Once upon a time I actually played a lot of HL mods (to be honest HL itself i ok, but the true reason it was so popular was the mods - CS in particular). Configured wine, tweaked the settings, the whole monty. I also - like many GNU/Linux admins - administered servers, and public servers at that. The number of Linux servers was actually a reason why HL had so many players.
After this it became clear that Valve really didn't give a damn about rewarding the Linux community with a client version. Much to the opposite, HL2 was being tought from the ground up to be Windows-only.
To make it short I sold my HL CD's, shut the servers down and replaced them with Q3 and UT. Many Linux admins were doing the same, since it really looked like Valve was spitting in the face of the people that helped them. I have never touched HL since then (nor any of the mods).
So, basically, I believe in supporting companies that support me (and the Linux community) for their effort. With so many good games of the genre available for Linux it isn't even difficult.
This is a tad offtopic, but I think some people will find this useful.
StepTalk is a scripting environment for GNUstep applications (this is why I remembered to mention it: AppleScript -> OSX -> NeXTSTEP -> GNUstep -> Scripting -> AppleScript...). The level of integration with GNUstep apps and the possibilities are enormous, and since Objective-C OO paradigm was based in SmallTalk it feels very natural.
Now that GNUstep is having more and more applications be sure to give StepTalk a look.
After rereading my original messages I admit that the way it reads can easily be misunderstood, as can my other clarification. Macau and Tawain are indeed very diferent situations, and the only point linking them was the fact that both are important to China in the "Great China" idea.
The handover to China was indeed planned since 1974 or even before. For the last 20 years Macau had been "chinese territory under portuguese administration". I would not like that my words could be used againt Macau present situation. It was a pretty decent handover compared to Honk Kong, for example.
So, all in all, I myself failed to properly express the peculiar identity of Macau when I compared it to Taiwan. Mea culpa.
As a matter of fact I have more grudges againts the lack of cultural investment in Macau from the part of portuguese authorities than with China itself.
* I'm not saying that "portuguese administration" was flawless; as you probably know Portugal had, in this century, one dictatorship for 50 years followed by a revolution. This made it difficult to make the country itself progress. As a matter of fact Macau was actually better of with the large autonomy it had then if it was under direct rule.
* The tryads: what I meant about the motives are related to the different judicial practices in Portugal and China. Portugal does not have a death sentency (actually one of the first to abolish it) and the sentences are mild compared to what China has. This might be a reason people from Macau view chinese justice as better. It's a fact that portuguese justice is more lenient. That's one of the bad things about all this human-rights thing.
* Macau and Portugal: as you know the handover of Macau marked the end of Portuguese overseas territories. As such it is normal that I view it it a certain sense of nostalgia. And to add to it I was used to reading all the amazing histories concerning Macau during the centuries.There was a reason why Macau had the motto "CIDADE SANTO NOME DE DEUS DE MACAU, NAO HA OUTRA MAIS LEAL".
As a matter of fact I had family living in Macau right 'till the end. So, unfortunatly, I cannot let this "happy Great China" wish of yours go by.
You are free to view things however you want, but it's a rather amusing way you view it. Portugal never wanted to "get rid of Macau since the 60's". As a matter of fact Macau was always the least of portuguese problems concerning overseas territories, since it was largely self-governement and had been for centuries. It's ridiculous to think that Macau would resist the Dutch expansion, followed by the English one, without this strong personality that made Macau what it was. And to top it all Macau had a clause that prevented any money generated there to be transfered to Lisbon
.
You assesment of portuguese administration falls short, very short. Most of the administration was made by people from Macau. The streets are safer? Since most of the tryads are still there, and have been operating with basis in mainland China, I am led to believe the old rumour about the true motivations behind the tryads.
Corruption, you say? Yes, maybe that is decreasing. Nothing like having the Chinese Army to take care of that.
You can have it you way, since you live there. I'm not debating you point of view. If you think you are better off, than kudos. But if it was up to me, and not the weak and feable governments we have for the last, ummmm, century or so, Macau would not have been given to China. If not only because of all the false propaganda and historic revisionism that China launched. I also find it rather hilarious the statement about "China not wanting it". China want's everything around it. Macau, Honk Kong, Taiwan, Tibet... You will probably say that all this territories have "rampant corruption". Maybe that's how the Japanese viewed China: they went there just to make the streets safer.
