It's a language, not some ISO standard where hackneyed words that sound stupid and are not used have any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
More accurately, he should have said in the context of computer memory, rather than transmission speeds. That is the context of a hard drive purchase; anyone who is looking at the number of gigabytes rather than merely looking for a "small" or "humongous" hard drive is looking at the number in the context of files the size of which are expressed in base 2 "gigabytes".
It's a language, not some ISO standard. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibit" may just look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
I don't know, depends on how long you've been smoking. Someone who's been smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years is paying in $18,000-$26,000 into the system just through cigarette taxes. Someone who smokes for 40 or 60 years is paying in $73,000 to $150,000 just through the taxes. That's not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars one pays into Medicare/Medicaid over the course of his life even in the most low paying jobs. And, of course, some people have sufficient funds to pay for surgery.
None of this should make a difference in society's that call themselves free, though. If the various socialist systems are used as justifications to limit liberty, it's clear the direction they're going.
First of all, it's much more damaging to your health when you inhale something and it goes right into your blood stream and to your brain (your lungs are designed to get oxygen to your brain as quickly and efficiently as possible). When something's in your digestive system, it's in a stew of other materials and thus interacts with your body's cells to a lesser degree. Much of what's in your digestive tracts gets defecated and urinated out.
Secondly, tobacco products are a significant source of radiation. Smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day is equivalent to recieving 300-600 chest x-rays a year. These are radioactive elements that stay in your lungs and are circulated to other parts of your body and stay there for decades, and by an estimate of a former U.S. Surgeon General, cause 90% of tobacco-related cancers. Smokers have 8-13 times as much radioation in their urine than non-smokers.
You can construct any sort of device that doesn't require human interaction. It performs the functions of an operating system.
It's not quite like saying your brain is a human being, it's like saying the brain is the operating system for your body, which is essentially true in nearly all respects. The human body in your analogy would be the hardware, and in that respect brain is to operating system as human being is to computer.
I'm not saying that the operating system is everything that is software on the computer (which would be analogous to saying that a brain (kernel) is the same thing as a human being (operating system). A human being isn't analogous to an operating system at all.
This is a pointless analogy anyway, though many would argue that a brain is what makes a human uniquely human. We have a lot of physiological systems that are similar to other mammals and animals and function at the similar level or inferior levels, whereas our brain is clearly more advanced than that of other animals. Anyway, it all comes down to this. All of the cloud of nearly essential tools that comprise a Linux system are applications under the kernel, they are managed by the kernel, and to the kernel they are indistinguishable from other applications.
You just made that up, that's not a meaning used by most people, or anyone who knows what they're talking about with regard to the law and the historical and present usage of the word "steal". Look at Webster 1913, look at the Oxford English Dictionary, go to dictionary.com. That is not a definition of steal, and it's even less the meaning and consequences implied when the word "steal" is usually used. You can have a different interpretation of whatever word you want, you can call copyright infringement "murder" if you want, but that doesn't make it murder and it doesn't mean that the meaning and sentiment you're bringing up in people's minds by using that word is accurate.
It schedules tasks, handles input/output with hardware, allocates storage and memory, manages processes... it's an operating system. Now, it may be more precise to say "Red Hat Linux" or "GNU/Linux", but that doesn't mean that Linux isn't an operating system.
Aside from there being several main()'s in the code as other commenters have posted, there are also many int main(void) in the list that the parent provides, which is functionally identical, or at least nearly so.
But they have completely different consequences and justifications. When you steal from someone, you are depriving them of something in their possession. That's completely different from duplicating some song for which they were given a monopoly on distribution by the government, in order to encourage the arts. Copyright infringement is a civil matter whereas theft is often a criminal matter.
You say "both are illegal", which is true, but both are illegal in the same way that both speeding and assault are illegal, or in the same way that both embezzlement and murder are illegal. Yes they're both illegal, but they are entirely different classes of crime, both morally and under the law. To refer to both theft and copyright infringement as "stealing" is a lie that equates things that are, in fact, different, and much of the argument about the injustice of the RIAA's action are that they are zealously "enforcing" an unjust law in an unjust manner.
