives maximum freedom, while protecting basic human rights (life, property, speech, etc.), will inevitably lead to capitalism, because that's the economic structure that is inherent in free choice
Kinda depends on what you mean by capitalism. If you mean a well-regulated free market economy that's not owned by special interest groups, I agree.
Not quite a catchy as the GP, but probably more accurate. I'd also throw in that in a sufficiently free society, the capitalistic/socialist tendencies of the government become irrelevant.
I don't see how that's possible. If the government tries to protect consumers and workers, then it has socialist tendencies, if it doesn't, it has capitalist (albeit a certain kind of capitalist) tendencies.
Or are you're talking about a society where everyone is infinitely moral, compassionate and rational, so no government is needed at all?
Also, did you notice how your "locking your own house" analogy turned into "requiring people to let you break into their homes"?
How would you feel if a company actually required you to a agree to something like that? I know if it was me, my reaction would be "FUCK OFF".
Firstly, its not breaking in if I give them permission and a set of keys.
No, it's like they made you sign a long document before buying their product (that often you have no choice but buying, because they're a monopoly), and it had a "we can break into your house whenever we want" clause in fine print. Only you never actually signed anything.
Secondly, the difference is intelligence. We are talking about an automated scanning tool with no ability to make rational decisions and very limited reporting capabilities.
Limited only insofar as Microsoft feels like limiting it. And in any case, so what?
Thirdly, we all know that most of the objections to Genuine Advantage are because it makes it harder to steal from them. That is why so many people are trying to justify pirating software.
And how would you know that? You think only pirates care if strangers go snooping around their hard disk? Bullshit.
The reality is that stealing free copies of windows and violating the GPL are both actually copyright issues. If we want a world where copyright is unenforceable then companies will be able to take open source software and do as they please with it, including sell closed source products. If microsoft stole loads of OSS code to include in in windows I would consider that theft as well.
So what?
Some of the sins microsoft commit though according to the site are just rubbish.
They list inspecting your hard disk for pirated copies of their software as a sin. Is it really a sin for microsoft to try and find out if you are stealing from them?
Next thing you know they will be complaining about me putting a lock on my front door to stop someone emptying my house while I am at work.
Actually, it's more like breaking into your customers' houses to check if they've stolen anything from you.
Your hard drive is yours, not Microsoft's, remember?
Governments oppress people, corporations oppress people.
Like the patriotic kolkhoz farmer, you've been indoctrinated to love your oppressor. How sad.
Everyone's freedom matters
Then you have no right to restrict the government's freedom.
If you really want the theory behind this, go and find "The Law", by Frederic Bastiat.
It's not what it says.
There's the "freedom" of large corporations. But if so, there's the "freedom" of the government. What right do you have to keep them from doing whatever they want?
The question is, whose freedom matters?
The totalitarianist says, the government's. After all, it's supposed to represent "the people", and he's part of "the people".
I say, that of the the private citizen, the worker, the consumer. After all, I'm a private citizen, a worker and a consumer.
You say, the corporation's. But you don't own a multinational corporation. You've just been led to believe that they have the moral right to screw you over.
But you say "newspeak", and you don't get the irony. What a marvelous job they've done.
Freedom requires no justification.
The free market is not "freedom". It's a game, and the government makes the rules.
The only real freedom is the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Literally. Anything beyond that is an artificial system.
Yeah, because operators in a high level language translate directly to machine code... NOT!
But C was not designed as a high-level language. It even had a register keyword, for fuck's sake.
Actually, Python does compile to machine code. It's runs on the Python virtual machine.
I give this troll 7/10.