You would... use... PayPal... over... anything???
Why, please tell me why. I avoid PayPal like a plague. The people I know who use it do it because they are forced to by crappy web sites that only support PayPal. It's the bottom of payment methods. It's the least reliable, the most expensive and you don't need to get hacked to be stolen money, PayPal do it themselves and it's a pain to use. Why would anyone willingly use PayPal over credit card payment or any other of the thousands of better payment service is beyond me.
This is not about him, this is about us. I don't care what it does to him or what happens to him. The issue is what this does to us when we treat him in an inhumane fashion. We loose part of our humanity. Torture corrupts the mind of the perpetrator much more than the victim. That is why we don't do it.
East germany is capitalist. It WAS communist but no more is.
If you were raised in a capitalist country, let's imagine your country suddently become communist. All your youth you have been fed capitalist propaganda (oh yes, you have) and now you have to live under communism. Will you just say: well ok, the rules have changed and I will play by the new rules? I bet most of you will just fight the system, cheat it and feel proud about it. People raised in communist states have been fed communist propaganda, which does not work under capitalist rule. The problem is not capitalism or communism it's system change.
Not sure they can. I don't think Github get to decide what license to apply to the code they host. The code belongs to the author until he grants Github a license. If the user doesn't do it explicitly, I'm afraid Github is distributing the code illegally. I don't think Github is allowed to add a public domain license file by default.
I'm using SourceForge.net and am happy with it, although there are some minor things I don't like about it: heavy use of JavaScript, the web layout is weak (size set in pixels, no attention made to accessibility, etc...) but overall I didn't find anything better short of hosting myself. I considered Google code, Launchpad, Savannah and Github and found SF.net to be the most complete and advanced source hosting service. I found some advantages in using Google code, Launchpad and Savannah. I'm using Launchpad for translations, since it's the only one that does it. Launchpad is nice because it can sync with an external SCM like SF.net. I found Google code to be less featured but I like the clean layout and overall site performance. Savannah is poorly featured too but does not have advert and is very clean. I found Github to be like SF.net, with the same weak points but less featured. I'm curious to know why people would use Github. Is there any advantage over SF.net?
Because you think menus and overlapping windows come from Win95?
Win95 is nothing special. it just uses the same interface all other desktop computers with a mouse and a keyboard use.
Nope. My gf hates it, my mother hates it too. Nothing is discoverable. People like to be told what they can do with the computer. Typing things on the keyboard or reading documentation is for geeks.
You are doing correctly. It's just that the step of hashing is unnecessary. You can just compile the stuff and compare it, instead of compiling the stuff, hashing both stuffs and compare the hashes.
I can name so many of them that it's hard to choose. Let's just pick the best one: Amiga OS workbench. But that is only one example, there are so many that I can't list them. Windows 95 was not exactly a revolution in 95.
That's because you don't have a graphic card powerful enough for the shell. It falls back to the usable interface if it can't display the unusable one. I experienced the same. I liked GNOME 3 on a slow computer and tried to install it on the powerful one and that was a disaster. Only the fall back mode is usable. The real shell is not.
GNU carries a philosophy and Linux does not. I want to promote the philosophy and therefore I call it GNU. Technically, Linux is not better than NT or Mach. I have no reason to promote Linux on a technical level. I call it GNU to promote free software. Linux is important because of the GPL. The real value is in the philosophy.
Xorg can not compile itself because it's a graphical interface. XFCE can not compile itself because it's a desktop environment. Linux can not compile itself because it's a kernel. GNU can compile itself because it's an OS. Debian can compile itself because it's an OS. Call it GNU or Debian.
That's correct, but even split that money is still in the hand of a few. It's not a king but a small class of oligarchs that collectively is richer and richer.
We're not talking about your little thousand dollars investment. We are talking billions here. 5% is really conservative when you have billions, because you don't just gamble in the market, you manipulate it and cash in the gambles of other small investors. That is how the market work. You take your thousand bucks to the bank and ask to invest it. They'll make 10% on it and give you like 2 to 3% return on your thousand dollars. If you bring 1 billion, you buy the bank. If you invest a thousand buck on the stock market, the company may give you some dividends if they succeed. If you invest one billion on the stock market, you control the company and tell it what to do. You buy and merge the competitors, split it up, you can buy the suppliers, etc...
In other words, 5% is really very conservative.
If you agree with the dictionary, it is still a system. The lack of system can be called lawlessness, chaos, anarchy, randomness, whatever but not capitalism, duh! Capitalism is an economic system, by any standard. Even hard line laissez-faire capitalists call it an economic system. If you don't have ownership, you can't have capitalism. And if you have ownership, you have a system duh!
The floor should be linked to the cap. Make the cap being 100 times the floor. That was the rich can get ever richer, but he has to make the poor richer too.
You are assuming the politicians have the power, which is debatable. The too rich people actually end up with more power than the politician. He controls the industry more than the politician does. He can set the direction of the economy. He can hire or fire people. He can relocate factories, he can remove a city from the map and build it elsewhere with his money. This is not about buying politicians, it's about where the real power lies. If you let the extremely rich people get too rich, they become kings. Their power exceeds the one of the elected politicians. They are a threat to democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
You would ... use ... PayPal ... over ... anything???
Why, please tell me why. I avoid PayPal like a plague. The people I know who use it do it because they are forced to by crappy web sites that only support PayPal. It's the bottom of payment methods. It's the least reliable, the most expensive and you don't need to get hacked to be stolen money, PayPal do it themselves and it's a pain to use. Why would anyone willingly use PayPal over credit card payment or any other of the thousands of better payment service is beyond me.
