Re:Why would a desktop user would run it?
on
FreeBSD 8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
A more complete feature list :
-> ZFS -> DTrace (if anyone tells you SystemTap is equivalent, take them out and shoot them in the head. Twice. Carefully make sure they're dead. Shoot a few more times to make sure) -> jails (if anyone tells you chroot or even vserver is equivalent, see above) -> pf, and even other options (anyone tells you iptables... you know what to do) -> faster routing code (all juniper routers run a modified version of fbsd, for good reason) -> actual coherent system (ever worked on a busybox linux system ?) -> drivers are not so plentiful, but they are better quality. Rare hardware simply doesn't work, instead of sort-of working and then crashing your system every now and then -> binary compatibility, not just with linux, but SCO and System V -> sensible network defaults -> default filesystem supports snapshots. It's not impossible with linux, but still this is nice -> netgraph : there is no such thing as a way to mangle packets that fbsd doesn't support. Plus : easy to add stuff to. Fast (if not perfect, but faster than doing stuff in linux user space), and ultimate flexibility -> application-level firewall (meaning applications can push firewall rules into the kernel that only apply to that one application. Helpful for stability and ddos mitigation) -> coherent, existing organisation, polite even (try getting something done via lkml. I hear it's been known to cause nervous breakdowns. (jokingly) Even murder)
So, personally, I'd agree with "better quality". Especially for network servers.
If you want to use it on a laptop... better look elsewhere. It will run, though.
There's a lesson in here. A lesson about how people, every person, no matter how good or right he may be, will fight to remain in power. Even if that power is merely deciding what a lot of people see. Or perhaps even especially then.
Yet we keep creating more powerful offices. An admin power on wikipedia always has evolved the same way : towards more, and stricter control.
The "solution" to multiple viewpoints, called flagged updates, is not a solution at all, but an extension and fortification of the power of the few.
Allowing specific differing viewpoints and outlawing deletion, no matter how distasteful and offensive a viewpoint, on wikipedia would break a large amount of the power the admins have. It would create a situation where people have a choice who to believe.
They will fight it until the last child they have died fighting such a power loss. Until wikipedia is nothing but unfunded ashes and is asking itself if it can buy just a few harddisks to have a single copy leftover.
Okay, I'm dramatizing. But it's not that far from the truth.
Have you ever tried finding a small plane 50 meters overhead ? Either with your own eyes, or with a camera ? With your own eyes, if the plane is quiet (the IDF's UAVs sound like lawnmowers. They're all but invisible, but you sure hear them. If the sound were to be fixed, they're almost totally undetectable. And at night, they're invisible at 5 meters height too). Finding these things is hopeless.
About radars, even with very modern technology, it's extremely hard. Due to perspective issues with planes flying at that altitude, they're basically invulnerable. Ground-based radars can get "lucky" if the plane is right above them, but even then it'll only be a short while.
The only real way to detect these down is from an AWACS-type craft, flying at at least several kilometers high. Not something every John and Harry have in their garage. Also it would be a LOT easier for the UAV's to attack the AWACS than the reverse (an AWACS can be escorted by planes that have 24 rockets at best. Therefore sending 50 UAV's at them is a sure kill).
And obviously, radars only detect metals effectively and reliably. They have issues finding composite materials, or even in metal general structures that are smaller than their (generally quite long wavelength. If the guidance computer + engine were to be 10 cubic cm, another 10 cubic cm battery and that's the only metal inside, they'd be invisible to even very advanced radars at 100 meters or so.
Camera detection would work, but it'd require cameras of several hundred megapixels, positioned on a normal-altitude aircraft. Not exactly the kind of technology you'd expect to see under this year's Christmas tree. Again, a fleet of UAV's could probably choose to attack the (very easy to locate, because it's huge) awacs.
And you could get the same problem Israel has. HOW will you shoot these planes down ? If these planes cost $100 a piece (they're tiny, not much processing power, not much materials), firing a $100.000 sidewinder rocket at them is suicide, due to economics, even for a country with the financial resources of America. Also, at that tiny altitude, there are large risks involved : the rocket could easily mistake a telephone pole, a bird, even a kid's ball or some such for it's target.
And even if you do shoot them down, the result of a very high speed mid-air explosive collision will be a fireball crashing on the ground, potentially in the middle of a city, at very high speeds. Potentially in a kindergarten, or some other politically very undesirable location.
I doubt that there will be an answer to these weapons, except perhaps making sure you have more of them than the enemy does.
... which is why I suggest presenting the user explicitly with a list of the different verions. Perhaps even before any other information is shown to the user.
If you ask for, say, a political persuasion, say "socialism", one could for example show a number of versions :
1) Communist party of America perspective (we all know what the current "admin" persuasion is) 2) Capitalist perspective 3) University of..., dept of Economics version 4) Socialist party of America perspective 5) Oelewapperke's version 6) mdwh2's version 7) John Doe's version
And so on. The user would be forced to make his choice between the viewpoints, and only then real information would be shown. This to make clear that there are multiple viewpoints, reminding people that it is perhaps wise to go back and look at an alternative viewpoint.
I would want this to be very extreme. For example, I would actually like the article about the "fort hood massacre" to have an "owned by bin laden" (so to speak) version containing congratulations, perhaps even a nice image of the requisite 72 virgins (this to give an extreme example, please don't make this into a political discussion). And I would like admins to keep their paws off even such offensive viewpoints.
Any reasonable (who does not hate other viewpoints) person would be able to change it.
