No, Linux is NOT Unix, or UNIX or UnIx or any other weird case-mixing combo that you want to try. You can say it's similar to Unix, or that it's Unix-like but that's about it. UNIX systems are those that are certified by the Open-Group, and at the moment that's Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and OSX (am I leaving somebody out?). Since we're on/., I'll give you a car analogy. I am a great mechanic, and something of an artist. I have had lots of time to study Ferraris, so, I build my own, almost from scratch. It looks like a Ferrari, it sounds like a Ferrari, and most people can't tell the difference between my car and a Ferrari. My car is still not a Ferrari though. (Disclaimer, no, I did not really build a Ferrari-like car. Only a complete lunatic would drive a car that I built from scratch.)
In other words, as long as you set everything up for them and maintain it for them, they are fine. Sounds like you are doing all the work and they are just pointing and clicking.
Well, if by "set up everything for them" you mean installing Ubuntu, how is that any different than someone buying a Windows machine that came pre-configured?
What happens if you are not around to do everything for them?
Like what? I'm talking about very casual users, who don't do a whole lot beyond web browsing and the occasional bit of word-processing. They've needed far less attention from me than similar Windows users who manage to become infested with all sorts of bizarre malware. The Windows users tend to ask for more help from me to begin with, not less.
I take it you have never visited freshmeat or sourceforge.
I have, and I've also used Open Office (not perfect, but not awful) and FireFox on Linux. Like I said, some do, some don't. I also mentioned that this is a subjective judgment, if you think most of them suck, that's what you think. If I think some of them don't, that's what I think. Just a matter of taste I suppose.
You say: Everyone should use Linux! Reply: Make it easier for average users to use and they will.
Ubuntu. It really is dead easy to use for common tasks that people want to do.
You say: It is easy enough for me to use! Reply: You are not an average user.
My mom however is virtually a day-1 beginner when it comes to computers (she just got her first one), and she loves it. She goes about, going to websites and emailing her friends blissfully unaware of the threat of malware, and I spend no time at all cleaning up her system. Wish I could say the same about other friends and family members whose Windows systems sometimes take hours to clean up.
You say: They should learn to use it. Reply: Why should they when the probably already know how to use Windows and if they don't, it is very intutive to use?
What do you think people are trying to do that's so difficult in Linux? Put a Firefox icon on the desktop, and you've just covered what I suspect the vast majority of home-users do with their computers most of the time. There's a desktop, graphics and everything.....it's not like you boot up Ubuntu and get faced with a bash shell to run commands and VI to edit all your docs....
You say: Linux is better! Reply: Really? Do tell.
"Better" is subjective. All I know is, the people I've set it up for seem to like it, and they don't seem to miss the viruses/spyware.
You say: Linux comes with all the drivers for the hardware. Reply: As long as one isnÃ(TM)t using hardware that isnÃ(TM)t support under Linux because it is too new, not popular with driver hackers, etc.
Yeah, I imagine there's plenty of hardware that doesn't have Linux drivers available, but (luckily) that hasn't been an issue for me yet.
You say: No zombies, no viruses, etc. Reply: It takes less time to buy and install AV software than to learn Linux enough to install, use, and secure it. The cost (opportunity and otherwise) of Linux is greater than that of Windows + AV software.
Now that's just crap. Inexperienced users are, in my experience, the most likely people to smile and nod when someone helps them to install things like AV and a software firewall, and then immediately turn 'em off when they either don't know what they're doing (pop-ups from the firewall asking permission for program x to connect to the network) or if they don't get the result they want (I clicked on the picture-icon, but it wouldn't let me view it, so I turned off the AV).
You say: Linux comes with all kinds of free software and there is a lot more available. Reply: Most of which is any number of the following: snip
Yep, some of it's hit or miss, but for a lot of people, something like Open Office, or even Google Documents does what they need. People like my mom or quite a few people I know will never use most of the features in Office, if they even use it at all. Quite a few of them need a machine for email and web access, and not a whole lot more.
You say: Linux can use WINE to run most Windows application. Reply: But, Windows runs all Windows applications and doesn't need to be installed. Also, it has the advantage of installing and running those apps right out of the box without having to go to the command line and configure anything.
