We HAD the tech to mitigate the consequences of 9/11 substantially. Conventional fighter jets could have shot the planes down and we'd have fewer widows in NYC today.
Someone dropped the ball and didn't get jets up there.
You hit the nail on the head, I think.
A lot of people are acting like terrorism(unconventional warfare) is this dirty underhanded tactic. What a lot of people don't think about is this: We were attacked ONCE by a group and we've gone to war with half the geopolitical area they came from.
We've killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people in our revenge over 9/11(Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet the spectre of the attacks were used as rhetoric to get us in there, so it must be just vengence against middle easterners).
We've been in the middle east killing people for 50 years. Their attack on us on 9/11, or during the first WTC bombing, or the USS Cole, was all the EXACT SAME THING WE'VE DONE in response to 9/11.
The reason they're resorting to terrorism is they don't have the most powerful military in the world to come conquer us with. We did the EXACT SAME THING when we were fighting Britain for our independence.
A little off-topic, but relelvant in the current geopolitical climate.
Then your point is a complete non-sequitur and you should find someone else to reply to.
I'm not concerned with the sustainability of open source or lack thereof. I'm just saying that in the current model, developers don't need users, and users are in fact a burden.
the vast vast vast majority of OSS developers aren't interested in "building a business centered on FOSS". Most of them have jobs, and those jobs make far more money than chasing some pipe dream of making a profit by giving software away for free.
Very few people believe in anything in Washington. Only one of the presidential candidates in the primaries did, and he's not either of the two people running for president right now.
It's all about excuses, and Bush did his party a disservice by sticking to this pro-war agenda. His soviet style "people's liberation armies" are going to do to us what they did to Soviet Russia.
The difference between left wing and right wing to me is determined by adherence to tradition. Traditionalists and people who don't really want to change a lot of things are right wing, radicalists and people who want to change lots of things are left wing. The Republicans have coined the phrase "Everything changed on 9/11", and it's the sort of excuse for massive sweeping reforms that'd make Stalin proud.
Bush is certainly making it easy for Democrats to have an excuse. He's brandished his veto power for the second time in his entire presidency(He used it once in the six years prior), making it nearly impossible for dems to do what they want, so they've got to compromise.
You almost NEED that perception though. People are lazy and easily scared, and highly emotional.
If it looks hard, then people are going to think it's hard, even though a Grade 3 education is all you've needed to be able to use a PC for the past decade.
If people think it's going to be hard, they won't even try.
Well, the truth is that if homeland security was half as important as people say it is, our army, which is better funded than the next 20 largest armies on earth combined, would be at home protecting people instead of in Iraq and Afganistan killing people who probably couldn't point to America on an unmarked map.
I don't really see any problem with what he said. He's RIGHT. Regular users, especially rabid, demanding ones, don't add anything useful to an Open Source Software project. The number of users a piece of software has is just a pissing match. Unlike commercial software, where more users means more revenue, the opposite is true. The more users you've got, the more you're spending to serve them(Bandwidth isn't free), the more effort you've got to expend to meet their demands. Further, the less resources you have to focus on individual issues.
You say that becuase you're an INTJ personality type. In fact, studies show that people who use their first gut feeling do just as well as people who spend a long time pondering and considering facts.
Logic isn't as iron-clad as you think. For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.
Humans continue to exist because they're programmed to live, but not because there's any good reason to. Unless you believe in the irrational concept of a God, or an irrational concept of a religion, or the irrational concept of furthering humanity, or any one of a number of irrational concepts with no logical basis, there's no reason to exist in this valueless, meaningless world of ours.
Nihilism is the only logical basis for philosophy. There is no logical basis for any morality or ethics. Everything beyond that is easing the truth of nihilism with some human emotion. Either we do it becuase it feels good, or because we expect it'll help us feel good in the future, or because we're programmed to do it.