And I would propose that the only thing admins get to do is decide which version is to be on top. Given the price of storage, I would propose simply kill deletion requests.
Could you perhaps explain me how flagged revisions allow multiple page versions, all of which are presented to anyone viewing the page ?
No offence, but flagged revisions, to me, looks like the exact opposite. It seems to be a way to block out any criticism against admin from ever being seen by anyone who does not go the extra mile. This with the obvious purpose of keeping any criticism from the maximum number of eyes without appearing to be openly censoring ?
Shall I consider this the "typical liberal" action of suggesting more of a problem in order to fix it ? Or am I truly missing something.
Just one question. How will you enforce this policy ?
Ask nicely ?
Make them promise ?
The only solution is to allow multiple page versions with different "owners", and then mention all versions both in the index and making it impossible to link to a specific version.
Were you seriously to expect liberals to respond to insults towards someone who will not hurt them in revenge ? Why ? Sure it would be immoral to aim gratuitous insults at someone who will not respond to them, but you know, there's no such thing as moral or immoral. Besides you're such a depressing medieval white male to say such a thing, right ?
Now if Bush would have ordered the killing of a journalist or some such. Then, obviously, you would have seen them falling over their own feet censoring themselves, apologizing and groveling. But attacking Bush was cheap. Whatever else Bush was, he is a man of principles, and will never attack an American for any speech whatsoever. Even if it's personal slander he would not do so. So all shots at Bush are cheap shots, certain to go without retribution. Of course that sort of thinking means liberals think Obama's capable of attacking and destroying individuals. Of course they want him to do so. Too many people in America are defending obvious facts or truths, like that communism, and communist policies like national health care, don't work. Lower quality, more expenses, "government cutbacks" and so on are the obvious results, and in medicine such things lead to deaths for obvious reasons. Evident. Proven time and again in economics. Forbidden to say in any liberal paper.
Besides, liberals are right... Obama, the president of America, does attack individuals and companies, and even the sort of departments he doesn't like (ever notice how liberals complain to no end about ignoring "inconvenient truths" and then their elected candidate does this). Singling them out and using the office of the president to attack political adversaries.
Actually the one thing that would really benefit wikipedia is a feature allowing multiple versions of the same page/subject. Allow total free editing, then have a "version responsable" that comprises his version of the page, accepting or denying edits as he sees fit.
A sort of cross between the current wikipedia and google's knol.
Don't like the current dictator ? Become one yourself ! One additional viewpoint in wikipedia ! Hurray !
(of course we all know the "progressive" owner of wikipedia is not about to allow multiple viewpoints, any more than such are allowed in any other "progressive" (ie. socialist) party)
Allow me to introduce to this most ancient of human inventions : politics. From Clinton to the Iraqi information minister, across even the digital divide, people proving every day you can, in fact, argue with facts.
Once again you attempt to equate historical atrocities with contemporary muslim behavior. With behavior that "moderate" muslim worship.
Just so you know, YOU have some sort of ideology. Clearly it is not more honorable than that of islam (or else you believe you are racially or religiously superior, right ? And that's just so... racist of you). So are you, too, a child-raping slave driving thief and massacrer ? No ? Do you worship the acts of child-raping, massacring and stealing ? No ?
Are you, in fact, insulted that I would even suggest such a thing ? Great... because that's exactly what you accuse me of, and half the world's population with me.
There are no 2 ideologies that are "equally moral". Such a thing does not exist.
Are you American? How do you defend the genocide of America's native people?
First of all : for "genocided" people they sure left a lot of DNA behind in contemporary Americans. I mean, take North african Blacks (North Africa was all-black before the muslim invasion) : you won't find a shred of their DNA in any African living near the mediterranean. Now that's a genocide.
The defense is simple : by pointing out that in nearly all of the campaigns slaughtering native indians, said natives weren't exactly passive observers.
They were outgunned, barely used tactics and didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning... and they attacked anyway, resulting in mass casualties. They attacked because "their land was stolen".
In other words, they attacked European settlements, because they treated them as other Indian settlements, and because there was a land shortage, they started a fight to the death with those European settlements. Now this was their "religion" ("ideology" if you prefer the word) and that's great and all, but complaining that someone successfully defended themselves from slaughter, even if that is religiously-sanctioned slaughter, is beyond ridiculous.
For 99% of the battles America's about as responsible for the natives' death as it is about a death due to a car accident : not at all. Yes, some mistakes, and some total assholes did... "more". Agreed. America has apologized for them, and supported contemporary native Americans far in excess of any wrong ever comitted historically.
So please : READ a bit about actual battles with native Americans, you'll see this as a recurring theme. I also don't blame European settlers for responding with superior force to some Indian customs, like kidnapping women and/or children, or eating prisoners of war, when said Europeans came asking, white-flagged, for the bodies of their fallen comrades to bury them, only to get eaten, quite literally. Furthermore, by far the largest diminishing of native American population was due to voluntary (at least not at the barrel of a gun) conversion (to the European way of life, not necessarily to Christianity). Indians, especially women, but often entire families too, joined European settlers "en masse". Why ? Simply because they provided a better life for them. They provided modern technology, adequate defenses. Just research, objectively for once, what the fate was of a woman, children or family of a defeated tribe. Trust me : you'll understand immediately why they went to the nearest European settlement and begged to join them.
