For all practical purposes, it is impossible to die from using cannabis. In addition, cannabis does not prove addictive for most people--usually those that have addictive personalities. Minimal, infrequent usage of most other drugs is also not addictive. You're making a pretty blanket statement that's not quite true.
Well, for one thing, if there wasn't the assumption or agreement that the journalist would not reveal his source, then the person may never have talked to the journalist in the first place, or may have done so in a way that would not have revealed any locational, etc. information about himself. If journalists exposed their sources, there would be no sources to expose.
Picture two societies. In one society, journalists don't expose their sources: so "sources" are more free to talk to journalists and do so because they know or at least reasonably believe that they will not be exposed.
In the second society, journalists expose their sources: so "sources" do not speak with journalists.
In BOTH societies, journalist's do not tell the authorities about their sources, in the second case because they are unable to. Law enforcement has the same capacity to learn about criminals, informants, etc. from journalists. However, in the second case, free press is greatly diminished and society suffers.
In an individual case, such as the abovementioned serial killer, yes, lives would be saved by the journalist revealing the source. However, once that's done, serial killers would not talk to journalists in the future or do so in a manner that is prohibitively secretive. In the future, there are no more serial killer "sources" and free press suffers, both from the lack of information about certain news-worthy events or all news-worthy events and from the closer relationship between the press and the government. Talking to a journalist becomes like talking to a law enforcement official, because giving information to a journalist is the same as giving it to law enforcement. This is certainly undesirable.
Well, if a person could input any number at all and find out the vote of that number, you could input multiple numbers and sufficiently anonymize your vote. Even by just putting in one number no one could prove that it was in fact your number.
Why does it matter that Nader gets any recognition by winning one (or 50) electoral votes? He still loses, which is not due to the electoral college. The system should not be changed just so that a person can gain "recognition". Nader wins 2% in California either way, and it doesn't matter any more to the two parties if he also gets an electoral vote out of it. He still has the same amount of support. The only reason electoral votes are a big deal is because it means that a person carried a plurality of the state.
Well, it's hypocritical when it's same editor writing about how horrible the MPAA is and also announcing/promoting movie releases and how much he wants to go see them.
I don't know how many releases Red Hat supported at once, at that time, but because of Debian's slower release schedule, the amount of time over which Debian supported previous releases was close to the amount of time that Red Hat supported previous releases. Slink (2.1) was released in March of 1999. When Debian dropped support for slink when potato (2.2) was released in August of 2000, slink had been supported for 17 months, so when potato was released everything Debian had released in the past 17 months had been supported.
At the same time as potato was released, Red Hat 7.0 was released (August 2000). According to dates of the Red Hat "Errata" packages on the Red Hat website, Red Hat 6.0 and later were supported at the time Red Hat 7.0 was released. Previous versions were not supported; for instance, there had been no errata packages packages released for Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2 for 16 and 13 months, respectively. So, at the time Debian potato and Red Hat 7.0 came out, Red Hat was supporting 3 previous releases, which take us back to the release of Red hat 6.0 in April of 1999, a month after slink was released, which means Red Hat was supporting releases for 16 months previous, less than Debian.
Because of Debian's slower release cycle, they have, for a while at least, supported releases for a longer time than Red Hat does. However, there are of course fewer official releases, so while Red Hat supports more previous releases, they do not support releases for a longer time than Debian, which is what is important in determining if a purchased product will still have security updates when you need them, without having to upgrade. Of course, the other big difference is that it's much easier to upgrade between Debian releases, especially in the past when the Red Hat installation process was more difficult than it is now.
Congress can only do what is specified in the Constitution, it cannot do anything else. That is what Congress cannot do. This principle has been broken down by a liberal interpretation of the commerce and elastic clauses, which state that Congress may regulate commerce among the several states and may "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers", respectively.
With apt-get in Debian, you can upgrade the entire distribution without rebooting (i.e.: getting a Cd and going through the installation process, etc.), you can upgrade major parts of the distribution safely. The dependencies and quality of the packages and the way in which the packaging tools upgrade packages ensures that upgrading is a safe procedure.
By "Green" he meant environmentally friendly
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
I don't see any indication that the submitter was asking whether geeks were primarily supporters of the Green Party, let alone parts of their platform other than those relating to the environment, or that he meant anything more than friendly towards environmental activism or supportive of stronger measures to protect the environment. On top of that, the above post just seems to be flamebait.
The point is, it would be easy to find and access the raw information if you needed or wanted to. If you were researching a subject, or really cared to get to the bottom of it, you could go find the raw information, without the biases of your lawyer, the nightly news, or slashdot.
No, every package in the archive is a part of the release. Every part of a stable release should be static, and held to the same stability and security standards as any other package. Just because it's not used on a server does not mean a package should not be high-quality. A stable desktop is appealing in many environments anyway. If a person wants to use a newer version of some software, they can always use testing, or they can use one of many unofficial packages packaged for the stable release.
