Well considering the fact that every nation on earth where communism has ever been attempted has become a poverty stricken totalitarian police state, whereas America has enjoyed 230 years of peace, prosperity, and freedom, I'd say that the American view of reality has a much greater change of being "the" reality than anything you neo-bolshevik nimrods can dream up.
Read "Heaven on Earth: The rise and fall of socialism" by Joshua Muravchik.
ISBN: 1893554457
The meaning of the term communism is clearly defined. Socialism on the other hand, is a term with many distinct definitions, not all of which are similar to one another in most ways. To some socialism and communism are interchangable. To others socialism is something along the lines of communism-lite. Under yet another definition, socialism is defined as the system underlying european welfare states like Sweden. Then there are still other meanings which I need not describe for you to get the point of what I'm saying. Because the term means so many different things to so many different people, trying to contrast the differences between "socialism" and "communism" really isn't possible unless one first declares which definition of socialism one is dealing with.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
This is the kind of stuff that really makes me wonder how many people just don't get it.
Imagine if a car company came out with a nice new sedan. This sedan is VERY nice. How much would that sedan hurt the truck sales of a competing company? If the sedan is VERY nice, then it is sure to have an impact on auto sales in general, but since it is not a direct replacement for a truck, its impact on truck sales is going to be limited.
OSX is NOT a direct replacement for Linux. The reason is that it will not run on STANDARD HARDWARE. If Apple were to actually create a version that ran on generic PC's then someplace in hell some imps would be making a snowman. Apple will not create a version for standard PC's because Apple is Apple. If you know the history of the company then you know what I mean. If you don't know the history then explaining it will take too much time. There are many books that have been written about Apple and its history. If you want to know the details, read a couple of them.
The value of Linux is that it is FREE, and yes I mean as in BEER as well as in speech, and you don't have to buy funky proprietary hardware to run it. This is why it is found on servers all over the place, as well as on more and more desktops every day. OS-X is expensive, both in terms of the OS itself, and in terms of the proprietary hardware you have to shell out money for in order to run it. Proprietary solutions, even if they are superior, always have a very hard time competing with commodity solutions. This has been Apple's problem for the better part of 20 years now. It wasn't Microsoft as a software company that sank the Mac, it was the PC hardware industry whose products became ubiquitous. Microsoft simply rode the wave.
As for the development argument, how many Open Source projects are there out there which target the mac exclusively? Answer, very few. How many in fact support the Mac as an afterthought, if at all, because of all the funky things that Apple has done which make porting to it more difficult than porting to Solaris or some other mainstream version of Unix?
I really do get the idea sometimes that people like Dvorak are in the business of making proclamations like this just to get attention. If they're right even some of the time then they'll be able to create an audience and a paycheck doing it.
I have an alternate prediction for everyone. My prediction is this: The Open Source projects that benefit the Mac will usually benefit Linux and vice versa. There will be a few that are Mac-only, or Linux-only, but only in order to replicate some desired functionality that is already present on the other system. Most of the Open Source development that is done for OS-X will be in porting stuff from Linux to it, and in the creation of new projects that can be developed on both platforms simultaneously.
We already see this with FreeBSD where everything from Apache to zsh is up and running because the work of porting between FreeBSD and Linux is usually trivial and writing conditional code to support both platforms is even easier. There are a few packages that don't exist on both platforms, or which exist on one platform as a kludge, but these are the rare exceptions. Linux and OS-X don't have as much in common as Linux and FreeBSD do, but they are still similar enough that supporting both is not a herculean task the way it is with Unix and Windows. Development on OS-X will therefore be a net gain for Linux since most of the stuff that is developed for OS-X will be developed for Linux at the same time and vice versa.
Besides, there is no guarantee that Apple's move to Intel is going to increase sales. It may result in faster computers, but it takes a lot more than that to convince people to buy your funky hardware so they can run your funky os.
Linux has one strike against it in that it is not windows. It is able to overcome that because it is FREE and runs on standard hardware. Choosing Linux is not a commitment to Linux, it c
So in other words you would deny that the USSR was a socialist nation? Or are you denying that the Nazi's were socialists? You would be wrong on both counts. You might do well to study history a bit.
Stalin was the ruler of the USSR, the United Soviet SOCALIST Republics.
Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party in Germany.
Both men may have been many things (murderous thugs for example) in addition to being socialists, but that doesn't change the fact that they were socialists.
Socialism, communism, fascism. Same old song and dance, just a different tune. The only way in which they differ is in the ideological sophistry that is used to justify and defend them. All are an assault upon individual liberty and personal sovereignty.