And now you're going to say that such histories are lies, that history is written by the winners. But then I might ask you : would you want to live like a (true) native Indian ? Constantly fighting and killing over hunting grounds, living in a tiny village where the most technologically advanced thing is a fire. Where even mild infections are basically a death warrant, and neighboring tribes are always on the lookout for a way to kill you, and the only festive family dinners involve eating human flesh ? Does that seem like "the good life" ? I thought not. And let's be honest with ourselves for once : none of the so-c
You'd need some place to put the solar panels, which will also put a lower limit on wing surface, because there's a minimum amount of energy you'll need.
Then due to this plane not exactly flying at 900 kph, you'd need short wings to prevent it from stalling due to the wind movement created by flying over a cow that's thinking about farting.
So you need a minimum wing surface, and you need a relatively short wing. Your only choice is going wide.
Now add to that that the maximum weight of the plane is obviously very limited (and you already have the pilot, so you add 300 pounds for safety). In essence those enormous wingspan cannot be supported by a structure that's internal to the wing, as that would add too much weight. So you have 3 cockpits : 1 manned, 2 unmanned. 3 planes "loosely" connected (some sort of elastic bands, apparently).
So you get this plane : it's really 3 planes connected to eachother at the wingtips. This is necessary due to low-speed flying and the need to collect energy. Before you ask about making a jetliner carrying 300 people solar-powered... does it really need to be stated that's not going to happen ? It would need a wingspan of several miles, and would fly perhaps 100-150 kph.
The real reason these planes are getting built is their potential to replace satellites, and even cell towers. Once we have commercial autonomous planes that can keep flying for 10 years at, say, 15 km height we don't need satellites anymore. Furthermore, these planes would be satellites that have other advantages, like the fact that they can actually operate with an antenna gain less than 500 (no need for dishes). They would not introduce a significant delay (satellite communication low-earth-orbit adds somewhere near 300 msec transit time, geostationary ones add close to a second. Nobody, even non-gamers, like pingtimes more than a second).
And best of all : they're mobile. Can you imagine ? Some 3rd world or muslim dictator decides to grow some brains and steps down. The parliament votes to create a communications infrastructure, and asks $carrier to do so. Carrier launches 30 (or whatever number required) of these planes from a location deep within the united states, and 5 days later the entire country is covered in a completely functional cell phone network that does not require uplinks (beyond the planes themselves). The same network provides internet and television services. Whether a carrier needs to provide coverage in central manhattan or northeast pakistan, the infrastructure deployment process is identical : just build the plane. No permission (beyond countrywide flight permission that is), no pulling fiber, no renting roof space, no...
And the military applications are equally great. Want to attack a country ? How about a permanent rocket launch basis in the sky that does not ever need to come down ?
The support for this sort of point tends to fall apart on slashdot once people realize this means people would be free to teach their kids either evolution or creationism. Which would obviously lead to them actually doing it, too.
And of course : how racist of you ! We all know inner-city black schools will be very happy just to have "most" kids survive school whereas rich-white-only suburbs will... well we all know where this is going.
Personally I would appreciate this happening even if it meant a few people getting taught evolution.
The first and most important problem with your argument is simple : it (attempts to) justify murder, enslaving and raping. I wonder if I were to kill you, rape your wife and daughters, and sell your sons to some arab coal mine in Sudan whether you would defend me as "effective", and consider me equally honorable as others. Of course you wouldn't. You would, in fact, blame anyone for defending my actions against you. You would even blame anyone who stood by and let me commit them. Yet your whole post is about excusing muslims for supporting, at least passively, those very acts.
The second is that it's offensive to the (many) adherents of non-violent ideologies. Which is, in case you're wondering, more than half the world's population. Neither Christianity, nor Hindus, nor Buddhists, nor Japanese worship massacrers because they massacred. Christianity is even centered around a person who famously refused to even threaten with a single sword to save his own life. Several Hindu "saints" did so too (even if Krishna, the main deity, did not back away from conflict). Those groups are together >50% of the world population. Even communists, while they do "forgive" massacres in their heroes, do not consider those massacres "proof of their superiority" like muslims do, in fact, the more honest ones deplore them. Even the more ruthless point out the goal of the campaigns was worthy, even if the acts themselves are despicable. They do not worship massacres, even if their tolerance for genocides is a bit too high. Muslims, whoever, do worship the massacres, enslavings and rapes as proof of their superiority (and you're right, a number of what's generally called "natural religions").
Ok, now go read the history of *any* tribal society. You'll invariably find they either raided, murdered and raped and were glorified by history, or were raided, murdered and raped - and surviving histories paint them as savages.
No you won't. Try it sometime. In fact you will mostly find people regretting that violence is necessary, even if some do acknowledge the necessity of the violence (or point out that they were attacked).
The more effective the murdering rapist, the bigger his cult of personality. Whatever society evolves from this primitive state is guaranteed to show undue deference to their forebears. Ask a Italian what they think of Cesar, a Macedonian what they think of Alexander, a Frank what they think of Charlemagne, a Swede what they think about Eric the Red, a Jew what they think of Joshua, a Mongol what they think of Genghis Khan etc. etc. etc.
Cesar : not a massacrer. The whole goal of his conquests was peace. And real peace. Peace and trade with people of varying persuasions. Not graveyard peace, or the "dhimmi" peace, where all are enslaved.
Alexander : good question. Never asked a Macedonian. I doubt they would hesitate to point out his atrocities, or deny that they were, in fact, atrocities.
Charlemagne : again, where is the massacring ? Add to that that Charlemagne was Christian, which means he did not approve of slavery. Also : the french do NOT, in fact, think he was a saint (I asked several).
