I have used Cygwin daily at work and at home for ten years and have almost never seen the issues you are talking about. I'm sure they are real and affect people who do things differently than me. I don't typically download third party applications that depend on the Cygwin DLL. I use the complete official Cygwin package repository or (very rarely) compile from source. I use Eclipse, Java, ant, Cygwin, and am about as happy as I can be with my environment (I'd be happier writing Perl, but that's another story). I use Cygwin openssh every day and it works great.
ROTFLMAO. I think it is both hilarious and sad when people talk about how they "put" someone in office as if the choice was an open one. That ignores the fact that your choices were already dwindled down to almost nothing up front. When you vote for a politician these days you pretty much have a choice of which half of the shit sandwich you want. I don't really call that freedom of choice myself. I can think of 100 people off the top of my head that would make a better president than Obama and Bush, but they were never an option.
Moreover, it's even less of a choice for those who don't believe there should be a President at all. The American government system can only grow bigger, never smaller, so those who believe it has gotten too large are out of luck. To those people even if you have a good candidate (not that that would ever happen) you're just running a good candidate for a bad office.
You know, we're almost getting into "no true Scotsman" here. There are atheists who want religion to die out by persecution (the "make them second class citizens" ideas seem to be very popular here on Slashdot), and there are atheists who are like you are describing, who only want to persuade people. I have no idea what the relative proportions are between the two groups.
By the same token, there are Christians who want to infringe the liberty of atheists, and there are Christians who find that completely abhorrent.
To complicate the issue further there are all kinds of disagreements about what actually constitutes persecution and aggression. The issue of educating children is a prime example - some people feel that that responsibility lies primarily with the parents, and some feel the children are more the property of the state/society. This is on both sides of the argument - many want to use the schools to promote religion, and many want to use the schools to demote religion and counteract religious instruction from the parents.
There are lots of other examples, too. Many Christians are utterly totally blind to the fact that laws against consensual sexual behavior or against alcohol are a complete violation of liberty. I could go on and on.
I wish we'd all agree on the leave each other alone / everyone change their minds by respectful voluntary persuasion position. But that's probably a pipe dream.
And the great thing about politics is that politicians, the people you and me vote for (or don't vote for) are ultimately elected by people. And those people have opinions. And those opinions can and do change. And when you share an unpopular opinion it can make you unpopular. Most politicians try not to share their unpopular opinions, at least the ones unpopular to their constituents.
Nobody's opinion should ever be forced on another person, no matter how popular their opinion is.
It's not about dominating friends, it's about informing them
Did you vote for 8 years of George W. Bush? Did you have to live under him for 8 years? You were dominated.
Substitute anyone else for George W. if you did vote for him. (I did - my mistake.)
If you vote for a guy, you are appointing a ruler for other human beings. Not just having a respectful conversation where you try to persuade them to willingly follow his leadership.
I don't see a problem at all with having a conversation with someone. The problem is the belief that we need "leadership" to make rules our neighbors have to live by. I don't see that there's any comparison between those two things.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right. It's just like forcing your religion on someone except that somehow if there's not a God involved it's considered to be morally acceptable. It's the worst form of blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it's used to justify tyranny. We replaced hereditary tyrants with taking turns being tyrants, instead of replacing tyranny with freedom.
I'm not talking about people defending themselves from others who would wrong them - there's no problem with that. But politics is more than just appointing someone to run a mutual protection arrangement. When two neighbors have differing political signs up, each of them is hoping that his man will win the election and desires that his neighbor be subjugated to the winner.
Given that politics is all about oppressing your neighbor, it's hard to see how anyone could expect to get along over this.
I suspect, at some point, feature phone people will find themselves unable to operate normally in society. They'll have to get a smartphone or become noticeably eccentric.
I'm seeing early signs of that already. People send me texts that come in as giant multimedia messages, and my Hispanic friend with whom I practice Spanish texts me in Spanish and the phone mangles it and I have to call back and ask what he said.
I hope we reach "peak phone" soon, because for those of us who don't spend every waking moment with our cell phone, the shit which is focused around that is kind of tedious.
I'm waiting for that moment to pass, and then I will finally get a smart phone. My wife has a smart phone, but I'm the techie, and I still have a flip phone. It's $15, no contract, easily replaceable, and does everything that my first $250 flip phone did years ago. I'm thrilled with it.
As long as the isps to my home are monopolies I don't want them engaging in "value added" services.... These people have already demonstrated they are unfit to be trusted with a monopoly. Absolutely no reason to let them monopolize.
So what we really want is for the government grant of monopoly privilege to be taken away.