Since this is of little concern for most/.'ers if you would like to continue this debate in private please mail me to fsmunoz@gesal.org. Maybe you are right in some points, and I fail to see it. Anyway, debating never did any arm.
Actually, I stoped viewing China as communist a long time ago, and I'm communist. China nowadays is more capitalist that anything else, but the important thing here is that China is imperialistic by nature, and culturally used to totalitarian regimes. Remember that much of the problems China had in the 80's were with the USSR ( I have a book here from Novosti Press - USSR's official press - from the 80's called "China: Imperialist and Authocratic Regime").
What I said about totalitarian regimes doesn't mean it makes it OK by me, but every kind of political definition of China must take into account the very specific history of China.
Toa add to this the "founding fathers" of Formosa, the Kuomitang, were also completely against independence: Taiwan's view on this issue was (and is) exactly the same as PRC. The Real Government of China was the one in Formosa, mainland China was a rebel part of the country.
What is happening now is that the new generation of taiwanese wants independece. PRC will not allow this. We had to "return" Macau some years ago and it was a) not part of China when conquered and b) never ruled by an asian potency for 500 years. Still, China made this huge thing about it, and since it has the weapons, well, let's just say that it would be kind of impolite to refuse.
Of course, they could just say "ok, you're independent, fine with us", but I think they are going to choose the American way: "Want to seceed? Ok, here we go!!!".
Please note that I'm not from the USA (something in your post makes me think you think I am).
Anyway, I was not making a statement about what I think is, or should be, the correct approach. I subscribe your implicit idea of treating countries fairly be they powerful or not. I am not against what people think the UN stands for, I would actually be quite pleased if a UN mandate actually meant something along the lines of fairness and legitimacy.
I also agree with you on the changing of power; although some people brag about the "end of history" we can only see what our present conditions permit us to. Every Empire had it's beginning and its end. Some even reemerge. But power does shift, and what today is a world powerful can be, in a matter of years, one amongts many.
Ok, here goes my short rant; before all I should warn you that I'm what people tend to call "communist".
So, about the War in Iraq, the US and the UN, and the existance of a resolution allowing intervention. Who cares? Why should it be important? I find it amusing that people say it would be OK for the USA to invade Iraq under a UN mandate, but if they go solo it's "not democratic". Laughable. The Security Council *is* the UN as far as this matters are concern. Saying that having the blessing of 9 countries in the world, all there because they either won WW2 and/or have mass destruction weapons, constitutes a wordly mandate that bestows dignity on the receiver is absurd. The members of the Security Council are there because of military power. The US as that, and plenty of it. Ergo, the US does what the US wants, period. At this point I don't even care if it was right or wrong: if it was in the interest of the USA, well, why the hell not? Having a UN resolution means *nothing*. The UN itself, based as it is on a dictatorship of countries, means very, very little. All countries act on their self-interest first, the exception is that the USA actually takes actions.
In the end, the power remains in the hand of who has the means to use the weapons they have (be it warheads or multinationals). It hasn't change a bit from the same rules we had 1000 years ago, and sometimes I think that the UN only exists as a mean to make this fact less visible by hiding it with words like "rights", "law" and "democracy".
First spam, then the Empire! Finally Portugal is regaining it's place! Seaway to India, you say? Do I ear Brazil? Was that "Eastern Empire" sir? Bollocks! It all fades away compared to the might of SBTF.NET!
On a more serious note, the telephone contact given in the RIPE lookup is a bogus one (lacks one number to be a valid portuguese phone number), the "Rua do Norte" street doesn't exist in Lisbon and SBTF isn't listed in any portuguese site that deals with companies registration.
Some say "bad publicity is good publicity"... I would rather not have my country mentioned by these particular reasons.
But... the guy reporting it is from Spain... this could be some devious plot to, er, something.;)
No need to mod down IMHO, it is actually a very funny part of the Holy Grail:
ARTHUR:
How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN:
King of the who?
ARTHUR:
The Britons.
WOMAN:
Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR:
Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN:
I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS:
You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN:
Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
DENNIS:
That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR:
Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN:
No one lives there.
ARTHUR:
Then who is your lord?
WOMAN:
We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR:
What?
DENNIS:
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
ARTHUR:
Yes.
