Or you can try to bring them over to the dark side...
I'm trying to do that with my SO, but I'm getting mixed singals. Let's see...
- She's one of those who want to spend time together and talk. And that means that she doesn't like it when I sit in front of the computer and play games
- I tried to get her play Sims, but she hated it. No luck with Europe Universalis II either. She did try Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin and seemed to like it somewhat. Weird.
- She has no problems using Linux/KDE
- She hates Outlook Express. Her favourite email-client is Pine!
Sometimes I feel that there is a way to bring her over to the dark side. But then my hopes gets squashed. I think I just need to find a game that she would really enjoy...
the XFree86 leadership has been doing a lot to piss off developers, avoid enhancements, and turn XFree86 into a stagnant project for quite a while now.
damn stright! I read the Xfree mailing-list around the time when Keith Packard was kicked out of Xfree. David Wexelblat was flaming Keith like there's no tomorrow. Now, Keith is just about the best thing that has happened to X in a long time. He was the one who made all those cool new features (like RENDER-extension). He was the one who was driving the developement of Xfree forward. And they kicked him out.
Who is this Wexelblat-guy who was flaming Keith? He's one of the guys who started Xfree and a member of the core-team. By his own admission, he doesn't hack Xfree anymore. He doesn't even USE Xfree anymore. He said that he uses Windows these days. Only X-related thing he does is that he lurks in the mailinglist.
Keith Packard gets kicked out, while useless deadbeats like Wexelblat are member of the Core. I'd say the sooner Xfree dies off, the better.
Look again at the cold hard facts. Washington D.C., where guns are ILLEGAL (unless you are the government or the police), has the highest murder rate in the country. These are cold hard facts.
Since guns are easily available elsewhere in the USA; it's a relatively simple matter to bring the to D.C.. But if the guns were also illegal elsewhere, where would those thugs get their guns? Right now they can get them outside D.C.
Where would those criminals get thier guns if they are outlawed? Sure, SOME guns would be smuggled in to the country regardless, but they wouldn't be anywhere as easily available to criminals as they are right now.
Marijuana is relatively simple to grow. Just about anyone could do it, if they spend any time studying botanics. But how many would know how to construct a firearm from scratch? Or how about manufacturing bullets?
Comparing guns to marijuana is comparing apples to oranges, Einstein.
YOu CAN use lethal force to protect your life or life of your loved-ones. That is a fact. Of course proving that you had to kill the assailant is going to be difficult (naturally), but the law does not prevent you from using lethal force.
What about using arms to defend your life or the life of a family member, friend, or complete stranger?
I live in Finland, and I have the right to defend myself or my loved ones, using any means necessary. That includes using lethal force, including guns. That was told me by a police-officer in my Krav Maga-class.
Related to that, I have the right to remove any individual from my home, if he's there against my will. If he refuses to leave, I can use any methods necessary to remove the individual.
If your mother lived in Finland, and she had a permit for her gun, she would be well within her rights to use it to defend herself. So the knee-jerk reaction of "OMG! The Europeans are at the mercy of criminals and thugs!" is just plain nonsense
Yes it's a theory. What REALLY happened back then was that Jesus collided with Earth at faster than light speed. His speed was so great, that the explosion it caused wiped the dinosaurs out.
That theory would be good, since it implies the existence of God and Jesus, therefore being OK with the bible-bashers among us.
Have there been some individual artillery-rounds/etc. found in Iraq? Yes. Have you found any large-scale weapons-programs, large stockpiles of weapons etc.? No.
I will also point out that the only reason we have found them so far is because insurgents took them from secret stockpiles somewhere in a country the size of California and tried to use them against us.
Or they took them from some abandoned warehouses, which have some miscellianous rounds lying about. Or they found some leftover rounds from Iraq-Iran-war that still litter the landscape.