And I have asked Jews about the murderers in their history. Mostly they... tend to "forget" about the atrocities people like Moses or Jeshua comitted. When reminded, however, they do NOT act like the muslims : they both acknowledge that those acts were bad and that they reflect very badly on the character of those individuals.
Mind if I name a few, blatantly obvious exceptions to your "more effective murdering rapist" claims ? Jesus, Hare Krishna, Buddha, and whoever Bushido adherents worship. Those individuals, real or not, were VERY effective indeed. And they did it without genocide.
Ready for a shocker? It continues TODAY. There isn't...
But there is only one religion which glorifies the acts of raping, enslaving and pillaging as proof of that rel
I couldn't have agreed more with you... until you said "death cult". Most followers of Islam aren't like that, and I'm sure you know it.
I've been informing myself about islam, and one inescapable truth looms ever larger : the center of islam, the prophet, worshipped death.
You can just not describe what a despicable man it was : he raped a girl he bought, who was 9 years old. While the muslim texts themselves do not speak of rape, they do mention the girl had to be dragged into his bedroom by multiple of muhammad's slaves. Yes he had slaves, and he raped slaves. He also freed some of them, generally in roundabout business transactions, in trade for promises, or gold. But that cannot ever excuse exploiting and raping slaves.
As if that wasn't bad enough, this guy raided and enslaved entire villages, and often participated in raping slaves he thus caught.
He has also massacred villages.
Worse than the acts themselves : in the muslim "holy texts" these acts are not described as deplorable, inevitable or anything such. They are described as if they "prove" the superiority of islam. The more you read, the more you will find the only justification for islam to be found in it's history is military dominance, used in the most absurdly cruel way.
Massacres, enslaving, theft ("raids" and piracy), racist domination, segregation, raping, maiming and destruction... these things are triumphs of islam. Not by my words, by the words of the quran, and especially by the words of the hadith and the biographies of "the prophet". They are proof of it's superiority. That's the constant, ever present theme in islamic holy texts.
According to at least 2 islamic biographies the phrase "we love death and you love life and that's why islam will win" really was made by "the prophet" to the byzantine emperor, and was followed by more than enough death and destruction to illustrate the point.
And what worries me in normal muslims is simple : they refuse to state those acts are wrong. Sure they do so when it's about a war with America. But they refuse to say Saddam was wrong to gas the Kurds. They refuse to say what is happening in Iran and Syria is wrong. They refuse to say that separation between church and state is good, in fact, several I've met condemned it.
And they especially refuse to say that when their prophet massacred, killed, stole, raided and raped, that there was anything negative at all about those acts.
And no, they do not deny the acts took place, they deny they were negative. You get statements like "it were raids, it was not theft" (then what is theft, exactly ?), "it was involuntary marriage, not rape" (riiiight...), and all other sorts of lame excuses.
I don't like this at all.
And I stand by my point, according to the words of the prophet, islam *is* a death cult. It is not for anyone to change that, it is for muslims to take responsability for the vile monster "the prophet" is. It is for muslims to apologize and attempt to make right the many injustices that rotting bastard comitted, and the many more that were comitted in his name by his followers.
It is time for muslims to take responsability for what they have done.
But no such thing is forthcoming in any muslim I've ever met, however "moderate".
I am seriously considering only reading blogs also, to be honest.
But, I understand the complaint many people have about fox news being the only one not toeing barack's party line. That alone is reason enough to look at their news if I happen to catch it though.
Can survive the armada of chairs thrown at them...
On a more serious note, though, about Fox News. Closing your eyes to one perspective, can only diminish you. Even if the only thing you lose is a window into other's ways of thinking, that's a valuable thing you lost. And frankly, you'd lose more. One recent idiocy that needs seriously needs counterbalancing comes to mind : I for one find "pre-traumatic stress" a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation of murdering innocents after shouting "allah akbar". In fact it seems to me that the major himself linked this to his religion. Details like this are never hidden away when we're talking about the Balkans or Northern Ireland, a difference in reporting that embodies the very definition of racism. So, frankly I find the "pre-traumatic" idiocy racist to the bone : the MSNBC does not explain IRA attacks against the UK by any such psychobabble.
Everyone knows why, and I for one despise the rotting carcas of racism that is attempting to fall out the closet's door. If someone would explain to me why people of "that certain religion", which is proven more and more a death cult with each passing day, get preferential treatment.
Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections.
Fortunately Republicans are against the UN (not against never having to be re-elected though), and the Democrats are FOR the un. This sort of difference is useful in deciding your choice at the next elections. Well, that's if the US still has some spare change to organize such unnecessary things by the time Obama's through.
Slashdot Mirror
A more complete feature list :
-> ZFS ... you know what to do)
-> DTrace (if anyone tells you SystemTap is equivalent, take them out and shoot them in the head. Twice. Carefully make sure they're dead. Shoot a few more times to make sure)
-> jails (if anyone tells you chroot or even vserver is equivalent, see above)
-> pf, and even other options (anyone tells you iptables
-> faster routing code (all juniper routers run a modified version of fbsd, for good reason)
-> actual coherent system (ever worked on a busybox linux system ?)
-> drivers are not so plentiful, but they are better quality. Rare hardware simply doesn't work, instead of sort-of working and then crashing your system every now and then
-> binary compatibility, not just with linux, but SCO and System V
-> sensible network defaults
-> default filesystem supports snapshots. It's not impossible with linux, but still this is nice
-> netgraph : there is no such thing as a way to mangle packets that fbsd doesn't support. Plus : easy to add stuff to. Fast (if not perfect, but faster than doing stuff in linux user space), and ultimate flexibility
-> application-level firewall (meaning applications can push firewall rules into the kernel that only apply to that one application. Helpful for stability and ddos mitigation)
-> coherent, existing organisation, polite even (try getting something done via lkml. I hear it's been known to cause nervous breakdowns. (jokingly) Even murder)
So, personally, I'd agree with "better quality". Especially for network servers.
