The US Federal Government doesn't own SH!T in America. They have been given serveral hundred thousand acres of desert in the West and ten square miles in Virginia. They also continue to maintain a few military installations in podunk areas of hillbilly states like Oklahoma, California and West Virginia, but those are rapidly being moved to overseas locations. Everything else falls under the jurisdiction of the State governments.
The water comes from *rain*, not rivers; and water typically flows *downhill*. It flows from mountainous states with high amounts of rainfall to lower-altitude states with little rainfall.
Those states without water don't have a *right* to the water that falls on other states. If I live in Colorado and want to bottle rainwater to use to feed to worms, screw someone who wants to live in the desert and expects me to give them my worm-water.
If the deal is going to be 'share-and-share-alike', then I expect Texans to pump saltwater to me, since Oklahoma is naturally deprived of that important resource. After all, that saltwater probably fell as rain in Oklahoma before it flowed into Texas. By your logic, the 'Commerce Clause' applies. I want it back.
the purpose of government IS to protect the citizenry from undesirable elements. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals.
We establish laws to punish the criminals. We establish laws to prevent crimes.
We fight wars to keep the bad guys out. We guard our borders to keep bad guys out. We fight wars to expand our borders.
I want my government to serve me... I'd like my government to serve me also. It's too bad that that's not how governments work. Maybe you should look into a private police force, or talk to a local mobster, because those seem to be the only legitimate ways to get what you are asking for.
Answers to your questions:
A) There are no more 'bad people' in this country than in any other.
B) We also execute more people than any other country (that keeps records).
C) The 'judges' have minimum sentencing guidelines set by the 'legislatures', which are mostly too severe and not suited to the crime.
D) This is a result of many Americans' (including yours) views on children and who should be responsible for raising them. It was established since before Locke wrote his Treatise on Government and our Founding Fathers created a country based upon his ideals.
If you are carrying drugs, I want you busted. This nonsense of drug crimes being prosecuted like jay-walking has to end. Carrying drugs is no more a crime than your ignorant ranting on/. We're willing to overlook your faults. Why can't you find it in your heart to have a little tolerance for others?
This is a problem with a lot of GNU programs running on Cygwin. The Cygwin developers want everyone to treat them like just another platform and adjust their projects to make up for the horrendous shortcomings of Windows. They refuse to add any more translation/emulation functions to Cygwin than they deem necessary, relying on the individual projects to adjust to compensate for retarded things like 8.3 character filenames.
I suppose they're trying to squeeze all the performance they can out of Linux/Windows, but, quite frankly, I (and most others) don't care if Linux software runs quickly on Windows or not. In the end, it makes all of the major applications for Linux and *BSD worse to be beholden to the design failures of a proprietary OS that decided to implement only the bare minimum Posix standards. If the Cygwin developers would maintain their own patchsets and make Cygwin at least emulate a few of the extended features of Linux instead of insisting that the community integrate all of their changes, this wouldn't be an issue.
To put it simply, I wouldn't just point fingers and blame XFree without examining all the facts. Maybe this is how it should have been done to begin with.
I guess this would be the place to ask, since I haven't had any luck with Google.
Where would I get an 8-bit ISA network card that's supported in Linux? I've got a couple of Netgear NE2000 cards that were advertised to work in 8-bit slots, but the drivers don't seem to recognize them.
I'm definitely not a hardware hacker, so I'd be grateful for any hints.
You're an idiot. I just read about the last ten of your posts and it looks like your 'securities' broker has convinced you of a lot of stupid shit. I don't know whether it's worse that you enjoy seeing people taken advantage of through rape of their privacy in such pointless ways or that you seem to be actively involved in it.
As for this one, the quoted Amendment *spells out* the requirements for a warrant to be issued to authorize a 'reasonable' search. It's sad to have to quote this, but the requirement is upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It's also sad that I have to spend another paragraph explaining to you what that means, because you seem to either be extremely stupid, or British, in which case none of this applies to you.
That probable cause requirement is particularly important. It means that, in order for a warrant to be issued, it must be probable that the subject of the warrant has been involved in the commission of a crime. Also note that even if Congress made *everything* a crime, it still wouldn't enable blanket, daily tracking of anyone without a warrant.
