A PC is a personal computer. If it's meant for one person to use at a time, it's a PC, regardless of the OS it's running or the processor it's built around. The Apple II was a PC. The unimaginatively named IBM PC was a PC. Laptops, notebooks, and netbooks are PCs. The various editions of the Mac were/are PCs.
Yes, Apple would like you to think that a Mac is something beyond a PC, that it slices and dices, lengthens and strengthens, and finds that slipper that's been at large under the chaise lounge for several weeks, but 'tain't so.
The only brand is USSR and all of the products suck but there is no alternative because they are the alternative
So, you're talking about Apple here, right?
Certainly your remarks make no sense if applied to free software. Free software OSes are available for a multitude of hardware, and free software users enjoy a variety of software choices. For kernels there's Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD; for system level stuff there's the GNU and BSD tools; for GUIs there are many options built around Gnome, KDE, and Xfce. For the stuff I use my computers for -- e-mail, web browsing, text editing and word processing, music creation and playback, image manipulation, and video playback -- I find many alternatives available.
Have fun not using your computer for fun but to make a point.
I find freedom to be much more fun than its absence. If you don't, you have my pity.
So, is "reckless driving" related for driving too fast for reaction/stop times or is it related to tailgating, aggressive driving, and weaving in and out of traffic which is what happens when artificially low speed limits are applied on perfectly safe roads?
By what means do you thing that raising speed limits would affect assholes who tailgate, drive aggressively, and weaving in and out of traffic?
Bad driving is not caused to speed limits. Regardless of the legal limit, asshole speed freaks will still encounter slower-moving vehicles, and will throw tantrums and tailgate or weave.
I certainly don't feel any moral imperative to limit myself to the posted limit; on a clear rural controlled-access divided highway during daylight hours with good weather, I'll sometimes go as fast as I can. Which, in my 1993 Subaru, means about 80 mph.:-) But I've been passing a couple of cars doing 65 in the right lane, and had some asshole going 100+ come up and ride my ass.
One of these things is not like the others! Can you tell which one it is? Speeding - Jaywalking - Murder - Failure to signal before turning - Public intoxication
Hmm, a toughy.
Speeding, failure to signal, and murder all involve a threat to the safety of others. Jaywalking could cause someone to strike you with their car, damaging their property in a manner that's your fault.
So I'd have to say that public intoxication is the odd man out -- merely walking down the street while drunk isn't a threat to anyone's safety, rights, or property. Right?
How are the people without Internet, and now, without a phone book, supposed to find out what their number is?
If you don't have internet access, you're not paying your bills on line. So the phone company mails you a sliver of dead tree every month with information about what you owe printed on it. Customer service phone numbers and other information are also included -- I presume this would also include a message like "We are no longer delivering phone books unless you ask for them; call 410-555-BOOK to request your doorstop."
The GP author proposed only that large corporations -- which are already created by the state, and so are not free market entities -- be democratically controlled. He(?) did not propose that all economic decisions be made democratically. So, no, no communism here.
Last I checked, it doesn't work.
Well, Russia did rise from having no industrial base whatsoever to being a superpower and the first spacefaring nation -- and that while bearing primary responsibility for defeating the Nazis, fighting them on its own territory and suffering tremendous losses -- while under communism. I'm no fan of Stalin, and some of Marx's ideas were decidedly bone-headed, but it's a little simplistic to just say "it doesn't work".
The hubris of Leninism-Stalinism was the mad idea that government can effectively and efficiently dictate the omni-variable complexity of an entire modern industrialized state's economy as well as all societal institutions, down to speech and even thought. Why do we always strive to replicate madness?
I hate to break it to you, because I know there an entire fake news entertainment industry built around the plot line that the U.S. is turning into a communist state (or it is fascist state? Big plot hole in the story when the writers confuse the two.), but no one with any authority or following is currently trying to do any such thing in the U.S. A couple of regulations on capitalism do not turn it into socialism or communism, any more than slowing the direction with which one is falling is the same as flying.
It's like dismissing a sack of apples as rotten, based on a couple bad apples you can see at the top..(yes, it's the bad-apple analogy. you think of something better)
And as they say, one bad apply spoils the whole bunch. The rot is contagious, and so the whole sack must at the very least be treated as suspect.