So the kid doesn't find the teacher and the remedial material they teach in public schools to be more interesting than the actual world around them? Let's give him amphetamines!
If you write on your website that you're sharing music, that's not even probable cause for a search by the police, let alone some random organization.
I'm not arguing that the RIAA is even conducting an illegal search by downloading a file from someone's machine. That person is allowing such downloads or, at least, the RIAA's activities in such an instance are as legal as the activities of anyone downloading a file (in terms of illegal search/trespass/seizure).
I would say Debian and Slackware maybe equal on the first count, with Debian probably edging out Slackware, as being more commonly used in a business environment. Compared to Red Hat, though, they're not used nearly as much. Debian is definitely more newbie friendly than Slackware. Some people find the Debian installation difficult, but in terms of the setup that you get out of it, Debian is far easier to maintain, and the software is stable and cohesively integrated with the rest of the system. Installing packages, or even upgrading the entire distribution (without rebooting no less) is handled by a comprehensive packaging system that makes it a breeze. There's plenty of documentation for Debian, and there's a debian-user mailing list you can find information about on the debian.org website. Depending on what you mean to do in a business environment, Slackware is good for learning how Linux fundamentally works. You can think of it as a sandbox with few package relationships and tools, so if you really want to be forced to learn Linux, go with that.
If they're not a government entity, then they don't have the authority to do ANY sort of search or seizure. The government is given that authority if there is a probable cause to search or seize, but without that, no one has any right to search or seize anything of mine.
Red Hat and Mandrake are pretty bloated, even their minimal installs. Try Slackware or Debian. The initial, basic installs are much smaller, and they try not to be bloated.
A flathead screwdriver is functionally superior to a hammer. It's primary function (screwing in nails) is clearly exclusive to the screwdriver. The functions of the hammer (hammering and removing nails) can be performed by the screwdriver. You can hammer with the handle of the screwdriver, and you can wedge out a nail with the flathead. Clearly, the hammer is better able to accomplish these tasks, but with a screwdriver you can accomplish all the functions of the screwdriver and the hammer, making it functionally superior.
If you impose a sacrifice on the artist in order to put the big record labels out of business or not support them, there exists at least a theoretical, possible beneficial outcome. What is accomplished by me not listening to the music, aside from depriving me of listening to the music? And how does my not listening to the music (thus also not buying it), not have identical consequences as me downloading the music and not paying for it, aside from the fact that I have the benefit of listening to the music, when in either case I'm not giving either the artist or the label any money?
I don't know if you're implying that Debian is not a cohesive system by saying that FreeBSD doesn't have apt dpkges or whatever, but Debian is a cohesive system that doesn't change functionality in the middle of a stable branch. You don't have to chase packages around, they're easily downloaded and installed, and major upgrades are handled pretty seamlessly as well. It works and it works well. I'm sure there are other reasons why FreeBSD and Debian are better and worse than each other for different purposes, but Debian is not at fault for not being a cohesive, stable system.
How is the RIAA immune from the fourth amendment? I have a right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That doesn't mean that any non-governmental entity has the right to search my stuff and take it. Any non-government entity has less rights to search and seize anything of mine. The government is only allowed to do so when in the course of a reasonable criminal or civil investigation. Anyone else is just trespassing, invading my privacy, and committing theft.
How is this not a "pecuniary penalty...for an offense or breach of law" or a "payment of money imposed upon a party as a punishment for an offense" (Webster 1913: "fine")?