I do agree that he is incorrect to call these guys socialists, but then it is an easy to make mistake given that socialists are just as evil as fascists and the end results of both ideologies when put into practice is a police state complete with secret police and gulags.
Both the 250 and 150 feature a hardware MPEG-2 encoder. The 150 is cheaper because it uses a newer chipset that handles both the audio and the video, resulting in a lower cost to manufacture. The 250 used separate chips for the audiot and video. The only reason I mention the 250 is because I don't know if the 150's chipset is supported yet. Either card will do an excellent job as a video capture device.
Also, I suspect that the bottleneck that you're experiencing has very little to do with how much memory you have on the system, assuming you have a reasonable ammount (512 or more). The hard drive speed is even less likely to be the problem. For you the problem boils down to CPU speed. Before I moved over to the PVR-150 (I'm using snapstream) I also had problems recording and playing back video at the same time. My system is an athlon 2200 with 512 megs of ram and a 120 gig hard drive. Once I offloaded the mpeg encoding to the 150, my problems disappeared, and the quality of my recordings has improved dramatically. Before I was using an ATI AIW-7500 which did not perform well under snapstream.
Lee
What else do you expect?
on
Safari vs. KHTML
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Apple has a long, long history of acting irrationally, often to the point of blowing its own foot off and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They have a knack for choosing a course that is not in the interest of their customers, yet not in their own interest either.
Involving them in a project in a non-essential role is probably about the only way you can involve them at all. To rely upon them is to court disaster.
I'll watch the documentary if I can, but I wouldn't be surprised if the worst that can be said about Arnold is that he was duped along with a lot of other people.
Guilt by association is a dubious claim, especially when those whose guilt is supposedly contagious were not known to be guilty at the time of the association.
Rest assured that Ken Lay and the rest are going to be spending a VERY long time in prison. If it were up to me I'd have the electric chair used to fry the Rosenbergs brought out of mothball and used to execute the lot of them. I think it would be entirely fitting that the device used to execute communist traitors be used to execute another form of traitor to the capitalist ideal.
Well I can urge lawmakers too, the point isn't that they don't nominally oppose the patriot act, the point is that when the time came to do something about it, they had other fish to fry.
Back when the patriot act was first passed, I went out of my way to give money to the ACLU under the belief that they would be the one organization with the balls and legal firepower needed to fight this.
Imagine my surprise when the ACLU decided instead to involve itself in California's recall election. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I discovered that they were over there filing frivilous motions with little or no legal merit in order to disrupt the recall process. All because those who now run the once great organization are so politically polarized and zealous that they're willing to sell out the organization in order to prevent a popular candidate from being elected when that candidate is a Republican.
Once upon a time the ACLU was known for fighting the good fight, for taking up unpopular causes because it was the right thing to do and because doing so helped to strengthen and protect the values of personal individual freedom that make America the greatest country on earth.
It would seem that those days are now long past. It is truly tragic to see an organization that was once one of our most staunch defenders of liberty become little more than a subversive tool of the far left.
If you want to fight the patriot act, give money to the EFF, but don't waste it on the ACLU because they're just going to waste the money trying to shove far left nonsense down the throat of a nation that finds it increasingly unpalatable.
The issue is that effective censorship ensures that truths the chinese cleptocracy finds unpleasant are hidden from the average citizen.
I'm sure there are ways for those with the requisite technical skills and political activism to get around the censorship, but then censorship has never worked on that segment of the population anyway. Agent of the police state were watching them long before the internet existed.
The reason this censorship is so damaging to chinese society is because it means the average person doesn't know just how hard they're being screwed by the criminals who run the country. The state gets away with telling plausible lies because 98% of the population lacks the skill and gumption needed to uncover the truth.
Funny...you could make the same claims about Marx and Engels.
Just because an argument is logically valid does not mean that it is true. Internal consistency, while necessary, is nothing compared to external validation.
There is a fine line between principle and ideology.
Don't blame the government for providing tools that the recipients are unwilling to learn how to use correctly.
If someone gave you a hammer and you proceeded to smash your fingers with it, do you blame the hammer, the person who gave it to you? Or do you take responsibility for your own actions?
There are lots and lots of people here with broadband connections whose computers are hacked. I've heard plenty of people bitch about this, but I've yet to hear anyone complain about Best Buy for selling them the cable modem, or Cox for selling them the bandwidth. People complain about the crackers and about Windows being so insecure, both of which are valid complaints.
You make them sound an awful lot like the political left in this country who I don't believe are even capable of rational engagement based upon facts. They react to fact the way that vampires react to sunlight and holy water.
It just goes to show you that ideology is noxious no matter what form it takes.
