One fundamental design flaw in Windows is that it decides if a file is executable based on its name. If it ends in.vbs,.exe,.js,.com,.scr, or any of dozens of other extensions, Windows will happily try to run it, by default!
The number is actually 1-888-5-OPT-OUT. It changed recently, according to the recorded message.
You have the option of getting "off the lists" for 2 years, or forever. You also have the option of getting back on the lists -- why you'd want to, I don't know.
The problem with liberatarians (if you truly are one) is that you guys never place yourself on the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism in and of itself means nothing without the econopolitical left-right ideology.
That's bollocks. Libertarians don't play your left-right game; we see the world in terms of autonomy vs control, not one kind of control vs another. You apparently assume that there has to be control, and we can only change the type, and who holds the whip. That kind of zero-sum thinking is... so depressing. And unrealistic.
Take the little Libertarian quiz, see how you come out. I'm curious.
I said: However, central banks are not capitalist -- they are a feature of a command economy.
You said: What are you talking about? The banks are CRUCIAL to capitalism.... you did read the "central" part, right? Central banks are tools of a command economy, not of capitalism.
capitalism is very unjust
No, it's not.
Can it really be a misuse of power when the the vast majority of the population supports it?
Yes. Germans supported the Nazis. Didn't make them right.
What if the society (say the vast majority of the population accepts something as correct)?
Then let's all jump off the cliff. Your'e saying that might makes right, and that minorities have no rights -- only the temporary perks granted by the majority.
You are looking at it totally from a legal point of view, while I'm looking at it from an ideological point of view.
You have that backwards, if anything. I look at things philosophically. "Moral" and "legal" are different things.
So you think I'm a dictator huh? From what I can tell, your philosophy is one any dictator would agree with.
What does this all mean? People aren't born with rights; they are simply granted whatever society/govt/etc wants to.
People are born with rights. They are not granted. Priviledges are granted. Permits are granted. Licenses are granted. Rights are not.
What you are saying would make more sense under anarchism (ie. no govt).
Eh? And, governments do not have absolute control. Even if they try.
Besides, you can't claim Jefferson was responsible for all of it.
I didn't. Classical Liberals are libertarians (note small 'L') -- they believe(d) in liberty and lasseiz-faire. Modern "liberals" are welfare statists at best, socialists in the middle, and left-authoritarians at worst.
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto for "utilitarian socialist revolution and overthrow of the capitalist state."
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto for "utilitarism socialist revolution and overthrow of the capitalist state."
Furthermore, the vast majority of rights that you take for granted were actually fought for and won (incidentally by leftists).
More like "classical liberals" such as Thomas JEfferson. No one was ever born with these rights. Instead, we FORCED the govt to GRANT us these rights.
That's a very sad view of life, considering oneself chattel to be used at will by... anyone.
We are all born with rights. People, including governments, regularly try to violate those rights. "We" did not force the government to grant us rights, we forced it to stop violating them.
You seem to think that the government (or "the people" or whoever) have a dvine right to rule, with unlimited power over anyone. Again, how sad!
You have simply been accepting the status quo without any thought.
Uh, no.
A dictator could take over, say USA and strip your freedoms in one day.
Such as you, I suppose. But they wouldn't be stripping my rights, they would be violating them.
I think your rhetoric of "government as provider of all" is meant to demoralize people who would oppose you. You're trying to change the debate from, "what powers is government allowed to have" -- what the U.S. was founded on -- into "what priviledges and subsidies shall the rulers grant their subjects?"
So do you still think that you are BORN with rights such as freedom to speak?
Yep.
Some dictator could strip that right and you would lose it. So is it not granted?
No, it's not granted. a dictator "stripping" that right would actually just be violating it and oppressing his subjects.
I'll bet that you don't even know what freedom is!
*sigh* I guess I have to wait for my benevolent lefist shepherd -- that's you, it looks like -- to tell me. Not.
As far as social engineering is concerned, we already live in a world like that--too bad you don't realize it.
I do realize it, my overreaching chowderheaded friend, I just don't like it.
When the central bank increases interest rates by 0.25% in order to combat inflation, while putting hundreads of thousands out of work, that is not social engineering?
It can be seen that way. However, central banks are not capitalist -- they are a feature of a command economy.
When the neo-conservatives in power (in the US govt) send their military over to the Middle East (and other parts) to reshape the political landscape and take the oil, that's not social engineering?
While not conceding your example as reality, it's a misuse of power. Libertarians like me don't support that.
When the govt debt shoots up because of tax cuts, that's not social engineering?
Uh, no.