How is it not cruel to exact monetary damages on someone that are many times that person's net worth, and even many times the net worth they will probably have within the next few years? How is it not cruel that someone's life will be, quite simply, ruined, due to extreme debt and a negative net worth for possibly decades to come? How is it not unusual that such a punishment far exceeds punishments someone might recieve for actual theft? I don't know exactly how many people these defendants are uploading to, but under the law the $150,000 is a maximum statutory damage, which means that the RIAA doesn't have to prove that there was actually a conceivable "loss" of sales of $150,000. This is especially important considering that most of the songs that people download would not have been paid for even if they could not have been downloaded.
Maybe not (although due to the RAVE act, you could be charged, or at least fined, if you were having a public gathering, like a concert, protest, etc. and someone did that), but what might happen is your house would get "confiscated" by the police, and you wouldn't be able to get it back. That sort of thing happens a lot.
Re:The ACLU is a great organization, but...
on
Joining the ACLU?
·
· Score: 1
The ACLU is not a leftist organization, unless by leftist you simply mean classical liberal/libertarian, which some might even call rightist or conservative. They defend the Bill of Rights. That's simply being supportive of civil liberties. Where have they said anything about environmental issues that did not relate to civil liberties in the constitution? I can't even find "environment" under the issues at their website. It seems like it's completely out of their purview. That doesn't meant they're not libertarian. In a sense, they're libertarian or constitutionalist in all or most of the issues that they deal with. They don't believe that religion has no place in government simply because they're not Republican, it's got nothing to do with political parties. They do civil liberties, which are supported by a lot of conservatives, liberals and people from lots of other political persuasions.
So, yes, I'm a staunch conservative, and proud to be part of an organization that defends the rights I have under a conservative government.
So, yes, I'm a staunch libertarian, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my libertarian rights.
So, yes, I'm an anarchist, and proud to be part of an organization that prevents government from encroaching on my natural rights.
So, yes, I'm a socialist, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my personal rights under a socialist system.
OK, I can understand how you might think that some or most libertarians take issues to silly extremes, but how has the ACLU done this? They defend the power of the supreme law of the land.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a language, not some ISO standard where hackneyed words that sound stupid and are not used have any validity. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibyte" may merely look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
More accurately, he should have said in the context of computer memory, rather than transmission speeds. That is the context of a hard drive purchase; anyone who is looking at the number of gigabytes rather than merely looking for a "small" or "humongous" hard drive is looking at the number in the context of files the size of which are expressed in base 2 "gigabytes".
It's a language, not some ISO standard. The regular prefixes have always been base 2 when in the context of memory, and while "gibibit" may just look acceptably funky when typed, I'm never going to say such an ill-conceived word.
It still links to some useful or interesting content.
I don't know, depends on how long you've been smoking. Someone who's been smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years is paying in $18,000-$26,000 into the system just through cigarette taxes. Someone who smokes for 40 or 60 years is paying in $73,000 to $150,000 just through the taxes. That's not to mention the tens of thousands of dollars one pays into Medicare/Medicaid over the course of his life even in the most low paying jobs. And, of course, some people have sufficient funds to pay for surgery.
None of this should make a difference in society's that call themselves free, though. If the various socialist systems are used as justifications to limit liberty, it's clear the direction they're going.
First of all, it's much more damaging to your health when you inhale something and it goes right into your blood stream and to your brain (your lungs are designed to get oxygen to your brain as quickly and efficiently as possible). When something's in your digestive system, it's in a stew of other materials and thus interacts with your body's cells to a lesser degree. Much of what's in your digestive tracts gets defecated and urinated out.
Secondly, tobacco products are a significant source of radiation. Smoking 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day is equivalent to recieving 300-600 chest x-rays a year. These are radioactive elements that stay in your lungs and are circulated to other parts of your body and stay there for decades, and by an estimate of a former U.S. Surgeon General, cause 90% of tobacco-related cancers. Smokers have 8-13 times as much radioation in their urine than non-smokers.
You can construct any sort of device that doesn't require human interaction. It performs the functions of an operating system.
It's not quite like saying your brain is a human being, it's like saying the brain is the operating system for your body, which is essentially true in nearly all respects. The human body in your analogy would be the hardware, and in that respect brain is to operating system as human being is to computer.