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
Yes, I agree. People should be able to refuse to do business with someone for any reason whatsoever, and vice versa. Religious conviction shouldn't have any special status in law above any other type of preference or desire.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.
Secondly, it's an important biomedical advancement made by citizen scientists. (The important part of that sentence is "by citizen scientists".)
I was a little confused when I saw that wording in the story, and now that I'm hearing this wording is the important part, I'm getting a little concerned. Are we not all citizens? Have we been divided into citizens and ruling class, now?
I'm all for popularizing science among all citizens, but I'd rather we word that as "science for the masses" or something.
Don't go on a diet (Hacker's Diet or otherwise), but do make a permanent change to your lifestyle.
The Hacker's Diet is a permanent change in lifestyle. People don't always use the word "diet" to mean a temporary change. There are many diets that are permanent changes in lifestyle, and the word "diet" also has a technical definition in which it means what an organism eats - in that sense, everyone has a diet.
For those of us who do not always use the word "diet" to mean a temporary change, it is annoying to try to talk about a permanent change in diet and be corrected and contradicted by those who use the word diet to mean only a temporary change.
If there's something I can still mine with a CPU that is worth it, I want to know, and I want to install software to mine it myself, and I want to trade it out immediately for Bitcoin or something else. Every so often a currency does pop up where this is true, but it's been awhile. So I want to know what uTorrent is mining.
lest anybody think otherwise, Harrison Ford is quite an experienced airplane and helicopter pilot, with thousands of hours
My sister worked at a helicopter company where Ford trained or certified or something like that. Unfortunately that didn't result in me getting to meet him, though she did.
Slashdot Mirror
I have used Cygwin daily at work and at home for ten years and have almost never seen the issues you are talking about. I'm sure they are real and affect people who do things differently than me. I don't typically download third party applications that depend on the Cygwin DLL. I use the complete official Cygwin package repository or (very rarely) compile from source. I use Eclipse, Java, ant, Cygwin, and am about as happy as I can be with my environment (I'd be happier writing Perl, but that's another story). I use Cygwin openssh every day and it works great.
ROTFLMAO. I think it is both hilarious and sad when people talk about how they "put" someone in office as if the choice was an open one. That ignores the fact that your choices were already dwindled down to almost nothing up front. When you vote for a politician these days you pretty much have a choice of which half of the shit sandwich you want. I don't really call that freedom of choice myself. I can think of 100 people off the top of my head that would make a better president than Obama and Bush, but they were never an option.
Moreover, it's even less of a choice for those who don't believe there should be a President at all. The American government system can only grow bigger, never smaller, so those who believe it has gotten too large are out of luck. To those people even if you have a good candidate (not that that would ever happen) you're just running a good candidate for a bad office.
+1 As an old Perl programmer, I have to appreciate any response that mentions the phrase "XY problem." :)
Forget morphine - could I just get a way to simply, legally obtain sudafed without rigamarole at the pharmacy?
Ludvig! Turn that crap down!
How about we quit making up rights?
You know, we're almost getting into "no true Scotsman" here. There are atheists who want religion to die out by persecution (the "make them second class citizens" ideas seem to be very popular here on Slashdot), and there are atheists who are like you are describing, who only want to persuade people. I have no idea what the relative proportions are between the two groups.
By the same token, there are Christians who want to infringe the liberty of atheists, and there are Christians who find that completely abhorrent.
To complicate the issue further there are all kinds of disagreements about what actually constitutes persecution and aggression. The issue of educating children is a prime example - some people feel that that responsibility lies primarily with the parents, and some feel the children are more the property of the state/society. This is on both sides of the argument - many want to use the schools to promote religion, and many want to use the schools to demote religion and counteract religious instruction from the parents.
There are lots of other examples, too. Many Christians are utterly totally blind to the fact that laws against consensual sexual behavior or against alcohol are a complete violation of liberty. I could go on and on.
I wish we'd all agree on the leave each other alone / everyone change their minds by respectful voluntary persuasion position. But that's probably a pipe dream.
I didn't say a single thing about being self-sustaining. Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said.
And in our society, we elect those leaders. In some societies, people obtain leadership through brute force. It's not pretty.
Brute force is wrong even when you are elected.
And the great thing about politics is that politicians, the people you and me vote for (or don't vote for) are ultimately elected by people. And those people have opinions. And those opinions can and do change. And when you share an unpopular opinion it can make you unpopular. Most politicians try not to share their unpopular opinions, at least the ones unpopular to their constituents.