I agree, and go so far as to say that for the kind of user I'm talking about WINE would probably be a disaster. If they *need* Windows apps, I'd point them at Windows, but a lot of people just don't *need* it.
Statement: Most Linux applications suck, have crappy inconsistent interfaces, and are often missing functionality of the Windows applications to which the supposedly comp
The way you butcher the language with the irritating pseudo-word "USian", I certainly hope you're not a professor of English. I can hardly wait until that little piece of P.C. garbage fades from use. Unless of course you're referring to people from the region known as "Usia", in which case you have my apologies.
Not really the same thing. This is more like, "I suppose that plugging my A/C into my neighbor's outdoor electrical outlet should be criminalized too? After all, he didn't put a lock-box over it."
No, it's more like this: your neighbor runs an extension cord from his house, along the sewer pipes, and out of a manhole cover to the middle of the street (meaning the casual observer has no idea where this cord came from). He then tapes a sign to it saying "Electricity", but doesn't say "Use" or "Don't Use". Then, if someone uses it, he runs out screaming that they're stealing from him, 'cause it's his god given right to leave that cord in the street, rather than keeping it in his yard. If you don't want people using your wifi, secure it. It's not difficult to set up, it doesn't take a lot of effort to set up, and if you're really incapable of setting it up, hire someone to do it for you. I haven't heard a good excuse yet as to why someone can't secure a network if they want privacy, and no, contrariness is not a good excuse.
Lots of people look at your bits with your permission;
Lots? I'm assuming people who are paid to do it (not wives, girlfriends, etc), and it's been *years* since I had to take off my clothes so somebody could "look at my bits".
doctors, correction facility officers, the military, visitation people at airports.
Okay, I'll grant you doctors, but where the hell did you come up with the other ones? Corrections officers? If you're in prison and they want to strip search you, you're not giving your permission, you're submitting to a requirement that they'd otherwise carry out by force. I'm really not sure the military counts, what are you getting at with that one? Yes, you'd get undressed for a physical exam, but it's not like people will just walk up to you and tell you to drop your pants so they can have a quick look just for the hell of it. It's also beside the point since in many (most?) countries, military service is completely voluntary and the majority of the population is never a member. As for "visitation people at airports", I don't really know what that is. Airport security?
You could get around the awkwardness easily by establishing a code of conduct, and special procedures (like, I only want to be seen by a woman - ok, get in this special line here).
The U.S., Canada and everywhere else I've ever traveled (mostly western Europe) already do this. Oddly, people still don't seem to like invasive searches.
But it would be expensive, and it would add a notch to the paycheck of the otherwise menial job of airport security officer. This technology is only being developed to avert payrises. Because T-ray/will/ be there at some point.
It wouldn't be expensive, they already do it that way. Even if they didn't, how would it add to the paycheck of an "otherwise menial job"? These folks typically get paid by the hour, whether they're looking at an x-ray monitor or doing a strip search, they get paid the same. Perhaps you could make the argument the they need fewer people by using this gadget, but I doubt it. At this point, they hire the maximum number of security people they can afford. If they need less people doing searches because of a T-Ray camera, they'll just put the extra people on some other duty, they probably will not have less security people overall though.
Slow down there cowboy....I realize that it looks pretty cool linking to a paper hosted at a university, but this website was written by a systems analyst that works in the math sciences department at the university. Whether you intended to or not, this looks like you were citing a paper prepared by an authoritative source, not a guy who's hobby is leading a charge against the practice of circumcision. If there's such a wealth of information available to support your argument, you should have not trouble finding something from the medical profession, or can Yar refute this with a paragraph written on a napkin by his local mechanic?
Your opinion is wrong, and you shouldn't voice it. I'm not saying your shouldn't be able to voice it; that is completely different.