DENNIS:...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
ARTHUR:
Yes, I see.
DENNIS:...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
ARTHUR:
Be quiet!
DENNIS:...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR:
Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN:
Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR:
I am your king!
WOMAN:
Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR:
You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN:
Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR:
The Lady of the Lake,...
[angels sing]...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS:
Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR:
Be quiet!
DENNIS:
Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR:
Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS:
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR:
Shut up!
DENNIS:
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR:
Bloody peasant!
DENNIS:
Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
Blatantly offtopic, I know, but couldn't resist to share.
The reason that people prefer the BSD license is that people aren't going to have to fear using a library under the BSD license in their code. I've seen way to many people use GPL libraries and then having tons of people immediatly demand that the whole program be released under the GPL.
The thing is, that's exactly what the GPL is meant to do. If people don't want that than they can abstain from using GPL'ed libs. Please note that the LGPL is not an issue, since it exists exactly to allow people to use it without needing to disclose their source. When a lib is put under the GPL and not the LGPL the aim is exactly to prevent people (you, in this case) from using it without sharing their code.
As an aside I found that in general "people" don't prefer the BSD license to the GPL. The ammount of programs released under the GPL proves that. But I have no problem in accepting that some people prefer the BSD one.
As a programmer this disgusts me and will keep me from ever writing a real program for linux (with the exception of the ones for class).
Why is that? The glibc doesn't force you to GPL your program. Most of the development libs are under the LGPL. Just abstain from using GPL libs.
The same thing applies to gcc, and that's why I find this "GPL-free cc for BSD" thing rather amusing.
I find it interesting that people always complain about the FSF regidity regarding licenses and find the BSD-like licenses more "ease-going", as it were. The FSF has no problem accepting and BSD-like licensed programs, and on the other hand the BSD's are expending a good ammount of work just to get rid of their dependency on gcc *because of the license*. Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.
It reminds me of the other myth that goes "the BSD license is more friendly to big companies". So much friendlier that almost all the projects that were "freed" from IBM, SGI et al. are under the GPL.
I'm not bashing the BSD-license. It's a nice license - a free license - and that suffices for me. Just pointing out that many times "zealotry" is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
The law didn't pass also because most of the parties and deputies have no interest or knowledge in the matter. They never tought about it, and given the opportunity to analise it they chose the easy way. Of course lobbying by Microsoft/APS played it's role, but the causes are more rooted in sheer ignorance of the matter at hand than anything else.
At least I'm glad our brazilian brethren managed to succeed in their endeavour. Better days will come to us, I suppose, and until then every successful example of transition to free software will likely change the way uninformed people view it.
Yup, I myself am from Portugal, I've been there since april and I've made no attempt to hide my nationality. Actually I advertise it with pride since I'm the only portuguese person there so far:)
The rest of the nation is awaiting the Linux port...;)
Mosaic was not the first browser. World Wide Web by Time Berners-Lee was. Completely done in Objective-C in a NeXT ( screenshot).
And just by that screenshot it's clear to me that the NeXT interface is a much more tasteful and usable choice to emulate than, well, all other GUI's, and thus GNUstep is becoming every day more and more a real option with real advantages. Alas, blinking bars and Matrix-like desktops seem to be the "hip" thing, but lest hope that good taste prevails.
Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
Insteresting... here in Portugal the highways have at the toll-boot several lanes reserved for "Green Way" subscribers. Basically it's a small device that you put inside your windshield that contains an unique identifier that allows you to enter an exit every highway in the country (not that there are many of them, eh) without stopping to pay. You simply drive trough, it shows the ammount in a digital display and it get's credited in your bank account (I suppose this system is common in every country, so apologies for the extended explanation).
Thing is, a rumour started circulating that the company that administers the system was supplying the average speed of the automobiles to the Police (since they know the time you entered a specific location and the time you exited and the distance between the two). The company had to issue a press release denying it because many people were frightened and ready to bail out (people here have e thing for dangerous driving - which explains why more people were killed by car accidentes in 10 years than soldiers in the same period of the Colonial War 30 years ago).
I have a "Green Way" device, and I must admit it's extremely useful. You can even put gas with it (the pump recognises the device and credits the appropriate account). As always the potential for abuse is there and it's real, but it was never proved that they did anything with the data. But they sure could... and with this new GPS thing (M-Toll IIRC) the ammount of data is even bigger.