Hell, you have had a long time now to find those huge stockpiles of weapons. You can go where-ever you please, you interrogate anyone you want, yet you haven't found anything worthwhile! Hell, you were able to find Saddam, even though he was hiding in some concealed hole in some far-off location, yet you can't find those huge stockpiles of weapons? puh-leese!
Why don't you meditate on that and consider what would happen if they got one of those into the US. Will you feel better if we find the next bunch of Iraqi chemical weapons after they have been used outside a football stadium? Woud that be enough proof for you? That is what we are facing
So, if USA is attacked with WMD's, it automatically proves that Iraq had WMD's? Sure, no need to actually verify where it came from, it must have come from Iraq! After all, that's what the government told us!
I find it rather funny that Americans always seem to be wary of the government, yet they happily eat whatever party-line the government spoon-feeds them.
Your very language suggests to me you've formed your opinion and it's based on emotion -- not facts. "GWB and the rest of his gang", indeed.
How do you know that my negative opinion about GWB and rest of the high ranking officials of the US Administration (like that better?) is formed on emotion and not because of facts? Facts are that GWB invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Fact is that he has locked up foreign nationals without due process. Fact is that he singlehandedly squandered huge international support he had with his "either you are with us, or you are against us"-bullshit.
I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Same could be said about GWB. He's the one running around like some cowboy with a six-shooter. What makes GWB the ultimate authority on who is fit to rule and who is not?
I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection.
Awwww, USA goes to war because the feel the pain of the Iraqi people. How sweet of you.
For some reason I have hard time believing that USA went to war because Saddam was a bad man. Of course you did it because you saw an opportunity to benefit from it.
And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.
Well USA was one of the countries that supplied Iraq with those WMD's in the first place. Maybe USA should be invaded because you supply WMD's to "rogue nations"?
You've just shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest. I suggested you read the Kaye report in answer to your "Then how could Iraq be a "source of WMD's for terrorists" if they don't have any WMD's?" statement. Had you been interested in facts and the truth rather than invested being RIGHT regardless of the facts we could continue to have a constructive discussion. The Kaye report to the Senate made it very clear what the dangers were, that we have have been too late ANYWAY and a danger still exists.
And the fact is that no WMD's have been found. Oh wait, they have found ONE artillery-shell with sarin. Clear evidence that Iraq was full of WMD's and that they were supplying them to terrorists, right?
I have never even heard of "Kaye report", I don't keep that close tabs on what goes on in US Senate. I did Google for the report, and I found bunch of articles which said that US refuses to share information of that report.
It's clear to me that you've no interest in the truth or the facts.
Fact is that they haven't found any WMD's in Iraq. No matter how you twist and turn it, that is a fact. And remember, this war was (supposedly) because Iraq is full of WMD's. Only after it became apparent that there are no WMD's there, the war turned from "getting rid of WMD's" in to "bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq".
I'll let you live in your world where simple answers exist for complex problems.
It seems that GWB lives in the same world as I do eh? After all, his solution to "complex problem" is to invade and kill;).
As for myself, I'm a grown up and I live in the real world.
Good for you. So, have they found those WMD's yet? Or was GWB and rest of his gang lying when they said iraq is full of WMD's? Or were they simply incompetent?
There's no documented evidence showing Pakistan has used nerve agents against a foe, let alone their own people
When Iraq used WMD's against Iran and Kurds, USA didn't seem to have that much to complain back then. Did you invade Iraq when they gassed the Iranians? Or when they gassed the Kurds? No? But now you are invading them close to 20 years after they did that?
# Pakistan hasn't been targeting and shooting at our aircraft over the past 10+ years
You haven't been flying over their airspace, now have you?
Pakistan hadn't sponsored the assassination of the leader of a soverign nation
USA has done that (Castro for example, although they failed), should USA be invaded? Or how about getting rid of "unwanted" rulers? Like in Iran and Chile for example (the President of Chile was in fact shot after the CIA-orchestrated coup).