I've been completely happy with my interactions with cops here in the US.
It depends enormously on where you are. Around here, for example, Baltimore City cops are not the same as Howard County cops, though their jurisdictions are only a few miles apart. If a cop once helped you catch a neighbor's horse, I'm guess you live in the country and have a rather different experience of cops than a city dweller.
And it depends enormously on who you are. Cops don't shoot 41 times when a middle aged, middle class, short-haired white guy reaches for his wallet.
Because no one drinks Whiskey, or Rye. Try drinking that stuff, straight up no junk. Tell me how awesome it tastes.
Pretty awesome, if you don't get the cheap stuff. There's a big range between a nice single-malt, and whatever cheap stuff your local watering hole puts on the rail.
Chinese medicine has always included acupressure as an effective treatment. Indeed, it predates acupuncture -- not surprisingly, people noticed "it feels better if I press and rub here" before they thought, "hey, what if I stick a bamboo splinter into my skin so I can stimulate that point but free up my hands?" Pick up an acupuncture products catalog and you'll find a variety of "pellets" which can be taped to the skin to stimulate the points without puncturing the skin.
So at best, "sham" needles -- i.e., acupressure -- as a control for acupuncture is like using aspirin as a control while investigating a new painkiller.
The study that Yong (not "Tong") mentions also featured treatment via a set of points determined in advance by one therapist, and delivered by another. But when I see my acupuncturist (or even when I give a shiatsu treatment including the use of acupressure points), point selection is determined in part by the response to earlier points. So this is rather different than acupuncture as practiced by knowledgeable practitioners.
That study also excluded patients with previous acupuncture treatment for any condition; based on my experience, however, it seems that it takes some experience with acupuncture to learn how to give feedback to the practitioner, to recognize and report the de qi sensation, so the effectiveness of the treatment increases with experience. (Perhaps there is also something like the habituation required for a cannabis "high" at work here, with the patient learning to interpret and respond to new sensations.) And the study also excluded those with "specific causes of back pain", so would seem to likely include a high proportion of those whose complaints had a strong psychosomatic component, and so would be poorly suited to investigating the physiological mechanisms involved.
This is all too representative of the problems with much acupuncture research: what gets tested often has little to do with Chinese medicine as it is applied by knowledgeable practitioners.
Despite these problems, this study found that "Compared with usual care, individualized acupuncture, standardized acupuncture, and simulated acupuncture [i.e., acupressure] had beneficial and persisting effects on chronic back pain." Nor does the study's comparison of individualized acupuncture vs. standardized acupuncture justify Yong's claim that it did not matter where the needles were placed. It takes some twisting to interpret this study the way that Yong would like to.
And of course the placebo effect plays a role -- as it does in any treatment, including surgery. If my acupuncturist is doing nothing beyond triggering a placebo response in me, the results are still real, and what I pay her for the little show she puts on that lets whatever part of brain is responsible do its thing, is a bargain.
Apple -- or at least, Steve Jobs -- is pushing a "social agenda" that wants to bring you "freedom from porn". The fact that you are not forced to use Apple products, does not change Jobs/Apple's desire to push said agenda using the means that are at their disposal.
Apple is choosing to not allow certain types of apps into the app store.
Which is not the issue. The issue is Apple's maintenance of a monopoly on content for the devices they manufacture, and it's about time that government anti-trust regulators stir from their naps and examine this issue.
It may be the case that government censorship is more intrusive and threatening to liberty than private censorship, but that does not change the fact that both are members of the same species.
Apple's continued success is mostly due to the fact that it all just works.
Well, no, it doesn't "just work", unless what you want to do fits within the walled garden experience that Apple provides. Making a potential customers install an application to buy content is not "just working"; if iTunes "just worked", I could go buy content with nothing but the browser of my choice. Instead all I see over there are these "View in iTunes" links.
What we used to call "vendor lock-in", what is apparently now called "stickiness", is a form of brokenness. It is lossage, bogus, suckage. It is a source of not "just working".