When the govt allocates from from social spending to cover short falls, that's not social engineering?
Nope.
*rollseyes*.. of course
One last question:
What gives you the right to decide how other people should live?
I should have pointed out that socialism (or nearly any left wing system, except anarchism) does not grant FULL freedom.
It's interesting that you think freedom is granted, like it's a priviledge rather than a right of each and every human being. You probably object to the word "rights" has well, though.
Socialism is utilitarian so you are right: you won't have full freedom. [...] So you never will have full freedom.
What "freedoms" will the utilitarian overlords "grant" to their citizen-chattel in your glorious future?
Please explain how what you're advocating isn't enslavement to (ostensibly) your fellow man, enforced and governed by a powerful elite -- or as you put it, "the govt (or some other entity, which acts as a proxy for the population)"?
So when I said freedom, I was speaking within this framework.
So, "freedom," as long people's "freedom" doesn't interfere with your social engineering goals. "Social Science," my hairy nuts. You're just a busybody that thinks he knows better how to run other people's lives than they do themselves -- and on top of that, that you have the *right* to run their lives in any the way you see fit.
Utilitarianism/socialism is enslavement to your fellow man.
For example, socialism will not let you hoard a resource that is valuable to society
If by "socialism," you mean, "people in power." In a "utilitarism" system, who decides what is "hoarding," what is "valuable" and what is "society?" If it's the people at large, you have unconstrained rule-by-mob. If it's the government, you have a dictatorship. The USSR, North Korea, Maoist China -- all examples of "utilitarian" (command and control) societies.
To you, it seems that freedom is commerce-oriented.
I could read the "only" in there. You're wrong.
Nazi Germany was fascist -- it was, at best, a corporate state, not a capitalist one. It wasn't free.
The black markets you cited in South America doesn't prove any point.
Yes they do.
I don't think we should be going into black markets because they are complicated and misleading. ... and don't support your worldview. Read "The Mystery of Capital," by Hernando de Soto (a Peruvian economist).
Just because corporate oligopolies have control over you (instead of a government, or a king, or a dictator) doesnt' mean you are free...
No shit. What does that have to do with capitalism, though?
I'm anti-capitalist and don't consider free markets to be "free".
That was obvious. I imagine you consider some sort of bondage to the state to be "free" -- such as free healthcare, free tv, free food, free housing, freedom from work, etc.
All you capitalism-worshippers are going down...
*cough* Right. I so look forwaring to being enslaved by you and your ilk.
I only have ONE definition of freedom: the ability to move around freely, communicate with others, speak freely, etc
Presumably one's freedom to engage in trade is covered by freedom of speech, association, travel, and -- as you so eloquently put it -- "etc." Capitalism is based on freedom.
Capitalism is the freedom to trade with others.Trade, not steal, extort, exploit, etc. Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones. South American dictatorships have large black markets -- black markets that are often larger than the official economy. The people are choosing capitalism there, but it's not properly supporte by the government.
"Clearly you have no idea"... what you're talking about. There are many areas of freedom. Perhaps you think that a person can be "free" but not have the liberty to engage in the economic activities of his own choosing. Free, but in bondage?
A "capitalist federal republic" is a "freedom loving democracy." Unfortunately, the U.S. is less capitalist, less federal and less of a republic with each passing year.
Capitalist: lack of subsidy and government favor or protection of business. Strongly enforced contract law. Strong protection of personal property and rights. Protection from coercion and fraud.
Federal: having a central government, but with limited powers. Most legislative control resides with smaller units of government closer to the people.
Republic: representative democracy.
Throw in constitutional -- protection of the minorites against the majorities (e.g., limits on the power of majority-rules), and you have a pretty good system. A constitutional, capitalist federal republic. The word "capitalist" is really redundant in that formulation.
Microsoft is interested only in control. Protection of the minority? Bah. Limited power? Bah. Representative? Bah. Lack of government subsidies and protection of individual rights? Bah.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's excellent news.
Isn't NFS good enough?
No. How much security does NFS have built-in? Exactly none.
Ok, which moderator didn't recognize this as a troll?
Needing to "protect the os from the user" is
windows has flaws, but if you protect the os from its users, it's not really that bad.
What kind of bullshit is that?
One fundamental design flaw in Windows is that it decides if a file is executable based on its name. If it ends in
The number is actually 1-888-5-OPT-OUT. It changed recently, according to the recorded message.
You have the option of getting "off the lists" for 2 years, or forever. You also have the option of getting back on the lists -- why you'd want to, I don't know.
100% personal,
90% economic.
Almost right at the "libertarian" peak.