That is possibly the dumbest thing I've read on/. in a really long time, and that's really saying something. My opinion is my opinion, and that's about all it is. We're not talking about a fact like the distance from New York to L.A., or the speed of light. As for me not voicing it, you can self-censor yourself to your heart's content, but the only answer I can possibly give when you tell me to censor myself is that you should fuck off. That's not your call to make. Argue my points or ignore me, I couldn't possibly less care which you choose, but you have absolutely no right to tell me that I shouldn't voice my opinion. Neo-nazis are about the most odious people I can think of off the top of my head and I wouldn't even tell them that they shouldn't voice their opinion.
It's totally irrelevant to accuse him of being a liar. If you are opposed to his position, make a counterpoint. Fighting him on a personal level is moronic; you should oppose him on his policies.
Really? Let's assume that I am fighting him on a personal level, as opposed to what I actually did which is point out what I feel is a massive inconsistency in his policies. That happens all the time as well, and is perfectly valid. If you feel a politician is a compulsive liar, or a racist, or a sexist (not saying Paul is any of those), why on earth would you not bring that up as a problem if you disagree with them? Here's a little experiment for you: Take the most popular politician you can think of, list his qualities, but not his name to anyone you know, and then throw in "oh, and he's a hard-core racist, but he promises not to let that colour his policy decisions". See how many of them say they'd want to vote for them (assuming of course that the person you're talking to is not also a hard-core racist). That would be an example of why a politician is unsuitable without arguing his policies.
By the way, good job leaving out every part of the post where I actually refuted what you were saying, and basically went for "you're wrong, I'm right and the reason I know I'm right is because you're wrong, neener neener neener". Go back to bed little boy.
Hey maaaaan, you're like, stifling their, like, need for freedom. You're like the man, maaaaaan, and we all know that being the man is like really bad and stuff. You need to like totally let kids explore and do anything they want, or else they'll just like turn into complacent robots, who like, just shop and do whatever the man tells them to do, maaaaaan......
Yeah, just kidding, I agree with everything you said. I just had to try my hand at the anti-parental-authority posts I've seen so much of here today. I get it now though, it's kinda fun......maaaaaaan:)
Who said anything about the internet? He only said it's a box running Debian... it might not even have an ethernet cable attached to it.
He cites the following reason: She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent. Now, if their little conspiracy was just to keep mom and dad out of her diary, or her Carmen Sandiego games (are there versions of those for Linux?), why the concern about parental control software. Generally, I'd say that means internet access, not access to VIM to type diary pages.
sibling rivalry can be a big deal, and kids need their space, whether it's a room or a computer.
Absolutely, and kids should be able to keep their brothers and sisters out of their business when they want, but this kid is talking about keeping Mom and Dad from making any rules regarding the little girl's computer use, and that's just not how the whole parent/child thing works.
This is you ramming words into his mouth and trying to present Paul as someone who "twists and distorts an issue".
No, this is me reading his positions, and coming to the conclusion that he is "just another politician who will twist and distort an issue until it fits his personal morality". You have a different opinion, great, feel free to talk about it, but suggesting I'm not allowed to voice my opinion will get you nowhere.
Whether or not this is true it is totally irrelevant to a discussion of political positions. If you take issue with a position a politician takes, take issue. There is zero need to present someone you (and I) oppose on a particular issue as a person who is dishonest or untruthful.
Really? So, if I think a politician is lying about something, or even misrepresenting his position on an issue, I should just be okay with it and move on because it's not nice to point out they're lying? Interesting position to take, and I can't say I agree with it. If you think someone is not being upfront about his motives, speak up and let everyone decide for them selves who's right.
No, he is taking a position that is entirely consistent with libertarianism.
I disagree.
Libertarians will always object to murder, and as he claims abortion is murder, his position is consistent. From his point of view, abortion is murder, and requires state intervention. As we do not agree with his classification of abortion, we must challenge his classification. We don't gain anything by challenging his position that murder should be prevented (and saying that murder is personal business), because, after all, that is our position too.
This is the part that's irrelevant. His stated policy position is not that abortion should be outlawed, that's his personal position. If he wasn't just doing an end run around Roe, he's free to say so, and actually be consistent by saying that it *is* a federal issue, since murder is illegal in all of the U.S., not just the states that want it to be illegal. What he's actually doing is saying it's just not the business of the federal government, so the states should deal with it. If he believes that abortion == to murder, and that the states should be the arbiter of it's legality, does this mean that the feds should allow the states to decide for themselves if murder is a crime? Of course not. These are the little inconsistencies that arise when you "twist and distort an issue until it fits his personal morality".