But if the Christians are right, and there is an afterlife to contend with, then the shoulder of Jesus suddenly becomes much more attractive.
And if the Muslims are right and there is an afterlife but not the Christian one...?
And if the Hindus are right and there is reincarnation, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than seeking to unify your atman with Brahman...?
And if the Frisbeetarians are right, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than figuring out how to get your soul off the roof when you die...?
Evidence that there's an "afterlife": zero.
Evidence that if there were an "afterlife", adopting any given form of Christianity would net you some sort of advantage in such: zero.
Where are all the conspiracy theorists on this one? Did Obama cause the leak so that he can push against the oil companies and car companies even more?
Price for 10 individual papers might be $300 or so at most. It often makes more sense to buy individual articles.
At prices that high, it makes even more sense to either go visit a library that has the journal in question -- or ask a friend who's associated with an institution that has on-line access to borrow their access code. At least, for an individual doing research on their own.
Remember - most(almost all?) open source contributions come from people who have software jobs, quite often jobs which directly compete with the open source initiative they are contributing to.
More like, "quite often jobs which make use of the open source initiative they are contributing to."
For example, a while ago I contributed some code to WebInject. It was code I got paid to write at my day job; I found WebInject, said "This would be useful to us if it had X, Y, and Z", added X, Y, and Z -- getting paid to do so, same as if I was writing our own bespoke test tool -- and contributed the code back.
I suspect that this sort of scenario is at least an order of magnitude more common than people contributing to free software projects that directly compete with their day jobs.
WWII wasn't worth it, you see, because a genocidal madman taking over half the world and executing everyone he thought of as subhuman is a better outcome.
The European part of WWII would never have happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of WWI. (The Pacific war was a straight-up conflict between two imperialist powers, though U.S. imperialism was somewhat less brutal -- but by no means benign.) WWI was a pointless exercise in militarism and imperialism. If the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, WWI would not have happened, and Hitler would not have been able to come to power.
(If other nations had acted more quickly to put sanctions and a blockade on Hitler, if the U.S. had not allowed American companies to help build the German war machine, Hitler could have been contained. But again, that would require the "violence is bad" meme to be much more powerful, stronger than the "let's make some money and damn the consequences!" or the "dem dang Commie Russians must be stopped!" meme.)
"X is necessary, because without X, you couldn't clean up the mess that X causes" is a rather sad argument, don't you think?
Ending slavery in the United States was bad, too, because things were better off for the slaves.
Of course, if the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, the U.S. would not have accepted slavery in the first place. Again, "we need violence to mop up the results of our past use of violence!"
I'm not 100% opposed to the use of force in 100% of cases; hell, I teach people how to maim and kill in self-defense, if necessary. If violence is the best option, somebody somewhere has fucked up very very badly -- but sometimes the person who has to deal with the situation is not the one who fucked up.
But "just war" theory is a shallow justification that ignores the way that violence almost always begets violence. Only when one can use force while at the same time loving the "enemy" can force work for peace -- a hell of a dilemma to swallow, and one completely incompatible with all forms of militarism.
A true pacifist is opposed to the use of force for any reason, under any circumstance, no matter what is at stake. He backs down and cowers from any physical confrontation and lets himself be pushed around by all, no matter what.
According to a more neutral point of view, "Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others." [emphasis added]
So there are "true pacifists" who say there are cases where the use of force is necessary.
I got a Brother laser printer 4 years ago for about $200 and have run several thousand pages through it with no problems and only one new cartridge....I'd highly recommend the Brother printer
Seconding the Brother recommendation. Been quite happy with mine.
my check card...has the exact same protections as a credit card
Not really, because you have very different things at risk.
If I get your check card and clear out your account, you have *no* *money* over the days or weeks it takes to get it straightened out and the protections to kick in. Plus checks/ACH transactions bounce and you get hit with fees.
If I get your credit card and max out your account, you owe a debt -- which you don't end up having to pay -- over the days or weeks it takes to get it straightened out and the protections to kick in.