If you want to use it on a laptop ... better look elsewhere. It will run, though.
There's a lesson in here. A lesson about how people, every person, no matter how good or right he may be, will fight to remain in power. Even if that power is merely deciding what a lot of people see. Or perhaps even especially then.
Yet we keep creating more powerful offices. An admin power on wikipedia always has evolved the same way : towards more, and stricter control.
The "solution" to multiple viewpoints, called flagged updates, is not a solution at all, but an extension and fortification of the power of the few.
Allowing specific differing viewpoints and outlawing deletion, no matter how distasteful and offensive a viewpoint, on wikipedia would break a large amount of the power the admins have. It would create a situation where people have a choice who to believe.
They will fight it until the last child they have died fighting such a power loss. Until wikipedia is nothing but unfunded ashes and is asking itself if it can buy just a few harddisks to have a single copy leftover.
Okay, I'm dramatizing. But it's not that far from the truth.
Have you ever tried finding a small plane 50 meters overhead ? Either with your own eyes, or with a camera ? With your own eyes, if the plane is quiet (the IDF's UAVs sound like lawnmowers. They're all but invisible, but you sure hear them. If the sound were to be fixed, they're almost totally undetectable. And at night, they're invisible at 5 meters height too). Finding these things is hopeless.
About radars, even with very modern technology, it's extremely hard. Due to perspective issues with planes flying at that altitude, they're basically invulnerable. Ground-based radars can get "lucky" if the plane is right above them, but even then it'll only be a short while.
The only real way to detect these down is from an AWACS-type craft, flying at at least several kilometers high. Not something every John and Harry have in their garage. Also it would be a LOT easier for the UAV's to attack the AWACS than the reverse (an AWACS can be escorted by planes that have 24 rockets at best. Therefore sending 50 UAV's at them is a sure kill).
And obviously, radars only detect metals effectively and reliably. They have issues finding composite materials, or even in metal general structures that are smaller than their (generally quite long wavelength. If the guidance computer + engine were to be 10 cubic cm, another 10 cubic cm battery and that's the only metal inside, they'd be invisible to even very advanced radars at 100 meters or so.
Camera detection would work, but it'd require cameras of several hundred megapixels, positioned on a normal-altitude aircraft. Not exactly the kind of technology you'd expect to see under this year's Christmas tree. Again, a fleet of UAV's could probably choose to attack the (very easy to locate, because it's huge) awacs.
And you could get the same problem Israel has. HOW will you shoot these planes down ? If these planes cost $100 a piece (they're tiny, not much processing power, not much materials), firing a $100.000 sidewinder rocket at them is suicide, due to economics, even for a country with the financial resources of America. Also, at that tiny altitude, there are large risks involved : the rocket could easily mistake a telephone pole, a bird, even a kid's ball or some such for it's target.
And even if you do shoot them down, the result of a very high speed mid-air explosive collision will be a fireball crashing on the ground, potentially in the middle of a city, at very high speeds. Potentially in a kindergarten, or some other politically very undesirable location.
I doubt that there will be an answer to these weapons, except perhaps making sure you have more of them than the enemy does.
All anyone has to do to see your total hypocrisy for what it is, is to search for "Bush" on google images.
You are a racist (someone who discriminates based on political viewpoints).
... which is why I suggest presenting the user explicitly with a list of the different verions. Perhaps even before any other information is shown to the user.
If you ask for, say, a political persuasion, say "socialism", one could for example show a number of versions :
1) Communist party of America perspective (we all know what the current "admin" persuasion is) ..., dept of Economics version
2) Capitalist perspective
3) University of
4) Socialist party of America perspective
5) Oelewapperke's version
6) mdwh2's version
7) John Doe's version
And so on. The user would be forced to make his choice between the viewpoints, and only then real information would be shown. This to make clear that there are multiple viewpoints, reminding people that it is perhaps wise to go back and look at an alternative viewpoint.
I would want this to be very extreme. For example, I would actually like the article about the "fort hood massacre" to have an "owned by bin laden" (so to speak) version containing congratulations, perhaps even a nice image of the requisite 72 virgins (this to give an extreme example, please don't make this into a political discussion). And I would like admins to keep their paws off even such offensive viewpoints.
Any reasonable (who does not hate other viewpoints) person would be able to change it.
And I would propose that the only thing admins get to do is decide which version is to be on top. Given the price of storage, I would propose simply kill deletion requests.
Could you perhaps explain me how flagged revisions allow multiple page versions, all of which are presented to anyone viewing the page ?
No offence, but flagged revisions, to me, looks like the exact opposite. It seems to be a way to block out any criticism against admin from ever being seen by anyone who does not go the extra mile. This with the obvious purpose of keeping any criticism from the maximum number of eyes without appearing to be openly censoring ?
Shall I consider this the "typical liberal" action of suggesting more of a problem in order to fix it ? Or am I truly missing something.
Just one question. How will you enforce this policy ?
Ask nicely ?
Make them promise ?
The only solution is to allow multiple page versions with different "owners", and then mention all versions both in the index and making it impossible to link to a specific version.