As for that Amendment having been put there for a reason, on that point you are correct. It, and the entire Bill of Rights, were put in place as a bulwark against idiots such as yourself, who have nothing but interest in your own personal gain at the expense of others.
Get used to it. It's how society works. It's the only reason this planet can sustain six billion hairless apes; and, it's been going on for thousands of years.
Hydroelectric power plants, farming, plant and animal cross-breeding, our unnatural selection of fluffy pets over less lovable animals, all of these are just as destructive (if not more so) to the environment as tree plantations.
The only way humans have ever advanced themselves is by harnessing natural processes. When we have the means, we will most likely black out the sun and use it to fuel our trips to some other solar system to repeat the whole process over again.
That sounds like a reasonable argument. It's too bad that, with 30 minutes of Googling for 'old growth' and about eight different activist websites, that argument wasn't made *once* on any of them. You should send it to them.
But don't the plantations just re-lime the soil and plant another crop of trees? Does it really matter whether the calcium comes from a mine down the road or from the decay of rotting trees? Don't you think that (eventually) they will find a way to extract the calcium from the processed pulp and return it to the soil if that method becomes cheaper?
Habitats for animals. Plantation forests are notorious for being biological wastelands.
Please not the 'diversity' argument again. If you can explain how that diversity benefits humans, I might listen. To me, 'old-growth' forest is a 'wasteland' of rotting trees that could otherwise have been used to benefit mankind.
Also the fast growing trees that they use (typically pine) destroy the soil.
Again, I don't care if they destroy the soil for other crops. I don't care if some native fungus variety can't live in acidic soils. All I care about is that humans can reap a productive benefit from the land in a sustainable fashion.
Eventually the plantation trees are logged and there are no trees.
Look, I'm assuming it's a continuous process. The trees are only cut down and missing for a *small percentage* of the time, then they are replanted. With a large number of plantations in operation, the odds are that at any given time the *total* number of trees is always going to be larger than it would otherwise assuming these points hold true. I understand that you take the (fatalistic) view that the companies are just going to raise one crop of trees, wait for the soil to erode, and then declare bankruptcy and sell the destroyed land. They might do that, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of tree-farming versus 'old-growth'. That just means that there is something wrong with our (corporatist) economic system.
I think the problem I (and many people) have with the environmentalist argument is that it mostly assumes the environment 1) is great just the way it is 2) should be preserved in *exactly* that state and 3) exists solely for its own benefit.
Most of the time, in situations like this, companies will initially slash and burn with reckless disregard for the future, but, eventually, they will come to realize that sustained production is the most efficient route. I understand the problem with slash-and-burn operations. I just don't see what the problem is with sustained production.
In what way are they worse? What do 'old-growth' trees provide that fast-growing trees don't, besides nostalgia?
Would the US be better-off if we hunted buffalo instead of cattle? Should we outlaw honey harvesting to encourage the bee population? I'm convinced that most of the resources that humans squander would be better used by a diverse conglomerate of insect species; frankly, I don't care.
If these environmentalist arguments don't begin to have some sort of basis in reality, they won't ever be successful. I'd be convinced by benefits like 'sequestration of CO2' or 'reduction of erosion', not 'biological diversity'. How do we know that the 'diverse' insect species that these forests harbor aren't just 'swarms of locusts' bent on devouring next year's corn crop?
1) broadcast an encrypted stream at $0.01/hr/listener 2) sell a DRM-enabled player for $99.95 3) number of 'listeners' == number of players sold 4) profit
At 4 hrs/day/user, a $25 margin would keep the RIAA at bay for almost two years, just long enough to hype the stock and dump it before retiring to your beach home in some non-extradition-treaty country.
You would think, but you'd be wrong. Having a forest of trees that never get harvested doesn't pay for anyone, even governments. At any given point, the number of trees *with* paper is always more than *without* paper. If the land wasn't used for trees, it would be used to grow hay or pasture animals. I could draw you a nice graph out of --- and/\, but Slashcode would just fark it all up.
Way to be sneaky. You goofy Brits with your 'by the bit pricing'; I think you mean 'latency-based-pricing' a la DiffServ. Americans can't be bothered to keep track of their *cell-phone minutes*, let alone the number of *bits* they transfer. We need product pricing schemes that begin with all-you-can-, unlimited, and buy one, get-. Oh, and, speaking of cell phones: metered VoIP won't work (as a business). You'll have to buy up all the cell phone companies first.