Now, in the case of the American civil rights struggle, contrary to the popular narrative King and his nonviolence was not the only game in town; the militancy of the Black Panthers and similar groups played an important role. And in the case of India, the British Empire was exhausted; it was easier to make the cost of maintaining rule over India too high for it to bear, than it had been at any time since the Battle of Plassey.
Non-violence resistance will not work against psychopaths of unlimited resources, no; and against the non-violent, resistance would never be necessary in the first place.
Somewhere in between, though, is the line where non-violent resistance can either appeal to the conscience, or can raise the price of oppression, sufficiently to win.
Slashdot Mirror
Crossing the street without proper caution is jaywalking, whether one is drunk or not.
Committing a crime while drunk is not the same thing as drunkenness itself being a crime.
So Apple's advertising is stupid and inaccurate. Stop the presses.
Ironic, since Apple gave us what might be the first successful mass-market PC; but that was when Woz was designing Real Hardware for them.
A PC is a personal computer. If it's meant for one person to use at a time, it's a PC, regardless of the OS it's running or the processor it's built around. The Apple II was a PC. The unimaginatively named IBM PC was a PC. Laptops, notebooks, and netbooks are PCs. The various editions of the Mac were/are PCs.
Yes, Apple would like you to think that a Mac is something beyond a PC, that it slices and dices, lengthens and strengthens, and finds that slipper that's been at large under the chaise lounge for several weeks, but 'tain't so.
So, you're talking about Apple here, right?
Certainly your remarks make no sense if applied to free software. Free software OSes are available for a multitude of hardware, and free software users enjoy a variety of software choices. For kernels there's Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD; for system level stuff there's the GNU and BSD tools; for GUIs there are many options built around Gnome, KDE, and Xfce. For the stuff I use my computers for -- e-mail, web browsing, text editing and word processing, music creation and playback, image manipulation, and video playback -- I find many alternatives available.
I find freedom to be much more fun than its absence. If you don't, you have my pity.
By what means do you thing that raising speed limits would affect assholes who tailgate, drive aggressively, and weaving in and out of traffic?
Bad driving is not caused to speed limits. Regardless of the legal limit, asshole speed freaks will still encounter slower-moving vehicles, and will throw tantrums and tailgate or weave.
I certainly don't feel any moral imperative to limit myself to the posted limit; on a clear rural controlled-access divided highway during daylight hours with good weather, I'll sometimes go as fast as I can. Which, in my 1993 Subaru, means about 80 mph. :-) But I've been passing a couple of cars doing 65 in the right lane, and had some asshole going 100+ come up and ride my ass.
Hmm, a toughy.
Speeding, failure to signal, and murder all involve a threat to the safety of others. Jaywalking could cause someone to strike you with their car, damaging their property in a manner that's your fault.
So I'd have to say that public intoxication is the odd man out -- merely walking down the street while drunk isn't a threat to anyone's safety, rights, or property. Right?
If you don't have internet access, you're not paying your bills on line. So the phone company mails you a sliver of dead tree every month with information about what you owe printed on it. Customer service phone numbers and other information are also included -- I presume this would also include a message like "We are no longer delivering phone books unless you ask for them; call 410-555-BOOK to request your doorstop."
The GP author proposed only that large corporations -- which are already created by the state, and so are not free market entities -- be democratically controlled. He(?) did not propose that all economic decisions be made democratically. So, no, no communism here.
Well, Russia did rise from having no industrial base whatsoever to being a superpower and the first spacefaring nation -- and that while bearing primary responsibility for defeating the Nazis, fighting them on its own territory and suffering tremendous losses -- while under communism. I'm no fan of Stalin, and some of Marx's ideas were decidedly bone-headed, but it's a little simplistic to just say "it doesn't work".
I hate to break it to you, because I know there an entire fake news entertainment industry built around the plot line that the U.S. is turning into a communist state (or it is fascist state? Big plot hole in the story when the writers confuse the two.), but no one with any authority or following is currently trying to do any such thing in the U.S. A couple of regulations on capitalism do not turn it into socialism or communism, any more than slowing the direction with which one is falling is the same as flying.
The economy remains in the hands of the investment classes, who continue to screw over the working classes; and, despite the complexities Barlow claims, these folks also manage to run multinational corporations with economic power similar to nation-states. UnitedHealth Group's annual revenues, for example, are about the same as the GDP of Bangladesh, a nation of 162 million people.