The problem with liberatarians (if you truly are one) is that you guys never place yourself on the left-right spectrum. Libertarianism in and of itself means nothing without the econopolitical left-right ideology.
That's bollocks. Libertarians don't play your left-right game; we see the world in terms of autonomy vs control, not one kind of control vs another. You apparently assume that there has to be control, and we can only change the type, and who holds the whip. That kind of zero-sum thinking is... so depressing. And unrealistic.
Take the little Libertarian quiz, see how you come out. I'm curious.
http://www.lp.org/quiz/
Yes, it's a short and simple quiz, so plase don't go on about how sort and simple it is.
I said: However, central banks are not capitalist -- they are a feature of a command economy.
... you did read the "central" part, right? Central banks are tools of a command economy, not of capitalism.
You said: What are you talking about? The banks are CRUCIAL to capitalism.
capitalism is very unjust
No, it's not.
Can it really be a misuse of power when the the vast majority of the population supports it?
Yes. Germans supported the Nazis. Didn't make them right.
What if the society (say the vast majority of the population accepts something as correct)?
Then let's all jump off the cliff. Your'e saying that might makes right, and that minorities have no rights -- only the temporary perks granted by the majority.
You are looking at it totally from a legal point of view, while I'm looking at it from an ideological point of view.
You have that backwards, if anything. I look at things philosophically. "Moral" and "legal" are different things.
So you think I'm a dictator huh?
From what I can tell, your philosophy is one any dictator would agree with.
What does this all mean? People aren't born with rights; they are simply granted whatever society/govt/etc wants to.
People are born with rights. They are not granted. Priviledges are granted. Permits are granted. Licenses are granted. Rights are not.
What you are saying would make more sense under anarchism (ie. no govt).
Eh? And, governments do not have absolute control. Even if they try.
Besides, you can't claim Jefferson was responsible for all of it.
I didn't. Classical Liberals are libertarians (note small 'L') -- they believe(d) in liberty and lasseiz-faire. Modern "liberals" are welfare statists at best, socialists in the middle, and left-authoritarians at worst.
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto for "utilitarian socialist revolution and overthrow of the capitalist state."
Just ignore him.
Sivaram_Velauthapill is a troll. He chooses an article, and tries to turn it into a manifesto for "utilitarism socialist revolution and overthrow of the capitalist state."
Just ignore him.
Furthermore, the vast majority of rights that you take for granted were actually fought for and won (incidentally by leftists).
... anyone.
.. of course
More like "classical liberals" such as Thomas JEfferson.
No one was ever born with these rights. Instead, we FORCED the govt to GRANT us these rights.
That's a very sad view of life, considering oneself chattel to be used at will by
We are all born with rights. People, including governments, regularly try to violate those rights. "We" did not force the government to grant us rights, we forced it to stop violating them.
You seem to think that the government (or "the people" or whoever) have a dvine right to rule, with unlimited power over anyone. Again, how sad!
You have simply been accepting the status quo without any thought.
Uh, no.
A dictator could take over, say USA and strip your freedoms in one day.
Such as you, I suppose. But they wouldn't be stripping my rights, they would be violating them.
I think your rhetoric of "government as provider of all" is meant to demoralize people who would oppose you. You're trying to change the debate from, "what powers is government allowed to have" -- what the U.S. was founded on -- into "what priviledges and subsidies shall the rulers grant their subjects?"
So do you still think that you are BORN with rights such as freedom to speak?
Yep.
Some dictator could strip that right and you would lose it. So is it not granted?
No, it's not granted. a dictator "stripping" that right would actually just be violating it and oppressing his subjects.
I'll bet that you don't even know what freedom is!
*sigh* I guess I have to wait for my benevolent lefist shepherd -- that's you, it looks like -- to tell me. Not.
As far as social engineering is concerned, we already live in a world like that--too bad you don't realize it.
I do realize it, my overreaching chowderheaded friend, I just don't like it.
When the central bank increases interest rates by 0.25% in order to combat inflation, while putting hundreads of thousands out of work, that is not social engineering?
It can be seen that way. However, central banks are not capitalist -- they are a feature of a command economy.
When the neo-conservatives in power (in the US govt) send their military over to the Middle East (and other parts) to reshape the political landscape and take the oil, that's not social engineering?
While not conceding your example as reality, it's a misuse of power. Libertarians like me don't support that.
When the govt debt shoots up because of tax cuts, that's not social engineering?
Uh, no.
When the govt allocates from from social spending to cover short falls, that's not social engineering?
Nope.
*rollseyes*
One last question:
What gives you the right to decide how other people should live?