For the most part, I'd say we're at a standstill here, which is fine. Plenty of people who are most likely far more well versed in Constitutional law than either of us are have been having the same argument for a long time now with no better results (I'm assuming you're neither a Constitutional law professor nor one of the Founding Fathers, and I know for damn sure I'm neither of those). I'm just going to throw one last thing out there, and then I'm probably done on the subject for now (no guarantees though)....
Until some magical clause pops up that gives the federal government the power to speak on the issue of abortion, the 10th amendment should be the controlling factor. That it's not just shows another point where the federal government has exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution.
I still say the magical clause(s) here is a combination of the 9th and 14th. The theory I'm going on here is that abortion is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment. The 14th becomes relevant in section one:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
Sooo, I follow the logic that if the right belongs to the people, the states are banned from infringing on them by the 14th amendment. Arguable? Obviously it is, since people are clearly arguing over it. But it certainly isn't an unreasonable position. I'm not sure where you're saying the Commerce Clause comes into it, since AFAIK (could be wrong of course), the Supreme Court based Roe on the 14th.
What each individual state constitution grants those individual states authority over is not at issue in this particular debate, regardless of whether you would like it to be or not. Given the level of office he's at, the position of whether or not interfering is the federal government's business is the beginning and end of the issue. Unless you've got an argument of why the federal Constitution grants the federal government authority to interfere in an issue that is otherwise covered under the 9th and 10th amendments, further argument to the contrary is ultimately irrelevant.
The Constitution does not give the government the authority restrict abortion, and the states can not take this right from U.S. citizens any more than the states can decide individually to reinstate slavery or restrict the right to own property based on gender. Yeah, it's more complicated than that, but this is a/. post, not a class in Constitutional Law. I'll give you a hint though, the 9th certainly does play a part in it, and you may want to look at the 14th along with it.
Everything you've described relating to his position is complete supposition on your part, without anything resembling evidence to support it other than your personal opinion.
Okie dokie. Read the political positions of Ron Paul, specifically the abortion part. He claims to believe this is an issue to be decided by the states. That's his position. Now, as to my suggestion that he's using this as an end run around Roe v Wade, that's my opinion. I didn't claim it as fact, the only way to prove it one way or the other would be to read Ron Paul's mind. You don't agree with me, fine, I don't really care. But keep in mind you can't *prove* that I'm wrong either.
At least with states in control of the issue, you have the flip side of the coin: there will be states that don't outlaw the practice, even if other states do. With a de facto presumption of federal control, all it takes is a vote of 5-4 to change things once Congress has acted (such as Public Law 108-105, 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007, by 5-4). Then there is no safe haven at all in the entire United States. Not exactly a "personal liberties" situation, even if the results at just this point in time are the same. Don't you just love the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Apparently abortion is a form of interstate commerce according to the federal government. Yay for supporting federal control over issues the federal government has no business legislating on.
I think I pretty much covered this above. Roe v Wade is a message telling everyone to keep their hands off of the issue. The right belongs to the people, the government (state and federal) do not have standing to obstruct that right. So yes, yay for federal control in this case. The states don't get to bring back slavery on a state by state basis, they don't get to restrict property ownership based on gender on a state by state basis, and they don't get to restrict abortion on a state by state basis.
You can oppose the states' rights (and personal rights) issues. Just don't complain when the "other side" (whichever that may be for any given person) uses that federal control for exactly the opposite of what you'd like to see happen. If you supported states' rights, you could probably move to a state more in line with your views. If you support federal authority over everything, I guess we'll be seeing you moving to another country instead. Your choice of which line to support.
I don't oppose states rights. I also don't support the states obstructing the rights of the citizenry based on the idea that they can do what they like. The only right I see being possibly infringed on here is the right to tell other people what they can do with their own bodies. You're perfectly welcome to be strictly opposed to abortion, and to never have one yourself. I object when you tell someone else that your personal choice is now law and that you've also decided for them.