This is not about him, this is about us. I don't care what it does to him or what happens to him. The issue is what this does to us when we treat him in an inhumane fashion. We loose part of our humanity. Torture corrupts the mind of the perpetrator much more than the victim. That is why we don't do it.
If you tell us Astrology is dubious you are telling us about your biases, nothing more. Come on, IQ is controversial at best.
If only I had mod points I would mod you up. The analogy is perfect. The fools here are not the ones publishing this story but those who buy it.
East germany is capitalist. It WAS communist but no more is. If you were raised in a capitalist country, let's imagine your country suddently become communist. All your youth you have been fed capitalist propaganda (oh yes, you have) and now you have to live under communism. Will you just say: well ok, the rules have changed and I will play by the new rules? I bet most of you will just fight the system, cheat it and feel proud about it. People raised in communist states have been fed communist propaganda, which does not work under capitalist rule. The problem is not capitalism or communism it's system change.
It's not the same service. I would maybe consider it for proprietary software but it does not replace SF.net or Github.
Not sure they can. I don't think Github get to decide what license to apply to the code they host. The code belongs to the author until he grants Github a license. If the user doesn't do it explicitly, I'm afraid Github is distributing the code illegally. I don't think Github is allowed to add a public domain license file by default.
I'm using SourceForge.net and am happy with it, although there are some minor things I don't like about it: heavy use of JavaScript, the web layout is weak (size set in pixels, no attention made to accessibility, etc...) but overall I didn't find anything better short of hosting myself. I considered Google code, Launchpad, Savannah and Github and found SF.net to be the most complete and advanced source hosting service. I found some advantages in using Google code, Launchpad and Savannah. I'm using Launchpad for translations, since it's the only one that does it. Launchpad is nice because it can sync with an external SCM like SF.net. I found Google code to be less featured but I like the clean layout and overall site performance. Savannah is poorly featured too but does not have advert and is very clean. I found Github to be like SF.net, with the same weak points but less featured. I'm curious to know why people would use Github. Is there any advantage over SF.net?
Before that there was RiscOS, AmigaOS, AmiDOCK, Directory Opus, CDE, ...
Because you think menus and overlapping windows come from Win95? Win95 is nothing special. it just uses the same interface all other desktop computers with a mouse and a keyboard use.
Nope. My gf hates it, my mother hates it too. Nothing is discoverable. People like to be told what they can do with the computer. Typing things on the keyboard or reading documentation is for geeks.
You are doing correctly. It's just that the step of hashing is unnecessary. You can just compile the stuff and compare it, instead of compiling the stuff, hashing both stuffs and compare the hashes.
You can do that with cmp or diff. Why do you mention hashing?
I can name so many of them that it's hard to choose. Let's just pick the best one: Amiga OS workbench. But that is only one example, there are so many that I can't list them. Windows 95 was not exactly a revolution in 95.
Funny how the kids think the menus comes from windows 95 these days.
That's because you don't have a graphic card powerful enough for the shell. It falls back to the usable interface if it can't display the unusable one. I experienced the same. I liked GNOME 3 on a slow computer and tried to install it on the powerful one and that was a disaster. Only the fall back mode is usable. The real shell is not.
GNU carries a philosophy and Linux does not. I want to promote the philosophy and therefore I call it GNU. Technically, Linux is not better than NT or Mach. I have no reason to promote Linux on a technical level. I call it GNU to promote free software. Linux is important because of the GPL. The real value is in the philosophy.
Xorg can not compile itself because it's a graphical interface. XFCE can not compile itself because it's a desktop environment. Linux can not compile itself because it's a kernel. GNU can compile itself because it's an OS. Debian can compile itself because it's an OS. Call it GNU or Debian.
They do that?
What's news is that someone in the government has just learned what everybody knows. Wake me up when they do something about it.
That's correct, but even split that money is still in the hand of a few. It's not a king but a small class of oligarchs that collectively is richer and richer.
We're not talking about your little thousand dollars investment. We are talking billions here. 5% is really conservative when you have billions, because you don't just gamble in the market, you manipulate it and cash in the gambles of other small investors. That is how the market work. You take your thousand bucks to the bank and ask to invest it. They'll make 10% on it and give you like 2 to 3% return on your thousand dollars. If you bring 1 billion, you buy the bank. If you invest a thousand buck on the stock market, the company may give you some dividends if they succeed. If you invest one billion on the stock market, you control the company and tell it what to do. You buy and merge the competitors, split it up, you can buy the suppliers, etc...
In other words, 5% is really very conservative.
If you agree with the dictionary, it is still a system. The lack of system can be called lawlessness, chaos, anarchy, randomness, whatever but not capitalism, duh! Capitalism is an economic system, by any standard. Even hard line laissez-faire capitalists call it an economic system. If you don't have ownership, you can't have capitalism. And if you have ownership, you have a system duh!
Capitalism is a "system", duh!
The floor should be linked to the cap. Make the cap being 100 times the floor. That was the rich can get ever richer, but he has to make the poor richer too.
You are assuming the politicians have the power, which is debatable. The too rich people actually end up with more power than the politician. He controls the industry more than the politician does. He can set the direction of the economy. He can hire or fire people. He can relocate factories, he can remove a city from the map and build it elsewhere with his money. This is not about buying politicians, it's about where the real power lies. If you let the extremely rich people get too rich, they become kings. Their power exceeds the one of the elected politicians. They are a threat to democracy.