East Timor: Liberated the poor little country from the Indonesians and wiped out the resistance. Free elections were held for the first time.
ROFL!!!!!
It takes a special talent to say that after decades of active cooperation with Indonesia and diplomatic support to Indonesia's position. Australia liberated East-Timor the same way Hitler liberated Belgium.
Just check out "Death By Government" for a reality check (that is, some truth, not your cherished superstitions)
"Death by Government" deals with general genocide, wars, etc. We here were especially focusing in religion motivated persecutions. I wasn't even refering to religion based *wars*, but simply to persecution and murdering due to religious intolerance, with the appproaval of the Religious Leaders.
As for my cherished superstitions, I think that I'll hold to them, since they are based on reading and studying more than one best-seller book. I'm not denying the value of the book per se, but ti vuew it as the holder of truth if a bit naive.
Indeed, we do agree. Religons must not be disconnected from their historical context, and as such Islamism, Christianism and all other religions present a different face in different time frames and in different regions. Who are the Christians, the one killed by the Lions or the ones burning the Cathars? Who are the Muslims, the ones that preserved classical knowledge and ciecne or the ones that kill civilians and ban technology?
I also agree that today Muslim Fundamentalism is a bigger threat nowadays, mainly because of the separation of Church and State you mention. But I'm still disturbed when I hear Christian Radicals on TV... it reminds me that with the proper ammount of support they might just elect someone sympathetic, and a whole nightmare starts again.
No actually it doesn't, we are not all mindless drones. That's what seperates largely tollerant societies (such as midly Christian, Catholic, Shinto, Hindu (etc) societies) from intollerant ones (such as extremist Muslim nations).
Just to nitpick: "extremist" Muslim nations equal "extremist" Catholic nations in intolerance. As a matter of fact Catholic countries and "mildly Christian" countries probably killed and destroyed more people and families than the Muslim ones. If my fears were to be bodycount driven I would fear Christian countries the most.
The only good thing is that nobody in a Western country would elect some religious fanatic, let's say someone connected to those right-wing "Christian" sects that frighten me more than the Muslims. Oh, wait...
Just to make my point clear, I'm just objecting to the way you put things... you could have easily attached the extremist adjective to any religion you mentioned. Historically Muslims have been much more tolerant regarding other religions that the Christians.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
It's the GhandiCon!!!! THE GHANDICON!!! Everybody knows the GHADICON!!! So, where are we in the GHANDICON? Uh? Uh? Why didn't you said the GhandiCon? It would have beem simpler AND EVERYBODY USES IT NOW!!!
Anyway, to get back to the my main point. GPL came along well after the tradition of free software had been established.
You are correct, but somehow it appears that people think that the FSF denies it or something like that... the FSF, the GNU Project and the GPL existe *precisely* because there was a tradition of free software (in Universities, etc). From the Overview of the GNU Project
The GNU Project was conceived in 1983 as a way of bringing back the cooperative spirit that prevailed in the computing community in earlier days---to make cooperation possible once again by removing the obstacles to cooperation imposed by the owners of proprietary software.
In 1971, when Richard Stallman started his career at MIT, he worked in a group which used free software exclusively. Even computer companies often distributed free software. Programmers were free to cooperate with each other, and often did.
By the 1980s, almost all software was proprietary (18k characters), which means that it had owners who forbid and prevent cooperation by users. This made the GNU Project necessary
And this leads to the part were we disagree: you believe that "[the FSF isn't] essential to maintaining the free sharing of software", whereas I believe the opposite: the FSF effectively bore the light of the free software spirit (pardon me for the overly poetic way of putting it) during a time where most things were proprietary and non-free, to the point where most people didn't even remembered that once upon a time software was freely distributed and hacked amongst programmers. I clearly remember that in the 80's most people couldn't even conceive "free software", the most they could grasp was shareware. Also the FSF was - if not the only - the most determined organization devoted to "evangelise" people about free software, i.e. it wasn't just producing software, it always had a strong philoshophycal background and made it an important - one might say *the* most important - part of it's mission
I'm heavily biased in this matter because I personally owe to the FSF my knowledge about Free Software; I still remember reading the FSF articles and thinking "wow, what a nrew and refreshing concept". More to the point, if nowadays I can make a living as a Unix sysadmin it's in great part due to the FSF. I do however understand that others might have different experinces and thus have different views on the subject.
