We are *noting* his demise. Because he was notable, in a scale that many people around here just don't understand.
He beat the Soviets at their own game in the middle of the Cold War. Think Jesse Owens and you may understand how massive was his victory (and before some idiot even suggests it, I am not comparing both men, but I am certainly comparing their respective achievements and what they meant on the day).
To sit down and replay some of his games is pure magic, and that is why chess is so magnificent, because anybody can touch the minds of geniuses with a chessboard and a few lines containing the notation of a good game.
If the company putting the computer together and putting their brand name on it is not responsible, then nobody else is.
In specialized fields you don't just ask "oh well, sell us dome drives for our entire production line, it is up to you to do the right thing". You *must* be pretty specific and one would have hoped this would include requirements for compliance with common industry wide standards.
Apple is a great company, but when they screw up they should be taken to account, even fanboys should be able to discern this.
"He holds no legal authority outside a few blocks in Rome.He is the head of a faith that teaches chastity outside of marriage"
What about his moral authority then? There are governments that set policies in place that are agreeable to the catholic church and many millions of people that follow literally whatever they are told is good for them.
You must also know that a woman having sex with her husband is not permitted to used condoms.
The stance of the Catholic church has nothing to do with celibacy and lots to do with puritanical rules of an elite that does not even have practical experience about the issue they are dictating.
I also live in hope of hitting the jack pot, that does not mean I am entitled to it or that all the people hopping for this should buy (I should say bribe) legislators to enact laws that ensure we are compensated somehow.
It is foolish to devote so much effort to a product that is intrinsically free.
Music used to be always free, it was recording equipment that made it artificially valuable in a physical format.
Now music is free again (as it should, since it is after all a means of communication), trying to make a living based on stopping the spreading of air vibrations is silly, to say the least.
Fascism. Yep. Communism. Yep. Final solution. Yep. Ethnic cleansing (lets be fair, it was only perfected ). Yep. WMDs. Yep. Brownie points for using them on civilians first. Colonialism. Yep. Apartheid. Yep.
No question about it, Western Civilization is such a wonderful thing.
Saddam Hussein was smacked down when he attacked his neighbors (well, not quite, Mr Rumsfeld and Co. were quite pleased when he attacked Iran).
He was contained to his borders and was harming nobody but his people (this was regrettable, but was at least contained and by no means the widespread bloodbath we are witnessing. In any case if his actions would have been disgraceful enough internal opposition could have been supported, such people would have enjoyed a degree of legitimacy that the current Iraq leaders just can't ever dream to have, instead the incipient opposition was abandoned and easily crushed by the dictator).
The UN charter is pretty clear about this, and the US (and UK) are signatories, but they chose to ignore it whenever it suits them, no wonder they have made so many real and gratuitous enemies....
Paranoid politicians (of which a few are later found to use illegal immigrants themselves) have made their business to stop such healthy economic (and dare I say cultural) exchange.
The people in the US are clearly saying they need far more immigrants than what the government is prepared to let in (otherwise they would not be risking breaking the law themselves), but as we all know the US Federal Government is bought by interests not by democratic needs.
Your country could perfectly afford mass immigration. It is fundamentally empty in many places, all opposition is borne from racism pure and simple.
You have a group of people that do work that otherwise would be not done, that claim no social benefits of any kind and pay taxes without ever getting anything in return and spend big chunks of their earnings in the local economy. What a bloody damage you have got there.
Many agricultural businesses would be out of business if it wasn't for illegal immigration.
Many people argue that they drive salaries down, but that is a self inflicted wound: the moment they were legal they would have to be paid the same as any other worker, and in that moment competence and skill would become the important factors to get a job.
US people are simply scared shitless of competition, even when in reality most of them would never ever have to compete for a job with a lowly educated, unskilled Mexican person.
At the very least Mexicans yes, we should, for one reason: economics is telling you that doing otherwise is complete nonsense.
As a matter of fact people wanting to keep the US more Anglo Saxon than Hispanic should ponder this: most Mexicans would never change their nationality if we could come and go as we pleased. Mexicans opting to obtain a US passport do so for pragmatic reasons, not because they really want to.
If you believe in human freedom there is no possible argument about curtailing freedom of movement. Soviets did it, communists still do it, fascists did it, why should democracies do it? That does not mean you would lose control of your borders, you could still have enough controls in place to know where people are if you need to know such thing as a country.
That the US is so reluctant to lead the way in this matter is incomprehensible. You have mores space than the EU, you are built from pretty much uncontrolled immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries but still the place leading the way is the EU where bar stubborn countries like the UK, you have pretty much freedom to live whereever you think life is going to be better for you (from Polish plumbers relocating to Germany and the UK to UK pensioners moving to Spain and Greece).
You could stop illegal immigration. Everybody in the places where it happens know the where the crossing points are, the way it works (I am tired of seeing documentaries following immigrants crossing the border) and the places where the immigrants get employment (look! meat processing factory, 90% are Hispanic, should we check?)
But when President Fox of Mexico offered to have a free movement agreement between citizens of the US and Mexico, then US legislators stall any possibility of progress.
