I'm more than satisfied to be mildly gifted and appear to be much more so, thank you very much.
Though, my son... he's been taking screws out of stuff since he was about 10 months. I'm concerned for the world's well-being if he has anything near the misanthropic outlook I do.
What they should've done was say, "You have two options. One: remove IE and WMP from Windows and make them easily removeable. Two: keep them bundled and release full specifications for the file formats and IE internals. Those are your options, or Windows may no longer be sold in the EU."
And then fine them.
There's no point in taking a fine over something that's already happened.
A valid argument, but it doesn't always - or even usually - work that way. Most companies that use debian (and support it, subsequently) will have a problem upgrading due to a 3rd party application or a specific application deployed in an uncommon configuration. This will undoubtedly cause problems resulting in delays: the 3rd party application will need to be fixed, or custom development will need to be done on linux libraries, etc. in order to get it working. It's all a big hastle.
Yeah, that's valid. I don't buy into the "well, they're doing it for free!" argument: it doesn't work, because without the longer security support for a distro (as is almost needed on a long-term-use distro like Debian), the 'stable' release is negligible in proportion: it takes a long time to upgrade a large infrastructure from one distro to another - much more than a year in many cases. Particularly when so much has changed from woody to sarge.
So was American independence 225-some years ago. "The Boston Tea Party" is probably roughly equivilant to setting an oil tanker on fire in modern times: both would be considered large economic impact and political acts against the government.
Damn world globalism. It's making state liberation much more difficult.
I have a theory that the Borg is indeed the V'ger child-race.
Think about it. The V'ger race was originally a race of machine with phenominal power. Then it merges with a mere man. This might impact its perspective, as well as it's ability to produce specific technologies. Might this not lead to the machine race deciding that a mind of many is better than a single autonomous machine mind, and base all technology off of that assimilated from their knowledge? Then, over time, the original human-ness fo the Borg gets corrupted, and it no longer has knowledge of humans. Bingo, we have the Borg.
(I don't get into ST too much, so this is likely a flawed theory, but... it's fun for me to think about.)
There's a bumper sticker which is appropriate to this.
"The Second Protects The Rest" or something to that effect. In essence, without the 2nd Amendment being a strong standing force, the citizenry's ability to enforce the other Bill of Rights articles is impossible.
So I'd say let them collect their information if I can have unfettered firearm purchases (relatively speaking). If things get too hot to breathe, and legislation is not working due to the break in compliance with our intended system of government, good citizens will know how to respond.
Bad legislation can be turned around and fixed with a sufficient amount of support (theoretically, at least). However, if they take all the guns away, there are no more guns.*
*Yes, I know this isn't what the AWB did, but taking all the weapons away was indeed the gun-grabbing goal of the day.
Yeah. The broad applicability of that last item (V(b)) really bothers me.
For instance, if I take my firearms to the range and practice target shooting (which is what I do; I don't even hunt - I just like killing paper), am I "using a firearm with the intent to endanger others indirectly"?
I mean, as some would have us think, simply having a firearm is a dangerous act, and the only thing a gun can be 'practically' be used for is to kill or harm another person.
I can think of a slew of things which aren't "practical", are consumed readily by many Americans, and result in quite a few deaths per year - moreso than firearms, actually (and that's including the criminal culture element, which is by far the largest element of firearm crime).
No no. You've reduced both Star Trek and Star Wars way too much in your assessment.
Yes, we could go on and on about what each is "about", but I'm fairly certain it's not that SW is more linear than ST. Yes, SW is more epic, but they both have a lot of realm for extrapolation.
It seems to me that SW has a bit mroe subtility to it than ST. In ST, blow up the baddie, and everything is OK. In SW, such a decision has much broader applications allowing for much more to happen. At least, that's how things tend to go. SW is fantasy, so anything is allowable, basically. And then you've got the whole 'underdog' thing going on, which is, IMO, also good.
It's not the issues, it's the principles. In this case, it's increased government control of everyday life in the form of helping the people through tax-assisted programs. That is socialism.
Socialism is a form of economic production and distribution of wealth. It is not a form of government.
And what do you think government is? A fucking tea party for the elite? Government is an organized stabilizing agent to keep a specific economic order in check. They're mutually exclusive, if indeed socialism is being perpetuated.
I tell you... when gun folks say, "Next thing you know, they'll be banning my knives," it's supposed to be a fucking joke. A gross over-exageration in order to point out the rediculous nature of the beast. And your UK is doing just that, fuck it all.
We don't "go" anywhere. Running away and avoiding our problems is not an American principle; it's cowardly and frogish.
No, Americans - all real Americans - will fight to retain and regain their freedoms. I don't know where the cook-off point is, or when things will get bad enough to make people mad enough to kill. I do know that something isn't right when the free world's government needs 40% or more of most individuals' income to keep running, something isn't right.