Scientology has a lot in common with other cults. Every cult I've ever come accross teaches its members the following:
1) The outside world is evil or corrupt, only other culties can be trusted
2) The cult has all the answers to life's problems.
3) Cult members are special in some way, better than other people.
4) Cult members MUST adhere to the dictates of the cult leadership.
5) Anyone who leaves the cult is evil and must be destroyed
There are probably other common themes, but you get the idea.
It doesn't matter if you're talking about the Scientologists, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Heaven's Gate cult, or any of the others, all of them to a greater or lesser degree possess these qualities.
What makes Scientology so pernicious is that it is a purely exploitive group. No one is ever helped by Scientology. It is a psychic and financial vampire that bleeds everyone it gets a hold of dry, both of their mental well-being and any assets they might have. Other cults, especially ones that have grown to the point of quasi-legitimacy and respectability, are actually a positive influence in the lives of their members as often as not. Not so with scientology. The only happy ending where scientology is involved is one where scientology is no longer in the picture.
Anything negative or criminal thing you can think of Scientology is either doing already, or would do in a heartbeat if it suited its purposes. It is the closest thing to pure evil I've ever come in contact with, and I should know since I was involved in it for almost ten years. They do a good job of promoting themselves and hiding the truth.
They've enslaved (and yes I mean that literally) thousands and bankrupted tens of thousands more. They help no one. I only hope I live long enough to see the cult in ruins, the truth about it known to all, and its victims free of its evil.
If you want to learn more check out the following site, it contains everything you ever wanted to know about Scientology that the clams were afraid you'd ask:
The difference is that the celebrities over here were wrong. The country ignored them because they came off as the loony delusional rant monkeys they are.
I don't know if Kasparov will be able to affect the future of his country, but comparing him to the Micheal Moore crowd over here and telling him to give up is just plain irrational, especially if he is a classical liberal (as opposed to the marxist variety the US is afflicted with).
Slashdot Mirror
Well considering the fact that every nation on earth where communism has ever been attempted has become a poverty stricken totalitarian police state, whereas America has enjoyed 230 years of peace, prosperity, and freedom, I'd say that the American view of reality has a much greater change of being "the" reality than anything you neo-bolshevik nimrods can dream up.
Read "Heaven on Earth: The rise and fall of socialism" by Joshua Muravchik.
ISBN: 1893554457
The meaning of the term communism is clearly defined. Socialism on the other hand, is a term with many distinct definitions, not all of which are similar to one another in most ways. To some socialism and communism are interchangable. To others socialism is something along the lines of communism-lite. Under yet another definition, socialism is defined as the system underlying european welfare states like Sweden. Then there are still other meanings which I need not describe for you to get the point of what I'm saying. Because the term means so many different things to so many different people, trying to contrast the differences between "socialism" and "communism" really isn't possible unless one first declares which definition of socialism one is dealing with.
Lee
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by
extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels
True communism in the spirit of Marx also doesn't have anything to do with REALITY.
tyrany never sleeps.
This is the kind of stuff that really makes me wonder how many people just don't get it.
Imagine if a car company came out with a nice new sedan. This sedan is VERY nice. How much would that sedan hurt the truck sales of a competing company? If the sedan is VERY nice, then it is sure to have an impact on auto sales in general, but since it is not a direct replacement for a truck, its impact on truck sales is going to be limited.
OSX is NOT a direct replacement for Linux. The reason is that it will not run on STANDARD HARDWARE. If Apple were to actually create a version that ran on generic PC's then someplace in hell some imps would be making a snowman. Apple will not create a version for standard PC's because Apple is Apple. If you know the history of the company then you know what I mean. If you don't know the history then explaining it will take too much time. There are many books that have been written about Apple and its history. If you want to know the details, read a couple of them.
The value of Linux is that it is FREE, and yes I mean as in BEER as well as in speech, and you don't have to buy funky proprietary hardware to run it. This is why it is found on servers all over the place, as well as on more and more desktops every day. OS-X is expensive, both in terms of the OS itself, and in terms of the proprietary hardware you have to shell out money for in order to run it. Proprietary solutions, even if they are superior, always have a very hard time competing with commodity solutions. This has been Apple's problem for the better part of 20 years now. It wasn't Microsoft as a software company that sank the Mac, it was the PC hardware industry whose products became ubiquitous. Microsoft simply rode the wave.
As for the development argument, how many Open Source projects are there out there which target the mac exclusively? Answer, very few. How many in fact support the Mac as an afterthought, if at all, because of all the funky things that Apple has done which make porting to it more difficult than porting to Solaris or some other mainstream version of Unix?
