Jesus Christ, is that what the school system has come to? Are you so ignorant you don't have a fucking clue what our own founders had to say about the preservation of liberty - by violence if necessary?
I see this term used, "Founding Fathers" quite a bit as if they were a monolithic bunch. They weren't. They were quarrelsome and scrappy, and often disagreed on a number of major and minor issues.
But still head and shoulders above anyone in politics today.
As a writer, if you buy one of my books and then decide to publish and redistribute on your own, I'll feel completely justified to bitch-slap you into the next century using "the long arm of the law" - and very few people would even bother defending your actions.
I don't see why software should be an exception. A copyright is a copyright is a copyright, otherwise there would be no GPL to begin with.
Making the conscious decision to give up your freedom to avoid a little inconvenience isn't a shade of gray. Unless you have a very specific interoperability need, choosing proprietary software to do a job that could be accomplished by Free code isn't good, logical, or pragmatic.
A prime example of zealotry. Either you're with us or you're against us. Hardly a new development where humans are concerned.
However, when enough people have decided that they didn't care, then I also lose the option of choosing. I can't sustain the local store all by myself, so it goes under taking my choice with it.
That's called 'the economics of capitalism'. The rest of us aren't obliged to use our tax dollars or government power to preserve your 'freedom' to keep going to that store you love so much.
I have tremendous respect for RMS, he's contributed more to the computing community as a whole than anyone else on the planet.
In what fantasy universe? Linus has done more for open source software than RMS could ever dream of (still waiting on HURD, are you?). And both of these blokes are eclipsed by the likes of Moore, Turing, etc.
Linux still isn't ready for prime time zero hassle common user usage.
Well, isn't that a load of horseshit. You personally have trouble with Knoppix and suddenly your problems apply to Linux as a whole.
Since anecdotal evidence seems to be all you need to support your claim, here's mine: I've had an easier time installing SuSe on machines since 8.0 than Windows of any version, with less hassles and far less driver/patch searching. In most cases Suse "just works", which is more than I can say for Windows (which "just works" once you find all the damned drivers and updates).
Since I'm willing to bet I've installed more instances of Suse than you have of Knoppix (perhaps by an order of magnitude, if you're an armchair critic) my anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.
This isn't a contract dispute but a matter of copyright law. Copyright law is determined by the government, not by the producer of the product copyrighted. The producer doesn't have any say in the matter.
It is inhumane because, except for a few notable exceptions, people are not well adapted to urban environments. The reason their fertility falls is similar to the reason the fertility of zoo animals falls. They are in an unnatural environment.
Simply because you say that humans aren't "adapted to urban environments" doesn't make it true. And just because cities don't grow on their own doesn't make them "unnatural".
Aren't people curious about how primitive cultures were able to feed themselves with sharpened sticks?
They didn't. Prior to the agricultural revolution meat only made up 10% of the average persons diet. The other 90% consisted of fruits and vegetables. Humans were lousy hunters but fairly good gatherers.
Even so, starvation was so common it happened once every three years, on average.
AND, if we didn't have so many people, there would be one less argument for both GMO and nuclear.
Feel free to kill yourself for the 'greater good'. I won't stop you.
What the fuck is a "global consciousness"? You mean all of us acting like Borg, living according to your directives? What if the "consciousness" decides that you're the asswipe and that you have to live in a way that you don't like? Tought titties for you, eh?
Using a speech by Crichton - who wouldn't know science if it up and bit him in the ass - isn't a particularly effective method of making your argument look convincing. Next time try a real group of scientists who're actually experts in the field, and not a science fiction writer who can't even get the basics of evolution right.
and now suddenly you are responsible for defending why a luxury truck is good rather than "lefties" having to defend why it is evil.
What bullshit. SUV owners don't have to defend anything. It's their money, they can spend it as they please. This isn't some leftie pseudo-socialist shithole.
And frankly, more enjoyable is a crappy excuse for such a slobbish waste of resources. It's more enjoyable to do a lot of things that we ought not do.
What you call a "slobbish waste" the rest of us call "civilization". If you really want people to adopt whatever lifestyle you think is the be-all and end-all you need to provide incentives to do so; incentives powerful enough to get them to change their ways.