Not only that, the kid that stole the video is the one to pity; being a snitch and abusing the confidence of friends just to gain a few laughs and popularity is one of the worst personality traits one can have.
Slashdot Mirror
No, HL2 is windows-only.
Once upon a time I actually played a lot of HL mods (to be honest HL itself i ok, but the true reason it was so popular was the mods - CS in particular). Configured wine, tweaked the settings, the whole monty. I also - like many GNU/Linux admins - administered servers, and public servers at that. The number of Linux servers was actually a reason why HL had so many players.
After this it became clear that Valve really didn't give a damn about rewarding the Linux community with a client version. Much to the opposite, HL2 was being tought from the ground up to be Windows-only.
To make it short I sold my HL CD's, shut the servers down and replaced them with Q3 and UT. Many Linux admins were doing the same, since it really looked like Valve was spitting in the face of the people that helped them. I have never touched HL since then (nor any of the mods).
So, basically, I believe in supporting companies that support me (and the Linux community) for their effort. With so many good games of the genre available for Linux it isn't even difficult.
HL2? No thanks.
This is a tad offtopic, but I think some people will find this useful.
StepTalk is a scripting environment for GNUstep applications (this is why I remembered to mention it: AppleScript -> OSX -> NeXTSTEP -> GNUstep -> Scripting -> AppleScript...). The level of integration with GNUstep apps and the possibilities are enormous, and since Objective-C OO paradigm was based in SmallTalk it feels very natural.
Now that GNUstep is having more and more applications be sure to give StepTalk a look.
cheers
Ok, another correction.
After rereading my original messages I admit that the way it reads can easily be misunderstood, as can my other clarification. Macau and Tawain are indeed very diferent situations, and the only point linking them was the fact that both are important to China in the "Great China" idea.
The handover to China was indeed planned since 1974 or even before. For the last 20 years Macau had been "chinese territory under portuguese administration". I would not like that my words could be used againt Macau present situation. It was a pretty decent handover compared to Honk Kong, for example.
So, all in all, I myself failed to properly express the peculiar identity of Macau when I compared it to Taiwan. Mea culpa.
As a matter of fact I have more grudges againts the lack of cultural investment in Macau from the part of portuguese authorities than with China itself.
hope this clears this one up.
Actually, after reading it, some corrections:
* I'm not saying that "portuguese administration" was flawless; as you probably know Portugal had, in this century, one dictatorship for 50 years followed by a revolution. This made it difficult to make the country itself progress. As a matter of fact Macau was actually better of with the large autonomy it had then if it was under direct rule.
* The tryads: what I meant about the motives are related to the different judicial practices in Portugal and China. Portugal does not have a death sentency (actually one of the first to abolish it) and the sentences are mild compared to what China has. This might be a reason people from Macau view chinese justice as better. It's a fact that portuguese justice is more lenient. That's one of the bad things about all this human-rights thing.
* Macau and Portugal: as you know the handover of Macau marked the end of Portuguese overseas territories. As such it is normal that I view it it a certain sense of nostalgia. And to add to it I was used to reading all the amazing histories concerning Macau during the centuries.There was a reason why Macau had the motto "CIDADE SANTO NOME DE DEUS DE MACAU, NAO HA OUTRA MAIS LEAL".
That's all
Hello,
/.'ers if you would like to continue this debate in private please mail me to fsmunoz@gesal.org. Maybe you are right in some points, and I fail to see it. Anyway, debating never did any arm.
As a matter of fact I had family living in Macau right 'till the end. So, unfortunatly, I cannot let this "happy Great China" wish of yours go by.
You are free to view things however you want, but it's a rather amusing way you view it. Portugal never wanted to "get rid of Macau since the 60's". As a matter of fact Macau was always the least of portuguese problems concerning overseas territories, since it was largely self-governement and had been for centuries. It's ridiculous to think that Macau would resist the Dutch expansion, followed by the English one, without this strong personality that made Macau what it was. And to top it all Macau had a clause that prevented any money generated there to be transfered to Lisbon
. You assesment of portuguese administration falls short, very short. Most of the administration was made by people from Macau. The streets are safer? Since most of the tryads are still there, and have been operating with basis in mainland China, I am led to believe the old rumour about the true motivations behind the tryads.
