Just as there is a danger in premature optimization, there is a danger in premature generalization. If we want to talk about all women who pose naked we will have a far different conversation than if we talk about any specific set. While your assertion on a general level may be true, you seem to be saying that since it's true generally (a thing that has not been proven to my satisfaction) it must be true in this case with this set of women.
Well, first off all, the point I'm disagreeing with is that there's nothing wrong with posing in the nude in general, so I don't feel I have to defend my position with the SGs.
So movie stars, singers, and so forth are lacking in this nebulous 'self worth'? A lot of them certainly seem to enjoy the attention.
I personally think the fan adoration is harmful for people like Brittney Spears. However, I'm not really going to get into that.
I seriously disagree with you there. While it is *possible* that engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers means rge actor has psychological problems, I would assert that cases in which that is true are by far the exception, not the rule (as you seem to imply).
What is common then, that most women who pose nude just do it for kicks? I think that's the utopia that men who enjoy looking at porn tell themselves, but I've never met a woman who actually wanted her body to be exploited sexually--whether in person or on photo.
Your position seems to be that there is no way in which there could be people on the other end who do like, or at least are not damaged by, doing what they are doing. This seems like an arrogant and largelky baseless assertion to me.
I can see where arrogance would be perceived--after all, I'm basically saying that what tens of thousands of women do is wrong, and more than that, "not good for them." However, I'm not saying that it ought to be illegal--they have the right to choose to do it. But we also have the right to choose not to look at porn, and also determine for ourselves whether or not we think that posing nakid is morally acceptable.
The fact that *some* or even *most* probably don't like doing it is not so important to the discussion.
I can see where I think you're going with this--it seems unfair for me to pronounce 'judgement' on a whole class of people and judge them for what they choose to do, even if I were correct in that they lead self-damaging lives. But my point is not to pronounce 'judgement' just give a good reason why both myself and many others have a decent reason to think that there is "something wrong" with posing naked.
Let me spell it out for you, sunshine: the prejudice for which I'm taking you to task was in your charmingly patronizing pop-psych assertion that their "self-worth" is "dependent on sexually arousing the opposite sex".
Patronizing? This is just my belief that I'm not requiring you to share. But I think basic psychology (at least how I've studied it) agrees with me here.
Actually, you are profoundly ignorant on the matter, and knowing precisely squat about why any of the SG models does what she does, you smugly assert your prejudice as fact.
I never did once. In fact twice I have mentioned that this 'prejudice' is my opinion not fact. Besides, I'm talking about posing/"acting" in the nude here, not the suicide girls specifically. I think this is where your confusion is (of course, inasmuch as I have jumped to conclusions about suicide girls, you have jumped to conclusions about my intentions).
Why is it I always see that phrase when someone like you is arguing vehemently against their own straw-man?
My motivation isn't to "spar" with you, so bringing out a "straw man" is totally not my intention. If I have, please point it out.
If you're talking about me making broad generalizations about women posing in the nude and imputing them with the SuicideGirls, please read your post I was originally responding to:
in the end they're taking their clothes off for money.
Sure, but what's wrong with that?
I was attempting to tell you one of the reasons I thing taking your clothes off for money is wrong.
Earlier in the thread, the concept of the SG's not posing for profit was sufficiently debunked. In fact, you seemed to agree with it:
Well sure, SG is even more pretentious than Playboy, but AFAIKT, they do believe their own drivel. Some of their girls look pretty good though, if you can imagine them without the hardware acoutrements.
Please, what argument was I trying to prove and what irrelevant argument was I using as a straw-man?
Get over yourself.
They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.
Putting these statements together, I'm having a hard time making sense of this.
What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?
Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression."
But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context.
Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation.
At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general. I apologize if you feel as if I'm putting words in your mouth, or if it seems like I have a larger axe to grind.
Your so-called "point" is nothing more than your projection of your own prejudice onto people that you don't know.
I don't know a single suicide girl, but I'm not wholly ignorant on the matter.
I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others).
The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity.
The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!
I know you probably think I'm this total nut who can't see the world outside of his own narrow perspective. I'd say you're right, but that's the condition humanity has always been in. It is my hope that through honest discourse we can look past ourselves for a minute.
In my case, that means accepting that while watching women in sexual acts might be gratifying, there are people at the other end of the computer screen that probably don't really like having to do what they're doing.
Do you know these girls? Do you have any basis at all for your speculation about how they derive their sense of self-worth?