Nobody's opinion should ever be forced on another person, no matter how popular their opinion is.
It's not about dominating friends, it's about informing them
Did you vote for 8 years of George W. Bush? Did you have to live under him for 8 years? You were dominated.
Substitute anyone else for George W. if you did vote for him. (I did - my mistake.)
If you vote for a guy, you are appointing a ruler for other human beings. Not just having a respectful conversation where you try to persuade them to willingly follow his leadership.
I don't see a problem at all with having a conversation with someone. The problem is the belief that we need "leadership" to make rules our neighbors have to live by. I don't see that there's any comparison between those two things.
Does Facebook make it harder for people with different political views to get along?
Politics is about making other people do what you think is right. It's just like forcing your religion on someone except that somehow if there's not a God involved it's considered to be morally acceptable. It's the worst form of blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, and it's used to justify tyranny. We replaced hereditary tyrants with taking turns being tyrants, instead of replacing tyranny with freedom.
I'm not talking about people defending themselves from others who would wrong them - there's no problem with that. But politics is more than just appointing someone to run a mutual protection arrangement. When two neighbors have differing political signs up, each of them is hoping that his man will win the election and desires that his neighbor be subjugated to the winner.
Given that politics is all about oppressing your neighbor, it's hard to see how anyone could expect to get along over this.
Here's hoping they don't use use Sucralose, which is even worse than Aspartame
That's about as likely as slashdot posters starting to read the articles that are posted.
I suspect, at some point, feature phone people will find themselves unable to operate normally in society. They'll have to get a smartphone or become noticeably eccentric.
I'm seeing early signs of that already. People send me texts that come in as giant multimedia messages, and my Hispanic friend with whom I practice Spanish texts me in Spanish and the phone mangles it and I have to call back and ask what he said.
I hope we reach "peak phone" soon, because for those of us who don't spend every waking moment with our cell phone, the shit which is focused around that is kind of tedious.
I'm waiting for that moment to pass, and then I will finally get a smart phone. My wife has a smart phone, but I'm the techie, and I still have a flip phone. It's $15, no contract, easily replaceable, and does everything that my first $250 flip phone did years ago. I'm thrilled with it.
As long as the isps to my home are monopolies I don't want them engaging in "value added" services. ... These people have already demonstrated they are unfit to be trusted with a monopoly. Absolutely no reason to let them monopolize.
So what we really want is for the government grant of monopoly privilege to be taken away.
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
Yes, I agree. People should be able to refuse to do business with someone for any reason whatsoever, and vice versa. Religious conviction shouldn't have any special status in law above any other type of preference or desire.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone ... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.
I agree and accept this.
Thank you, but I would rather be a self-responsible citizen than one of millions of ant-like creatures to be ruled by a self-declared elite
Isn't that what I was saying?
Secondly, it's an important biomedical advancement made by citizen scientists. (The important part of that sentence is "by citizen scientists".)
I was a little confused when I saw that wording in the story, and now that I'm hearing this wording is the important part, I'm getting a little concerned. Are we not all citizens? Have we been divided into citizens and ruling class, now?
I'm all for popularizing science among all citizens, but I'd rather we word that as "science for the masses" or something.
You really think Amazon wants to take the PR hit by suing a contractor who worked in their warehouse for 10 dollars an hour?
Great, then they should have no problem removing the portion of the agreement that would give them the right to do so.
http://blog.plover.com/law/contracts.html
How long to create a string of 9's?
I'd love to see X-Files again, but I really with The Lone Gunmen had never been canceled. That spinoff was the highlight of my week for a brief while.
Don't go on a diet (Hacker's Diet or otherwise), but do make a permanent change to your lifestyle.
The Hacker's Diet is a permanent change in lifestyle. People don't always use the word "diet" to mean a temporary change. There are many diets that are permanent changes in lifestyle, and the word "diet" also has a technical definition in which it means what an organism eats - in that sense, everyone has a diet.
For those of us who do not always use the word "diet" to mean a temporary change, it is annoying to try to talk about a permanent change in diet and be corrected and contradicted by those who use the word diet to mean only a temporary change.
If there's something I can still mine with a CPU that is worth it, I want to know, and I want to install software to mine it myself, and I want to trade it out immediately for Bitcoin or something else. Every so often a currency does pop up where this is true, but it's been awhile. So I want to know what uTorrent is mining.
lest anybody think otherwise, Harrison Ford is quite an experienced airplane and helicopter pilot, with thousands of hours
My sister worked at a helicopter company where Ford trained or certified or something like that. Unfortunately that didn't result in me getting to meet him, though she did.