The question is, do we, with our modern technology, really want to become hunters and gatherers again, living in severely reduced numbers, such that the ambient food supply is always there replenishing itself?
That certainly seems to be the extreme position. Of coure, the extremists seem to assume that their superior 'moral' position will somehow assure that they and their greenie friends will be the ones that survive the great die-off, while us evil consumer-types will be the ones that perish.
There's a bright side to this. As with PETA, over time people are becoming more and more skeptical of hard-core environmentalists who seem completely unwilling to modify their cherished views in any way, shape or form. They sound more and more like religious fanatics blindly following holy scripture than folks concerned with providing feasible and acceptable alternatives to perceived problems.
If they keep up the whacko "Gaia is the Earthmother! All hail Gaia!" approach eventually they'll marginalize themselves out of existence. I say let them destroy themselves.
Eugene isn't nearly the hippie-haven it used to be. It's become considerably more conservative over the years, and that's a good thing. Extremist greenies especially aren't welcome (but they never were, and I don't see how people got the wrong idea about it).
Ironically, coal plants produce far more radiation per MW than nuclear power plants do...and they dump it all into the atmosphere. Most greenies seem ignorant of that fact, or simply skip ahead to the entirely unfeasible "let's use solar/wind/whatever" combined with "live the way I live, or you're immoral scum" arguments.
The environmental extremists deserve about as much consideration as those lunatics from PETA.
education on future impacts of piggish consumption
I see you seem to think that you and your buddies get to decide what a 'proper' level of consumption is. You must have a pretty clear view from that moral high ground of yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus Christ, is that what the school system has come to? Are you so ignorant you don't have a fucking clue what our own founders had to say about the preservation of liberty - by violence if necessary?
What the fuck are they teaching these days?
Max
I see this term used, "Founding Fathers" quite a bit as if they were a monolithic bunch. They weren't. They were quarrelsome and scrappy, and often disagreed on a number of major and minor issues.
But still head and shoulders above anyone in politics today.
Max
This is basic, and this is simple.
As a writer, if you buy one of my books and then decide to publish and redistribute on your own, I'll feel completely justified to bitch-slap you into the next century using "the long arm of the law" - and very few people would even bother defending your actions.
I don't see why software should be an exception. A copyright is a copyright is a copyright, otherwise there would be no GPL to begin with.
Max
Making the conscious decision to give up your freedom to avoid a little inconvenience isn't a shade of gray. Unless you have a very specific interoperability need, choosing proprietary software to do a job that could be accomplished by Free code isn't good, logical, or pragmatic.
A prime example of zealotry. Either you're with us or you're against us. Hardly a new development where humans are concerned.
Max
However, when enough people have decided that they didn't care, then I also lose the option of choosing. I can't sustain the local store all by myself, so it goes under taking my choice with it.
That's called 'the economics of capitalism'. The rest of us aren't obliged to use our tax dollars or government power to preserve your 'freedom' to keep going to that store you love so much.
Suck it up and deal with it.
Max
Didn't say he was loony.
I will, though. He's as fanatical as any religious zealot, and about as reasonable.
Said he is a zealot
There ya go! Even you recognize his dysfunction.
Max
I have tremendous respect for RMS, he's contributed more to the computing community as a whole than anyone else on the planet.
In what fantasy universe? Linus has done more for open source software than RMS could ever dream of (still waiting on HURD, are you?). And both of these blokes are eclipsed by the likes of Moore, Turing, etc.
Max
So going from a really nice SCM like BitKeeper to this is a big deal no matter how you spin it.
So what? Just because it's difficult doesn't entitle you to make a claim against someone else's property.
Max
Some argue that the world did not improve because of the existence of BK, that's the whole point
BitKeeper doesn't have an obligation to improve the world, just to make the company that owns it money. There is no moral imperative here.
Max
Linux still isn't ready for prime time zero hassle common user usage.
Well, isn't that a load of horseshit. You personally have trouble with Knoppix and suddenly your problems apply to Linux as a whole.
Since anecdotal evidence seems to be all you need to support your claim, here's mine: I've had an easier time installing SuSe on machines since 8.0 than Windows of any version, with less hassles and far less driver/patch searching. In most cases Suse "just works", which is more than I can say for Windows (which "just works" once you find all the damned drivers and updates).