Obama is simply catering to the only tactic capable of winning an election in our current climate of utter ignorance: You appeal to the voter's baser emotions. At that point, it doesn't matter WHAT you say as long as you say it in such a way that gives you warm fuzzy feelings. Democrats are gambling that anti-war gives more people warm fuzzy feelings than pro-war. Republicans are taking the opposite gamble.
The only guy to EVER talk real policy is Ron Paul, and he got raped for his trouble.
Quit being so damned partisan. It'd be just as easy to make an emotional attachment if it was a republican as a democrat. Dead people are dead people. I don't care if it's the far left party(the republicans) or the center-left party(the democrats) doing it.
They're just taking advantage of the fact that they were pantsed at the time. The Republicans controlled the house, the senate, the executive, and the judiciary at the time, so it's very easy for democrats to raise their hand and go "Hey, this isn't our fault", and it's very easy from there for people to blame the republicans, and from there it's very easy to get emotional about it.
His job isn't to give a crap about what private companies do with private networks. That's not regulation to him. His job is to care about what the Federal Government does when creating laws that regulate what private companies do with private networks.
Frankly, I think he makes an excellent point. If an ISP cuts off part of the internet, that sucks. If the government BANS part of the internet, that's clearly unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter becuase of the fact that American legislators are gay for anything with the words "over the internet" in it.
Slashdot Mirror
So if they put it right in writing, and you bold it for us, why doesn't this clause apply only to "nonpayment or other default"?
We HAD the tech to mitigate the consequences of 9/11 substantially. Conventional fighter jets could have shot the planes down and we'd have fewer widows in NYC today.
Someone dropped the ball and didn't get jets up there.
You hit the nail on the head, I think.
A lot of people are acting like terrorism(unconventional warfare) is this dirty underhanded tactic. What a lot of people don't think about is this: We were attacked ONCE by a group and we've gone to war with half the geopolitical area they came from.
We've killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people in our revenge over 9/11(Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet the spectre of the attacks were used as rhetoric to get us in there, so it must be just vengence against middle easterners).
We've been in the middle east killing people for 50 years. Their attack on us on 9/11, or during the first WTC bombing, or the USS Cole, was all the EXACT SAME THING WE'VE DONE in response to 9/11.
The reason they're resorting to terrorism is they don't have the most powerful military in the world to come conquer us with. We did the EXACT SAME THING when we were fighting Britain for our independence.
A little off-topic, but relelvant in the current geopolitical climate.
You say "It's best to stay three steps ahead", but the military seems to be doing something my ex girlfriend used to do: Fight against themselves.
Step 1: Create laser missle defense system
Step 2: Create laser missle defense system defense
Step 3: Create laser missle defense system defense defense
And in the meantime, the enemy just stops using projectiles to deliver explosives and instead uses covert agents or unconventional warfare.
Oops! The laser missle defense system defense defense wasn't able to scramble a fighter jet on 9/11 to save 2,000 lives in the twin towers!
Then your point is a complete non-sequitur and you should find someone else to reply to.
I'm not concerned with the sustainability of open source or lack thereof. I'm just saying that in the current model, developers don't need users, and users are in fact a burden.
Corporations almost never follow sound economic policies. Falls under "not my problem".
Why? Slave labour works great for us in the first world, why should developing nations have to escew their use?
[...]they'll either use rubber hose cryptanalysis[...]
So that's just DoJ thugs coming to your house and whipping you with a rubber hose until you tell them the password, right?
I'm so glad we torture now. I feel so much safer knowing we've got that weapon at our disposal.
the vast vast vast majority of OSS developers aren't interested in "building a business centered on FOSS". Most of them have jobs, and those jobs make far more money than chasing some pipe dream of making a profit by giving software away for free.
Anonymous Delivers. (Anonymous is a karma whore)
Very few people believe in anything in Washington. Only one of the presidential candidates in the primaries did, and he's not either of the two people running for president right now.
It's all about excuses, and Bush did his party a disservice by sticking to this pro-war agenda. His soviet style "people's liberation armies" are going to do to us what they did to Soviet Russia.