Well, his opinion is that abortion is akin to murder, and he doesn't expect to let people make their own decisions about that.
Okay, I'm with you so far.....
I don't agree with him; I'm undecided. There is a large volume of evidence on both sides, but I choose to err on the side of freedom of choice.
Yeah, still with you.....
You post is designed to stir animosity, and not debate. You do not do justice to the pro-choice movement.
and BAM, straight from left field a weird comment that I don't even see the point of. I said Ron Paul is against abortion. You agree. I said that I think he's insincere about his motives to return the issue to the authority of the individual states. You didn't comment either way. Aside from conveying the fact that I don't like Ron Paul, what animosity am I stirring? In point of fact, I didn't even mention whether I think abortion is right or wrong, simply that Ron Paul doesn't seem to be taking a very "Libertarian" stance on the issue, mainly, the government staying out of peoples personal lives.
Also, I still have hope that USians will start using the metric system someday...
And I still have hope that people will give up on the use of the absurd moniker of "USians" when they mean "United States citizens" or.....oooo, look, I'm gonna say it....."Americans". For the moment neither of us seem likely to get what we want.
Paul's anti-abortion position is a perfect example of classic libertarian ideals. He can separate his own personal beliefs from what he espouses politically (that the federal government has no business involving itself in an issue that it has no Constitutional authority regarding).
He most certainly does not do that, and this is a perfect example of how he doesn't mind taking a personal choice and making it a choice of the state. As I understand it, Libertarianism stands for individual rights and personal responsibility, not "state's rights". By opposing the federal ban on the states restricting abortion, which is ultimately what Roe v Wade is, he's saying that people no longer get the right to choose for themselves, their state governments get to dictate to them what their options are. On this issue Ron Paul shows his colors as just another politician who will twist and distort an issue until if fits his personal morality. He doesn't see an easy way to get rid of Roe (which is what he wants), so he says it's a "state's rights" issue knowing that abortion will be outlawed in at least some places. It would seem to me that the correct position on that issue for a "personal liberties" candidate should be no legislation, and leave it up to the individuals involved. Essentially this is what we have now, and would lose if the feds stepped out of the game.
It's not directly related, but this reminded me of a story I heard about the "Black Mac", a tempest shielded Macintosh SE 30 1891 T that some guy found at a second hand shop. Nobody is sure where it came from, or why it was built, but it seems to have been made by Apple (as opposed to being some weird aftermarket mod). Presumably it was built for the military, or some intelligence agency...
Well, it applies to Leopard on Intel, which really is all that would make sense. Apple isn't making PPC systems anymore, so it would be kind of pointless to get certification for a platform that's basically dying out. As for future releases? I would imagine they will continue with the UNIX certification, but who can say what they'll decide in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Linux is NOT Unix, or UNIX or UnIx or any other weird case-mixing combo that you want to try. You can say it's similar to Unix, or that it's Unix-like but that's about it. /., I'll give you a car analogy. I am a great mechanic, and something of an artist. I have had lots of time to study Ferraris, so, I build my own, almost from scratch. It looks like a Ferrari, it sounds like a Ferrari, and most people can't tell the difference between my car and a Ferrari. My car is still not a Ferrari though.
UNIX systems are those that are certified by the Open-Group, and at the moment that's Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and OSX (am I leaving somebody out?).
Since we're on
(Disclaimer, no, I did not really build a Ferrari-like car. Only a complete lunatic would drive a car that I built from scratch.)
Well, if by "set up everything for them" you mean installing Ubuntu, how is that any different than someone buying a Windows machine that came pre-configured?
Like what? I'm talking about very casual users, who don't do a whole lot beyond web browsing and the occasional bit of word-processing. They've needed far less attention from me than similar Windows users who manage to become infested with all sorts of bizarre malware. The Windows users tend to ask for more help from me to begin with, not less.
I have, and I've also used Open Office (not perfect, but not awful) and FireFox on Linux. Like I said, some do, some don't. I also mentioned that this is a subjective judgment, if you think most of them suck, that's what you think. If I think some of them don't, that's what I think. Just a matter of taste I suppose.