Were you seriously to expect liberals to respond to insults towards someone who will not hurt them in revenge ? Why ? Sure it would be immoral to aim gratuitous insults at someone who will not respond to them, but you know, there's no such thing as moral or immoral. Besides you're such a depressing medieval white male to say such a thing, right ?
Now if Bush would have ordered the killing of a journalist or some such. Then, obviously, you would have seen them falling over their own feet censoring themselves, apologizing and groveling. But attacking Bush was cheap. Whatever else Bush was, he is a man of principles, and will never attack an American for any speech whatsoever. Even if it's personal slander he would not do so. So all shots at Bush are cheap shots, certain to go without retribution. Of course that sort of thinking means liberals think Obama's capable of attacking and destroying individuals. Of course they want him to do so. Too many people in America are defending obvious facts or truths, like that communism, and communist policies like national health care, don't work. Lower quality, more expenses, "government cutbacks" and so on are the obvious results, and in medicine such things lead to deaths for obvious reasons. Evident. Proven time and again in economics. Forbidden to say in any liberal paper.
Besides, liberals are right ... Obama, the president of America, does attack individuals and companies, and even the sort of departments he doesn't like (ever notice how liberals complain to no end about ignoring "inconvenient truths" and then their elected candidate does this). Singling them out and using the office of the president to attack political adversaries.
And of course, here's exactly how Obama won't raise taxes for his friends : all his friends are criminals, tax evaders to be precise. Perhaps we should get his message.
It's not that I care all that much about these people or companies. I just worry who's next. I get the impression more and more people do so.
Actually the one thing that would really benefit wikipedia is a feature allowing multiple versions of the same page/subject. Allow total free editing, then have a "version responsable" that comprises his version of the page, accepting or denying edits as he sees fit.
A sort of cross between the current wikipedia and google's knol.
Don't like the current dictator ? Become one yourself ! One additional viewpoint in wikipedia ! Hurray !
(of course we all know the "progressive" owner of wikipedia is not about to allow multiple viewpoints, any more than such are allowed in any other "progressive" (ie. socialist) party)
Can't argue with the facts.
Allow me to introduce to this most ancient of human inventions : politics. From Clinton to the Iraqi information minister, across even the digital divide, people proving every day you can, in fact, argue with facts.
You can even argue with lies.
Here's an image gallery of the plane : http://www.solvay.com/services/imagegallery/solar/airplane/0,,77566-2-0,00.htm
A more technical gallery : http://www.solvay.com/services/imagegallery/solar/technicalaspects/0,,77567-2-0,00.htm
The plane is called "solar impulse", btw, and it's Belgian.
Once again you attempt to equate historical atrocities with contemporary muslim behavior. With behavior that "moderate" muslim worship.
Just so you know, YOU have some sort of ideology. Clearly it is not more honorable than that of islam (or else you believe you are racially or religiously superior, right ? And that's just so ... racist of you). So are you, too, a child-raping slave driving thief and massacrer ? No ? Do you worship the acts of child-raping, massacring and stealing ? No ?
Are you, in fact, insulted that I would even suggest such a thing ? Great ... because that's exactly what you accuse me of, and half the world's population with me.
There are no 2 ideologies that are "equally moral". Such a thing does not exist.
Are you American? How do you defend the genocide of America's native people?
First of all : for "genocided" people they sure left a lot of DNA behind in contemporary Americans. I mean, take North african Blacks (North Africa was all-black before the muslim invasion) : you won't find a shred of their DNA in any African living near the mediterranean. Now that's a genocide.
The defense is simple : by pointing out that in nearly all of the campaigns slaughtering native indians, said natives weren't exactly passive observers.
They were outgunned, barely used tactics and didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning ... and they attacked anyway, resulting in mass casualties. They attacked because "their land was stolen".
In other words, they attacked European settlements, because they treated them as other Indian settlements, and because there was a land shortage, they started a fight to the death with those European settlements. Now this was their "religion" ("ideology" if you prefer the word) and that's great and all, but complaining that someone successfully defended themselves from slaughter, even if that is religiously-sanctioned slaughter, is beyond ridiculous.
For 99% of the battles America's about as responsible for the natives' death as it is about a death due to a car accident : not at all. Yes, some mistakes, and some total assholes did ... "more". Agreed. America has apologized for them, and supported contemporary native Americans far in excess of any wrong ever comitted historically.
So please : READ a bit about actual battles with native Americans, you'll see this as a recurring theme. I also don't blame European settlers for responding with superior force to some Indian customs, like kidnapping women and/or children, or eating prisoners of war, when said Europeans came asking, white-flagged, for the bodies of their fallen comrades to bury them, only to get eaten, quite literally. Furthermore, by far the largest diminishing of native American population was due to voluntary (at least not at the barrel of a gun) conversion (to the European way of life, not necessarily to Christianity). Indians, especially women, but often entire families too, joined European settlers "en masse". Why ? Simply because they provided a better life for them. They provided modern technology, adequate defenses. Just research, objectively for once, what the fate was of a woman, children or family of a defeated tribe. Trust me : you'll understand immediately why they went to the nearest European settlement and begged to join them.
And now you're going to say that such histories are lies, that history is written by the winners. But then I might ask you : would you want to live like a (true) native Indian ? Constantly fighting and killing over hunting grounds, living in a tiny village where the most technologically advanced thing is a fire. Where even mild infections are basically a death warrant, and neighboring tribes are always on the lookout for a way to kill you, and the only festive family dinners involve eating human flesh ? Does that seem like "the good life" ? I thought not. And let's be honest with ourselves for once : none of the so-c
You'd need some place to put the solar panels, which will also put a lower limit on wing surface, because there's a minimum amount of energy you'll need.