I do know that many people are getting sick and tired of all the beaurocratic chains which hold them down making financial success all that more complex and difficult. When the line is toed, it won't be idealogies such as Free Speech, Socialism, or Comercialism that stand on either side; it will be a socialistic corporate facsism on one side and people just wanting to earn a living on the other. Thankfully, it seems the majority of our armed forces will be on Our Side. There are many a true patriot amongst them.
Historically, it only takes 1.5% of the populace getting mad enough to kill in order to start a "successful" revolution or uprising. I could see that happening in some states before too long.
While not the rule, it is certianly the trend that political socialism and economic socialism tend to capitulate and either collapse outright into a plain dictatorship, or into more of a communistic state.
This is happening to Britian (and most of Europe, actually) right now. Their economies are in the shitter and they're seeing increases in all forms of government restriction and regulation. Sure, they've got universal healthcare, but they've got massive unemployment problems. Why work if you don't have to, eh?
"Nazi" stands for "Nationalsozialismus" in German: IE, "National Socialist". Hitler proposed and put into place many, many different social welfare programs. Was he a fascist? Yes. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a socialist.
Socialism, like communism, puts the decisions of the populace under the government's mantle of control regardless of whether or not the individuals want such 'protection'. Both socialism and communism draw their theology from the same marxist books. If you've bothered to pay attention at all to the last 100 years of history, much of the socialist rhetoric around 1900-1910, and the communist rhetoric leading up to WWII (both in the USA) was very similar to both the "party lines" of the Democratic party (and some of the Republican policies as well, actually), and the Soviet agenda.
You're forgetting that with the things you mentioned comes both increased government control of every aspect of a person's life, and inversely, a lack of control of what they do with their life. If socialistic practices become mandatory (as they are now, in many respects), then it becomes a bit of a facsistic socialism.
Fascistic socialism is just communism. Communism and socialism share most of the same ideals, afterall.
An international group of terrorists, dead-set on killing as many Americans as they can before their time is up, is partaking in a crime which, until recently, wasn't even that big a concern of the government. Furthermore, the crime they're committing is only a crime in the United States.
I have a hard time believing someone is going to commit copyright crimes when they're attempting a much, much bigger crime. It's like organized crime: you don't see them pulling off grocery store robberies: it's too risky and doesn't give a large enough return. Same for the terrorist: financial gain means nothing to them. They're all about that 77 virgin thing.
IIRC, seems most of the 9/11 terrorists were all pretty straight-shooters while they were here in the US, too.
Not only that, but it would seem they'd want to try and remain as low-profile as possible. Selling pirated materials would only bring attention to them - whether they're selling here or making the stuff overseas. It would be just one more trail to follow to find them.
You know, you might be onto something there with Kevin Smith. I hear he's a pretty good screenplay writer, and he definately has the whole "geek" thing down with a love for comic books and scifi.
It would indeed be interesting to see a real correlation between actual number of viewers or percentage of the population which shows up to watch movies in theatres, and how such things are directly related to movie ticket prices.
I'd be willing to wager that movie theaters don't even get 30% of the market with their films in theaters. They've just increased prices so much that the majority of people - what might be termed "early consumers", "late consumers" - are not watching movies in theaters anymore; it is most likely just the 'early adopters' that are seeing films in theaters now, and the staple of date movie-goers (which I don't think will ever change, as it's a very easy way to have a first date and get laid).
Seriously, that's rediculously childish and shortsighted.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only. The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
Yeah, it's exactly about that. Riiight.
No, you numbat. Space-based weapons would allow for smaller munitions being delivered faster and more accurately; possibly light-intensity weapons, for that matter. There'd be no need to bomb a building a terrorist overlord was in if we could simply laser a hole through the top of his head while he's outside drinking his rum and coke.
This is what he really said: While analysts feel this move will be unwelcome in the international community, military officials believe that "If they can't take a joke, fuck 'em."
Interviewer: So, where do you see Google 5 years from now? Balmer: In our pocket. We'll have tried every underhanded practice and completely devistated them. Blackmail, sabotage - you name it, we'll do it. Interviewer: Er, ok. But seriously. Balmer: *evil, unpredictable smile* Oh, I wasn't being serious? Anyway.. Interviewer:... moving on, what is Microsoft...
Slashdot Mirror
Huh.
For a second there, I thought you were describing most Young Democrats.
I'm more than satisfied to be mildly gifted and appear to be much more so, thank you very much.
Though, my son... he's been taking screws out of stuff since he was about 10 months. I'm concerned for the world's well-being if he has anything near the misanthropic outlook I do.
Yes.
What they should've done was say, "You have two options. One: remove IE and WMP from Windows and make them easily removeable. Two: keep them bundled and release full specifications for the file formats and IE internals. Those are your options, or Windows may no longer be sold in the EU."