Ubuntu. It really is dead easy to use for common tasks that people want to do.
My mom however is virtually a day-1 beginner when it comes to computers (she just got her first one), and she loves it. She goes about, going to websites and emailing her friends blissfully unaware of the threat of malware, and I spend no time at all cleaning up her system. Wish I could say the same about other friends and family members whose Windows systems sometimes take hours to clean up.
What do you think people are trying to do that's so difficult in Linux? Put a Firefox icon on the desktop, and you've just covered what I suspect the vast majority of home-users do with their computers most of the time. There's a desktop, graphics and everything.....it's not like you boot up Ubuntu and get faced with a bash shell to run commands and VI to edit all your docs....
"Better" is subjective. All I know is, the people I've set it up for seem to like it, and they don't seem to miss the viruses/spyware.
Yeah, I imagine there's plenty of hardware that doesn't have Linux drivers available, but (luckily) that hasn't been an issue for me yet.
Now that's just crap. Inexperienced users are, in my experience, the most likely people to smile and nod when someone helps them to install things like AV and a software firewall, and then immediately turn 'em off when they either don't know what they're doing (pop-ups from the firewall asking permission for program x to connect to the network) or if they don't get the result they want (I clicked on the picture-icon, but it wouldn't let me view it, so I turned off the AV).
Yep, some of it's hit or miss, but for a lot of people, something like Open Office, or even Google Documents does what they need. People like my mom or quite a few people I know will never use most of the features in Office, if they even use it at all. Quite a few of them need a machine for email and web access, and not a whole lot more.
I agree, and go so far as to say that for the kind of user I'm talking about WINE would probably be a disaster. If they *need* Windows apps, I'd point them at Windows, but a lot of people just don't *need* it.
The way you butcher the language with the irritating pseudo-word "USian", I certainly hope you're not a professor of English. I can hardly wait until that little piece of P.C. garbage fades from use. Unless of course you're referring to people from the region known as "Usia", in which case you have my apologies.
Careening out of control because your car's computer had a glitch and the steering went out of control.....priceless.
Oh, you meant weight? I thought we were talking about British money....
No, it's more like this: your neighbor runs an extension cord from his house, along the sewer pipes, and out of a manhole cover to the middle of the street (meaning the casual observer has no idea where this cord came from). He then tapes a sign to it saying "Electricity", but doesn't say "Use" or "Don't Use". Then, if someone uses it, he runs out screaming that they're stealing from him, 'cause it's his god given right to leave that cord in the street, rather than keeping it in his yard.
If you don't want people using your wifi, secure it. It's not difficult to set up, it doesn't take a lot of effort to set up, and if you're really incapable of setting it up, hire someone to do it for you. I haven't heard a good excuse yet as to why someone can't secure a network if they want privacy, and no, contrariness is not a good excuse.
Lots? I'm assuming people who are paid to do it (not wives, girlfriends, etc), and it's been *years* since I had to take off my clothes so somebody could "look at my bits".
Okay, I'll grant you doctors, but where the hell did you come up with the other ones? Corrections officers? If you're in prison and they want to strip search you, you're not giving your permission, you're submitting to a requirement that they'd otherwise carry out by force. I'm really not sure the military counts, what are you getting at with that one? Yes, you'd get undressed for a physical exam, but it's not like people will just walk up to you and tell you to drop your pants so they can have a quick look just for the hell of it. It's also beside the point since in many (most?) countries, military service is completely voluntary and the majority of the population is never a member. As for "visitation people at airports", I don't really know what that is. Airport security?
The U.S., Canada and everywhere else I've ever traveled (mostly western Europe) already do this. Oddly, people still don't seem to like invasive searches.
It wouldn't be expensive, they already do it that way. Even if they didn't, how would it add to the paycheck of an "otherwise menial job"? These folks typically get paid by the hour, whether they're looking at an x-ray monitor or doing a strip search, they get paid the same. Perhaps you could make the argument the they need fewer people by using this gadget, but I doubt it. At this point, they hire the maximum number of security people they can afford. If they need less people doing searches because of a T-Ray camera, they'll just put the extra people on some other duty, they probably will not have less security people overall though.