Then due to this plane not exactly flying at 900 kph, you'd need short wings to prevent it from stalling due to the wind movement created by flying over a cow that's thinking about farting.
So you need a minimum wing surface, and you need a relatively short wing. Your only choice is going wide.
Now add to that that the maximum weight of the plane is obviously very limited (and you already have the pilot, so you add 300 pounds for safety). In essence those enormous wingspan cannot be supported by a structure that's internal to the wing, as that would add too much weight. So you have 3 cockpits : 1 manned, 2 unmanned. 3 planes "loosely" connected (some sort of elastic bands, apparently).
So you get this plane : it's really 3 planes connected to eachother at the wingtips. This is necessary due to low-speed flying and the need to collect energy. Before you ask about making a jetliner carrying 300 people solar-powered ... does it really need to be stated that's not going to happen ? It would need a wingspan of several miles, and would fly perhaps 100-150 kph.
The real reason these planes are getting built is their potential to replace satellites, and even cell towers. Once we have commercial autonomous planes that can keep flying for 10 years at, say, 15 km height we don't need satellites anymore. Furthermore, these planes would be satellites that have other advantages, like the fact that they can actually operate with an antenna gain less than 500 (no need for dishes). They would not introduce a significant delay (satellite communication low-earth-orbit adds somewhere near 300 msec transit time, geostationary ones add close to a second. Nobody, even non-gamers, like pingtimes more than a second).
And best of all : they're mobile. Can you imagine ? Some 3rd world or muslim dictator decides to grow some brains and steps down. The parliament votes to create a communications infrastructure, and asks $carrier to do so. Carrier launches 30 (or whatever number required) of these planes from a location deep within the united states, and 5 days later the entire country is covered in a completely functional cell phone network that does not require uplinks (beyond the planes themselves). The same network provides internet and television services. Whether a carrier needs to provide coverage in central manhattan or northeast pakistan, the infrastructure deployment process is identical : just build the plane. No permission (beyond countrywide flight permission that is), no pulling fiber, no renting roof space, no ...
And the military applications are equally great. Want to attack a country ? How about a permanent rocket launch basis in the sky that does not ever need to come down ?
The support for this sort of point tends to fall apart on slashdot once people realize this means people would be free to teach their kids either evolution or creationism. Which would obviously lead to them actually doing it, too.
And of course : how racist of you ! We all know inner-city black schools will be very happy just to have "most" kids survive school whereas rich-white-only suburbs will ... well we all know where this is going.
Personally I would appreciate this happening even if it meant a few people getting taught evolution.
The first and most important problem with your argument is simple : it (attempts to) justify murder, enslaving and raping. I wonder if I were to kill you, rape your wife and daughters, and sell your sons to some arab coal mine in Sudan whether you would defend me as "effective", and consider me equally honorable as others. Of course you wouldn't. You would, in fact, blame anyone for defending my actions against you. You would even blame anyone who stood by and let me commit them. Yet your whole post is about excusing muslims for supporting, at least passively, those very acts.
The second is that it's offensive to the (many) adherents of non-violent ideologies. Which is, in case you're wondering, more than half the world's population. Neither Christianity, nor Hindus, nor Buddhists, nor Japanese worship massacrers because they massacred. Christianity is even centered around a person who famously refused to even threaten with a single sword to save his own life. Several Hindu "saints" did so too (even if Krishna, the main deity, did not back away from conflict). Those groups are together >50% of the world population. Even communists, while they do "forgive" massacres in their heroes, do not consider those massacres "proof of their superiority" like muslims do, in fact, the more honest ones deplore them. Even the more ruthless point out the goal of the campaigns was worthy, even if the acts themselves are despicable. They do not worship massacres, even if their tolerance for genocides is a bit too high. Muslims, whoever, do worship the massacres, enslavings and rapes as proof of their superiority (and you're right, a number of what's generally called "natural religions").
Ok, now go read the history of *any* tribal society. You'll invariably find they either raided, murdered and raped and were glorified by history, or were raided, murdered and raped - and surviving histories paint them as savages.
No you won't. Try it sometime. In fact you will mostly find people regretting that violence is necessary, even if some do acknowledge the necessity of the violence (or point out that they were attacked).
The more effective the murdering rapist, the bigger his cult of personality. Whatever society evolves from this primitive state is guaranteed to show undue deference to their forebears. Ask a Italian what they think of Cesar, a Macedonian what they think of Alexander, a Frank what they think of Charlemagne, a Swede what they think about Eric the Red, a Jew what they think of Joshua, a Mongol what they think of Genghis Khan etc. etc. etc.
Cesar : not a massacrer. The whole goal of his conquests was peace. And real peace. Peace and trade with people of varying persuasions. Not graveyard peace, or the "dhimmi" peace, where all are enslaved.
Alexander : good question. Never asked a Macedonian. I doubt they would hesitate to point out his atrocities, or deny that they were, in fact, atrocities.
Charlemagne : again, where is the massacring ? Add to that that Charlemagne was Christian, which means he did not approve of slavery. Also : the french do NOT, in fact, think he was a saint (I asked several).
And I have asked Jews about the murderers in their history. Mostly they ... tend to "forget" about the atrocities people like Moses or Jeshua comitted. When reminded, however, they do NOT act like the muslims : they both acknowledge that those acts were bad and that they reflect very badly on the character of those individuals.