And as they say, one bad apply spoils the whole bunch. The rot is contagious, and so the whole sack must at the very least be treated as suspect.
It depends enormously on where you are. Around here, for example, Baltimore City cops are not the same as Howard County cops, though their jurisdictions are only a few miles apart. If a cop once helped you catch a neighbor's horse, I'm guess you live in the country and have a rather different experience of cops than a city dweller.
And it depends enormously on who you are. Cops don't shoot 41 times when a middle aged, middle class, short-haired white guy reaches for his wallet.
Pretty awesome, if you don't get the cheap stuff. There's a big range between a nice single-malt, and whatever cheap stuff your local watering hole puts on the rail.
Chinese medicine has always included acupressure as an effective treatment. Indeed, it predates acupuncture -- not surprisingly, people noticed "it feels better if I press and rub here" before they thought, "hey, what if I stick a bamboo splinter into my skin so I can stimulate that point but free up my hands?" Pick up an acupuncture products catalog and you'll find a variety of "pellets" which can be taped to the skin to stimulate the points without puncturing the skin.
So at best, "sham" needles -- i.e., acupressure -- as a control for acupuncture is like using aspirin as a control while investigating a new painkiller.
The study that Yong (not "Tong") mentions also featured treatment via a set of points determined in advance by one therapist, and delivered by another. But when I see my acupuncturist (or even when I give a shiatsu treatment including the use of acupressure points), point selection is determined in part by the response to earlier points. So this is rather different than acupuncture as practiced by knowledgeable practitioners.
That study also excluded patients with previous acupuncture treatment for any condition; based on my experience, however, it seems that it takes some experience with acupuncture to learn how to give feedback to the practitioner, to recognize and report the de qi sensation, so the effectiveness of the treatment increases with experience. (Perhaps there is also something like the habituation required for a cannabis "high" at work here, with the patient learning to interpret and respond to new sensations.) And the study also excluded those with "specific causes of back pain", so would seem to likely include a high proportion of those whose complaints had a strong psychosomatic component, and so would be poorly suited to investigating the physiological mechanisms involved.
This is all too representative of the problems with much acupuncture research: what gets tested often has little to do with Chinese medicine as it is applied by knowledgeable practitioners.
Despite these problems, this study found that "Compared with usual care, individualized acupuncture, standardized acupuncture, and simulated acupuncture [i.e., acupressure] had beneficial and persisting effects on chronic back pain." Nor does the study's comparison of individualized acupuncture vs. standardized acupuncture justify Yong's claim that it did not matter where the needles were placed. It takes some twisting to interpret this study the way that Yong would like to.
And of course the placebo effect plays a role -- as it does in any treatment, including surgery. If my acupuncturist is doing nothing beyond triggering a placebo response in me, the results are still real, and what I pay her for the little show she puts on that lets whatever part of brain is responsible do its thing, is a bargain.
(My bias: I'm and NCCAOM Diplomate in Asian Bodywork Therapy; my practice is a small sideline to my computer geek day job.)
Apple -- or at least, Steve Jobs -- is pushing a "social agenda" that wants to bring you "freedom from porn". The fact that you are not forced to use Apple products, does not change Jobs/Apple's desire to push said agenda using the means that are at their disposal.
Which is not the issue. The issue is Apple's maintenance of a monopoly on content for the devices they manufacture, and it's about time that government anti-trust regulators stir from their naps and examine this issue.
No, it is not, and I do wish propertarians would cease this abuse of language. To censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable...; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable". It does not matter whether it is the government or a private agency doing the suppression, it is still censorship.
It may be the case that government censorship is more intrusive and threatening to liberty than private censorship, but that does not change the fact that both are members of the same species.
Well, no, it doesn't "just work", unless what you want to do fits within the walled garden experience that Apple provides. Making a potential customers install an application to buy content is not "just working"; if iTunes "just worked", I could go buy content with nothing but the browser of my choice. Instead all I see over there are these "View in iTunes" links.