The difference between left wing and right wing to me is determined by adherence to tradition. Traditionalists and people who don't really want to change a lot of things are right wing, radicalists and people who want to change lots of things are left wing. The Republicans have coined the phrase "Everything changed on 9/11", and it's the sort of excuse for massive sweeping reforms that'd make Stalin proud.
Bush is certainly making it easy for Democrats to have an excuse. He's brandished his veto power for the second time in his entire presidency(He used it once in the six years prior), making it nearly impossible for dems to do what they want, so they've got to compromise.
The way he's going to escape from prison isn't a big truck. It's going to be a series of tubes.
I'd say such dreams are actually behind us. We've reached the peak of our cheap portable energy. From here it all gets more expensive and more bulky.
You almost NEED that perception though. People are lazy and easily scared, and highly emotional.
If it looks hard, then people are going to think it's hard, even though a Grade 3 education is all you've needed to be able to use a PC for the past decade.
If people think it's going to be hard, they won't even try.
Well, the truth is that if homeland security was half as important as people say it is, our army, which is better funded than the next 20 largest armies on earth combined, would be at home protecting people instead of in Iraq and Afganistan killing people who probably couldn't point to America on an unmarked map.
It's probably Microsoft's fault. I'm certain their UI requirements state that you should have the 'start/programs/vendor name/program name' scheme.
I don't really see any problem with what he said. He's RIGHT. Regular users, especially rabid, demanding ones, don't add anything useful to an Open Source Software project. The number of users a piece of software has is just a pissing match. Unlike commercial software, where more users means more revenue, the opposite is true. The more users you've got, the more you're spending to serve them(Bandwidth isn't free), the more effort you've got to expend to meet their demands. Further, the less resources you have to focus on individual issues.
You say that becuase you're an INTJ personality type. In fact, studies show that people who use their first gut feeling do just as well as people who spend a long time pondering and considering facts.
Logic isn't as iron-clad as you think. For example, it can't tell you why you should be alive. There's no logical reason to life or to die.
Humans continue to exist because they're programmed to live, but not because there's any good reason to. Unless you believe in the irrational concept of a God, or an irrational concept of a religion, or the irrational concept of furthering humanity, or any one of a number of irrational concepts with no logical basis, there's no reason to exist in this valueless, meaningless world of ours.
Nihilism is the only logical basis for philosophy. There is no logical basis for any morality or ethics. Everything beyond that is easing the truth of nihilism with some human emotion. Either we do it becuase it feels good, or because we expect it'll help us feel good in the future, or because we're programmed to do it.
Obama is simply catering to the only tactic capable of winning an election in our current climate of utter ignorance: You appeal to the voter's baser emotions. At that point, it doesn't matter WHAT you say as long as you say it in such a way that gives you warm fuzzy feelings. Democrats are gambling that anti-war gives more people warm fuzzy feelings than pro-war. Republicans are taking the opposite gamble.
The only guy to EVER talk real policy is Ron Paul, and he got raped for his trouble.
Just because you're an INTJ or INTP personality type doesn't mean everyone has to be.
If emotions reacted to logic, they wouldn't be emotions, they'd be logic.
Quit being so damned partisan. It'd be just as easy to make an emotional attachment if it was a republican as a democrat. Dead people are dead people. I don't care if it's the far left party(the republicans) or the center-left party(the democrats) doing it.
They're just taking advantage of the fact that they were pantsed at the time. The Republicans controlled the house, the senate, the executive, and the judiciary at the time, so it's very easy for democrats to raise their hand and go "Hey, this isn't our fault", and it's very easy from there for people to blame the republicans, and from there it's very easy to get emotional about it.
His job isn't to give a crap about what private companies do with private networks. That's not regulation to him. His job is to care about what the Federal Government does when creating laws that regulate what private companies do with private networks.
Frankly, I think he makes an excellent point. If an ISP cuts off part of the internet, that sucks. If the government BANS part of the internet, that's clearly unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter becuase of the fact that American legislators are gay for anything with the words "over the internet" in it.