Mind if I name a few, blatantly obvious exceptions to your "more effective murdering rapist" claims ? Jesus, Hare Krishna, Buddha, and whoever Bushido adherents worship. Those individuals, real or not, were VERY effective indeed. And they did it without genocide.
Ready for a shocker? It continues TODAY. There isn't ...
But there is only one religion which glorifies the acts of raping, enslaving and pillaging as proof of that rel
I couldn't have agreed more with you ... until you said "death cult". Most followers of Islam aren't like that, and I'm sure you know it.
I've been informing myself about islam, and one inescapable truth looms ever larger : the center of islam, the prophet, worshipped death.
You can just not describe what a despicable man it was : he raped a girl he bought, who was 9 years old. While the muslim texts themselves do not speak of rape, they do mention the girl had to be dragged into his bedroom by multiple of muhammad's slaves. Yes he had slaves, and he raped slaves. He also freed some of them, generally in roundabout business transactions, in trade for promises, or gold. But that cannot ever excuse exploiting and raping slaves.
As if that wasn't bad enough, this guy raided and enslaved entire villages, and often participated in raping slaves he thus caught.
He has also massacred villages.
Worse than the acts themselves : in the muslim "holy texts" these acts are not described as deplorable, inevitable or anything such. They are described as if they "prove" the superiority of islam. The more you read, the more you will find the only justification for islam to be found in it's history is military dominance, used in the most absurdly cruel way.
Massacres, enslaving, theft ("raids" and piracy), racist domination, segregation, raping, maiming and destruction ... these things are triumphs of islam. Not by my words, by the words of the quran, and especially by the words of the hadith and the biographies of "the prophet". They are proof of it's superiority. That's the constant, ever present theme in islamic holy texts.
According to at least 2 islamic biographies the phrase "we love death and you love life and that's why islam will win" really was made by "the prophet" to the byzantine emperor, and was followed by more than enough death and destruction to illustrate the point.
And what worries me in normal muslims is simple : they refuse to state those acts are wrong. Sure they do so when it's about a war with America. But they refuse to say Saddam was wrong to gas the Kurds. They refuse to say what is happening in Iran and Syria is wrong. They refuse to say that separation between church and state is good, in fact, several I've met condemned it.
And they especially refuse to say that when their prophet massacred, killed, stole, raided and raped, that there was anything negative at all about those acts.
And no, they do not deny the acts took place, they deny they were negative. You get statements like "it were raids, it was not theft" (then what is theft, exactly ?), "it was involuntary marriage, not rape" (riiiight ...), and all other sorts of lame excuses.
I don't like this at all.
And I stand by my point, according to the words of the prophet, islam *is* a death cult. It is not for anyone to change that, it is for muslims to take responsability for the vile monster "the prophet" is. It is for muslims to apologize and attempt to make right the many injustices that rotting bastard comitted, and the many more that were comitted in his name by his followers.
It is time for muslims to take responsability for what they have done.
But no such thing is forthcoming in any muslim I've ever met, however "moderate".
I am seriously considering only reading blogs also, to be honest.
But, I understand the complaint many people have about fox news being the only one not toeing barack's party line. That alone is reason enough to look at their news if I happen to catch it though.
Can survive the armada of chairs thrown at them ...
On a more serious note, though, about Fox News. Closing your eyes to one perspective, can only diminish you. Even if the only thing you lose is a window into other's ways of thinking, that's a valuable thing you lost. And frankly, you'd lose more. One recent idiocy that needs seriously needs counterbalancing comes to mind : I for one find "pre-traumatic stress" a thoroughly unsatisfactory explanation of murdering innocents after shouting "allah akbar". In fact it seems to me that the major himself linked this to his religion. Details like this are never hidden away when we're talking about the Balkans or Northern Ireland, a difference in reporting that embodies the very definition of racism. So, frankly I find the "pre-traumatic" idiocy racist to the bone : the MSNBC does not explain IRA attacks against the UK by any such psychobabble.
Everyone knows why, and I for one despise the rotting carcas of racism that is attempting to fall out the closet's door. If someone would explain to me why people of "that certain religion", which is proven more and more a death cult with each passing day, get preferential treatment.
How do you get rtorrent to load a magnet link (preferably by pasting it into it's window) ???
The docs aren't too clear on this. I've tried and then pasting the magnet link at the "load>" prompt. But no luck.
Actually the video driver for virtualbox wouldn't be that hard to modify. Especially if you just need to add a multiplication factor for the pixels.
Checkout the source, modify vbox/src/VBox/Frontends/VirtualBox/VBoxFBDDRAW.cpp (for windows) done/done
You could try to get someone to do it for you on, say, rentacoder or some such
Not to rain on your parade ... but the article's mandelbrot looks a hell of a lot more detailed.
Why didn't the folks promoting the book just stand it up again, I wonder?
Let me guess, you voted for Obama, right ?
Actually, no. The UN was originally the "league of nations".
And there is a very good (or very sad, if you've got any faith in government left) reason you don't see that little tidbit mentioned on their site.
Seriously, imagine the Republican Party leadership, and/or the Democratic Party leadership, if they never had to stand for elections.
Fortunately Republicans are against the UN (not against never having to be re-elected though), and the Democrats are FOR the un. This sort of difference is useful in deciding your choice at the next elections. Well, that's if the US still has some spare change to organize such unnecessary things by the time Obama's through.
This might finally change all the viagra spam.
New and improved "factory" model spam instead. It will be a sick, sick day the spam changes ...