For most of us, our sense of self-worth comes from what we provide others. You don't have to accept this premise; and if you don't, then you don't have to accept my conclusion. However, I wrote my post to express what my problems were with the parent.
They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.
You obviously don't believe that I can't tell the factual difference between posing naked and prostituting oneself (if not, I wouldn't be able to complete this sentence).
I attribute your refusing to understand my point as a means of warding off the potential moral convictions regarding viewing pornography. There's no other way a person of your intelligence could not know that I was speaking metaphorically.
Technically, a prostitute doesn't even 'sell' her body. She rents it.
Please, reread my post and just try and understand my point. You may find it completely ridiculous--that's ok.
I, however, think women ought to bring more to the world than just jerk-off material, and not for my sake, but for theirs. I don't think you can become a sex object and not suffer from losing your humanity.
People are sheep, they will protest whatever a stronger, more influental person tells them too. Hence religion.
Hence religion bashing. Of course, how ideas make us feel is much less important next to their validity.
My point is, looking at porn could very well be damaging to society. We just tend to quietly kill the messenger whenever we hear this, because we know that the folks telling us that porn is wrong have just as many problems "upstairs" as the rest of us.
I think what we really hate is having limits imposed on us by people that are no more richeous than the rest of us.
This is taking the assumption that these rules are coming from other human beings--an assumption not shared by those seeking to ban or limit pornography.
My two cents? The effects of porn are quite damaging. However, I personally think that lusting and masturbation are equally damaging. And I also think there is no way you could get through life without doing them.
I really wish I could both appreciate the natural beauty of women and also keep my dirty mind off of them.
I think most porn-addicts, if they let themselves really listen to their more inner selves, would realize that porn is a real disease.
I mean, those women are often feeding drug addictions--being forced to have "sex" with other women to pay the bills. They're being hugely exploited because of some terrible choices they've made. No one out there is willing to cut them a break.
Even the rich ones--I still don't envy their life.
I can't even begin to look at porn without thinking about not only the effects it will have on me but what horrible circumnstances probably surround the "actresses."
As far as moral absolutism/relativism is concerned, I think morality speaks loud and clear in this case.
Um, a lot of things. Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex. In this case, they try and hide that by claiming they pose naked for more respectable reasons, but the truth is when you make yourself out to be an object of lust you soon get all of the problems that come with actually being one.
I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.
Anyone who thinks about posting some "Gentoo zealots annoy me" crap (including people who have that in their signatures)
I believe you're talking about me.
Well, you'll find they come out a lot when new software is released.
For example, GZ posts often look like this:
I'm already emerging it. Guess the rest of you guys will have to wait...
I see a lot more Gentoo Zealots these days in other websites like OSNews, for example.
I have nothing against Gentoo--in fact I used LFS systems exclusively for about six months. I really only see a zealot come around about once a week these days--I just keep the signature because of all the replies that create a Gentoo plug out of whatever the topic at hand is.
I applaud Gentoo developers--it's a very well maintained distribution. I've heard horror stories of people having systems breake with a single emerge command, and I personally wouldn't use Gentoo because it does too much hand holding, but hey, to each his own.
Does it really matter what the president's opinion on outsourcing is anyways?
I mean, what's Bush going to do, propose tax increases for big companies?
Outsourcing is caused by business being really expensive here in the US--in fact, so expensive that moving entire factories and buildings overseas ends up saving the company money.
I'm not really a Republican (because somehow they've gone crazy in the last 10 years or so) but it would seem that legislation that would make inland business less expensive would be more of a Republican thing.
The faceless nature of a corporation does not care who you are, your aspirations unrelated to the workplace and your current situation. They merely want your skills and labor. This is a concept that trickles down the management chain, unfortunately less by force but by those who want to "succeed". Personally, I'll take a heaping helping of poverty over that kind of success.
Hmm...good for you. Standing up to those evil corporations. I'm glad to see your sense of morality is intact...
I have gotten my "revenge" through a couple of well-placed timebombs in my scripts, and occasionally I'll create new accounts to bid and accept projects that are extremely vile (yes, there are lines) just to let them fall by the wayside.:) One time I configured a DNSBL for a spammer. Hope he doesn't plan to get mail from those hosts.:)
And you feel morally justified because of the corporate jerks that apparently screw everyone over? If not, then why did you include the bit about why you choose to work freelance? Why not just say "I work freelance, and sometimes I need to do work for spammers to pay the bills." This is a bit like a model posing naked to pay rent, but I can accept it.