I really do get the idea sometimes that people like Dvorak are in the business of making proclamations like this just to get attention. If they're right even some of the time then they'll be able to create an audience and a paycheck doing it.
I have an alternate prediction for everyone. My prediction is this: The Open Source projects that benefit the Mac will usually benefit Linux and vice versa. There will be a few that are Mac-only, or Linux-only, but only in order to replicate some desired functionality that is already present on the other system. Most of the Open Source development that is done for OS-X will be in porting stuff from Linux to it, and in the creation of new projects that can be developed on both platforms simultaneously.
We already see this with FreeBSD where everything from Apache to zsh is up and running because the work of porting between FreeBSD and Linux is usually trivial and writing conditional code to support both platforms is even easier. There are a few packages that don't exist on both platforms, or which exist on one platform as a kludge, but these are the rare exceptions. Linux and OS-X don't have as much in common as Linux and FreeBSD do, but they are still similar enough that supporting both is not a herculean task the way it is with Unix and Windows. Development on OS-X will therefore be a net gain for Linux since most of the stuff that is developed for OS-X will be developed for Linux at the same time and vice versa.
Besides, there is no guarantee that Apple's move to Intel is going to increase sales. It may result in faster computers, but it takes a lot more than that to convince people to buy your funky hardware so they can run your funky os.
Linux has one strike against it in that it is not windows. It is able to overcome that because it is FREE and runs on standard hardware. Choosing Linux is not a commitment to Linux, it c
I suggest you start here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 2197WY/ref=lpr_g_2/104-6221170-0725500?v=glance&s= books
The next two books would also do a lot to enlighten you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226320618/ qid=1117439889/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-6221170 -0725500
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060007761/ qid=1117439889/sr=2-7/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_7/104-6221170 -0725500
Stalin was the ruler of the USSR, the United Soviet SOCALIST Republics.
Hitler was the leader of the National SOCIALIST party in Germany.
Both men may have been many things (murderous thugs for example) in addition to being socialists, but that doesn't change the fact that they were socialists.
Lee
Socialism, communism, fascism. Same old song and dance, just a different tune. The only way in which they differ is in the ideological sophistry that is used to justify and defend them. All are an assault upon individual liberty and personal sovereignty.
I do agree that he is incorrect to call these guys socialists, but then it is an easy to make mistake given that socialists are just as evil as fascists and the end results of both ideologies when put into practice is a police state complete with secret police and gulags.
Lee
http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_pvr25 0.html
5 0.html
http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_pvr1
Both the 250 and 150 feature a hardware MPEG-2 encoder. The 150 is cheaper because it uses a newer chipset that handles both the audio and the video, resulting in a lower cost to manufacture. The 250 used separate chips for the audiot and video. The only reason I mention the 250 is because I don't know if the 150's chipset is supported yet. Either card will do an excellent job as a video capture device.
Also, I suspect that the bottleneck that you're experiencing has very little to do with how much memory you have on the system, assuming you have a reasonable ammount (512 or more). The hard drive speed is even less likely to be the problem. For you the problem boils down to CPU speed. Before I moved over to the PVR-150 (I'm using snapstream) I also had problems recording and playing back video at the same time. My system is an athlon 2200 with 512 megs of ram and a 120 gig hard drive. Once I offloaded the mpeg encoding to the 150, my problems disappeared, and the quality of my recordings has improved dramatically. Before I was using an ATI AIW-7500 which did not perform well under snapstream.
Lee
Apple has a long, long history of acting irrationally, often to the point of blowing its own foot off and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They have a knack for choosing a course that is not in the interest of their customers, yet not in their own interest either.
Involving them in a project in a non-essential role is probably about the only way you can involve them at all. To rely upon them is to court disaster.
Lee
I'll watch the documentary if I can, but I wouldn't be surprised if the worst that can be said about Arnold is that he was duped along with a lot of other people.
Guilt by association is a dubious claim, especially when those whose guilt is supposedly contagious were not known to be guilty at the time of the association.
Rest assured that Ken Lay and the rest are going to be spending a VERY long time in prison. If it were up to me I'd have the electric chair used to fry the Rosenbergs brought out of mothball and used to execute the lot of them. I think it would be entirely fitting that the device used to execute communist traitors be used to execute another form of traitor to the capitalist ideal.
Well I can urge lawmakers too, the point isn't that they don't nominally oppose the patriot act, the point is that when the time came to do something about it, they had other fish to fry.
Back when the patriot act was first passed, I went out of my way to give money to the ACLU under the belief that they would be the one organization with the balls and legal firepower needed to fight this.