BTW, which assasination are you referring to?
Please remember that the US going in to IRAQ wasn't about the immediate threat of WMDs,
yes it was. Powell, Bush and the rest were blabbering all the time how "Iraq has WMD's, we must attack". Only after it became apparent that there are no WMD's there, they started their "this war is about liberating the people of Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq"-bullshit.
I'd be happy to through a number of quotes where the administration constantly stated that we must act BEFORE the threat was imminent.
Pre-emptive strike eh? So, if rest of the world started to feel that USA was becoming a clear threat to the security of the world, they would be justified in attacking USA?
Thousands dead in the WTO -- OBL saying it is every muslim's duty to aquire and use WMDs against the US, the US Cole attack... there are many many others... Is it a scripted Nazi Plot when we ARE under attack?
Did _IRAQ_ attack USA? No? That's what I thought... Yet prior to the war US Media was full of "OMG, Iraq plots to destroy USA, we must attack!"-bullshit.
What I am suggesting is that Iraq could have been a source of WMDs for terrorists
Have you found any of those WMD's? No? Then how could Iraq be a "source of WMD's for terrorists" if they don't have any WMD's? And why would Iraq be that source, and not USA for example? Or Pakistan? Hell, they have nukes, and one of their nuclear scientists had leaked nuclear-secrets to "third parties", yet you didn't seem to care much about that.
So, some people had ASSumptions that Iraq has WMD's. There was zero evidence to back that ASSumption up. they also ASSumed that they were about to give them to terrorists. Again, there was zero evidence to back that up. But still, it was a good enough reason to attack. On the other hand, we have Pakistan, a country where democratic government was replaced in a military coup. They have WMDs, and that is a known fact. They also revealed their nuclear secrets to third parties, that is also a fact. Yet USA doesn't do a thing? Why get your panties in a bunch over Iraq, but not Pakistan?
That we will soon see SCO/AdTI press-releases saying "we were right! There are serious problems with the way Linux-hackers handle the code! After all, if there are no problems, why are they taking these steps to correct the situation? This proves once and for all that our claims regarding Linux are true!"
Why does he mention that "the Left was unable to notice the urgency of the situation" (or some other crap like that) Why single out the left, and not the right? Is he suggesting that nazis were right-wing? Hell, Nazis were more left-wing that right-wing! The name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutche Arbeitspartei for crying out loud!
Just take a look at their program! It has numerous leftist points in it (among others, nationalization of companies, profit-sharing, communal control of department-stores etc.). I really fail to see why Nazis are considered to be right-wing.
Every time someone makes comparison between modern-day USA and Nazi-Germany, I'm reminded by the comment Hermann Goering made at the Nurenberg Trials:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to a greater danger. It works the same in any country."
Scary stuff, and oh so real. Even in modern-day USA.
being a democratic nation has nothing to do with friendliness of the USA. USA (and Britain) orchestrated a removal of democratic regime of Iran, and replaced it with a brutal military dictator (Shah). Ever wonder why the Iranians hate and distrust the USA?
Or how about Chile, where democratically elected president was overthrown in CIA-backed coup? Replacing the president was Augusto Pinochet, another brutal military dictator.
Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist you dumbfuck. He was hated by all religous fundamentalists. Osama referred to him as "the communist". Before the war did you ever see a picture of him in fundamentalist garb? Did you ever see a picture of him praying? Did you ever see him with a beard that all muslim fundamentalists wear?
Not only that, but Tariq Aziz, his debuty prime-minister and his right hand when dealing with the outside world, was a frigging Christian!
And that if its troops screw up and start oppressing those under they control, the US will ADMIT it, INVESTIGATE it, REMOVE them from their posts and TRY them for crimes.
It seems that many of the pictures of abused Iraqi prisoners were taken with cameraphones. As a result, US Defence Secretary has banned cameraphones in Iraq.