And then fine them.
There's no point in taking a fine over something that's already happened.
A valid argument, but it doesn't always - or even usually - work that way. Most companies that use debian (and support it, subsequently) will have a problem upgrading due to a 3rd party application or a specific application deployed in an uncommon configuration. This will undoubtedly cause problems resulting in delays: the 3rd party application will need to be fixed, or custom development will need to be done on linux libraries, etc. in order to get it working. It's all a big hastle.
Yeah, that's valid. I don't buy into the "well, they're doing it for free!" argument: it doesn't work, because without the longer security support for a distro (as is almost needed on a long-term-use distro like Debian), the 'stable' release is negligible in proportion: it takes a long time to upgrade a large infrastructure from one distro to another - much more than a year in many cases. Particularly when so much has changed from woody to sarge.
So was American independence 225-some years ago. "The Boston Tea Party" is probably roughly equivilant to setting an oil tanker on fire in modern times: both would be considered large economic impact and political acts against the government.
Damn world globalism. It's making state liberation much more difficult.
Kinda, sorta, not really. Neither of those races could really compete against the Predators or the Aliens.
Though, I think that if Berman played it right, he could've made them as identical as possible - in all but name - but "modernized".
And, as AvP has shown us, the Alien race is evolving using Predators as hosts. *Scary thought*
I have a theory that the Borg is indeed the V'ger child-race.
Think about it. The V'ger race was originally a race of machine with phenominal power. Then it merges with a mere man. This might impact its perspective, as well as it's ability to produce specific technologies. Might this not lead to the machine race deciding that a mind of many is better than a single autonomous machine mind, and base all technology off of that assimilated from their knowledge? Then, over time, the original human-ness fo the Borg gets corrupted, and it no longer has knowledge of humans. Bingo, we have the Borg.
(I don't get into ST too much, so this is likely a flawed theory, but... it's fun for me to think about.)
There's a bumper sticker which is appropriate to this.
"The Second Protects The Rest" or something to that effect. In essence, without the 2nd Amendment being a strong standing force, the citizenry's ability to enforce the other Bill of Rights articles is impossible.
So I'd say let them collect their information if I can have unfettered firearm purchases (relatively speaking). If things get too hot to breathe, and legislation is not working due to the break in compliance with our intended system of government, good citizens will know how to respond.
Bad legislation can be turned around and fixed with a sufficient amount of support (theoretically, at least). However, if they take all the guns away, there are no more guns.*
*Yes, I know this isn't what the AWB did, but taking all the weapons away was indeed the gun-grabbing goal of the day.
Yeah. The broad applicability of that last item (V(b)) really bothers me.
For instance, if I take my firearms to the range and practice target shooting (which is what I do; I don't even hunt - I just like killing paper), am I "using a firearm with the intent to endanger others indirectly"?
I mean, as some would have us think, simply having a firearm is a dangerous act, and the only thing a gun can be 'practically' be used for is to kill or harm another person.
I can think of a slew of things which aren't "practical", are consumed readily by many Americans, and result in quite a few deaths per year - moreso than firearms, actually (and that's including the criminal culture element, which is by far the largest element of firearm crime).
No no. You've reduced both Star Trek and Star Wars way too much in your assessment.
Yes, we could go on and on about what each is "about", but I'm fairly certain it's not that SW is more linear than ST. Yes, SW is more epic, but they both have a lot of realm for extrapolation.
It seems to me that SW has a bit mroe subtility to it than ST. In ST, blow up the baddie, and everything is OK. In SW, such a decision has much broader applications allowing for much more to happen. At least, that's how things tend to go. SW is fantasy, so anything is allowable, basically. And then you've got the whole 'underdog' thing going on, which is, IMO, also good.
It's not the issues, it's the principles. In this case, it's increased government control of everyday life in the form of helping the people through tax-assisted programs. That is socialism.
Socialism is a form of economic production and distribution of wealth. It is not a form of government.
And what do you think government is? A fucking tea party for the elite? Government is an organized stabilizing agent to keep a specific economic order in check. They're mutually exclusive, if indeed socialism is being perpetuated.
Are you kidding? Those fucking limeys are talking about banning dangerous "assault knives". Ireland is beautiful, but it's not worth putting up with UK bullshit.
I tell you... when gun folks say, "Next thing you know, they'll be banning my knives," it's supposed to be a fucking joke. A gross over-exageration in order to point out the rediculous nature of the beast. And your UK is doing just that, fuck it all.
We don't "go" anywhere. Running away and avoiding our problems is not an American principle; it's cowardly and frogish.
No, Americans - all real Americans - will fight to retain and regain their freedoms. I don't know where the cook-off point is, or when things will get bad enough to make people mad enough to kill. I do know that something isn't right when the free world's government needs 40% or more of most individuals' income to keep running, something isn't right.