I should have pointed out that socialism (or nearly any left wing system, except anarchism) does not grant FULL freedom.
It's interesting that you think freedom is granted, like it's a priviledge rather than a right of each and every human being. You probably object to the word "rights" has well, though.
Socialism is utilitarian so you are right: you won't have full freedom. [...] So you never will have full freedom.
What "freedoms" will the utilitarian overlords "grant" to their citizen-chattel in your glorious future?
Please explain how what you're advocating isn't enslavement to (ostensibly) your fellow man, enforced and governed by a powerful elite -- or as you put it, "the govt (or some other entity, which acts as a proxy for the population)"?
So when I said freedom, I was speaking within this framework.
So, "freedom," as long people's "freedom" doesn't interfere with your social engineering goals. "Social Science," my hairy nuts. You're just a busybody that thinks he knows better how to run other people's lives than they do themselves -- and on top of that, that you have the *right* to run their lives in any the way you see fit.
"Social Science"... isn't.
Utilitarianism/socialism is enslavement to your fellow man.
For example, socialism will not let you hoard a resource that is valuable to society
If by "socialism," you mean, "people in power." In a "utilitarism" system, who decides what is "hoarding," what is "valuable" and what is "society?" If it's the people at large, you have unconstrained rule-by-mob. If it's the government, you have a dictatorship. The USSR, North Korea, Maoist China -- all examples of "utilitarian" (command and control) societies.
A whole company of parasites... yuck.
To you, it seems that freedom is commerce-oriented.
... and don't support your worldview. Read "The Mystery of Capital," by Hernando de Soto (a Peruvian economist).
I could read the "only" in there. You're wrong.
Nazi Germany was fascist -- it was, at best, a corporate state, not a capitalist one. It wasn't free.
The black markets you cited in South America doesn't prove any point.
Yes they do.
I don't think we should be going into black markets because they are complicated and misleading.
Just because corporate oligopolies have control over you (instead of a government, or a king, or a dictator) doesnt' mean you are free...
No shit. What does that have to do with capitalism, though?
I'm anti-capitalist and don't consider free markets to be "free".
That was obvious. I imagine you consider some sort of bondage to the state to be "free" -- such as free healthcare, free tv, free food, free housing, freedom from work, etc.
All you capitalism-worshippers are going down...
*cough* Right. I so look forwaring to being enslaved by you and your ilk.
I only have ONE definition of freedom: the ability to move around freely, communicate with others, speak freely, etc
Presumably one's freedom to engage in trade is covered by freedom of speech, association, travel, and -- as you so eloquently put it -- "etc." Capitalism is based on freedom.
Capitalism is the freedom to trade with others.Trade, not steal, extort, exploit, etc. Capitalism works much better in free societies than in non-free ones. South American dictatorships have large black markets -- black markets that are often larger than the official economy. The people are choosing capitalism there, but it's not properly supporte by the government.
"Clearly you have no idea"
Freedom and capitalism do go hand in hand.
The USSR was not free (in part) because it was communist.
A "capitalist federal republic" is a "freedom loving democracy." Unfortunately, the U.S. is less capitalist, less federal and less of a republic with each passing year.
Capitalist: lack of subsidy and government favor or protection of business. Strongly enforced contract law. Strong protection of personal property and rights. Protection from coercion and fraud.
Federal: having a central government, but with limited powers. Most legislative control resides with smaller units of government closer to the people.
Republic: representative democracy.
Throw in constitutional -- protection of the minorites against the majorities (e.g., limits on the power of majority-rules), and you have a pretty good system. A constitutional, capitalist federal republic. The word "capitalist" is really redundant in that formulation.
Microsoft is interested only in control. Protection of the minority? Bah. Limited power? Bah. Representative? Bah. Lack of government subsidies and protection of individual rights? Bah.
In Soviet Russia, WORD spell-checks YOU!
Ok, you can kick me now.
At least Linux doesn't think
Why would you compare XP and Redhat 6.1?
Why not XP and Redhat 8 or 9?
Or Redhat 6.1 and Windows NT4/Win98?
I am not sure why VBScript can send messages without your knowledge.
Because Windows is fundamentally broken -- it judges whether a file is executable based on its name.
- Why didn't he use a third column for the count?
- Does the absence of "(X)" mean "one appearance" or "zero appearances?"
- Why use Excel for something so trivial, rather than HTML, RTF, or even ASCII?
- Is you insist on delivering the data in Excel format, why not deliver it organized in a useful manner?
On a side note, opening it in OpenOffice and saving it right back out to OpenOffice format results in a file 1/3 the size of the excel file.