US Soldiers torture prisoners in Iraq. As a result, token number of troops get sentenced and steps are taken to make sure that pictures of future "incidents" don't get released to the media.
Actually, I think Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste are great movies. True, they had minimal budget on both (Sometimes I wonder whether they had any money at all when they made Bad Taste), but that doesn't change the fact that they are good movies. Not for everyone, sure, but good movies regardless.
This isn't a valid argument "If PowerPC (for example) is SOOOO much better, why doesn't it wipe the floor with x86? Sure, it's competetive, but it does not annihilate x86
". Unfortunately, the best tech solution doesn't always win.
Well, apparently x86 is crappy. It's "70's technology". If it's so damn crappy, why aren't any of the "better" CPU's wiping the floor with x86? I'm not talking about popularity here, I'm talking about performance. If x86 is so damn crappy, how come it performs so well with so little money when compared to some of those "better" CPU's? How come those "better" CPU's are only suitable for running Photoshop-filters [flamesuit = ON]?
Like I said, there ARE faster CPU's out there. But they also cost alot more and they usually get their performance by having lots and lots of cache, and not by being "better CPU-architecture". How well would Opteron 150 (for example) perform if it had 8 megs of L2-cache?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm trying to do that with my SO, but I'm getting mixed singals. Let's see...
- She's one of those who want to spend time together and talk. And that means that she doesn't like it when I sit in front of the computer and play games
- I tried to get her play Sims, but she hated it. No luck with Europe Universalis II either. She did try Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin and seemed to like it somewhat. Weird.
- She has no problems using Linux/KDE
- She hates Outlook Express. Her favourite email-client is Pine!
Sometimes I feel that there is a way to bring her over to the dark side. But then my hopes gets squashed. I think I just need to find a game that she would really enjoy...
ESR is a egoistic windbag. I would much rather see Pamela Jones receive the award.
damn stright! I read the Xfree mailing-list around the time when Keith Packard was kicked out of Xfree. David Wexelblat was flaming Keith like there's no tomorrow. Now, Keith is just about the best thing that has happened to X in a long time. He was the one who made all those cool new features (like RENDER-extension). He was the one who was driving the developement of Xfree forward. And they kicked him out.
Who is this Wexelblat-guy who was flaming Keith? He's one of the guys who started Xfree and a member of the core-team. By his own admission, he doesn't hack Xfree anymore. He doesn't even USE Xfree anymore. He said that he uses Windows these days. Only X-related thing he does is that he lurks in the mailinglist.
Keith Packard gets kicked out, while useless deadbeats like Wexelblat are member of the Core. I'd say the sooner Xfree dies off, the better.
Xfree has been officially depreciated on AMD64. If you run Gentoo on AMD64 and decide to install X, X.org is what you'll get.
See for yourself
Since guns are easily available elsewhere in the USA; it's a relatively simple matter to bring the to D.C.. But if the guns were also illegal elsewhere, where would those thugs get their guns? Right now they can get them outside D.C.
Where would those criminals get thier guns if they are outlawed? Sure, SOME guns would be smuggled in to the country regardless, but they wouldn't be anywhere as easily available to criminals as they are right now.
Marijuana is relatively simple to grow. Just about anyone could do it, if they spend any time studying botanics. But how many would know how to construct a firearm from scratch? Or how about manufacturing bullets?
Comparing guns to marijuana is comparing apples to oranges, Einstein.
YOu CAN use lethal force to protect your life or life of your loved-ones. That is a fact. Of course proving that you had to kill the assailant is going to be difficult (naturally), but the law does not prevent you from using lethal force.
I live in Finland, and I have the right to defend myself or my loved ones, using any means necessary. That includes using lethal force, including guns. That was told me by a police-officer in my Krav Maga-class.
Related to that, I have the right to remove any individual from my home, if he's there against my will. If he refuses to leave, I can use any methods necessary to remove the individual.