It's just a bit annoying that you open up putting yourself on the moral high ground. You refuse to find work at a corporation, that could pay your bills, and yet because of moral qualms with corporations, you choose to do freelance work, which ends up involving spam jobs.
OTOH, I worked 80 hours last week for $40.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, but I just can't sympathize with you as long as you're convinced that morality only applies to people in charge.
You're perfectly right--and the only way to stop terrorism is to...
A better way to stop spam is to have intelligent anti-spam filtering.
I set up all my mail servers to block spam at SMTP time, so the spam doesn't even waste disk space.
Saying we need to use the government to stop spam seems like saying we need the government to tell us who to let in our front doors with because we can't figure out a way to determine if the guy outside is a salesman or not.
Here's an example: I'm running xorg 6.8.0 with a matrox g400. Turning on composite makes things look really pretty, but it's unbelievably slow. I'm sure composite will get optimized, but I would buy a card that could do composite as efficiently as, say, Quartz, in a heartbeat.
I can see you've had more first hand experience with Gentoo zealots--I'm sorry:)
I personally use Crux, which basically amounts to me writing my own packages for most of the stuff I use that isn't common, and me modifying the packages in the ports to for most of the stuff that is common.
Hence, I pretty much do most of the testing, so that aspect doesn't bother me, but I certainly can understand how it would bother someone else, especially if the people that ought to be helping are trying to convince you there isn't even a problem.
If you reject spam at SMTP time, then the person sending the mail will know right away. You could even send back a report as to why the mail was marked as spam.
If you look at how spamassassin works, for example, it's a lot of little things. You can actually send back what each of those little things were, by sending back SA's report.
That's the first good response this.sig has gotten, in about 6 months of having it.
Just between you and me, I'm starting work on a package manager in perl...I've gotten it to parse specfiles already.
What it does is build the package with every possible dependency and build flag configuration, and store the differences between each build. This will result in potentially larger packages (if the packager chooses to include every option in the specfile), but it will create fully portable binary packages so that the end user can have dependency control with a tool like apt!
I'll post a journal entry when I'm ready to go sourceforge.
Re:I find this quote more interesting
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 1
I agree that if you as the developer don't mind that companies take your code and use it in their proprietary code, than the BSD license is fine.
If, however, you value the freedoms that an OSI license gives your software, then you don't want your license to grant others the ability to take away those freedoms.
I'm not an advocate for everyone using the GPL--I just disagree with the sentiment that the BSD License is "more free," because it's an oversimplification. When I write code, I don't want other people to use that code to take away those freedoms from their customers. You might not care, but at this point the debate isn't about being "more" or "less" "free," but rather more about author discretion.
Yeah, but man, when coupled with yours, the two together sure is.
Re:I find this quote more interesting
on
Linus Interviewed
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Your comparison is incorrect. The GPL prevents you from taking the code and leaving the community with it, not restricting your use while being "part of it."
Anti-GPL arguments tend to boil down to one issue--if the code were truly "free," then you ought to be able to do anything you want with it, including slipping the original authors a deuce and taking the code and making it proprietary.
The GPL isn't designed to protect the code, it's designed to protect the community that wrote the code.
I think I saw one of the examples the AC grandparent was referring to the other night on Real Time.
The liberal guest accused Bush of trying to start the Armageddon.
I hear that argument around here too--the guy on the show gave absolutely no evidence and everyone in the audience entered a state of rapture for it.
I'm not saying this isn't a possibility, but the accusation is a really heavy one--the guy accused Bush of wanting to start a war that would, according to his beliefs, kill 2 billion people. 2 billion people.
If you really believe that (and you'd better have some evidence), then you shouldn't be clapping and laughing about it, you should be on the phone with your congressman and senators telling them to call a special hearing to discuss Bush's impeachment.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as there is a danger in premature optimization, there is a danger in premature generalization. If we want to talk about all women who pose naked we will have a far different conversation than if we talk about any specific set. While your assertion on a general level may be true, you seem to be saying that since it's true generally (a thing that has not been proven to my satisfaction) it must be true in this case with this set of women.
Well, first off all, the point I'm disagreeing with is that there's nothing wrong with posing in the nude in general, so I don't feel I have to defend my position with the SGs.
So movie stars, singers, and so forth are lacking in this nebulous 'self worth'? A lot of them certainly seem to enjoy the attention.
I personally think the fan adoration is harmful for people like Brittney Spears. However, I'm not really going to get into that.
I seriously disagree with you there. While it is *possible* that engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers means rge actor has psychological problems, I would assert that cases in which that is true are by far the exception, not the rule (as you seem to imply).
What is common then, that most women who pose nude just do it for kicks? I think that's the utopia that men who enjoy looking at porn tell themselves, but I've never met a woman who actually wanted her body to be exploited sexually--whether in person or on photo.
Your position seems to be that there is no way in which there could be people on the other end who do like, or at least are not damaged by, doing what they are doing. This seems like an arrogant and largelky baseless assertion to me.
I can see where arrogance would be perceived--after all, I'm basically saying that what tens of thousands of women do is wrong, and more than that, "not good for them." However, I'm not saying that it ought to be illegal--they have the right to choose to do it. But we also have the right to choose not to look at porn, and also determine for ourselves whether or not we think that posing nakid is morally acceptable.
The fact that *some* or even *most* probably don't like doing it is not so important to the discussion.
I can see where I think you're going with this--it seems unfair for me to pronounce 'judgement' on a whole class of people and judge them for what they choose to do, even if I were correct in that they lead self-damaging lives. But my point is not to pronounce 'judgement' just give a good reason why both myself and many others have a decent reason to think that there is "something wrong" with posing naked.
Let me spell it out for you, sunshine: the prejudice for which I'm taking you to task was in your charmingly patronizing pop-psych assertion that their "self-worth" is "dependent on sexually arousing the opposite sex".
Patronizing? This is just my belief that I'm not requiring you to share. But I think basic psychology (at least how I've studied it) agrees with me here.
Actually, you are profoundly ignorant on the matter, and knowing precisely squat about why any of the SG models does what she does, you smugly assert your prejudice as fact.
I never did once. In fact twice I have mentioned that this 'prejudice' is my opinion not fact. Besides, I'm talking about posing/"acting" in the nude here, not the suicide girls specifically. I think this is where your confusion is (of course, inasmuch as I have jumped to conclusions about suicide girls, you have jumped to conclusions about my intentions).
Why is it I always see that phrase when someone like you is arguing vehemently against their own straw-man?
My motivation isn't to "spar" with you, so bringing out a "straw man" is totally not my intention. If I have, please point it out.
If you're talking about me making broad generalizations about women posing in the nude and imputing them with the SuicideGirls, please read your post I was originally responding to:
Sure, but what's wrong with that?I was attempting to tell you one of the reasons I thing taking your clothes off for money is wrong.
Earlier in the thread, the concept of the SG's not posing for profit was sufficiently debunked. In fact, you seemed to agree with it:
Well sure, SG is even more pretentious than Playboy, but AFAIKT, they do believe their own drivel. Some of their girls look pretty good though, if you can imagine them without the hardware acoutrements.
Please, what argument was I trying to prove and what irrelevant argument was I using as a straw-man?
Get over yourself.
They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.
Putting these statements together, I'm having a hard time making sense of this.
What is my prejudice? That women shouldn't show their naked bodies for money?
Fine, I'm prejudiced. I'm not requiring you to join with me in this antiquated, prosaic ideology of sexual "suppression."
But I think you have a far stronger prejudice here which you are projecting--that our sexuality has no boundaries, and thus no room for deviation. Yet there isn't a single pair of eyes reading Slashdot that doesn't think at least some act of sexuality is perverse. There are boundaries, and I very much believe that selling your own sexuality, be it the act or the photographict depictions of the act, is damaging to both the viewer and the model. You can draw the line at pedastasy and necrophilia, I'll draw it sex without proper emotional context.
Yet now there's a moral absolute drawn by the sexual liberation crowd--an absolute that has absolutely no rational context surrounding it. Normalcy cannot exist without definitions, therefore by extension, neither can deviation.
At this point I'm not so much refuting your point as I am refuting "sexual liberation" in general. I apologize if you feel as if I'm putting words in your mouth, or if it seems like I have a larger axe to grind.
Your so-called "point" is nothing more than your projection of your own prejudice onto people that you don't know.
I don't know a single suicide girl, but I'm not wholly ignorant on the matter.
I'll assume the opposite of my premise--that these women (and by these I mean not just SG's) really do find self-realization or at least gratification by their line of work. That would mean that either they enjoy being naked for the sake of being naked, or they enjoy being naked for the attention (i.e. for the reaction they get from themselves, or the reaction they get from others).
The first case is unlikely, because we all spend ample time naked by ourselves. That need is already fulfilled. There could be a case for combining this theoretical enjoyment derived from nakedness with earning wage, but this is a real stretch. I'm going to dismiss it on grounds of absurdity.
The second case actually works for my position Engaging in any act in order to solicit attention from strangers suggests serious psychological problems, not the least of which is self worth!
I know you probably think I'm this total nut who can't see the world outside of his own narrow perspective. I'd say you're right, but that's the condition humanity has always been in. It is my hope that through honest discourse we can look past ourselves for a minute.
In my case, that means accepting that while watching women in sexual acts might be gratifying, there are people at the other end of the computer screen that probably don't really like having to do what they're doing.
Do you know these girls? Do you have any basis at all for your speculation about how they derive their sense of self-worth?
For most of us, our sense of self-worth comes from what we provide others. You don't have to accept this premise; and if you don't, then you don't have to accept my conclusion. However, I wrote my post to express what my problems were with the parent.
They're not selling their bodies, they're showing their bodies, and if you can't tell the difference, then you need some serious professional help.You obviously don't believe that I can't tell the factual difference between posing naked and prostituting oneself (if not, I wouldn't be able to complete this sentence).
I attribute your refusing to understand my point as a means of warding off the potential moral convictions regarding viewing pornography. There's no other way a person of your intelligence could not know that I was speaking metaphorically.
Technically, a prostitute doesn't even 'sell' her body. She rents it.
Please, reread my post and just try and understand my point. You may find it completely ridiculous--that's ok.
I, however, think women ought to bring more to the world than just jerk-off material, and not for my sake, but for theirs. I don't think you can become a sex object and not suffer from losing your humanity.
Hence religion bashing. Of course, how ideas make us feel is much less important next to their validity.
My point is, looking at porn could very well be damaging to society. We just tend to quietly kill the messenger whenever we hear this, because we know that the folks telling us that porn is wrong have just as many problems "upstairs" as the rest of us.
I think what we really hate is having limits imposed on us by people that are no more richeous than the rest of us.
This is taking the assumption that these rules are coming from other human beings--an assumption not shared by those seeking to ban or limit pornography.
My two cents? The effects of porn are quite damaging. However, I personally think that lusting and masturbation are equally damaging. And I also think there is no way you could get through life without doing them.
I really wish I could both appreciate the natural beauty of women and also keep my dirty mind off of them.
I think most porn-addicts, if they let themselves really listen to their more inner selves, would realize that porn is a real disease.
I mean, those women are often feeding drug addictions--being forced to have "sex" with other women to pay the bills. They're being hugely exploited because of some terrible choices they've made. No one out there is willing to cut them a break.
Even the rich ones--I still don't envy their life.
I can't even begin to look at porn without thinking about not only the effects it will have on me but what horrible circumnstances probably surround the "actresses."
As far as moral absolutism/relativism is concerned, I think morality speaks loud and clear in this case.
Um, a lot of things. Like your sense of self-worth being dependent upon sexually arousing the opposite sex. In this case, they try and hide that by claiming they pose naked for more respectable reasons, but the truth is when you make yourself out to be an object of lust you soon get all of the problems that come with actually being one.
I frankly pity women that choose to pay the bills by selling their bodies.
There's nothing new to me in Gentoo.
I believe you're talking about me.
Well, you'll find they come out a lot when new software is released.
For example, GZ posts often look like this:
I'm already emerging it. Guess the rest of you guys will have to wait...
I see a lot more Gentoo Zealots these days in other websites like OSNews, for example.
I have nothing against Gentoo--in fact I used LFS systems exclusively for about six months. I really only see a zealot come around about once a week these days--I just keep the signature because of all the replies that create a Gentoo plug out of whatever the topic at hand is.
I applaud Gentoo developers--it's a very well maintained distribution. I've heard horror stories of people having systems breake with a single emerge command, and I personally wouldn't use Gentoo because it does too much hand holding, but hey, to each his own.
Picks up sledgehammer
I'm not entirely sure but I think if any candidate manages to get 3% of the popular vote he'll receive some federal funding for the next campaign.
I mean, what's Bush going to do, propose tax increases for big companies?
Outsourcing is caused by business being really expensive here in the US--in fact, so expensive that moving entire factories and buildings overseas ends up saving the company money.
I'm not really a Republican (because somehow they've gone crazy in the last 10 years or so) but it would seem that legislation that would make inland business less expensive would be more of a Republican thing.
Are you sure the nic in that motherboard supports PXE?
The faceless nature of a corporation does not care who you are, your aspirations unrelated to the workplace and your current situation. They merely want your skills and labor. This is a concept that trickles down the management chain, unfortunately less by force but by those who want to "succeed". Personally, I'll take a heaping helping of poverty over that kind of success.
Hmm...good for you. Standing up to those evil corporations. I'm glad to see your sense of morality is intact...
I have gotten my "revenge" through a couple of well-placed timebombs in my scripts, and occasionally I'll create new accounts to bid and accept projects that are extremely vile (yes, there are lines) just to let them fall by the wayside. :) One time I configured a DNSBL for a spammer. Hope he doesn't plan to get mail from those hosts. :)
And you feel morally justified because of the corporate jerks that apparently screw everyone over? If not, then why did you include the bit about why you choose to work freelance? Why not just say "I work freelance, and sometimes I need to do work for spammers to pay the bills." This is a bit like a model posing naked to pay rent, but I can accept it.
It's just a bit annoying that you open up putting yourself on the moral high ground. You refuse to find work at a corporation, that could pay your bills, and yet because of moral qualms with corporations, you choose to do freelance work, which ends up involving spam jobs.
OTOH, I worked 80 hours last week for $40.
I'm genuinely sorry to hear that, but I just can't sympathize with you as long as you're convinced that morality only applies to people in charge.
A better way to stop spam is to have intelligent anti-spam filtering.
I set up all my mail servers to block spam at SMTP time, so the spam doesn't even waste disk space.
Saying we need to use the government to stop spam seems like saying we need the government to tell us who to let in our front doors with because we can't figure out a way to determine if the guy outside is a salesman or not.
Here's an example: I'm running xorg 6.8.0 with a matrox g400. Turning on composite makes things look really pretty, but it's unbelievably slow. I'm sure composite will get optimized, but I would buy a card that could do composite as efficiently as, say, Quartz, in a heartbeat.
What past histories are you thinking about here?
I just don't know if it does or not
The NYT is read pretty much all over the free world.
I personally use Crux, which basically amounts to me writing my own packages for most of the stuff I use that isn't common, and me modifying the packages in the ports to for most of the stuff that is common.
Hence, I pretty much do most of the testing, so that aspect doesn't bother me, but I certainly can understand how it would bother someone else, especially if the people that ought to be helping are trying to convince you there isn't even a problem.
If you look at how spamassassin works, for example, it's a lot of little things. You can actually send back what each of those little things were, by sending back SA's report.
Just between you and me, I'm starting work on a package manager in perl...I've gotten it to parse specfiles already.
What it does is build the package with every possible dependency and build flag configuration, and store the differences between each build. This will result in potentially larger packages (if the packager chooses to include every option in the specfile), but it will create fully portable binary packages so that the end user can have dependency control with a tool like apt!
I'll post a journal entry when I'm ready to go sourceforge.
If, however, you value the freedoms that an OSI license gives your software, then you don't want your license to grant others the ability to take away those freedoms.
I'm not an advocate for everyone using the GPL--I just disagree with the sentiment that the BSD License is "more free," because it's an oversimplification. When I write code, I don't want other people to use that code to take away those freedoms from their customers. You might not care, but at this point the debate isn't about being "more" or "less" "free," but rather more about author discretion.
Yeah, but man, when coupled with yours, the two together sure is.
Anti-GPL arguments tend to boil down to one issue--if the code were truly "free," then you ought to be able to do anything you want with it, including slipping the original authors a deuce and taking the code and making it proprietary.
The GPL isn't designed to protect the code, it's designed to protect the community that wrote the code.
The liberal guest accused Bush of trying to start the Armageddon.
I hear that argument around here too--the guy on the show gave absolutely no evidence and everyone in the audience entered a state of rapture for it.
I'm not saying this isn't a possibility, but the accusation is a really heavy one--the guy accused Bush of wanting to start a war that would, according to his beliefs, kill 2 billion people. 2 billion people.
If you really believe that (and you'd better have some evidence), then you shouldn't be clapping and laughing about it, you should be on the phone with your congressman and senators telling them to call a special hearing to discuss Bush's impeachment.