The question is: why? Cheap, free immigration (as in no need to ask permission to relocate) has worked wonders for the countries in the EU where the host country (places like the UK, Germany and France) got workers badly needed in many areas (the skills of polish plumbers are now legendary all around the EU) while poor countries benefited in many ways: young people found a way to a better way of life, the local economy was invigorated by money sent from abroad.
Contrary to what the scaremongers predicted (a flood of immigration from countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece) what happened is that the poor countries became more prosperous (with the help of infrastructure projects financed by the EU) and guess what, we don't have millions of Spanish or Portuguese in the UK, as a matter of fact many go back home (Ireland being the most salient example).
But politicians in the US, supported in great measure by an ignorant, fearful electorate, prefer to legislate exploitation instead of cooperation: cheap labour with no rights that can be kicked out at the drop of a hat. The inhumane deportations of parents that have to leave behind their families after many years of enforced illegality is something that should hurt any decent person.
Most people in the US talk all this nonsense about letting capitalism work its wonders, unless of course you are in a competitive disadvantage, in which case it is OK to exploit people and put walls and fences half heartedly that remind you more of oppressive East European regimes rather than a country blabbing all around the world about freedom.
In Roman times people could not expect to live more than 30 years in average.
In developed countries we are almost tripling that already.
In 2000 years more who is to say that we don't triple this again (to 300 years)?
The lack of ambition and imagination of some people is astounding, specially considering the great scientific leaps we have made in 100 years.
110 years ago we could not even fly. Now we have visited the Moon, are planning on visiting Mars and have sent probes to all planets in the solar system and a couple even beyond that. If you have said this to somebody in 1900 they would hve looked at you as an irreparable idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
Is patronage forbidden nowadays or what?
We are *noting* his demise. Because he was notable, in a scale that many people around here just don't understand.
He beat the Soviets at their own game in the middle of the Cold War. Think Jesse Owens and you may understand how massive was his victory (and before some idiot even suggests it, I am not comparing both men, but I am certainly comparing their respective achievements and what they meant on the day).
To sit down and replay some of his games is pure magic, and that is why chess is so magnificent, because anybody can touch the minds of geniuses with a chessboard and a few lines containing the notation of a good game.
To be one clouds your judgment.
If the company putting the computer together and putting their brand name on it is not responsible, then nobody else is.
In specialized fields you don't just ask "oh well, sell us dome drives for our entire production line, it is up to you to do the right thing". You *must* be pretty specific and one would have hoped this would include requirements for compliance with common industry wide standards.
Apple is a great company, but when they screw up they should be taken to account, even fanboys should be able to discern this.
Is the Bible universal truth, yes or not?
For bunnies sakes, if god can't come up with some good ass general moral rules, then who can?
"He holds no legal authority outside a few blocks in Rome.He is the head of a faith that teaches chastity outside of marriage"
What about his moral authority then? There are governments that set policies in place that are agreeable to the catholic church and many millions of people that follow literally whatever they are told is good for them.
You must also know that a woman having sex with her husband is not permitted to used condoms.
The stance of the Catholic church has nothing to do with celibacy and lots to do with puritanical rules of an elite that does not even have practical experience about the issue they are dictating.
Contraception policies of the catholic church (instigated by JP II) are killing people today.
But there are people still defending these bozos. Amazing.
So you would be better adviced not to disparage him or her....
Take my wife (please)
Just let me know where and when.
If I don't like her I can dump her here also.
We have two completely bodies of law, one for theft and one for copyright.
There is a reason for that and all your baseless fuming is not going to change that.
I also live in hope of hitting the jack pot, that does not mean I am entitled to it or that all the people hopping for this should buy (I should say bribe) legislators to enact laws that ensure we are compensated somehow.
It is foolish to devote so much effort to a product that is intrinsically free.
Music used to be always free, it was recording equipment that made it artificially valuable in a physical format.
Now music is free again (as it should, since it is after all a means of communication), trying to make a living based on stopping the spreading of air vibrations is silly, to say the least.
People had to build them themselves.
The market was so destroyed by the monopoly that the only solution left was to roll your sleeves and start coding.
Find a car analogy, I am sure you will see how bad that would be in such hypothetical situation.
That is an industry far more sane than software development and commercialization.
In many places you can buy the same model with or without air conditioning, with or without heating.
Fluffy USians, no wonder their carbon footprint is so disgraceful.
Fascism. Yep.
Communism. Yep.
Final solution. Yep.
Ethnic cleansing (lets be fair, it was only perfected ). Yep.
WMDs. Yep. Brownie points for using them on civilians first.
Colonialism. Yep.
Apartheid. Yep.
No question about it, Western Civilization is such a wonderful thing.
Saddam Hussein was smacked down when he attacked his neighbors (well, not quite, Mr Rumsfeld and Co. were quite pleased when he attacked Iran).
He was contained to his borders and was harming nobody but his people (this was regrettable, but was at least contained and by no means the widespread bloodbath we are witnessing. In any case if his actions would have been disgraceful enough internal opposition could have been supported, such people would have enjoyed a degree of legitimacy that the current Iraq leaders just can't ever dream to have, instead the incipient opposition was abandoned and easily crushed by the dictator).