If your mother lived in Finland, and she had a permit for her gun, she would be well within her rights to use it to defend herself. So the knee-jerk reaction of "OMG! The Europeans are at the mercy of criminals and thugs!" is just plain nonsense
FYI: the amount of swap does not have to be double the amount of RAM. It used to be like that, but it hasn't been so in years.
Yes it's a theory. What REALLY happened back then was that Jesus collided with Earth at faster than light speed. His speed was so great, that the explosion it caused wiped the dinosaurs out.
That theory would be good, since it implies the existence of God and Jesus, therefore being OK with the bible-bashers among us.
Have there been some individual artillery-rounds/etc. found in Iraq? Yes. Have you found any large-scale weapons-programs, large stockpiles of weapons etc.? No.
Or they took them from some abandoned warehouses, which have some miscellianous rounds lying about. Or they found some leftover rounds from Iraq-Iran-war that still litter the landscape.
Hell, you have had a long time now to find those huge stockpiles of weapons. You can go where-ever you please, you interrogate anyone you want, yet you haven't found anything worthwhile! Hell, you were able to find Saddam, even though he was hiding in some concealed hole in some far-off location, yet you can't find those huge stockpiles of weapons? puh-leese!
So, if USA is attacked with WMD's, it automatically proves that Iraq had WMD's? Sure, no need to actually verify where it came from, it must have come from Iraq! After all, that's what the government told us!
I find it rather funny that Americans always seem to be wary of the government, yet they happily eat whatever party-line the government spoon-feeds them.
How do you know that my negative opinion about GWB and rest of the high ranking officials of the US Administration (like that better?) is formed on emotion and not because of facts? Facts are that GWB invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Fact is that he has locked up foreign nationals without due process. Fact is that he singlehandedly squandered huge international support he had with his "either you are with us, or you are against us"-bullshit.
Same could be said about GWB. He's the one running around like some cowboy with a six-shooter. What makes GWB the ultimate authority on who is fit to rule and who is not?
Awwww, USA goes to war because the feel the pain of the Iraqi people. How sweet of you.
For some reason I have hard time believing that USA went to war because Saddam was a bad man. Of course you did it because you saw an opportunity to benefit from it.
Well USA was one of the countries that supplied Iraq with those WMD's in the first place. Maybe USA should be invaded because you supply WMD's to "rogue nations"?
And the fact is that no WMD's have been found. Oh wait, they have found ONE artillery-shell with sarin. Clear evidence that Iraq was full of WMD's and that they were supplying them to terrorists, right?
I have never even heard of "Kaye report", I don't keep that close tabs on what goes on in US Senate. I did Google for the report, and I found bunch of articles which said that US refuses to share information of that report.
Fact is that they haven't found any WMD's in Iraq. No matter how you twist and turn it, that is a fact. And remember, this war was (supposedly) because Iraq is full of WMD's. Only after it became apparent that there are no WMD's there, the war turned from "getting rid of WMD's" in to "bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq".
It seems that GWB lives in the same world as I do eh? After all, his solution to "complex problem" is to invade and kill
Good for you. So, have they found those WMD's yet? Or was GWB and rest of his gang lying when they said iraq is full of WMD's? Or were they simply incompetent?
I'll take that as "no, no WMD's have been found"
When Iraq used WMD's against Iran and Kurds, USA didn't seem to have that much to complain back then. Did you invade Iraq when they gassed the Iranians? Or when they gassed the Kurds? No? But now you are invading them close to 20 years after they did that?
You haven't been flying over their airspace, now have you?
USA has done that (Castro for example, although they failed), should USA be invaded? Or how about getting rid of "unwanted" rulers? Like in Iran and Chile for example (the President of Chile was in fact shot after the CIA-orchestrated coup).
BTW, which assasination are you referring to?
yes it was. Powell, Bush and the rest were blabbering all the time how "Iraq has WMD's, we must attack". Only after it became apparent that there are no WMD's there, they started their "this war is about liberating the people of Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq"-bullshit.