I'm not saying that the operating system is everything that is software on the computer (which would be analogous to saying that a brain (kernel) is the same thing as a human being (operating system). A human being isn't analogous to an operating system at all.
This is a pointless analogy anyway, though many would argue that a brain is what makes a human uniquely human. We have a lot of physiological systems that are similar to other mammals and animals and function at the similar level or inferior levels, whereas our brain is clearly more advanced than that of other animals. Anyway, it all comes down to this. All of the cloud of nearly essential tools that comprise a Linux system are applications under the kernel, they are managed by the kernel, and to the kernel they are indistinguishable from other applications.
You just made that up, that's not a meaning used by most people, or anyone who knows what they're talking about with regard to the law and the historical and present usage of the word "steal". Look at Webster 1913, look at the Oxford English Dictionary, go to dictionary.com. That is not a definition of steal, and it's even less the meaning and consequences implied when the word "steal" is usually used. You can have a different interpretation of whatever word you want, you can call copyright infringement "murder" if you want, but that doesn't make it murder and it doesn't mean that the meaning and sentiment you're bringing up in people's minds by using that word is accurate.
It schedules tasks, handles input/output with hardware, allocates storage and memory, manages processes... it's an operating system. Now, it may be more precise to say "Red Hat Linux" or "GNU/Linux", but that doesn't mean that Linux isn't an operating system.
Aside from there being several main()'s in the code as other commenters have posted, there are also many int main(void) in the list that the parent provides, which is functionally identical, or at least nearly so.
But they have completely different consequences and justifications. When you steal from someone, you are depriving them of something in their possession. That's completely different from duplicating some song for which they were given a monopoly on distribution by the government, in order to encourage the arts. Copyright infringement is a civil matter whereas theft is often a criminal matter.
You say "both are illegal", which is true, but both are illegal in the same way that both speeding and assault are illegal, or in the same way that both embezzlement and murder are illegal. Yes they're both illegal, but they are entirely different classes of crime, both morally and under the law. To refer to both theft and copyright infringement as "stealing" is a lie that equates things that are, in fact, different, and much of the argument about the injustice of the RIAA's action are that they are zealously "enforcing" an unjust law in an unjust manner.
So the kid doesn't find the teacher and the remedial material they teach in public schools to be more interesting than the actual world around them? Let's give him amphetamines!
If you write on your website that you're sharing music, that's not even probable cause for a search by the police, let alone some random organization.
I'm not arguing that the RIAA is even conducting an illegal search by downloading a file from someone's machine. That person is allowing such downloads or, at least, the RIAA's activities in such an instance are as legal as the activities of anyone downloading a file (in terms of illegal search/trespass/seizure).
I would say Debian and Slackware maybe equal on the first count, with Debian probably edging out Slackware, as being more commonly used in a business environment. Compared to Red Hat, though, they're not used nearly as much. Debian is definitely more newbie friendly than Slackware. Some people find the Debian installation difficult, but in terms of the setup that you get out of it, Debian is far easier to maintain, and the software is stable and cohesively integrated with the rest of the system. Installing packages, or even upgrading the entire distribution (without rebooting no less) is handled by a comprehensive packaging system that makes it a breeze. There's plenty of documentation for Debian, and there's a debian-user mailing list you can find information about on the debian.org website. Depending on what you mean to do in a business environment, Slackware is good for learning how Linux fundamentally works. You can think of it as a sandbox with few package relationships and tools, so if you really want to be forced to learn Linux, go with that.
If they're not a government entity, then they don't have the authority to do ANY sort of search or seizure. The government is given that authority if there is a probable cause to search or seize, but without that, no one has any right to search or seize anything of mine.