The UN charter is pretty clear about this, and the US (and UK) are signatories, but they chose to ignore it whenever it suits them, no wonder they have made so many real and gratuitous enemies....
By their respective employers.
Paranoid politicians (of which a few are later found to use illegal immigrants themselves) have made their business to stop such healthy economic (and dare I say cultural) exchange.
The people in the US are clearly saying they need far more immigrants than what the government is prepared to let in (otherwise they would not be risking breaking the law themselves), but as we all know the US Federal Government is bought by interests not by democratic needs.
Your country could perfectly afford mass immigration. It is fundamentally empty in many places, all opposition is borne from racism pure and simple.
Yeah, all those tomato pickers, toilet cleaners and burger flippers hailing from Mexico are a threat to the US's national security.
You have a group of people that do work that otherwise would be not done, that claim no social benefits of any kind and pay taxes without ever getting anything in return and spend big chunks of their earnings in the local economy. What a bloody damage you have got there.
Many agricultural businesses would be out of business if it wasn't for illegal immigration.
Many people argue that they drive salaries down, but that is a self inflicted wound: the moment they were legal they would have to be paid the same as any other worker, and in that moment competence and skill would become the important factors to get a job.
US people are simply scared shitless of competition, even when in reality most of them would never ever have to compete for a job with a lowly educated, unskilled Mexican person.
At the very least Mexicans yes, we should, for one reason: economics is telling you that doing otherwise is complete nonsense.
As a matter of fact people wanting to keep the US more Anglo Saxon than Hispanic should ponder this: most Mexicans would never change their nationality if we could come and go as we pleased. Mexicans opting to obtain a US passport do so for pragmatic reasons, not because they really want to.
If you believe in human freedom there is no possible argument about curtailing freedom of movement. Soviets did it, communists still do it, fascists did it, why should democracies do it? That does not mean you would lose control of your borders, you could still have enough controls in place to know where people are if you need to know such thing as a country.
That the US is so reluctant to lead the way in this matter is incomprehensible. You have mores space than the EU, you are built from pretty much uncontrolled immigration in the 18th and 19th centuries but still the place leading the way is the EU where bar stubborn countries like the UK, you have pretty much freedom to live whereever you think life is going to be better for you (from Polish plumbers relocating to Germany and the UK to UK pensioners moving to Spain and Greece).
You could stop illegal immigration. Everybody in the places where it happens know the where the crossing points are, the way it works (I am tired of seeing documentaries following immigrants crossing the border) and the places where the immigrants get employment (look! meat processing factory, 90% are Hispanic, should we check?)
But when President Fox of Mexico offered to have a free movement agreement between citizens of the US and Mexico, then US legislators stall any possibility of progress.
The question is: why? Cheap, free immigration (as in no need to ask permission to relocate) has worked wonders for the countries in the EU where the host country (places like the UK, Germany and France) got workers badly needed in many areas (the skills of polish plumbers are now legendary all around the EU) while poor countries benefited in many ways: young people found a way to a better way of life, the local economy was invigorated by money sent from abroad.
Contrary to what the scaremongers predicted (a flood of immigration from countries like Spain, Portugal and Greece) what happened is that the poor countries became more prosperous (with the help of infrastructure projects financed by the EU) and guess what, we don't have millions of Spanish or Portuguese in the UK, as a matter of fact many go back home (Ireland being the most salient example).
But politicians in the US, supported in great measure by an ignorant, fearful electorate, prefer to legislate exploitation instead of cooperation: cheap labour with no rights that can be kicked out at the drop of a hat. The inhumane deportations of parents that have to leave behind their families after many years of enforced illegality is something that should hurt any decent person.
Most people in the US talk all this nonsense about letting capitalism work its wonders, unless of course you are in a competitive disadvantage, in which case it is OK to exploit people and put walls and fences half heartedly that remind you more of oppressive East European regimes rather than a country blabbing all around the world about freedom.
The government will provide this, unless they want a revolution that will make 1917 in Moscow look like a walk in the park.
In Roman times people could not expect to live more than 30 years in average.
In developed countries we are almost tripling that already.
In 2000 years more who is to say that we don't triple this again (to 300 years)?
The lack of ambition and imagination of some people is astounding, specially considering the great scientific leaps we have made in 100 years.
110 years ago we could not even fly. Now we have visited the Moon, are planning on visiting Mars and have sent probes to all planets in the solar system and a couple even beyond that. If you have said this to somebody in 1900 they would hve looked at you as an irreparable idiot.
Man, my head is hurting! Are you saying than progress happens only in the mythical decade sized span of time?
Do you mean nothing can happen on 1000 years of scientific progress?
Oh, the smallness of imagination and ambition.
10000 years?
How long do you think it could possible take?
If we don't destroy ourselves first, what is there to stop us?
we will NEVER run out of oil. NEVER. It will just get more expensive until something else replaces it
Shall I say anything?
Nah.