The electoral college is excellent for the whole geographic country, instead of just representing a simple numerical majority. The discontent with the election would be far greater and would be concentrated in one geographic region. If this were a repeated occurrence, a real problem would arise. The electoral college ensures that candidates must appeal to the interests of different people across the country, and not just focus on catering to the particular wishes of one region of the country. The electoral college ensures (as a direct election would) that the candidate receives sufficient popular vote to be able to rule, but it also ensures that the popular vote is distributed geographically. This ensures a regional balance, which is vital to ensuring the stability of a large and diverse nation. Bush had this geographic representation: he won 30 states whereas Gore only won 20 states (and D.C.).
The fact is, won the popular vote by 0.5%. That's not very significant, especially considering that either candidate would be able to govern effectively, both with 48% of the popular vote, and that any measurement device has a margin of error.
Why don't they just make it a web browser? Haven't you heard of modularity? There's no need for an IRC client or a mail client! It was supposed to fit on a floppy disk.
Because doing so would dramatically increase the size of each package, and if multiple packages that used the same functions were installed, you just have duplicated functionality when you could have it all in a library. Do you have any idea what modularity is at all? What are you talking about tying multiple programs with IE? If you're talking about how IE is "part of the operating system" according to Microsoft, that's a problem because it doesn't need to be, and it doesn't make any sense for it to be. Windows installs all sorts of things (Outlook Express, Netmeeting, IE, etc.) that cannot be removed easily, when they have no need to be there. That's completely different.
People usually resent their "favorite obscure band" after they become commercially successful because when they become commercially successful, they are forced by record companies to change their music in order to have more commercial appeal. Thus, when your favorite obscure band becomes commercially successful, they cease to create the music you like, and start creating music that's just like everything else on the mass market. Once they become commercially successful, you can no longer get the music you like from that band, and that would legitimately cause resentment for "selling out."
The same can be true of Lindows. When a distribution like Lindows is released, it contains many differences from past Linux distributions. Many of these differences cause the same problems that are present in Microsoft products, because the distribution is trying to be user-friendly at the expense of stability, security, speed, open-source ideals, or even of having a sensibly-arranged distribution. Thus, when a product like Lindows is released, it doesn't represent Linux or bring Linux to the masses. It might bring a flawed version of Linux to the mass market, and in doing so tarnish the name of Linux with associated consequences for its reputation, and it furthermore does not accurately represent Linux. What's the reason for using Lindows if it doesn't have so many of the good properties of Linux? It only ends up being an inferior version of Windows. So, your analogy is flawed, as is assuming everyone that uses Linux has the same "cause."
Slashdot Mirror
For all practical purposes, it is impossible to die from using cannabis. In addition, cannabis does not prove addictive for most people--usually those that have addictive personalities. Minimal, infrequent usage of most other drugs is also not addictive. You're making a pretty blanket statement that's not quite true.
Well, for one thing, if there wasn't the assumption or agreement that the journalist would not reveal his source, then the person may never have talked to the journalist in the first place, or may have done so in a way that would not have revealed any locational, etc. information about himself. If journalists exposed their sources, there would be no sources to expose.
Picture two societies. In one society, journalists don't expose their sources: so "sources" are more free to talk to journalists and do so because they know or at least reasonably believe that they will not be exposed.
In the second society, journalists expose their sources: so "sources" do not speak with journalists.
In BOTH societies, journalist's do not tell the authorities about their sources, in the second case because they are unable to. Law enforcement has the same capacity to learn about criminals, informants, etc. from journalists. However, in the second case, free press is greatly diminished and society suffers.
In an individual case, such as the abovementioned serial killer, yes, lives would be saved by the journalist revealing the source. However, once that's done, serial killers would not talk to journalists in the future or do so in a manner that is prohibitively secretive. In the future, there are no more serial killer "sources" and free press suffers, both from the lack of information about certain news-worthy events or all news-worthy events and from the closer relationship between the press and the government. Talking to a journalist becomes like talking to a law enforcement official, because giving information to a journalist is the same as giving it to law enforcement. This is certainly undesirable.
In the United States, an article of amendment to the constitution becomes a "full-blown" part of the constitution.
PIRACY IS NOT THEFT.
Well, if a person could input any number at all and find out the vote of that number, you could input multiple numbers and sufficiently anonymize your vote. Even by just putting in one number no one could prove that it was in fact your number.
Why does it matter that Nader gets any recognition by winning one (or 50) electoral votes? He still loses, which is not due to the electoral college. The system should not be changed just so that a person can gain "recognition". Nader wins 2% in California either way, and it doesn't matter any more to the two parties if he also gets an electoral vote out of it. He still has the same amount of support. The only reason electoral votes are a big deal is because it means that a person carried a plurality of the state.
Well, it's hypocritical when it's same editor writing about how horrible the MPAA is and also announcing/promoting movie releases and how much he wants to go see them.
