So if you travel a lot, you need to maintain 51 distinct drivers licenses?
State driver license privileges are not recognized or enforced on a federal level in the US. Each state determines their "relationship" to other states. Most states just blanket accept out of state drivers licenses as acceptable for use in their jurisdiction. Most states do not accept foreign driver licenses. Its a given that any out-of-state driver is responsible for complying with local driving laws, and can be arrested for violating them. Adjacent states usually have reciprocal arrangements to deal with each others drivers. If a person is ticketed out-of-state for a driving infractions, and manage to remain outside of that state, they usually aren't extraditable by the other state, or can be dunned outside of the state.
Libertarianism is a response to national level governments. Libertarianism has no objection to government on the local level. Even if you were going to ascribe to the notion that state government is too large a conglomeration to properly represent "local" residents, what objection would any Libertarian would have about people demonstrating a level of mastery before being "permitted" to drive unsupervised? Do they think people don't die from avoidable car accidents???
. Trump, unlike a career politician, would actually be capable of saying "fuck these three-letter agencies, tear them all down". Don't take that as me saying he actually would, but he's capable of doing it, and the NSA knows it.
Hardly. Trump has no concept of how that would successfully be done, and its unlikely the advisors he'd be able to get into his gov't would execute that order on his behalf.
There's (almost) no such thing as a "federal" driver's license, so I wouldn't see why a mentally "competent" Libertarian would have a problem with them.
And how effective do you think you're persuading these cowards to stop their SJW bullshit, and rally opinion against it, when you're posting as an anonymous coward?
How is this applicable to what the anonymous coward (or I) said?
An argument should be able to stand on its own. A truth doesn't become less true just because the source is a known liar.
The problem is that people here aren't putting any effort into their arguments, and that trait is particular to "anonymous cowards". Most human beings innately desire to defend their ideological beliefs, and how they are perceived, but not anonymous cowards, because they possess no identity stake.
Anonymous cowards are not presenting the truth or "arguments". They are mostly shitposting, because they suffer no consequence at all, not even psychological. The way the anonymous cowards are setup here, they are the ultimate trolls. That wouldn't even be bad, if it encouraged intelligent discourse; but its doesn't. I just want to start taking away their warm fuzzy of useless expression, designed to not be defended. Perhaps start teaching people here that posting as an anoymous coward needs to be applied selectively, for an actual argument.
No, I am at least willing to back my words with a recurring pseudonym. While you are so craven, you are willing to say any bullshit, and not even tolerate virtual consequences for it. Its just wasted text on Slashdot. I'm just pointing out you're too stupid to realize that.
I don't give a fuck who you think is a traitor. You're hiding under a generic alias; you're magnitudes of cowardice compared to Snowden. Its more cowardly than the Anonymous collective itself, because at least Anonymous delivers a consequence. Even if what you actually say is worth responding to (and most isn't), I'm not going to waste effort on an argument upon what you say (other than point out its worthless) because you have no "stake" in defending your credibility. You're more insignificant than a Social Justice Warrior, because at least those tools are willing to associate what they say to a specific pseudonym. You're probably so stupid, you somehow think you are "safe" by posting under "Anonymous Coward". Anyone who can hack into Slashdot can get your IP, including the Federal government. I'm only wasting my breath here trying to make you realize that what you say can have more value when you can back it with a virtual identity, and thus raise the quality of discourse around here.
why would I give a shit about the GPL if I'm a company if I can just take the parts I want and claim fair use?
Because both you and her are idiots. Both you and her think you can take ideas and make it into exclusive intellectual property. And fatally, both you and her think an API is the same thing as copying code. Source code is the actual human effort and investment used to produce a sequence of machine intelligible instructions that computes something useful. An API is a description of how source code talks to other source code. You can call something tangible property, but you cannot call an idea property. You can't patent or copyright a steering wheel to a car. You can't even do that when the wheel concept is used to steer a boat.
The problem is that patents and copyrights have been distorted for the past twenty five years to try to distort laws to treat ideas a form of property. This Google victory only shows that the system is broken when it overreaches as Oracle tried to do. And not just the GPL has nothing to do with this case, the GPL is not used to protect license owners from being deprived of their projected profits. The GPL is a legalist way to make their source code available to the public for use, without allowing other parties to seizing it, or deny the original owners the modifications to the GPL owner's source code.
Google is not a friend of the GPL, so what? Oracle and Google are not football teams to root for; they both pull annoying legal or market shit on users. But the lawyer has an excuse for her idiocy. She apparently believes that corporations are living beings, rather than fictions created by the legal process. What's your excuse?
How dare you not pay taxes to civilized society! Mind you, we don't care what anarchism you may be espousing, as long as you're producing something we can tax.