Corruption, you say? Yes, maybe that is decreasing. Nothing like having the Chinese Army to take care of that.
You can have it you way, since you live there. I'm not debating you point of view. If you think you are better off, than kudos. But if it was up to me, and not the weak and feable governments we have for the last, ummmm, century or so, Macau would not have been given to China. If not only because of all the false propaganda and historic revisionism that China launched. I also find it rather hilarious the statement about "China not wanting it". China want's everything around it. Macau, Honk Kong, Taiwan, Tibet... You will probably say that all this territories have "rampant corruption". Maybe that's how the Japanese viewed China: they went there just to make the streets safer.
Since this is of little concern for most
cheers
Actually, I stoped viewing China as communist a long time ago, and I'm communist. China nowadays is more capitalist that anything else, but the important thing here is that China is imperialistic by nature, and culturally used to totalitarian regimes. Remember that much of the problems China had in the 80's were with the USSR ( I have a book here from Novosti Press - USSR's official press - from the 80's called "China: Imperialist and Authocratic Regime").
What I said about totalitarian regimes doesn't mean it makes it OK by me, but every kind of political definition of China must take into account the very specific history of China.
Toa add to this the "founding fathers" of Formosa, the Kuomitang, were also completely against independence: Taiwan's view on this issue was (and is) exactly the same as PRC. The Real Government of China was the one in Formosa, mainland China was a rebel part of the country.
What is happening now is that the new generation of taiwanese wants independece. PRC will not allow this. We had to "return" Macau some years ago and it was a) not part of China when conquered and b) never ruled by an asian potency for 500 years. Still, China made this huge thing about it, and since it has the weapons, well, let's just say that it would be kind of impolite to refuse.
Of course, they could just say "ok, you're independent, fine with us", but I think they are going to choose the American way: "Want to seceed? Ok, here we go!!!".
cheers
Please note that I'm not from the USA (something in your post makes me think you think I am).
Anyway, I was not making a statement about what I think is, or should be, the correct approach. I subscribe your implicit idea of treating countries fairly be they powerful or not. I am not against what people think the UN stands for, I would actually be quite pleased if a UN mandate actually meant something along the lines of fairness and legitimacy.
I also agree with you on the changing of power; although some people brag about the "end of history" we can only see what our present conditions permit us to. Every Empire had it's beginning and its end. Some even reemerge. But power does shift, and what today is a world powerful can be, in a matter of years, one amongts many.
cheers
Ok, here goes my short rant; before all I should warn you that I'm what people tend to call "communist".
So, about the War in Iraq, the US and the UN, and the existance of a resolution allowing intervention. Who cares? Why should it be important? I find it amusing that people say it would be OK for the USA to invade Iraq under a UN mandate, but if they go solo it's "not democratic". Laughable. The Security Council *is* the UN as far as this matters are concern. Saying that having the blessing of 9 countries in the world, all there because they either won WW2 and/or have mass destruction weapons, constitutes a wordly mandate that bestows dignity on the receiver is absurd. The members of the Security Council are there because of military power. The US as that, and plenty of it. Ergo, the US does what the US wants, period. At this point I don't even care if it was right or wrong: if it was in the interest of the USA, well, why the hell not? Having a UN resolution means *nothing*. The UN itself, based as it is on a dictatorship of countries, means very, very little. All countries act on their self-interest first, the exception is that the USA actually takes actions.
In the end, the power remains in the hand of who has the means to use the weapons they have (be it warheads or multinationals). It hasn't change a bit from the same rules we had 1000 years ago, and sometimes I think that the UN only exists as a mean to make this fact less visible by hiding it with words like "rights", "law" and "democracy".
First spam, then the Empire! Finally Portugal is regaining it's place! Seaway to India, you say? Do I ear Brazil? Was that "Eastern Empire" sir? Bollocks! It all fades away compared to the might of SBTF.NET!
;)
On a more serious note, the telephone contact given in the RIPE lookup is a bogus one (lacks one number to be a valid portuguese phone number), the "Rua do Norte" street doesn't exist in Lisbon and SBTF isn't listed in any portuguese site that deals with companies registration.
Some say "bad publicity is good publicity"... I would rather not have my country mentioned by these particular reasons.