UCSD is a trademark owned by the Regents of the University of California
UCSD are just letters. They aren't owned by anyone. Whether they are trademarked or not, trademarks merely prevent commercial competitors from confusing customers with identically-named products. Trademark law does not prevent me from saying that Happy-Meals(R) suck.
The University of California is an organization like any other. They do not have the right to censor public discussion. They cannot govern my use of the acronym UCSD in private or public conversations, even when it obviously refers to them; why would you think they can do it on the internet?
I find it ironic that a student of *Berkeley* would fail to recognize the box in which he is thinking.
MS has a monopoly on Windows-compatible operating systems. That's all that was implied. We all know that Microsoft doesn't make computers.
Besides, a monopoly is an economic device, not merely a dictionary definition. It is the opposite of a 'free-market'. In a free market with zero barrier to competition, the market price of a product will approach it's production cost. With a monopoly (or various forms of collusive pricing among market leaders), the market price of a product will remain above production cost, as is the case with most of Microsoft's products.
This is the realistic definition of a monopoly, since, by your strict definition, all products have 'substitutes' that are sufficiently similar to prevent a monopolist from charging "whatever the hell they like". In the case of MS software, pencil and paper comes to mind.
I'm in the same boat. The ol' Visa has exactly $37 on it; not quite enough for MandrakeClub.
I bought a (boxed) version of 9.1 a few months back that never got used. It had a few quirks, but I've been recommending Mandrake to everyone I know since then. I installed a downloaded version on a relative's PC, and it cleared-up a problem with her CD-ROM not recognizing disks.
I'm all for helping Mandrake survive bankruptcy, but I think they need me to recommend 9.2 to people who *have* money more than they need my $60.
Slashdot Mirror
The US Federal Government doesn't own SH!T in America. They have been given serveral hundred thousand acres of desert in the West and ten square miles in Virginia. They also continue to maintain a few military installations in podunk areas of hillbilly states like Oklahoma, California and West Virginia, but those are rapidly being moved to overseas locations. Everything else falls under the jurisdiction of the State governments.
The water comes from *rain*, not rivers; and water typically flows *downhill*. It flows from mountainous states with high amounts of rainfall to lower-altitude states with little rainfall.
Those states without water don't have a *right* to the water that falls on other states. If I live in Colorado and want to bottle rainwater to use to feed to worms, screw someone who wants to live in the desert and expects me to give them my worm-water.
If the deal is going to be 'share-and-share-alike', then I expect Texans to pump saltwater to me, since Oklahoma is naturally deprived of that important resource. After all, that saltwater probably fell as rain in Oklahoma before it flowed into Texas. By your logic, the 'Commerce Clause' applies. I want it back.
the purpose of government IS to protect the citizenry from undesirable elements.
/. We're willing to overlook your faults. Why can't you find it in your heart to have a little tolerance for others?
The purpose of government is to secure the rights of individuals.
We establish laws to punish the criminals.
We establish laws to prevent crimes.
We fight wars to keep the bad guys out.
We guard our borders to keep bad guys out.
We fight wars to expand our borders.
I want my government to serve me...
I'd like my government to serve me also. It's too bad that that's not how governments work. Maybe you should look into a private police force, or talk to a local mobster, because those seem to be the only legitimate ways to get what you are asking for.
Answers to your questions:
A) There are no more 'bad people' in this country than in any other.
B) We also execute more people than any other country (that keeps records).
C) The 'judges' have minimum sentencing guidelines set by the 'legislatures', which are mostly too severe and not suited to the crime.
D) This is a result of many Americans' (including yours) views on children and who should be responsible for raising them. It was established since before Locke wrote his Treatise on Government and our Founding Fathers created a country based upon his ideals.
If you are carrying drugs, I want you busted. This nonsense of drug crimes being prosecuted like jay-walking has to end.
Carrying drugs is no more a crime than your ignorant ranting on
Two questions:
1) If publication isn't required, why is it defined?
2) If the copyrighted 'work' is the DRM-ified 'original work', how does one go about breaking the DMCA? (really more of a rhetorical question)
This is a problem with a lot of GNU programs running on Cygwin. The Cygwin developers want everyone to treat them like just another platform and adjust their projects to make up for the horrendous shortcomings of Windows. They refuse to add any more translation/emulation functions to Cygwin than they deem necessary, relying on the individual projects to adjust to compensate for retarded things like 8.3 character filenames.