Since I'm willing to bet I've installed more instances of Suse than you have of Knoppix (perhaps by an order of magnitude, if you're an armchair critic) my anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.
Max
Wow. You're an incredible douche bag.
That's the best you could do? I certainly hope you didn't pay too much for that college education of yours.
Max
I see there's a reason you posted as a coward.
Always enjoy getting a fanatics panties in a twist, though.
Max
the only difference is that the French ones know how to dress
You mean like used-up anorexic crack whores?
Max
This isn't a contract dispute but a matter of copyright law. Copyright law is determined by the government, not by the producer of the product copyrighted. The producer doesn't have any say in the matter.
Max
It is inhumane because, except for a few notable exceptions, people are not well adapted to urban environments. The reason their fertility falls is similar to the reason the fertility of zoo animals falls. They are in an unnatural environment.
Simply because you say that humans aren't "adapted to urban environments" doesn't make it true. And just because cities don't grow on their own doesn't make them "unnatural".
Max
Aren't people curious about how primitive cultures were able to feed themselves with sharpened sticks?
They didn't. Prior to the agricultural revolution meat only made up 10% of the average persons diet. The other 90% consisted of fruits and vegetables. Humans were lousy hunters but fairly good gatherers.
Even so, starvation was so common it happened once every three years, on average.
AND, if we didn't have so many people, there would be one less argument for both GMO and nuclear.
Feel free to kill yourself for the 'greater good'. I won't stop you.
Max
What the fuck is a "global consciousness"? You mean all of us acting like Borg, living according to your directives? What if the "consciousness" decides that you're the asswipe and that you have to live in a way that you don't like? Tought titties for you, eh?
Max
Using a speech by Crichton - who wouldn't know science if it up and bit him in the ass - isn't a particularly effective method of making your argument look convincing. Next time try a real group of scientists who're actually experts in the field, and not a science fiction writer who can't even get the basics of evolution right.
Max
and now suddenly you are responsible for defending why a luxury truck is good rather than "lefties" having to defend why it is evil.
What bullshit. SUV owners don't have to defend anything. It's their money, they can spend it as they please. This isn't some leftie pseudo-socialist shithole.
Max
And frankly, more enjoyable is a crappy excuse for such a slobbish waste of resources. It's more enjoyable to do a lot of things that we ought not do.
What you call a "slobbish waste" the rest of us call "civilization". If you really want people to adopt whatever lifestyle you think is the be-all and end-all you need to provide incentives to do so; incentives powerful enough to get them to change their ways.
Hint: calling folks "slobs" is not an incentive.
Max
The question is, do we, with our modern technology, really want to become hunters and gatherers again, living in severely reduced numbers, such that the ambient food supply is always there replenishing itself?
That certainly seems to be the extreme position. Of coure, the extremists seem to assume that their superior 'moral' position will somehow assure that they and their greenie friends will be the ones that survive the great die-off, while us evil consumer-types will be the ones that perish.
Max
There's a bright side to this. As with PETA, over time people are becoming more and more skeptical of hard-core environmentalists who seem completely unwilling to modify their cherished views in any way, shape or form. They sound more and more like religious fanatics blindly following holy scripture than folks concerned with providing feasible and acceptable alternatives to perceived problems.
If they keep up the whacko "Gaia is the Earthmother! All hail Gaia!" approach eventually they'll marginalize themselves out of existence. I say let them destroy themselves.
Max
Eugene isn't nearly the hippie-haven it used to be. It's become considerably more conservative over the years, and that's a good thing. Extremist greenies especially aren't welcome (but they never were, and I don't see how people got the wrong idea about it).
Max
Ironically, coal plants produce far more radiation per MW than nuclear power plants do...and they dump it all into the atmosphere. Most greenies seem ignorant of that fact, or simply skip ahead to the entirely unfeasible "let's use solar/wind/whatever" combined with "live the way I live, or you're immoral scum" arguments.
The environmental extremists deserve about as much consideration as those lunatics from PETA.
Max
education on future impacts of piggish consumption
I see you seem to think that you and your buddies get to decide what a 'proper' level of consumption is. You must have a pretty clear view from that moral high ground of yours.
Max