But... the guy reporting it is from Spain... this could be some devious plot to, er, something.
cheers
No need to mod down IMHO, it is actually a very funny part of the Holy Grail:
...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,... ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major-- ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR: Please! Please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one lives there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS:
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS:
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS:
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing]
DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you? Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?
Blatantly offtopic, I know, but couldn't resist to share.
cheers
The reason that people prefer the BSD license is that people aren't going to have to fear using a library under the BSD license in their code. I've seen way to many people use GPL libraries and then having tons of people immediatly demand that the whole program be released under the GPL.
The thing is, that's exactly what the GPL is meant to do. If people don't want that than they can abstain from using GPL'ed libs. Please note that the LGPL is not an issue, since it exists exactly to allow people to use it without needing to disclose their source. When a lib is put under the GPL and not the LGPL the aim is exactly to prevent people (you, in this case) from using it without sharing their code.
As an aside I found that in general "people" don't prefer the BSD license to the GPL. The ammount of programs released under the GPL proves that. But I have no problem in accepting that some people prefer the BSD one.
As a programmer this disgusts me and will keep me from ever writing a real program for linux (with the exception of the ones for class).
Why is that? The glibc doesn't force you to GPL your program. Most of the development libs are under the LGPL. Just abstain from using GPL libs. The same thing applies to gcc, and that's why I find this "GPL-free cc for BSD" thing rather amusing.
cheers,
fsmunoz
I find it interesting that people always complain about the FSF regidity regarding licenses and find the BSD-like licenses more "ease-going", as it were. The FSF has no problem accepting and BSD-like licensed programs, and on the other hand the BSD's are expending a good ammount of work just to get rid of their dependency on gcc *because of the license*. Seems to me that the BSD's have more problems with compatible free licenses than the FSF.
It reminds me of the other myth that goes "the BSD license is more friendly to big companies". So much friendlier that almost all the projects that were "freed" from IBM, SGI et al. are under the GPL.
I'm not bashing the BSD-license. It's a nice license - a free license - and that suffices for me. Just pointing out that many times "zealotry" is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
cheers,
fsmunoz
M-x ispell-buffer
The law didn't pass also because most of the parties and deputies have no interest or knowledge in the matter. They never tought about it, and given the opportunity to analise it they chose the easy way. Of course lobbying by Microsoft/APS played it's role, but the causes are more rooted in sheer ignorance of the matter at hand than anything else.
At least I'm glad our brazilian brethren managed to succeed in their endeavour. Better days will come to us, I suppose, and until then every successful example of transition to free software will likely change the way uninformed people view it.
cheers,
fsmunoz
Yup, I myself am from Portugal, I've been there since april and I've made no attempt to hide my nationality. Actually I advertise it with pride since I'm the only portuguese person there so far :)
;)
The rest of the nation is awaiting the Linux port...
Mosaic was not the first browser. World Wide Web by Time Berners-Lee was. Completely done in Objective-C in a NeXT ( screenshot).
And just by that screenshot it's clear to me that the NeXT interface is a much more tasteful and usable choice to emulate than, well, all other GUI's, and thus GNUstep is becoming every day more and more a real option with real advantages. Alas, blinking bars and Matrix-like desktops seem to be the "hip" thing, but lest hope that good taste prevails.
fsmunoz
cheers,
fsmunoz
Insteresting... here in Portugal the highways have at the toll-boot several lanes reserved for "Green Way" subscribers. Basically it's a small device that you put inside your windshield that contains an unique identifier that allows you to enter an exit every highway in the country (not that there are many of them, eh) without stopping to pay. You simply drive trough, it shows the ammount in a digital display and it get's credited in your bank account (I suppose this system is common in every country, so apologies for the extended explanation).
Thing is, a rumour started circulating that the company that administers the system was supplying the average speed of the automobiles to the Police (since they know the time you entered a specific location and the time you exited and the distance between the two). The company had to issue a press release denying it because many people were frightened and ready to bail out (people here have e thing for dangerous driving - which explains why more people were killed by car accidentes in 10 years than soldiers in the same period of the Colonial War 30 years ago).