I suppose they're trying to squeeze all the performance they can out of Linux/Windows, but, quite frankly, I (and most others) don't care if Linux software runs quickly on Windows or not. In the end, it makes all of the major applications for Linux and *BSD worse to be beholden to the design failures of a proprietary OS that decided to implement only the bare minimum Posix standards. If the Cygwin developers would maintain their own patchsets and make Cygwin at least emulate a few of the extended features of Linux instead of insisting that the community integrate all of their changes, this wouldn't be an issue.
To put it simply, I wouldn't just point fingers and blame XFree without examining all the facts. Maybe this is how it should have been done to begin with.
I guess this would be the place to ask, since I haven't had any luck with Google.
Where would I get an 8-bit ISA network card that's supported in Linux? I've got a couple of Netgear NE2000 cards that were advertised to work in 8-bit slots, but the drivers don't seem to recognize them.
I'm definitely not a hardware hacker, so I'd be grateful for any hints.
Here's one that gives a good example of C&H wit.
According to the omnipresent surveillance system known as Google, that's not what you said on 22 October 2001:
"every citizen's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is violated the instant they flip the switch on the Mother Of All Carnivores."
You're an idiot. I just read about the last ten of your posts and it looks like your 'securities' broker has convinced you of a lot of stupid shit. I don't know whether it's worse that you enjoy seeing people taken advantage of through rape of their privacy in such pointless ways or that you seem to be actively involved in it.
As for this one, the quoted Amendment *spells out* the requirements for a warrant to be issued to authorize a 'reasonable' search. It's sad to have to quote this, but the requirement is upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It's also sad that I have to spend another paragraph explaining to you what that means, because you seem to either be extremely stupid, or British, in which case none of this applies to you.
That probable cause requirement is particularly important. It means that, in order for a warrant to be issued, it must be probable that the subject of the warrant has been involved in the commission of a crime. Also note that even if Congress made *everything* a crime, it still wouldn't enable blanket, daily tracking of anyone without a warrant.
As for that Amendment having been put there for a reason, on that point you are correct. It, and the entire Bill of Rights, were put in place as a bulwark against idiots such as yourself, who have nothing but interest in your own personal gain at the expense of others.
CUPS has an option for a virtual PDF printer in Linux, called CUPS-PDF.
I think it's included in RedHat 9.
You: Open the hatch, Clippy.
Clippy9000: I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that.
Hydroelectric power plants, farming, plant and animal cross-breeding, our unnatural selection of fluffy pets over less lovable animals, all of these are just as destructive (if not more so) to the environment as tree plantations.
The only way humans have ever advanced themselves is by harnessing natural processes. When we have the means, we will most likely black out the sun and use it to fuel our trips to some other solar system to repeat the whole process over again.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.
That sounds like a reasonable argument. It's too bad that, with 30 minutes of Googling for 'old growth' and about eight different activist websites, that argument wasn't made *once* on any of them. You should send it to them.
But don't the plantations just re-lime the soil and plant another crop of trees? Does it really matter whether the calcium comes from a mine down the road or from the decay of rotting trees? Don't you think that (eventually) they will find a way to extract the calcium from the processed pulp and return it to the soil if that method becomes cheaper?
Please not the 'diversity' argument again. If you can explain how that diversity benefits humans, I might listen. To me, 'old-growth' forest is a 'wasteland' of rotting trees that could otherwise have been used to benefit mankind.
Also the fast growing trees that they use (typically pine) destroy the soil.
Again, I don't care if they destroy the soil for other crops. I don't care if some native fungus variety can't live in acidic soils. All I care about is that humans can reap a productive benefit from the land in a sustainable fashion.
Eventually the plantation trees are logged and there are no trees.
Look, I'm assuming it's a continuous process. The trees are only cut down and missing for a *small percentage* of the time, then they are replanted. With a large number of plantations in operation, the odds are that at any given time the *total* number of trees is always going to be larger than it would otherwise assuming these points hold true. I understand that you take the (fatalistic) view that the companies are just going to raise one crop of trees, wait for the soil to erode, and then declare bankruptcy and sell the destroyed land. They might do that, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of tree-farming versus 'old-growth'. That just means that there is something wrong with our (corporatist) economic system.