I do know that many people are getting sick and tired of all the beaurocratic chains which hold them down making financial success all that more complex and difficult. When the line is toed, it won't be idealogies such as Free Speech, Socialism, or Comercialism that stand on either side; it will be a socialistic corporate facsism on one side and people just wanting to earn a living on the other. Thankfully, it seems the majority of our armed forces will be on Our Side. There are many a true patriot amongst them.
Historically, it only takes 1.5% of the populace getting mad enough to kill in order to start a "successful" revolution or uprising. I could see that happening in some states before too long.
While not the rule, it is certianly the trend that political socialism and economic socialism tend to capitulate and either collapse outright into a plain dictatorship, or into more of a communistic state.
This is happening to Britian (and most of Europe, actually) right now. Their economies are in the shitter and they're seeing increases in all forms of government restriction and regulation. Sure, they've got universal healthcare, but they've got massive unemployment problems. Why work if you don't have to, eh?
What? You're fucking kidding me, right?
"Nazi" stands for "Nationalsozialismus" in German: IE, "National Socialist". Hitler proposed and put into place many, many different social welfare programs. Was he a fascist? Yes. But that doesn't negate the fact that he was a socialist.
Socialism, like communism, puts the decisions of the populace under the government's mantle of control regardless of whether or not the individuals want such 'protection'. Both socialism and communism draw their theology from the same marxist books. If you've bothered to pay attention at all to the last 100 years of history, much of the socialist rhetoric around 1900-1910, and the communist rhetoric leading up to WWII (both in the USA) was very similar to both the "party lines" of the Democratic party (and some of the Republican policies as well, actually), and the Soviet agenda.
You're forgetting that with the things you mentioned comes both increased government control of every aspect of a person's life, and inversely, a lack of control of what they do with their life. If socialistic practices become mandatory (as they are now, in many respects), then it becomes a bit of a facsistic socialism.
Fascistic socialism is just communism. Communism and socialism share most of the same ideals, afterall.
So let me get this straight.
An international group of terrorists, dead-set on killing as many Americans as they can before their time is up, is partaking in a crime which, until recently, wasn't even that big a concern of the government. Furthermore, the crime they're committing is only a crime in the United States.
I have a hard time believing someone is going to commit copyright crimes when they're attempting a much, much bigger crime. It's like organized crime: you don't see them pulling off grocery store robberies: it's too risky and doesn't give a large enough return. Same for the terrorist: financial gain means nothing to them. They're all about that 77 virgin thing.
IIRC, seems most of the 9/11 terrorists were all pretty straight-shooters while they were here in the US, too.
Not only that, but it would seem they'd want to try and remain as low-profile as possible. Selling pirated materials would only bring attention to them - whether they're selling here or making the stuff overseas. It would be just one more trail to follow to find them.
You know, you might be onto something there with Kevin Smith. I hear he's a pretty good screenplay writer, and he definately has the whole "geek" thing down with a love for comic books and scifi.
Ahhh, that explains why his acrobatics seem much more... real... than anything we've seen done by the Jedi in Episodes I - III. Nice knowing that.
It would indeed be interesting to see a real correlation between actual number of viewers or percentage of the population which shows up to watch movies in theatres, and how such things are directly related to movie ticket prices.
I'd be willing to wager that movie theaters don't even get 30% of the market with their films in theaters. They've just increased prices so much that the majority of people - what might be termed "early consumers", "late consumers" - are not watching movies in theaters anymore; it is most likely just the 'early adopters' that are seeing films in theaters now, and the staple of date movie-goers (which I don't think will ever change, as it's a very easy way to have a first date and get laid).
Seriously, that's rediculously childish and shortsighted.
Space exploration and space science should be carried out on peaceful, scientific grounds only. The world's major militaries can all wipe out life on the face of the Earth already, so being able to do it a few minutes faster with space-borne weapons is hardly my idea of progress.
Yeah, it's exactly about that. Riiight.
No, you numbat. Space-based weapons would allow for smaller munitions being delivered faster and more accurately; possibly light-intensity weapons, for that matter. There'd be no need to bomb a building a terrorist overlord was in if we could simply laser a hole through the top of his head while he's outside drinking his rum and coke.
This is what he really said:
While analysts feel this move will be unwelcome in the international community, military officials believe that "If they can't take a joke, fuck 'em."
Interviewer: So, where do you see Google 5 years from now? ... moving on, what is Microsoft...
Balmer: In our pocket. We'll have tried every underhanded practice and completely devistated them. Blackmail, sabotage - you name it, we'll do it.
Interviewer: Er, ok. But seriously.
Balmer: *evil, unpredictable smile* Oh, I wasn't being serious? Anyway..
Interviewer: