Productivity is NOT a virtue unto itself. Also just because you (I'm pretty sure erroneously) think that we got democracy before all those damn Eurpeans does not mean we are BETTER... They could have, you know, learned from out mistakes (one of which is the protestant work ethic).
Oh, and am I the only one that finds it ironic that any European would consider an Amarican an "unwashed barbarian"? Ever try standing next to a French woman? She'll have hairy legs and armpits and often reek due to lack of deodarant/showers.
So only our men are unwashed barbarians because they don't shave? Competative swimmers are the only men in western society who are civilized, besides perhaps certain groups of American Indians? How does societal norms for who shaves have any thing to do with cleanliness? Do you (a man, I suppose) shave your armpits/legs?
Of all the defenses of America being "civilized", this is by far the weakest I have ever seen. I would define civilized more by how we treat our fellow citizens, a metric which we fail at.
As an American, I often agree with our European freinds, we really are not as awesome as we think we are. Remember the greek idea of HUBRIS, right? If we continue to think that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread, we probably will have a fairly awesome fall, since we refuse to learn lessons from others.
Looking at America today, I'd say we're really consciously trying to fail as a country. How are we doing against the Euro today, as opposed to a couple years ago?
A contract is not a good contract just because its a contract. I find the whole "non compete" idea unethical. I can see not selling what you developed FOR your employer as an okay stipulation, but things developed while AT your employer is rather moronic.
Say I work for company X, and while in my basement, on my free time (i.e. having nothing to do with company X) I make a really nifty product, that has nothing to do with what I do at company X, now why can company X claim my product as their own?
To put this into broader terms, say that Company X is an electrical engeneering firm, and the think I make in my basement is a novel about muskrat love. Can company X still claim rights?
Lets say a company tells me to sign a contract saying I shall not date redheads (the boss has a fetish, and wants more for himself) is this ethical? What if they tell me I can't BUY a competing product?
They are stepping over a line, my private life has nothing to do with my working life, and my employer should have no right to restrict what I do in my private life.
Also, to be pedantic, I find issue with "...probably reflected his value at the time. If he was more valuable...". What your paid has nothing to do with your value. It has to do with what you get paid. Is someone making minimum wage more valuable than a CEO making seven figures? No. They just get paid more. I know you didn't mean "value as a person", but some people buy this meaning, and its a rather dangerous path of reasoning.
And advertising your political dogma of choice = priceless?
Seriously, I'm getting sick of the partisan menage a trois on/. lately. The libertarian vs. liberal vs. conservative propaganda is getting pretty old. I hope it goes away after the elections.
Libertarians are as ideological (read: not based in reality) as the other dogmas of politics. Yes, too many taxes are bad, and yes corporatism is bad. ANY damn one word political dogma is myopic.
The truth, as always, lies someplace between. Maybe, someday, we'll find it by accident. But in the mean time, can we give it a goddamn rest? People who agree with you, already do, and those who don't won't buy it because of catch phases.
Re:They have a gas analyser, but...
on
Water Ice On Mars
·
· Score: 1
Pedantry aside, in the common language, fuel is the means for energy storage. Gas is ALSO, buy your reasoning, not a fuel, since it merely allows for a chemical reaction which leads to energy.
From what I picked up, the "God" who doesn't like dice, is more of the deist personification of natural law, than a best friend in the sky. The same "God" who America's founding father's talked about, and that most Enlightenment philosopher/naturalists referred to. More akin to Aristotle's "unmoved mover", than to the modern Judeo-Christian gray haired old man.
A metaphorical god, rather than a literal one, would be the most succinct way of putting it, I suppose.
The Bohr/Einstein debate though, is probably the best anecdote for modern science, still. I took a philosophy of science class that used that as the scaffold to hold up the dynamics of the modern history of science (from Maxwell to the more theoretical modern ideas, like super symmetry and strings), it was truly enlightening, even if Bohr "won" in the end.
I'm getting sick of both atheists and the self-justifying religious trying to put Einstein on their side. Einstein is probably the most abused scientist ever, we keep remaking him into what we want him, instead of accepting him as who he was.
The way I see it, conservatives think that business is the end goal of all things, and that we need a healthy underclass to keep things profitable. Thus they want to hand money to corporations, since it should, in theory, move down the ladder. If it doesn't, thats okay, since the CEOs are happy.
Liberals want to accept any populist notion as a good thing, but generally think that the poor needs more support than the rich.
Basically, conservatives steal from the poor and give to the rich, while liberals do the opposite.
Conservativims is generally also tied to ideas of theocracy, while liberalism is tied to PC ideologies, and as stated (somewhat innacurate, since a theocracy is ALSO a nannystate) intituting a nanny state.
So basically we have the relio-fascists versus the nanny-socialists.
Neither seems that... good. Though in practice, they generaly amount to the same thing, turning America into a third world-country though greed, graft, and corruption. Not to mention unrealistic dogmatism.
I'd prefer we had a real progressive party, and a real libertarian party. Convervativism, and Liberalism are a hoax. People who put one above the other are brainwashed. Both sides are equally evil, and both sides are capable of having some good ideas.
What is needed for America is lots of ideological opposition. Open minded opposition.
It was illegal, and unconstitutional. Thats is the issue.
I don't know if your just being flamebait, but the president can go to a FISA court, which will generally give a warrent (like 99.9999999% of the time), so he broke the law for no reason, since secret wiretaps are pretty easy to get.
I don't want the president to have this power when the stakes are this high in the future, since the states AREN'T that high, and really haven't been since the months before 9/11/01.
I'm left with the question: who will protect us from our government?
Lets see the *AA deal with that, imagine the copyright violations!
Though you have to worry about mutations, drift and such. Eventually the picture of your cat will turn into a lolcat, just by pure weight of evolution.
There are also disadvantages (mainly stemming from the slowed pace at which the house/senate would operate). However, the solutions to avoid the gridlock that would ensue carry with them the benefits above.
I thought that congress/house was designed to be slow. Its a feature, not a bug. The slower they are, the more deliberation, and the less the flightly whim of the masses/press matter. Or at least thats how it works in theory.
...all they need is a pass from the President to legalize the wiretap, which he will be happy to produce.
So... we wait 5 months, THEN take them to court. If its Obama I rather doubt he'll present the letter saying that they are peachy keen. If its McCain... We're still screwed.
I wonder if that'd work, actually. Is it a letter from the sitting president, or from the, at the time, presiding president?
It doesn't matter if you vote against them. They'll buy more air time thanks to the telecoms support. More air time, means they'll get elected no matter what (didn't you know our politicians are elected the same way that McDonalds and Coke are sold, with the same level of effectiveness)
With their air time, they'll say "terror" 400 times, mention those evil gays hoping to get married, perhaps say something about how abortionists and stem-cell researchers are going to break into our childrens room, and kill them (if the gays don't get their first). Then they'll wave an American flag. They're as good as elected, at this point.
American voters are, to a large part, absolute morons.
I think/. is rather balanced, and thus can't be catagorized into some universal view.
We have a very LARGE libertarian front, much higher than the world at large, and probably higher than any other internet site. We also have a small, but significant group of traditional socialists or real liberals. Religious conservatives are also represented, there are slightly less than the libertarians, and the socialists, but every topic has one or two of them.
Slashdot is pretty much a mixing bowl for modern technophile ideologies, and really has no concrete agenda. The only agreement is that we are largly pro-privacy, pro-1st amendment (at all costs), and largely against the government being held in corporate hands, or corporate interests becoming government policy. (the bizarre intersections between libertarians, and socialists)
I don't think we are largely against IP, look at the RIAA debates, there is enough dissent to prove that there are opposing opinions represented enough to at least make a VERY lively discussion. I don't think that "we" are fully against IP either, most of us are moderates, who don't believe that it should be held to the same standards as REAL property. Most of us also beleive in the public domain, and fair use, because of this.
The only common theme between all/.ers is that we have an odd fetish for car analogies, and outdated memes.
When has the republicans ever felt that small government was good? They just want a different version of big government. The last 20 years have been dominated by republicans, has the government shrunk, even a little? The things you bring up are just tag lines. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
The mainstream media HAS given a free walk to the Republicans. Look at the ultra-patriotic post-9/11 reporting. The media basically said "he we're going to war, god bless america!" over and over, never actually doing its job. The media exists to beat up the politicians, ALWAYS.
But then again, looking at coverage of the presidential race, the Hilary/Obama race got much more coverage, than the republican side, especially after McCain was the defacto nominee. But then again Hillary and Obama are more news worthy.
Looking at the prime news slot, we have Olbermann, O'Reilly, and Glen Beck. Two of which are ultra-neo-conservative nutbags. While Olbermann is definitely left-leaning. That slot is not liberally biased.
Looking at the big three cable news stations, CNN is slightly right leaning, MSNBC is towards the left, while Fox is... geared towards the lunatic fringe of the right.
Bias is largely in the eyes of the beholder here. If both the Dems and the Repulblicans think the media is against them, it is doing its job.
Family values is a scam, no matter who bandies it about. It just means enforcing someone else's values on your family. I'm sick of the phrase, it just means moral totalitarianism.
The problem with Clinton isn't his tryst, its the fact he lied about it. That has nothing to do with family values, or corruption. Who really cares about anyone elses sex life? Perjury, though, I do care about.
and also ordering a military strike in the thick of his personal and legal mess to take the press off of him?
I haven't seen any evidence of the relation between these two events, outside of pure speculation. Could you please show me documentary evidence that links these events? No, pundits don't count.
The pardons, though, are HIGHLY dubious.
Anyone who holds Bill Clinton as a saint is a moron, but then again anyone who holds anyone as a saint is, at best, naive.
The first half (and a little more) of the Bush years, the republicans held house and congress WERE at fault for much of our current problems. Hence us electing the Dems, who really haven't done a damn thing. They still are too worried about the appearance of 'toughness' to avoid popularity problems. They are a shell of a political party, who refuse to do anything at all. the Republicans though, are moving more and more towards pure fascism, with a side of theocracy.
Just reading news on politics these days makes me shudder, and feel rather ill. America is dying, and we're voting for it's plague.
I wouldn't put the onus of this bias on/., though. I've noticed that the media in general has been publishing more Obama stories than McCain stories. I think there is a good (if not healthy) reason for this, too. Obama is more newsworthy.
Like him, hate him, or indiferent to him, you must admit he something different. And not just racially, but his campain is not quite following the historic pattern, his followers are different. John McCain is just another stodgy white-guy, going for oil executives and big money. No big deal.
Not saying who would actually be the best president, since that's completely subjective. Just who is more interesting.
Though anyone who mouths anything partison, or identifies themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" is in my book a fool. If your political views are so narrow as to fit into a tiny category, your doing it wrong.
I myself an a radical moderate, or more susinctly a a fiscally conservative, social libertarian, with pronounced socialist tendencies, who often veers into dreams of anarchy. What party does that make me? Both parties have insightful stances on several issues, why should I just pick one?
...you must still walk around with something that looks and feels aged, since the casing is torn, the monitor is far from what it used to be (LCD and TFT quality wears out after some time) and the keyboard is probably not what it used to be either.
Who really cares how it looks?
If your just using it is a work-book then the LCD quality isn't that important. Excel will be ugly even using some nice 32bit/pixel wonder display.
Keyboards are a problem, but he replaced it. My old iBook was missing both the;, and the w key, both of which were super glued back on (not pretty, but functional), the touchpad was completely toasted (who uses a touch pad?), I had one or two dead, or terminally stuck pixels. But I still kept it around since it worked, no point in replacing something functional, just because it's old, or not aesthetically pleasing.
The only down side I see is the old processor, which isn't that big an issue if you stick to XP, or throw Ubuntu on it. That, outside of critical failure, is the only thing that dates computers.
What happened to the days of geeks sitting on 500 old, but functional, computers and finding new uses for them? For $100 bucks, you really can't refuse refurbing it, wait a week or so, and then ALSO get an EeePC, double win.
Here a pocket knife isn't a concealed weapon, UNLESS it is double-edged, or over a certain length (6", I think, or roughly as long as your palm held width-wise). Most pocket knives, then, aren't considered concealed weapons. Depending on where you are, and circumstances, most police won't bother you for having something that bend the rules in your pocket.
Anything larger, or double edged, must be worn visible.
I think most states/cites/counties have roughly equivalent laws on this.
By simple ethics, you mean, of course, YOUR version of simple ethics.
My version of "simple" wifi ethics are different than yours. I will use open connections, but I don't use them like my own private connection. I don't hit their bandwidth, I open my mail, I check/., I quickly look up somesthing on Wikipedia, and then I leave. To me this is ethical, I treat people how I'd like to be treated. And I treat their open connection as I would hope the treat my often-open connection (I only bolt it down when I'm using something bandwidth intensive).
If treating people with common courtesy is unethical to you, fine. I can live with that, secure your damn network, and go on with life, since the issue no longer effects you. I'm sick of ethics being a "preachy" point. If you don't like gay marriage, don't go gay and get married, if you don't like "damn dirty leeches", don't do it, nor facilitate it. Last I checked, there was no universal ethics, so stop preaching as if you know them.
For the record, if its hot out, and your hose is near the sidewalk, I will grab a quick drink as well. It doesn't cost you anything (well maybe $.00005 in water), and I don't hold property as the be-all-end-all of all issues.
Wifi is less consequential than my $.00005 "theft" from you, since it costs you nothing. You lose nothing, someone gains something, where is the ethics here? Or is greed and mindless territoriality a basis for ethics now? I always default towards the good of others, if it doesn't hurt me, THIS is ethical.
I'm a geek, and I have no feeling of entitlement. I use whats available, if no harm comes to anyone. I don't feel bad about it, since there is no reason to. I don't even need analogies, or hand waving, since NO HARM COMES OF IT. I'm not in your house, I'm not snooping your network, or reading your bank information, I'm posting on goddamn/., using perhaps a two second small burst of your precious bandwidth. If this disturbs you so much, perhaps you should read the paper more, there are far more disturbing things out there. If you feel "violated" by this, I, not to mince words, don't really care, since your obviously not violated enough to do anything about it. Generally I prefer to use others actions as a guide to their intent, and not handwaving, words, or law.
Bandwidth isn't really that limited of a commodity, especially if the person who bought it isn't using it. When I'm making toast, my connection is wasted, so what do I care if someone uses it?
Oddly, I get:
This Account Has Been Suspended Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible. First I got the error establishing a database connection map, and now this... Man, continental drift sucks.
And finally, can we have less of the silly idea that Gnome and KDE owe anything to OS X - the fact is that modern GUIs share ideas with each other and I could equally argue that OS X stole ideas from the Commodore Amiga Workbench by virtue of the fact that it also used a mouse and you could click on an icon to start a program.
But they DO owe ideas to OS X. This wasn't meant to sound disparaging, just an example of borrowing good bits from other things. Apple did borrow good bits from other places as well (NeXT, PARC/Xerox, etc...) and thus people borrow from Apple. Apple grabbed virtual desktops, and an odd subversion clone from the *nix community, most recently, just to make this seem fair.
Unfortunately, many Apple users consider themselves a breed apart and refuse to accept that without the BSD core to OS X, Apple would have had a much more difficult time to get to a modern desktop environment - but, hey, that's the type of thing BSD and Open Source licensing are designed to do so what's the problem? Just recognise that a lot more people that JUST Linux users owe a debt to the Open Source movement.
BSD is what sold me on OS X, I wouldn't touch anything before it with a ten foot pole, to be honest. OS 9 made WinME look good.
The Linux movement owes a lot to Unix.:) But seriously, I didn't mean to sound like a fanboi either, its just a simple case of misunderstanding. I give massive love to Linux (and OSS in general). I seriously think Linux is among the high points in modern computing, and think that with some current trends it will actually be a contender in the market (things like Ubuntu, and the current version of Gnome and KDE are definitely noteworthy).
I guess my point is that everyone owes everyone some credit.:)
For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?
Eh? Anecdotally; I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and haven't found it too buggy, or at least unstable. Firefox 2 might crash once a month with my usage patterns, which is about on par with most other programs. Not ajusting for use, its even with the two big OSs for stability. Ajusting for use, its still close to them, since how often do you not have a browser window open?
Granted one of the Fx 3 betas crashed regularly due to an odd Java bug, but on tracing it, it seems equally a bad Java installations fault as Firefox's. Also, extentions add a layer of doom to things, since the main devs can't really anticipate what assanine things the addon devs will do.
Hmm... 4 tabs (gmail + 3/., open for about 4 hours), running 3 extentions (adblock+, CS lite, Noscript), and Firefox is take 101,156K, CPU at 3%-10% (counting other processes). On Vista.
I haven't optimized anything yet, not even pipelining, so this isn't as good as it gets.
I'd say the memory bug, if not fixed, is pretty squashed.
I'm a bit of a coffee snob (but not as much as most of this thread, it seems), but I must still step up and defend American (or rather drip/perc/etc) coffee. I prefer to take a large mug of coffee with me when I'm on the go, it lasts longer, and is fitting towards my morning braindeadness, so a good drip pot, or french press, works wonders. If I took an equal quantity of moka or espresso, my head would explode. Imagine commuting to work, chugging a 24oz cup of espresso? Yes, I'd be awake, but also so strung-out to be useless.
Also Americano sucks, even compared to drip. Its too watery, even compared to Mr. Coffee drip coffee.
Another good reason for drip coffee, iced coffee. Double strength coffee, ice (and perhaps some cream), serves me nicely through the hellish summers here (its 107F here, right now, expected 112F). Hot espresso is just too damn hot, when the ambient temp is almost the same as the coffee.
I do, sometimes, wonder why my fellow Americans fail so completely when it comes to coffee and beer. I think its because we deal with them on a utilitarian front, and not a quality/pleasure front. Though drip coffee, done right, can have very nice subtleties, especially done in a good french press, with a quality fresh-ground bean.
Though I still prefer Greek/Turkish coffee, with a hint of cardamon and sugar. The only downside to that, is the time it takes, and finding a quality ibrik.
Slashdot Mirror
Productivity is NOT a virtue unto itself. Also just because you (I'm pretty sure erroneously) think that we got democracy before all those damn Eurpeans does not mean we are BETTER... They could have, you know, learned from out mistakes (one of which is the protestant work ethic).
Oh, and am I the only one that finds it ironic that any European would consider an Amarican an "unwashed barbarian"? Ever try standing next to a French woman? She'll have hairy legs and armpits and often reek due to lack of deodarant/showers.
So only our men are unwashed barbarians because they don't shave? Competative swimmers are the only men in western society who are civilized, besides perhaps certain groups of American Indians? How does societal norms for who shaves have any thing to do with cleanliness? Do you (a man, I suppose) shave your armpits/legs?
Of all the defenses of America being "civilized", this is by far the weakest I have ever seen. I would define civilized more by how we treat our fellow citizens, a metric which we fail at.
As an American, I often agree with our European freinds, we really are not as awesome as we think we are. Remember the greek idea of HUBRIS, right? If we continue to think that we're the greatest thing since sliced bread, we probably will have a fairly awesome fall, since we refuse to learn lessons from others.
Looking at America today, I'd say we're really consciously trying to fail as a country. How are we doing against the Euro today, as opposed to a couple years ago?
A contract is not a good contract just because its a contract. I find the whole "non compete" idea unethical. I can see not selling what you developed FOR your employer as an okay stipulation, but things developed while AT your employer is rather moronic.
Say I work for company X, and while in my basement, on my free time (i.e. having nothing to do with company X) I make a really nifty product, that has nothing to do with what I do at company X, now why can company X claim my product as their own?
To put this into broader terms, say that Company X is an electrical engeneering firm, and the think I make in my basement is a novel about muskrat love. Can company X still claim rights?
Lets say a company tells me to sign a contract saying I shall not date redheads (the boss has a fetish, and wants more for himself) is this ethical? What if they tell me I can't BUY a competing product?
They are stepping over a line, my private life has nothing to do with my working life, and my employer should have no right to restrict what I do in my private life.
Also, to be pedantic, I find issue with "...probably reflected his value at the time. If he was more valuable...". What your paid has nothing to do with your value. It has to do with what you get paid. Is someone making minimum wage more valuable than a CEO making seven figures? No. They just get paid more. I know you didn't mean "value as a person", but some people buy this meaning, and its a rather dangerous path of reasoning.
And advertising your political dogma of choice = priceless?
Seriously, I'm getting sick of the partisan menage a trois on /. lately. The libertarian vs. liberal vs. conservative propaganda is getting pretty old. I hope it goes away after the elections.
Libertarians are as ideological (read: not based in reality) as the other dogmas of politics. Yes, too many taxes are bad, and yes corporatism is bad. ANY damn one word political dogma is myopic.
The truth, as always, lies someplace between. Maybe, someday, we'll find it by accident. But in the mean time, can we give it a goddamn rest? People who agree with you, already do, and those who don't won't buy it because of catch phases.
Pedantry aside, in the common language, fuel is the means for energy storage. Gas is ALSO, buy your reasoning, not a fuel, since it merely allows for a chemical reaction which leads to energy.
Who runs Barter Town?
Bucky runs Barter Town!
From what I picked up, the "God" who doesn't like dice, is more of the deist personification of natural law, than a best friend in the sky. The same "God" who America's founding father's talked about, and that most Enlightenment philosopher/naturalists referred to. More akin to Aristotle's "unmoved mover", than to the modern Judeo-Christian gray haired old man.
A metaphorical god, rather than a literal one, would be the most succinct way of putting it, I suppose.
The Bohr/Einstein debate though, is probably the best anecdote for modern science, still. I took a philosophy of science class that used that as the scaffold to hold up the dynamics of the modern history of science (from Maxwell to the more theoretical modern ideas, like super symmetry and strings), it was truly enlightening, even if Bohr "won" in the end.
I'm getting sick of both atheists and the self-justifying religious trying to put Einstein on their side. Einstein is probably the most abused scientist ever, we keep remaking him into what we want him, instead of accepting him as who he was.
I smell a bit of unthinking bias there.
The way I see it, conservatives think that business is the end goal of all things, and that we need a healthy underclass to keep things profitable. Thus they want to hand money to corporations, since it should, in theory, move down the ladder. If it doesn't, thats okay, since the CEOs are happy.
Liberals want to accept any populist notion as a good thing, but generally think that the poor needs more support than the rich.
Basically, conservatives steal from the poor and give to the rich, while liberals do the opposite.
Conservativims is generally also tied to ideas of theocracy, while liberalism is tied to PC ideologies, and as stated (somewhat innacurate, since a theocracy is ALSO a nannystate) intituting a nanny state.
So basically we have the relio-fascists versus the nanny-socialists.
Neither seems that... good. Though in practice, they generaly amount to the same thing, turning America into a third world-country though greed, graft, and corruption. Not to mention unrealistic dogmatism.
I'd prefer we had a real progressive party, and a real libertarian party. Convervativism, and Liberalism are a hoax. People who put one above the other are brainwashed. Both sides are equally evil, and both sides are capable of having some good ideas.
What is needed for America is lots of ideological opposition. Open minded opposition.
It was illegal, and unconstitutional. Thats is the issue.
I don't know if your just being flamebait, but the president can go to a FISA court, which will generally give a warrent (like 99.9999999% of the time), so he broke the law for no reason, since secret wiretaps are pretty easy to get.
I don't want the president to have this power when the stakes are this high in the future, since the states AREN'T that high, and really haven't been since the months before 9/11/01.
I'm left with the question: who will protect us from our government?
Lets see the *AA deal with that, imagine the copyright violations!
Though you have to worry about mutations, drift and such. Eventually the picture of your cat will turn into a lolcat, just by pure weight of evolution.
Etch it onto stone then, or clay, or gold foil.
There are also disadvantages (mainly stemming from the slowed pace at which the house/senate would operate). However, the solutions to avoid the gridlock that would ensue carry with them the benefits above.
I thought that congress/house was designed to be slow. Its a feature, not a bug. The slower they are, the more deliberation, and the less the flightly whim of the masses/press matter. Or at least thats how it works in theory.
...all they need is a pass from the President to legalize the wiretap, which he will be happy to produce.
So... we wait 5 months, THEN take them to court. If its Obama I rather doubt he'll present the letter saying that they are peachy keen. If its McCain... We're still screwed.
I wonder if that'd work, actually. Is it a letter from the sitting president, or from the, at the time, presiding president?
It doesn't matter if you vote against them. They'll buy more air time thanks to the telecoms support. More air time, means they'll get elected no matter what (didn't you know our politicians are elected the same way that McDonalds and Coke are sold, with the same level of effectiveness)
With their air time, they'll say "terror" 400 times, mention those evil gays hoping to get married, perhaps say something about how abortionists and stem-cell researchers are going to break into our childrens room, and kill them (if the gays don't get their first). Then they'll wave an American flag. They're as good as elected, at this point.
American voters are, to a large part, absolute morons.
I think /. is rather balanced, and thus can't be catagorized into some universal view.
We have a very LARGE libertarian front, much higher than the world at large, and probably higher than any other internet site. We also have a small, but significant group of traditional socialists or real liberals. Religious conservatives are also represented, there are slightly less than the libertarians, and the socialists, but every topic has one or two of them.
Slashdot is pretty much a mixing bowl for modern technophile ideologies, and really has no concrete agenda. The only agreement is that we are largly pro-privacy, pro-1st amendment (at all costs), and largely against the government being held in corporate hands, or corporate interests becoming government policy. (the bizarre intersections between libertarians, and socialists)
I don't think we are largely against IP, look at the RIAA debates, there is enough dissent to prove that there are opposing opinions represented enough to at least make a VERY lively discussion. I don't think that "we" are fully against IP either, most of us are moderates, who don't believe that it should be held to the same standards as REAL property. Most of us also beleive in the public domain, and fair use, because of this.
The only common theme between all /.ers is that we have an odd fetish for car analogies, and outdated memes.
When has the republicans ever felt that small government was good? They just want a different version of big government. The last 20 years have been dominated by republicans, has the government shrunk, even a little? The things you bring up are just tag lines. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.
The mainstream media HAS given a free walk to the Republicans. Look at the ultra-patriotic post-9/11 reporting. The media basically said "he we're going to war, god bless america!" over and over, never actually doing its job. The media exists to beat up the politicians, ALWAYS.
But then again, looking at coverage of the presidential race, the Hilary/Obama race got much more coverage, than the republican side, especially after McCain was the defacto nominee. But then again Hillary and Obama are more news worthy.
Looking at the prime news slot, we have Olbermann, O'Reilly, and Glen Beck. Two of which are ultra-neo-conservative nutbags. While Olbermann is definitely left-leaning. That slot is not liberally biased.
Looking at the big three cable news stations, CNN is slightly right leaning, MSNBC is towards the left, while Fox is... geared towards the lunatic fringe of the right.
Bias is largely in the eyes of the beholder here. If both the Dems and the Repulblicans think the media is against them, it is doing its job.
Family values is a scam, no matter who bandies it about. It just means enforcing someone else's values on your family. I'm sick of the phrase, it just means moral totalitarianism.
The problem with Clinton isn't his tryst, its the fact he lied about it. That has nothing to do with family values, or corruption. Who really cares about anyone elses sex life? Perjury, though, I do care about.
and also ordering a military strike in the thick of his personal and legal mess to take the press off of him?
I haven't seen any evidence of the relation between these two events, outside of pure speculation. Could you please show me documentary evidence that links these events? No, pundits don't count.
The pardons, though, are HIGHLY dubious.
Anyone who holds Bill Clinton as a saint is a moron, but then again anyone who holds anyone as a saint is, at best, naive.
The first half (and a little more) of the Bush years, the republicans held house and congress WERE at fault for much of our current problems. Hence us electing the Dems, who really haven't done a damn thing. They still are too worried about the appearance of 'toughness' to avoid popularity problems. They are a shell of a political party, who refuse to do anything at all. the Republicans though, are moving more and more towards pure fascism, with a side of theocracy.
Just reading news on politics these days makes me shudder, and feel rather ill. America is dying, and we're voting for it's plague.
I wouldn't put the onus of this bias on /., though. I've noticed that the media in general has been publishing more Obama stories than McCain stories. I think there is a good (if not healthy) reason for this, too. Obama is more newsworthy.
Like him, hate him, or indiferent to him, you must admit he something different. And not just racially, but his campain is not quite following the historic pattern, his followers are different. John McCain is just another stodgy white-guy, going for oil executives and big money. No big deal.
Not saying who would actually be the best president, since that's completely subjective. Just who is more interesting.
Though anyone who mouths anything partison, or identifies themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" is in my book a fool. If your political views are so narrow as to fit into a tiny category, your doing it wrong.
I myself an a radical moderate, or more susinctly a a fiscally conservative, social libertarian, with pronounced socialist tendencies, who often veers into dreams of anarchy. What party does that make me? Both parties have insightful stances on several issues, why should I just pick one?
...you must still walk around with something that looks and feels aged, since the casing is torn, the monitor is far from what it used to be (LCD and TFT quality wears out after some time) and the keyboard is probably not what it used to be either.
;, and the w key, both of which were super glued back on (not pretty, but functional), the touchpad was completely toasted (who uses a touch pad?), I had one or two dead, or terminally stuck pixels. But I still kept it around since it worked, no point in replacing something functional, just because it's old, or not aesthetically pleasing.
Who really cares how it looks?
If your just using it is a work-book then the LCD quality isn't that important. Excel will be ugly even using some nice 32bit/pixel wonder display.
Keyboards are a problem, but he replaced it. My old iBook was missing both the
The only down side I see is the old processor, which isn't that big an issue if you stick to XP, or throw Ubuntu on it. That, outside of critical failure, is the only thing that dates computers.
What happened to the days of geeks sitting on 500 old, but functional, computers and finding new uses for them? For $100 bucks, you really can't refuse refurbing it, wait a week or so, and then ALSO get an EeePC, double win.
Here a pocket knife isn't a concealed weapon, UNLESS it is double-edged, or over a certain length (6", I think, or roughly as long as your palm held width-wise). Most pocket knives, then, aren't considered concealed weapons. Depending on where you are, and circumstances, most police won't bother you for having something that bend the rules in your pocket.
Anything larger, or double edged, must be worn visible.
I think most states/cites/counties have roughly equivalent laws on this.
By simple ethics, you mean, of course, YOUR version of simple ethics.
/., I quickly look up somesthing on Wikipedia, and then I leave. To me this is ethical, I treat people how I'd like to be treated. And I treat their open connection as I would hope the treat my often-open connection (I only bolt it down when I'm using something bandwidth intensive).
/., using perhaps a two second small burst of your precious bandwidth. If this disturbs you so much, perhaps you should read the paper more, there are far more disturbing things out there. If you feel "violated" by this, I, not to mince words, don't really care, since your obviously not violated enough to do anything about it. Generally I prefer to use others actions as a guide to their intent, and not handwaving, words, or law.
My version of "simple" wifi ethics are different than yours. I will use open connections, but I don't use them like my own private connection. I don't hit their bandwidth, I open my mail, I check
If treating people with common courtesy is unethical to you, fine. I can live with that, secure your damn network, and go on with life, since the issue no longer effects you. I'm sick of ethics being a "preachy" point. If you don't like gay marriage, don't go gay and get married, if you don't like "damn dirty leeches", don't do it, nor facilitate it. Last I checked, there was no universal ethics, so stop preaching as if you know them.
For the record, if its hot out, and your hose is near the sidewalk, I will grab a quick drink as well. It doesn't cost you anything (well maybe $.00005 in water), and I don't hold property as the be-all-end-all of all issues.