Slow down there cowboy....I realize that it looks pretty cool linking to a paper hosted at a university, but this website was written by a systems analyst that works in the math sciences department at the university. Whether you intended to or not, this looks like you were citing a paper prepared by an authoritative source, not a guy who's hobby is leading a charge against the practice of circumcision. If there's such a wealth of information available to support your argument, you should have not trouble finding something from the medical profession, or can Yar refute this with a paragraph written on a napkin by his local mechanic?
That is possibly the dumbest thing I've read on
Really? Let's assume that I am fighting him on a personal level, as opposed to what I actually did which is point out what I feel is a massive inconsistency in his policies. That happens all the time as well, and is perfectly valid. If you feel a politician is a compulsive liar, or a racist, or a sexist (not saying Paul is any of those), why on earth would you not bring that up as a problem if you disagree with them? Here's a little experiment for you: Take the most popular politician you can think of, list his qualities, but not his name to anyone you know, and then throw in "oh, and he's a hard-core racist, but he promises not to let that colour his policy decisions". See how many of them say they'd want to vote for them (assuming of course that the person you're talking to is not also a hard-core racist). That would be an example of why a politician is unsuitable without arguing his policies.
By the way, good job leaving out every part of the post where I actually refuted what you were saying, and basically went for "you're wrong, I'm right and the reason I know I'm right is because you're wrong, neener neener neener". Go back to bed little boy.
Hey maaaaan, you're like, stifling their, like, need for freedom. You're like the man, maaaaaan, and we all know that being the man is like really bad and stuff. You need to like totally let kids explore and do anything they want, or else they'll just like turn into complacent robots, who like, just shop and do whatever the man tells them to do, maaaaaan......
:)
Yeah, just kidding, I agree with everything you said. I just had to try my hand at the anti-parental-authority posts I've seen so much of here today. I get it now though, it's kinda fun......maaaaaaan
He cites the following reason:
She knows that my younger brother has to endure strict parental control software that was installed on his machine without his consent.
Now, if their little conspiracy was just to keep mom and dad out of her diary, or her Carmen Sandiego games (are there versions of those for Linux?), why the concern about parental control software. Generally, I'd say that means internet access, not access to VIM to type diary pages.
Absolutely, and kids should be able to keep their brothers and sisters out of their business when they want, but this kid is talking about keeping Mom and Dad from making any rules regarding the little girl's computer use, and that's just not how the whole parent/child thing works.
No, this is me reading his positions, and coming to the conclusion that he is "just another politician who will twist and distort an issue until it fits his personal morality". You have a different opinion, great, feel free to talk about it, but suggesting I'm not allowed to voice my opinion will get you nowhere.
Really? So, if I think a politician is lying about something, or even misrepresenting his position on an issue, I should just be okay with it and move on because it's not nice to point out they're lying? Interesting position to take, and I can't say I agree with it. If you think someone is not being upfront about his motives, speak up and let everyone decide for them selves who's right.
I disagree.
This is the part that's irrelevant. His stated policy position is not that abortion should be outlawed, that's his personal position. If he wasn't just doing an end run around Roe, he's free to say so, and actually be consistent by saying that it *is* a federal issue, since murder is illegal in all of the U.S., not just the states that want it to be illegal. What he's actually doing is saying it's just not the business of the federal government, so the states should deal with it. If he believes that abortion == to murder, and that the states should be the arbiter of it's legality, does this mean that the feds should allow the states to decide for themselves if murder is a crime? Of course not. These are the little inconsistencies that arise when you "twist and distort an issue until it fits his personal morality".
I still say the magical clause(s) here is a combination of the 9th and 14th. The theory I'm going on here is that abortion is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the 9th amendment. The 14th becomes relevant in section one:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
Sooo, I follow the logic that if the right belongs to the people, the states are banned from infringing on them by the 14th amendment. Arguable? Obviously it is, since people are clearly arguing over it. But it certainly isn't an unreasonable position. I'm not sure where you're saying the Commerce Clause comes into it, since AFAIK (could be wrong of course), the Supreme Court based Roe on the 14th.