Pre-emptive strike eh? So, if rest of the world started to feel that USA was becoming a clear threat to the security of the world, they would be justified in attacking USA?
Did _IRAQ_ attack USA? No? That's what I thought... Yet prior to the war US Media was full of "OMG, Iraq plots to destroy USA, we must attack!"-bullshit.
Have you found any of those WMD's? No? Then how could Iraq be a "source of WMD's for terrorists" if they don't have any WMD's? And why would Iraq be that source, and not USA for example? Or Pakistan? Hell, they have nukes, and one of their nuclear scientists had leaked nuclear-secrets to "third parties", yet you didn't seem to care much about that.
So, some people had ASSumptions that Iraq has WMD's. There was zero evidence to back that ASSumption up. they also ASSumed that they were about to give them to terrorists. Again, there was zero evidence to back that up. But still, it was a good enough reason to attack. On the other hand, we have Pakistan, a country where democratic government was replaced in a military coup. They have WMDs, and that is a known fact. They also revealed their nuclear secrets to third parties, that is also a fact. Yet USA doesn't do a thing? Why get your panties in a bunch over Iraq, but not Pakistan?
That we will soon see SCO/AdTI press-releases saying "we were right! There are serious problems with the way Linux-hackers handle the code! After all, if there are no problems, why are they taking these steps to correct the situation? This proves once and for all that our claims regarding Linux are true!"
Why does he mention that "the Left was unable to notice the urgency of the situation" (or some other crap like that) Why single out the left, and not the right? Is he suggesting that nazis were right-wing? Hell, Nazis were more left-wing that right-wing! The name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutche Arbeitspartei for crying out loud!
Just take a look at their program! It has numerous leftist points in it (among others, nationalization of companies, profit-sharing, communal control of department-stores etc.). I really fail to see why Nazis are considered to be right-wing.
Every time someone makes comparison between modern-day USA and Nazi-Germany, I'm reminded by the comment Hermann Goering made at the Nurenberg Trials:
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to a greater danger. It works the same in any country."
Scary stuff, and oh so real. Even in modern-day USA.
being a democratic nation has nothing to do with friendliness of the USA. USA (and Britain) orchestrated a removal of democratic regime of Iran, and replaced it with a brutal military dictator (Shah). Ever wonder why the Iranians hate and distrust the USA?
Or how about Chile, where democratically elected president was overthrown in CIA-backed coup? Replacing the president was Augusto Pinochet, another brutal military dictator.
Not only that, but Tariq Aziz, his debuty prime-minister and his right hand when dealing with the outside world, was a frigging Christian!
It seems that many of the pictures of abused Iraqi prisoners were taken with cameraphones. As a result, US Defence Secretary has banned cameraphones in Iraq.
US Soldiers torture prisoners in Iraq. As a result, token number of troops get sentenced and steps are taken to make sure that pictures of future "incidents" don't get released to the media.
Actually, I think Meet the Feebles and Bad Taste are great movies. True, they had minimal budget on both (Sometimes I wonder whether they had any money at all when they made Bad Taste), but that doesn't change the fact that they are good movies. Not for everyone, sure, but good movies regardless.
Well, Apple uses GCC as their compiler, they obviously believe that it's well enough optimized for G4/G5
Well, apparently x86 is crappy. It's "70's technology". If it's so damn crappy, why aren't any of the "better" CPU's wiping the floor with x86? I'm not talking about popularity here, I'm talking about performance. If x86 is so damn crappy, how come it performs so well with so little money when compared to some of those "better" CPU's? How come those "better" CPU's are only suitable for running Photoshop-filters [flamesuit = ON]?
Like I said, there ARE faster CPU's out there. But they also cost alot more and they usually get their performance by having lots and lots of cache, and not by being "better CPU-architecture". How well would Opteron 150 (for example) perform if it had 8 megs of L2-cache?