What we used to call "vendor lock-in", what is apparently now called "stickiness", is a form of brokenness. It is lossage, bogus, suckage. It is a source of not "just working".
And if the Muslims are right and there is an afterlife but not the Christian one...?
And if the Hindus are right and there is reincarnation, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than seeking to unify your atman with Brahman...?
And if the Frisbeetarians are right, but you've wasted this life with Christian mumbo-jumbo rather than figuring out how to get your soul off the roof when you die...?
Evidence that there's an "afterlife": zero.
Evidence that if there were an "afterlife", adopting any given form of Christianity would net you some sort of advantage in such: zero.
The far-right kooks have been pushing an Obama conspiracy theory for a while now. For example, Limbaugh: "what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants than by blowing up a rig?"
At prices that high, it makes even more sense to either go visit a library that has the journal in question -- or ask a friend who's associated with an institution that has on-line access to borrow their access code. At least, for an individual doing research on their own.
More like, "quite often jobs which make use of the open source initiative they are contributing to."
For example, a while ago I contributed some code to WebInject. It was code I got paid to write at my day job; I found WebInject, said "This would be useful to us if it had X, Y, and Z", added X, Y, and Z -- getting paid to do so, same as if I was writing our own bespoke test tool -- and contributed the code back.
I suspect that this sort of scenario is at least an order of magnitude more common than people contributing to free software projects that directly compete with their day jobs.
The European part of WWII would never have happened if it wasn't for the aftermath of WWI. (The Pacific war was a straight-up conflict between two imperialist powers, though U.S. imperialism was somewhat less brutal -- but by no means benign.) WWI was a pointless exercise in militarism and imperialism. If the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, WWI would not have happened, and Hitler would not have been able to come to power.
(If other nations had acted more quickly to put sanctions and a blockade on Hitler, if the U.S. had not allowed American companies to help build the German war machine, Hitler could have been contained. But again, that would require the "violence is bad" meme to be much more powerful, stronger than the "let's make some money and damn the consequences!" or the "dem dang Commie Russians must be stopped!" meme.)
"X is necessary, because without X, you couldn't clean up the mess that X causes" is a rather sad argument, don't you think?
Of course, if the "violence is bad" meme were more wide-spread, the U.S. would not have accepted slavery in the first place. Again, "we need violence to mop up the results of our past use of violence!"
I'm not 100% opposed to the use of force in 100% of cases; hell, I teach people how to maim and kill in self-defense, if necessary. If violence is the best option, somebody somewhere has fucked up very very badly -- but sometimes the person who has to deal with the situation is not the one who fucked up.
But "just war" theory is a shallow justification that ignores the way that violence almost always begets violence. Only when one can use force while at the same time loving the "enemy" can force work for peace -- a hell of a dilemma to swallow, and one completely incompatible with all forms of militarism.
According to a more neutral point of view, "Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defence of self and others." [emphasis added]
So there are "true pacifists" who say there are cases where the use of force is necessary.
A standing army is only necessary for an aggressive state.
An effective militia is sufficient for national self-defense.
Seconding the Brother recommendation. Been quite happy with mine.
Not really, because you have very different things at risk.
If I get your check card and clear out your account, you have *no* *money* over the days or weeks it takes to get it straightened out and the protections to kick in. Plus checks/ACH transactions bounce and you get hit with fees.
If I get your credit card and max out your account, you owe a debt -- which you don't end up having to pay -- over the days or weeks it takes to get it straightened out and the protections to kick in.
It is a perversion of language to claim that American racism of the 1950s and 60s, or the British repression of India, was "non-violent".
Now, in the case of the American civil rights struggle, contrary to the popular narrative King and his nonviolence was not the only game in town; the militancy of the Black Panthers and similar groups played an important role. And in the case of India, the British Empire was exhausted; it was easier to make the cost of maintaining rule over India too high for it to bear, than it had been at any time since the Battle of Plassey. Non-violence resistance will not work against psychopaths of unlimited resources, no; and against the non-violent, resistance would never be necessary in the first place.
Somewhere in between, though, is the line where non-violent resistance can either appeal to the conscience, or can raise the price of oppression, sufficiently to win.