I assume you mean copyright infringement?
I don't know how many releases Red Hat supported at once, at that time, but because of Debian's slower release schedule, the amount of time over which Debian supported previous releases was close to the amount of time that Red Hat supported previous releases. Slink (2.1) was released in March of 1999. When Debian dropped support for slink when potato (2.2) was released in August of 2000, slink had been supported for 17 months, so when potato was released everything Debian had released in the past 17 months had been supported.
At the same time as potato was released, Red Hat 7.0 was released (August 2000). According to dates of the Red Hat "Errata" packages on the Red Hat website, Red Hat 6.0 and later were supported at the time Red Hat 7.0 was released. Previous versions were not supported; for instance, there had been no errata packages packages released for Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2 for 16 and 13 months, respectively. So, at the time Debian potato and Red Hat 7.0 came out, Red Hat was supporting 3 previous releases, which take us back to the release of Red hat 6.0 in April of 1999, a month after slink was released, which means Red Hat was supporting releases for 16 months previous, less than Debian.
Because of Debian's slower release cycle, they have, for a while at least, supported releases for a longer time than Red Hat does. However, there are of course fewer official releases, so while Red Hat supports more previous releases, they do not support releases for a longer time than Debian, which is what is important in determining if a purchased product will still have security updates when you need them, without having to upgrade. Of course, the other big difference is that it's much easier to upgrade between Debian releases, especially in the past when the Red Hat installation process was more difficult than it is now.
That doesn't happen in your own home if you live on your own, if you're outside at some random place with friends who smoke.
Congress can only do what is specified in the Constitution, it cannot do anything else. That is what Congress cannot do. This principle has been broken down by a liberal interpretation of the commerce and elastic clauses, which state that Congress may regulate commerce among the several states and may "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers", respectively.
How does increased salary cause increased spending, independent of personal choice?
With apt-get in Debian, you can upgrade the entire distribution without rebooting (i.e.: getting a Cd and going through the installation process, etc.), you can upgrade major parts of the distribution safely. The dependencies and quality of the packages and the way in which the packaging tools upgrade packages ensures that upgrading is a safe procedure.
I don't see any indication that the submitter was asking whether geeks were primarily supporters of the Green Party, let alone parts of their platform other than those relating to the environment, or that he meant anything more than friendly towards environmental activism or supportive of stronger measures to protect the environment. On top of that, the above post just seems to be flamebait.
Here's actually an interesting case where open-source software is a great help. Releasing your code can, if it's good, get it all over the net.
The point is, it would be easy to find and access the raw information if you needed or wanted to. If you were researching a subject, or really cared to get to the bottom of it, you could go find the raw information, without the biases of your lawyer, the nightly news, or slashdot.
No, it's probably just because there's a problem with the usual search mechanism
Wouldn't 2D design and Art History 101 be appropriate required courses for an MFA?
No, every package in the archive is a part of the release. Every part of a stable release should be static, and held to the same stability and security standards as any other package. Just because it's not used on a server does not mean a package should not be high-quality. A stable desktop is appealing in many environments anyway. If a person wants to use a newer version of some software, they can always use testing, or they can use one of many unofficial packages packaged for the stable release.
To set the record straight, I've never had a problem with testing.
The fact is, won the popular vote by 0.5%. That's not very significant, especially considering that either candidate would be able to govern effectively, both with 48% of the popular vote, and that any measurement device has a margin of error.
That doesn't mean you can't do it though.
Why don't they just make it a web browser? Haven't you heard of modularity? There's no need for an IRC client or a mail client! It was supposed to fit on a floppy disk.
Because doing so would dramatically increase the size of each package, and if multiple packages that used the same functions were installed, you just have duplicated functionality when you could have it all in a library. Do you have any idea what modularity is at all? What are you talking about tying multiple programs with IE? If you're talking about how IE is "part of the operating system" according to Microsoft, that's a problem because it doesn't need to be, and it doesn't make any sense for it to be. Windows installs all sorts of things (Outlook Express, Netmeeting, IE, etc.) that cannot be removed easily, when they have no need to be there. That's completely different.
The same can be true of Lindows. When a distribution like Lindows is released, it contains many differences from past Linux distributions. Many of these differences cause the same problems that are present in Microsoft products, because the distribution is trying to be user-friendly at the expense of stability, security, speed, open-source ideals, or even of having a sensibly-arranged distribution. Thus, when a product like Lindows is released, it doesn't represent Linux or bring Linux to the masses. It might bring a flawed version of Linux to the mass market, and in doing so tarnish the name of Linux with associated consequences for its reputation, and it furthermore does not accurately represent Linux. What's the reason for using Lindows if it doesn't have so many of the good properties of Linux? It only ends up being an inferior version of Windows. So, your analogy is flawed, as is assuming everyone that uses Linux has the same "cause."