Imagine my surprise when the ACLU decided instead to involve itself in California's recall election. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I discovered that they were over there filing frivilous motions with little or no legal merit in order to disrupt the recall process. All because those who now run the once great organization are so politically polarized and zealous that they're willing to sell out the organization in order to prevent a popular candidate from being elected when that candidate is a Republican.
Once upon a time the ACLU was known for fighting the good fight, for taking up unpopular causes because it was the right thing to do and because doing so helped to strengthen and protect the values of personal individual freedom that make America the greatest country on earth.
It would seem that those days are now long past. It is truly tragic to see an organization that was once one of our most staunch defenders of liberty become little more than a subversive tool of the far left.
If you want to fight the patriot act, give money to the EFF, but don't waste it on the ACLU because they're just going to waste the money trying to shove far left nonsense down the throat of a nation that finds it increasingly unpalatable.
Lee
The issue is that effective censorship ensures that truths the chinese cleptocracy finds unpleasant are hidden from the average citizen.
I'm sure there are ways for those with the requisite technical skills and political activism to get around the censorship, but then censorship has never worked on that segment of the population anyway. Agent of the police state were watching them long before the internet existed.
The reason this censorship is so damaging to chinese society is because it means the average person doesn't know just how hard they're being screwed by the criminals who run the country. The state gets away with telling plausible lies because 98% of the population lacks the skill and gumption needed to uncover the truth.
Lee
Funny...you could make the same claims about Marx and Engels.
Just because an argument is logically valid does not mean that it is true. Internal consistency, while necessary, is nothing compared to external validation.
There is a fine line between principle and ideology.
Lee
No, but then I wouldn't trust you with such things either.
Ask a stupid question, get a smart-ass response.
Lee
Don't blame the government for providing tools that the recipients are unwilling to learn how to use correctly.
If someone gave you a hammer and you proceeded to smash your fingers with it, do you blame the hammer, the person who gave it to you? Or do you take responsibility for your own actions?
There are lots and lots of people here with broadband connections whose computers are hacked. I've heard plenty of people bitch about this, but I've yet to hear anyone complain about Best Buy for selling them the cable modem, or Cox for selling them the bandwidth. People complain about the crackers and about Windows being so insecure, both of which are valid complaints.
Lee
You make them sound an awful lot like the political left in this country who I don't believe are even capable of rational engagement based upon facts. They react to fact the way that vampires react to sunlight and holy water.
It just goes to show you that ideology is noxious no matter what form it takes.
Lee
Fuck China
Being blocked by the cleptocracy they call a government should be a point of pride.
GNU/yes GNU/we GNU/do.
Scientology has a lot in common with other cults. Every cult I've ever come accross teaches its members the following:
1) The outside world is evil or corrupt, only other culties can be trusted
2) The cult has all the answers to life's problems.
3) Cult members are special in some way, better than other people.
4) Cult members MUST adhere to the dictates of the cult leadership.
5) Anyone who leaves the cult is evil and must be destroyed
There are probably other common themes, but you get the idea.
It doesn't matter if you're talking about the Scientologists, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Heaven's Gate cult, or any of the others, all of them to a greater or lesser degree possess these qualities.
What makes Scientology so pernicious is that it is a purely exploitive group. No one is ever helped by Scientology. It is a psychic and financial vampire that bleeds everyone it gets a hold of dry, both of their mental well-being and any assets they might have. Other cults, especially ones that have grown to the point of quasi-legitimacy and respectability, are actually a positive influence in the lives of their members as often as not. Not so with scientology. The only happy ending where scientology is involved is one where scientology is no longer in the picture.
Anything negative or criminal thing you can think of Scientology is either doing already, or would do in a heartbeat if it suited its purposes. It is the closest thing to pure evil I've ever come in contact with, and I should know since I was involved in it for almost ten years. They do a good job of promoting themselves and hiding the truth.
They've enslaved (and yes I mean that literally) thousands and bankrupted tens of thousands more. They help no one. I only hope I live long enough to see the cult in ruins, the truth about it known to all, and its victims free of its evil.
If you want to learn more check out the following site, it contains everything you ever wanted to know about Scientology that the clams were afraid you'd ask:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/
Lee
Nothing compares to apt-get, and that is the biggest shame of all.
Lee
An excuse is something that follows failure, not success.
Since he is neither incompetent, nor a drunkard, an excuse for either is unnecessary.
Lee
The difference is that the celebrities over here were wrong. The country ignored them because they came off as the loony delusional rant monkeys they are.
I don't know if Kasparov will be able to affect the future of his country, but comparing him to the Micheal Moore crowd over here and telling him to give up is just plain irrational, especially if he is a classical liberal (as opposed to the marxist variety the US is afflicted with).
Lee