Red Hat and Mandrake are pretty bloated, even their minimal installs. Try Slackware or Debian. The initial, basic installs are much smaller, and they try not to be bloated.
he
hehe
wthat's I am so ya I wrote that before
fucking clearnign shit up amng wyo mang
give m e acal
A flathead screwdriver is functionally superior to a hammer. It's primary function (screwing in nails) is clearly exclusive to the screwdriver. The functions of the hammer (hammering and removing nails) can be performed by the screwdriver. You can hammer with the handle of the screwdriver, and you can wedge out a nail with the flathead. Clearly, the hammer is better able to accomplish these tasks, but with a screwdriver you can accomplish all the functions of the screwdriver and the hammer, making it functionally superior.
If you impose a sacrifice on the artist in order to put the big record labels out of business or not support them, there exists at least a theoretical, possible beneficial outcome. What is accomplished by me not listening to the music, aside from depriving me of listening to the music? And how does my not listening to the music (thus also not buying it), not have identical consequences as me downloading the music and not paying for it, aside from the fact that I have the benefit of listening to the music, when in either case I'm not giving either the artist or the label any money?
I don't know if you're implying that Debian is not a cohesive system by saying that FreeBSD doesn't have apt dpkges or whatever, but Debian is a cohesive system that doesn't change functionality in the middle of a stable branch. You don't have to chase packages around, they're easily downloaded and installed, and major upgrades are handled pretty seamlessly as well. It works and it works well. I'm sure there are other reasons why FreeBSD and Debian are better and worse than each other for different purposes, but Debian is not at fault for not being a cohesive, stable system.
How is the RIAA immune from the fourth amendment? I have a right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That doesn't mean that any non-governmental entity has the right to search my stuff and take it. Any non-government entity has less rights to search and seize anything of mine. The government is only allowed to do so when in the course of a reasonable criminal or civil investigation. Anyone else is just trespassing, invading my privacy, and committing theft.
How is this not a "pecuniary penalty...for an offense or breach of law" or a "payment of money imposed upon a party as a punishment for an offense" (Webster 1913: "fine")?
How is it not cruel to exact monetary damages on someone that are many times that person's net worth, and even many times the net worth they will probably have within the next few years? How is it not cruel that someone's life will be, quite simply, ruined, due to extreme debt and a negative net worth for possibly decades to come? How is it not unusual that such a punishment far exceeds punishments someone might recieve for actual theft? I don't know exactly how many people these defendants are uploading to, but under the law the $150,000 is a maximum statutory damage, which means that the RIAA doesn't have to prove that there was actually a conceivable "loss" of sales of $150,000. This is especially important considering that most of the songs that people download would not have been paid for even if they could not have been downloaded.
Maybe not (although due to the RAVE act, you could be charged, or at least fined, if you were having a public gathering, like a concert, protest, etc. and someone did that), but what might happen is your house would get "confiscated" by the police, and you wouldn't be able to get it back. That sort of thing happens a lot.
The ACLU is not a leftist organization, unless by leftist you simply mean classical liberal/libertarian, which some might even call rightist or conservative. They defend the Bill of Rights. That's simply being supportive of civil liberties. Where have they said anything about environmental issues that did not relate to civil liberties in the constitution? I can't even find "environment" under the issues at their website. It seems like it's completely out of their purview. That doesn't meant they're not libertarian. In a sense, they're libertarian or constitutionalist in all or most of the issues that they deal with. They don't believe that religion has no place in government simply because they're not Republican, it's got nothing to do with political parties. They do civil liberties, which are supported by a lot of conservatives, liberals and people from lots of other political persuasions.
So, yes, I'm a staunch conservative, and proud to be part of an organization that defends the rights I have under a conservative government.
So, yes, I'm a staunch libertarian, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my libertarian rights.
So, yes, I'm an anarchist, and proud to be part of an organization that prevents government from encroaching on my natural rights.
So, yes, I'm a socialist, and proud to be part of an organization that defends my personal rights under a socialist system.
OK, I can understand how you might think that some or most libertarians take issues to silly extremes, but how has the ACLU done this? They defend the power of the supreme law of the land.