No, it is not. Capitalism "wins" because its the most efficient means of gross national product; but you can always change the definition of "winning". If we want a society at its present population levels being relatively stable and productive, we need to change its philosophical mindset, and provide the means to achieve that equilibrium. Namely, basic income, coupled with heavily educating its citizen populace (non-STEM as well as STEM), and investment into academic/scientific pursuits. In the previous century, gov't was taxing the rich to provide infrastructure to underdeveloped areas of the US, a radical change in real estate policy that resulted in wealth in the middle classes, and encouraging the population to get advanced degrees (from 5% to about 30% today).
Under 4K of US soldiers died in the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US still had to leave. It wasn't purely casualties that drove the US out of Iraq. You can't say the US was driven out exclusively by IEDs; you have to throw in the AK47's used in ambush operations as well. And the US had a lot more hardware available to them than M4's and air strikes; they still had to leave.
How stupid can you possibly be? Realize the numbers of Chinese fighters vs the UN forces, and how meagerly equipped they were, by comparison, and then fail to make an association to the 400K strong US military vs the 100 million(?) US firearm owners. Do you even realize that to have a successful occupation, you need to outnumber your insurgent combatants?
If the Quark is meant for entry into SoCs (for smartphones, tablets, compute sticks), then Quark will probably be abandoned.
If the Quark was meant for IoTs, then Intel will still probably support the product line.
But no way Intel is trying to fight to get into the "arduino" hobbyist market. And I suspect people who are really butthurt over Debian dropping embedded support are just Stallman fanboy hippies who think FOSS will make a difference in the embedded market. There's no reason to run linux on oven microprocessors; embedded development is just on a whole different paradigm than linux OS.
You should not need [...] just to [...] browse the internet.
The HTML4 spec alone is probably too computationally intensive for P2/K6 chips to handle it. (HTML5? Ha ha...) Just try using dillo on today's webpages.
In fact, unless you are doing photo-editing work, or something similar, you do not need a graphical desktop at all.
And you don't need to buy butter in a supermarket, just churn your own butter... (I'm not on your lawn, old man...!)
I miss the good old days...
You're missing a whole retro revolution with all the hobbyist ARM/FPGA kits coming out now.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you travel a lot, you need to maintain 51 distinct drivers licenses?
State driver license privileges are not recognized or enforced on a federal level in the US. Each state determines their "relationship" to other states. Most states just blanket accept out of state drivers licenses as acceptable for use in their jurisdiction. Most states do not accept foreign driver licenses. Its a given that any out-of-state driver is responsible for complying with local driving laws, and can be arrested for violating them. Adjacent states usually have reciprocal arrangements to deal with each others drivers. If a person is ticketed out-of-state for a driving infractions, and manage to remain outside of that state, they usually aren't extraditable by the other state, or can be dunned outside of the state.
Wow, you guys really are out there...
Libertarianism is a response to national level governments. Libertarianism has no objection to government on the local level. Even if you were going to ascribe to the notion that state government is too large a conglomeration to properly represent "local" residents, what objection would any Libertarian would have about people demonstrating a level of mastery before being "permitted" to drive unsupervised? Do they think people don't die from avoidable car accidents???
. Trump, unlike a career politician, would actually be capable of saying "fuck these three-letter agencies, tear them all down". Don't take that as me saying he actually would, but he's capable of doing it, and the NSA knows it.
Hardly. Trump has no concept of how that would successfully be done, and its unlikely the advisors he'd be able to get into his gov't would execute that order on his behalf.
Slashdot are capitalist neo-liberals, not commie collectivists.
Zionism doesn't sound very Libertarian...
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” -- Barry Goldwater
??? You think there's no way the NSA would ever support a Trump nomination?
There's (almost) no such thing as a "federal" driver's license, so I wouldn't see why a mentally "competent" Libertarian would have a problem with them.
Your dad was Stalin? Cool!
And how effective do you think you're persuading these cowards to stop their SJW bullshit, and rally opinion against it, when you're posting as an anonymous coward?
Appeal to authority is a common fallacy.
How is this applicable to what the anonymous coward (or I) said?
An argument should be able to stand on its own. A truth doesn't become less true just because the source is a known liar.
The problem is that people here aren't putting any effort into their arguments, and that trait is particular to "anonymous cowards". Most human beings innately desire to defend their ideological beliefs, and how they are perceived, but not anonymous cowards, because they possess no identity stake.
Anonymous cowards are not presenting the truth or "arguments". They are mostly shitposting, because they suffer no consequence at all, not even psychological. The way the anonymous cowards are setup here, they are the ultimate trolls. That wouldn't even be bad, if it encouraged intelligent discourse; but its doesn't. I just want to start taking away their warm fuzzy of useless expression, designed to not be defended. Perhaps start teaching people here that posting as an anoymous coward needs to be applied selectively, for an actual argument.
You can beg, but its not going to change people's opinion. Just look out at a city block of beggars or PETA.