The Constitution does not give the government the authority restrict abortion, and the states can not take this right from U.S. citizens any more than the states can decide individually to reinstate slavery or restrict the right to own property based on gender. Yeah, it's more complicated than that, but this is a
Okie dokie. Read the political positions of Ron Paul, specifically the abortion part. He claims to believe this is an issue to be decided by the states. That's his position. Now, as to my suggestion that he's using this as an end run around Roe v Wade, that's my opinion. I didn't claim it as fact, the only way to prove it one way or the other would be to read Ron Paul's mind. You don't agree with me, fine, I don't really care. But keep in mind you can't *prove* that I'm wrong either.
I think I pretty much covered this above. Roe v Wade is a message telling everyone to keep their hands off of the issue. The right belongs to the people, the government (state and federal) do not have standing to obstruct that right. So yes, yay for federal control in this case. The states don't get to bring back slavery on a state by state basis, they don't get to restrict property ownership based on gender on a state by state basis, and they don't get to restrict abortion on a state by state basis.
I don't oppose states rights. I also don't support the states obstructing the rights of the citizenry based on the idea that they can do what they like. The only right I see being possibly infringed on here is the right to tell other people what they can do with their own bodies. You're perfectly welcome to be strictly opposed to abortion, and to never have one yourself. I object when you tell someone else that your personal choice is now law and that you've also decided for them.
Okay, I'm with you so far.....
Yeah, still with you.....
and BAM, straight from left field a weird comment that I don't even see the point of. I said Ron Paul is against abortion. You agree. I said that I think he's insincere about his motives to return the issue to the authority of the individual states. You didn't comment either way. Aside from conveying the fact that I don't like Ron Paul, what animosity am I stirring? In point of fact, I didn't even mention whether I think abortion is right or wrong, simply that Ron Paul doesn't seem to be taking a very "Libertarian" stance on the issue, mainly, the government staying out of peoples personal lives.
And I still have hope that people will give up on the use of the absurd moniker of "USians" when they mean "United States citizens" or.....oooo, look, I'm gonna say it....."Americans". For the moment neither of us seem likely to get what we want.
He most certainly does not do that, and this is a perfect example of how he doesn't mind taking a personal choice and making it a choice of the state. As I understand it, Libertarianism stands for individual rights and personal responsibility, not "state's rights". By opposing the federal ban on the states restricting abortion, which is ultimately what Roe v Wade is, he's saying that people no longer get the right to choose for themselves, their state governments get to dictate to them what their options are. On this issue Ron Paul shows his colors as just another politician who will twist and distort an issue until if fits his personal morality. He doesn't see an easy way to get rid of Roe (which is what he wants), so he says it's a "state's rights" issue knowing that abortion will be outlawed in at least some places. It would seem to me that the correct position on that issue for a "personal liberties" candidate should be no legislation, and leave it up to the individuals involved. Essentially this is what we have now, and would lose if the feds stepped out of the game.
mac-10, Mac-OS-10, such a fine line between the two. Especially if the cop is a Windows user......
It's not directly related, but this reminded me of a story I heard about the "Black Mac", a tempest shielded Macintosh SE 30 1891 T that some guy found at a second hand shop. Nobody is sure where it came from, or why it was built, but it seems to have been made by Apple (as opposed to being some weird aftermarket mod). Presumably it was built for the military, or some intelligence agency...
wow, you're one seriously tough and fearless guy, Anonymous Coward
'cause nobody will notice you carrying a rifle down Broadway after it's been cleverly disguised as a custom soda bottle holder....
Well, it applies to Leopard on Intel, which really is all that would make sense. Apple isn't making PPC systems anymore, so it would be kind of pointless to get certification for a platform that's basically dying out. As for future releases? I would imagine they will continue with the UNIX certification, but who can say what they'll decide in the future.
OSX Leopard (but not earlier versions) is certified as being a UNIX system by The Open Group. LINUX is not and has never claimed to be UNIX.
Well, that's one way of putting it. Then again, perhaps "One is UNIX, the other is like UNIX" would have been more accurate.....