Wifi is less consequential than my $.00005 "theft" from you, since it costs you nothing. You lose nothing, someone gains something, where is the ethics here? Or is greed and mindless territoriality a basis for ethics now? I always default towards the good of others, if it doesn't hurt me, THIS is ethical.
I'm a geek, and I have no feeling of entitlement. I use whats available, if no harm comes to anyone. I don't feel bad about it, since there is no reason to. I don't even need analogies, or hand waving, since NO HARM COMES OF IT. I'm not in your house, I'm not snooping your network, or reading your bank information, I'm posting on goddamn
Bandwidth isn't really that limited of a commodity, especially if the person who bought it isn't using it. When I'm making toast, my connection is wasted, so what do I care if someone uses it?
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible. First I got the error establishing a database connection map, and now this... Man, continental drift sucks.
And finally, can we have less of the silly idea that Gnome and KDE owe anything to OS X - the fact is that modern GUIs share ideas with each other and I could equally argue that OS X stole ideas from the Commodore Amiga Workbench by virtue of the fact that it also used a mouse and you could click on an icon to start a program.
:) But seriously, I didn't mean to sound like a fanboi either, its just a simple case of misunderstanding. I give massive love to Linux (and OSS in general). I seriously think Linux is among the high points in modern computing, and think that with some current trends it will actually be a contender in the market (things like Ubuntu, and the current version of Gnome and KDE are definitely noteworthy).
:)
But they DO owe ideas to OS X. This wasn't meant to sound disparaging, just an example of borrowing good bits from other things. Apple did borrow good bits from other places as well (NeXT, PARC/Xerox, etc...) and thus people borrow from Apple. Apple grabbed virtual desktops, and an odd subversion clone from the *nix community, most recently, just to make this seem fair.
Unfortunately, many Apple users consider themselves a breed apart and refuse to accept that without the BSD core to OS X, Apple would have had a much more difficult time to get to a modern desktop environment - but, hey, that's the type of thing BSD and Open Source licensing are designed to do so what's the problem? Just recognise that a lot more people that JUST Linux users owe a debt to the Open Source movement.
BSD is what sold me on OS X, I wouldn't touch anything before it with a ten foot pole, to be honest. OS 9 made WinME look good.
The Linux movement owes a lot to Unix.
I guess my point is that everyone owes everyone some credit.
For years, Firefox has been the most unstable program in common use. Somehow the management of Firefox development has been that the big difficult things don't get done. Are things different now?
Eh? Anecdotally; I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and haven't found it too buggy, or at least unstable. Firefox 2 might crash once a month with my usage patterns, which is about on par with most other programs. Not ajusting for use, its even with the two big OSs for stability. Ajusting for use, its still close to them, since how often do you not have a browser window open?
Granted one of the Fx 3 betas crashed regularly due to an odd Java bug, but on tracing it, it seems equally a bad Java installations fault as Firefox's. Also, extentions add a layer of doom to things, since the main devs can't really anticipate what assanine things the addon devs will do.
Hmm... 4 tabs (gmail + 3 /., open for about 4 hours), running 3 extentions (adblock+, CS lite, Noscript), and Firefox is take 101,156K, CPU at 3%-10% (counting other processes). On Vista.
I haven't optimized anything yet, not even pipelining, so this isn't as good as it gets.
I'd say the memory bug, if not fixed, is pretty squashed.
I'm a bit of a coffee snob (but not as much as most of this thread, it seems), but I must still step up and defend American (or rather drip/perc/etc) coffee. I prefer to take a large mug of coffee with me when I'm on the go, it lasts longer, and is fitting towards my morning braindeadness, so a good drip pot, or french press, works wonders. If I took an equal quantity of moka or espresso, my head would explode. Imagine commuting to work, chugging a 24oz cup of espresso? Yes, I'd be awake, but also so strung-out to be useless.
Also Americano sucks, even compared to drip. Its too watery, even compared to Mr. Coffee drip coffee.
Another good reason for drip coffee, iced coffee. Double strength coffee, ice (and perhaps some cream), serves me nicely through the hellish summers here (its 107F here, right now, expected 112F). Hot espresso is just too damn hot, when the ambient temp is almost the same as the coffee.
I do, sometimes, wonder why my fellow Americans fail so completely when it comes to coffee and beer. I think its because we deal with them on a utilitarian front, and not a quality/pleasure front. Though drip coffee, done right, can have very nice subtleties, especially done in a good french press, with a quality fresh-ground bean.
Though I still prefer Greek/Turkish coffee, with a hint of cardamon and sugar. The only downside to that, is the time it takes, and finding a quality ibrik.