No, I am at least willing to back my words with a recurring pseudonym. While you are so craven, you are willing to say any bullshit, and not even tolerate virtual consequences for it. Its just wasted text on Slashdot. I'm just pointing out you're too stupid to realize that.
I don't give a fuck who you think is a traitor. You're hiding under a generic alias; you're magnitudes of cowardice compared to Snowden. Its more cowardly than the Anonymous collective itself, because at least Anonymous delivers a consequence. Even if what you actually say is worth responding to (and most isn't), I'm not going to waste effort on an argument upon what you say (other than point out its worthless) because you have no "stake" in defending your credibility. You're more insignificant than a Social Justice Warrior, because at least those tools are willing to associate what they say to a specific pseudonym. You're probably so stupid, you somehow think you are "safe" by posting under "Anonymous Coward". Anyone who can hack into Slashdot can get your IP, including the Federal government. I'm only wasting my breath here trying to make you realize that what you say can have more value when you can back it with a virtual identity, and thus raise the quality of discourse around here.
No one gives a crap what an anonymous coward thinks.
why would I give a shit about the GPL if I'm a company if I can just take the parts I want and claim fair use?
Because both you and her are idiots. Both you and her think you can take ideas and make it into exclusive intellectual property. And fatally, both you and her think an API is the same thing as copying code. Source code is the actual human effort and investment used to produce a sequence of machine intelligible instructions that computes something useful. An API is a description of how source code talks to other source code. You can call something tangible property, but you cannot call an idea property. You can't patent or copyright a steering wheel to a car. You can't even do that when the wheel concept is used to steer a boat.
The problem is that patents and copyrights have been distorted for the past twenty five years to try to distort laws to treat ideas a form of property. This Google victory only shows that the system is broken when it overreaches as Oracle tried to do. And not just the GPL has nothing to do with this case, the GPL is not used to protect license owners from being deprived of their projected profits. The GPL is a legalist way to make their source code available to the public for use, without allowing other parties to seizing it, or deny the original owners the modifications to the GPL owner's source code.
Google is not a friend of the GPL, so what? Oracle and Google are not football teams to root for; they both pull annoying legal or market shit on users. But the lawyer has an excuse for her idiocy. She apparently believes that corporations are living beings, rather than fictions created by the legal process. What's your excuse?
And sitting in their parent basement posting comments on Slashdot...
And how do you address the bible thumpers that do not believe this is an acceptable way to control population growth?
How dare you not pay taxes to civilized society! Mind you, we don't care what anarchism you may be espousing, as long as you're producing something we can tax.
Damn, you must be ancient. I'm in my fifties, and I can't even place the cartoon/line. (Jetsons?)
No, it is not. Capitalism "wins" because its the most efficient means of gross national product; but you can always change the definition of "winning". If we want a society at its present population levels being relatively stable and productive, we need to change its philosophical mindset, and provide the means to achieve that equilibrium. Namely, basic income, coupled with heavily educating its citizen populace (non-STEM as well as STEM), and investment into academic/scientific pursuits. In the previous century, gov't was taxing the rich to provide infrastructure to underdeveloped areas of the US, a radical change in real estate policy that resulted in wealth in the middle classes, and encouraging the population to get advanced degrees (from 5% to about 30% today).
Under 4K of US soldiers died in the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US still had to leave. It wasn't purely casualties that drove the US out of Iraq. You can't say the US was driven out exclusively by IEDs; you have to throw in the AK47's used in ambush operations as well. And the US had a lot more hardware available to them than M4's and air strikes; they still had to leave.
How stupid can you possibly be? Realize the numbers of Chinese fighters vs the UN forces, and how meagerly equipped they were, by comparison, and then fail to make an association to the 400K strong US military vs the 100 million(?) US firearm owners. Do you even realize that to have a successful occupation, you need to outnumber your insurgent combatants?
If the Quark is meant for entry into SoCs (for smartphones, tablets, compute sticks), then Quark will probably be abandoned.
If the Quark was meant for IoTs, then Intel will still probably support the product line.
But no way Intel is trying to fight to get into the "arduino" hobbyist market. And I suspect people who are really butthurt over Debian dropping embedded support are just Stallman fanboy hippies who think FOSS will make a difference in the embedded market. There's no reason to run linux on oven microprocessors; embedded development is just on a whole different paradigm than linux OS.
lol. I did get a good chuckle from that.
You should not need [...] just to [...] browse the internet.
The HTML4 spec alone is probably too computationally intensive for P2/K6 chips to handle it. (HTML5? Ha ha...) Just try using dillo on today's webpages.
In fact, unless you are doing photo-editing work, or something similar, you do not need a graphical desktop at all.
And you don't need to buy butter in a supermarket, just churn your own butter... (I'm not on your lawn, old man...!)
I miss the good old days...
You're missing a whole retro revolution with all the hobbyist ARM/FPGA kits coming out now.