I have a "Green Way" device, and I must admit it's extremely useful. You can even put gas with it (the pump recognises the device and credits the appropriate account). As always the potential for abuse is there and it's real, but it was never proved that they did anything with the data. But they sure could... and with this new GPS thing (M-Toll IIRC) the ammount of data is even bigger.
regards,
fsmunoz
East Timor: Liberated the poor little country from the Indonesians and wiped out the resistance. Free elections were held for the first time.
ROFL!!!!!
It takes a special talent to say that after decades of active cooperation with Indonesia and diplomatic support to Indonesia's position. Australia liberated East-Timor the same way Hitler liberated Belgium.
Just check out "Death By Government" for a reality check (that is, some truth, not your cherished superstitions)
"Death by Government" deals with general genocide, wars, etc. We here were especially focusing in religion motivated persecutions. I wasn't even refering to religion based *wars*, but simply to persecution and murdering due to religious intolerance, with the appproaval of the Religious Leaders.
As for my cherished superstitions, I think that I'll hold to them, since they are based on reading and studying more than one best-seller book. I'm not denying the value of the book per se, but ti vuew it as the holder of truth if a bit naive.
cheers,
fsmunoz
Indeed, we do agree. Religons must not be disconnected from their historical context, and as such Islamism, Christianism and all other religions present a different face in different time frames and in different regions. Who are the Christians, the one killed by the Lions or the ones burning the Cathars? Who are the Muslims, the ones that preserved classical knowledge and ciecne or the ones that kill civilians and ban technology?
I also agree that today Muslim Fundamentalism is a bigger threat nowadays, mainly because of the separation of Church and State you mention. But I'm still disturbed when I hear Christian Radicals on TV... it reminds me that with the proper ammount of support they might just elect someone sympathetic, and a whole nightmare starts again.
cheers,
fsmunoz
No actually it doesn't, we are not all mindless drones. That's what seperates largely tollerant societies (such as midly Christian, Catholic, Shinto, Hindu (etc) societies) from intollerant ones (such as extremist Muslim nations).
Just to nitpick: "extremist" Muslim nations equal "extremist" Catholic nations in intolerance. As a matter of fact Catholic countries and "mildly Christian" countries probably killed and destroyed more people and families than the Muslim ones. If my fears were to be bodycount driven I would fear Christian countries the most.
The only good thing is that nobody in a Western country would elect some religious fanatic, let's say someone connected to those right-wing "Christian" sects that frighten me more than the Muslims. Oh, wait...
Just to make my point clear, I'm just objecting to the way you put things... you could have easily attached the extremist adjective to any religion you mentioned. Historically Muslims have been much more tolerant regarding other religions that the Christians.
cheers,
fsmunoz
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
It's the GhandiCon!!!! THE GHANDICON!!! Everybody knows the GHADICON!!! So, where are we in the GHANDICON? Uh? Uh? Why didn't you said the GhandiCon? It would have beem simpler AND EVERYBODY USES IT NOW!!!
Ph4t Pr0ps to the GhandiCon!
(cf ESR Recasts Jargon File in Own Image)
You are correct, but somehow it appears that people think that the FSF denies it or something like that... the FSF, the GNU Project and the GPL existe *precisely* because there was a tradition of free software (in Universities, etc). From the Overview of the GNU Project
And this leads to the part were we disagree: you believe that "[the FSF isn't] essential to maintaining the free sharing of software", whereas I believe the opposite: the FSF effectively bore the light of the free software spirit (pardon me for the overly poetic way of putting it) during a time where most things were proprietary and non-free, to the point where most people didn't even remembered that once upon a time software was freely distributed and hacked amongst programmers. I clearly remember that in the 80's most people couldn't even conceive "free software", the most they could grasp was shareware. Also the FSF was - if not the only - the most determined organization devoted to "evangelise" people about free software, i.e. it wasn't just producing software, it always had a strong philoshophycal background and made it an important - one might say *the* most important - part of it's mission
I'm heavily biased in this matter because I personally owe to the FSF my knowledge about Free Software; I still remember reading the FSF articles and thinking "wow, what a nrew and refreshing concept". More to the point, if nowadays I can make a living as a Unix sysadmin it's in great part due to the FSF. I do however understand that others might have different experinces and thus have different views on the subject.
cheers,
fsmunoz
Not only that, the kid that stole the video is the one to pity; being a snitch and abusing the confidence of friends just to gain a few laughs and popularity is one of the worst personality traits one can have.