I think the problem I (and many people) have with the environmentalist argument is that it mostly assumes the environment 1) is great just the way it is 2) should be preserved in *exactly* that state and 3) exists solely for its own benefit.
Most of the time, in situations like this, companies will initially slash and burn with reckless disregard for the future, but, eventually, they will come to realize that sustained production is the most efficient route. I understand the problem with slash-and-burn operations. I just don't see what the problem is with sustained production.
In what way are they worse? What do 'old-growth' trees provide that fast-growing trees don't, besides nostalgia?
Would the US be better-off if we hunted buffalo instead of cattle? Should we outlaw honey harvesting to encourage the bee population? I'm convinced that most of the resources that humans squander would be better used by a diverse conglomerate of insect species; frankly, I don't care.
If these environmentalist arguments don't begin to have some sort of basis in reality, they won't ever be successful. I'd be convinced by benefits like 'sequestration of CO2' or 'reduction of erosion', not 'biological diversity'. How do we know that the 'diverse' insect species that these forests harbor aren't just 'swarms of locusts' bent on devouring next year's corn crop?
1) broadcast an encrypted stream at $0.01/hr/listener
2) sell a DRM-enabled player for $99.95
3) number of 'listeners' == number of players sold
4) profit
At 4 hrs/day/user, a $25 margin would keep the RIAA at bay for almost two years, just long enough to hype the stock and dump it before retiring to your beach home in some non-extradition-treaty country.
You would think, but you'd be wrong. Having a forest of trees that never get harvested doesn't pay for anyone, even governments. At any given point, the number of trees *with* paper is always more than *without* paper. If the land wasn't used for trees, it would be used to grow hay or pasture animals. I could draw you a nice graph out of --- and /\, but Slashcode would just fark it all up.
Way to be sneaky. You goofy Brits with your 'by the bit pricing'; I think you mean 'latency-based-pricing' a la DiffServ. Americans can't be bothered to keep track of their *cell-phone minutes*, let alone the number of *bits* they transfer. We need product pricing schemes that begin with all-you-can-, unlimited, and buy one, get-. Oh, and, speaking of cell phones: metered VoIP won't work (as a business). You'll have to buy up all the cell phone companies first.
UCSD are just letters. They aren't owned by anyone. Whether they are trademarked or not, trademarks merely prevent commercial competitors from confusing customers with identically-named products. Trademark law does not prevent me from saying that Happy-Meals(R) suck.
The University of California is an organization like any other. They do not have the right to censor public discussion. They cannot govern my use of the acronym UCSD in private or public conversations, even when it obviously refers to them; why would you think they can do it on the internet?
I find it ironic that a student of *Berkeley* would fail to recognize the box in which he is thinking.
MS has a monopoly on Windows-compatible operating systems. That's all that was implied. We all know that Microsoft doesn't make computers.
Besides, a monopoly is an economic device, not merely a dictionary definition. It is the opposite of a 'free-market'. In a free market with zero barrier to competition, the market price of a product will approach it's production cost. With a monopoly (or various forms of collusive pricing among market leaders), the market price of a product will remain above production cost, as is the case with most of Microsoft's products.
This is the realistic definition of a monopoly, since, by your strict definition, all products have 'substitutes' that are sufficiently similar to prevent a monopolist from charging "whatever the hell they like". In the case of MS software, pencil and paper comes to mind.
I don't know any kids who talk like that ("fear my pink line"?) ;)
You must be new here
Please don't take it personally. :)
If I'm a drug-crazed script-kiddie raver, then you're a hunt-and-pecking viagra-addicted dot-com investor
So, you sold your children to the gov't for $2000/yr?
I'm in the same boat. The ol' Visa has exactly $37 on it; not quite enough for MandrakeClub.
I bought a (boxed) version of 9.1 a few months back that never got used. It had a few quirks, but I've been recommending Mandrake to everyone I know since then. I installed a downloaded version on a relative's PC, and it cleared-up a problem with her CD-ROM not recognizing disks.
I'm all for helping Mandrake survive bankruptcy, but I think they need me to recommend 9.2 to people who *have* money more than they need my $60.